Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

IMG_0616.JPG

IMG_0615.JPG

IMG_0614.JPG

IMG_0613.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Modern Military of Vietnam

This is a discussion on Modern Military of Vietnam within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; A source would be nice......


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 4.00 average.
Old April 19th, 2011   #121
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 12,457
Threads:
A source would be nice...
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2011   #122
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
surpreme's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newport News VA
Posts: 181
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VNcitizen View Post
That's right, we should not compare between Vietnam and orther countries. Each nation has its own advantages and disadvantages, every comparation is limping We take part in this topic to discuss and to show you some infomations about Vietnamese military and the process in modernizing our army, not to raise tension

One thing every Vietnamese has to accept is that our military is out of date, especially in air force and naval.. That is why Vietnam has spent more money to upgrade them.

Some members here may be new in this forum , but some are in military . By the way, Triumf, what about Ground Force and Naval
Yes that is true the Vietnamese are trying upgrade there Air Force. Someone on the post stated that it not easy to modernize a Air Force which is so true. You have do alot studying to understand what you need first. Some how you have to get the funds to purchase this hardware so it not easy to do these days. Today battlefield it is much different than the 60's and 70's.
surpreme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2011   #123
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 325
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OPSSG View Post
7. While the Vietnamese may have more fighters (with 202 fighters) than Singapore (with 99 fighters) in 2009, 146 of those are outdated MiG-21s. Further, Singapore has access to defence technology (European, Israeli and American links) and a defence industrial base that the Vietnamese would dream of having. IMHO, is is clear from the 7 points I made that the Vietnamese air force is not a peer threat to the RSAF - as they do not have the financial resources nor the requisite technical capabilities to be a peer threat.
A lot of good points. However consider the following hypothetical scenarios:

1. Singapore invades Vietnam. Forget it. In spite of a superior air force you don't stand a chance. The US, France and China all failed in Vietnam; so would Singapore.

2. Vietnam invades Singapore. In spite of a superior air force you don't stand a chance. 90 million Vietnamese will overwhelm tiny Singapore in no time. First taking Malaysia and then launching attacks across the straits. A few F-15 and F-16 simply will not make that much of a difference.

Not realistic? Of course not; the US would intervene and save Singapore's butt. (And why would Vietnam care about that tiny island nation in the first place)

Singapore has an impressive defence force but let's face it, it can only fight smaller threats like Malaysia and Indonesia on it's own. Medium-large countries will have Singapore for breakfast. Small countries like Singapore need to rely on alliances with major powers like the US. That's what Singapore is doing and that's what will save Singapore's butt if the going get's tough. Not a few F-15...
Vivendi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2011   #124
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 12
Threads:
Vietnam buying large number of Sukhoi Su-30MK2 (and intent to buy some MiG-29M2/MiG-35 or some Western Fighter for replacing outdated MiG-21Bis) just for self-defense not invade any neighbors.
Triumf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2011   #125
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: US
Posts: 90
Threads:
US intervention? I don't know... Last I knew, our main military alliances were with Malaysia, Australia, NZ, and the UK from the Five Powers Defence Arrangements. While Singapore and the US do have military arms deals, and we do allow the stationing of US troops in Singaporean facilities and conduct operations and exercises alongside them, there is no formal defensive alliance. The US is not legally obligated to help us in the case of invasion, though the presence of US military and civilian personnel along with historically good political and financial ties may cause them to do so.

Can we go toe to toe with Vietnam in the ridiculous hypothetical situations posed by Vivendi? Of course not. But that was never the point of OPSSG's post.

I know how this looks, random newbie Singaporean rushes in to defend fellow countryman's point. Put that aside and read the post.

He's not making any sort of declaration that our tiny nation can defeat Vietnam. He is simply pointing out that a lot of people (whose posts I have not read and thus cannot refer to) have been selling Singapore's capabilities short of what they really are.

As for what "a few F15s" can do, I must refer to the 1982 Falklands War where two squadrons of British Harriers (28 aircraft, if you trust Wikipedia) successfully opposed the much larger Argentine Air Force by working with naval assets to coordinate attacks. And one cannot make the argument that the Argentine forces weren't well equipped so the differences were in size and training.

While I dare not say we are anyway close to the level of capability of the British armed forces, the similarity can be drawn in terms of capability and size differences. Smaller, technologically advanced force versus larger, less well trained force. History is full of examples of smaller, well trained forces beating a larger less well trained one. And we're fighting on our own ground, which makes logistics much easier for us and more difficult for the invader. As OPSSG said, do not be so quick to discount the RSAF or any other part of the SAF's capabilities.

That said, this topic detracts from the discussion of Vietnam's military by placing the focus on Singapore. I suggest that if anyone really wants to respond to this, do so in the appropriate Singapore military thread.
CheeZe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2011   #126
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,729
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeZe View Post
US intervention? I don't know... Last I knew, our main military alliances were with Malaysia, Australia, NZ, and the UK from the Five Powers Defence Arrangements.
The FPDA is not a binding defence arrangement like NATO is. In event of an external threat on Singapore and Malaysia, the other 3 FPDA members are officially only required to hold 'joint discussions' and are not required to provide military or even diplomatic assistance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeZe View Post
The US is not legally obligated to help us in the case of invasion, though the presence of US military and civilian personnel along with historically good political and financial ties may cause them to do so.
Well it works both ways. In the event of hostilities in the Pacific Rim involving the U.S. and some other power, Singapore by virtue of playing host to a U.S. logistics detachment and U.S. ships for regular mantiance stops, could be a target of attacks. Similiarly, if Australia was involved in a war, the Butterworth base in Penang, which is Australia's only permanent military presence out of Australia, would be a legitimate target, whether or not Malaysia was involved in the conflict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeZe View Post
As OPSSG said, do not be so quick to discount the RSAF or any other part of the SAF's capabilities.
We should be quick not to discount the capabilities of ANY armed forces regional or otherwise, eventhough they might not have the technological edge of the SAF or the level of funding.

Last edited by STURM; July 3rd, 2011 at 10:19 AM.
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2011   #127
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: US
Posts: 90
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
The FPDA is not a binding defence arrangement like NATO is. In event of an external threat on Singapore and Malaysia, the other 3 FPDA members are officially only required to hold 'joint discussions' and are not required to provide military or ven diplomatic assistance.


We should be quick not to discount the capabilities of ANY armed forces regional or otherwise, eventhough they might not have the technological edge of the SAF or the level of funding.
RE: FPDA - was not aware of that but good to know. Thanks.

Certainly, STURM, underestimating any armed force is a sure way to defeat. Vietnam certainly has an impressive force.
CheeZe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2011   #128
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
T.C.P da Devil's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Dhaka,Bangladesh
Posts: 615
Threads:
Kilos to arrive in Vietnam in 2014-

Russia to start supplying submarines in Vietnam in 2014 | Defense | RIA Novosti
________________
Be loyal to Bangladesh no matter what. We have given blood to earn our freedom and will give more to protect it!
T.C.P da Devil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2011   #129
Super Moderator
Major General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2,483
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivendi View Post
1. Singapore invades Vietnam. Forget it. In spite of a superior air force you don't stand a chance. The US, France and China all failed in Vietnam; so would Singapore.
And why would we be interested in invading or attacking a fellow ASEAN country (with ASEAN as a 10 member organisation)? What is the incentive or motivation? Do you understand ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation?

I hope you realise that Singapore is investing in and giving aid (in our usual limited fashion) to Vietnam. Further, we don't share a border with Vietnam and we are not a EEZ claimant in the disputed areas in the South China Sea region.

BTW, in the last few years, the SAF has grown smaller. In fact, we have reduced the size of our air force (and even transferred 7 F-16A/Bs to Thailand), stood down some army units (infantry and artillery) reduced the duration of conscription and length of reserve cycles - because there is no peer threat.

In future, there is little chance that a small country, like Singapore, would act alone especially in a cooperative defense scenario. There are various operational scenarios where SAF could participate in. In one of those scenarios SAF participation in a coalition event, could be as a junior partner (be it in war, operations other than war, non-combatant evacuation, or even in response to a specific humanitarian crisis). In limited circumstances, SAF could lead a coalition event as force commander.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivendi View Post
2. Vietnam invades Singapore. In spite of a superior air force you don't stand a chance. 90 million Vietnamese will overwhelm tiny Singapore in no time. First taking Malaysia and then launching attacks across the straits. A few F-15 and F-16 simply will not make that much of a difference.
If you watch enough Star Trek and believe in teleportation.

Other that teleportation, you also need to understand 2 main limitations on Vietnam:
(1) the concept of 'local superiority' and the ability of the SAF to establish such local superiority; and

(2) the ability of the the potential aggressor to project his forces.
Beyond the above limitations, you will need to discuss the route of advance. There are two choices (either by land or by sea). To meet the conventional threat presented by Singapore's forces, the aggressor will need to meet and exceed both the RSAF and the Singapore Navy operating in the 3 dimensions of: (i) air warfare, (ii) surface warfare, and (iii) underwater warfare dimensions of naval warfare before they can move their forces.

One, by sea, no chance in hell of them moving their forces over the distance, as the Vietnamese lack the means to project their power. Vietnam needs oil and unless a major power delivers oil to them via a land route (like China, as was the case during the Vietnam war). IMHO, good luck to Vietnam declaring war on Singapore or Thailand and hoping to ship oil through the maritime choke points at the Straits of Malacca and Sunda (where most of Vietnam's oil shipments are sent through).
(1) Beyond sea control at maritime choke points, the Singapore Navy can also put their oil drilling platforms in the South China Sea at risk. Like China, Vietnam's economy is growing and they are just as addicted to oil. However, I would caution that a country does not usually go to war for things you can buy in the market. Countries will however go to war over another country acting against their national interest. Keep in mind that countries are not people.

(2) By way of background, Singapore's Ministry of Defence signed an agreement with Kockums for the supply of 2 Archer-Class (formerly Västergötland class) submarines to the Singapore Navy on 4 November 2005. These 2 submarines have been rebuilt, life-extended and modernised and the Singapore Navy currently operates 6 submarines (4 of which are the even older Challenger-Class submarines). And this is a capability that Vietnam currently lacks.

(3) While the Singapore Navy (utilising all the assets of the SAF), as a standalone force, has an issue with Sea Control once we are out of range of our air bases, the Vietnamese navy is even more limited in naval capability. Keep in mind that while the 4 Endurance Class, the 6 upgraded Victory Class and the 6 Formidable Class vessels (see link) are capable vessels in their respective classes, they are also of limited tonnage (which can be an indicator of sea keeping endurance). Therefore, the Singapore Navy is a green water navy but is blue water capable within a coalition environment. Further, I also do not consider the Endurance-Class giving any division within the SAF true 'expeditionary capabilities', as our army and navy (plus their supporting arms in RSAF's Participation Command) are not designed to fight wars far away (but we are capable of forward defence in the near abroad). By design, there's still a logistics umbilical cord tied to Singapore or Thailand for us to sustain our forces at war. However, I do acknowledge that at the joint operational-level planning and warfighting level for amphibious operations, the SAF continues to face many inherent resource limitation issues. With the 4 Endurance-Class vessels, the SAF has gained an improved but limited capability to:
(i) conduct small scale amphibious operations in the near abroad, in the face of some opposition (but not too much determined opposition);

(ii) conduct air assault at extended reach from Singapore air bases, as these ships can serve as lily pads to refuel RSAF's helicopters (RSAF helicopters have done deck landing qualifications on both USN and RSN ships);

(iii) sustain deployments in Operations Other than War (OOTW) thousands of miles away (OOTW includes both counter pirate missions and oil platform protection or destruction in low intensity conflict scenario);

(iv) conduct Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) missions (as in the case after the Dec 2004 Tsunami); and

(v) collect SAF equipment from overseas bases and bring them back to Singapore during a period of tension.
Two, via the land route. Thailand, whose air force and army are not small (and Singapore maintains military bases in Thailand) and Malaysia (a fellow member of the FPDA) are in the way of the invading Vietnamese army. You did not even read a map on the basics of the region before commenting (you seem to have forgotten about Thailand, which is a US ally).
(1) While the SAF is small compared to the Vietnamese army, the network centric SAF has the most advanced armour (upgraded Leopard 2s and armour engineers), anti-armour (Spike ATGM teams and Apaches) and artillery capabilities (HIMARS, Primus, Pegasus and FH-2000; supported by artillery hunting radar) in South East Asia. If an artillery barrage starts, they would quickly discover the joys of Singapore counter-battery fire. Kindly read up on Ex Cobra Gold and Ex Cope Tiger (which is in its 17th edition, involving over a hundred aircraft, 2,300 personnel from the Royal Thai Air force (RTAF), the USAF and the RSAF), to get an idea of the military to military relationships. For example, the Royal Thai Navy (RTN) is one of the most frequent users of Changi Naval Base, where its ships call for replenishment as they deploy between the Andaman and the Gulf of Thailand. Most recently, the RTN launched an Endurance class vessel, which was built by ST Marine. The SAF and the Thai Armed Forces have also worked together in humanitarian relief operations.

(2) In December 1978, with Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, during the cold war, Singapore and Thailand had to come up with a joint defence plan for the threat at that time. The combined armoured forces of Thailand and Singapore were and are still designed to fight a substantial force in echelon at Corps or higher level operations. The level of Singaporean commitment to Thai defence is not small and in the past, our forces conducted joint patrols at Thailand's northern border (including mantaining an ammo stockpile in Thailand). To give one historical example that can now be stated. Singapore's E-2Cs were not bought primarily to engage in the defence of Singapore within Singapore borders. They were bought to assist in the defence of Thailand against the then Vietnamese/Soviet threat. 2011 marks the 30th year of RSAF heliopter operations at Koke Kathiem, Thailand (KKT). Most recently in March 2011, a RSAF Apache detachment flew up to KKT to train with the RTAF. In fact, Singapore's infantry, engineer and armor units train in Thailand and the most common foreign airborne wing worn on SAF uniforms is the Thai airborne wing (reflecting our close ties and level of inter-operability).

(3) And if you could read a map, you would also know that there is a natural terrain chokepoint in the South of Thailand and that frontage is defendable against a northern threat (and defendable by a division plus sized force, if you understand the effects of terrain). In fact, as WWII has shown, a good defence plan for Malaya (against the then external Japanese invasion from the north) from should start at the appropriate geographical choke point in Thai territory (see Appendix 2 for Map of the opening blows in the Pointer Monograph on page 64). The Imperial Japanese Army landed in Thai territory and proceed to march south. There is also a Pointer Monograph on the mistakes in the Malayan Campaign, including a chapter on operational art shortcomings by LTC (NS) Singh. You don't seem to understand its military implications of terrain and just one of the SAF's three forward deployable combined arms divisions will be a handful, when deployed in the correct location. And Singapore, with Thailand's permission can land and support a division in Thai territory to conduct a joint defence.

(4) BTW, attacking an aggressor's rear areas is a key feature of any Singapore's forward defence and you will find that from time to time, the Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister (who retired as a Rear-Admiral) and former Defence Minister will refer to the deep battle in his speeches. This is so because the main fight for Singapore forces must be with the second echelon, otherwise it will become a battle of attrition. Singapore's current Prime Minister is a former artillery officer (who was trained in the US at both Fort Sill and Fort Leavenworth) and retired from the SAF as a Brigadier-General.
In the case of Singapore, RSAF's ability to establish air superiority enables the SAF to conduct amphibious operations and to conduct heli-borne operations to aid in maneuver and resupply - which greatly aid offensive operations. Air power also provide combined arms support for our armoured forces. Further, the RSAF is capable of a full spectrum of air operations including: CAP, SEAD, CAS, BAI, ISR missions, Rebro for comms, insertion of recce elements and pathfinders, air assault, aero-medical evacuation, battle damage assessment, aero-resupply, SIGINT and EW. Further, Singapore has developed a procurement system that is widely admired for selecting solutions that are suited to operational needs. To give you an idea of how SAF sources for weapons - here's a limited list of countries that the SAF have bought weapons from, over the last few years:
(1) Swedish built submarines (Challenger and Archer class submarines) and mine sweepers (Bedok Class);

(2) French designed Frigates (Formidable Class), French built Super Pumas & Cougars, the Life Extension Programme of RSN's Swedish built Bedok class mine countermeasure vessels performed by Thales and so on;

(3) German made tanks (IBD evolved Leopard 2s for urban warfare, with the L44 gun), the M3 float bridges and the Lürssen designed Corvettes (Victory Class);

(4) American aircraft like F-15SGs, F-16C/Ds, Apaches, Chinooks, KC-135Rs and Seahawks naval helicopters;

(5) Russian designed SAM missiles (Igla); and

(6) Israeli supplied G550 CAEWs and the Barak missile system on the Victory Class vessels,
making the SAF's supply network truly global. All discussions that are focused only at a platform level (be it about a particular fighter plane, tank or artillery) is totally meaningless and without context if we don't look at the systems supporting that particular platform. To me a platform is just a tool and I've listed some of the tools in the SAF's arsenal. In fact, Trefor Moss, writing for Janes had on 18 Jan 2010 said:-
"The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) of 2010, by far the most advanced military force in Southeast Asia, are the outcome of a long-held policy of allotting defence up to 6 per cent of GDP. While defence spending has dipped below this level in recent years – it was 4.3 per cent in 2009, an allocation of SGD11.4 billion (USD8.2 billion) – this remains very high by regional standards. As the Indonesian defence minister recently lamented, Singapore (population less than five million) spends more on defence in real terms than Indonesia (population 230 million)... The SAF not only enjoy a clear capability advantage over other Southeast Asian militaries, but it is also now close to becoming the 'Third-Generation' armed force, which recent procurement and reforms have been designed to produce."
Therefore, IMHO, there is no way Vietnam can project her forces to move that far south against the most advanced military force in Southeast Asia.
________________
“Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.”
Christopher Hitchens

Last edited by OPSSG; March 6th, 2013 at 02:06 AM. Reason: Amend typos
OPSSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2011   #130
Super Moderator
Major General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2,483
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivendi View Post
Not realistic? Of course not; the US would intervene and save Singapore's butt. (And why would Vietnam care about that tiny island nation in the first place)
Some element of truth but sadly lacking of a broad view of regional realities. It is also lacking a understanding of the history of the region. Further, armed conflict need not be invasion but rather war by proxy or some other means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeZe View Post
While Singapore and the US do have military arms deals, and we do allow the stationing of US troops in Singaporean facilities and conduct operations and exercises alongside them, there is no formal defensive alliance. The US is not legally obligated to help us in the case of invasion, though the presence of US military and civilian personnel along with historically good political and financial ties may cause them to do so...

Can we go toe to toe with Vietnam in the ridiculous hypothetical situations posed by Vivendi? Of course not. But that was never the point of OPSSG's post.
Agreed.

Further, if your country is in conflict with a country that is a regional threat, their goal may not be to 'invade' your country. Let's talk about two examples of external powers destabilising a country:
(i) Vietnamese support for Hun Sen's regime in Cambodia vs the royalist FUNCINPEC, which was in turn supported by the ASEAN-6. This covert support strategy was used by members of the original ASEAN-6 countries with regards to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia via the region's support for FUNCINPEC against the Vietnamese installed Hun Sen regime. Conceptually, once there is sufficient external support in the supply of arms and money, the internal rebels never have to lay down their arms and the Hun Sen's forces could not achieve a decisive victory over the other groups. The name for this strategy is called fighting by proxy. And back then, Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia was not an acceptable status quo to the ASEAN-6, then.

(ii) The Konfrontasi was an undeclared war between Indonesia and United Kingdom-backed Malaya (which at that time included Singapore) over the future of the island of Borneo from 1962 to 1966. The origins of the conflict lay in Indonesian attempts to destabilise the new federation of Malaysia. Indonesia was lined up against Malaya, which was supported by UK, Australia and NZ. During the Konfrontasi, Indonesians set off 29 bombs in Singapore, between September 1963 and March 1965, which resulted in death and damage to property. This episode in history taught us many lessons, the main one being that it is crucial for Singapore to have a strong and credible defence force. Singapore’s two battalions, i.e. the First Singapore Infantry Regiment (1 SIR) and the Second Singapore Infantry Regiment (2 SIR), were placed under Malaysian command and deployed in various parts of Malaya to fight the saboteurs.
Let me list some armed conflicts in Asia* alone, where state policy has resulted in armed conflict (see box below for list of armed conflicts). In fact, some members of the 10 ASEAN countries have been in armed conflict with each other. This includes a shadow war, the Konfrontasi, which involved Indonesia vs Malaysia and Singapore (supported by UK, Australia and NZ). This also includes Vietnam vs Cambodia (which then drew in a regional power, China), where Vietnam invaded Cambodia and imposed regime change. In the case of Vietnam, it was not an invasion for territorial conquest or for resources; rather it was to install a friendly regime.

Quote:
*Select List of Armed Conflicts in Asia Post-WWII

1. Indo-Pakistan War of 1947
2. The Korean War (1950–1953)
3. The Vietnam War (1955 to 1975) - also known as the Second Indochina War
4. Sino-Indian War of 1962
5. The Konfrontasi (1963 to 1966)
6. Indo-Pakistan War of 1965
7. The Cambodian Civil War (1967–1975)
8. Indo-Pakistan War of 1971
9. Cambodian–Vietnamese War (May 1975 to December 1989)
10. Indonesia invaded East Timor in Dec 1975 following the Carnation Revolution in Portugal
11. Sino-Vietnamese War (February-March 1979)- also known as the Third Indochina War
12. Indo-Pakistani War of 1999
13. Cambodian–Thai border dispute (shooting started in 2009 and escalated to artillery exchanges by 2011)
Other countries DO NOT have to desire something from a country to choose to destabilise/attack that country. Aggression/hostility could be caused by external regional dynamics or even domestic political imperatives of the aggressor state. Therefore, armed conflict need not be invasion but rather war by proxy. You have to look the the political narrative that keeps the regimes in power and the regional security dynamics:
(i) invasion and occupation is not the only threat (and invasion is also a very unlikely scenario); and

(ii) resource competition and access need not be the ONLY reason for war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivendi View Post
Singapore has an impressive defence force but let's face it, it can only fight smaller threats like Malaysia and Indonesia on it's own. Medium-large countries will have Singapore for breakfast. Small countries like Singapore need to rely on alliances with major powers like the US. That's what Singapore is doing and that's what will save Singapore's butt if the going get's tough. Not a few F-15...
Your responses reflect your lack of understanding of the history, the geo-political realities and the concerns of South East Asia. Three more basic points (to address the issue of ignorance of historical events):-
(i) Vietnam (which is by the way, has a population of 90.5 million with a land mass of 331,698 km2), Philipppines and Malaysia are much more concerned about China. Keep in mind the bloody conflict between Chinese and Vietnamese forces in the Chigua Reef area of the Spratlys in the late 1980s and Chinese maritime activities in the Mischief Reef and Scarborough Shoal are examples of the strategic interplay in the region. Beyond conflict in the maritime domain, the Vietnamese have actually fought a border war with China but not with us. Clear threats help set clear priority for the Vietnamese.

(ii) Indonesia, by the way, has a population of 229 million with a land mass of 1,919,440 km2 and the Indonesians were not given their independence. In their 1945-49 war of independence, they were able to drive out the Dutch, who were the colonial power of the day. You may think they suck but the TNI really don't care about what you think, as they have intend and are prepared to fight with a guerrilla ethos against any foreign power (like the Vietcong). Since their founding the TNI has been engaged in COIN type of 'constructive pacification' against internal rebels, such that, their war machine remains well oiled. As the 4th most populous country in the world, their point of view is that they have an endless supply of people and they have the benefit of terrain.

(iii) Singapore maintains at some cost (transfering to them 19 SF-260s and even a dive support boat to Indonesia), close relations with the Indonesians. After the Dec 2004 Tsunami, the SAF (with over a thousand soliders) was the first on the beaches of Meulaboh to deliver aid. IMHO, Singapore would not be able to play a constructive role in helping the TNI, if we were not capable of defending ourselves. Ironically, Singapore's strength enables us to have the confidence to give the Indonesians help in their time of need and helps build bridges between the two countries. Both the Singapore and Indonesian navies have a healthy respect for each other.
With due regards to past history, the present issue is:-
How can the region deal with the shifting power dynamics?
And some Southeast Asian nations are taking the answer into their own hands by turning towards military modernisation. Modernisation not only to counter China’s efforts but also to prepare for a future in which the US may not be able to play the role of ‘offshore balancer’.

IMHO, the more interesting question is:-
How to build a security architecture robust enough to deal with such challenges as committing parties to an ‘Incidents at Sea’ agreement?
At this time, the region lacks the institutions necessary to make such actions credible. While establishing new mechanisms like the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM+) and expanding existing ones like the East Asia Summit (EAS) could potentially lead to a security architecture that produces tangible results, neither approach has yet borne fruit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeZe View Post
That said, this topic detracts from the discussion of Vietnam's military by placing the focus on Singapore. I suggest that if anyone really wants to respond to this, do so in the appropriate Singapore military thread.
Agreed.
________________
“Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.”
Christopher Hitchens

Last edited by OPSSG; October 27th, 2011 at 10:47 PM.
OPSSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2011   #131
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1
Threads:
Teens can benefit greatly from the type of focus and self-confidence that military training can provide for them. While military schools might not be the best choice for them, having the chance to go through a military regiment and receive the type of guidance and forceful leadership they provide can make a huge difference in keeping them from making poor decisions that could undermine their ability.
superjake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2011   #132
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
Threads:
wrong words, sorry...

Last edited by FOXHOUND31; July 18th, 2011 at 09:40 PM. Reason: Wrong words
FOXHOUND31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2011   #133
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
Threads:
Does anyone here knows where the Vietnamese Air Force's 937 Fighter Regiment is based

Hello all !

Does anyone here knows where the Vietnamese Air Force's 937 Fighter Regiment is based? The VNAF's 935 FR is based at Bien Hoa...And about the 937FR, where it is based?

Thank you very much in advance for any response...
FOXHOUND31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2011   #134
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Twinblade's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 290
Threads:
India and USA to protect Vietnam from China ????!!!

Quote:
Vietnam is not alone in a festering territorial dispute with China. In the near future Indian warships will arrive into the South China Sea. This is a group of destroyers CMD (controlled missile defense).

But there is more to it: at the end of June there were reports from New Delhi that the Indian Navy intends to settle in the South China Sea for a long time. The Indian side is expected to establish a permanent military presence there.

According to the official government version of India, this will help the Navy of India to play a more prominent role in South-East Asia where strategic shipping lines are located.
Quote:
Since December of 2007 the influential American officials, including the chief of the CIA, have been paying regular visits to Vietnam. In the face of rising threats from the Chinese, the parties are demonstrating their intent to forget past grievances. This once again emphasizes that despite the anticipated military demonstrations in India the U.S. warships will arrive to the Vietnamese coast in the near future.
either this promises to be an asian version of cuban missile crisis or the author is on some really strong medication.
Twinblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 20th, 2011   #135
Just Hatched
Private
VNcitizen's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam
Posts: 11
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOXHOUND31 View Post
Hello all !

Does anyone here knows where the Vietnamese Air Force's 937 Fighter Regiment is based? The VNAF's 935 FR is based at Bien Hoa...And about the 937FR, where it is based?

Thank you very much in advance for any response...
937 Fighter Regiment, also called C37 regiment is based on Thành Sơn airbase, Phan Rang - Tháp Chàm city, Ninh Thuận Province
VNcitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:57 PM.