I am just being curious about the Vietnam People Air Force (VNPAF) fleet in the future, and especially what it would do with the $6.6 billion defense budget for 2021.
With the pressure from its "friendly" neighbor China PR, seems like VNPAF will busy shopping for new toys to adapt to the defense demand of the country.

Su-22 replacement?
According to Wikipedia, VNPAF is still operating up to 34 Su-22 airframes, and they would be retired in the next 5 years.
Since the retirement of the Mig-21, VNPAF has been using the Su-22 with a similar mission to the Su-27 and Su-30. As you know, the Su-22 is not so good in a dog-fight standoff and it is aging, so VNPAF has been finding a replacement for already a decade. Of course, VN is still looking for a dozen attackers such as Su-34, but also many fighters including the JAS 39, F-16V (what?), and some more Su-27/30/35.

Some more fighters?
Not only to replace the Su-22 but also to strengthen the force. Rumors say no Su-35 but a dozen of Su-57? Look like a big leap from Vietnam
The Su-57 can be a replacement of the fleet of 11 Su-27 and to be the good comrades of the 35x Su-30. However, VNPAF can operate both the Su-27 and the Su-57 to increase its dogfight ability.
Su-34 (attacker), JAS-39, and Mig-35 are still big questions. Dassault Mirage 2000 can also be on the list by its ability to collaborate with the Su-30, and VN doesn't want to entirely depend on Russia.

Kawasaki P-3C Orion?
There are rumors that in the last meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister a few months ago, VN has committed to a few P-3C for anti-submarine mission?
The quad-jet Kawasaki P-1 is also under consideration for the same business.

AEW&C
This is the biggest hole in the Vietnamese Army. But is it necessary for VNPAF to acquire such an expensive system, while the modern system of on-ground radar can easily control the entire Vietnamese Airspace?
The highest possibility is the Airbus/CASA C-295AEW&C, but VNPAF can also acquire some Embraer or Saab as well.
VNPAF can also convert ex-Vietnam Airlines ATR 72-500 and Airbus A321-231 for AEW&C as well as for anti-submarine mission.

Airbus C-295
VNPAF is operating 3 airframes for cargo mission and obviously loving the type so much. The C-295 may have a bright future in the VNPAF fleet only with the transporting purpose but also AEW&C and anti-submarine. Not a surprise of VNPAF will order and operate some more dozens in the future.

Now have a look at the key fleet of VNPAF:

Su-22: 34x
Su-27P/SK/UBK: 11x
Su-30MK2V: 35x (1 crashed)
========================
CASA/Airbus C-295: 3x
CASA NC212i: 3x
Antonov An-26: 30x, all grounded
==========================
Aero L-39 Albatros: 31x
Yakovlev Yak-130: 12x on order

How do you think about those?

I don't think the Vietnamese Air Force has this kind of money. And it's not obvious that nations like Germany would sell the Vietnam.

Not sure that such obviously US types as the P3 and F16 will be chosen.

Also the SU57 would be an issue for others in the region.

bennett123 wrote:

Not sure that such obviously US types as the P3 and F16 will be chosen.

No F-16 but P-3 from Kawasaki. There are reports showing that VNPAF is gonna acquire a few from Japan. As Japan wants to limit PRC's power, the P-3 deal with Vietnam can also help Japan a lot.

Will be all but useless in a real conflict anyway. The nations surrounding PRC are not gonna contain it by sheer military strength, but by learning to live with a powerful neighbour and to play their cards diplomatically. Actually, as they already do.

I don't have much to add here since I'm not familiar with the current Vietnamese politics. Rather, I have some questions.

Is Vietnam trying to strengthen their ties with any bloc (RU/EU/CN/US)? Or would they rather try and stay independent, like Indonesia or Malaysia are trying to do by buying a bit of everything?

Does Vietnam have the funds to commit to such an arms race? Not just to buy jets, but also to build hangars, buy (modern!) missiles, train pilots, provide maintenance ... What about the other parts of the military, the army & navy? The conflict with China puts a heavy emphasis on the South China Sea. What is VN's strategy here?

Fundamentally, I doubt that VN will acquire anything made in the USA. Regarding fighter jets, anything that isn't in production today is a waste of money. It's no longer 1965, when a MiG-17 could hope to win against an F-4. Modern fights are decided by electronics from dozens of miles away, and these keep making rapid progress every year. (Which would make the P-1 a much more attractive proposal than some old Mirage 2000s).

CRJockey wrote:

Will be all but useless in a real conflict anyway. The nations surrounding PRC are not gonna contain it by sheer military strength, but by learning to live with a powerful neighbour and to play their cards diplomatically. Actually, as they already do.

That doesn't seem to be working in the SCS.

mxaxai wrote:

Is Vietnam trying to strengthen their ties with any bloc (RU/EU/CN/US)? Or would they rather try and stay independent, like Indonesia or Malaysia are trying to do by buying a bit of everything?

Vietnam's strategy is to be "neutral" with everyone, except those ones who directly risking Vietnam's benefits and territories (like PRC).
However, Vietnam wants to "diversified" its weapons' supplies to strengthen its relationship around the world and to minimize the risk. Besides (Soviet) Russia, Vietnam has been talking with Israel, India, Japan, and some EU dudes for some nice deals. But Vietnam didn't talk with PRC yet
A bit unlike Malay/Indo is that Vietnam does care about the operating fee, so that even though it has "diversified" the suppliers, but it is still minimized the difference in the suppliers' origin countries to make sure that the systems collaborate well with each other, and to minimize the operating fees.

mxaxai wrote:

Does Vietnam have the funds to commit to such an arms race? Not just to buy jets, but also to build hangars, buy (modern!) missiles, train pilots, provide maintenance ... What about the other parts of the military, the army & navy? The conflict with China puts a heavy emphasis on the South China Sea. What is VN's strategy here?

Depends on the government's strategy and the actual situation. Now Vietnam wants to put everything under the tag "just for defense purpose", so it is interesting to see how will Vietnam adjust with the real situations on SCS.

mxaxai wrote:

Fundamentally, I doubt that VN will acquire anything made in the USA. Regarding fighter jets, anything that isn't in production today is a waste of money. It's no longer 1965, when a MiG-17 could hope to win against an F-4. Modern fights are decided by electronics from dozens of miles away, and these keep making rapid progress every year. (Which would make the P-1 a much more attractive proposal than some old Mirage 2000s).

Agree that Vietnam is unlikely to acquire some American stuff, except some C-295 or P-1/P-3 which are more "Japanese" and "European". And zero chance for Vietnam to touch a single F-16, as the type is so expensive and incompatible with Vietnam's air system, which is heavily based on Soviet/Russia/Israel/India/Japan (mostly Russia and Israel).

johns624 wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Will be all but useless in a real conflict anyway. The nations surrounding PRC are not gonna contain it by sheer military strength, but by learning to live with a powerful neighbour and to play their cards diplomatically. Actually, as they already do.

That doesn't seem to be working in the SCS.

Agree. "Adapting with the agressive and powerful neighbor" is not how it works in the East Asia region nowadays. The existence of physical conflicts (a.k.a formal war) on the South China Sea (and the East China Sea also) is now just a matter of time.
All of the related parties (China vs Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Korea Daehan, Taiwan, ASEAN) seem impatient, and all kinds of formal negotiations/agreements are completely a failure.

johns624 wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Will be all but useless in a real conflict anyway. The nations surrounding PRC are not gonna contain it by sheer military strength, but by learning to live with a powerful neighbour and to play their cards diplomatically. Actually, as they already do.

That doesn't seem to be working in the SCS.

Actually, it does. Just because it is not panning out the way we aka the west wants it to be, doesn't mean it is not working. All large economic and military forces in the world exert power over their neighbours and their region. Why should PRC be any different? As for now, I don't see war as imminent. And if you feel it is, and thats the topic anyway, any couple of semi-modern fighters in Vietnam won't make any difference at all.

Antaras wrote:

johns624 wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Will be all but useless in a real conflict anyway. The nations surrounding PRC are not gonna contain it by sheer military strength, but by learning to live with a powerful neighbour and to play their cards diplomatically. Actually, as they already do.

That doesn't seem to be working in the SCS.

Agree. "Adapting with the agressive and powerful neighbor" is not how it works in the East Asia region nowadays. The existence of physical conflicts (a.k.a formal war) on the South China Sea (and the East China Sea also) is now just a matter of time.
All of the related parties (China vs Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Korea Daehan, Taiwan, ASEAN) seem impatient, and all kinds of formal negotiations/agreements are completely a failure.

A very black and white view of the world. And you left the US & Australia both out of the equation, which both obviously decisively alter the deterence potential. But again, you raised the topic specifically about Vietnam spending 6.6 potential billions of USD on military equipment, not about the pan-asian security environment. A few fighters of somehow more newish appearance or even completely new won't make a difference in any conceivable PRC scenario.

Vietnam would be better of spending the money on transports, providing internal disaster relief and accept they won't fight China. They have to pursue a different way.

CRJockey wrote:

johns624 wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Will be all but useless in a real conflict anyway. The nations surrounding PRC are not gonna contain it by sheer military strength, but by learning to live with a powerful neighbour and to play their cards diplomatically. Actually, as they already do.

That doesn't seem to be working in the SCS.

Actually, it does. Just because it is not panning out the way we aka the west wants it to be, doesn't mean it is not working. All large economic and military forces in the world exert power over their neighbours and their region. Why should PRC be any different? As for now, I don't see war as imminent. And if you feel it is, and thats the topic anyway, any couple of semi-modern fighters in Vietnam won't make any difference at all.

Not as your expectation. Especially when PRC allowed its Coast Guard to fire on "its territories".

Antaras wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Does Vietnam have the funds to commit to such an arms race? Not just to buy jets, but also to build hangars, buy (modern!) missiles, train pilots, provide maintenance ... What about the other parts of the military, the army & navy? The conflict with China puts a heavy emphasis on the South China Sea. What is VN's strategy here?

Depends on the government's strategy and the actual situation. Now Vietnam wants to put everything under the tag "just for defense purpose", so it is interesting to see how will Vietnam adjust with the real situations on SCS.

No, Vietnam does not have funds to get into an arms race with China. Not even close.

This is not Poland vs Germany ... this is Belgium vs Germany.

Antaras wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

johns624 wrote:

That doesn't seem to be working in the SCS.

Actually, it does. Just because it is not panning out the way we aka the west wants it to be, doesn't mean it is not working. All large economic and military forces in the world exert power over their neighbours and their region. Why should PRC be any different? As for now, I don't see war as imminent. And if you feel it is, and thats the topic anyway, any couple of semi-modern fighters in Vietnam won't make any difference at all.

Not as your expectation. Especially when PRC allowed its Coast Guard to fire on "its territories".

Say again? I am seemingly unable to comprehend your reply, sorry.

kitplane01 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Does Vietnam have the funds to commit to such an arms race? Not just to buy jets, but also to build hangars, buy (modern!) missiles, train pilots, provide maintenance ... What about the other parts of the military, the army & navy? The conflict with China puts a heavy emphasis on the South China Sea. What is VN's strategy here?

Depends on the government's strategy and the actual situation. Now Vietnam wants to put everything under the tag "just for defense purpose", so it is interesting to see how will Vietnam adjust with the real situations on SCS.

No, Vietnam does not have funds to get into an arms race with China. Not even close.

This is not Poland vs Germany ... this is Belgium vs Germany.

Still missing the like button. Fully agree and not even Belgium. Maybe Luxembourg.

CRJockey wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

Depends on the government's strategy and the actual situation. Now Vietnam wants to put everything under the tag "just for defense purpose", so it is interesting to see how will Vietnam adjust with the real situations on SCS.

No, Vietnam does not have funds to get into an arms race with China. Not even close.

This is not Poland vs Germany ... this is Belgium vs Germany.

Still missing the like button. Fully agree and not even Belgium. Maybe Luxembourg.

That's why there's NATO. With China trying to expand its territory, I expect neighboring countries to start talking about cooperative defense pacts.

johns624 wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

No, Vietnam does not have funds to get into an arms race with China. Not even close.

This is not Poland vs Germany ... this is Belgium vs Germany.

Still missing the like button. Fully agree and not even Belgium. Maybe Luxembourg.

That's why there's NATO. With China trying to expand its territory, I expect neighboring countries to start talking about cooperative defense pacts.

Of course they do and they should. It would however face the same challenge as NATO, that it is by far not clear cut which countries within such a treaty would go to war for which other countries. So, regaining some momentum relevant to this thread, I fail to see how a couple of Vietnamese fighters are going to make a difference. Ground based SAM and coastal defence like the Russian SS-N-26 system they bought make far more sense for the money.

Of all the weapon systems mentioned, the P-3C seems to be the most likely to happen. Vietnam need these planes to monitor the disputed waters. Vietnam also have a long coast line to patrol. Coast guard helicopters would also be good assets, specially with increased visits of cruise ships

Ever since the US started replacing their P-3C, their have been rumors that the US is willing to sell Vietnam non-weaponized version of the P-3C. If Japan gets permission from the US, the Japanese P-3's may be in better conditions. The Japanese arm forces are known to keep their planes in very good condition.

Just like India 15 years ago, I believe Vietnam is near the begining of transitioning to western weapons. As the standard of living uncreases, they will want a competent arm force with reliable weapon systems. It doesn't have to be high tech.

And rightly or wrongly, the relationship between the US and China will not return to the days before Trump. So, maybe the strategic value of Vietnam may force the US to overlook sone human rights issues

bt

CRJockey wrote:

johns624 wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Still missing the like button. Fully agree and not even Belgium. Maybe Luxembourg.

That's why there's NATO. With China trying to expand its territory, I expect neighboring countries to start talking about cooperative defense pacts.

Of course they do and they should. It would however face the same challenge as NATO, that it is by far not clear cut which countries within such a treaty would go to war for which other countries. So, regaining some momentum relevant to this thread, I fail to see how a couple of Vietnamese fighters are going to make a difference. Ground based SAM and coastal defence like the Russian SS-N-26 system they bought make far more sense for the money.

They tried and failed. ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asia Nations) is no more than a divided union with only Vietnam and Indonesia are keen on keeping the water, while Thailand/Cambodia/Phillipines are fully dominated and on PRC's side. In the East China Sea, the relationship between Korea Daehan and Japan is nothing better.
We need to wait a long time until we can see KR/JP/TW/ASEAN to stand together just like some West-EU dudes formed the NATO.

Everybody seems to be ignoring India in this whole "China confrontation" thing.

bikerthai wrote:

Of all the weapon systems mentioned, the P-3C seems to be the most likely to happen. Vietnam need these planes to monitor the disputed waters. Vietnam also have a long coast line to patrol. Coast guard helicopters would also be good assets, specially with increased visits of cruise ships

Ever since the US started replacing their P-3C, their have been rumors that the US is willing to sell Vietnam non-weaponized version of the P-3C. If Japan gets permission from the US, the Japanese P-3's may be in better conditions. The Japanese arm forces are known to keep their planes in very good condition.

I see the Airbus C-295 also have good chance, due to its versatile. The type have the non-weaponized cargo variant (VN is currently operating 3 of this variant), AEW&C (seems necessary for VN?) and the water-controlling variant. It is newer and significantly more modern than the P-3C, but also much more expensive, so I'm waiting what would Vietnam choose

P/s: there are also rumors for Kawa P-1

johns624 wrote:

Everybody seems to be ignoring India in this whole "China confrontation" thing.

We are talking more about South China Sea stuffs.

But yes, India would have an important role. From Vietnam I can see that India is becoming my nation's good friend (ally?) by the problem that both nations share (China), and many weapons and military deals between these 2 countries (Vietnam acquired many radar systems and weapons from India, rumors Brahmos to be next?)

CRJockey wrote:

johns624 wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Still missing the like button. Fully agree and not even Belgium. Maybe Luxembourg.

That's why there's NATO. With China trying to expand its territory, I expect neighboring countries to start talking about cooperative defense pacts.

Of course they do and they should. It would however face the same challenge as NATO, that it is by far not clear cut which countries within such a treaty would go to war for which other countries. So, regaining some momentum relevant to this thread, I fail to see how a couple of Vietnamese fighters are going to make a difference. Ground based SAM and coastal defence like the Russian SS-N-26 system they bought make far more sense for the money.

Alliances work the best when there is a powerful, threatening neighbor. That's why NATO was stronger when the USSR was still around. China is trying to turn into the new USSR, except with economic power added in.

Antaras wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Of all the weapon systems mentioned, the P-3C seems to be the most likely to happen. Vietnam need these planes to monitor the disputed waters. Vietnam also have a long coast line to patrol. Coast guard helicopters would also be good assets, specially with increased visits of cruise ships

Ever since the US started replacing their P-3C, their have been rumors that the US is willing to sell Vietnam non-weaponized version of the P-3C. If Japan gets permission from the US, the Japanese P-3's may be in better conditions. The Japanese arm forces are known to keep their planes in very good condition.

I see the Airbus C-295 also have good chance, due to its versatile. The type have the non-weaponized cargo variant (VN is currently operating 3 of this variant), AEW&C (seems necessary for VN?) and the water-controlling variant. It is newer and significantly more modern than the P-3C, but also much more expensive, so I'm waiting what would Vietnam choose

P/s: there are also rumors for Kawa P-1

Yes, additional transport aircraft and/or a marine patrol aircraft should yield the greatest improvement for the comparatively little money VN is able to spend. I'm not sure if the C-295MPA/ASW or AEW have any equipment that the US might restrict but I doubt it. The P-3C is a good aircraft but pretty old.

An AEW&C aircraft only makes sense if the detected hostile aircraft can be intercepted by a fighter or missile. It also needs protection from enemy missiles. I don't think VN needs one, yet.

IMHO the largest threat to VN is through UAVs. Traditional air defense systems are pretty bad at defending against small, cheap & slow vehicles, and UAVs can also deal significant damage to terrorists and similar militia who could hide from regular attack aircraft. On the other hand, VN should definitely invest in a sizeable UAV fleet - including small quadrocopters - from a non-Chinese source.

Antaras wrote:

Now have a look at the key fleet of VNPAF:

Su-22: 34x
Su-27P/SK/UBK: 11x
Su-30MK2V: 35x (1 crashed)
========================
CASA/Airbus C-295: 3x
CASA NC212i: 3x
Antonov An-26: 30x, all grounded
==========================
Aero L-39 Albatros: 31x
Yakovlev Yak-130: 12x on order

How do you think about those?

About the transport category in particular, what's the grounded fleet of An-26 purpose is ?

If they have enough with 6 CASA to fulfill their missions it's just about sometime replacing oldest of the fleet by newest C295, and maybe add a variant for a new mission as you suggest.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

Now have a look at the key fleet of VNPAF:

Su-22: 34x
Su-27P/SK/UBK: 11x
Su-30MK2V: 35x (1 crashed)
========================
CASA/Airbus C-295: 3x
CASA NC212i: 3x
Antonov An-26: 30x, all grounded
==========================
Aero L-39 Albatros: 31x
Yakovlev Yak-130: 12x on order

How do you think about those?

About the transport category in particular, what's the grounded fleet of An-26 purpose is ?

If they have enough with 6 CASA to fulfill their missions it's just about sometime replacing oldest of the fleet by newest C295, and maybe add a variant for a new mission as you suggest.

The An-26 fleet was used for the cargo/transportation purpose, as well as being the temporary bombers in the Sino-Viet war.

All of them are grounded and retired, replaced by the little fleet of CASA.

mxaxai wrote:

IMHO the largest threat to VN is through UAVs. Traditional air defense systems are pretty bad at defending against small, cheap & slow vehicles, and UAVs can also deal significant damage to terrorists and similar militia who could hide from regular attack aircraft. On the other hand, VN should definitely invest in a sizeable UAV fleet - including small quadrocopters - from a non-Chinese source.

Unknown if Vietnam learned any lesson from the Azer-Armenia conflict, but Vietnam just reveal its newest own-developed anti-UAV system which was designed to "disrupt the GPS, control, and digital data transmission in small drones". And sure that there will be a lot of anti-drone systems to be developed and acquired by Vietnam?!

And Vietnam is also developing a fleet of armed drones?
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... am-uav-isr

Vietnam recently revealed what was likely a mock-up of a medium-size uninhabited aerial vehicle (UAV) during a display of Vietnamese military equipment. That may not be a surprise. The country has been attempting to build UAV-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities for over a decade. Perhaps less expected was that the mock-up was fitted with models of air-to-surface weapons.

The single-engine twin-boom design, from state-owned telecommunications and defense conglomerate Viettel Group, was reminiscent of several foreign designs. It is conceivable, if not likely, that there may be some level of external support in the program. However, the Viettel mock-up was the first weaponized UAV to be displayed by Vietnam.

Seems like Vietnam has decided not to rely so much on any foreign supplier on the drone fleet. I also heard that Vietnam has also acquired a fleet of UAV from Boeing, but it is unlikely to be weaponized and most likely just for surveillance purposes

Antaras wrote:

P/s: there are also rumors for Kawa P-1

The P-1 might even be more expensive than a P-8 and even though it is Japanese, it may fall under US ITAR influence.

Vietnam needs to improve its maratine patrol capability though not necessarily anti-sub warfare. Any candidate smaller than the P-3 would be as good.

As for UAV and the lessons of the Armenian flare up, it is not as applicable for any Chinese-Vietnam land conflict as un-like the open terrain of the caucuses, the jungle canopy of northern Vietnam would limit the usefullness of the UAV to major thoroughfare and towns.

And as we all learn, urban warfare can negate the advantage of a larger more sophisticated army.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Antaras wrote:

P/s: there are also rumors for Kawa P-1

The P-1 might even be more expensive than a P-8 and even though it is Japanese, it may fall under US ITAR influence.

Vietnam needs to improve its maritime patrol capability though not necessarily anti-sub warfare. Any candidate smaller than the P-3 would be as good.

In fact, everything that Vietnam can get now can be under the influence of the ITAR.
Let see if the P-1, P-3C and C-295 are affected.

bikerthai wrote:

Of all the weapon systems mentioned, the P-3C seems to be the most likely to happen. Vietnam need these planes to monitor the disputed waters. Vietnam also have a long coast line to patrol. Coast guard helicopters would also be good assets, specially with increased visits of cruise ships

Ever since the US started replacing their P-3C, their have been rumors that the US is willing to sell Vietnam non-weaponized version of the P-3C. If Japan gets permission from the US, the Japanese P-3's may be in better conditions. The Japanese arm forces are known to keep their planes in very good condition.

Just like India 15 years ago, I believe Vietnam is near the begining of transitioning to western weapons. As the standard of living uncreases, they will want a competent arm force with reliable weapon systems. It doesn't have to be high tech.

And rightly or wrongly, the relationship between the US and China will not return to the days before Trump. So, maybe the strategic value of Vietnam may force the US to overlook sone human rights issues

bt

Let’s suppose a Vietnamese P-3 attacks a Chinese submarine. How do you think that ends?
-or-
I don’t think a fleet of Vietnamese P-3s are going to change Chinese actions by one iota.

kitplane01 wrote:

-
I don’t think a fleet of Vietnamese P-3s are going to change Chinese actions by one iota.

Do not disagree. Current political climate will not allow Vietnam to obtain offensive weapons from the west or Japan.

The Talk about the P-3C is strictly related to a demilitarized version that would allow Vietnam to obtain long range reconnaissance and coastal patrol with no attack capability.

Since the US is no longer operating the P-3 the airframe may be obtained for cheap.

When the idea was floated. There did not seem to be much push back politically, so a demilitarized P-3c may be the easiest to obtain export wise other than any commercial airframe that Vietnam may already have.

A fleet of P-3C stationed at Cam Ranh will be able to patrol the entire coast line, monitor fishing grounds, shipping lanes and provide oversight to the many cruise ships visiting the country.

One difference between a P-3C and any other commercial frame is the P-3/P-1/P-8 is built to live in a maritime environment. A typical commercial frame may be newer, but operating in a salt spray environment they will deteriorate much faster than the already old P-3.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

Let’s suppose a Vietnamese P-3 attacks a Chinese submarine. How do you think that ends?
-or-
I don’t think a fleet of Vietnamese P-3s are going to change Chinese actions by one iota.

1. It depends. Who would've ever thought that Sweden could get away with attacking a suspected Russian sub? If the sub is breaking international law, it's kind of hard for its country to complain.
2. You keep talking like Vietnam vs. China would happen in a vacuum. There are other countries in the region who are waiting for the right moment to speak up.
3. A country doesn't have to be strong enough to beat another to be respected. It just has to be strong enough to give the bigger country a bloody nose. Think about what happened in the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979. China thought that they would have an easy time of it...they didn't. That's also one of the reasons that Germany didn't mess with Switzerland. There were others too, but an invasion wouldn't have gone smoothly.
4. Countries are just like schoolyard bullies. If you keep backing down, they just keep getting bolder.

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

-
I don’t think a fleet of Vietnamese P-3s are going to change Chinese actions by one iota.

Do not disagree. Current political climate will not allow Vietnam to obtain offensive weapons from the west or Japan.

The Talk about the P-3C is strictly related to a demilitarized version that would allow Vietnam to obtain long range reconnaissance and coastal patrol with no attack capability.

Since the US is no longer operating the P-3 the airframe may be obtained for cheap.

When the idea was floated. There did not seem to be much push back politically, so a demilitarized P-3c may be the easiest to obtain export wise other than any commercial airframe that Vietnam may already have.

A fleet of P-3C stationed at Cam Ranh will be able to patrol the entire coast line, monitor fishing grounds, shipping lanes and provide oversight to the many cruise ships visiting the country.

One difference between a P-3C and any other commercial frame is the P-3/P-1/P-8 is built to live in a maritime environment. A typical commercial frame may be newer, but operating in a salt spray environment they will deteriorate much faster than the already old P-3.

bt

In case that VN cannot get the weaponized P-3C, I wonder if Vietnam can get weaponized C-295? Or can VN acquire the "clean" dimilitarilized P-3C and then re-weaponized that by themselves, just like what Vietnam did with the Hamilton ships acquires from the USCG (for the VNCG)?

(Pardon my curiosity and ignorance)

Antaras wrote:

if Vietnam can get weaponized C-295? Or can VN acquire the "clean" dimilitarilized P-3C and then re-weaponized that by themselves,

I believe ITAR regulation is such that if they buy a non-weaponized P-3, they would have to keep it so. Otherwise they will run afoul of any purchase agreement and would be subjected to sanction - including commercial trade. Vietnam has too much at stake in commercial trade with the US to violate that.

Similar rules applies to commercial sales. Although, if the aircraft changed ownership multiple times then it is possible to weaponize a commercial product without running afoul of the original contract. And by weaponizing, I mean a complete weapon system with fire control etc. I do not believe mounting a machine gun or even a canon on to a plane or boat in itself would necessarily flag the plane/boat as an ITAR vessel. The gun or the cannon would probably be the only ITAR item in that combination.

bt

Antaras wrote:

just like what Vietnam did with the Hamilton ships acquires from the USCG (for the VNCG)?

I believe the P-3C proposal was also for the VNCG.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Antaras wrote:

if Vietnam can get weaponized C-295? Or can VN acquire the "clean" dimilitarilized P-3C and then re-weaponized that by themselves,

I believe ITAR regulation is such that if they buy a non-weaponized P-3, they would have to keep it so. Otherwise they will run afoul of any purchase agreement and would be subjected to sanction - including commercial trade. Vietnam has too much at stake in commercial trade with the US to violate that.

Similar rules applies to commercial sales. Although, if the aircraft changed ownership multiple times then it is possible to weaponize a commercial product without running afoul of the original contract. And by weaponizing, I mean a complete weapon system with fire control etc. I do not believe mounting a machine gun or even a canon on to a plane or boat in itself would necessarily flag the plane/boat as an ITAR vessel. The gun or the cannon would probably be the only ITAR item in that combination.

bt

I must be too much "first world" and not knowledgable enough but I have a hard time to get the logic of buying P-3.
Those P-3 ? Last aircraft produced 30 years ago ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-3_Orion

When you consider a long term vision, the maintenance and everything I find hard to close the business case for such an outdated platform.

Grizzly410 wrote:

I must be too much "first world" and not knowledgable enough but I have a hard time to get the logic of buying P-3.
Those P-3 ? Last aircraft produced 30 years ago ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-3_Orion

When you consider a long term vision, the maintenance and everything I find hard to close the business case for such an outdated platform.

Don't ever think it is a big trouble. Even though it is old, the type is still a world-class submarine hunter and its performance is still acceptable with Vietnam.

If VN considers the type too old, it can acquire the C-295. VN is already operating a fleet of C-295 and appreciating the type, I believe that it is also very likely for VN to acquire a small fleet of 3-10 airframes. And I don't know if the C-295 is limited by the political terms such as ITAR which can prevent Vietnam to operate the militarized ones.

The third choice would be Kawa P-1.
Fourth choice is converting Vietnam Airlines ATR 72, with a number of good toys from Israel and India

Antaras wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

I must be too much "first world" and not knowledgable enough but I have a hard time to get the logic of buying P-3.
Those P-3 ? Last aircraft produced 30 years ago ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-3_Orion

When you consider a long term vision, the maintenance and everything I find hard to close the business case for such an outdated platform.

Don't ever think it is a big trouble. Even though it is old, the type is still a world-class submarine hunter and its performance is still acceptable with Vietnam.

If VN considers the type too old, it can acquire the C-295. VN is already operating a fleet of C-295 and appreciating the type, I believe that it is also very likely for VN to acquire a small fleet of 3-10 airframes. And I don't know if the C-295 is limited by the political terms such as ITAR which can prevent Vietnam to operate the militarized ones.

The third choice would be Kawa P-1.
Fourth choice is converting Vietnam Airlines ATR 72, with a number of good toys from Israel and India

I don't dispute a P-3 can makes sense to be operated now. But to be purchased ? For how long ? It's very different.

And a C295 variant looks like a credible answer to all their possible needs.

Grizzly410 wrote:

I don't dispute a P-3 can makes sense to be operated now. But to be purchased ? For how long ? It's very different.

And a C295 variant looks like a credible answer to all their possible needs.

Lockheed used to offer a 20-year-lifetime extension package when VN was negotiating to acquire some directly from the US in 2015-2016. If VN acquire the type I guess that it would serve for VN at least 25-30 years.

But yes, the C-295 seems like an ultimate answer for every single thing, even though this type is a bit (much) more expensive to acquire.

VN wants something to strengthen the tie with EU? C-295 says yes.

VN wants something cheap to operate and training, something that it has lots of experience with and something that VN itself has evaluated as good and appreciated? C-295 says yes.

VN wants a cargo fleet? C-295 says yes.

VN wants something for surveying and controlling the water, and to hunt the submarines? C-295 says yes.

VN may want some AEW&C systems? C-295 says yes.

Sounds awesome.

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Let’s suppose a Vietnamese P-3 attacks a Chinese submarine. How do you think that ends?
-or-
I don’t think a fleet of Vietnamese P-3s are going to change Chinese actions by one iota.

1. It depends. Who would've ever thought that Sweden could get away with attacking a suspected Russian sub? If the sub is breaking international law, it's kind of hard for its country to complain.

Sweden cannot be attacked by Russia without involving Nato. Vietnam has no Nato.

johns624 wrote:

2. You keep talking like Vietnam vs. China would happen in a vacuum. There are other countries in the region who are waiting for the right moment to speak up.

Thailand can "speak" all it wants. The US will not go to war to save Vietnam.

johns624 wrote:

3. A country doesn't have to be strong enough to beat another to be respected. It just has to be strong enough to give the bigger country a bloody nose. Think about what happened in the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979. China thought that they would have an easy time of it...they didn't. That's also one of the reasons that Germany didn't mess with Switzerland. There were others too, but an invasion wouldn't have gone smoothly.

China did everything it wanted in the 1979 war. If it wanted a southern border with Cambodia, it would have one.

This is not Germany vs Poland. This is Germany vs Czechoslovakia. And they had a reasonable military for their size. This is Italy vs Ethiopia (who also had a reasonable military for their abilities.)

(I will concede the Swiss example is a good one, but about the only one.)

bikerthai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

-
I don’t think a fleet of Vietnamese P-3s are going to change Chinese actions by one iota.

Do not disagree. Current political climate will not allow Vietnam to obtain offensive weapons from the west or Japan.

The Talk about the P-3C is strictly related to a demilitarized version that would allow Vietnam to obtain long range reconnaissance and coastal patrol with no attack capability.

Operating used P-3s is a VERY expensive way to get an eyeball and a camera 500 miles beyond the horizon. If that's the goal, a militarized DA-42 is under $2M, and an operating budget of like $100/hour. And available today.

kitplane01 wrote:

Operating used P-3s is a VERY expensive way to get an eyeball and a camera 500 miles beyond the horizon. If that's the goal, a militarized DA-42 is under $2M, and an operating budget of like $100/hour. And available today.

Maybe that is why no further article was written about since those early days.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

[
1. It depends. Who would've ever thought that Sweden could get away with attacking a suspected Russian sub? If the sub is breaking international law, it's kind of hard for its country to complain.

Sweden cannot be attacked by Russia without involving Nato. Vietnam has no Nato.

[/quote]Sweden is not part of NATO. Sometimes, you just have to stand up to the bullies.

johns624 wrote:

Vietnam has no Nato.

Other than then the oil rich waters of the South China Sea, Vietnam also does not have anything of value that China would risk a land conflict.

The last war was a political skirmish relating to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to stop the genocide there. So instead of worrying about high tech weapons to stop China, which would be futile anyway, they should concentrate on basic systems than improves the overall patrolling capabilities for domestic support.

Additional helicopters and transport to provide relief for the increasingly devastating hurricanes would be a good start.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

Thailand can "speak" all it wants. The US will not go to war to save Vietnam.

Perhaps Vietnam should seek US support, for example by letting them set up a base and buying some US equipment. A couple of F-16V and MQ-9B should be sufficient to gain political favors, plus a few coast guard vessels or C-130.

For $10bln, you could probably get (including weapons and 20-year support contract):
20 F-16V
40 MQ-9B
6 C-130J
2 Hamilton Class Cutter (used) + a couple of helicopters
1 base (USMC? USN? USAF?) at a convenient location, for example Da Nang

VN is one of the few countries with a easily crossable land border with China; unlike the US allies in Korea, Taiwan and Japan. VN offers reliable and increasingly advanced but cheap manufacturing that can easily replace some Chinese products in a trade war. VN politics are quite stable with a strong focus on law & order as well as infrastructure.

Past conflicts have shown that neither Russia nor the EU are reliable allies when things are happening far away. ASEAN is a very loose union with strong internal competition. Having allied soldiers on your territory is the most reliable method to get their support when you're attacked, and the US is the only other major power with interest in the region.

A US base in Vietnam could be viewed as being as provocative as a Russian base on Cuba.

Not sure that the US or Vietnam would be keen on the idea either.

bennett123 wrote:

A US base in Vietnam could be viewed as being as provocative as a Russian base on Cuba.

Not sure that the US or Vietnam would be keen on the idea either.

"Base" is so 20th century. The new term is "support facility". It sounds more peaceful...

johns624 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

A US base in Vietnam could be viewed as being as provocative as a Russian base on Cuba.

Not sure that the US or Vietnam would be keen on the idea either.

"Base" is so 20th century. The new term is "support facility". It sounds more peaceful...

Never happen.
The Vietnamese People Army has committed to Four "No":
- VN will not join any kind of military alliances (NATO, SEATO, QUAD or anything else).
- No allying with other nations to against or oppose any nations.
- Not allowing foreign nations to base in Vietnamese territories or using Vietnamese territories to against other nations.
- Not using military force or threatening to use military force in international relationships.

Even Joe Biden won’t sell/approve the sale of a P-3 to a communist country. The optics are too bad, even if John Kerry flew it there on the final delivery leg as a co-pilot. .

Antaras wrote:

johns624 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

A US base in Vietnam could be viewed as being as provocative as a Russian base on Cuba.

Not sure that the US or Vietnam would be keen on the idea either.

"Base" is so 20th century. The new term is "support facility". It sounds more peaceful...

Never happen.
The Vietnamese People Army has committed to Four "No":
- VN will not join any kind of military alliances (NATO, SEATO, QUAD or anything else).
- No allying with other nations to against or oppose any nations.
- Not allowing foreign nations to base in Vietnamese territories or using Vietnamese territories to against other nations.
- Not using military force or threatening to use military force in international relationships.

They need to focus on armed neutrality, then. If you're going at it alone, you better make sure that you can handle it on your own. Other countries might not have the same scruples.