Vietnam Defence Forum

[Carlosa]

The later news reveal that the UH1 was under maintenance in USA in 2012 which is unknown to me before. And UH1 fleet was abandoned until 1995 when they started to fly again, coincidentally to the beginning of new relation between Vietnam and USA, 20 years ago.
Something still flowing fluently under the surface which sometime we can't estimate.

Recently, it sprung to mind that delivery of 5 patrol speedboat done confirmed by US official, while we still have no any photo on them. It's totally different to the delivery of Haiphong submarine.

I am waiting for other pleasant surprises from the relation between Vietnam and USA, and US allies, especially after arm ban lift, everything changes rapidly after that.

I'm also waiting for other pleasant surprises, cough..... F......16.......cough, cough.......

 

[Viet]

Well, a training course could also be just a way to learn more about the weapon system before making a decision.

if we want to learn about new weapon systems, then we go to exhibitions. but if we send our people to train on Aster-30, then the likelyhood is high, we (will) have it.
I once work a engineer for a internet company, operating routers and switches of Cisco systems. the firm sent me a for week to San Francisco for training. the company would not have sent me at all to America, if we did not possess Cisco equippments.

No, no new info about the 4500 ton frigates, but I doubt that there will be destroyers after those, I think those heavy frigates fulfill the destroyer role.

since ancient times, vietnamese military doctrine is to get on par with chinese. I don´t know how our navy could handle the chinese navy without destroyers? heavy frigates are good, but they can only be the beginning. the PLA begins to build up with fleets of destroyers and carriers, how can we stop them? with the current assets we have no chance.

 

[Viet]

I hope we will not wait too long until the navy gets the first destroyers. but meanwhile hey we have here a vietnamese on a destroyer: Hung Ba Le, once the commander of USS Lassen, a guided missile 9,200 tons destroyer.

 

[BoQ77]

since ancient times, vietnamese military doctrine is to get on par with chinese. I don´t know how our navy could handle the chinese navy without destroyers? heavy frigates are good, but they can only be the beginning. the PLA begins to build up with fleets of destroyers and carriers, how can we stop them? with the current assets we have no chance.

Missile technology. to Vietnam bigger warships only for durable all weather operation at sea. They are not there to be targets and manage hardly to protect themselves.

Sea missile launching platforms or ASW are the name. Destroyers stand for providing more effective air defense ability to aircraft carrier groups.

DF-21A was there as China anti access weapon. But that's not perfect.
Antiship coastal cruise missiles with 500-600 kilometer of range or 300 kilometers of range launched from air are key.

No country has enough destroyers for oversaturated attack by cruise missiles. It's cheaper too.

N. Korea own long range ballistic missiles but this is the latest development of them ( which Vietnam following for long time )

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was on-site to observe the successful testing of the “ultra-precision” rocket conducted by the country’s East Sea fleet, the North’s official Korean Central News Agency said. The official Rodong Sinmunnewspaper published front-page photos of Kim watching a missile being fired off a naval vessel, although the state media outlets did not mention the time or location of the exercise.

Yang Uk, a Seoul-based security expert and an adviser to South Korea’s Navy, said the North Korean missile looked similar to Russia’s KH-35 anti-ship missile, which has a range of about 130-140 kilometres (81-87 miles) and is capable of travelling at high speeds while staying close to the sea’s surface.

North Korea began importing KH-35 missiles in the mid-2000s and the test-firing suggests that the country has succeeded in producing missiles of similar design domestically, Mr. Yang said.

 

[Viet]

destroyer "Panteleyev" along with 2 supplement ships of Russia Pacific Fleet is scheduled to visit Cam Ranh bay on 14/2.

 

[Viet]

Missile technology. to Vietnam bigger warships only for durable all weather operation at sea. They are not there to be targets and manage hardly to protect themselves.

Sea missile launching platforms or ASW are the name. Destroyers stand for providing more effective air defense ability to aircraft carrier groups.

DF-21A was there as China anti access weapon. But that's not perfect.
Antiship coastal cruise missiles with 500-600 kilometer of range or 300 kilometers of range launched from air are key.

No country has enough destroyers for oversaturated attack by cruise missiles. It's cheaper too.

N. Korea own long range ballistic missiles but this is the latest development of them ( which Vietnam following for long time )

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was on-site to observe the successful testing of the “ultra-precision” rocket conducted by the country’s East Sea fleet, the North’s official Korean Central News Agency said. The official Rodong Sinmunnewspaper published front-page photos of Kim watching a missile being fired off a naval vessel, although the state media outlets did not mention the time or location of the exercise.

Yang Uk, a Seoul-based security expert and an adviser to South Korea’s Navy, said the North Korean missile looked similar to Russia’s KH-35 anti-ship missile, which has a range of about 130-140 kilometres (81-87 miles) and is capable of travelling at high speeds while staying close to the sea’s surface.

North Korea began importing KH-35 missiles in the mid-2000s and the test-firing suggests that the country has succeeded in producing missiles of similar design domestically, Mr. Yang said.

I don´t believe to N. Korea propaganda. they usually tell too much bullshit. KH-35 missiles fly subsonic, can hardly defeat korean destroyers.

you are naive. you assume we can fire on chinese warships, while they will sit still and enjoy the fireworks.
I´m talking on how to protect our surface warships against chinese antiship missiles? the current air defence installed on the Molynia and Gepards are ways too weak, so in case of a confrontation, we cannot afford to send them out.

what we need is multirole destroyers and frigates, that provide protection to our surface warships.

 

[Aepsilons]

what we need is multirole destroyers and frigates, that provide protection to our surface warships.

Pound per pound, i recommend the Sachsen class frigate of the German Navy.

 

[Viet]

Pound per pound, i recommend the Sachsen class frigate of the German Navy.

View attachment 191547

700 million euro a piece.

 

[Carlosa]

since ancient times, vietnamese military doctrine is to get on par with chinese. I don´t know how our navy could handle the chinese navy without destroyers? heavy frigates are good, but they can only be the beginning. the PLA begins to build up with fleets of destroyers and carriers, how can we stop them? with the current assets we have no chance.

Ancient times are a bit different than present times. The Vietnamese navy CAN'T go par on par with the chinese navy. The Vietnamese navy can only play a defensive role. If Vietnam's economy were to be 20 times the size of the present economy, then Vietnam can try to go on a par with china.

Destroyers will not make much difference at all, they will just be big targets that the chinese will love to sink.

Vietnam needs a balanced navy and a heavy frigate (4500 tons) tailored for the air defense role with Aster 15 / 30, but still multi role with full ASW capability fits very well in that balanced navy. It will provide fleet air defense. It will probably cost $500-600 million.

Destroyers are mainly for air defense these days and they are usually multirole. I fail to see what new capability a destroyer will bring with respect to the heavy frigate other than some extra VLS cells. A destroyer is a duplication once you have the heavy frigates. An expensive duplication that will cost at least 1 billion, so what's the point?

Air defense destroyers are for fleet air defense in distant waters (power projection) or for base / land air defense as the Japanese AEGIS destroyers are often used to protect Japanese territory from ballistic missiles. Vietnam has S-300/400 for that role which is better and cheaper. Fleet air defense will be done by the heavy frigates. Power projection far from home is something that VN does not need. So what's the point for those destroyers? What are they going to do?

Vietnam deploys 1 destroyer, the chinese deploy 10.
What about the chinese cruisers and aircraft carriers? Is Vietnam also going to build those types?

China is building the Type 55 cruiser, that thing is a monster, even bigger than American cruisers.
How is the Vietnamese destroyer going to survive against them?
How is the Vietnamese destroyer going to survive against chinese aircraft carrier battle groups?
How is the Vietnamese destroyer going to survive against the many chinese subs running around (around 60)?
How is the Vietnamese destroyer going to survive against a heavy air attack with missile saturation?

Vietnamese destroyer = Nice big, juicy target for the chinese.

Vietnam has limited resources so it needs to spend the money wisely on weapon systems that have the most bang for the dollar. That means aircraft, missiles and subs. Period.

In the battle between anti ship missiles and a ship's air defenses, the missile wins. Supersonic missiles are the way to go, they are difficult to intercept. A saturation missile attack will ALWAYS DESTROY ANY SHIP. An air defense destroyer can only intercept so many missiles at the same time and furthermore, what about when it runs out of missiles?

A SU-34 with 3 Brahmos missiles (later with Brahmos-2 hypersonic) is the way to go.
SU-34=$35 million plus 3 Brahmos at 5 million each for the latest version = $50 million.
That $50 million package can sink your billion dollar destroyer.

Aircraft with the right missiles can challenge the chinese navy. Vietnamese surface ships can only be useful in a defensive role or against a light threat. If the chinese navy sends a whole fleet to the Spratlys, the Viet navy has to stay in port, otherwise it will not survive.

Surface ships can't hide. In a conflict, chinese satellites will monitor the Viet naval bases and will track any ship that leaves port. China has good stand off targeting and launching platforms such as the H-6 bombers armed with long range cruise missiles (2000 km+).

Submarines on the other hand, can challenge the chinese navy. The $300 million Kilo can sink anything including aircraft carriers. Old chinese subs have surfaced next to american aircraft carriers totally undetected in the past.

Unlike surface ships, subs can hide, they are very difficult to detect.

That's why I say that the money needs to go into aircraft, missiles and subs, not destroyers.

Missile technology. to Vietnam bigger warships only for durable all weather operation at sea. They are not there to be targets and manage hardly to protect themselves.

Sea missile launching platforms or ASW are the name. Destroyers stand for providing more effective air defense ability to aircraft carrier groups.

DF-21A was there as China anti access weapon. But that's not perfect.
Antiship coastal cruise missiles with 500-600 kilometer of range or 300 kilometers of range launched from air are key.

No country has enough destroyers for oversaturated attack by cruise missiles. It's cheaper too..

Very correct, good to see that someone understands.

Once Vietnam develops standoff surveillance and targeting capabilities (satellites, etc), then can use land based long range missiles (up to 1000 km) and it can target anything in the Spratlys.
Armed drones also.

 

[BoQ77]

....
you assume we can fire on chinese warships, while they will sit still and enjoy the fireworks.
I´m talking on how to protect our surface warships against chinese antiship missiles? the current air defence installed on the Molynia and Gepards are ways too weak, so in case of a confrontation, we cannot afford to send them out.

what we need is multirole destroyers and frigates, that provide protection to our surface warships.

Vietnam war doctrine, never tell you stay there to be their targets.
It tells you, mobilize, hide, secretly, hit hard and fast. Then move again.
The enemy can't find targets for their missile launchers, they must fight with phantoms.

An exercise show us that one or some Molnya missile boats would deploy offshore and calculate how many missiles must launch to sink targeted destroyer as minimum, ie. 10-12 missiles, after launch at once they retreat.

It's difficult for the state budget to purchase enough destroyers.
2 or 4 ? equal 3 - 6 billion
And they are hardly survived offshore.
Which missiles for their air defence, you name ?
What facilities they should protect? or protect themselves only?

Based on your logic, why don't just deploy the AA, ASh missiles to Spratlys islands.
Let think how many other weapons you could arm for the same amount ( 3 - 6 billion ).

1. Yakhont/Brahmos : 5 million each, you got 200 missiles for 1 billion.
2. For AIP Soryu subs: you could get 6 more with 3 billions.
3. You get 24 more Su30MK2 for 2 billions or as Carlosa 36x Su-34 for 1.5 billions / or Su-35
Total 3 items for about price of 4 destroyers.

I want some more frigates with strong air defense and ASW abilities, 300-330 million each.
And more Bal-E systems, S300, short range AA missiles.
------------

For only 3 billions : I voted for most of them to cruise missiles and AA missiles and of course missile launchers: surface, land ( coastal, island ), air ...

 

[Carlosa]

Pound per pound, i recommend the Sachsen class frigate of the German Navy.

View attachment 191547

Yes, that's a nice ship. For all practical considerations, it can be considered a destroyer or almost a destroyer.
The Sachsen class has 1 Mark 41 VLS system, a big destroyer can have 2, not much difference other than that.

The future Viet heavy frigate will most likely have a very similar capability to the Sachsen class, using also the Smart-L radar, but using Aster missiles instead of the AEGIS missiles.

Vietnam war doctrine, never tell you stay there to be their targets.
It tells you, mobilize, hide, secretly, hit hard and fast. Then move again.
The enemy can't find targets for their missile launchers, they must fight with phantoms.

An exercise show us that one or some Molnya missile boats would deploy offshore and calculate how many missiles must launch to sink targeted destroyer as minimum, ie. 10-12 missiles, after launch at once they retreat.

It's difficult for the state budget to purchase enough destroyers.
2 or 4 ? equal 3 - 6 billion
And they are hardly survived offshore.
Which missiles for their air defence, you name ?
What facilities they should protect? or protect themselves only?

Based on your logic, why don't just deploy the AA, ASh missiles to Spratlys islands.
Let think how many other weapons you could arm for the same amount ( 3 - 6 billion ).

1. Yakhont/Brahmos : 5 million each, you got 200 missiles for 1 billion.
2. For AIP Soryu subs: you could get 6 more with 3 billions.
3. You get 24 more Su30MK2 for 2 billions or as Carlosa 36x Su-34 for 1.5 billions / or Su-35
Total 3 items for about price of 4 destroyers.

I want some more frigates with strong air defense and ASW abilities, 300-330 million each.
And more Bal-E systems, S300, short range AA missiles.
------------

For only 3 billions : I voted for most of them to cruise missiles and AA missiles and of course missile launchers: surface, land ( coastal, island ), air ...

If you asked me, I would build a Molniya type but with full stealth capabilities (but retaining the 18 KH-35) and also a version with 8 Brahmos in 2 quad launchers. I would build lots of them (30 or 40), deploy them using wolf pack tactics and using the benefits of a stand off surveillance and targeting network which would be their long eyes.
That would be very effective.

Coastal batteries with Brahmos and other much longer range missiles.

Plenty of drones with supersonic missiles so that can send drone swarms to do missile saturation attacks.

And more subs, 6 is just a starting point.

By the way, I said SU-34 because its the only one in the SU-30 family than can carry a Brahmos, 3 of them.
The SU-30 can't, it needs to have structural modifications at the factory (when the aircraft is made) in order to carry just 1. The Brahmos is very large and heavy. Brahmos M later on will be ok (Brahmos mini).

 

[BoQ77]

If you asked me, I would build a Molniya type but with full stealth capabilities (but retaining the 18 KH-35) and also a version with 8 Brahmos in 2 quad launchers. I would build lots of them (30 or 40), deploy them using wolf pack tactics and using the benefits of a stand off surveillance and targeting network which would be their long eyes.
That would be very effective.

Coastal batteries with Brahmos and other much longer range missiles.

Plenty of drones with supersonic missiles so that can send drone swarms to do missile saturation attacks.

And more subs, 6 is just a starting point.

By the way, I said SU-34 because its the only one in the SU-30 family than can carry a Brahmos, 3 of them.
The SU-30 can't, it needs to have structural modifications at the factory (when the aircraft is made) in order to carry just 1. The Brahmos is very large and heavy. Brahmos M later on will be ok (Brahmos mini).

That's what Taiwan done with their Tuo Jiang class. It's nice.
Su30MKI adapted successfully to bring 1 Brahmos-A, as this month ITAR-TASS report
( 3 Brahmos-M as planned )

 

[Carlosa]

That's what Taiwan done with their Tuo Jiang class. It's nice.
Su30MKI adapted successfully to bring 3 Brahmos-A, as this month ITAR-TASS report

Man, let me tell you, I love that ship, I've been following the developments about that ship for the last couple of years. I love catamaran ships, very fast, very difficult to sink, they are wider than conventional ships, so can carry more stuff. Also 16 anti ship missiles, same as the Molniya class, which is unusual. Great package !!!!!!! The Taiwanese hit the jack pot with that one.

Su30MKI adapted successfully to bring 3 Brahmos-A, as this month ITAR-TASS report

Are you sure is 3 Brahmos? I used to read about the MK-1 being modified to carry just one under the mainframe, the missiles are too heavy for the wings. The SU-34 was designed from scratch for 3.

 

[BoQ77]

The SU-34 was designed from scratch for 3.

You persuaded me about Su-34. Su-34 are for Yakhont/Brahmos missile air launchers. And both of them is available to Vietnam.

Model Su-30 MKI with 3 Brahmos-M

 

[Carlosa]

Su30MKI adapted successfully to bring 3 Brahmos-A, as this month ITAR-TASS report

Found the report, it doesn't say how many missiles, I'm pretty sure its just 1.

TASS: World - Integration of air-based cruise missile with Su-30MKI fighter completed in India

You persuaded me about Su-34. Su-34 are for Yakhont/Brahmos missile air launchers. And both of them is available to Vietnam.

The SU-34 is a beast man, best tactical bomber in the world today (not including heavy bombers).

I know one SU-34 was even brought to Vietnam for testing, but didn't hear any more.