Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by four-niner @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:23:28 +0800

four-niner — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:23:28 +0800

for internal unrest, first they have to find the terrorist training base in large jungles mountainous areas of thailand for that aew&c can be useful.

Then once determine approximate area, send in spies/SOF/ranger to reconnitor the place to confirm is training base and not some kampong area full of harmless civilians.

Because if really hidden training camp nearby all the roads will have OP with ppl kuar jwee and watching for large garmen troops movement so with air troop transport problem solved, paratroopers appear out of no where and make sudden raids.

maybe is like that hor

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by spartan6 @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:11:58 +0800

spartan6 — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:11:58 +0800

Wat about internal unrest? E troops carrier will prove useful

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by four-niner @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:09:21 +0800

four-niner — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:09:21 +0800

see lah tok tok tok until we go off topic again sighz...

ok ok ok les go back.

Why u think they thai need to buy so many new toys with 3 aew&c somemore?

I can ony think of 1 thing.

Some equipment is mebbe to counter aggression of bigger neighbour in their north like new fighters, aew&c I heard can monitor large troop movements.

Other things like new troop carriers mebbe for counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism on problems in the south.

wat think?

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by spartan6 @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:04:09 +0800

spartan6 — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:04:09 +0800

Ya ,i just thinking pactical anot for us,actually we really dun know wat e SAF planing n wat their view on a carrier, i cant say a carrier is not possible thou

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by four-niner @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:58:37 +0800

four-niner — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:58:37 +0800

Originally posted by spartan6:

Hmmmm , c tat u r quite persistant about this, ok ok

You also say in the carrier thread you agree mah no meh?

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by spartan6 @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:53:01 +0800

spartan6 — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:53:01 +0800

Hmmmm , c tat u r quite persistant about this, ok ok

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by four-niner @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:49:40 +0800

four-niner — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:49:40 +0800

hey CBG show of force le?

Our submarines force can blockade their shipping and starve them, our aew&c can provide command & conquer, our frigates can provide robust anti-air/anti-missile defence shield ard the CBG, then gunboats can bombar their shore line defences then LST beach landing with few hundred troops/armor tanks with air sortie support from carrier. Dun see smal small ok ... POWER AH !!

After their first strike the CBG force can hook and flank them from behind. If their balls become exposed they be force to retreat putting the heat off boys at home, then our other equipment in USA, CANDADA, FRANCE, AUSTRALIA training bases on the way back leh? eh? can turn the tide leh?

hey dun play play ok CBG show of force is power POWER

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by spartan6 @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:52:54 +0800

spartan6 — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 14:52:54 +0800

U seem 2 give a CGB 2 much credit liao even if we have a small carrier do u think e small amout of aircraft going 2 change e odds ,whether our aircrafts, ships n subs can take e CARRIER down anot 5 or 8 more aircraft isnt going 2 change much u rather use e $ spend on e carrier which after lanching it aircraft will be sitting behind do nothing 2 buy more aircraft

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by maggot @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:56:28 +0800

maggot — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:56:28 +0800

Put harriers on floats and tow them

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by four-niner @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:15:05 +0800

four-niner — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:15:05 +0800

LPD will be good also nah.

with aircraft carrier or LPD we can do a lot of things, the waters ard here are very congested but see, these waters are ours and we must look to ourselves as guardians of this busy waterway. If an aggressor sends their CBG to our doorstep yes we have a few credible surface ships but realistically it's pretty futile odds dun u think, we can sink 1 or 2 but a CBG ....... there is no fair contest .. KNOCKOUT punch ... K.O !! end of story.

But if we have our own CBG in this theatre there is still a contest and no KO. Somemore our new navy base can accomodate and resupply 2 x Number 12 american shoe size carriers, 4 of them if need be so we already have the facilities in place more than enough for 1 pocket carrier or a few LPD.

But the main reason is cuz we are so small and who is to say a surprise pre-emptive strike on our key facilities won't clean us out. But if we have our own CBG it means a large part of our forces and systems are "forward based" in an unfixed locations any potential aggressor has to consider that we may still have the capability to provide a strong retaliation after sustaining a first strike.

ok les get back to the thread.

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by LazerLordz @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:19:21 +0800

LazerLordz — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:19:21 +0800

RSN would be better off with a LPD or LHD. three would be a nice mix for helo and troops deployment.

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by duotiga83 @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:17:02 +0800

duotiga83 — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:17:02 +0800

are we offtopic?

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by Orcishwarrior @ Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:07:58 +0800

Orcishwarrior — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:07:58 +0800

Are you sure the manpower for operating an Aircraft Carrier like Chakri Naruebet requires a thousand pple. Apparently, with sophisticated integrated combat management technology massive manpower necessities on the ship are significantly reduced an excellent ie.the delta Frigate and Endurance Class. Anyway, remain skeptical about the procurement of an aircraft carrier. The SAF would rather allocate the fund to the Airforce "Above All" ya!! Acquire more F-15SG and JASSM if the US congress give the nod

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by |-|05| @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:10:46 +0800

|-|05| — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:10:46 +0800

You want a staff an asset like a aircraft carrier with reservists! you've gotta be kidding me.
Our total strength includes NSF leh. If i'm not mistaken only 70% are regulars. Taking into account how many are in logistics and support as well as HQ staffers. Then it takes a crew of at least 1000 to operate a carrier. Not to mention sufficient escorts. Let's say we need 6 surface ships as escorts. At 80 per surface ship that's at least 640 men for the escorts. So we have a 1,600 sailors being used up.
Our frigates are ALL being used up to protect this asset. Leaving us every thing on big surface ships. Seriously. What kind of money and support are we talking about here? it's MASSIVE!!! i'd rather we bought 12 more frigates with that kind of money and requirements.

Edit:Anyway we're off topic here.To get back on topic I'm wondering why the Thais are suddenly decide to spend so much. 1st new fighters,now AWE&C and if i'm not mistaken more tanks too right? Looking to replace the M60s?

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by ^Delta^ @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:50:30 +0800

^Delta^ — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:50:30 +0800

Originally posted by four-niner:

see,

yes we have shrinking birth rate but compares our population today to that in 65 or even 70 it is more than before. And if popular notion that we dun have enuf ppl goes then hw come reservist cycle can reduce to 10 years?

Yah they say we use technology to reduce manpower requirement, come on lah can technology replace the rifleman or tankee? maybe in the air-force and navy side you buy better computer systems that use automation or robotics can replace "some" of the human function then overall you require lesser people as a whole then ok thats fine but it does not mean we dun have enuf people to recruit.

Personally I don't buy the argument from SAF that we don't have enuf people to join our armed forces, saf have a regular force headcount of more than 60,000 people largely in logistics, airforce/navy, dun have people then where all these people come from? Outsourced from bangalah?

Anyway if we had a carrier, our airforce dun need to fly from airbase so often with such a platform at sea we can train more often in south china without having need to always fly back to and fro, ppl complain the jet engine noise "disturb" our neighbours sleeping mah. So we want to be a good neighbour so we shud get a carrier to help us help them sleep better with less noise mah right.

Agreed totally... The SAF has a total mobilised strength of 350,000, I totally dun buy the argument that we dun have enough manpower...

Jus ask around, people will say : " Aiya Spore not enuff soldiers la " This is a comment that irks me to no end. Someone ought to educate those people who dun noe what they are blabbering about, especially those taxi drivers who think they know everything. There was once I booked out during my NSF days and this taxi driver looked at me and said:" Waste of time Spore how to defend, ppl drop one bomb finish liaoz " I felt like punching him.

If they knew so much and were so clever, they would not be taxi drivers in the first place. Ignorant and arrogant people like this should be ashamed to call themselves citizens.

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by four-niner @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:20:01 +0800

four-niner — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:20:01 +0800

Originally posted by spartan6:

A carrier is not a cost-effective choice in e near future,1st many navy r starting 2 operate subs ,2nd a carrier need a lot of support, it dumb 2 use our stealth frigate as excort imagine u c a very big object on e radar screen n some very very small objects tat look like fishing trawlers c also know it our stealth frigate.

you are right it's dumb to use stealth frigates as escort i didn't think of that ... bad idea

So ... we shall not buy any C-17 at all but re-allocate all the resources 1 billion dollars to buy the only stealth carrier in the world instead then on radar everything will look like fishing trawler happy

WTF ... CBG IS USED AS SHOW OF FORCE you know anot ????

harlow if everything cannot see on radar then show? show what force ah ???

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by spartan6 @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:45:51 +0800

spartan6 — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:45:51 +0800

But thing r alway changing maybe in 5-10 yrs it unlikely we will operate a carrier , but who can say after 15-20 yrs, we never know

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by spartan6 @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:41:43 +0800

spartan6 — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:41:43 +0800

A carrier is not a cost-effective choice in e near future,1st many navy r starting 2 operate subs ,2nd a carrier need a lot of support, it dumb 2 use our stealth frigate as excort imagine u c a very big object on e radar screen n some very very small objects tat look like fishing trawlers c also know it our stealth frigate.

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by spartan6 @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:30:40 +0800

spartan6 — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:30:40 +0800

E SU-33 can take off with only a ski-jump cos tat r catch on e flight-deck tat hold e aircraft till their engine reach max thurst, so any flight-deck actually can be modify 1 it just whether they went 2 operate anot

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by four-niner @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:54:03 +0800

four-niner — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:54:03 +0800

see,

yes we have shrinking birth rate but compares our population today to that in 65 or even 70 it is more than before. And if popular notion that we dun have enuf ppl goes then hw come reservist cycle can reduce to 10 years?

Yah they say we use technology to reduce manpower requirement, come on lah can technology replace the rifleman or tankee? maybe in the air-force and navy side you buy better computer systems that use automation or robotics can replace "some" of the human function then overall you require lesser people as a whole then ok thats fine but it does not mean we dun have enuf people to recruit.

Personally I don't buy the argument from SAF that we don't have enuf people to join our armed forces, saf have a regular force headcount of more than 60,000 people largely in logistics, airforce/navy, dun have people then where all these people come from? Outsourced from bangalah?

Anyway if we had a carrier, our airforce dun need to fly from airbase so often with such a platform at sea we can train more often in south china without having need to always fly back to and fro, ppl complain the jet engine noise "disturb" our neighbours sleeping mah. So we want to be a good neighbour so we shud get a carrier to help us help them sleep better with less noise mah right.

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by tankee1981 @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:16:10 +0800

tankee1981 — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:16:10 +0800

Its not say like or don't like. The problem is whether its realistic or not. The prospect of us having an aircraft carrier even a small one in the next 5-10 years is not very likely.

Sure we have the money and can acquire the technology but do we have enough people to staff this aircraft carrier? Unlikely, because Singapore's birth rate have been decreasing steadily over the years even with baby bonus this trend is not about to be reversed any time soon. I don't think RSN want foreign talent to staff our pride of the SAF too.

Assuming we do have an CBG,which is meant as a show of force, where can they sail then? Our own terriotorial waters is already tiny and further more being cluttered with commercial shipping as we are an important stopover port of call. We sail into Straits of Malacca, the Indonesian and our friendly Malaysian foreign miniters will be knocking(maybe even banging) at our embassy doors in record time. Sail into South China Sea, we may be caught in the squabbles between the various claimants of the Spartly islands namely Malaysia,PRC,ROC,Brunei,Philippines and Vietnam. That is one very volatile area in this region.

Lastly we have 4 relatively new Endurance class LST which have already proven their versatility in both peace time and war time operations. If i am not wrong RSN rejected a bigger design of the LST by ST Marine and chose the Endurance class instead.

Personally i will wish RSN to have a small 2nd hand aircraft carrier just like what the Thai navy had but its just a fantasy at the moment because it will not be realistic, at least for the time being.

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by four-niner @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:37:28 +0800

four-niner — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:37:28 +0800

dun like ?

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by |-|05| @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:31:22 +0800

|-|05| — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:31:22 +0800

Originally posted by four-niner:

the website say the chakri already has 6 harriers already, even if they decom the harriers I think the flight deck can only operate 6-7 su33 fighters with folded wing tips.

chakri only cost US$175mil, why dun we buy 1 less C-17 and use the 200mil to get ourselves a carrier also. then we can have our own little carrier battle group also.

1 pocket carrier flanked by stealth frigates, missile covettes, submarines and missile gunboats, trailing behind we have landing ships, flying overhead are our AEW&C ... POWER

.......

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by four-niner @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:22:56 +0800

four-niner — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:22:56 +0800

the website say the chakri already has 6 harriers already, even if they decom the harriers I think the flight deck can only operate 6-7 su33 fighters with folded wing tips.

chakri only cost US$175mil, why dun we buy 1 less C-17 and use the 200mil to get ourselves a carrier also. then we can have our own little carrier battle group also.

1 pocket carrier flanked by stealth frigates, missile covettes, submarines and missile gunboats, trailing behind we have landing ships, flying overhead are our AEW&C ... POWER

Thai requirement for AEW&C replied by tankee1981 @ Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:04:45 +0800

tankee1981 — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:04:45 +0800

Actually there is a naval version of the flanker which is capable of deploying from carriers with ski jumps such as the Thai Chakri class. However, whether the flight deck of Chakri is long enough to launch the large flankers is unsure at this point.

Naval Flanker
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-33/su-33.htm

Specifications of Admiral Kuznetsov class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_class_aircraft_carrier

Specifications of Chakri class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_aircraft_carrier_Chakri_Nareubet

Recent Posts in 'Thai requirement for AEW&C' | sgForums.com