It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Options for Thailand's aircraft carrier?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Thailand operates a very modern light Aircraft carrier called Chakri Naruebet which is based on the Spanish Principe de Asturias design. Thailand also purchased a handful of AV-8A Matador Harriers (not Harrier II) to operate from it but these are very old with limited combat effectiveness and suffer from servicability problems.

What are the Thai's operational needs and what aircraft programs that best fit them as a replacement for the AV-8As?

[edit on 21-3-2006 by planeman]




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
in the short term?

SHAR2 from the UK with AMRAAM.

[edit on 21/3/06 by Harlequin]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
in teh short term?

SHAR2 from the UK with AMRAAM.


Yeah, I've just said the same on a different thread, ready made replacement and the most capable aircraft they could (a) fly off their ship and (b) buy second hand

In the short term the only new build equivalent would be the AV-8B Plus.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Thailand should be a customer for the F-35 JSF or they should buy F/A-18 Hornets

Dont they still use A-7 Corsairs? They could use them just for now or the Hornet until they get the F-35

At least the A-7s are coventional aircraft, The Harriers are old and have had thier day, Deffo should buy F/A-18 Hornets.

Although the Carrier is modern, Its Flightdeck should be enlarged and only by its with

Should also have burner plates too.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
Thailand should be a customer for the F-35 JSF or they should buy F/A-18 Hornets

Dont they still use A-7 Corsairs? They could use them just for now or the Hornet until they get the F-35

At least the A-7s are coventional aircraft, The Harriers are old and have had thier day, Deffo should buy F/A-18 Hornets.

Although the Carrier is modern, Its Flightdeck should be enlarged and only by its with

Should also have burner plates too.


No offense but I think that all thier money went to the carrier... F-35 are superfighters in the real meaning and are (so to speak) to good... F/A-18 would be an answear... But I'am not sure if the carrier uses the convinient laungich mechanism as the Hornets... And just to clarify, what Hornets are we talking about... C/D or Super Hornets... Myself I'd go for C/D, in case they would be convinient...



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
Thailand should be a customer for the F-35 JSF or they should buy F/A-18 Hornets

Dont they still use A-7 Corsairs? They could use them just for now or the Hornet until they get the F-35

At least the A-7s are coventional aircraft, The Harriers are old and have had thier day, Deffo should buy F/A-18 Hornets.

Although the Carrier is modern, Its Flightdeck should be enlarged and only by its with

Should also have burner plates too.
Browno, the carrier is not big enough to operate any conventional take-off/landing aircraft so Hornets are right out of the equation.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by planeman]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Thailand's economy is currently not in great shape, I doubt they'll be investing much in combat aircraft in the near future. Apparently the carrier is mostly used to launch helicopters for disaster relief operations, and for ferrying around the Thai royal family in high style. I always thought it was odd that Thailand, a country with few enemies and not much money, thought it was necessary to buy a CV. I think it was a bit of irrational exuberance brought on by the Asian economic boom of the early 1990's.

As far as I know the carrier has never been fitted with the Phalanx and Sea Sparrow systems it was designed to carry either.

Interestingly both Chakri Naruebet and Principe de Asturias are based on a US conceptual design from the 1980's that was never built, the Sea Control Ship.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I would have to agree with the above posters. The Hornet in the C/D form woul dbe too heavy to use on a skijump sans catapault. Forget the E/F model as they are heavier than a F-14.

Harriers or the naval variant of the Su-27 (I forget its designation) or what about the navalized Mig-29?

Another question for the Brit types. Is not the jaguar STOL? Could it be used in this role seeing how there are ma ny in the boneyards now?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
its a dinky little carrier - teh SU`s and mig`s are too big for it - and the jaguarM was scrapped many years ago (and needed a cat anyway)


it`ll be stovl`s or helo`s for it.

Sea Harrier FSR2 is the best option.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
My thoughts are that in 10 years time it's going to be JSF or nothing - except maybe VTOL UCAVs (whatever UCAVs come out of the J-UCAS work, they won't be operable from that carrier)... and the VTOL UCAVs (Excaliber etc) can be oiperated from a corvette which means a carrier is pretty auxillery.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by planeman]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
F-16, Jaguar M, F/A-18 Hornet, F-35 JSFs

Howabout the Dassault Rafale? The Carrier could have a wider deck extention, a burner plate, arrestor cable and one catapult

Oh i forgot, It has a Ramp like the HMS Invincible/Hermes and Russian Carriers so just those three i just mentoned

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Browno]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Given the state of the Thai economy, perhaps a venturing into the tourism trade is an option... A remote, spacious area, enough to accomodate at least a few hundred boudoires or massage rooms... perfect for any 'business trip' by wealthy executives.
With regards to the aircraft on board, i've always thought the Mig-28 Was pretty special, it can after all do a 4 g negative dive!


Seriously tho, The navalised MiG-29k definitely has it's advantages, sustained turns are more efficient and it is probably a better dog fighter. But it cannot compete with the Super Hornet in terms of the selection of Air to ground weapons available. I also prefer the AMRAAM-C, which arms the SH, as it is proven and quite capable.

The F-18E/F has big drawbacks as well though, like being pretty slow, most jets can refuse to engage it. It isn't going to chase anything down.

I like the idea of Sea Harrier FSR2, small and cute and lovely... but it has to be carrying Sea Eagles otherwise you can shove it up your AMRAAM



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Fred, there was a Jaguar M but it was abandoned in the early days of Jaguar development flying and France bought the Super Etendard instead. The Jaguar certainly has the tail hook and undercarriage required for deck ops but I think its made out of the wrong materials or something. I remember an article about navalising the Harrier in the 1970's that said standard RAF Harriers had the same sea going properties as alka seltzer tablets, requiting much of the Sea Harrier structure to be substituted in a more approriate material, the Jags are probably the same, but that stuff is a bit technoboring for me.


Browno, you said the F-18, people told you it was too big and heavy, so now you have said the F-18 again, what bit of this are you bamboozled by? The Thai Carrier is very small, like the RN ones, this means you would be very lucky to do anything with a non TVC type other than play submarines.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
hmmm..
Nice..
What is the displacement?..a/c load..Range?
What are the strategic reasons for having a carrier?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
People are forgetting that the Thai's aircraft carrier is very small, too small to operate the F-18/mig-29/Rafael etc. Here's an approximate scale comparrison:



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
in the short term?

SHAR2 from the UK with AMRAAM.

[edit on 21/3/06 by Harlequin]


I have agree with this and with waynos, ill bet theres quite a few knocking about that the RN would like to get rid of, and theres no way that anyones gonna be operating migs or sukhois or hornets off of a carrier that even the ark royal makes look like a baby. a more interesting question is what about the new italian carrier the Cavour (c552),

www.naval-technology.com...

is this even big enough to operate the JSF which it seems is the plan of the italian navy, in my opinion it wouldn't be worth it still too small.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Thats interesting Buckaroo. The Italian model seems to be based on the model the Royal Navy has worked to for the last 25 years, ie small carrier with 8 STOVL fighters on board, I'd like to know more about this before I speculate further.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
People are forgetting that the Thai's aircraft carrier is very small, too small to operate the F-18/mig-29/Rafael etc. Here's an approximate scale comparrison:



Where do you get these birds eye size comaparisions?
Could put a Kuznetsov and/or a Kiev class carrier in there too?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
not wanting to give a short answer:

www.globalsecurity.org...

theres a big pic with all the worlds carriers.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join