South China Sea thoughts?

[Vivendi]

I put it in difference posts because this is clearly shown that you simply don't understand on Asians. You seems forgot that both Chinese and Vietnamese 'corrupt' governments are already raises their citizen living standards significantly.

Asian as the communities can put up with authoritarian and corrupt regime, if they keep continue raising the standard of living. You simply see on your western standard. If it is already strong discontent, then there will be already enough uprisings in Vietnam.

Getting some protests or 'online' discontent is normal situations. However when you as government fail to deliver on economics progress, then it is different thing. That's why Soeharto fall in 98, because he fail to deliver. His regimes fall like deck card because when you fail in economics promises, everyone bailed from you.

If they (Vietnamese) as you say already have strong discontent among population, then Vietnam already like Myanmar now or like Indonesia in 98 when Soeharto fell. This is that you will not understand, as simply you only see it from your western standard.

There's level of discontent within Asian societies. Something that if see it only on western thinking, you will not get that subtle differences. Vietnam level of discontent for Asian standard still manageable. Why do you think business keep investing in there? Do you think us as Asians markets can not read sign on troubles ?

Not sure why you write "corrupt" -- the regime in Vietnam is corrupt not "corrupt".

Of course raising living standards is an important reason why the corrupt Vietnamese regime is still in power. Did I say anything to contradict that?

I was merely pointing out that whereas you claim that how the Vietnamese regime is handling the relationship with China is due to the "Asian culture", a large number of Vietnamese I have spoken to strongly disagrees with how the corrupt regime in Vietnam is handling the Chinese relationship. This is of interest to the discussion we were having because you claimed that the interaction is due to "Asian culture". However the Vietnamese that I talked to that disagreed with how things were done, are definitely part of the same "Asian culture" as the Vietnamese regime, and they had a different take on it.... That was all.

 

[Ananda]

important factors. And yes culture differences are definitely important but it is seems you don't grasp the significance of all the other factors at play.

I already say that other factors exist. However culture differences is important enough too make the difference. This your insistence on others factors not simply accepting that difference cultures already enough to make difference interactions. That's what you simply cannot accept. If not we don't debate back and forth like this on this issue.

You are back toward arguments that are not related and comparable, because simply you can't accept Asian doing things differently. If you understand there's difference cultures between Asian and European, then you not wasting unrelated argumets on fact Asian and European doing enough difference on their own inter diplomatic relationship .

This is the main point from beginning that you keep back and forth try to argue.

a border fight it was a fight between US soldiers and Russians that led to Russian casualties and therefore the most relevant example.

Clash on special operation on others soil is clearly different on clash in your own sovereign border. So it's differences altogether, and again surprise you don't see that.

sure why you write "corrupt" -- the regime in Vietnam is corrupt not "corrupt".

If you don't understand that, then it's means shown you simply don't understand Asian.

However the Vietnamese that I talked to that disagreed with how things were done, are definitely part of the same "Asian culture" as the Vietnamese regime, and they had a different take on it.... That was all.

There's many Chinese that not in line with what CCP done, There's many Vietnamese that not in line with Vietnam Communist Party. However doesn't make them they will make enough difference to raise it to street. What I'm point out is simply you don't understand there's different level of disagreement on Asian toward their governments.

Some always don't agree strongly with their government. I also have enough interactions with regular Vietnamese that accept their government course of actions. Again if their level of disagreement and contents already big enough, the signs can be seen.

Again, do you think Asian Markets and Investors will continue come to Vietnam if they're seeing enough grass roots level of discontent??

Did I say anything to contradict that?

When you say there's enough discontent toward Vietnamese corrupt government. Saying that their government already loosing graps of regular citizens situation. Corrupt government can do that, but "corrupt" governments knows how balance between power and public expectations.

That's why I said you don't understand Asian enough if you still ask difference between corrupt and "corrupt".

Note:
If you want to see example of Asian corrupt regimes, just take a look on Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Compare it toward regimes in China and Vietnam or other regimes in Asia. Understand that enough, then you can see why Asian Investors avoid Myanmar and Sri Lanka years before they are in trouble.

 

[Vivendi]

You are back toward arguments that are not related and comparable, because simply you can't accept Asian doing things differently. If you understand there's difference cultures between Asian and European, then you not wasting unrelated argumets on fact Asian and European doing enough difference on their own inter diplomatic relationship .

You are making assumption that are incorrect. I am fully aware that Asians are "doing things differently" and that culture differences are one of the important reasons.

Clash on special operation on others soil is clearly different on clash in your own sovereign border. So it's differences altogether, and again surprise you don't see that.

Clashes in highly disputed border regions are different from clashes on well defined and well established borders. I am surprised you don't see that.

There's many Chinese that not in line with what CCP done, There's many Vietnamese that not in line with Vietnam Communist Party. However doesn't make them they will make enough difference to raise it to street. What I'm point out is simply you don't understand there's different level of disagreement on Asian toward their governments.

Some always don't agree strongly with their government. I also have enough interactions with regular Vietnamese that accept their government course of actions. Again if their level of disagreement and contents already big enough, the signs can be seen.

Again, do you think Asian Markets and Investors will continue come to Vietnam if they're seeing enough grass roots level of discontent??

Again, you are making assumption about what I am thinking. Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully what I write. In particular, when you make erroneous assumptions about my thinking and then you do your own extrapolations, you end up in a very wrong place.

When you say there's enough discontent toward Vietnamese corrupt government. Saying that their government already loosing graps of regular citizens situation. Corrupt government can do that, but "corrupt" governments knows how balance between power and public expectations.

That's why I said you don't understand Asian enough if you still ask difference between corrupt and "corrupt".

Not sure what you mean by "enough discontent towards Vietnamese corrupt government".

And are you sure you fully understand how the Vietnamese think about this? None of the Vietnamese I spoke to said their leaders were "corrupt", they all were very clear they are corrupt. Of course there are different levels of corruption, and different levels of mismanagement. Did I really write something to give you the impression that I don't understand there are different levels of corruption?

Perhaps this corruption discussion is due to how we interpret the usage of "" when writing a word? I would never use it to indicate that there are different levels of corruption, but perhaps it seems that's what you have been doing?

 

[Ananda]

I am fully aware that Asians are "doing things differently" and that culture differences are one of the important reasons.

And why you come back to unrelated arguments that you continue put ? Clearly even you talk you understand the difference in culture, you keep coming back to other factors, as if difference in culture are not biggest thing that make the difference on how to interact.

Clearly you talk you understand but you don't.

Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully what I write. In particular, when you make erroneous assumptions about my thinking and then you do your own extrapolations, you end up in a very wrong place.

I read it clearly, and I don't misunderstand. Clearly you are debating different way of doing things from beginning.

you sure you fully understand how the Vietnamese think about this? None of the Vietnamese I spoke to said their leaders were "corrupt", they all were very clear they are corrupt.

Corrupt and "corrupt" difference can be seen on how they are developing their citizen standard of living. Corrupt will going to take more then developing standard of living. "Corrupt' looking for more balanced.

If you talk to South Korean, mostly going to say their government is corrupt. Heck if you talk with most Asians, from India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, etc you will find mostly contempt toward government corrupt. However they're also learn from experience there are "corruption" and simply corrupt.

So does most Asians. Again "corrupt" it is not make them lost their perspective on their grass roots. This's difference between Corrupt Sri Lanka and Myanmar and "corrupt" on regimes like in Vietnam. Seems I already give hint time to time, but your western believe clouded that. "Corrupt" regimes means they are corrupt but still enough to balance with developing their citizen standard of living in more or less consistent time.

Did I really write something to give you the impression that I don't understand there are different levels of corruption?

Clearly you don't understand different levels of Asians on assessing their government corruption. Asian investors are very prone to where they put their money. Again they will not invest in Vietnam if the level of corruption on Vietnam already bad enough to create wide spread grass roots discontent.

That's one of the real indicators on how market assess Investment Risk in any country. Why Asian desks in many large financial institutions (not just Asians but also Western ones), still keep their grade on Vietnam quite optimistic.

Like I say if base on Western standard, most Asians bureaucracy are corrupt. This is why only few Asian nations that score high on Global corruption index. Others mostly rank in middle or bit down on the board. However that "corruption" can still provide some of the fastest emerging economies.

You are the ones that talk Vietnamese regimes is corrupt and not in touch with their people. Their people already feed up with their government corruption. Again if it is that true, and the level of grass roots discontent already reach unsustainable level, like in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. However they don't, that's why Investment (and mostly Asian Investment) still coming to Vietnam.

No I'm not erroneous when reading your posts. You are clearly not understanding difference of culture can create difference level of interaction. If not you are not keep talking on other factors as if difference in culture not enough to make different interaction.

You also clearly still looking Asians on your western glasses. Not I'm blame you, but that make you simplified on public response on corruption on similar context altogether. You say you understand different level of corruption, but if really understand it, then you will not back and forth argue on same arguments from the beginning.

Add:
Just curious, your interaction with Vietnamese, I believe mostly in South. From my experience Southern Vietnamese are bigger in complaint. Part of the fact they are loosing the war. Northerners mostly less open on complaint, cause they are more ingrained with communist party bureaucracy.

 

[Vivendi]

And why you come back to unrelated arguments that you continue put ? Clearly even you talk you understand the difference in culture, you keep coming back to other factors, as if difference in culture are not biggest thing that make the difference on how to interact.

Culture is clearly very important in "how to interact", however, at the end of the day, the most important and relevant interaction, e.g., trade and business between countries it is mainly driven by realpolitik, business needs, and interests.

You are the ones that talk Vietnamese regimes is corrupt and not in touch with their people. Their people already feed up with their government corruption. Again if it is that true, and the level of grass roots discontent already reach unsustainable level, like in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. .

Again you are not reading what I wrote. I never said the level of corruption in Vietnam is so bad that it has reached unsunstainable levels. Actually the corruption in Vietnam was not my main point, not sure why you focus so much on that. The main point is that all the Vietnamese I have talked to strongly disagreed with the way their leaders (or "corrupt" leaders as you would put it) are handling the relationship with China.

 

[Ananda]

the most important and relevant interaction, e.g., trade and business between countries it is mainly driven by realpolitik, business needs, and interests.

Read from beginning. My argument that you keep arguing is related to Inter Asian relationship. Asian will act differently when interact with non Asian, especially Westerners. In that sense culture understanding is the first one then the other factors that you mentioned.

Something that seems somehow you can't accepted. You keep taking on other factors, cause you simply can't accept that culture is the biggest factor on determine how to open and conduct relationship.

I never said the level of corruption in Vietnam is so bad that it has reached unsunstainable levels.

The way you wrote in the beginning clearly shown that you think Vietnamese already feed up with their government corruption. That's clearly talking on corruption already so bad in Vietnam. Which then I replied, no they are not bad enough. Their corruption level still acceptable enough for grass roots Vietnamese. If not then the sign will be different.

That's seems what you argue back and forth.

The main point is that all the Vietnamese I have talked to strongly disagreed with the way their leaders (or "corrupt" leaders as you would put it) are handling the relationship with China.

Well again whose Vietnamese your are talking on. Because clearly they are mostly welcoming Investment including those from China. Like I said from beginning, those disagreement not substantial enough to change how average Vietnamese think on their government action, and demanding changes on interaction.

Some protest happen, but not big enough to matter.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

After receiving the K-300P Bastion-P, four Project 11661E Gepard Class frigates, six Project 636 submarines and less than 50 Su-27/-30 between 2010-2020, it seems that Vietnam hasn't bought anything big.
Is there a reason for it?
Do they think its enough, or are they already planning to continue with modernizing/expanding the capabilities of their armed forces and surveilling for new defence systems? Vietnam's economy is quite stable as far as i know, so lack of defence budget can't be the problem.

 

[Ananda]

Seems after defense expo in December, Vietnam now (just like Indonesia after Indofence) on finishing some negotiation on what procurement they're going to go forward to next.

With Arms Expo, Vietnam Seeks to Diversify Its Defense Procurements

Under the shadow of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the country’s military is trying different approaches to obtain weapons in a sustainable way.

thediplomat.com

Western media talking on how Vietnam going to left Russia due to Ukraine war. However even some acknowledge that will not be easy. Operating costs, Maintenance and building new training infrastructure, is always going to be problem if you're changing your suppliers.

Just like India, I don't think Vietnam will switch much from Russian supplies soon. They will going to use some Western misilles and transports. However most going still be from Russia. Russian do still heavily represent in latest defence expo. Israel potentially going to be Vietnam 2nd biggest suppliers. I do see Vietnam will do like what Indian doing now. Some diversification, but keep Russian supplies.

 

[OPSSG]

Post 1 of 2: Talking about raise & sustain

After receiving the K-300P Bastion-P, four Project 11661E Gepard Class frigates, six Project 636 submarines and less than 50 Su-27/-30 between 2010-2020, it seems that Vietnam hasn't bought anything big.

I don’t have reliable sources to support my speculative reply below on raise, train and sustain.

Do they think its enough, or are they already planning to continue with modernizing/ expanding the capabilities of their armed forces and surveilling for new defence systems?

Most defence enthusiasts speak of a country acquiring say 50 single seat fighters or 6 submarines, as the end of a discussion. But that is not our style in DefenceTalk, where the conversation is more in-depth and logical. In this case, I suspect that Vietnam has a fighter training pipeline problem. Let me explain, raise & train, using an air force example on flight hours and CONOPS.

1. Actually, when a fighter fleet is that size (with 50 fighters), the air force would be seeking to train about 100 to 125 pilots/WSOs at about 200 hrs per fighter pilot. How an air force raise & train its force determines the level of military capability achieved. In theory based on Western training tempo, Vietnam’s fighter maintainers have to maintain 25,000 flight hours per year, for 50 fighters, to keep the Su-27/-30 pilots current, if they are to meet western training standards.

• 125 x 200 hours = 25,000 hours

2. In contrast, Singapore not only has better CONOPS but also:

​

(a) an army, seen by others, as capable for multi-domain, coalition action (see the above Australian video on Ex Trident 2022 — coalition amphibious ops supported by CH-47Fs & AH-64Ds, operating from coalition naval ships);​

​

(b) a tertiary air force with modern TTPs for penetrating maritime strike supported by SEAD to increase the likelihood of success; and​

​

(c) a proven submarine capability that has ‘sunk’ carriers protected by destroyers, in joint exercises with the US Navy.​

3. In this forum, we don’t just look at the acquisition of an air force or navy platform but also the raise & train portion of the equation to execute a particular CONOPS that is needed for multi-domain ops.

​

(a) Singapore may have only 100 fighters but the fighter pilot & WSO community in the RSAF clock in excess of 45,000 hours per year. It’s pretty hard to keep everyone in a tertiary air force current on specific flight profiles (eg. air-to-air refuelling, & coalition anti-ship mission) — as operational fighter pilots & WSOs, that also includes simulator training. With consistent participation in Pitch Black & Red Flag, the RSAF is improving its CONOPS and quality of training. This includes training to fight with VLO aircraft (like F-35As & F-35Bs) as a coalition system, be it in FPDA or with the Americans.​

​

(b) Not only do Singaporean fighter pilots fly at least 3x more (in flight hours), they also have much more simulator time, to refine tactics, to save flight hours. IMO, likewise, Vietnam needs to invest more in fighter pilot training and to participate in large force employment exercises like Pitch Black. By 2026, the gap in capabilities between Singapore and Vietnam will grow wider, as the RSAF takes delivery of F-35Bs for coalition warfare.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569327746890797056

​

(c) Singapore even with her navy’s 4 modern Invincible class submarines, on order from Germany, are just managing to keep the 4 strong submarine fleet from obsolescence (when compared to pan-regional submarine tech developments). In the near future, the RSN will IOCs its 2,200 ton Type 218SG AIP submarines, with German trained submarine crews, using Swedish littoral warfare CONOPS adapted to ops in the South China Sea.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1613075209757810690

​

(d) Designed to operate undetected more than 1,000km from Singapore in waters similar to the Baltic Sea, the 4 Type 218SGs are currently the largest submarines built by thyssenkrupp Marine Systems. The boats’ propulsion is air-independent, which means that the US$1.8 billion dollar Invincible class submarines can stay submerged 50% longer than the Archer class submarines in the South China Sea. The power plant consists of 2 PEM fuel cells, 2 MTU diesel engines and a Siemens Permasyn electric motor.​

 

[OPSSG]

Post 2 of 2: Talking about raise & sustain

…so lack of defence budget can't be the problem.

4. It’s the train & sustain portion, with modern fighter tactics used by tertiary air forces, that they can’t do — the flight profiles Vietnam’s pilots train for are also limited. CONOPS differences ensures that Singapore pilots not only train harder, they train smarter (using tactics developed by others, like USAF). As an air force designed to achieve air superiority, its self evident that RSAF pilots flying in an ALL AESA & JHMCS II equipped fighter force, can fight more effectively than Vietnamese pilots because they are more exposed to CONOPS, TTPs and other advanced ideas of other air forces (eg. 5th Gen & 4.5 Gen fighter integration tactics), in addition:

(a) Vietnam’s pilots:​

​

(i) don’t have the CONOPS fly in complex strike packages supported by sophisticated SEAD and AWAC aircraft;​

​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1528217803014082560

(ii) don’t routinely train to conduct long range strike, requiring air-to-air refuelling, in large force employment exercises, like Red Flag, Pitch Black, Forging Sabre, & Bersama Lima, using F-15SGs, F-16Vs, CH-47s & AH-64Ds. And advanced CONOPS are needed if attack helicopters (like AH-64Ds) are to be used in the face of to modern air defences;​

​

(iii) don’t have to train to fight in a coalition anti-ship mission, where ISR, AWAC support, IFF, strike orchestration, EW & air-to-air refuelling is crucial; and​

​

(b) pilot trainers in Singaporean operational squadrons are more qualified thanks a USAF benchmarked weapons instructor course (FWIC). I note that:​

​

(i) by creating a virtuous cycle by investing in people, FWIC enables these ‘top guns’ to improve the quality of training of operational fighter squadrons — making sorties more meaningful.​

​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614237842091421698

(ii) each FWIC course participant has to fly quite a few hours, over 4 months, to hope to graduate.​

​

5. Vietnam needs about 2,000 to 2,500 ground crew, air traffic controllers, & other support staff to support 125 pilots/WSOs to fly 50 of their most modern fighters. Lower availability around the 50+ to 60+ percentage range (instead of high 80s%), in part due to the MBTF of certain parts, is a known problem with India’s Su-30MKIs, Malaysia’s Su-30MKM and Indonesia’s Su-27/-30 fleets. Given the maintainability issues with Russian aircraft and their low MBTF of critical parts, I would be surprised if Vietnam’s entire fighter/attack pilot community can clock more than 15,000 hours per year.

6. Vietnam’s capability to:

​

(a) use advanced CONOPS to meet threats; &​

​

(b) absorb more Su-27/-30s,​

is limited. This Russian influenced air force needs a CONOPS change — plus they don’t have the roadmap forward — therefore, the scope of their improvement will always be limited.

7. In Falcon Strike 2022, a joint training exercise of the Chinese & Thai Air Forces, the Chinese sent PLAAF J-10C fighter jets, Xi'an JH-7 (a bomber specifically developed against navy ships) & a KJ-500 AWACS aircraft to Udorn Air Force Base (Thailand) to participate — the Chinese PLAAF and PLA(N)AF, as tertiary air forces, in contrast, are developing modern tactics to protect their bomber formations (when they are flying maritime strike missions) against enemy fighters. Given the rate of improvement of PLAAF and PLA(N)AF as tertiary air forces, Vietnam’s govt needs to invest more in their pool of pilots to catch up.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559061149005582337

8. Without acquiring AWACs to change CONOPS and improving Vietnam’s pilot training syllabus, simply buying more fighters will not make the Vietnamese air force more capable. Simply put, the Vietnamese Su-27/-30 pilots just don’t fly enough to be competitive, when measured against:

​

(a) PLAAF Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11 pilots and PLA(N) AF Shenyang J-15 carrier qualified pilots; or​

​

(b) smaller tertiary regional air forces, like that of Thailand or Singapore.​

9. In theory, with their older fighter/attack types (eg. Su-22M4), Vietnam has more fighters & pilots than Singapore but their community is not resourced to clock the same number of hours as the RSAF fighter/WSO community or have the training instructors that are as well trained as Singapore’s FWIC graduates, who have all been to Red Flag & Pitch Black.

 

[koxinga]

The main point is that all the Vietnamese I have talked to strongly disagreed with the way their leaders (or "corrupt" leaders as you would put it) are handling the relationship with China.

What @Ananda perhaps is trying to explain is intepreting what you heard from the locals using your yardstick might be misleading for a couple of reasons.
1) when people say something, especially to foreigners and what they actually do believe in can be quite different
2) corruption in Asia, depending on who you speak to, is the cost of doing business here that is tolerated to some degree or even accepted.

Are people unhappy about things like "corruption" and mismanagement of the leaders? Yes, of course. But tolerance levels for these matters in developing countries tend to be on the high side and they see this a feature of governments (imperial, democracy, communist, socialist, military dictatorships, oligarchy) rather than a flaw.

Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea do better in this regard as they have higher rule of law and are closer to the western ideal of how societies should function. HK's rule of law though, have gone downhill since NSL.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Post 2 of 2: Talking about raise & sustain

4. It’s the train & sustain portion, with modern fighter tactics used by tertiary air forces, that they can’t do — the flight profiles Vietnam’s pilots train for are also limited. CONOPS differences ensures that Singapore pilots not only train harder, they train smarter (using tactics developed by others, like USAF). As an air force designed to achieve air superiority, its self evident that RSAF pilots flying in an ALL AESA & JHMCS II equipped fighter force, can fight more effectively than Vietnamese pilots because they are more exposed to CONOPS, TTPs and other advanced ideas of other air forces (eg. 5th Gen & 4.5 Gen fighter integration tactics), in addition:

(a) Vietnam’s pilots:​

​

(i) don’t have the CONOPS fly in complex strike packages supported by sophisticated SEAD and AWAC aircraft;​

​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1528217803014082560

(ii) don’t routinely train to conduct long range strike, requiring air-to-air refuelling, in large force employment exercises, like Red Flag, Pitch Black, Forging Sabre, & Bersama Lima, using F-15SGs, F-16Vs, CH-47s & AH-64Ds. And advanced CONOPS are needed if attack helicopters (like AH-64Ds) are to be used in the face of to modern air defences;​

​

(iii) don’t have to train to fight in a coalition anti-ship mission, where ISR, AWAC support, IFF, strike orchestration, EW & air-to-air refuelling is crucial; and​

​

(b) pilot trainers in Singaporean operational squadrons are more qualified thanks a USAF benchmarked weapons instructor course (FWIC). I note that:​

​

(i) by creating a virtuous cycle by investing in people, FWIC enables these ‘top guns’ to improve the quality of training of operational fighter squadrons — making sorties more meaningful.​

​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614237842091421698

(ii) each FWIC course participant has to fly quite a few hours, over 4 months, to hope to graduate.​

​

5. Vietnam needs about 2,000 to 2,500 ground crew, air traffic controllers, & other support staff to support 125 pilots/WSOs to fly 50 of their most modern fighters. Lower availability around the 50+ to 60+ percentage range (instead of high 80s%), in part due to the MBTF of certain parts, is a known problem with India’s Su-30MKIs, Malaysia’s Su-30MKM and Indonesia’s Su-27/-30 fleets. Given the maintainability issues with Russian aircraft and their low MBTF of critical parts, I would be surprised if Vietnam’s entire fighter/attack pilot community can clock more than 15,000 hours per year.

…

8. Without acquiring AWACs to change CONOPS and improving Vietnam’s pilot training syllabus, simply buying more fighters will not make the Vietnamese air force more capable. Simply put, the Vietnamese Su-27/-30 pilots just don’t fly enough to be competitive, when measured against:

​

(a) PLAAF Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11 pilots and PLA(N) AF Shenyang J-15 carrier qualified pilots; or​

​

(b) smaller tertiary regional air forces, like that of Thailand or Singapore.​

9. In theory, with their older fighter/attack types (eg. Su-22M4), Vietnam has more fighters & pilots than Singapore but their community is not resourced to clock the same number of hours as the RSAF fighter/WSO community or have the training instructors that are as well trained as Singapore’s FWIC graduates, who have all been to Red Flag & Pitch Black.

Yes you are right.
It was undoubtly quite hard for the Vietnamese navy to suddenly absorb the six Project 636 submarines in their fleet. But still i think the Vietnamese navy should be able to replace the old and obsolete frigates and corvettes with new ones.

 

[koxinga]

Well, Vietnam and VPAF lack opportunities to train with peer airforces in the region as well as more advanced airforces, which will expose them to newer CONOPS and system-of-systems type engagements.

That is changing, starting with the T-6 but the best is if the start participating in regional exercises (bilateral, multilateral) like CARET.

US to send 12 military training aircraft to Vietnam - VnExpress International

An American Air Force brigadier general announced Friday the U.S. will transfer 12 T-6 military training aircraft to Vietnam between 2024 and 2027.

e.vnexpress.net

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

China jaagt Amerikaans marineschip weg uit Zuid-Chinese Zee

Gisteren kwam het ook tot een confrontatie tussen het Chinese leger en de USS Milius. Spanningen tussen de grootmachten lopen al langer op in het strategische gebied.

nos.nl

|"China heeft opnieuw een Amerikaanse torpedojager verdreven uit de Zuid-Chinese Zee, meldt het Chinese ministerie van Defensie. In een verklaring roept het ministerie de Amerikanen op te stoppen "met deze provocerende acties", omdat anders "serieuze consequenties" zullen volgen."|
Once again an american destroyer is chasen away from the South-China Sea, according to the chinese government. The chinese Ministry of Defence announced that the americans have to stop their provocative actions. If not, serious consequences will follow.

 

[OPSSG]

Hot Shelving A Crisis

1. The PLA’s “Science of Military Strategy” (2020 version) argues that some crises should be intentionally stoked. They call this “hot shelving” a crisis and its purpose is to keep some crises perpetually in a “controversial” state, so as to make their opponents believe there is no acceptable solution except caving to PLA demands.

2. Below, the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) ship blocking the BRP Malapascua in the Ayungin Shoal (or Ren’ai Reef to the Chinese) — the Chinese MFA issued a statement saying the reef is part of Nansha Islands, a self declared Chinese District.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652279307560185857

(a) The Chinese MFA says, the Philippine vessel made the provocative move and the CCG vessel merely responded, saying it was a move to provoke them, be witnessed by journalists and “designed to deliberately create friction.”​

​

(b) The PLA & CCG want the Philippine Navy & Coast Guard to stop patrolling Philippine EEZ and cave into Beijing stance of the South China Sea being a Chinese lake. CCG also wants the Philippines to stop resupply to BRP Sierra Madre (at the 2nd Thomas Shoal).​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652596824732217345

3. Established hotlines make “hot shelving” crises more difficult. The stated Chinese position is deliberately incorrect under law. Beijing as a state party to UNCLOS shows that rules do not apply to China — only it’s power. As such, the Philippines must conduct patrols to challenge the CCG.

4. Meanwhile, Admiral Samuel Paparo, the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet said the U.S. is prepared to assist the Philippines as China interferes with Manila's efforts to resupply a grounded naval vessel, BRP Sierra Madre (at the 2nd Thomas Shoal), in the South China Sea.

3. While we remained worried for the 3 missing crew, thankfully the PABLO is empty of oil cargo.

4. A massive environmental disaster has been averted. If she been laden with over 730,000 barrels of oil, the environmental impact to the South China Sea would be hard to imagine.

 

[ngatimozart]

The US State Department has issue a communique on the PRC SCS activities against the Philippines.

"The United States stands with The Philippines in the face of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Coast Guard’s continued infringement upon freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Imagery and video recently published in the media is a stark reminder of PRC harassment and intimidation of Philippine vessels as they undertake routine patrols within their exclusive economic zone. We call upon Beijing to desist from its provocative and unsafe conduct. The United States continues to track and monitor these interactions closely.​

​

The United States stands with our Philippine allies in upholding the rules-based international maritime order and reaffirms that an armed attack in the Pacific, which includes the South China Sea, on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft, including those of the Coast Guard, would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S. Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty."​

https://www.state.gov/u-s-support-for-the-philippines-in-the-south-china-sea-4/

This may give the PRC pause for thought. Maybe not either.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

|"...a conflict is more likely to be triggered by an accident or miscalculation in the increasingly militarized South China Sea"|

Well, it can be true. Its quite crowded around the Paracel and Spratly Islands.

South China Sea — not Taiwan — more likely spark of U.S.-China conflict, former Chinese colonel says

As close encounters at sea and in the air rise in the increasingly militarized region, accidents and miscalculations could have dire consequences.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Some small but important steps.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657550943477714944

 

[swerve]

Hot Shelving A Crisis
...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652596824732217345

3. Established hotlines make “hot shelving” crises more difficult. The stated Chinese position is deliberately incorrect under law. Beijing as a state party to UNCLOS shows that rules do not apply to China — only it’s power. As such, the Philippines must conduct patrols to challenge the CCG.

And China conradicts itself openly & unashamedly, stating that the Japanese claim to Okinotorishima is invalid for exactly the reasons they refuse to accept when they apply to reefs & shoals China claims in the SCS.

As you say, the real Chinese position is that rules do not apply to China, whatever treaties China has signed.

 

[koxinga]

As you say, the real Chinese position is that rules do not apply to China, whatever treaties China has signed.

A reason for why the Chinese behave this way is they believe that these is how the world operates.

They truly believe that international organisations, treaties are inherently bias and open to Western control or interpretation, since most of these organisation from WB, to the UN, to ICJ and a whole lot of alphabetical soup pre-date the founding of the PRC. Not withstanding the fact they (CCP) signed up to these institutions willingly or inherited them from RoC. This stuff that you see is pretty mild compared to some of the stuff written in Mandarin.

The challenge in China is the fact that it is a giant, impenetrable echo chamber of these radical views due to the language and it doesn't help that Chinese students or expats in the West, with access to free media and seeing all freedoms of Western society continue to hold such views.

 

[ngatimozart]

A reason for why the Chinese behave this way is they believe that these is how the world operates.

They truly believe that international organisations, treaties are inherently bias and open to Western control or interpretation, since most of these organisation from WB, to the UN, to ICJ and a whole lot of alphabetical soup pre-date the founding of the PRC. Not withstanding the fact they (CCP) signed up to these institutions willingly or inherited them from RoC. This stuff that you see is pretty mild compared to some of the stuff written in Mandarin.

The challenge in China is the fact that it is a giant, impenetrable echo chamber of these radical views due to the language and it doesn't help that Chinese students or expats in the West, with access to free media and seeing all freedoms of Western society continue to hold such views.

I think that's a rather naive view. Other non western nations, with different cultures, operate in the International Rules Based system and don't commit the same actions. You don't see Singapore, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, or India committing the same acts. IMHO it is the way that the CCP operates because it has determined that it will so.