boring thread

[VNcitizen]

Vietnam Air defense (belong to Air and Air Defense force Command) equipments by 28 Feb 2011:
- 2 S-300PMU1 SAM systems with 12 launchers and 72 missiles.
- 24 Pechora-2M SAM systems with 72 to 96 launchers and about 1500 missiles.
- 24 Volga-M SAM systems with 96 to 144 launchers and about 1000 missiles.
- 12 Strela-10M3 launchers and 200 missiles.
- 30 Strela-2M manportable launchers and 200 missiles
- 20 Igla-S manportable launchers and 200 missiles.
- 54 ZSU-23-4M SPAAA
- 100+ 37mm AAA
- 100+ 57mm AAA

Hmm, It's true that VPAF has to upgrade and modernize its equipments and weapons. See the list above.........:mad. What about SA-6 Gainful and SA-9 Gaskin, are they all out of service?

Hey Triumf, by the way, listing the radar systems too. I think Vietnam has the most powerful and effective radar systems in the area.

 

[Ananda]

Hmm, It's true that VPAF has to upgrade and modernize its equipments and weapons. See the list above.........:mad. What about SA-6 Gainful and SA-9 Gaskin, are they all out of service?

Hey Triumf, by the way, listing the radar systems too. I think Vietnam has the most powerful and effective radar systems in the area.

No, Singapore has the most advance and efficient radar and sensors infrastructures in the area. They have working network centric capabilities that can integrate land, sea, and air based radar, sensors and early warning systems. It has been that way for more than two decades.

Off corse if you mean that the area means Southeast Asia. But if you mean the area just Indochina, well yes, Vietnam has the most advance radar systems.

 

[Triumf]

No, Singapore has the most advance and efficient radar and sensors infrastructures in the area. They have working network centric capabilities that can integrate land, sea, and air based radar, sensors and early warning systems. It has been that way for more than two decades.

Off corse if you mean that the area means Southeast Asia. But if you mean the area just Indochina, well yes, Vietnam has the most advance radar systems.

Vietnam's radars:
2 NEBO-UE (55Zh6UE) Radar
2 NEBO-SV Radar
2 OBORONA-14 Radar
2 29N6 Delta
3 39N6E KASTA-2E2 Low-Altitude 3D All-Round Surveillance Radar
4 Vostock-E Radar
4 ST-68UM Radar
24 P-18MV upgrade Radar
12 P-35M upgrade Radar
12 P-37M upgrade Radar
12 PRV-11/13
2 AVTOBAZA Ground-Based Executive ELINT System
4 Kolchuga-M Mobile Automated Electronic Intelligence System

 

[Ananda]

Vietnam's radars:
2 NEBO-UE (55Zh6UE) Radar
2 NEBO-SV Radar
2 OBORONA-14 Radar
2 29N6 Delta
3 39N6E KASTA-2E2 Low-Altitude 3D All-Round Surveillance Radar
4 Vostock-E Radar
4 ST-68UM Radar
24 P-18MV upgrade Radar
12 P-35M upgrade Radar
12 P-37M upgrade Radar
12 PRV-11/13
2 AVTOBAZA Ground-Based Executive ELINT System
4 Kolchuga-M Mobile Automated Electronic Intelligence System

I have no detail lists on Singaporean radar and sensors systems, since Singapore tend to be silence on their sensors capabilities. But considering they have working Airbornes AEW grid, with sensors capabilities to control air spaces even to south china sea, also their Frigates is the only surfaces ships in SEA that have 'true' area anti-air defences capabilities. Then I still say Singapore have the best sensors systems in region.

 

[mk25]

I have no detail lists on Singaporean radar and sensors systems, since Singapore tend to be silence on their sensors capabilities. But considering they have working Airbornes AEW grid, with sensors capabilities to control air spaces even to south china sea, also their Frigates is the only surfaces ships in SEA that have 'true' area anti-air defences capabilities. Then I still say Singapore have the best sensors systems in region.

Thing like AWAC is a liablity to your military since you will have to divert a number of fighters to escort/guard it. If your air force is like the top 5 or so, it will not be a problem since you have plenty to spare but if your air force is like Singapore, it's not worth it.

 

[Bonza]

Thing like AWAC is a liablity to your military since you will have to divert a number of fighters to escort/guard it. If your air force is like the top 5 or so, it will not be a problem since you have plenty to spare but if your air force is like Singapore, it's not worth it.

Any liability caused by diverting fighters to escort your AEW&C is more than covered by the fact that the enhanced situational awareness it grants you means you know when and where to commit other aircraft (such as fighters) in the first place. If you have a bigger, better picture of the battleground, you can better allocate forces to areas where they're needed, whether it's protecting your AEW&C or otherwise.

To think that the capability doesn't offer anything unless you have a certain number of fighters is a bit flawed logically... I don't mean any offence by that at all, but surely you can see the relevance of such a capability regardless of fighter counts...

 

[Feanor]

Any liability caused by diverting fighters to escort your AEW&C is more than covered by the fact that the enhanced situational awareness it grants you means you know when and where to commit other aircraft (such as fighters) in the first place. If you have a bigger, better picture of the battleground, you can better allocate forces to areas where they're needed, whether it's protecting your AEW&C or otherwise.

To think that the capability doesn't offer anything unless you have a certain number of fighters is a bit flawed logically... I don't mean any offence by that at all, but surely you can see the relevance of such a capability regardless of fighter counts...

To dispute that slightly, naturally it's better to have 12 fighters and an AWACS then juts 12 fighters. But if you're a country the size of Singapore it's better to have 24 fighters then 12 fighters and an AWACS. Simply because your numbers are so low that you can't afford to spend the resources on AEW.

That having been said, the case of Singapore in real life, they are nowhere near that small an airframe count. In fact only very small or very poor countries are. So he's wrong in this particular instance. But lets say tomorrow Uganda declares they intend to purchase AEW. For their 5 flyable MiG-21s... might not be the best use of their money.

Triumf I would take into account the age and dated nature of the systems you list. The majority of Vietnamese SAMs are S-75M and the Pechora-2M (twin rails, truck-bed launchers iirc). They're quite old. I'm also not sure if Vietnam has any Ranzhir IADS command posts which would effectively integrate the S-300s and the older systems. If the answer is no, then I think it's safe to assume the older systems are not networked beyond the btln level.

It would also be interesting to see how these assets are organized and deployed throughout the country. The Strela-10s for example are mobile point-GBAD typically used to defend tank or motor-rifle units from CAS and interdiction. They could (though this isn't their normal purpose) be used as point air defense for the S-300s. They could also be (rather ineffectively, without additional assets) used as point-defense for important installations. Same with the Shilkas.

I'm assuming the S-75s and S-125s are used as division-level GBAD. Are they integrated into the land forces units organically? Attached to them? Dispersed for area coverage? Or massed around key installations?

What about the 37 and 57mm AAA? Does it have radar? If not, is it even of any real use? Is it still in service or just nominally in inventory? If it is in service and has radar, is it networked to any of the other assets?

 

[Triumf]

I have no detail lists on Singaporean radar and sensors systems, since Singapore tend to be silence on their sensors capabilities. But considering they have working Airbornes AEW grid, with sensors capabilities to control air spaces even to south china sea, also their Frigates is the only surfaces ships in SEA that have 'true' area anti-air defences capabilities. Then I still say Singapore have the best sensors systems in region.

Yes, I completely agree with you. But in case of responds to stealth aircraft, I think Vietnam has better capability more than Singapore. For example, our Nebo-UE/SV, Kolchuga-M, Vostock-E systems can detect stealth aircrafts from hundred kilometers, it is enough time for readiness of the air defense.

 

[Ananda]

Thing like AWAC is a liablity to your military since you will have to divert a number of fighters to escort/guard it. If your air force is like the top 5 or so, it will not be a problem since you have plenty to spare but if your air force is like Singapore, it's not worth it.

Any liability caused by diverting fighters to escort your AEW&C is more than covered by the fact that the enhanced situational awareness it grants you means you know when and where to commit other aircraft (such as fighters) in the first place. If you have a bigger, better picture of the battleground, you can better allocate forces to areas where they're needed, whether it's protecting your AEW&C or otherwise

I agree with Bonza. Having fully operational Airborne Early Warning Grid, combine with your land based long range survailance system, will provide your Air forces with efficient batlle field awareness.

Afterall that's what Radar and sensors really need, to enhance your battlefield awareness. Singapore air defence is the most advance in the region (unless you count Australia) with net centric awareness and inter-locking coverage that ensure redundancy capabilities still there if some of the sensors has been neutralise.

When talking about radar coverage capabilities, it's not just talking about 'how much' the quantity of radar system that you have. But more to 'whether' your radar and sensors system manage to cover all your blank spot, enough redundancy capabilities and provide you with 'earliest' warning system can be. The way Singapore arrange her survailance system (with follow the model build by Israel and US) ensure them that the Air Defence has enough time (I heard the target is One Hour in advance at least) to read where the Intruders comming from, what quantity, and how fast. That's what their Airbourne AEW really for. Provide more capable advance early warning with precisse batlle field threat measurement.

 

[Ananda]

Yes, I completely agree with you. But in case of responds to stealth aircraft, I think Vietnam has better capability more than Singapore. For example, our Nebo-UE/SV, Kolchuga-M, Vostock-E systems can detect stealth aircrafts from hundred kilometers, it is enough time for readiness of the air defense.

I can't comment on what I underlined in your post, since I don't know the exact capabilities of Singapore latest sensors. However I read somewhere that the latest Singapore Airbourne AEW has utilisied AESA from Elta that supposed give them more advance warning then previous E-2 that they have. Whether this include Stelath, that I don't know.

Honetly I can't comment on what sensors now has the capabilities for long range detections on Stealth Aircraft. I Think this has been discussed in many forums, and I still don't see the strong arguments that can validate each oppinion (on whether Stealth really invincible, or whether new long range sensors has ablle to detect Stealth).

 

[Feanor]

Yes, I completely agree with you. But in case of responds to stealth aircraft, I think Vietnam has better capability more than Singapore. For example, our Nebo-UE/SV, Kolchuga-M, Vostock-E systems can detect stealth aircrafts from hundred kilometers, it is enough time for readiness of the air defense.

Science fiction. At best. Starting with the fact that "Stealth" or rather LO is not a singular feature or characteristic but a multi-faceted approach to penetrating a hostile IADS, and ending with the fact that even the raw RCS and radar output data are not public domain info. In other words even on the platform level you lack the information necessary to make the judgment call, on a system level the outdated nature, and (as I suspect) lack of networking assets make it highly unlikely even against older LO designs.

Then there's also the fact that detection=/=tracking=/=engagement...

By the way, I'm still waiting on a response to my earlier question. If you have one that is... how these resources are organized also plays into how effective they might be at engaging a modern VLO strike package.

For example if all the above assets are massed around a single key facility, thoroughly datalinked, and have redundancy coverage among dozens of systems at any single point in space, they plausibly could prevent (though more through deterrence) a VLO strike package, provided the attackers had limited time and/or resources (i.e. they couldn't afford to take the time to wage a proper SEAD/DEAD actino against this single nexus).

Agree on all points Feanor, I wasn't really thinking about tiny air forces in my response, but really just the specific example of Singapore and air forces of similar size and capabilities.

Apologies for the hasty/incomplete responses, at work.

No need to apologize. I wasn't correcting or disputing so much , as adding a minor conditional to your statement. Within the framework of this discussion you're spot on.

 

[Chino]

Thing like AWAC is a liablity to your military since you will have to divert a number of fighters to escort/guard it. If your air force is like the top 5 or so, it will not be a problem since you have plenty to spare but if your air force is like Singapore, it's not worth it.

First of all, you don't understand what an important role AWACS play in compliment to other radar/surveillance system.

Secondly, you don't know the Singapore air force. For a little island our size, I dare say we have a very respectable-sized air force.

We do have quite a bit to "spare", to borrow your phrase.

 

[OPSSG]

I have no detail lists on Singaporean radar and sensors systems, since Singapore tend to be silence on their sensors capabilities. But considering they have working Airbornes AEW grid, with sensors capabilities to control air spaces even to south china sea, also their Frigates is the only surfaces ships in SEA that have 'true' area anti-air defences capabilities. Then I still say Singapore have the best sensors systems in region.

Yes, I completely agree with you. But in case of responds to stealth aircraft, I think Vietnam has better capability more than Singapore. For example, our Nebo-UE/SV, Kolchuga-M, Vostock-E systems can detect stealth aircrafts from hundred kilometers, it is enough time for readiness of the air defense.

As a Singaporean, I'm a little hesitant to enter into this discussion simply because I don't want to come across as very 'proud' or nationalistic about capabilities of the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF). I've entered this discussion simply because it is apparent that some members are very misinformed about the capabilities of the RSAF. There are 7 main points that new members taking part in this thread should note :-

1. The RSAF is the only tertiary air force in Southeast Asia (SEA). This means that it is an air force with the capability to detect, track and engage airborne targets that is a golden mile ahead of any other air force in SEA:

(i) The RSAF is the only air force in SEA with an operational AWAC squadron (the RSAF has operated 4 E-2Cs since 1987 and is in the process of inducting brand new G550 CAEWs), giving data-linked RSAF pilots unparalleled situational awareness at a time of war. Sunho Beck, writing in Aviation Week (1 Oct 2007) said that the G550 CAEW can detect fighter sized targets up to 370 km away and carries unique dual-band, phased-array radar with 2 L-band side antennas and 2 S-band end antennas which are connected to a common radar unit. The system software has been optimised by DSTA and the local defence industry. Further, Singapore is currently the only Asian country to participate in the F-35 program as a Security Cooperation Participant. I'm pretty sure that in the near future, the RSAF will have some capability to detect aircraft in our own inventory (and will probably keep silent about the RSAF's current detect, track and engage capabilities).

(ii) The RSAF has a KC-135R squadron (with 4 aircraft) and again, it is only the tanker squadron in SEA that have crews that have been deployed in a theatre of war (in support of the American led Operation Enduring Freedom). Between 2004 to 2008, the RSAF deployed KC-135R tankers (in 5 deployments for 3 month stretches each time) in support of coalition forces in Iraqi. Between 2004 and 2008, RSAF KC-135Rs offloaded 14 million pounds of fuel to more than 1,400 coalition aircraft in over 300 refuelling sorties. RSAF's KC-135Rs are valued coalition assets because they are equipped for boom refueling and probe-and-drogue refuelling (which means they can refuel all coalition aircraft, be it USAF, USN, US Marines and aircraft from other coalition countries).

(iii) The RSAF is again the only air force in SEA that is recognized by her partners as capable of conducting Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD) missions and it also has a robust Electronic Warfare (EW) capability that is second to none in SEA. While it is well known that the RSAF regularly takes part in large force employment exercises like Red Flag but what is lesser known is that the RSAF also takes part in Green Flag exercises (which is SEAD oriented). Further, the F-15SGs are AESA radar equipped and are known to have internal EW systems. BTW, the RSAF has not fully declassified its SEAD and EW capabilities, that's why this capability is not often described. See this video on the F-15SG at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYrQuopc920&feature=related"]The Beast - The F-15SG (Defence Watch Jan 10) - YouTube[/nomedia]


For completeness, I should note that the RSAF's F-16s have been spotted carrying the AN/ALQ-131 podded radar jammers and F-5S carrying the EL/L-812/22 jamming pod.​

2. With full time detachments based in Australia (basic wings course), France (advanced jet training) and the US (for F-15SG and F-16C/D training), the RSAF's pilots certainly are trained to western standards. Each RSAF squadron has more actual flight hours and simulator hours than any other squadron in any other air force in SEA. I shall not bother to list the countries that RSAF pilots train with and against in Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) in various overseas exercises, as there are too many. IMHO, RSAF pilots have lots of DACT experience that can't be matched by other air forces in SEA. The RSAF is a little air force that can do quite a bit and I would recommend that new members watch this 2008 video below, for an overview of the RSAF:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhZN307evOs&feature=related"]RSAF 40th Anniversary Video - YouTube[/nomedia]

Any liability caused by diverting fighters to escort your AEW&C is more than covered by the fact that the enhanced situational awareness it grants you means you know when and where to commit other aircraft (such as fighters) in the first place. If you have a bigger, better picture of the battleground, you can better allocate forces to areas where they're needed, whether it's protecting your AEW&C or otherwise.

To think that the capability doesn't offer anything unless you have a certain number of fighters is a bit flawed logically... I don't mean any offence by that at all, but surely you can see the relevance of such a capability regardless of fighter counts...

To dispute that slightly, naturally it's better to have 12 fighters and an AWACS then juts 12 fighters. But if you're a country the size of Singapore it's better to have 24 fighters then 12 fighters and an AWACS. Simply because your numbers are so low that you can't afford to spend the resources on AEW.

That having been said, the case of Singapore in real life, they are nowhere near that small an airframe count. In fact only very small or very poor countries are. So he's wrong in this particular instance. But lets say tomorrow Uganda declares they intend to purchase AEW. For their 5 flyable MiG-21s... might not be the best use of their money.

Triumf I would take into account the age and dated nature of the systems you list. The majority of Vietnamese SAMs are S-75M and the Pechora-2M (twin rails, truck-bed launchers iirc). They're quite old. I'm also not sure if Vietnam has any Ranzhir IADS command posts which would effectively integrate the S-300s and the older systems. If the answer is no, then I think it's safe to assume the older systems are not networked beyond the btln level.

3. In response to the discussion by Bonza and Feanor, I would like to add 3 sub-points on sortie generation for further consideration by fellow forum participants:

(i) With tanker support (from KC-135Rs and KC-130s) and 5 fighter squadrons (3x F-16C/D squadrons, 1x F-15SG squadron and 1x F-5S squadron - all 5 squadrons are BVR capable), the RSAF can potentially generate more sorties (with much more capable aircraft) than most other SEA air forces. With the largest defence budget in SEA (see table below point 5), Singapore does not have to choose between buying more fighters or AWACs, in the manner suggested.

(ii) With ST Aerospace providing competent technical support, the RSAF has a well maintained fleet, consequently, the RSAF's airpower generation command, is structured to out sortie generate any other air forces in SEA. IMHO, total sorties generated (before attrition) is usually calculated with reference to the formula below:

Total sorties per day = fleet size x availability* x No. of sorties flown**.

eg. 1: RSAF Total Sorties per day = 99 x 0.8* x 4**
............................................... = 316.8

eg. 2: VAF Total Sorties per day = 202 x 0.6* x 2**
............................................... = 242.4

The above two examples are indicative calculations that are not meant to be definitive (in fact, there's some under-counting of the RSAF fighter fleet). The calculation would depend on different assumptions* used by different members and in the above simple examples have not factored in fighters of 'allied' or partner countries.
​

(iii) Keep in mind that the RSAF's force structure is designed to enable it to provide over-match against two immediate regional air forces at the same time (for the SAF's concept of deterrence to work). So there's some basis for my point of view on sortie generation (biased though it may seem to be to foreigners). Here's a video of the RSAF's air power generation command converting a highway into a runway with RSAF aircraft taking off and landing:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnkNaF45BK0&feature=watch_response"]RSAF Exercise Torrent 2008 - HD - YouTube[/nomedia]​

4. The RSAF is also the largest and most advanced UAV operator in SEA. The RSAF is a operator of the Hermes 450 and the Searcher II UAVs (plus having the Heron 1 on order to replace the Searcher IIs). The SAF also currently has a 52-man Search II UAV team serving in Afghanistan, making the RSAF the air force with the most operationally experienced UAV teams and with the most advanced ISR capabilities in SEA.

5. To further our discussion, below is a list of the top 6 SEA countries ranked by their defence spending to provide context to this discussion. The defence spending data is from SIPRI*, the Total Fighter Fleet** size data is extracted from Flight International's Dec 2009, "World Air Forces" (keep in mind that this is not the most accurate of sources) and the #No. of Troops (active/reserve) are extracted from the IISS' "The Military Balance 2010".

1. Singapore
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 99
(i) F-16C/Ds = 60 (other sources suggest higher numbers)
(ii) F-15SGs = 4 (20 on order)
(iii) F-5S/Ts = 35 (see other source on Singapore F-5s by tail numbers)

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 72,500 (active) and 312,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$182.23 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 3.9% to a high of 5.1% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$7,966 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$6,661 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$5,997 million (at constant 2008 prices)


2. Indonesia
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 39
(i) F-16A = 7
(ii) Su-27/30 = 7 (3 on order)
(iii) Hawk 209 = 25

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 302,000 (active) and 400,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$539.37 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 1.0% to a high of 1.4% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$4,908 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$4,840 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$2,970 million (at constant 2008 prices)


3. Thailand
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 97
(i) F-16A/Bs = 50
(ii) F-5A/E = 47
(iii) Gripen C = 0 (other sources suggest that it is 6 +6 on order)

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 305,860 (active) and 200,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$263.97 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 1.1% to a high of 1.5% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$4,117 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$2,673 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$2,702 million (at constant 2008 prices)


4. Malaysia
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 59
(i) Su-30MKM = 18
(ii) F/A-18D = 8
(iii) MiG-29 = 10
(iv) RF-5E= 9
(v) Hawk 208 = 14

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 109,000 (active) and 296,300 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$192.95 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 2.0% to a high of 2.6% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$4,078 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$3,691 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$2,122 million (at constant 2008 prices)


5. Vietnam
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 202
(i) MiG-21 = 146
(ii) Su-22 = 38
(iii) Su-27/30 = 18 (8 on order)

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 455,000 (active) and 5 million (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$92.43 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 2% to a high of 2.5% (data from 2003 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$2,073 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$1,370 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: No data shown in SIPRI database


6. Philippines
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 0
(i) S-211 = 13 (S211 is not classed as fighter aircaft, as its not even an AJT)
(ii) OV-10 =11 (ground attack and not usually classes as fighter aircaft)
[Note: I believe the actual working inventory may be lower]

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 120,000 (active) and 131,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$161.19 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 0.8% to a high of 1.0% (from 2001 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$1,424 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$ 1,275 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$ 1,270 million (at constant 2008 prices)

6. Historically, Singapore's annual defence budget is around 2.6 to 3.6 times that of Vietnam, so there's a huge qualitative difference in equipment. The Vietnamese defense budget in 2011 is about 52,000 billion VND (US$2.6 billion), which is less than a third of Singapore's defence budget of S$12.08 billion (US$9.5 billion). Obviously, the Vietnamese air force does not have the same financial ability to maintain and upgrade their fighter fleet, when compared to the RSAF before even considering the difference in training and doctrine.

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.

 

[OPSSG]

Most people put the number of F16 at around 70.

And this being 2011, have we received our full complement of 24 F15?

And if Wiki is to be believed, we have over 40 upgraded F5's.

Which puts the number at over 120 combat aircrafts.

I agree that the fighter numbers depends on which source you use.

In the above case, I have chosen to cite the fighter numbers extracted from Flight International's Dec 2009, "World Air Forces" and since I took the Vietnamese data from there, I should for consistency reasons limit my present discussion on the RSAF to the same source for numbers.

BTW, I welcome your input on why you think there are more (I don't disagree that the RSAF has more by the way, the issue is how much more and there seems to be some minor disagreement on the F-16C/D numbers and the F-5S/T numbers).

 

[Chino]

I agree that the fighter numbers depends on which source you use.

In the above case, I have chosen to cite the fighter numbers extracted from Flight International's Dec 2009, "World Air Forces" and since I took the Vietnamese data from there, I should for consistency reasons limit my present discussion on the RSAF to the same source for numbers.

BTW, I welcome your input on why you think there are more (I don't disagree that the RSAF has more by the way, the issue is how much more and there seems to be some minor disagreement on the F-16C/D numbers and the F-5S/T numbers).

Like I said, the numbers for F16 and F5 are from Wiki...

 

[mk25]

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.

Agree with your points that Singapore is a very decent airforce but I have to say that at the same time it is not a threat to the Vietnamese airforce either if Vietnam and Singapore are right next together. Beside Vietnam, no one in Asia has had a massive experience in electronic counter measure warfare or the history of shooting down so many fighters of 1st rated air force like Vietnam had; despite of the fact that we hardly understood the Russian language or even had much training to begin with

 

[mk25]

The only confirmed numbers for the Vietnamese airforce is 11 su-27 and 8 su-30 + 16 su-30 on order

 

[Feanor]

Agree with your points that Singapore is a very decent airforce but I have to say that at the same time it is not a threat to the Vietnamese airforce either if Vietnam and Singapore are right next together. Beside Vietnam, no one in Asia has had a massive experience in electronic counter measure warfare or the history of shooting down so many fighters of 1st rated air force like Vietnam had; despite of the fact that we hardly understood the Russian language or even had much training to begin with

Experience is great, but you need the equipment. Stating that SGAF is not a threat, is flat out wrong. As it stands Singapore has a superior airforce. Why has already been explained.

 

[mk25]

Experience is great, but you need the equipment. Stating that SGAF is not a threat, is flat out wrong. As it stands Singapore has a superior airforce. Why has already been explained.

The reason that I said Singapore is not a threat because if there is a war break out between Singapore and Vietnam, Singapore's numerical advantage in modern fighters are still low that won't permit it to gain air superiority over the sky of Vietnam's air defence network.

 

[STURM]

The reason that I said Singapore is not a threat because if there is a war break out between Singapore and Vietnam, Singapore's numerical advantage in modern fighters are still low that won't permit it to gain air superiority over the sky of Vietnam's air defence network.

Please let's not turn this into a 'this VERSUS that' thread.....
Yes the possibility of a war or military engagement between Singapore and Vietnam is virtually nil, the other members were just making a point. Nobody is trying to put down the Vietnam Air Force.

Each country has different threat perceptions and security concerns. Vietnam's main concern, as I understand it, is a possible clash with the PRC over the Spratleys. As trade links deepen between both countries, including cross border trade which is rapidly rising, I feel that unless exteme provocative moves are made by either side to alter the present status quo, the possibility of a clash is remote. Simply put, the main agenda is to develop the economy and make money - rather than engage in counter productive military moves!

In Singapore's case, due to certain factors - being surrounded by much larger neighbours, a land mass of only around 710 square kilometres, etc, it has a policy of detterence, to ensure that it has a technological edge, and in many key areas also a numerical edge over it's closest neighbours. Due to better funding which leads to more regular and more realistic training, and also a bigger operational and mantainance budget, wouldn't you agree that the RSAF has certain advantages over the Vietnam Air Force?

Beside Vietnam, no one in Asia has had a massive experience in electronic counter measure warfare or the history of shooting down so many fighters of 1st rated air force like Vietnam had; despite of the fact that we hardly understood the Russian language or even had much training to begin with

No disrespect intended to Vietnam but that was in the 1960's and 1970's, times have changed. If a similiar campaign was launched over the skies of Vietnam today, by an air arm such as the USAF, which has the operational experience, resources and technological edge, the end result might be different.