New govt rift fears as jet plan revived

GMT +07:00

Send suggestions

News » Local News

New govt rift fears as jet plan revived

Prawit pushes Gripens, coalition tension likely

  • Published: 30/05/2009 at 12:00 AM
  • Newspaper section: News

An attempt by Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon to revive the air force's procurement of Swedish-made Gripen jet fighters despite military budget cuts is likely to raise tensions between the Democrat Party and its key coalition partner, Bhumjaithai.

The move opens the way for a fresh conflict between the Democrats and its influential coalition partner following differences over the 4,000-bus lease project, the auction of the government's mortgaged crops, and the public land rental scheme.

Gen Prawit, who has close affiliations with Bhumjaithai, said yesterday he would ask the cabinet next week to approve in principle the 5.4-billion-baht project to buy a second batch of Gripen fighters and 5 billion baht for search and rescue helicopters.

"I just want the cabinet to approve the procurement in principle. It is for the sake of reassurance.

"When the country has money to attend to security affairs, we will buy them. I do not think endorsing the project in principle will cause any damage," said Gen Prawit, who stressed the air force needed the Gripens to replace its F-5Es which will be decommissioned later this year. He said he would explain the need to the Budget Bureau and Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

"There is no hidden agenda," said Gen Prawit, who is tipped to join the Bhumjaithai Party soon.

His push is seen as yet another move by Bhumjaithai to test the Democrats' sincerity in honouring the coalition partnership. The Democrats have put the brakes on the Commerce Ministry's planned sales of mortgaged crops and the Transport Ministry's 67.9-billion-baht bus lease plan. Both ministries are under Bhumjaithai's supervision.

Bhumjaithai heavyweights appear to be opposed to the Democrat Party's proposal to allow farmers to rent public land at 10 baht per rai for farming.

The scheme, the brainchild of Deputy Interior Minister Thaworn Senneam who oversees the Land Department, apparently lacks support from Interior Minister Chavarat Charnvirakul, the Bhumjaithai leader, and Saksayam Chidchob, his chief adviser and a core member of Bhumjaithai.

Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong Wongtrairat, another Bhumjaithai key figure, denied Mr Chavarat was opposed to the scheme. The minister was merely concerned that it could be exploited by the rich.

"Mr Chavarat wants the scheme to be examined thoroughly. He fears state property will be abused," he said.

Mr Saksayam said the party was not using the land leasing plan to gain Democrat support for the mortgaged crop sale and bus rental projects.

"The land rental project has just been raised for discussion. An inspection is under way to separate state land from private property."

Mr Chavarat said the land leasing scheme was a sound project and Mr Thaworn could submit it to him for further submission to the cabinet.

Democrat spokesman Buranat Samutarak dismissed any rift over the land leasing scheme, saying the Bhumjaithai Party had raised concerns but did not oppose the project.

Meanwhile, the air force said it was uncomfortable with the defence minister's push to revive the Gripen purchase plan, as it feared the public might misunderstand. Air force spokesman Grp Capt Monthon Satchukorn said air force chief ACM Itthaporn Supawong would ask Gen Prawit to review the project and withdraw it from the cabinet meeting's agenda.

About the author

Writer: POST REPORTERS

Share your thoughts

For more candid, lengthy, conversational and open discussion between one another, use our Forum

Report objectionable comments click here. Include: discussion #, commenter name, comment date / time as it looks on the page. Example: discussion 15: 09/01/2009 at 10:00 AM.

  • SPICEMAN

    Discussion 18 : 03/06/2009 at 05:51 AM18

    LOOK MOO #17, when I pointed out to you that Sweden depended heavily and exclusively on American engine supplier (GE), your argument fell apart. So Thailand's attempt to minimize its explosure to US pressure is pretty much in vaine with Gripen.

    The Typhoon is a good choice except for the high pricetag, too high for a poor country like Thailand. That's why I said the French Rafale may be the best choice of all, since everything in it is made in France. In the end, it might be better to operate the Rafale side-by-side our current F-16s, just to remind the Americans what they're losing out in squeezing our balls too tightly.

  • LookMoo

    Discussion 17 : 01/06/2009 at 12:06 PM17

    When I says that F16 is the best airplane for Thailand I can poorly be accused for being bias. As for the price .. with all the salmonella chicken Thailand asked Sweden to buy as compensation it's hard to calculate the real costs for the 'system'. 2006 the price was set to 76 million dollars per plane. Which of cause is to much for a poor developing country when a secondhand F16 is basically for free (but you pay for spareparts and upgrade)..

    As for NATO.. GRIPEN is 100% STANAG complaint.

    Here are some more reading about STANAG:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STANAG

  • SPICEMAN

    Discussion 16 : 01/06/2009 at 06:35 AM16

    LOOKMOO #15, I'm afraid you're mistaken on the Gripen's choice of engine. Being as small as it is, the choice of suitable engine is absolutely critical due to extreme tight fit. Gripen's engine is basically a modified version of the Hornet's GE-F404 engine, and the new Gripen NG's engine is basically the Super Hornet's one. There goes your NATO's engine friendly choice award! VOLVO engineers were able to squeeze off the last few hundreds pounds of extra thrust out of GE-F404 by raising its core's temperature to absolute maximum. Again, you can't get something for nothing, and Gripen trades that last extra pounds of thrust with reduced reliability. Being a single engine type, you lose an engine, you'll need a Martin-Baker ejection seat departure. And after all this, its thrust-to-weight ratio is still below parity, a serious handicap during hard-turning fight.

    You obviously have an obvious conflict of interest in promoting a Swedish (very expensive) product like the Gripen. I don't have such conflict as I want the best that we can afford for Thailand. You said the US is a dangerous friend, but apparently, not dangerous enough for Sweden, since Swedish jets have been flying with American engines for a long time since the Viggen's era.

    I don't blame you for wanting the best for Sweden, because I want the same for Thailand.

  • LookMoo

    Discussion 15 : 01/06/2009 at 02:01 AM15

    SPICEMAN!

    As most airplanes GRIPEN comes with several engine alternatives and options. It can even be locally built (as required in the Indian deal). The airplane is basically 100% NATO friendly which means that most systems can be used.

    And as for the Swedish muddy runways..

    .. Take it from me.. been a sergeant and platoon leader in the SWEDISH Guards, Marines infantry and Marine Home guards for more or less 20 years, I have been on many airbases. I KNOW what I'm talking about. The Swedish air force does not use muddy airfields. The are back up airbases that are based along the Swedish highway system. The runways basically carries the same quality as a airport. Each base is served by a battalion (approx. 1.500 soldiers), these airbases are used as a supplement in war times only. It started with the BAS 60 system that was designed to counter the knockout effect from a nuclear attack in the 50's. The runways are about 1.500-3.000 meters long and 40 meters wide.

    http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0647719/L/
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/blacket/byholma1.jpg

    Not much mudd there??

    Finland is also using this kind of system. They use F18 Hornets without problems. F18 is A BIG airplane.

    ---------------

    Richard!

    Apparently Thailand have decided to have a Air defense (good or bad, I don't care) and that a Air force should be a part of that along with AAA and SAM's. I think that the mix they are considering is wrong. Thai air force have a junk yard of Vietnam era airplanes that costs to much to maintain, fly and equip. It would be much cheaper to fly one multirole fighters (like F16 or/and GRIPEN). Thailand have chosen GRIPEN not because its better or cheaper. But because USA is a dangerous friend.

  • Richard

    Discussion 14 : 31/05/2009 at 08:01 PM14

    Look Moo:

    The Thai Lao War? Good grief that was what 1987/88? 20 years ago. Any others in the last 40 years? Not that I'm aware of, but maybe you know different.

    As Spiceman says, there are cheaper and more effective ways of shooting down enemy aircraft (are there any of those anyway?). And for other roles upgrading the existing aircraft makes more sense.

    This is simply toys for the boys, just like the aircraft carrier. And they need to have their egos massaged and have their photo opportunities. The military in 3rd world countries always need that.

  • SPICEMAN

    Discussion 13 : 31/05/2009 at 04:11 PM13

    LOOKMOO #12, Gripen uses American engine, so either way, the Americans can screw us if they want to. If political consideration is of an overriding concern, the French Rafale is the best because everything in it, engine, radar, avionics, missiles and etc, is made in France. In addition, the French is notorious for selling arms to both warring parties, certainly a reliable supplier of arms in that regard.

    Like all other Swedish combat aircrafts, Gripen is designed to take off and land on sections of Swedish Hwy system. Sweden is a very small country and its conventional AF bases are highly vulnerable for surprised attack, so they hide their jets all over their forests. Unless, we adopt the Swedish defensive strategy, Gripen makes no sense at all, because there is no forests left in Thailand. In aircraft design, you can't get something for nothing, and the same with Gripen. SAAB tried so hard to keep weight to an absolute minimum to coincide with their unique defense philosophy (remember Swedish Hwy systems). As a result, there is no room left for future growth, in terms of payload and a more powerful engine to achieve parity or better in term of thust-to-weight ratio. Doing a few hard turns and Gripen will lose so much energy and end up easy prey to jets with big engines. Its small size also limits the amount of payload for air-to-mud mission. As I said, a very poor choice for Thaialnd, especially when our economy is absolutely dead in the water.

  • LookMoo

    Discussion 12 : 31/05/2009 at 02:56 PM12

    SPICEMAN!

    As i pointed out for you F16 is probably the best airplane for Thailand as Thailand already have it. But as the Thai government wants to avoid becoming a "military colony" to the USA, they increasingly wants to minimize the political risk. Few defense deals are solely based on technical principles. Politics is increasingly important.

    When SPICEMEN is talking about operate on muddy roads he is probably thinking about another project, the B3LA- airplane, a contender project to GRIPEN. B3LA was a Guerilla plane. However, GRIPEN won approval, GRIPEN is basically a ordinary airplane that requires a 800 meter runway, no frills, cheap out of the box airplane.

    The GRIPEN didn't win the deal... USA lost it.

    more reading:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_38

  • SPICEMAN

    Discussion 11 : 31/05/2009 at 05:14 AM11

    LOOKMOO #6, decision to buy a dozen of Gripen was wrong from the Get-Go. It was designed to operate from hidden bases under Swedish forest canopy using specially designed Hwy system. Do we keep out jets under the trees or in the hangers on large AF bases? There is no more thick forest left in Thaialnd to hide anything any way. That's what Gripen is designed for.

    Gripen is too small for air-to-mud mission and too lackluster in thrust/weight ratio, even inferior to our current F-16A/B, for air-to-air mission. A brand new supporting ground equipments must be acquired for the new jets. The same with training new ground personnel to maintain it, not to mention new simulators to familiarize our pilots to the new cockpit.

    F-16 airframe remains virtually unchanged, a testimony of the soundness of the original design. So we can upgrade our current A/B model with new GE engine, improved fly-by-wire software, and new avionic package, to achieve the current C/D capability. The best thing is our AF ground personnel can do most of these upgrades cheaply with minimum help from abroad. And we can do it on a few jets at a time, whenever we have money left over with maximum flexibility. No need to spend money on new supporting equipment and personnel. The money saved can be use to pay for traing our pilots in the air. The minimum flying hours according to the USAF is 200 hrs per year per pilot in order to maintain readiness & proficiency. That's a lot of gas and spare parts. Recon mission can be more cheaply & effectively fulfilled with UAVs. Finally, we can buy long-range SAM systems from the Russians to protect our keyed installations. It's a lot cheaper to shoot down enemy jets with Russian SAMs.

  • LookMoo

    Discussion 10 : 31/05/2009 at 02:53 AM10

    To Richard!

    In the war between Thailand and Laos the air force carried out a number of mission with it's F5 fighters. Most notable against some border hills. As Thai air force had not trained this role with the army, several bombs landed on the wrong side of and killed a lot of Thai infantry.

    From a strict military stand point F16 is the best airplane for Thailand, well proven, cheap to operate, already in the inventory etc etc. But USA is a dangerous allied. Any time the USA ambassador can summoned the Thai government and say "your copy right laws are not good enough... improve or you don't get any spare parts to your military". So they increasingly choose suppliers that doesn't have any weight or ambitions in Asia.

  • timjack

    Discussion 9 : 31/05/2009 at 01:06 AM9

    A waste of money, look great at airshows, on children's day though. The RTAF have one of everything now so why add more variants?
    Egos at play here.

Reply

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  • As a courtesy to our readers, please use proper punctuation and correct spelling.

back to top