Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US mulls P-3 MPA sale to Vietnam

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Heh, good point.

    The Dems take California for granted and the Repubs think it's a lost cause.

    Either way, they have no political voice.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Loke View Post

      I question however how close to the US Vietnam wants to move -- China is after all much closer (geographically), and they have a growing economy and growing military clout.
      For a couple of thousands of years the Viets have managed to survive between major powers fighting over, in and around her territory.

      They don't want and have never needed a permanent military partner, what they're interested in is someone that can be a fair weather friend to cause the other side to pause before deciding that a military dismemberment is needed to teach them a lesson (whatever that historical lesson is convenient to trot out at the time)

      They don't play the traditional geo-strategic game....

      look at how many new "owners" Cam Ranh Bay has had over the last 60 years......
      Linkeden:
      http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
      http://cofda.wordpress.com/

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
        For a couple of thousands of years the Viets have managed to survive between major powers fighting over, in and around her territory.

        They don't want and have never needed a permanent military partner, what they're interested in is someone that can be a fair weather friend to cause the other side to pause before deciding that a military dismemberment is needed to teach them a lesson (whatever that historical lesson is convenient to trot out at the time)

        They don't play the traditional geo-strategic game....

        look at how many new "owners" Cam Ranh Bay has had over the last 60 years......
        They've survived mostly due to the ineptitude of the opposing forces/leaders. A large, decent-quality land army with a relatively short logistics chain is something they haven't faced in centuries.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
          They've survived mostly due to the ineptitude of the opposing forces/leaders. A large, decent-quality land army with a relatively short logistics chain is something they haven't faced in centuries.
          Thats true, but they also are not fearful of the chinese - the PLA foray late last century reinforced for them that they can withstand their neighbour to the north. of course china today is not china in the late 70's - but broader geopolitical capital would be lost if the chinese decided to wander across the border again
          Linkeden:
          http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
          http://cofda.wordpress.com/

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Loke View Post

            After all the Vietnamese ruling elite's main objective is to stay in power. Unless China tries to take too much (which could ultimately lead to a lot of unrest, the Vietnamese are in general very patriotic) then I think they would try to maintain a good relationship with the ruling elite in China, and give that a higher priority than building a relationship with the US.

            But I guess it really depends on how aggressive China becomes. There will be limits to how much the Vietnamese can accept.
            There is no love lost between he Vietnamese and the Chinese - and I'd argue that continuing spats over the Spratlys/Paracels is whats driven Vietnam closer to not only the US, but even those smaller nations that she is in territorial dispute with. That region is not gearing up and buying subs because the USN is considered the next major threat.

            The common view I'd argue is that everyone in that region has done their 30 year plans and worked out that nearest opportunity for conflict lies in resource claim and overlap

            They don't need P3's for ASW, they want them for BAMs (and ISR).
            Linkeden:
            http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
            http://cofda.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
              one of the ironies of geopolitics....

              Vietnam has sought closer ties with countries that she was at war with 50 years ago, she's sought assistance from Aust, NZ, US on military procurement as well as training.....

              Another example of chinas success in the region....

              there's a whole pile of smaller countries in that region who now seek to co-operate with each other and/or former enemies due to a new common fear.
              Nothing's really changed to be honest. Most of SE Asia is still buying from both us and the Chinese, and South Korea still hates Japan.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                Nothing's really changed to be honest. Most of SE Asia is still buying from both us and the Chinese, and South Korea still hates Japan.
                The force projection and development models show that those countries are changing their long view

                There is a pragmatism even between the Sth Koreans and Japanese. ie they are both involved in the same programs - and they both have a more common threat. Never underestimate the ability of the US to get warring parties into a room - and thy successfully do it with Sth Korea and Japan

                you'll still get the tribal commentary coming out (look at the chinese for example) - but govt to govt, military to military, its a far more mature approach

                I've seen both nations snr officers in the same roon on various military issues and they don't act like enemies. There is a professional toleration and understanding that there is a bigger picture here.

                Quite a few in the region consider the chinese present govt to be a variation of the Tang, Ming, Manchurians etc.... albeit it with modern tools.
                Last edited by gf0012-aust; 25 Apr 13,, 00:54.
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • #23
                  As it says on the lintel over the door of the Foreign Office in London...."No Permanent Friends, Just Permanent Interests".
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                    The force projection and development models show that those countries are changing their long view

                    There is a pragmatism even between the Sth Koreans and Japanese. ie they are both involved in the same programs - and they both have a more common threat. Never underestimate the ability of the US to get warring parties into a room - and thy successfully do it with Sth Korea and Japan

                    you'll still get the tribal commentary coming out (look at the chinese for example) - but govt to govt, military to military, its a far more mature approach

                    I've seen both nations snr officers in the same roon on various military issues and they don't act like enemies. There is a professional toleration and understanding that there is a bigger picture here.

                    Quite a few in the region consider the chinese present govt to be a variation of the Tang, Ming, Manchurians etc.... albeit it with modern tools.
                    On the other hand, the ROKN has been matching the JSDFM in force structure and capabilities.

                    One of the major problems is the whole Dokdo business, not to mention stuff like how Abe is now apparently no smarter than the CCP when it comes to managing domestic nationalism. To say nothing of the scuttled intelligence sharing pact.

                    Could anyone comment if the current Japanese-Korean defense cooperation is about the same level as it was during the Cold War?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                      There is no love lost between he Vietnamese and the Chinese - and I'd argue that continuing spats over the Spratlys/Paracels is whats driven Vietnam closer to not only the US, but even those smaller nations that she is in territorial dispute with. That region is not gearing up and buying subs because the USN is considered the next major threat.

                      The common view I'd argue is that everyone in that region has done their 30 year plans and worked out that nearest opportunity for conflict lies in resource claim and overlap

                      They don't need P3's for ASW, they want them for BAMs (and ISR).
                      Sir, I don't know from which source you got that conclusion but Vietnam desires USA's ASW technology and it is not because of ASEAN's subs but Chinese subs. ASW against Chinese subs has been Hanoi's headache for years, not just recently. That's also the reason why they bought the Gepards.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by hanswu25 View Post
                        Sir, I don't know from which source you got that conclusion but Vietnam desires USA's ASW technology and it is not because of ASEAN's subs but Chinese subs. ASW against Chinese subs has been Hanoi's headache for years, not just recently. That's also the reason why they bought the Gepards.
                        You appear to have misread GF's comments. He isn't saying Hanoi wants them for ASEAN subs, he is saying that Hanoi wants them for Chinese subs. The reference to 'the region' was about why ASEAN nations are buying subs - to match China. If I understands him GF is pointing out that what they primarily need P3's for is surveillance. I'm assuming that is a capability gap. They can perform ASW, but presumably there is a bigger issue in other areas.
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by hanswu25 View Post
                          Sir, I don't know from which source you got that conclusion but Vietnam desires USA's ASW technology and it is not because of ASEAN's subs but Chinese subs. ASW against Chinese subs has been Hanoi's headache for years, not just recently. That's also the reason why they bought the Gepards.
                          they have a need for ASW, it is not the principle reason for getting them.

                          every land based fixed wing ASW asset deployed by every nation since the end of the cold war has employed them for primary roles as ISR and BAMS assets - ASW currently is secondary

                          ignore what the plane looks like and don't relate it to practices past (pre cold war) - the assessment is based on everyones actual CONOPS.

                          Speak to anyone involved with these assets and you will get the same answer - thats because thats what their primary daily job is. Vietnam is no different - and they have an over arching and compelling requirement for ISR and BAMS because they have NOTHING that can do it now

                          they need ISR and BAMS capability before they need ASW - the latter is complimentary - the former is needed to inform the latter

                          CREF Bigfella
                          Last edited by gf0012-aust; 26 Apr 13,, 06:33.
                          Linkeden:
                          http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                          http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            As I understand it, most of the current and recently concluded ASEAN submarine procurement plans predate 2008-10 by a decent margin.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                              As I understand it, most of the current and recently concluded ASEAN submarine procurement plans predate 2008-10 by a decent margin.
                              major capital acquisition is a long process - most western countries its a 10-15year cradle to grave cycle - ie capability req definition, assessment, acquisition, fielding. Most of the countries who have hit this cycle started their decision and selection making excercise circa 2002-2005.

                              china turns around decisions slightly faster
                              Last edited by gf0012-aust; 28 Apr 13,, 04:26. Reason: typo fix
                              Linkeden:
                              http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                              http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X