Vietnam Defence Forum

[jhungary]

Thanks for clarifying.
Don't really understand why you are so sensitive over this.
Like I say, its just to reduce the animosity and confusion that some members have towards you.
I hope you don't see me as harassing you.
For that I apologize.
I have always had the view that you are knowledgeable and is valuable to this forum.
I am also not surprised that you hold so many passports since you shared with us that you work in the Intelligence area.
Nobody have issues with Gambit who takes US viewpoints strongly while showing US flags.

I do admire and learn from your wide knowledge and the effort you take to present your views though it is rather long winded at times.
As you may glean from my posts, I am not strongly pro China but rather a China admirer and well wisher, a well wisher for Philippines, Vietnam and Australia and a strong Asia.
Your views on Chinese matters are not controversial, its just an uneasy feeling having you on the opposite camp most of the time, haha. Sure wish you are on my side.

I have come to some conclusions about you and your job that I will keep to myself so as not to intrude further into your private affairs.
Anyway my apologies again if this matter had irritated or annoyed you.
I don't meant it to be that way and had wanted to bring it up in a friendly way.
Be assured this will be the last time I will be touching on this matter.
If you come across my posts on opposing sides, do not take it in an unfriendly way
Looking forward to when we will be posting on the same side.
Cheers
.

It's not about sensitivity, it's about having been dealing with this since moment 0 when I join this forum 5 years ago, I am a bit annoyed. for me, I don't really care whether or not my view is viewed as Pro-China or Anti-China, you can call me a traitor if you want, I don't feel it's a crime to not have the same view with the same issue with other.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE CHINA the country, I hated the Chinese regime, I once started an open challenge for anyone to locate a single post with a single bad thing I said about China and the People, no one have been able to find anything, I do criticize the Chinese government policy a lot. I once said to one of the Chinese member, I believe regime comes and goes but country stays forever, if tomorrow the Chinese Government Regime crumble, would you still be considering me a China Hater? Just because I don't blindly follow the other Chinese and praise every little thing they do?

I believe points of argument is to debate instead of wherever where this person is from. I can say I was from Somalia, does that mean my voice counted less? If I have a point on a argument, I did not have them because I am an American, Australian etc or what's not, I have a point because I have a point, where I am from and where did I get this point from is a moot point, you can either agree or disagree my point, but people bringing in nationality in an equation is simply......annoying.

Thus I did not think it's right to accuse someone of being Indian, Pakistani, Vietnamese or something like that, if I have a point, argue my point, don't argue my nationality. Those point I made was because of my own knowledge, regardless where do I pick them up form. And I think people should have see that from the beginning. But after 5 years, about 100 question people ask before you, you sort of zone out and just ignore, report and move on. In the beginning, I tried to provide proof that I have this ID Card, this Passport, but now, meh, I don't care about it anymore.

If you understand it, please drop these type of question, it's unnecessary, so we can move on.

 

[sinait]

you can call me a traitor if you want

Oh my Gosh, definitely not.
I have my own apprehensions about China as well, though I would rather keep them private.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE CHINA the country

Great

I believe points of argument is to debate instead of wherever where this person is from.

Agreed.
Though a little bit of where a person is coming from is helpful.

But after 5 years, about 100 question people ask before you, you sort of zone out and just ignore, report and move on. In the beginning, I tried to provide proof that I have this ID Card, this Passport, but now, meh, I don't care about it anymore.
If you understand it, please drop these type of question, it's unnecessary, so we can move on.

Sure.
I usually only browse the defense sections and previously don't participate in discussions.
Most probably such questions are deleted so I am not aware.
Maybe good to leave some around so people are aware that it is an old topic not to be revived.
Similarly many people call me Chinese, I just ignore them and never ever refute them.
I am Singaporean, period, albeit with a bit of Chinese bias, haha.
Cheers

 

[Farhan Bohra]

If you want to know, I am a holder also hold a Chinese Passport. And this April I paid 60,000 RMB taxes for 2016 on my share along with my brother and my sister to the Chinese Government from the family textile business in Guangdong, I have a home address and Telephone Phone Number in Dongguan, Guangdong and Hong Kong, I have a residence account registered with the Mainland Chinese Authority, I also hold a Swedish, British Passport on top of my American, Australian, Chinese Passport with a right to live in New Zealand (as per Trans Tasman Agreement), Mexico and Permanent Residence in Canada, is it a good enough answer for you?

@waz I was assured this type of harassment will stop, can you delete that member post and my post when you are done with.

Thank You

No body harassing you, just curious. How many time a person you find who hold 5 passports?

But I want to ask, this is legal in China to hold dual citizenship?

I believe points of argument is to debate instead of wherever where this person is from. I can say I was from Somalia, does that mean my voice counted less? If I have a point on a argument, I did not have them because I am an American, Australian etc or what's not, I have a point because I have a point, where I am from and where did I get this point from is a moot point, you can either agree or disagree my point, but people bringing in nationality in an equation is simply......annoying.

Thus I did not think it's right to accuse someone of being Indian, Pakistani, Vietnamese or something like that, if I have a point, argue my point, don't argue my nationality. Those point I made was because of my own knowledge, regardless where do I pick them up form. And I think people should have see that from the beginning. But after 5 years, about 100 question people ask before you, you sort of zone out and just ignore, report and move on. In the beginning, I tried to provide proof that I have this ID Card, this Passport, but now, meh, I don't care about it anymore.

If you understand it, please drop these type of question, it's unnecessary, so we can move on.

If you say so. And if you what believe in.
But these are not normal debates, in military debates allegiance is very important matter. One cant debate on military issues while acting as neutral. One cant be neutral on such issues. Military is an extension of politics afterall.

Inside us, we already know where our allegiance lie, what we love and what we hate. There is no requirement of proving anything. Or showing ID and passports.

But on such issues, one cant be neutral. But as for accusing nationality, that is not an accusation, that is clearing the matter for allegiance.

North Vietnam won the Viet War. not by equipment or exotic technology, they won because of one thing,,, allegiance.

But as you say you are neutral,, that is kool. And nothing to worry about.

 

[Viet]

News of the day

The 10th "Vietnam Festival" opens in Tokyo, promoting friendship and understanding between VN and JP. The number of Vietnamese (200,000) living, working and studying in Japan reaches a new record.

A 854 km freight cargo train route between Kunming (China) and Haiphong (Vietnam) is officially opened. The first cargo from China carries ore and raw materials for the chemical industry in 32 containers, according to the Jinlai Shunfa international logistics company. The cargo service starts once per week and later once per day. However due to renewed tensions between the countries, the cargo service could take a hit, in worst case VN/CN bilateral trades could come to a standstill.

 

[Carlosa]

Japanese Ship is probably not the best to go, they are a bit over inflated in price, just like the American. I would also think it's not really good to try and mix Russian Ship and Japanese Ship together.

I think it's better for Vietnam, if they were given 60 billions, to get either all Russian Ship or all European Ship.

I think the combo of Lider-class destroyer and Admiral Grigorovich combo is quite lethal, combine with Akula Attack Sub. I would probably go with Mistral Class LHD instead of Izumo Class Carrier.

So, Mistral will cost around 800 millions per ship, 2 Mistral will be around 1.6 billions
Akula class is about 2 billion per, let's say Vietnam is getting 6 (3 per carrier group), which is 12 billions
Admiral Grigorovich-class frigate cost around 1.8 billions per ship, I reckon Vietnam can order and support 10 Frigate. Which is about 18 billions
The wildcard, however, is the Lider Class destroyer, as it is on paper, not yet been built, you probably can work out some JV deal with the Russian, and have it cheaper, but I do think even without some sort of deal, it's more or less cheaper than a Flight III AB Class Destroyer. Which let's say it's 2.4 billion per, Vietnam can get 4 of these in their carrier group for 10 billions.

So, to recap, it would be around 51.6 billions for that wish list. Which leave around 10 billions for Vietnam to go after carrier air group.



AWACS is a bit tricky, but tons of submarine seems to be a waste of money (I am a surface warfare guy) and you would probably want to even out the purchase a bit......

Which Surface ship you want Vietnam Navy to have?



Yes, that's where my mother ancestry was from. Her mother was born in a village in DongHuang (東坑鎮), which was a farm land back in 1940s, and now is probably one of the biggest industrial area in Southern China, we used to have 3 factory in 東坑 (Where my grandmother village was) a Steel Mill, a Lighter Factory and a Textile Factory, the first two went busted sometime during the 90s, and only the textile factory left.

I stopped going back to 東坑鎮 in the late 90s, and I google map it yesterday and see they have build a lot of houses and stuff in the tiny little town in my memory.

Actually, if the political situation is not that bad, I would not mind retiring with my family back in my family house in 長安塘.

Well, the Russian Lider destroyer class (as well as the aircraft carrier) have already been canceled in the latest Russian armament program, the new naval direction only includes small ships (up to 4500 tons) and submarines.

I emphasize subs rather than surface ships because I don't give Vietnamese surface ships a lot of chances of surviving in the face of the PLAN and their C4ISR assets, plus their naval aviation and stand off cruise missile capabilities. Submarines on the other hand, can hide, survive and fight quite nicely in that situation. In the duel between subs and surface ships, I believe the subs fare much better, subs are just not easy to detect and they have shown that a number of times approaching American carriers undetected. As submarine crews like to say, there are 2 types of ships: subs and targets.

So in the end, same as the new direction of the Russian navy, small surface ships and subs. An amphibious force with 2 or 3 Osumi class ships, Naval aviation including the SU-34 as well as its upcoming electronic warfare version. Lots of anti ship missiles. C4ISR capabilities and a strong coastal array of anti ship missile batteries.

 

[Carlosa]

Philippine, Vietnam navies play sports on South China Sea island
MANILA (Reuters) - Philippine and Vietnamese navies have been playing soccer, volleyball and tug-of-war games together on a South China Sea island, the latest get-together by two countries concerned by Chinese assertiveness in the disputed waters.

The two sides played in mixed teams on Thursday (June 22) on Southwest Cay in the Spratly archipelago, the Philippine navy said, the third event of its kind since 2014 on an island held four decades ago by the Philippines, but now under Vietnamese control.

The games are among a series of exchanges between two countries, quietly demonstrating their unity in the face of Beijing's expanding presence and signs of militarisation of manmade islands in the Spratly chain.

Ariesh Climacosa of the Philippine Naval Forces West said the games showed how the two sides could get along and would trust and understand each other better.

Relations strengthened under the previous Philippine administration, leading to the signing of a strategic partnership in 2015, at a time when both countries were locked in fierce disputes with China and enjoying warm ties with the United States.

But ties have since become more uncertain, due largely to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's decision to charm rather than confront Beijing, while also turning more hostile towards Washington.

 

[Aqsuperman]

Another peek at VPN latest vessel, the HQ-18 or 18 for short, formerly ROKS Gimcheon a ex Pohang class corvette. WE have a clear look at the front armaments including the Oto Melara 76mm turret and the Sea Vulcan 25mm seven barrelled turret. The ship next to it is the elderly Petya class corvette. There is a belief that the ship arrival shall bolster the ASW capability for VPN surface force. But the completely different caliber ammunition will prove to be a formidable obstacle. That is if the ship sonar and depth charge system still intact, otherwise the ship will simply be another gunboat.

 

[Carlosa]

Trump's South China Sea policy taking shape | The Japan Times
Mark J. Valencia

U.S. administration starts speaking softer while still showing a big stick

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.WU-H2LFh1_y

HAIKOU, CHINA – The outlines of the Trump administration’s policy toward China and the South China Sea are emerging from a fog of confusing and contradictory statements and actions. The administration started off with a relatively belligerent posture toward China in general and its actions in the South China Sea in particular. But the administration seems to have moderated its stance. Indeed, the emerging policy is beginning to look somewhat familiar. It is essentially a continuation of the Obama administration’s policy — although it appears to have a heavier emphasis on a military component.

Rightly or wrongly, U.S. freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) vis-a-vis China’s claims have become an indicator of U.S. resolve — at least in the view of some opinion leaders in the region. There were six legally confused and confusing FONOPs in the South China Sea against China’s claims during the Obama administration. But some eight months have passed since the last one on Oct. 16.

The Trump administration supposedly did not approve three U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) requests to carry out new FONOPs against China’s claims in the South China Sea. The U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Adm. Scott Swift, explained that “we just present the opportunities. … They are either taken advantage of or they’re not.”

It then began to appear that Trump, in his “let’s make a deal” approach to foreign policy, had backed off criticism and actions against China in general and in the South China Sea in particular in return for China’s assistance in stopping North Korea’s nuclear weapon and missile development programs.

This was the background to more recent U.S. statements and actions. In his address to the Shangri-La Dialogue in early June, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis tried to balance between praising China for its help with North Korea and criticizing its “indisputable militarization of artificial islands” and “excessive maritime claims unsupported by international law.” But he upped the ante by adding that the U.S. “cannot and will not accept unilateral coercive changes to the status quo.” He also outlined his policy as a mix of supporting and as necessary, demonstrating, “the rules based international order”; encouraging a more interconnected region regarding security matters; enhancing U.S. military capabilities there; and reinforcing U.S. defense relations with allies and willing partners, including training and weapons sales. This is basically similar to former U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s stated approach to the region.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has recently come out even stronger, telling Congress on June 14 that he has warned Chinese counterparts that their current foreign policy will “bring us into conflict.” He said that U.S.-China relations had reached “an inflection point” and could lead to war if not properly managed.

On June 21, after meeting in Washington with Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi and PLA Chief of Joint Staff Fang Fenghui as part of the new U.S.-China Diplomatic Security Dialogue, he said that he and Mattis “made clear” to their Chinese counterparts that the U.S. position remains the same. “We oppose changes to the status quo of the past through the militarization of outposts in the South China Sea and excessive maritime claims unsupported by international law, and we uphold freedom of navigation and overflight.” In seeming possible contradiction, Mattis added, “I’m committed to improving the U.S.-China defense relationship so that it remains a stabilizing element in our overall relationship.”

So this is — for what it is worth — the Trump administration’s policy toward the South China Sea. However, Mattis, Tillerson and Trump himself seem to be somewhat preoccupied with other international and domestic matters. PACOM commander Adm. Harry Harris has emerged as the “tip of the spear” for Washington’s strategic approach to China.

Indeed, according to security analyst Carl Thayer, Harris is “the very glue holding the traditional U.S. line together across Asia.” He is — at the very least — in charge of implementing policy. Some observers say the portion of Mattis’ Shangri-La speech criticizing China’s actions in the South China Sea reflected Harris’ view that the U.S. needs to have a more robust posture toward China there.

In Harris’ own words, “We will continue to cooperate where we can but have to be ready to confront if we must. So I simply continue to focus on building critical relationships while ensuring that we have credible combat power to back up our security commitments and to help American diplomacy operate from a position of strength.”

This more aggressive tactical approach may have been evidenced by recent U.S. actions in the region. In May, two aircraft carrier strike groups were deployed to the western Pacific, one of which undertook the first-ever drills in the South China Sea with Japan’s largest warship, the Izumo helicopter carrier. The first FONOP under the Trump administration occurred in late May when the USS Dewey made a provocative noninnocent passage within 12 nautical miles (22 km) of Mischief Reef, indirectly challenging China’s claim to sovereignty over the low tide feature. Mattis — who reportedly had asked PACOM for a strategy for the South China Sea — said the Dewey FONOP was part of U.S. strategy.

This FONOP was promptly followed by an in-your-face training exercise over the South China Sea with two B-1B Lancer heavy strategic bombers liaising with the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Sterett.

However, on the “carrot” end of the equation the Sterett made a scheduled port visit to Zhanjiang, a major node for China’s South Sea surface naval fleet. Leading the visit was the man who may replace Harris as PACOM next year — the commander of the Pacific Fleet, Adm. Swift. In keeping with Harris’ new preference for “speaking softly but carrying (showing) a big stick,” Swift downplayed FONOPs themselves in favor of America’s demonstration of strength by its “consistence presence” in the region.

This low-key statement was in keeping with a recent decision not to announce or highlight FONOPs in the South China Sea. Swift confirmed that the quieter approach equated to a softer U.S. posture in the region. Also announced in May was that China had been invited to participate in the 2018 Rim of the Pacific Exercise, known as RIMPAC — the world’s largest international naval exercise and hosted by the U.S. Navy in Hawaii.

The conclusion is that the Trump administration’s policy regarding the South China Sea is a continuation of the Obama administration’s policy but with more emphasis on the military dimension. However, if China is unwilling or unable to help sufficiently with North Korea, or with other “trade-offs” proposed by Trump, the military component of U.S. foreign policy may become the main or even sole approach.

Mark J. Valencia is an adjunct senior scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Haikou, China. A much longer version of this article first appeared in the IPP Review.

 

[sahureka2]

Another peek at VPN latest vessel, the HQ-18 or 18 for short, formerly ROKS Gimcheon a ex Pohang class corvette. WE have a clear look at the front armaments including the Oto Melara 76mm turret and the Sea Vulcan 25mm seven barrelled turret. The ship next to it is the elderly Petya class corvette. There is a belief that the ship arrival shall bolster the ASW capability for VPN surface force. But the completely different caliber ammunition will prove to be a formidable obstacle. That is if the ship sonar and depth charge system still intact, otherwise the ship will simply be another gunboat.

1) turret and the Sea Vulcan 25mm seven barrelled turret =. Not 25mm but 20mm
2) There is a belief that the ship arrival shall bolster the ASW capability for VPN = As you can see it was delivered without 2 x Mark 32 triple torpedo tubes , If you want to use as ASW units you need to install the torpedos tubes again, then you should know if the sonar is still present or has been dismantled

 

[Viet]

Vietnam first ever large deployment to a foreign country as part of UN peace keeping operation. 70 medical personnel to South Sudan. Vietnamese military personnel will take over the control of the field hospital camp from the U.K. as well.

 

[jhungary]

I agree Vietnam is better off purchasing all japanese(western design) or all russian not both. It will be less burden for Vietnam financially in the long run, Vietnam can't afford to operate both, it doesn't make sense financially and will cause problems with compatibility with other weapon systems and logistics. I think if Vietnam had that sortof money to spend, they would probably focus on their navy and air force.

Navy - new ASW helicopters e.g. mh60r seahawk, extra frigates and I would think these new frigates would specialize in air defence instead since Vietnam currently has none. Replacement of their aging corvettes, lots of designs available and can easily be built in their own shipyards. I don't think Vietnam is looking for or needs a carrier fleet though lol maybe 2 or 3 LHD e.g. mistral class or izumo class and which can also be used in humanitarian disasters and finally 2 or 3 replenishment ship with all these new ships they need to keep it sailing lol..

Air Force- replace aging fighters, ASW aircraft e.g. p8 poseidon, AWAC aircrafts, larger cargo aircrafts e.g. a400m, air to air refuelling aircraft currently Vietnam has no such aircraft in its fleet and replacement of most of its aging rotary fleets.

Army - new tanks, ifv, apc and everything in between

Vietnam have a long coast line and a long thin strip of land, which mean Navy for the Vietnamese would be at the utmost importance. Because it give them strategic depth for defence need, otherwise a battle front would be confined, although it would have helped by inaccessible jungle, the land force without a great Navy would have suffer a lot if the enemy attack with mobility.

Therefore the revitalisation of VPN (or is it PVN?? Anyway) should take precedent than other branch, not even air force is that important.

And indeed, I don't think it's wise for VPN to operate both type of ships, either go all Russian, or go all European is the best way to go.

Would suggest a complement of large surface warship and smaller inland patrol ship. I don't think VPN needed replenishment ship, unless they change the direction into ocean going navy. They will probably need some capital ship before needing these replenishment ship.

No body harassing you, just curious. How many time a person you find who hold 5 passports?

But I want to ask, this is legal in China to hold dual citizenship?

If you go to Europe, a lot of the European have multiple Passport, A friend of mine is a Danish-Swede having his heritage from Germany (Holstein Area), but have been working in the UK, and he is married to a French/Italian citizen, in all, he have 6 passport.

And no China does not allow Dual Citizenship, there are loop hole for Chinese Citizens of Hong Kong or Macau origin to have multiple citizenship, that is not illegal.

If you say so. And if you what believe in.
But these are not normal debates, in military debates allegiance is very important matter. One cant debate on military issues while acting as neutral. One cant be neutral on such issues. Military is an extension of politics afterall.

Inside us, we already know where our allegiance lie, what we love and what we hate. There is no requirement of proving anything. Or showing ID and passports.

But on such issues, one cant be neutral. But as for accusing nationality, that is not an accusation, that is clearing the matter for allegiance.

North Vietnam won the Viet War. not by equipment or exotic technology, they won because of one thing,,, allegiance.

But as you say you are neutral,, that is kool. And nothing to worry about.

A old mentor of mine once told me this

"If you are a patriot, do not join the military."

It may sounded strange to you, but nationalism and allegiance often lead to illogical goal or action. The problem is that, war is an individual affair, yes may wear the uniform and swore allegiance to a nation, but in the end, you fought for yourself. Nothing come close, not even your country.

What people see in their own military as the guardian of a nation is actually more of a farce, war, at grunt level, is never about patriotic duty or national gain, war, at grunt level, is about individual survival, how do you carry on for another day so you can fight another day and until the big day come and you go home. That is what real war to real soldier. Not some over romantic account for love and country...

While I understand why you say this, but I would have to disagree, war fought the same way, regardless of your origin. For me, opinion of war in all aspect is the same whether you come from China, Australia, Canada, or America. I have been around the world, talk to many service member from different country, I even stole some of their uniform (Yes, I did) and I have a pretty balance look on military science all over the world, and I can tell you this, there aren't much of a different from China to Germany.

And no, I would not say Vietnam won the war because of its allegiance, in fact, I am not quite sure Vietnam has actually won. In a strategic stand point, what the US want to do is to rid Vietnam of communism and uniting the country under freedom and capitalism, that is their ultimate goal. Vietnam did indeed unified, and Vietnam loses a lot of time/resource to win that war, time and resource that could have been well used and distributed to develop the country otherwise not touched by war. and perhaps the most important things coming out of Vietnam War is the death of Communism, today, beside a few die hard hold out which not affecting the world stage, communism is all but disappear, and Vietnam has also coming out of their communist shell and into the 21 century.

So basically, what Vietnam do now is what the American wanted back in 1960s, the basic objective is the same, it just take 50 years of struggle to realise this. Wasn't that mean the American have achieve their objective? Albeit 50 years late.

 

[TenLua]

Vietnam have a long coast line and a long thin strip of land, which mean Navy for the Vietnamese would be at the utmost importance. Because it give them strategic depth for defence need, otherwise a battle front would be confined, although it would have helped by inaccessible jungle, the land force without a great Navy would have suffer a lot if the enemy attack with mobility.

Therefore the revitalisation of VPN (or is it PVN?? Anyway) should take precedent than other branch, not even air force is that important.

And indeed, I don't think it's wise for VPN to operate both type of ships, either go all Russian, or go all European is the best way to go.

Would suggest a complement of large surface warship and smaller inland patrol ship. I don't think VPN needed replenishment ship, unless they change the direction into ocean going navy. They will probably need some capital ship before needing these replenishment ship.



If you go to Europe, a lot of the European have multiple Passport, A friend of mine is a Danish-Swede having her heritage from Germany (Holstein Area), but have been working in the UK, and he is married to a French/Italian citizen, in all, he have 6 passport.

And no China does not allow Dual Citizenship, there are loop hole for Chinese Citizens of Hong Kong or Macau origin to have multiple citizenship, that is not illegal.




A old mentor of mine once told me this

"If you are a patriot, do not join the military."

It may sounded strange to you, but nationalism and allegiance often lead to illogical goal or action. The problem is that, war is an individual affair, yes may wear the uniform and swore allegiance to a nation, but in the end, you fought for yourself. Nothing come close, not even your country.

What people see in their own military as the guardian of a nation is actually more of a farce, war, at grunt level, is never about patriotic duty or national gain, war, at grunt level, is about individual survival, how do you carry on for another day so you can fight another day and until the big day come and you go home. That is what real war to real soldier. Not some over romantic account for love and country...

While I understand why you say this, but I would have to disagree, war fought the same way, regardless of your origin. For me, opinion of war in all aspect is the same whether you come from China, Australia, Canada, or America. I have been around the world, talk to many service member from different country, I even stole some of their uniform (Yes, I did) and I have a pretty balance look on military science all over the world, and I can tell you this, there aren't much of a different from China to Germany.

And no, I would not say Vietnam won the war because of its allegiance, in fact, I am not quite sure Vietnam has actually won. In a strategic stand point, what the US want to do is to rid Vietnam of communism and uniting the country under freedom and capitalism, that is their ultimate goal. Vietnam did indeed unified, and Vietnam loses a lot of time/resource to win that war, time and resource that could have been well used and distributed to develop the country otherwise not touched by war. and perhaps the most important things coming out of Vietnam War is the death of Communism, today, beside a few die hard hold out which not affecting the world stage, communism is all but disappear, and Vietnam has also coming out of their communist shell and into the 21 century.

So basically, what Vietnam do now is what the American wanted back in 1960s, the basic objective is the same, it just take 50 years of struggle to realise this. Wasn't that mean the American have achieve their objective? Albeit 50 years late.

Some truth to this. But Vietnam would have to be our bitch had we won/achieved our objective. Vietnam would have owed her success to us had we won. Look at south korea for an example. Obviously this is not the case when it comes to Vietnam.

She achieved her objective instead, whether you want to admit it or not. She plays by her rules, and no one can tell her what to do. At face value, the victory seems questionable, but on a historical perspective, it's undeniable. This is often denied out of insecurity from those who want to take away from her to give comfort to their own low national self-esteem.

 

[Viet]

It is worthless to discuss over and over again who wins the Vietnam war. The yellow flag does not fly over Vietnam...but in some countries like Australia. Cheers.

@jhungary

 

[Carlosa]

Vietnam have a long coast line and a long thin strip of land, which mean Navy for the Vietnamese would be at the utmost importance. Because it give them strategic depth for defence need, otherwise a battle front would be confined, although it would have helped by inaccessible jungle, the land force without a great Navy would have suffer a lot if the enemy attack with mobility.

Therefore the revitalisation of VPN (or is it PVN?? Anyway) should take precedent than other branch, not even air force is that important.

And indeed, I don't think it's wise for VPN to operate both type of ships, either go all Russian, or go all European is the best way to go.

Would suggest a complement of large surface warship and smaller inland patrol ship. I don't think VPN needed replenishment ship, unless they change the direction into ocean going navy. They will probably need some capital ship before needing these replenishment ship..

Well, If as you said, a navy and I think you mean a surface navy is of the utmost importance for Vietnam, then you need to address the issue of how its going to survive against the PLAN. Putting money into ships that will have to stay in the ports in case of conflict is not a wise decision other than having the minimum of ships that are needed for peacetime patrol roles. And on top of that, now there are 3 chinese bases with airfields in the Spratleys plus the upcoming chinese carriers.

 

[Dave1798]

Therefore the revitalisation of VPN (or is it PVN?? Anyway) should take precedent than other branch, not even air force is that important.

I think for Vietnam in regards to a possible south china sea conflict, their air force would be just as important as their navy. I'm not sure whether maritime patrol aircrafts and ASW aircrafts would be operated by their navy or air force, but regardless they offer capabilities that are very important in maritime environment if Vietnam wants to restrict China in SCS. Upgrades to C4ISR and with AWAC aircrafts from their air force would give Vietnam the ability to see and shoot from various air (fighters armed with anti ship missile, asw aircraft etc..) and sea platforms( frigates, corvettes and submarines), a capability which is currently non existent in their armed force. By having the airforce work with the navy it's like a force multiplier, which is good for Vietnam because it's navy will never match PLAN in regards to it's size. Modern militaries need their military branches operating together and not separately.