Aircraft carrier debacle offers a lesson on the submarine

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Aircraft carrier debacle offers a lesson on the submarine

 

Will a new vessel we don’t need and can’t afford end up, like another infamous purchase, as a tourist attraction?

 

BANGKOK: -- Further details have emerged from the Royal Thai Navy about its planned Bt13.5-billion purchase of a Yuan-class S26T submarine from China. But fundamental questions are still being ignored. And the irony was palpable when senior Navy officials chose HTMS Chakri Naruebet – Thailand’s only aircraft carrier – as the location for Monday’s press conference about the sub deal.

 

When the military staged a coup in May 2014 to topple the civilian government, the Navy was all but assured of realising its long-time dream to own submarine. Answerable to no voters, the military junta sanctioned the sub purchase at a Cabinet meeting a week ago. 

 

The approval revived old challenges to the procurement. Why does Thailand need a submarine, and how can we afford one when the country is lagging so far behind its neighbours in recovering from the global economic downturn? Security experts have questioned both the strategic reasoning for the purchase and the S26T’s technical capabilities.

 

The Navy and the government have said the sub is needed for deterrence and ensuring a balance of regional sea power. They say the submarine will help protect our vast resources and investments in both the Gulf of Thailand and Andaman Sea. They point out that Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam each have at least one submarine. 

 

These justifications are all nonsense, along with the usual evocation of a desire for naval “prestige”.

 

Thai maritime security is under no threat from anyone and is unlikely to face one during the lifespan of this sub. That our neighbours have subs has no place in the reasoning. In fact, those involved in conflicts with Beijing over territories in the South China Sea are likely to take offence at Thailand buying its sub from China. Meanwhile the South China Sea disputes have no direct bearing on Thailand. Any limitation to the movement of our commercial fleets in that area could easily be overcome through diplomatic means.

 

Also, due to the high cost of the operations, the S26T we plan to buy would be of little or no use in the event of natural disaster or in fighting terrorists, pirates or smugglers. 

 

As for technical specifications, the Navy has not adequately explained if or how the S26T is the best value for money. It’s been reported that the Navy actually wanted to buy two German subs for Bt36 billion. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha then spoke of a “buy two, get one free” deal with the Chinese, but instead we’re getting just one. 

 

The S26T is a relatively new vessel and completely untested at sea. It’s a modified Yuan-class 039A built solely for export. Experts query whether it will be able to pull double duty in both the shallow Gulf and the deep Andaman.  

 

The issue landed us this week on the deck of HTMS Chakri Naruebet. The light carrier was built in 1997 for a reported Bt7.1 billion. It was supposed to be the Navy’s flagship, engaged in patrols and “force projection”, supporting amphibious operations and disaster relief and other humanitarian missions. But the financial crash that occurred immediately after its commissioning drained funds for operating the carrier and building the aircraft it was going to carry.

 

It has “seen action” only once, deployed from its year-round berth at the Sattahip naval base on the Gulf to assist in rescue and relief following the 2004 tsunami on the Andaman coast. But it took far too long getting to Phuket to be of any real use.

 

The Chakri Naruebet whiles away the years at Sattahip, a treat for tourists, a shame for Thais and a lesson in how not to procure military hardware.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/opinion/today_editorial/30313968

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-05-02

[fruitman]

Yeah what happened to the buy 2 get 1 free deal??

 

So we don't get new buses and now also no 3 new subs?

[wakeupplease]

The aircraft carrier is the biggest joke in world history and only worth scrap value, Subs 6 years on are the same but Mummy next door has a sub we need one two or three, just so others can take the pi>> out of us

[Ricardo]

Perhaps the RTN might swap the aircraft-carrier, which the Chinese might want since they're currently building them, for one or more of these submarines ?

 

Thus solving two problems with one stroke ? 

[darksidedog]

So the sub has no strategic value, but the neighbours have one. This is supposed to be about a nations genuine security needs, not keeping up with the Jones's.

[tomwct]

Thanks for mentioning Thai's Aircraft Carrier. It has no aircraft! It stays moored (anchored) at the Navy Base in Sattip. I wonder where the Submarine will be moored (anchored) when they receive one. I want to get a photo for my grandchildren. Another way for the higher ups to get retirement monies. Amazing Thailand, but get your photo before it sinks.

Edited May 1, 2017 by tomwct

[ratcatcher]

18 minutes ago, tomwct said:

Thanks for mentioning Thai's Aircraft Carrier. It has no aircraft! It stays moored (anchored) at the Navy Base in Sattip. I wonder where the Submarine will be moored (anchored) when they receive one. I want to get a photo for my grandchildren. Another way for the higher ups to get retirement monies. Amazing Thailand, but get your photo before it sinks.

"Amazing Thailand, but get your photo before it sinks."

Submarines are supposed to sink, but I get your point.

[sirineou]

What do we need a submarine for a deterrent, Why cant we just tell them we have five but you cant see them because they are underwater? 

[anon467367354]

update the weapons the police carry and then purchase antiquated weapons for the military. OK!

 

[chrisinth]

I know this may be a small point, but how are they going to train the crews who will be manning the subs? More to the point, how will continuation training be achieved? You don't just 'crew-up', go to sea and dive on one of these. The crew needs to be multi-task trained (knowing each other's jobs) and it is really a good idea that the officers at least know what a 'perisher' course is.

 

It would seem logical that China will be involved which, IMO, will further antagonize surrounding governments in on-going disputes.

[kaorop]

25 minutes ago, ratcatcher said:

"Amazing Thailand, but get your photo before it sinks."

Submarines are supposed to sink, but I get your point.

Pretty sure its submerge, not sink, so his original wording is correct, in the context of his post, yours on the other hand, not.

[sirineou]

7 minutes ago, chrisinth said:

The crew needs to be multi-task trained (knowing each other's jobs

No Problem, in my wife's village everyone knows everyone else's business, they can recruit from there.

[worgeordie]

Will the Sub be berthed next to the Aircraft carrier,with the Blimp tied to it (if it's still able to inflate)

with sailors holding bomb detectors ,then the Thai population can see where their tax money has

been wasted,and they could put a few 1000 tons of rotting rice on the flight deck for good measure.

regards worgeordie

[Emster23]

Did any politician or military officer face any sort of inquiry, demotion etc over aircraft carrier? There's you lesson.

How about some tough negotiations to just buy the shells of submarines, nothing on the inside, like Hollywood props. After all, it's about face, not the brain behind the face.  Added benefit is might save some sailors lives, as wouldn't have to risk using.

[Denim]

Just calculate how much of the proposed purchase is being spent on ' commissions ' , who the recipients are going to be , then pay out the graft/commission without bothering with the sub.

 

Everybody happy and a lot of money saved. A win win solution.

[silent]

1 hour ago, chrisinth said:

I know this may be a small point, but how are they going to train the crews who will be manning the subs? More to the point, how will continuation training be achieved? You don't just 'crew-up', go to sea and dive on one of these. The crew needs to be multi-task trained (knowing each other's jobs) and it is really a good idea that the officers at least know what a 'perisher' course is.

 

It would seem logical that China will be involved which, IMO, will further antagonize surrounding governments in on-going disputes.

This is Thailand. Nobody needs a licence to drive a boat yet

[robblok]

1 minute ago, smutcakes said:

Noted it may be one of the only differences, but its a fairly substantial difference, one being optional to pay, the other not. Quite a difference really. You are comparing apples with oranges.

Not really if you see what i was commenting on.. the statement of wakemeupplease was quite broad.. did not limit it to government spending and said biggest joke in the world. If you took a look at the link i gave other spending of failed projects far exceeds this carrier.

 

Again, i find this carrier and the subs useless and stupid spending and I am against military spending (unfortunately we need to spend some money on them). I am also more specifically against the increased military spending here in Thailand. 

[Rimmer]

Multiple off topic posts that were hijacking the topic have been removed, topic is about a submarine not UK Millennium Dome

[NCC1701A]

2 hours ago, chrisinth said:

I know this may be a small point, but how are they going to train the crews who will be manning the subs? More to the point, how will continuation training be achieved? You don't just 'crew-up', go to sea and dive on one of these. The crew needs to be multi-task trained (knowing each other's jobs) and it is really a good idea that the officers at least know what a 'perisher' course is.

 

It would seem logical that China will be involved which, IMO, will further antagonize surrounding governments in on-going disputes.

Thailand has a submarine school near Bangkok with a German made computer simulator. They have been training for years. The Chinese are going to provide hands on training and build the port and maintenance facilities. 

[dieseldave1951]

3 hours ago, ratcatcher said:

"Amazing Thailand, but get your photo before it sinks."

Submarines are supposed to sink, but I get your point.

coming up again!! now thats the clever bit maybe thats what the compressor's for 

[dieseldave1951]

25 minutes ago, NCC1701A said:

Thailand has a submarine school near Bangkok with a German made computer simulator. They have been training for years. The Chinese are going to provide hands on training and build the port and maintenance facilities. 

so training on a german made simulator for years then buying a Chinese made sub!!!! 

no issues there then

lets not forget the poor sods that live out of bins wonderful priorities 

[laocowboy2]

4 hours ago, darksidedog said:

So the sub has no strategic value, but the neighbours have one. This is supposed to be about a nations genuine security needs, not keeping up with the Jones's.

Just thought of a new business model. Give Indonesia (or Malaysia or Myanmar) some shiny military toy and then sell the same and more to the neighbors - Thailand would certainly fall for it.

[chuang]

6 hours ago, fruitman said:

Yeah what happened to the buy 2 get 1 free deal??

 

So we don't get new buses and now also no 3 new subs?

The government get 2....and the people involved in the deal get 1 free (commission).. 

[Xobtsiwt]

It will be most amusing to discover who exactly is going to crew these putative submarines if and when they put to sea. 

[dazzz]

Hands up who would go down in a thai submarine ? N ot me thats for sure . Will no be long before it sinks , hope nobody is hurt .
 Surely they would be better off with a few destroyer type vessels which could sink subs  and a few pt bots like the old one in the photo . Would be a lot more effective in the small seas around thialand and a lot more cheaper to buy and run and could still sink ships with their topedos

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

They point out that Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam each have at least one submarine.

To all lemmings this way to the cliff. 

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

They point out that Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam each have at least one submarine. 

 

Smacks of vanity and playground talk.

[ratcatcher]

5 hours ago, kaorop said:

Pretty sure its submerge, not sink, so his original wording is correct, in the context of his post, yours on the other hand, not.

The attempted humor  was in reply to a humorous comment by the OP. I didn't expect the naval grammar police to be on duty. My error.

However, perhaps we can agree to disagree?,

"The tanks can be filled with and emptied of seawater and air, which allows thesubmarine to sink or rise in the water. When a submarine travels on the surface, its ballast tanks are filled with air, which makes it less dense than the seawater it displaces, and it floats."

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

46 minutes ago, dazzz said:

Hands up who would go down in a thai submarine ? N ot me thats for sure . Will no be long before it sinks , hope nobody is hurt .
 Surely they would be better off with a few destroyer type vessels which could sink subs  and a few pt bots like the old one in the photo . Would be a lot more effective in the small seas around thialand and a lot more cheaper to buy and run and could still sink ships with their topedos

 

Indeed, if the Thai Navy needs anything to fulfill its supposed mission, it would be destroyer and patrol boat type craft.

 

But hey, why be concerned about practical use and real purpose when there's shady financial deals with buddy buddy China to be made.

 

[williamgeorgeallen]

5 hours ago, Emster23 said:

Did any politician or military officer face any sort of inquiry, demotion etc over aircraft carrier? There's you lesson.

How about some tough negotiations to just buy the shells of submarines, nothing on the inside, like Hollywood props. After all, it's about face, not the brain behind the face.  Added benefit is might save some sailors lives, as wouldn't have to risk using.

the aircraft carrier is being used in a very clever way. it is diesel powered so not taking it out of port saves the navy many many tens of thousands of dollars in fuel. not operating planes off it save many millions of dollars.