Vietnam Defence Forum

[Viet]

Why would we deploy Su-30 in the Spratly Islands then? In time of war, these islands will be obliterated in dozens of minutes, hours top, no matter they're under Chinese or Vietnamese control.

The extension of Spratly runway is likely to accommodate medium transport like C-295M, for a better logistic support. Currently we have only DHC-6, Mi-17 and Super Puma for light cargo and personnel, while heavier bulk cargos have to be transported by ships.

Having combat aircraft in Spratlys is a political posture by military means. By no means I thought of basing fighter jets on islands in war time.

 

[Silent Knight]

Having combat aircraft in Spratlys is a political posture by military means. By no means I thought of basing fighter jets on islands in war time.

Don't you think that the fielding of EXTRA systems (allegedly) and medium-range SAM (SPYDER for example) would carry the same posture, while keeping our forces in good condition?

We simply don't have enough aircraft and manufacturing capabilities to base some of them there.

 

[Viet]

Don't you think that the fielding of EXTRA systems (allegedly) and medium-range SAM (SPYDER for example) would carry the same posture, while keeping our forces in good condition?

We simply don't have enough aircraft and manufacturing capabilities to base some of them there.

Sure, Extra carries a political message. Having Su-30 in Spratlys carries the same intention. It is all about political posture by military means. It is not about preparation for war, but sending out a message. Haven't you remembered you believe there won't be any war in the next 20 years? I remember some Chinese agreed to that. Though It is not because the Chinese suddenly love peace but they think are not strong enough now to attack Vietnam but in 20 years they can. By then when America as Superpower is long buried in cemetery.

The distance between Bien Hoa airbase, where the Su-30 regiment stations, to Spratlys is more than 600 km. Not necessary to base fighter jets permanently in Spratlys, it is sufficient to have them on rotating basis. It will save time, fuel and expand aircraft operating radius. Last but not least, having the jets in the middle of the zone will sabotage any Chinese attempt to establish ADIZ over the South China Sea.

 

[GS Zhou]

Haven't you remembered you believe there won't be any war in the next 20 years? I remember some Chinese agreed to that. Though It is not because the Chinese suddenly love peace but they think are not strong enough now to attack Vietnam but in 20 years they can. By then when America as Superpower is long buried in cemetery.

I guess I'm the Chinese you refer to? I once said on this thread that there is no possibility for a war between China and Vietnam in the short to medium future. I made the statement because I do believe a peaceful environment is better for China's interests.

So what do you think I should predict for the future between China and Vietnam? I said no war between us in future, and you interpret this as China "fears" of the "mighty" military forces of Vietnam; but if I say China will make an attack on Vietnam, you definitely will tell every one of this thread that "look, this guy holds a bottomless hate towards Vietnam"

 

[Aqsuperman]

Hey people always have reasons to kill one another for centuries, why it must be different now. Just hope that we all gone by the time it happen. Now let just enjoy comic, movie, foods and have a healthy discussion........at least try to lol.

VPA use of rocket artillery. Good range, short firing time and sh*tload of fire. Just a bit lacking in accuracy though.

 

[Silent Knight]

...

I'll stress it again: We don't have enough aircraft or manufacturing capabilities to base our Su-30MK2V there. Why? Because even though you can deploy them on a rotating basis, the rate of corrosion will be much higher than normal operation, not to mention the extra fuel you need to store there.

China can do that, because they can produce their own J-11 and J-16, which means they can simply repair or even replace any damage aircraft, that is way faster than procuring batches of fighters like us.

Anyway, here's an unexpected passenger on our Su-30MK2V

 

[Viet]

I guess I'm the Chinese you refer to? I once said on this thread that there is no possibility for a war between China and Vietnam in the short to medium future. I made the statement because I do believe a peaceful environment is better for China's interests.

So what do you think I should predict for the future between China and Vietnam? I said no war between us in future, and you interpret this as China "fears" of the "mighty" military forces of Vietnam; but if I say China will make an attack on Vietnam, you definitely will tell every one of this thread that "look, this guy holds a bottomless hate towards Vietnam"

ha ha ha yes, you are right you are one of the "Chinese" I referred to. but hell no, I never said China "fears" of Vietnam, but implied if attacking Vietnam right now, China would suffer too high own casualties with little chance of success. however given the widening gap of military disparity, you will have overwhelming military power in 20 years. understandably the success rate would be higher. a total sea blockade of Vietnam would be a realistic scenario. like how the US naval fleets blockaded North Vietnam from the sea during the war.

I said with reasons you develop "sometimes" bottomless hatred on Vietnam. though I´m too tired to talk on history, but I give an example. in the all-out war against the Kingdom of Champa, the Cham army invaded Vietnam 10 times. their armies successfully conquered the capital Hanoi 2 times. in our darkest hours, when Vietnam as country and ethnicity was at stake, you did very little to nothing to help Vietnam but encouraged our enemy. some could guess you wished us to end in the gas chambers. anyway as an optimistic person I see a bright future to our nations. see how Germany and Israel have come along. Cheers!

I'll stress it again: We don't have enough aircraft or manufacturing capabilities to base our Su-30MK2V there. Why? Because even though you can deploy them on a rotating basis, the rate of corrosion will be much higher than normal operation, not to mention the extra fuel you need to store there.

China can do that, because they can produce their own J-11 and J-16, which means they can simply repair or even replace any damage aircraft, that is way faster than procuring batches of fighters like us.

Anyway, here's an unexpected passenger on our Su-30MK2V

ok you have the point. I just expressed my personal opinion. I may be wrong.

 

[Silent Knight]

ok you have the point. I just expressed my personal opinion. I may be wrong.

Well, opinions are welcome, I just like to have some debates then

Given the advancement of coastal-based anti-ship missile systems, I doubt that a total blockage would be enforced in case of war.

 

[GS Zhou]

Given the advancement of coastal-based anti-ship missile systems, I doubt that a total blockage would be enforced in case of war.

advancement of coastal-based anti-ship missiles? Hmm... only the K300P operated by the 681 brigade could be called as advanced.

This Russian system has a range of 300 km with hi-low trajectory, the figure looks nice. But high trajectory poses almost zero threat to a modern navy fleet. So low-low trajectory is a more likely choice in war time. But in this option, the range down to 120km. Too short.

In addition, the missile launch vehicles could be hidden in caves, so it is a bit challenge for the opponent to detect and destroy the launch vehicles. But the supporting radar systems has no where to hide. For any military forces with strong battlefield sensing capabilities, these radar systems, no matter fixed or truck-mounted, are very nice targets for their ARM missiles, cruise missiles, or short-range ballistic missiles.

 

[Carlosa]

advancement of coastal-based anti-ship missiles? Hmm... only the K300P operated by the 681 brigade could be called as advanced.

This Russian system has a range of 300 km with hi-low trajectory, the figure looks nice. But high trajectory poses almost zero threat to a modern navy fleet. So low-low trajectory is a more likely choice in war time. But in this option, the range down to 120km. Too short.

In addition, the missile launch vehicles could be hidden in caves, so it is a bit challenge for the opponent to detect and destroy the launch vehicles. But the supporting radar systems has no where to hide. For any military forces with strong battlefield sensing capabilities, these radar systems, no matter fixed or truck-mounted, are very nice targets for their ARM missiles, cruise missiles, or short-range ballistic missiles.

Very true but lets also not forget that there are air defense systems protecting those assets.

 

[Silent Knight]

advancement of coastal-based anti-ship missiles? Hmm... only the K300P operated by the 681 brigade could be called as advanced.

This Russian system has a range of 300 km with hi-low trajectory, the figure looks nice. But high trajectory poses almost zero threat to a modern navy fleet. So low-low trajectory is a more likely choice in war time. But in this option, the range down to 120km. Too short.

In addition, the missile launch vehicles could be hidden in caves, so it is a bit challenge for the opponent to detect and destroy the launch vehicles. But the supporting radar systems has no where to hide. For any military forces with strong battlefield sensing capabilities, these radar systems, no matter fixed or truck-mounted, are very nice targets for their ARM missiles, cruise missiles, or short-range ballistic missiles.

Well, even the aging P-15U and P-21 would be better than coastal artillery, right?

And don't forget the Redut system with P-35B Progress missile. It's currently our longest range ASM with 450-550 km range, of course with high trajectory. Since rumors don't count, I'll leave out the Bal-E and BrahMos.

It might come down to the tactical usage and doctrine of both side then.

 

[GS Zhou]

Well, even the aging P-15U and P-21 would be better than coastal artillery, right?

It depends on whom you are fighting with. Coastal artillery is at least immune to electric warfare or the loss of radar stations.

And don't forget the Redut system with P-35B Progress missile. It's currently our longest range ASM with 450-550 km range, of course with high trajectory. Since rumors don't count, I'll leave out the Bal-E and BrahMos.

you mean the 4K44 systems operated by the 679 brigade? It could be deadly if launch it against Cambodia, but we are certainly NOT talking about a conflict against a small country like Cambodia.

450 to 550 km range is just the figures put on paper! To achieve this range in war time, you at least need to make sure you have the 550km-range radars survived.

BTW, in the past decade, has Vietnam ever made any full-range, or close to full range test of the 4K44 missiles in any kinds of military drills? Do you have any clue about this?

 

[Silent Knight]

It depends on whom you are fighting with. Coastal artillery is at least immune to electric warfare or the loss of radar stations.


you mean the 4K44 systems operated by the 679 brigade? It could be deadly if launch it against Cambodia, but we are certainly NOT talking about a conflict against a small country like Cambodia.

450 to 550 km range is just the figures put on paper! To achieve this range in war time, you at least need to make sure you have the 550km-range radars survived.

BTW, in the past decade, has Vietnam ever made any full-range, or close to full range test of the 4K44 missiles in any kinds of military drills? Do you have any clue about this?

For me, coastal artillery is the last resort against an amphibious attack which I believe the Chinese Navy would not attempt in Vietnamese mainland. Our longest-range gun is the M-46 130mm at 25-27 km, or D-44 85mm at 15 km for direct fire. Who would come into the range of those guns if they don't want an amphibious attack and/or shore bombardment?

Certainly we would not use the 4K44 against Cambodia. During war time, we'll need everything we have, meaning these aging systems as well. Since we are not at war and there are many classified information on both sides, the best assumption is made based on paper figures.

As for the actual exercise, unfortunately, I do not have solid evidence or credible document for you. Of course, verbal confirmation doesn't count either, so let's just say that there was no official test fire in recent years.

 

[Viet]

It depends on whom you are fighting with. Coastal artillery is at least immune to electric warfare or the loss of radar stations.

you talk as if electronic warfare is invented by China, and something new to Vietnam. in case you haven´t noticed, during the Vietnam war the US armed forces short of nuclear weapons had used all military means in the inventory, from aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, strategic bombers including all sorts of combat and transport aircraft, helicopters, several millions of US ground troops having all sort of artilleries, tanks and combat vehicles. of course, the US fighting forces resorted to electronic countermeasures for instance against North Vietnamese missile threats.

 

[GS Zhou]

you talk as if electronic warfare is invented by China, and something new to Vietnam. in case you haven´t noticed, during the Vietnam war the US armed forces short of nuclear weapons had used all military means in the inventory, from aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, strategic bombers including all sorts of combat and transport aircraft, helicopters, several millions of US ground troops having all sort of artilleries, tanks and combat vehicles. of course, the US fighting forces resorted to electronic countermeasures for instance against North Vietnamese missile threats.

When can you understand that the glory in the past is NEVER the guarantee of the victory in the future. Want to win the EW war in the future? Good, ask your scientists to do more relevant research. Brag the past victory has no real meaning at all.

Anyway, I fully respect the Vietnam soldiers that sacrificed in the Vietnam war. Many Chinese soldiers were sacrificed for this as well.