Will a new type of craft, which we don't need and can't even afford, like another infamous purchase, end up as a tourist attraction?
While details of the Royal Thai Navy's planned Bt13.5 billion purchase of a Yuan-class S26T submarine from China have been released, fundamental questions remain unanswered. The irony was palpable when senior naval officials chose HTMS Chakri Naruebet – Thailand's only aircraft carrier – as the venue for Monday's press conference on the submarine agreement.
When the army staged a coup d'état in May 2014 and the civilian government was overthrown, the Navy was no longer sure that a long-standing dream of owning a submarine would come true. But the military junta is not accountable to voters and sanctioned the purchase in a cabinet meeting last week
The approval revived past discussion about the purchase. Why does Thailand need a submarine and how can we afford it knowing that the country is falling so far behind its neighbors in recovering from the global economic depression? Experts have questioned both the strategic reasoning behind the purchase and the technical capabilities of the S26T.
The Navy and government have said the submarine is needed for deterrence and to balance regional maritime strength. They say the submarine will help protect our vast wealth and investments in the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea. They point out that Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam each have at least one submarine. This justification is nonsensical, as is the common notion of a desire for naval prestige.
Thai maritime security is under no threat from anyone and Thailand is unlikely to face any threat during the life of this submarine. It doesn't matter that our neighbors have submarines. In fact, countries involved in conflicts with Beijing over areas in the South China Sea will resent Thailand if a Chinese submarine is bought. The China Sea disputes do not directly affect Thailand. Any restrictions on the movement of our commercial fleet in that area can still be easily overcome by diplomatic means.
Due to the high cost of operations, the S26T that we intend to purchase will be of little or no use in the event of a natural disaster or in the fight against terrorists, pirates or smugglers.
As far as the technical specifications are concerned, the Navy has not adequately explained whether the S26T is the best choice for that money. Earlier, the Navy actually wanted to buy two German submarines for Bt 36 billion. Prime Minister Prayut then spoke of a “buy two, get a third free” deal with the Chinese, but we only get one.
The S26T is a relatively new vessel and has not been tested at sea at all. It is a modified Yuan class 039A, built exclusively for export to other countries. Experts question whether the submarine is capable of performing its double duty in both the shallow Gulf and the deep Andaman.
The issue was raised on the deck of HTMS Chakri Naruebet this week. The aircraft carrier was built in 1997 at a cost of Bt 7,1 billion. It should be the flagship of the Navy, suitable for patrols to demonstrate maritime prowess and support amphibious operations, disaster relief and other humanitarian missions. But due to the financial crash that occurred immediately after commissioning, there was no money to operate or build the necessary aircraft.
It has only been “in action” once, as it was deployed year after year on the wharf of the naval base in Sattahip, after being deployed in the Gulf rescue and relief efforts following the 2004 tsunami. Also on the Andaman coast could have helped the ship, but it took too long to get to Phuket to really take advantage of it.
The Chakri Naruebet spends its years in Sattahip as an attraction for tourists. It is a disgrace to Thais and should be a lesson on how to purchase unnecessary military equipment.
Source: Editorial in The Nation May 2, 2017
Postscript Gringo: Another article in The Nation reports at length on the details of this planned purchase, see www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30313959
The great advantage of a submarine is that you cannot see it when it is under water.
An aircraft carrier is somewhat more difficult to hide.
Another big advantage is that you do not need airplanes for a submarine, in contrast to the aircraft carrier. (not to be confused with such an American whopper who is now sailing towards Korea).
Most warships have sonar.
I assume that in the shallow Thai waters it will not be difficult to find a submarine with it.
Furthermore, submarines are usually not very fast, so it will not be difficult in the shallow water to never let that boat surface again.
@,
Isn't it true that in principle this purchase cannot be used at all, as the depth of this submarine is too much for what the Andaman Sea and the Gulf ??
This would have been a nice amount to carry out maintenance on the equipment that is currently being used and to ensure that no surprises can fall from the sky, for example.
And if there is anything left to give a few train sets an APK inspection??
LOUISE
The aircraft carrier is not able to carry fighter jets…..
After delivery it turned out that the deck was 1 meter too short….
That's why there are always helis on it
Kind regards, Hendrik S.
The aircraft carrier was delivered with 6 jumpjet Harriers. There was no budget to maintain it. Nothing to do with length.
Can someone tell me
Where to go to view the aircraft carrier.
The ship is (almost) permanently in Satthahip. Non-Thai people are not allowed on board.
Ruud Finding a submarine in shallow water using sonar is very difficult. The sound waves are absorbed or reflected by the soil (depending on the soil composition), resulting in an enormous amount of noise. The solution would be high-frequency sonars, but you sacrifice distance range. A bigger problem will be who mans the ozbt because this is a very specialized training from the commander to the youngest sailor. The Thai have no experience with ozbt at all, so I'm curious.
I assume that a ship that wants to sink a Thai submariner will not have a Thai crew on board.
I also estimate that the seabed will largely consist of sand, so little cover.
An enormous amount of sand, soil, silt has come down from the Himalayas since they rose from the collision between the tectonic plates of India and Asia.
You can see this on the road from Bangkok to Khon Kaen.
There you can see a mountain peak protruding above the ground from a flat landscape in some places.
The rest of the mountain range is filled with the soil from the Himalayas.
I think it's no different in the sea.
Consider, for example, the delta of Burma that you fly over from Europe.
That soil is also all supplied by the rivers.
The ground on which Bangkok floats probably also.
As a foreigner you are not allowed on that ship, I was sent for a walk last year without explanation
I can't really think of any other explanation for the transaction going ahead despite everything, other than that a lot of bats end up in authoritative pockets again. That also explains why business is being done with China, America has previously dropped out as a supplier: blurry cash flows with that country are not an option. Thailand is increasingly tied hand and foot to China.
Trump and El Generalismo are on their way to finding each other. Trump and part of his administration are not averse to dictators when business is in the air. Unlike previous US presidents.
A nice side effect for the US is the prospect of strengthening the geopolitical position in the region. Handy now that tensions with North Korea are rising.
Thailand gets the chance to slide in between China and the US. The historical dream position.
The military has taken over the reins many times in Thailand. Each time, the budget for military expenditure (I dare not call it defense) rose significantly in those periods. History apparently repeats itself.
There is no doubt that more factors play a role here than appear at first sight. Thailand is also seeking rapprochement with China in other areas: the construction of the lines for high-speed trains to China illustrates this, and Thailand also got the idea for the idea of the single internet gateway there. Thailand has historically been a partner of the US, and the signs of rapprochement with China have clearly had an effect… the Prime Minister received an invitation to visit the White House this week.
Also remember that China is at odds with two other ASEAN countries over the South China Sea.
The reason that this plan suddenly resurfaces after about 5 years is no coincidence: the previous king was an vocal opponent of the purchase of submarines.
I think that expats should refrain from publicly expressing views that Thailand does not need and cannot afford a submarine. I would also not want expats living in the Netherlands to write on the internet that the Netherlands should not buy fighter jets from a certain manufacturer. We can really decide that for ourselves. Mind your own business.
For this, this country has a government and a national assembly that acts as a parliament. (Whether you agree with this construction or not, that is the current state of affairs).
A government that says it wants to restore democracy in this country would have done well to submit such an important decision on the defense of this country (the purchase of Chinese submarines with missiles) to the "parliament" and to have a public discussion about it with them in which arguments for and against can be shared. Although this parliament is a political extension of the junta, it does not always agree with the government. And every Thai can then at least follow the debate and formulate his opinion. Only a handful of Thais are interested in all the technical (and apparently sensitive) information. Many more Thais are interested in the considerations of the government and the total deal with the Chinese, including the total cost and financing. After all, things often go wrong with large-scale expenditure in this country.
The way decisions are made now makes one think about the true democratic intentions of the government and offers the members of the current parliament an excuse ('I wasn't there but I wasn't asked') if they also want a seat in the new parliament win or get. That much is clear.
You say:
"Although this parliament is a political extension of the junta, it does not always agree with the government."
Is that right? Give an example.
Until now, the parliament has always agreed with the government by an overwhelming majority. A few votes against and a few abstentions, that's all. They're a bunch of yes-men. There is no real debate either.
In Thailand, the overwhelming majority always agrees with the government. Also among Abhisit and Yingluck there was hardly any discussion, but of wells and nones, sometimes interspersed with muckiness and personal allegations that in turn led to lawsuits. Not un-Thai but the Thai of the street and of the losos.
I can assure you that there is hardly any real discussion at management level in a Thai institution like where I work. All pain points and compromises are cooked up at dinner parties and in backrooms. In the real meeting, everyone agrees and that's how it should be: harmony, no quarrel, no difference of opinion, the ranks close, the boss proposes and the rest agrees.
I think this government has missed a unique opportunity to show the Thai people that you can take decisions on a sensitive subject in a different, more democratic way by engaging in an open discussion with the members of parliament and as PM and/or the Minister of Defense also to publicly respond to all criticism in the media.
May I point out that this article is a translation of an editorial
commentary in The Nation, written by a Thai.
It might be useful to make that clear (e.g. in the opening lines). There is a source reference under the article, but in correct language that means that you have used the article from The Nation and then made it your own story. If you have translated it literally, it is more correct to state that.
Instead of this response, you could also have said sorry for making an unnecessary prickly comment.
In addition, you don't have to tell me what correct language is, I'm pretty well informed
Thailand has done business with a friendly Ned in the past. businessman who wanted to sell used submarines to Thailand. Once had access to this huge file and the deal was almost done, until a senior Marine man came up and said that these were useless for Thai waters, because they would be too shallow, except for the Phuket region . This was then cancelled.