Vietnam Defence Forum

[BoQ77]

Bác @gambit what is the most effective way to protect Vietnam EEZ and Spratly islands ?

 

[Carlosa]

Bác @gambit what is the most effective way to protect Vietnam EEZ and Spratly islands ?

This way among other things:

Exclusive: Vietnam moves new rocket launchers into disputed South China Sea - sources


August 10, 2016

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusiv...rs-disputed-south-china-230511184.html?ref=gs

By Greg Torode

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Vietnam has discreetly fortified several of its islands in the disputed South China Sea with new mobile rocket launchers capable of striking China's runways and military installations across the vital trade route, according to Western officials.

Diplomats and military officers told Reuters that intelligence shows Hanoi has shipped the launchers from the Vietnamese mainland into position on five bases in the Spratly islands in recent months, a move likely to raise tensions with Beijing.

The launchers have been hidden from aerial surveillance and they have yet to be armed, but could be made operational with rocket artillery rounds within two or three days, according to the three sources.

Vietnam's Foreign Ministry said the information was "inaccurate", without elaborating.

Deputy Defence Minister, Senior Lieutenant-General Nguyen Chi Vinh, told Reuters in Singapore in June that Hanoi had no such launchers or weapons ready in the Spratlys but reserved the right to take any such measures.

"It is within our legitimate right to self-defense to move any of our weapons to any area at any time within our sovereign territory," he said.

The move is designed to counter China's build-up on its seven reclaimed islands in the Spratlys archipelago. Vietnam's military strategists fear the building runways, radars and other military installations on those holdings have left Vietnam's southern and island defenses increasingly vulnerable.

Military analysts say it is the most significant defensive move Vietnam has made on its holdings in the South China Sea in decades.

Hanoi wanted to have the launchers in place as it expected tensions to rise in the wake of the landmark international court ruling against China in an arbitration case brought by the Philippines, foreign envoys said.

The ruling last month, stridently rejected by Beijing, found no legal basis to China's sweeping historic claims to much of the South China Sea.

Vietnam, China and Taiwan claim all of the Spratlys while the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei claim some of the area.

"China's military maintains close surveillance of the situation in the sea and air space around the Spratly islands," China's defense ministry said in a faxed statement to Reuters.

"We hope the relevant country can join with China in jointly safeguarding peace and stability in the South China Sea region."

The United States is also monitoring developments closely.

"We continue to call on all South China Sea claimants to avoid actions that raise tensions, take practical steps to build confidence, and intensify efforts to find peaceful, diplomatic solutions to disputes," a State Department official said.

STATE-OF-THE-ART SYSTEM

Foreign officials and military analysts believe the launchers form part of Vietnam's state-of-art EXTRA rocket artillery system recently acquired from Israel.

EXTRA rounds are highly accurate up to a range of 150 km (93 miles), with different 150 kg (330 lb) warheads that can carry high explosives or bomblets to attack multiple targets simultaneously. Operated with targeting drones, they could strike both ships and land targets.

That puts China's 3,000-metre runways and installations on Subi, Fiery Cross and Mischief Reef within range of many of Vietnam's tightly clustered holdings on 21 islands and reefs.

While Vietnam has larger and longer range Russian coastal defense missiles, the EXTRA is considered highly mobile and effective against amphibious landings. It uses compact radars, so does not require a large operational footprint - also suitable for deployment on islets and reefs.

"When Vietnam acquired the EXTRA system, it was always thought that it would be deployed on the Spratlys...it is the perfect weapon for that," said Siemon Wezeman, a senior arms researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

There is no sign the launchers have been recently test fired or moved.

China took its first Spratlys possessions after a sea battle against Vietnam's then weak navy in 1988. After the battle, Vietnam said 64 soldiers with little protection were killed as they tried to protect a flag on South Johnson reef - an incident still acutely felt in Hanoi.

In recent years, Vietnam has significantly improved its naval capabilities as part of a broader military modernization, including buying six advanced Kilo submarines from Russia.


Carl Thayer, an expert on Vietnam's military at the Australian Defence Force Academy, said the deployment showed the seriousness of Vietnam's determination to militarily deter China as far as possible.

"China's runways and military installations in the Spratlys are a direct challenge to Vietnam, particularly in their southern waters and skies, and they are showing they are prepared to respond to that threat," he said. "China is unlikely to see this as purely defensive, and it could mark a new stage of militarization of the Spratlys."

Trevor Hollingsbee, a former naval intelligence analyst with the British defense ministry, said he believed the deployment also had a political factor, partly undermining the fear created by the prospect of large Chinese bases deep in maritime Southeast Asia.

"It introduces a potential vulnerability where they was none before - it is a sudden new complication in an arena that China was dominating," he said.

(Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom in Washington, Michael Martina in Beijing and Martin Petty in Hanoi.; Editing by Lincoln Feast)

View attachment 324599

 

[frequency]

You are very generous, they don't even have 1%.

@gambit

True, they rely on numbers. I have the power to destroy all the Chinese that come and go in this forum, alone.

Not at all, Gambit said: "experience in modern warfare". When was the last time that the chinese have been engaged in modern warfare?

I see it all the time! They have been on the Internet and engaging every war. Especially on this site. They all got Super experience in battlefield! No one can argue about it.

Bác @gambit what is the most effective way to protect Vietnam EEZ and Spratly islands ?

Trolling on PDF every single day.

 

[Carlosa]

If there is a shooting fight between the USN and the PLAN, it will be a lopsided battle with the PLAN ships ended up as artificial reefs.

Well, as you know, all that land reclamation that the chinese did, has destroyed the coral around the reefs so there is a great need to rebuild the coral and the most effective way to do that is to sink ships, etc in those areas so that it can create a habitat for the formation of coral.

Hopefully, the chinese navy will make a contribution to rebuild the coral by sending their navy against the US Navy, in which case the chinese ships will promptly be sent to the bottom of the ocean and become habitat for coral forming.

Most people do not understand the significance of immediate post WW II when it comes to military postures.

When WW II ended, the US was the only blue water navy. All the major naval powers were either destroyed outright or severely diminished in size and capability. Yes, naval powers like France and Britain could travel the seas, but not without US support.

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-force-levels.html

By the end of WW II, as the chart shows, the US have over 6000 ships, ranging from submarines to battleships to aircraft carriers. The US was the undisputed supreme naval power never seen in history. That is no hyperbole, and I am Air Force.

WW II not only destroyed the navies of many countries, the war killed many of their most capable and experience leaders. Further, their countries' industrial base were either destroyed or severely degraded. In the case of Japan and Germany, both were nearly back in the Stone Age.

So if we want to talk about 'modern warfare', immediately post WW II is the start of that era. WW II was the first time fleets fought each other without seeing each other, thanks to air power. That mean -- at least on paper -- any navy without an aircraft carrier is essentially defeated when faced an opponent navy who has one. Would anyone dare to test out that theory ? So far, no one tried.

The Royal Navy have this rule...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy

Not too many countries can afford to exercise that rule. Technology expanded that rule. Back then, the word 'strong' means numerical values of ships, along with how many cannons, and calibers of those cannons, and how fast are those ships.

That is not so today. Modern warfare make it possible for smaller and fewer ships to defeat a numerically larger opponent. So even if China can build more ships than US, the combined value from technology and combat experience factors still have the US on top by a large margin. The PLAN essentially was birthed after WW II. It was a baby when the USN was a battle scarred and hardened adult, and continued to occasionally take on someone to this day.

The PLAN is still struggling to modernize itself while the USN continues rewriting the book on naval warfare. If anyone can do away with the aircraft carrier, it will be US. If anyone can bring back the battleship as a modern combat platform, it will be US. If anyone can make a helo-carrier like in the Avengers movies, it will be US.

If there is a shooting fight between the USN and the PLAN, it will be a lopsided battle with the PLAN ships ended up as artificial reefs.

What many people don't understand, particularly the chinese teenage pdf members is that the US has been in a state of war for decades while the chinese military is an ossified military with no war experience whatsoever that is only good at posturing, threatening, bullying and grandstanding, actually all quite similar to North Korea.

Ehrrrr actually not yet. Chinese navy still has to prove in real battles. But to be fair, only a handful countries had seen real major naval engagements in the last century: Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Britain and of course the United States.

But how do you assess Chinese weaponry against ships, for example ballistic antiship missile?

The chinese have good anti ship missiles since they use the tech stolen / bought from Russia and that is something to be concerned about, but if you mean against the US Navy, well, that's another story because a US carrier group has defence IN DEPTH, and I really mean IN DEPTH. They can detect those missiles hundreds of miles away and they have many layers of defence.

Regarding anti ship ballistic missiles like the DF-21, etc. The US Navy have a variety of ways to deal with that including the anti ballistic capabilities of the AEGIS system, but not only that.

 

[Viet]

Moving our offensive weapons such as EXTRA land attack missile on Spratlys is a logical step. Next will be AShM such as Kct-15 and SPYDER to counter the threat of enemy ships and airplanes. If not ready happening.

The Chinese may bet, we will sit idle while they build up.

 

[Carlosa]

Moving our offensive weapons such as EXTRA land attack missile on Spratlys is a logical step. Next will be AShM such as Kct-15 and SPYDER to counter the threat of enemy ships and airplanes. If not ready happening.

The Chinese may bet, we will sit idle while they build up.

The EXTRA already fulfils the role of the anti ship missile, KCT-15 systems have a much bigger footprint than EXTRA and that makes them unsuitable for such small islands. That's the reason why EXTRA was bought after all.

Deploying SPYDER would be a big step and it does have a big footprint but, what do I know?.......

 

[BoQ77]

The EXTRA already fulfils the role of the anti ship missile, KCT-15 systems have a much bigger footprint than EXTRA and that makes them unsuitable for such small islands. That's the reason why EXTRA was bought after all.

Deploying SPYDER would be a big step and it does have a big footprint but, what do I know.......

They started talking about Spike NLOS

 

[Carlosa]

They started talking about Spike NLOS

That's a good system for island defence. 25 km range.

 

[Viet]

The EXTRA already fulfils the role of the anti ship missile, KCT-15 systems have a much bigger footprint than EXTRA and that makes them unsuitable for such small islands. That's the reason why EXTRA was bought after all.

Deploying SPYDER would be a big step and it does have a big footprint but, what do I know?.......

EXTRA is perfect to bombard land installations, but against ships it is a bit difficult. Although the missile is guided by a drone, I am not sure if it is capable to target fast moving ships.

AShM as Kh-35 or Kct-15 can better. Besides EXTRA with a warhead of 150 kg can't sink a frigate or destroyer. Kh-35 can. According to some reports including IISS we have acquired all three versions of the missile: land, air and sea. So why not Kh-35 on trucks? As for footprint, we do need more land reclamations. A lot more.

 

[Carlosa]

EXTRA is perfect to bombard land installations, but against ships it is a bit difficult. Although the missile is guided by a drone, I am not sure if it is capable to target fast moving ships.

AShM as Kh-35 or Kct-15 can better. Besides EXTRA with a warhead of 150 kg can't sink a frigate or destroyer. Kh-35 can. According to some reports including IISS we have acquired all three versions of the missile: land, air and sea. So why not Kh-35 on trucks? As for footprint, we do need more land reclamations. A lot more.


View attachment 324612

Actually, from what I've read, EXTRA is quite ok to hit moving targets that are not too small, but anyway, what you are saying about anti ship missiles is correct, but the footprint is the issue. Sweden has small anti ship missiles that have quite a small footprint and that would be good for island defence. Large systems are an issue in such small islands.

You can reclaim more land if the depth allows, something which is not the case in Spratly island. You can see the map below, they are doing the reclamation where the water is shallow. In some islands there is enough shallow areas to reclaim a lot of land, but it will take time and quite a bit of money.

The map shows the water depth at levels up to 2, 5, 10 and 20 meters deep.

 

[gambit]

Bác @gambit what is the most effective way to protect Vietnam EEZ and Spratly islands ?

To 'protect' is to do something effective enough so that you will not have to 'defend'. The difference between the words matter in real life.

To 'defend' is when something is ALREADY under attack. It is reactive. This is when violence is the response to violence. At this point, it is either all or nothing. If you lose the fight, meaning your defenses failed, you lose that something.

To 'protect' is proactive and preemptive. You have to make it clear that something will be costly to whoever want it thru violent means. It is less costly to you, in the long run, to protect than to defend. By the time you have to defend -- fight -- you may lose more than just things but people. That is not what you want.

So how do the difference between the two words matter in real life ? The difference affects your policies, your finance, and your military posture.

An enemy do not attack unless he is confident that he WILL win. Not that he can win, but WILL win. It does not matter if he is overconfident or not. A judgement of being 'overconfident' is external, meaning that judgement is from observers. In the real fight, he may lose, but he would not know it until it is too late. Nevertheless, you cannot rely on hope but on what you can do.

You have to insert as much uncertainty as possible into everything he wants to do so that instead of being confident that he will win, he is confident that he can win. Anybody can do something. In theory, I can go to the Moon. If NASA done it, so can I. The difference is that NASA with all of its resources was confident that it will be successful, not merely can be successful.

The first item you need is sufficient resources to create that sense of uncertainty. That does not mean Viet Nam have to start a crash program of military modernization including aircraft carriers, heavy cruisers, etc. If Viet Nam have the money -- great. But financial constraints demands Viet Nam to be judicious with spending so the problem is what kind of resources should Viet Nam feasibly have in order to insert that sense of uncertainty into China's expansionist plans.

The second item you need is assessment of what can China deploy to the region to convince you, or create uncertainty into you, that you cannot resist China's moves. The latest assessment now is that China's air power is not as persistent as China's sea power. That mean any conflict, or implied conflict, in the SCS will be ship vs ship. China's air power is still sufficiently weak that it can be deterred by surface response, aka surface to air missiles (SAM). Not yet requiring direct air-air methods.

The third item you need is self assessment. What do you have at THIS time that you can use to insert that sense of uncertainty into China's thinking ? Viet Nam and the others in the region should get thru all of your heads that China is NOT interested in diplomacy regarding the SCS, of which directly affects everyone's EEZ and the Spratly Islands. If China gains control of the SCS, the Spratly Islands are gone no matter how the UN rules and all your EEZs will be violated at China's convenience. What does Viet Nam have at this time that you can use and if you do not have enough of it, can you get the same from others in an alliance ?

The reason China is going thru the diplomacy theater is that China is not yet militarily powerful enough to take the SCS by force. Uncertainty can be a two-way street and China is using that theater skillfully. Everyone likes to think everyone is rational in the sense that everyone want peaceful resolutions to disputes. But history have shown that the decision to act militarily is EQUALLY rational as the decision to resolve disputes thru diplomacy. For control of the SCS, the diplomacy theater acts are there to create hesitancy in all of you. China is not being/acting 'crazy' with her military alternative.

My opinion is that no one in the region is militarily powerful enough -- BY HIMSELF -- to either create uncertainty in China's plan or to finally fight (defend) against China's military. I have always advocated an alliance. Since the method of protection and defense will be the ship, all of your navies must band together to create that uncertainty for China. Remember, it is better to protect than to defend. That mean everyone must have increased naval presence, not just in their respective EEZs but beyond. Everyone must demonstrate to China that as a collective, you will not be intimidated. Geographically, China have a greater distance to cover and support her navy than others in the region to support theirs.

I told this forum yrs ago when I first came here that after JPN, China will be the next aggressor in Asia.

If you -- everyone -- do not defend the SCS, none of you will have any EEZs.

 

[Carlosa]

The second item you need is assessment of what can China deploy to the region to convince you, or create uncertainty into you, that you cannot resist China's moves. The latest assessment now is that China's air power is not as persistent as China's sea power. That mean any conflict, or implied conflict, in the SCS will be ship vs ship. China's air power is still sufficiently weak that it can be deterred by surface response, aka surface to air missiles (SAM). Not yet requiring direct air-air methods.

Don't forget that they already built hangars for 72 fighter jets in those islands, so they can already have a substantial air force there, on location. Their H-6K bombers already started to patrol the area and they are armed with long range anti ship missiles.

The reason China is going thru the diplomacy theater is that China is not yet militarily powerful enough to take the SCS by force. Uncertainty can be a two-way street and China is using that theater skillfully. Everyone likes to think everyone is rational in the sense that everyone want peaceful resolutions to disputes. But history have shown that the decision to act militarily is EQUALLY rational as the decision to resolve disputes thru diplomacy. For control of the SCS, the diplomacy theater acts are there to create hesitancy in all of you. China is not being/acting 'crazy' with her military alternative..

Very true, they are all about bullying and trying to scare you so that they can win without having to fight.

 

[Viet]

How Vietnam has kept China at bay over thousands of years

Shadow-boxing and constant vigilance have marked country’s approach to China over thousands of years – the rest of the bloc would do well to follow suit

KARIM RASLAN

PUBLISHED : Saturday, 06 August, 2016, 11:01am
UPDATED : Monday, 08 August, 2016, 3:36pm

Cao Ngoc Diep and her family at their home in Hanoi. Photo: SCMP Pictures


I’m visiting a 77-year-old widow, Cao Ngoc Diep and her family at their ancestral temple-home.

Above one small shrine there’s a haunting photograph of the fallen soldier, Cao Minh Phi, killed in Nha Trang in 1968 by the Americans aged 28, leaving behind a sweet-faced widow and her four small children.

Read more from This Week in Asia

The English-speaking granddaughter Ngoc shows me around the other intricately carved shrines, crammed with deities and offerings of dragon fruit, cognac and cash.

I’m in an unseasonably hot Hanoi, catching up with friends and acquaintances.

Given the recent news about the South China Sea, most people are all too willing to offer their views on China. Indeed, with the border only 175km away, relations assume a certain immediacy.

The granddaughter says in English: “Of course we are suspicious of the Chinese. We don’t like them.” Her grandmother, in Vietnamese, says the same.

Opinions are almost uniformly negative. The night before, a leading journalist recently returned from the Asean Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Vientiane explained: “We cooperate in business and economics, but when it comes to sovereignty, we fight.”

China asks Vietnam to investigate passport defaced with obscenity

It will be interesting to see how Asean comes to terms with an increasingly assertive China.

Could the Vietnamese, with thousands of years of living with China, provide the best template?

In 40AD, Vietnam’s most celebrated national heroines, the Tru’ng Sisters, led a revolt on the backs of war elephants against the Han dynasty. In the 1400s, the nobleman Le Loi drove out the Ming armies, establishing Vietnam’s longest-ruling dynasty. And Vietnam’s hardy soldiers repelled invading Chinese troops in 1979.


Watch: Protesters torch Chinese factories after South China Sea dispute escalated

Memories of these conflicts remain deeply embedded in the Vietnamese consciousness. But Vietnamese culture has been heavily influenced by China.

Chinese was the language of imperial Vietnam’s courts, literature and elite. Today, the Temple of Confucius in Hanoi is featured on the back of the 100,000 dong banknote.

Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi (left) introduces his entourage to Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang. Photo: AFP


China is Vietnam’s largest trading partner, accounting for 30 per cent of its imports. In Hanoi’s busiest fabric markets, most of the cloth sold is from China. You’ll see “Made in China” stamps on books, bowls, belts, and everything in between. Even Hanoi’s latest infrastructure megaproject, the US$553 million Hanoi Metro, is to be built by Chinese investors.

But the shared history has left the Vietnamese extremely wary of their northern neighbour. In 2014 anti-Chinese protests erupted after China deployed an oil rig in a disputed part of the South China Sea.

‘We must defend our territorial integrity’: Vietnamese prime minister refers to South China Sea dispute after being re-elected

So what is the way forward for China and Asean, especially for countries with a mixed bag of ties with Beijing?

One thing to recognise is that the past matters. Yes, China is an economic reality. But one cannot expect Asean to fall into line just because of that.

As Dr Tran Cong Truc, former chairman of the government’s Committee on Border Issues says: “People find it very difficult to understand how Vietnam and China can both cooperate on an economic front and fight when it comes to sovereignty. To understand it, you must look at the long history between our two countries.”

Nevertheless, as the craggy former senior military intelligence operative tells me, this doesn’t mean ties must be set in stone. Asked about Vietnam’s warming ties with its cold war nemesis, America, he stresses: “Vietnam will support any country that supports its sovereignty.”

Vietnam has common concern with the Philippines, as the protesters outside the Philippines embassy in Hanoi show. Photo: Reuters


One can detect a sense of frustration in Vietnamese officials like Tran on Asean’s dithering on the South China Sea: “When the house of a neighbour is on fire, you don’t ignore it and think, ‘Oh that’s his fire, it’s not going to spread’. If you don’t cooperate, the fire will destroy us all…I really appreciate that the Philippines brought the South China Sea issue to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. We believe that measures like this with Asean are our best route to resolving the issue while ensuring the stability and prosperity of the region.”

China will certainly pay a price if it continues its heavy-handedness in Southeast Asia. As Asean countries weigh up their national interest, there’s no doubt that Vietnam’s model – of shadow-boxing and constant vigilance – will become the norm.

In fact, it may be the best way forward if the region wants to maintain its autonomy. The rest of Asean can certainly learn from how Vietnam preserved both its independence and honour for so long.

 

[gambit]

Don't forget that they already built hangars for 72 fighter jets in those islands, so they can already have a substantial air force there, on location. Their H-6K bombers already started to patrol the area and they are armed with long range anti ship missiles.

Make it difficult for China to access those islands and those aircrafts will leave.

How much do you think it will cost China to maintain those garrisons ?

Take a look at the GB-Argentina war.

The HMS Conqueror was not in territorial or even familiar water, but after the Conqueror sank the Argentine cruiser Belgrano, the Argentine navy essentially confined itself to port. On the other hand, because the Royal Navy was not in territorial or familiar waters, and Argentine air forces were range limited, their respective air forces essentially stalemated each other, leaving the conflict practically sea based with advantages to the Brits since they have a superior navy.

China's naval air power is not to the Brits' and that is why the stationing of those land based aircrafts are necessary but it is also costly and those costs will be immediate, not to say anything about how much it will be in the long run assuming the generosity that China will be able to impose a peace of her own condition. But if access to those aircrafts are perceived to be difficult in the long term, the estimated combined cost of the PLAN supplying those garrisons, fueling those aircrafts, cycling troops thru, and many other items, those aircrafts will not be there for long. You do not create a garrison without a long term plan to sustain that garrison. This is not the old days where military garrisons were expected to 'live off the land', or in this case -- the sea.

For now, the ship is the main and crucial weapon for control of the SCS.

 

[Carlosa]

Make it difficult for China to access those islands and those aircrafts will leave.

How much do you think it will cost China to maintain those garrisons ?

Take a look at the GB-Argentina war.

The HMS Conqueror was not in territorial or even familiar water, but after the Conqueror sank the Argentine cruiser Belgrano, the Argentine navy essentially confined itself to port. On the other hand, because the Royal Navy was not in territorial or familiar waters, and Argentine air forces were range limited, their respective air forces essentially stalemated each other, leaving the conflict practically sea based with advantages to the Brits since they have a superior navy.

China's naval air power is not to the Brits' and that is why the stationing of those land based aircrafts are necessary but it is also costly and those costs will be immediate, not to say anything about how much it will be in the long run assuming the generosity that China will be able to impose a peace of her own condition. But if access to those aircrafts are perceived to be difficult in the long term, the estimated combined cost of the PLAN supplying those garrisons, fueling those aircrafts, cycling troops thru, and many other items, those aircrafts will not be there for long. You do not create a garrison without a long term plan to sustain that garrison. This is not the old days where military garrisons were expected to 'live off the land', or in this case -- the sea.

For now, the ship is the main and crucial weapon for control of the SCS.

You are very right, just recently, one corner of Fiery Cross collapsed into the sea and they had to fix it. Typhoon season just got started. The force of the waves hitting those islands are going to make sure that they'll have to keep repairing them all the time, but I'm afraid that they are willing to pay the cost of that whole adventure, at least for now while they have plenty of money and resources. For how long, we'll see.

For now, the ship is the main and crucial weapon for control of the SCS.

And since they have a big advantage in surface forces that Vietnam can't possibly change, the countermeasure is subs, Vietnam needs to keep buying those.