Guest fountainhall Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Who would have thought it? Thailand has decided six submarines are required as being essential to the defence of the nation. Submarines? Can they really be effective in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Thailand? Which country would possibly wish to invade Thailand from the sea? As the Bangkok Post somewhat obviously points out in en editorial today, “seaborne invasions are outdated!” Yet, what the navy wants, the navy will get (especially in an election year ). Six used German submarines that were built in the 1960s for service during the Cold War and Germany no longer wants will soon patrol our shores to keep the enemy at bay. The cost? A mere Bt. 7.7 billon! New technology and new military strategies forced Germany to abandon the old-style submarines and look to better vessels. The truth is, however, that neither having nor lacking submarines will enhance the (Thai) navy or its capabilities. Even the most imaginative contingency planners would be hard put to present a situation which required a fleet of submarines to save the Thai nation. http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/229080/new-toys-fornavy-why So, these out-of-date monoliths of the deep will soon join the lamented and almost permanently moored aircraft carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which of course plays no role in national security. Still, someone in the top brass obviously saw a need for a carrier – and quite a few palms were no doubt suitably greased to ensure it was ordered in 1992, launched in 1996 and commissioned in 1997. This, of course, was just in time for the Asian economic crisis which then resulted in there being no cash for it to be used, except in a handful of disaster relief operations and one day of training each month at the naval base at Sattahip. But we should not lament too much, I suppose. Sattahip must boast a plentiful supply of cute young sailors who need their R&R from time to time. I wonder where they go to enjoy themselves? Soon they will soon be joined by six crews of submariners. Well, it’s beginning to sound like it could be profitable investment for some of us after all! Quote
Guest Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Well, if certain other Asian navies are becoming a bit aggressive, then Thailand should try to get at least some capability to counter them. No one in the UK wanted to spend money on defence in the 1930s, then Hitler invaded Poland. I spot the same mistakes being made again now. People forget the best way to achieve peace is to prepare for war. Quote
KhorTose Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Well, if certain other Asian navies are becoming a bit aggressive, then Thailand should try to get at least some capability to counter them. Well you are certainly not going to counter anything in the gulf of Thailand where the sea is too swallow for effective submarine use. Hell even HRH know this for a fact http://asiancorrespondent.com/27060/following-hm-the-kings-message/ Quote
Bob Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 where the sea is too swallow Hmmmm....I'd guess you were thinking more about the "cute young sailors" that Fountainhill mentioned....haha But for the control the military has here, one would hope that saner minds would have prevailed (although I don't want to blame all stupid purchases on the military). Even if you can argue the Thais need a submarine presence in the gulf (I simply don't believe that at all), why would you spend a ton of money to buy outdated submarines that have a 10-year shelf life? Heck, my new refrigerator better last longer than that! I can see it now.....only a few of the submarines will work and that number will go down as they swap parts to keep some running. Incredible waste of money in my view. And, of course, there's the dirigible that the Thais bought for surveillance use in the south but can't keep flying due to a myriad of problems (one problem - which, of course, nobody thought of - is that it's a rather obvious and easy target). A couple of months ago, the government said they were going to sue the seller (some European company) as the dirigible failed to perform as promised and I'd guess that the selling company will defend on the basis that the buyer was too dumb to purchase. Perhaps the military could have saved a little money by simply duct-taping one of those 7/11 cheapo cameras to the bottom of the fusilage of a one of their "modern" warplanes.... Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 And, of course,there's the dirigible that the Thais bought for surveillance use in the south but can't keep flying due to a myriad of problems An inflatable flying machine purchased at an inflated price to satisfy inflated egos -and it can't keep itself up! Some top brass clearly need viagra so they can get their kicks less expensively. Maybe they could have just stitched some condoms together for a flying machine to support Bob's 7/11 camera - and advertised safe sex whilst they were at it. Quote
