Vietnam Defence Forum

[Viet]

Japanese helicopter carrier J.S. Izumo, destroyer J.S. Sazanami in Camranh bay

 

[Viet]

The bay has become logistical and supply base for all friendly navies.

@Suika

US aircraft carriers and accompanying warships submarines, destroyers and cruisers are welcome to dock at the bay for resupply of food, freshwater, fuel. You can also receive repair and maintenance. We charge at very competitive prices.

 

[Suika]

Camranh Bay will see many friendly ships in years to come.

 

[Carlosa]

A nice picture of Southwest cay (Đảo Song Tử Tây) in the Spratly Islands:

 

[TenLua]

No Tank won't be obsolete. It is and will be the king on the ground. Tank is offensive weapon, but it only works best if conjunction with infantry, artillery and airforce. Sending tanks into uncovered territory is suicide, unless your tanks are well protected and move fast. RPG armed enemy regiments pose great risk to tanks for sure, but are many examples where tanks overran enemy heavy defensive positions. The decisive battle of Berlin in WW II came to my mind, where one million man army of deutsche wehrmacht were annihilated by repeated massive onslaughts of Soviet tank armies.

Or during the Vietnam war, the north Vietnamese launched a massive surprise attack with more than 300 tanks supported by infantry and artillery against the southern republican army in the DMZ. The Easter offensive of 1972. despite having more than 1,000 tanks, south Vietnamese army was overrun and were in full retreat, until US jumped in stopping North Vietnamese offensive by massive bombing raids.

Not many pictures were available. Supported by artillery fire, North Vietnamese T54/55 tanks moved into the position before the battle.

View attachment 398265
View attachment 398264

View attachment 398267

Perhaps I rushed to stating tanks are obsolete. I was too near sighted when I said that.

With that said, for tanks to be effective a nation will have to dedicate too much resources and elements of their military into reinforcing it. Tanks cost a lot of resources and manufacturing capabilities to produce. My point is, it just isn't worth it.

Yes, tanks have had victories that are decisive in the past, victories such as those you've mention; the battle of Berlin. But that came at a costly price for the soviet in both men and machinery when compared to losses by Germany. What I think is that the Soviet at the time were either too committed to their tank ground game or was unable to switch to a more effective air game. Their T-34 at the beginning of the war were the best on the field until German tiger tanks were fielded which were nearly invincible to the T-34. Even so, the soviet still allocated their resources into producing a vastly outclassed tank. The Soviet were in a fight for survival while Germany was fighting a multiple front war. Would you agree that had the Soviet redirected those resources and manpower into say.... something like the German multi-purpose tank killer/aircraft killer 88mm gun, their victory would have come cheaper in every aspect?

I would say tanks are the best in maintaining conquered contested territory, they're no longer effective in assaults when both side have comparable firepower. They are simply too bulky and slow for the modern battlefield.

You forgot about tanks with APS, good luck trying to hit them in open terrain.
In 2006, an Israeli Merkaba tank with the Trophy APS system defeated 7 anti tank missiles from Hezbollah.

Well, there was a case where merkavas were trapped in a ravine and was completely destroyed by RPG's. One tank out of hundreds lucky enough to survive is still a pretty bad ratio.

Tanks with APS such as electronic jamming and passive counter explosives have weaknesses easily exploited by a competent RPG crew. Angles and none guided munition. Such as those shot from a recoiless rifle or RPG-29. There is nothing to jam.

 

[Carlosa]

, there was a case where merkavas were trapped in a ravine and was completely destroyed by RPG's. One tank out of hundreds lucky enough to survive is still a pretty bad ratio.

Tanks with APS such as electronic jamming and passive counter explosives have weaknesses easily exploited by a competent RPG crew. Angles and none guided munition. Such as those shot from a recoiless rifle or RPG-29. There is nothing to jam.

I made a mistake, the event that I mentioned was not against Hezbollah, it was against Hamas in Gaza. No Israeli tank with Trophy APS system has ever been hit even that Hamas fired lots of Kornet anti tank missiles as well as RPG 29s. The Israeli tank losses were in 2006 against Hezbollah. The Israelis learned from that and in Gaza they only used Merkava 4 tanks with APS and the difference speaks for itself (no Israeli tank was hit).

I think you are confusing things, "electronic jamming and passive counter explosives" and APS are 2 different things. APS systems are active, not passive, they use a radar that detects the incoming missile or anti tank round and then fires a projectile to intercept it.

 

[Viet]

The buzz

Is Vietnam Really Planning on Bringing Back 50-Year-Old American Fighter Planes?

Michael Peck
May 21, 2017


Is Vietnam really planning to refurbish its fleet of fifty-year-old U.S.-made F-5 fighters captured from South Vietnam? Or is this just a Russian ploy to spur Vietnam to buy Moscow’s warplanes, amid growing speculation that Hanoi may turn to the West for aircraft?

At stake are the F-5s captured in 1975 when North Vietnam’s Soviet-equipped armies conquered South Vietnam. Among the spoils of war seized by Hanoi was a vast array of U.S.-supplied tanks, artillery and rifles (including nearly a million M-16s). The finds were so great that unified Vietnam became one of the most well-armed nations on the planet in the mid-1970s. The haul also included eighty-seven F-5A Freedom Fighters and twenty-seven F-5E Tiger IIs, part of the Northrop (now Northrop Grumman) F-5 line of lightweight, low-cost fighters that the United States exported to numerous third-world nations during the Cold War.

Vietnam sent a few F-5s to the Soviet bloc for evaluation (where Soviet pilots were reportedly impressed with the Tiger II’s performance), while some of the remainder flew in support of Hanoi’s 1978 invasion of Cambodia. “The F-5E/Fs were reportedly more popular with their Vietnamese crews than were the Russian-built aircraft that provided the primary strength of the Vietnamese air force, which is a rather unique testimonial,” states one aviation website. “They were particularly appreciative of the comfortable cockpits and the ease of handling of the F-5. However, the lack of spare parts and replacements gradually took its toll, and led to a need for cannibalization and to the gradual reduction of the numbers of F-5Es available for service.”

In fact, Vietnam’s F-5 fleet is thought to have been totally grounded, a rusting footnote to a long-ago war. Until this week, when Russian media site Sputnik News published a story titled “What Possible Revival of ‘Tiger’ Fighter Jets Could Mean for Vietnam’s Aviation.” The story cited “Vietnamese media” reports that Hanoi is considering bringing back the F-5.

That came as a surprise to some Western analysts. “My understanding was that the F-5s were really beyond repair,” said Zachary Abuza, a professor at the U.S. National War College who studies Southeast Asian security. “I was in Vietnam last month, and no one even raised this as a possibility.”

Most interesting was that the Sputnik story was more than a simple news report on what would seem to be a minor Asian aviation issue. Instead, the story featured an analysis by a Russian military expert. Analyst Makar Aksenenko suggested that Israeli companies might perform the refurbishment, as they did for Thailand’s F-5s. He also saw it as a way for the Vietnamese Air Force “in a short time and quite cheaply manage to obtain a battle-worthy reserve for replenishing the fleet of attack aircraft.”

However, the article also concluded that refurbished F-5s would only be an emergency measure that would still leave Vietnam with a need for modern aircraft. Vietnam currently flies about forty Russian Su-27 and Su-30 aircraft, a number that has been depleted by several recent crashes—and a small quantity compared to its neighbor and rival China.

“Vietnam has publicly been in the market for trainers and new squadrons of fighters for a while,” Abuza says. “I kind of assumed that it would be a no brainer for them to get more Sukhois because of cost, values, reliability and familiarity. But that they are taking so long to make the decision may be making folks in Moscow nervous.”

In fact, there have been reports over the last few years that Vietnam is interested in buying U.S. and European military aircraft. In May 2016, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. arms embargo on Vietnam had been fully lifted.

“Vietnam is one of Russia’s largest arms purchasers, if not the largest in recent years, and I am sure that Moscow wants it to stay that way,” says Abuza.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

Image: F-5E Tiger II. Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons/Peng Chen

 

[Viet]

Phu Quoc island

Until recently the island is almost unknown, but it now becomes important in the strategic calculus, getting it to monitor the sea lane traffic between the SC Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Also, an ideal place to keep an eye on Thai submarines. Vietnamese and foreign investors will invest $16,7 billion into the island infrastructure. We can expect the island's naval base will get a facelift too, although all modernization will go unnoticed from the public. As usual.

The way to go

 

[Viet]

Perhaps I rushed to stating tanks are obsolete. I was too near sighted when I said that.

With that said, for tanks to be effective a nation will have to dedicate too much resources and elements of their military into reinforcing it. Tanks cost a lot of resources and manufacturing capabilities to produce. My point is, it just isn't worth it.

Yes, tanks have had victories that are decisive in the past, victories such as those you've mention; the battle of Berlin. But that came at a costly price for the soviet in both men and machinery when compared to losses by Germany. What I think is that the Soviet at the time were either too committed to their tank ground game or was unable to switch to a more effective air game. Their T-34 at the beginning of the war were the best on the field until German tiger tanks were fielded which were nearly invincible to the T-34. Even so, the soviet still allocated their resources into producing a vastly outclassed tank. The Soviet were in a fight for survival while Germany was fighting a multiple front war. Would you agree that had the Soviet redirected those resources and manpower into say.... something like the German multi-purpose tank killer/aircraft killer 88mm gun, their victory would have come cheaper in every aspect?

I would say tanks are the best in maintaining conquered contested territory, they're no longer effective in assaults when both side have comparable firepower. They are simply too bulky and slow for the modern battlefield.



Well, there was a case where merkavas were trapped in a ravine and was completely destroyed by RPG's. One tank out of hundreds lucky enough to survive is still a pretty bad ratio.

Tanks with APS such as electronic jamming and passive counter explosives have weaknesses easily exploited by a competent RPG crew. Angles and none guided munition. Such as those shot from a recoiless rifle or RPG-29. There is nothing to jam.

It is always bad to underestimate the enemy. The Russians developed T34 tank in absolute secrecy. The Germans had no clue of the new tank, were arrogant in thinking the Russians belonged to untermensch, hence never be able to produce sophisticated tank. When the Wehrmacht approached Moscow, T34 tanks joined the battle, the german armed forces were shocked because no antitank gun was able to penetrate T34 armor, worse, light german tanks were destroyed en mass. Well the rest is history.

Sure the Germans developed new tanks as Tiger and other tank versions to deal with T34, but the Russian tank with a new powerful main gun could destroy all German tanks at close distance. Worst, the Russians produced T34 in large numbers, replacing all lost tanks in no time.

 

[xiao qi]

Phu Quoc island

Until recently the island is almost unknown, but it now becomes important in the strategic calculus, getting it to monitor the sea lane traffic between the SC Sea and Gulf of Thailand. Also, an ideal place to keep an eye on Thai submarines. Vietnamese and foreign investors will invest $16,7 billion into the island infrastructure. We can expect the island's naval base will get a facelift too, although all modernization will go unnoticed from the public. As usual.

The way to go

View attachment 398499

so beautiful I hope one day I can come to the great island, I usually spend my time to see information about the construction of Phu Quoc, the picture you uploaded belong to JW Marriott. I doubt about the military base on this island, We should not use the island for military purpose, only tourism

 

[Viet]

so beautiful I hope one day I can come to the great island, I usually spend my time to see information about the construction of Phu Quoc, the picture you uploaded belong to JW Marriott. I doubt about the military base on this island, We should not use the island for military purpose, only tourism

Nobody can live in peace if you are attacked. Since the red Khmer ran amok invading Phu Quoc in the 1970s, the island is heavily fortified. There is a huge naval presence on the island although there aren't much pictures.

 

[xiao qi]

Nobody can live in peace if you are attacked. Since the red Khmer ran amok invading Phu Quoc in the 1970s, the island is heavily fortified. There is a huge naval presence on the island although there aren't much pictures.

View attachment 398555 View attachment 398556
View attachment 398557

The Khmer have no gut to attack these island again, If we exchange the island to become a military base It make the tourist have the unsafe feeling in their mind, I recommend the next island to Phu Quoc is Tho Chu, It even near Khmer than,and have more advantages to become a fortress.

 

[Viet]

The Khmer have no gut to attack these island again, If we exchange the island to become a military base It make the tourist have the unsafe feeling in their mind, I recommend the next island to Phu Quoc is Tho Chu, It even near Khmer than,and have more advantages to become a fortress.

No worry sis, the Navy just occupies a small part of the island, which has nearly the size of Singapore. 4 million Chinese tourists will expectedly come to Vietnam this year, most visit Nha Trang. The nearby major naval base Camranh bay with more warships than sharks in the water apparently don't deter the Chinese too much.

Ah apropos ships. The US thru her ambassador to Vietnam Ted Osius hands over the first batch of 6 highspeed patrol boats, Metal Shark 45, to the Coast Guard. Nice stuff.

 

[xiao qi]

No worry sis, the Navy just occupies a small part of the island, which has nearly the size of Singapore. 4 million Chinese tourists will expectedly come to Vietnam this year, most visit Nha Trang. The nearby major naval base Camranh bay with more warships than sharks in the water apparently don't deter the Chinese too much.

Do you know the news from Kara cannal? Is it real or a joke? I sometimes hear about a new port in Vietnam, If I dont have the mistake, It named as Hon Khoai in Kien Giang province. Singapore and Malay are not fancy for this project in Thailand and support for the South Thai terrorism. If the project will become, I think It can affect to the island like Phu Quoc

 

[Farhan Bohra]

Can anybody translate this? Indian Embassy send this article to Vietnamese Govt last month. This is very weird, too much weird. I dont know the purpose of such acts.

Thông cáo báo chí

PSLV-C37 phóng thành công cùng lúc 104 vệ tinh

Vào 09:28 sáng hôm nay (giờ địa phương), ISRO (Tổ chức nghiên cứu vũ trụ Ấn Độ) đã phóng thành công vệ tinh Cartosat-2 nặng 714 kg cùng 103 vệ tinh khác bằng tên lửa đẩy PSLV-C37 từ Trung tâm Hàng không Vũ trụ Satish Dhawan, Sriharikota.


Đây là lần phóng nhiều vệ tinh cùng lúc nhất từ trước đến nay trên thế giới. Thủ tướng Narendra Modi đã gửi lời chúc mừng tới cộng đồng nghiên cứu khoa học vũ trụ và đất nước Ấn Độ vì thành tựu đáng tự hào này.


Đây là lần phóng thành công thứ 38 liên tiếp của tên lửa đẩy PSLV. Toàn bộ 104 vệ tinh đã tách khỏi tên lửa thành công trong giai đoạn 4 và đi vào quỹ đạo định sẵn. Tổng số vệ tinh của Ấn Độ phóng bởi PSLV hiện nay là 46.


Dữ liệu hình ảnh thu từ vệ tinh Cartosat-2 sẽ được dùng cho các ứng dụng bản đồ khu vực nội đô và ngoại thành, vùng bờ biển hoặc để quản lý hạ tầng như giám sát mạng lưới giao thông, hệ thống cấp nước, dò tìm lỗi nhằm cung cấp đặc điểm địa lý và nhân tạo cùng các ứng dụng Hệ thống thông tin Mặt đất (LIS) và Hệ thống thông tin Địa lý (GIS) khác. Các nhóm dữ liệu này có thể dùng cho việc quy hoạch đô thị của 500 thành phố theo kế hoạch quy hoạch Amrut. Vệ tinh nano của ISRO, INS-1 và INS-2 cũng được đưa lên quỹ đạo.

Ngoài ra, 101 vệ tinh nano từ 6 nước khác được phóng vào vùng không gian quốc tế, trong đó có 96 vệ tinh của Mỹ; các nước Israel, Kazakhstan, Các Tiểu Vương quốc Ả Rập Thống nhất (UAE), Hà Lan và Thụy Sỹ mỗi nước một vệ tinh. Cùng với lần phóng thành công ngày hôm nay, tổng số vệ tinh nước ngoài được tên lửa PSLV của Ấn Độ phóng dịch vụ là 180.


Nhiệm vụ lần này đối mặt với nhiều thách thức phức tạp về công nghệ như việc phóng cùng lúc một lượng lớn vệ tinh trong khoảng thời gian định sẵn. Ngoài ra, phải đảm bảo cả 104 vệ tinh đi vào quỹ đạo riêng biệt và phải duy trì được vệ tinh trên quỹ đạo về sau. Nhờ lần phóng này, ISRO đã nâng cao hơn uy tín của mình, chứng minh được mình là đối tác tin cậy tiên phong trong ngành khoa học vũ trụ.


One of my friend told me, such acts are deliberate attempts to target specific officials in Govt. inside Vietnam.

With this article, they also attached a "open-source" sat image.

Here is the original article I think

http://www.india-consulate.org.vn/v...-thanh-cong-104-ve-tinh-chi-voi-mot-lan-phong