texl1649 wrote:

Even Joe Biden won’t sell/approve the sale of a P-3 to a communist country. The optics are too bad,

The optics are more convoluted than you may think.

The most ardent anti-communist Vietnamese-American group are pro-Trump only because of the anti-China stance. Biden would not worry about this group because they primarily resides in California, Washington, and Texas - all three states most unlikely to flip.

So if the P-3s were configured as Coast Guard aircrafts to counter the "Chinese threat", then it would be no difference than what the US did with the Morgenthau.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_M ... _(WHEC-722)

Heck, if they pitch it right, Biden may even get that Trump supporting Vietnamese American to come over on his side.


bt

bikerthai wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Even Joe Biden won’t sell/approve the sale of a P-3 to a communist country. The optics are too bad,

The optics are more convoluted than you may think.

The most ardent anti-communist Vietnamese-American group are pro-Trump only because of the anti-China stance. Biden would not worry about this group because they primarily resides in California, Washington, and Texas - all three states most unlikely to flip.

So if the P-3s were configured as Coast Guard aircrafts to counter the "Chinese threat", then it would be no difference than what the US did with the Morgenthau.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_M ... _(WHEC-722)

Heck, if they pitch it right, Biden may even get that Trump supporting Vietnamese American to come over on his side.

bt

Yes, it is more likely that the US/JP will transfer some P-3C to the VNCG just like the two Hamilton ships. It will be a natural way for the US to limit the power that Vietnam gets from Western equipment.
I predict that the airframes might be equipped for the VNCG Region 3 - the region which covers and protects the oil-rich Vanguard Bank (disputed between Vietnam-China-Taiwan), as well as the Spratly Islands (disputes between Brunei-China-Malaysia-Philippines-Taiwan-Vietnam)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... egions.jpg

bikerthai wrote:

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

I agree with all of this.

"Vietnam also does not have anything of value that China would risk a land conflict". The interesting question is ... Vietnam has people, land, and a growing economy. China seemingly does not want to expand. If they did, Vietnam or NorthKorea would be theirs. The problem is not that the government in Beijing only wants to rule Han Chinese, else they would be out of Tibet and Xingjaing. So what's up?

(I'm away they are changing the ethnic composition of Tibet and Xingjaing so maybe that's part of it. But if so, it's a very long term game ... longer than most governments can plan.)

johns624 wrote:

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.

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

I didn't write "Sweden is in NATO". I wrote "Sweden cannot be attacked by Russia without involving Nato." There is no world during the Whisky On The Rocks or later where Russia attacks Sweden without NATO stopping it.

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.

I thought I knew some about these things, but you taught me something new. So thanks.

I read it's four no's and one depends. " ... The new white paper reconfirms and expands upon the principles of this longstanding balancing act. Vietnamese strategists no longer talk about the longstanding “three-nos” policy, but instead a transformed “four-nos and one-depend.” This means no military alliances, no siding with one country against another, no foreign military bases, and no using force or threatening to use force in international relations; but, “depending on circumstances and specific conditions, Vietnam will consider developing necessary, appropriate defense and military relations with other countries.”

This seems ... likely to succeed only as long as China allows. I can imaging huge trade embargoes for China if they were to take Vietnam, but cannot imagine the US army fighting a land war against China.

kitplane01 wrote:

but cannot imagine the US army fighting a land war against China.

The US does not need to fight China in Vietnam. Vietnam was once under the influence of the Chinese Dynasty in the past but have resisted the Chinese a thousand years before they had to contend with the French.

The terrain of Vietnam will make it much more difficult to invade and the tenacity of the people will make it more difficult to occupy than Tibet. Tibet has spiritual influence that is worth something to China where as the people of Vietnam would be too troublesome. They would rather influence Vietnam through economic, political and bribery rather than war.

To China, Taiwan is a more of a prize and would be just as bloody as Vietnam.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

"Vietnam also does not have anything of value that China would risk a land conflict". The interesting question is ... Vietnam has people, land, and a growing economy. China seemingly does not want to expand. If they did, Vietnam or NorthKorea would be theirs.

You miss the obvious, intentionally, in my opinion. The Chinese are focused on the SCS and minerals beneath it. They want to cow their smaller neighbors who also have claims to the same areas. The only big land area they covet is Taiwan, and that is a pride/face issue.

johns624 wrote:

You miss the obvious, intentionally, in my opinion.

Perhaps not. China has shown that it can aquire the resources of the SCS without the risk nor the need of a land conflict with Vietnam.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

You miss the obvious, intentionally, in my opinion.

Perhaps not. China has shown that it can aquire the resources of the SCS without the risk nor the need of a land conflict with Vietnam.

bt

It obviously did that. PRC has controlled the whole Paracel Island (disputes vs VN), half the Spratly Islands (disputes vs half of ASEAN and Taiwan), the Vanguard Bank (still pretty fine controlled by VN, also disputed with Taiwan), and half of Vietnam-Philippines-Brunei EEZ.

International attention is the only thing prevents PRC to move any further more. Besides that, I wonder if PRC would have negative reaction if Vietnam acquires some new toys from RU/US/JP/EU.

bikerthai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

You miss the obvious, intentionally, in my opinion.

Perhaps not. China has shown that it can aquire the resources of the SCS without the risk nor the need of a land conflict with Vietnam.

bt

The threat of action is all that's required for China to get what it wants. If a country is too weak to stand up to China, they can do whatever they want, which they mostly have.

Antaras wrote:

Besides that, I wonder if PRC would have negative reaction if Vietnam acquires some new toys from RU/US/JP/EU.

It would be like a flea in a dog. The dog will scratch but would most likely ignore the flea and continue to gnaw on the bone (Taiwan).

bt

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

"Vietnam also does not have anything of value that China would risk a land conflict". The interesting question is ... Vietnam has people, land, and a growing economy. China seemingly does not want to expand. If they did, Vietnam or NorthKorea would be theirs.

You miss the obvious, intentionally, in my opinion. The Chinese are focused on the SCS and minerals beneath it. They want to cow their smaller neighbors who also have claims to the same areas. The only big land area they covet is Taiwan, and that is a pride/face issue.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

1) Vietnam (and Burma, North Korea, etc) all have people and land and an economy (Vietnam's is large and growing).
2) China *could* conquer these nations. We can argue about the cost, but China *could* do it.
3) China does not.
4) China in this regard is acting in their own perceived best interest.

So why does China not conquer these places: Because it has other goals beyond expansion???

About the South China Sea ... yep they want that too. But it's possible to want two things.

So .. WHY is "The only big land area they covet is Taiwan, and that is a pride/face issue." And if that's true, why are they in Xingjaing, which has to cost more than it's worth.

kitplane01 wrote:

So .. WHY is "The only big land area they covet is Taiwan, and that is a pride/face issue." And if that's true, why are they in Xingjaing, which has to cost more than it's worth.

Are you sure? Seem to me they are rather consistent.

From Wiki:

Xinjiang has traditionally been an agricultural region, but is also rich in minerals and oil.

Minerals as in the precious metals for batteries and electronics and even nuclear war heads?

And so far it has not cost them tens of thousands of lives and billions in resources as any invasion of Vietnam or Taiwan would.

bt

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

"Vietnam also does not have anything of value that China would risk a land conflict". The interesting question is ... Vietnam has people, land, and a growing economy. China seemingly does not want to expand. If they did, Vietnam or NorthKorea would be theirs.

You miss the obvious, intentionally, in my opinion. The Chinese are focused on the SCS and minerals beneath it. They want to cow their smaller neighbors who also have claims to the same areas. The only big land area they covet is Taiwan, and that is a pride/face issue.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

1) Vietnam (and Burma, North Korea, etc) all have people and land and an economy (Vietnam's is large and growing).
2) China *could* conquer these nations. We can argue about the cost, but China *could* do it.
3) China does not.
4) China in this regard is acting in their own perceived best interest.

So why does China not conquer these places: Because it has other goals beyond expansion???

About the South China Sea ... yep they want that too. But it's possible to want two things.

So .. WHY is "The only big land area they covet is Taiwan, and that is a pride/face issue." And if that's true, why are they in Xingjaing, which has to cost more than it's worth.

Once again, you're being obtuse. If smaller countries are weak, you don't have to invade them. You just cow them into submission with the threat of actions.

kitplane01 wrote:

So why does China not conquer these places: Because it has other goals beyond expansion???

About the South China Sea ... yep they want that too. But it's possible to want two things.

Exactly ... expansion is not the ultimate goal of China.

Taiwan is a pride / historical issue because PRC claims that Taiwan is their territory, and likewise ROC maintains that they are the legitimate government of all of China. Somewhat similar to Russia & Crimea, Spain & Catalonia or Azerbaijan & Nagorno-Karabakh.

The SCS is another territorial claim based on ancient maps.

In modern legalized warfare, you can't just invade another country for their territory, people and natural resources. You have to prove a legitimate reason, for example:
- you have a claim on the territory (Taiwan, SCS)
- you're enforcing an international treaty (Korea)
- you're supporting separatists (Georgia 2008)
- you're supporting rebels against an oppressive government (Syria, Lybia ...)
- you're defending a smaller third country after the country you're invading attacked them (1. Gulf War)
- you're preventing the use of WMD, or in retaliation afterwards (2. Gulf War)
- you're fighting terrorists (Afghanistan, Palestine)
- you're protecting civilians or critical infrastructure from burglars, pirates, mafia etc. (Somalia)

Back to the topic.

If we all agree that China will not invade Vietnam unless there are overwelming extenuating circumstances, then what would be the best military purchase available to Vietnam right now?

Understanding that in any fight with China, Vietnam's air assets would be destroyed rather quickly.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Back to the topic.

If we all agree that China will not invade Vietnam unless there are overwelming extenuating circumstances, then what would be the best military purchase available to Vietnam right now?

Understanding that in any fight with China, Vietnam's air assets would be destroyed rather quickly.

bt

- Transport/cargo aircraft: seems like Airbus C-295 or others in the CASA family is the best and only option.
- Surveying and anti-sub: P-3C or C-295, Vietnam may also convert some ATR 72-500 currently operated by Vietnam Airlines / VASCO.

- Fighters: even though everyone understands that PRC will not actively invade Vietnam in the near future, but Vietnam may need up to 24-48 new aircraft to replace the aging Su-22. Those 34 Su-22 will be retired in five years, and the retirement will leave a big hole in the VNPAF fleet. Seems like Vietnam is planning for 12-36 Su-35S, and also a fleet of the 12 attackers Su-34 which is viable for bombing and attacking ground facilities. The Su-34 can be a good weapon for keeping and re-invading the islands, just like how the Su-22 was shining and keeping half of the Spratly Islands in the 1980s. At this moment VNPAF is also operating 11-12 Su-27 and 35 Su-30MK2V.

mxaxai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

So why does China not conquer these places: Because it has other goals beyond expansion???

About the South China Sea ... yep they want that too. But it's possible to want two things.

Exactly ... expansion is not the ultimate goal of China.

Taiwan is a pride / historical issue because PRC claims that Taiwan is their territory, and likewise ROC maintains that they are the legitimate government of all of China. Somewhat similar to Russia & Crimea, Spain & Catalonia or Azerbaijan & Nagorno-Karabakh.

The SCS is another territorial claim based on ancient maps.

In modern legalized warfare, you can't just invade another country for their territory, people and natural resources. You have to prove a legitimate reason, for example:
- you have a claim on the territory (Taiwan, SCS)
- you're enforcing an international treaty (Korea)
- you're supporting separatists (Georgia 2008)
- you're supporting rebels against an oppressive government (Syria, Lybia ...)
- you're defending a smaller third country after the country you're invading attacked them (1. Gulf War)
- you're preventing the use of WMD, or in retaliation afterwards (2. Gulf War)
- you're fighting terrorists (Afghanistan, Palestine)
- you're protecting civilians or critical infrastructure from burglars, pirates, mafia etc. (Somalia)

I strongly disagree with this.

Superpowers can do as they will, subject to constraints that do not involve lawyers. If China wanted to invade Vietnam, the problems they would have do not involve lawyers. They might involve an American blockade and the Vietnamese resistance, but not lawyers.

bikerthai wrote:

Back to the topic.

If we all agree that China will not invade Vietnam unless there are overwelming extenuating circumstances, then what would be the best military purchase available to Vietnam right now?

Understanding that in any fight with China, Vietnam's air assets would be destroyed rather quickly.

bt

Question: If we suppose that "China will not invade Vietnam unless there are overwhelming extenuating circumstances", what is the mission the military should execute? We can pick equipment only when we know the mission.

I would understand having a coast guard, and emergency responders to natural disasters. But what military mission? Because neither Cambodia nor the Philippines are a threat.

kitplane01 wrote:

.

As a Vietnamese, I strongly DISAGREE that PRC will "invade" Vietnam.
International pressure, the anti-China movement inside Vietnam.
Purely impossible.
It is so ridiculous to talk about invasion in 2020.

I find it kind of "odd" that a couple regular posters here say Scotland doesn't need a military and Vietnam doesn't need a military, in fact the only country they think needs a military is the PRC.

Just because we feel the treat of invasion by China is remote, it doesn't mean that Vietnam should not have a military. Rather the question is what equipment would best suite their military for the most likely mission.

After all does Vietnam have a sufficient civilian disaster response infrastructure to cope with earth quakes and hurricanes? If not then the military would need to step in. Similar to the US National Guard.

bt

Bikerthai, I wasn't referring to you. You gave reasoned answers. Some are just "you can't beat them so just lay down and let them walk all over you". That leads me to believe they have an agenda.

Antaras wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

.

As a Vietnamese, I strongly DISAGREE that PRC will "invade" Vietnam.
International pressure, the anti-China movement inside Vietnam.
Purely impossible.
It is so ridiculous to talk about invasion in 2020.

I agree. Totally agree.

johns624 wrote:

Bikerthai, I wasn't referring to you. You gave reasoned answers. Some are just "you can't beat them so just lay down and let them walk all over you". That leads me to believe they have an agenda.

Wow. you caught me. I'm a Chinese plant, and I've been waiting for 4.5 years just to influence Vietnamese military policy via amateur blogging.

Here's an extreme example: Luxembourg cannot stop Germany in WWII. Suppose Luxembourg doubled, trippled it's military spending. Still cannot stop Germany in WWII. So, should the Luxembourg military be German-focused in 1938. Doesn't matter.

Vietnam is not Luxembourg. To use someone's example, they might hope to be Switzerland (i.e. you could invade us, but please don't and the cost will be high). If Vietnam wants that kind of military, then fighter jets are not the answer, and a large army is. Focused on defense and not mobility. Anti-tank weapons over tanks (but some of both). It would be an interesting discussion what sort of military that might be, to get the most deterrence for the least cost.

But I read (and believe) that China is very unlikely to invade Vietnam. So Vietnam might spend it's money on fighting poverty and disease and the lack of education. Things that build a better future Vietnam.

But there is no reason for Vietnam to fly a fleet of P-3s. Any war with China ... sinking subs is not the critical mission. And if it's just a coast guard mission, there a many ways to do this much cheaper.

kitplane01 wrote:

But I read (and believe) that China is very unlikely to invade Vietnam. So Vietnam might spend it's money on fighting poverty and disease and the lack of education. Things that build a better future Vietnam.

But there is no reason for Vietnam to fly a fleet of P-3s. Any war with China ... sinking subs is not the critical mission. And if it's just a coast guard mission, there a many ways to do this much cheaper.

1. Vietnam Defense budget rarely pass 3%/GDP, what are you expecting more?
2. For "defense" purposes. Now VN can't even control the water that it has the full right to control. Operating the P-3s doesn't mean that you have to sink some sub, especially when the P-3 fleet will be likely to be demilitarized if to be transferred to VN. And yes the P-3 might not even be Vietnam's priority now, it now prefers a newer fleet of fighters just to replace the old fleet of Su-22M4. The water-controlling fleet might be for 2022-2025 era.

kitplane01 wrote:

[If Vietnam wants that kind of military, then fighter jets are not the answer, and a large army is. Focused on defense and not mobility.

A large army without air cover is useless. Battles today are won by mobility.

kitplane01 wrote:

If Vietnam wants that kind of military, then fighter jets are not the answer, and a large army is.

You need to understand the history of Vietnam, the Vietnamese army and physiology. Something that Antaras may have more insight than we as I assume he is a Vietnamese citizen.

If you look at the Vietnam war, you will find that even against overwelming US air power, Vietnam still uses fighter jets along with SAMs rather effectively. But the strategy that defeated the US is the guerilla tactic that would bleed an ocuppying army until it decides that the blood and money is not worth the trouble.

To do this Vietnam needs an endless supply of arms ideal for nonconventional warfare. Fighter planes will not achieve this in the long run, but it would contribute to bogging down any invading army.

The P-3 would not be of any use against an invading force. It is most useful for peace time operation.

Finally, about a large army. You do not want a large standing army as it will require prioritizing funds. You want a small professional core that would act as a backbone for a large auxiliary force that can be activated as needed but is not constantly on the payroll. Vietnam economy is still growing. It needs it's people working the factories and farms and not tied up in barracks.

I can't predict the nature of Vietnamese politics, but what I can suggest is that in order for Vietnam to obtain Western weaponry, it will have to follow the path of India. Be a non-align country with multi-party political system, or at least an appearance of such, and some semblance of religious tolerance. Untill then it can only rely on Russian weaponry (or perhaps India or Israel).

bt

bikerthai wrote:

After all does Vietnam have a sufficient civilian disaster response infrastructure to cope with earth quakes and hurricanes? If not then the military would need to step in. Similar to the US National Guard.

bt

I agree. Vietnam should focus on equipment that is useful during peacetime and minor conflicts. Coast guard vessels and marine patrol aircraft help monitor and protect the long Vietnamese coast. This can be helpful for border control & customs, protect EEZ fishing rights (or offshore wind & oil), rescue survivors of accidents, provide environmental monitoring (e. g. oil spills) and observe potential hostile ships.
A P-1 or P-8 is overkill in this role, even an old P-3C or a C-295MPA is more than sufficient. There are many other smaller MPA that could be more suitable in this role, though VN requires significant range so a DA-42 might be too small (the coastline is 3,000+ km long!).

Similarly, additional transport capabilities can be used for disaster relief, medical transports and domestic troop or police movement. Some new helicopters would be a good investment for both land-based units and the coast guard. I've found many places to be well connected by road but off-road terrain can be difficult to traverse (often mountains, jungle, or both) and tropical weather can easily wash away some roads. Earthquakes are not a risk in VN.

Combat aircraft such as the Su-34, I struggle to justify. VN's other neighbors, Cambodia and Laos, have no significant air force if any at all. The multirole fighters that VN already has could be focused on ground attack if they wanted to operate there. Both states are so poor and ill-equipped, though, that they wouldn't dare attack Vietnam in its current strength.
Across the sea, Thailand and the Phillippines have some military strength but I have not heard of any political conflict that could trigger a war. Again, I'm not too familiar with the political situation in this area, but the most likely controversy would likely revolve around control of the ocean, for which coast guard ships and patrol aircraft are more suitable.

bikerthai wrote:

I can't predict the nature of Vietnamese politics, but what I can suggest is that in order for Vietnam to obtain Western weaponry, it will have to follow the path of India. Be a non-align country with multi-party political system, or at least an appearance of such, and some semblance of religious tolerance. Untill then it can only rely on Russian weaponry (or perhaps India or Israel).
bt

Non-align country
Multi-party system: hmmmmmmmmmmmm............

The Vietnamese political system is working extremely fine now (at least inside VN now), and any change might be unnecessary and messy.
However, yes, the political conflict between the socialist-VN with the Eastern bloc (US/EU/JP) will be a big question despite the fact that VN is having a very good relationship with them.

mxaxai wrote:

A P-1 or P-8 is overkill in this role, even an old P-3C or a C-295MPA is more than sufficient. There are many other smaller MPA that could be more suitable in this role, though VN requires significant range so a DA-42 might be too small (the coastline is 3,000+ km long!).

Yes, I would think that VN will choose the P-3C or the C-295MPA for non-military purposes. The jets (P-1/8) are too expensive and unnecessary, while the little DA-42 might be not enough, as it cannot fly PQC-CAH-VCS-PHH-CXR-UIH-DAD-HUI-HPH nonstop (the estimated VN-coast route).

mxaxai wrote:

Similarly, additional transport capabilities can be used for disaster relief, medical transports and domestic troop or police movement. Some new helicopters would be a good investment for both land-based units and the coast guard. I've found many places to be well connected by road but off-road terrain can be difficult to traverse (often mountains, jungle, or both) and tropical weather can easily wash away some roads. Earthquakes are not a risk in VN.

Yes VN should expand its C-295 fleet as well as the helicopter-fleet.
The VN non-weaponized fleet of helos is now pretty acceptable for transporting purposes. The problem is its very-small fleet of just only 6 of C-295M, which are obviously not enough after the retirement of 20 An-26.

mxaxai wrote:

Combat aircraft such as the Su-34, I struggle to justify. VN's other neighbors, Cambodia and Laos, have no significant air force if any at all. The multirole fighters that VN already has could be focused on ground-attack if they wanted to operate there. Both states are so poor and ill-equipped, though, that they wouldn't dare attack Vietnam in its current strength.
Across the sea, Thailand and the Phillippines have some military strength but I have not heard of any political conflict that could trigger a war. Again, I'm not too familiar with the political situation in this area, but the most likely controversy would likely revolve around control of the ocean, for which coast guard ships and patrol aircraft are more suitable.

Air-2-ground attackers are having an important role in VN strategy. The Su-22 attackers fleet helped VN controlled half of the Spratly Islands in the 1980s, and the attackers would also act as supporters for the navy vessels also. Of course, the multi-role Su-30MK2V can be good enough, but obviously, VN wants something more due to its demand to re-invading islands and attacking low-objects.

VN is having 34x Su-34 alongside 35 multi-role Su-30MK2V. The aging fleet of Su-22 can be ideally replaced by a new fleet of 8-12x Su-34 attackers and 12-24x multirole Su-30MK2V/SM or Su-35S. I am expecting that VN would buy 12 Su-34 and 24 Su-35S, and it would be a shift from an attacker-heavy fleet to a fighter-relied fleet in any way.
(the pure-attacker fleet dropped from 34 Su-22 to potential 12 Su-34;
meanwhile, the dogfighters/multirole fleet grow from 11 Su-27S + 35 Su-30MK2V = 46 fighters
to 46 + 24 = 70 fighters after the suggested purchasing).
And yes, if there is any kind of formal conflict that Vietnam may engage in, it is only the South China Sea. China could also manipulate Cambodia to give some pressure on the Southwest border (near SGN) and in Phú Quốc Island (PQC) but of course not so significant as a comparison to the "East Sea" (VN's local term for the South-China Sea)

mxaxai wrote:

Combat aircraft such as the Su-34, I struggle to justify. VN's other neighbors, Cambodia and Laos, have no significant air force if any at all.

Not a good comparison at all. Vietnam has 96M people while Cambodia has 15M and Laos only 6M. For GDP, Vietnam is also a lot bigger, both total and per capita.

johns624 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Combat aircraft such as the Su-34, I struggle to justify. VN's other neighbors, Cambodia and Laos, have no significant air force if any at all.

Not a good comparison at all. Vietnam has 96M people while Cambodia has 15M and Laos only 6M. For GDP, Vietnam is also a lot bigger, both total and per capita.

Can't compare Vietnam with any neighbors at all. VN is significantly bigger than Laos and Cambodia, but a lot smaller than China-mainland.

johns624 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Combat aircraft such as the Su-34, I struggle to justify. VN's other neighbors, Cambodia and Laos, have no significant air force if any at all.

Not a good comparison at all. Vietnam has 96M people while Cambodia has 15M and Laos only 6M. For GDP, Vietnam is also a lot bigger, both total and per capita.

Exactly, that's why neither of them is a threat to Vietnam. I'm trying to point out the vast difference in power and wealth.

mxaxai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Combat aircraft such as the Su-34, I struggle to justify. VN's other neighbors, Cambodia and Laos, have no significant air force if any at all.

Not a good comparison at all. Vietnam has 96M people while Cambodia has 15M and Laos only 6M. For GDP, Vietnam is also a lot bigger, both total and per capita.

Exactly, that's why neither of them is a threat to Vietnam. I'm trying to point out the vast difference in power and wealth.

Why only considering Laos and Cambodia when VN also has conflicts with Malaysia and Indonesia also who also claim the Spratly Islands as theirs?

Antaras wrote:

Yes, I would think that VN will choose the P-3C or the C-295MPA for non-military purposes. The jets (P-1/8) are too expensive and unnecessary, while the little DA-42 might be not enough, as it cannot fly PQC-CAH-VCS-PHH-CXR-UIH-DAD-HUI-HPH nonstop (the estimated VN-coast route).

C-295MPAs makes a lot of sense to me and I think they would better suit the set of capabilities Vietnam require for maritime patrol. There is this report from 2016 https://defence-blog.com/news/vietnam-w ... -aewc.html on a C-295 AEW&C variant for Vietnam but I haven't seen anything since to suggest it went any further.

Antaras wrote:

VN is having 34x Su-34 alongside 35 multi-role Su-30MK2V. The aging fleet of Su-22 can be ideally replaced by a new fleet of 8-12x Su-34 attackers and 12-24x multirole Su-30MK2V/SM or Su-35S. I am expecting that VN would buy 12 Su-34 and 24 Su-35S, and it would be a shift from an attacker-heavy fleet to a fighter-relied fleet in any way.
(the pure-attacker fleet dropped from 34 Su-22 to potential 12 Su-34;
meanwhile, the dogfighters/multirole fleet grow from 11 Su-27S + 35 Su-30MK2V = 46 fighters
to 46 + 24 = 70 fighters after the suggested purchasing).
And yes, if there is any kind of formal conflict that Vietnam may engage in, it is only the South China Sea. China could also manipulate Cambodia to give some pressure on the Southwest border (near SGN) and in Phú Quốc Island (PQC) but of course not so significant as a comparison to the "East Sea" (VN's local term for the South-China Sea)

Antaras, I’m confused where the Su-34 fits into this. I could prospectively see Vietnam increasing their Flanker fleet by acquiring either more Su-30MK2s or even Su-35 but I haven’t seen any reporting or suggestion that the Vietnamese are interested in the SU-34. Do you have some links or knowledge to that effect?

What would a Su-34 provide Vietnam that the Su-35 couldn’t?

Antaras wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Not a good comparison at all. Vietnam has 96M people while Cambodia has 15M and Laos only 6M. For GDP, Vietnam is also a lot bigger, both total and per capita.

Exactly, that's why neither of them is a threat to Vietnam. I'm trying to point out the vast difference in power and wealth.

Why only considering Laos and Cambodia when VN also has conflicts with Malaysia and Indonesia also who also claim the Spratly Islands as theirs?

Exactly! A country shouldn't decide what they need by what other countries do. Their needs are their needs alone.

Well if these countries do not represent a viable threat, why does Vietnam need all these shiny toys.

Regarding the DA42, whilst it is less capable than a P3C, you could buy more of them.

bennett123 wrote:

Well if these countries do not represent a viable threat, why does Vietnam need all these shiny toys.

Regarding the DA42, whilst it is less capable than a P3C, you could buy more of them.

Because there are other nearby countries that are?

bennett123 wrote:

Well if these countries do not represent a viable threat, why does Vietnam need all these shiny toys.

Shiny toys promotes morale of a professional army. Not sure if that is what they are trying to get though.

Not sure if what they will vet will be considered shinny. New, yes but shinny? Its like buying a new car thar have been sitting on the lot for two years.

bt

Antaras wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Not a good comparison at all. Vietnam has 96M people while Cambodia has 15M and Laos only 6M. For GDP, Vietnam is also a lot bigger, both total and per capita.

Exactly, that's why neither of them is a threat to Vietnam. I'm trying to point out the vast difference in power and wealth.

Why only considering Laos and Cambodia when VN also has conflicts with Malaysia and Indonesia also who also claim the Spratly Islands as theirs?

Because Malaysia and Indonesia won't matter in a conflict about the Spratlys. As soon as there is a conflict about the islands, china will have it's excuse to use their vastly superior force to invade. No matter what amount between 30 and 50 SU-3xs Vietnam is going to muster and no matter the maritime patrol aircraft.

The only thing that changes this equation is possible US intervention. If the US intervenes, sorry for repeating myself, no matter what amount between 30 and 50 SU-3xs Vietnam is going to muster and no matter the maritime patrol aircraft, the outcome will be independent of Vietnamese toys.

johns624 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Well if these countries do not represent a viable threat, why does Vietnam need all these shiny toys.

Regarding the DA42, whilst it is less capable than a P3C, you could buy more of them.

Because there are other nearby countries that are?

Your argumentation is not coherent. In post #87 you argue, that countries should cater by their needs only, whatever that means. And now you say, they should orient themselves at the threat level around them?

I say, their needs are a direct function of the decision which threat level to counter and which to leave be, as you can't counter it anyway, with no realistic means, that is.

China as a real threat is not counterable by a couple of figher planes. Consequently, fighter or fighter/bombers are the wrong, as in inefficient and expensive, close to useless, tool for the job.

All the other countries pose either no direct threat or don't do so realistically regarding the Spratlys, as in, you know, China again.
Hence, the question remains what would actually create value and achieve something for the people of Vietnam?

I suggest equipment being usable in peace and war, for disaster relief, maritime patrol, transport needs would benefit the country tremendously. C-295, heavy helis, that stuff.
And how can you still deter China by hurting them effectively if push comes to shove? S*itloads of S-300 (or S-400 if RU is willing to sell) and coastal rocket defence, like the russian SS-N-26. Not 30x SU-34.