The problem with you is your assuming too much.

Vietnam can afford Yakhont coastal defence system but it cannot afford improving guidance of its Scud missiles when it created fuel for it and so many countries have increased its range?

Err, yes, it usually costs less to buy an off the shelf weapons system than develop your own industry to develop your own.
But hey, if you have any rumours that VPA have managed to give their scuds anything close to precision guidance and a range increase, hit me with some sources.

when US invaded Iraq it has readied Oil refinery supplies from Kuwait. What is the status of fuel supply for such invasion in China-Vietnam border.

I don’t know, what’s the larger geopolitical situation at hand? Are other countries abstaining from choosing sides? If so, then fuel shouldn’t be a big problem, unless VPN suddenly reveal they have a fleet of super quiet SSKs that can strike every oil tanker china has, but even then, there are land based sources from central asia.

Your assuming China can put same number of SRBM/LACM in all its 4 corners of land. when majority is against Taiwan.

Yes, but assuming there is a build up to the conflict between vietnam, it will take just a few days to reposition the TELs to put vietnamese bases in range.

And IRBMs and LACMs have such great range, even if they were stationed right in fujian province opposite taiwan, they could still hit vietnamese bases close to the border.

China has extremely weak airmobility.

I don’t disagree, but it’s a hell of a lot better than VPAF. Then again, I doubt PLA will be dropping in paratroopers anyway. Certainly we don’t know how well PLA’s transport fleet can support the logistics of however sizable an operation this is.

Fortunately, vietnam is right on the border and accessible by ground if PLA chooses to invade (for whatever nonsensical reason), and they don’t need a fleet of Y-20s and Il-76s to transport cargo halfway across the world.

not sustainable for 21st century gadget intensive warfare.

Lol is gadget intensive warfare the official term?

soldiers are paid for peace time.

…And wartime. Or do US soldiers get paid more if they do a tour of afghanistan?

highly unlikely for long term incursions. certianly on this scale.

What, soldiers are unlikely to get paid for long term incursions? They’ll still get paid the same amount they were in peacetime.
Costs will be in logistics, munitions, and use of other such hardware.

you dont need to go to coastal cities to make hot money flee. Just diversion of government funding for such adventure is enough to create slow growth and credit default crises all the way to muncipilities.

I’ll leave you to your conclusion here, all I can say is that a war will always have adverse effects on an economy, I don’t know how badly it will effect china or vietnam, and we don’t know how much china or vietnam is willing to suffer economically either.

They also have modernized Sa-3 which is very effective missile. offcoures China throws alot of quantity it can overcome it but Vietnam has large airforce with home advantage.

Tactics, tactics, hardware.

I wonder how many vietnamese airbases and SAM sites are within range of 2nd artillery SRBM, IRBM and LACMs.

your assuming China can transfer all its inventory of missiles from Taiwan to Vietnam. The have 2000 scud missiles.

http://malaysiaflyingherald.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/vietnam-moves-forward-with-local-rocket-fuel-research/

Given the highly mobile nature of modern 2nd artillery TELs, that shouldn’t be much of an issue.

And they also have 60-96 launchers, heads up.

It’s also a valid question to pose to the PLA though — how many operational launchers do they have?

your throwing this huge inventory of missile and ignoring that Vietnam can also launched lots of arterily and billistic missiles on China.

Artillery doesn’t have the range of ballistic missiles. Unless you can point out a howitzer that can reach 300+ km away, that is.
And unless vietnamese scuds have some form of precision guidance, they’ll be shooting half in a daze. Not to say they won’t be potentially dangerous and cause some casualties, but their relatively short range and obsolete guidance, and small TEL number makes them far less of a threat to the PLA than PLA 2nd artillery is to VPA.

PLAAF is large airforce but highly doubt they can manage 200 aircraft in single theatre.

I don’t think either of us know enough about PLAAF logistics and airbase distribution and capacity to confidently call either way.

1979 is very different as there was some idealogy to moblize half million lower paid soldiers. now cost of half million soldiers for extended period of time is beyond China capacity.

Ideology? Soldiers are soldiers, there is a chain of command for a reason. You could argue about morale, but that’s getting into the nitty gritty.
They will still get paid the same amount as peacetime, I think. The costs will come in extra wartime expenses, e.g.: munitions, logistics, etc, and neither of us know whether china can afford it.

Actually no, we both know china can “afford” it, we just don’t know how much it is willing to suffer economically to sustain an invasion.

China economy is simply not suitable for war. just slowing growth can lead to alot of hot money fleeing. that can lead to credit collapse with too much bad loans. this thing alone is terrifying Chinese government.

Unless vietnam can hit at the eastern chinese cities or significantly disrupt shipping routes, the inevitable economic impact could be mitigated and contained. Money always flees warzones, and that cuts both ways.

If China really wanted to take vietnam like they sit with the prospect of taiwanese independence, then they would go through hell and high water, and would be willing to endure some level of economic suffering.

And what you described would probably be seen in vietnam more, given its lack of strategic depth and PLA’s far longer military reach. I don’t think any country’s economy is ever “suitable” for war, save for a few exceptions in history, and what’s important is how both combatants will fare during conflict. Frankly between vietnam and china, who would be hit more economically in a conflict?

helicopters is key element of surprize attacks on wide area. they fly low under the radar.

I’m not saying helicopters won’t be used, and PLA does have a sizable force of vertical lift assets, not as large as US army of course, but still probably tactically significant. And against a nation state’s military like vietnam, surprise attacks with helicopters won’t really work, it’s not like US army style airborne cavalry like the vietnam war is feasible if PLA wants to take heavily guarded towns or strike at vietnamese armoured columns. The land border means traversing by ground is more practical anyway.

This whole situation is vague anyway, we don’t even have any goals for china to start a conflict with vietnam, so we don’t know what China may be willing to commit. If anything we might see a limited naval clash in SCS in the forseeable future, but that’s about it.
vietnam’s navy, air force and ballistic missile/long range strike capabilities are simply outmatched on paper. Unless they pull out some brilliant moves, or if PLA seriously screws up, I don’t see how the vast majority of vietnam’s in theater conventional military capability could survive (close airbases, fixed SAM sites, IDed C4I sites, naval bases).
What it has going for it, is the vast ground forces and familiarity with local terrain

If there is no outside intervention allowing PLA to allocate a large host of resources without fear of US or Russia poking in… Then short answer is, vietnam’s conventional military forces will probably stand little chance. It faces the same problem as Taiwan, that is to say, a much more powerful navy, a significantly more competent and larger Air Force, along with a host of SRBMs and LACMs that would almost certainly be used in an initial first strike. One problem is Vietnam has a land border with china, which if left unsecured, could allow a large number of PLA ground forces to move in after an initial bombardment of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and air strikes.

They could give a good fight on the ground, but superior PLA air power and armour would almost certainly prevail, but you’ll almost definitely end up with PLA facing guerrilla warfare, assuming the VPA can still harken back to its roots.

Then again, PRC would have no interest in annexing Vietnam, and even 1979 wasn’t exactly built on a desire to covet land.

Just ignore the troll. You’re just going to find yourself in a discussion where people move already vaguely defined goal posts, and spout unsubstantiated claims.

I’d already added him to my ignore list actually. But sometimes it’s nice to procrastinate from real life and take a few pot shots at easy targets.

I think your giving them too much credit. Look at history.
L-15. (trying to create twin engine supersonic trainer. without regard to internal fuel and weight penalty)

Is its weight, internal fuel capacity, etc, significantly different from other similar trainers? Yak-130, T-50?

J-10. (Practically huge plane for single engine with no prospect for Carrier version.

Actually a carrier version was proposed by deemed unnecessary and higher risk than J-15. Other similar planes do not have carrier versions either. F-16 is one of the most successful fighter aircraft in recent history, no carrier version. Your point being?

Not even CFT.

For the missions PLAAF envision J-10A and B do not need it. J-10C will feature CFTs, potentially, but then it is oriented more for offensive strike missions anyway.

always carry external tanks. that is itself drag penalty).

Unless you have any proof that J-10 cannot fly a similar distance to its contemporaries without fuel tanks, then you’re just spouting hot air mate.

FC-1. (Another import depended redundant project. very low volume per year production with little export prospects)

By import dependent, are you talking about engines? Because no one’s disputing china’s engine challenges, but fortunately they seem happy with RD-93 until they can get WS-13 going.
And CAC isn’t producing the fighter, it’s PAC’s job. And it was a plane delivered on time at budget, with the various capabilities PAF wanted with room for advancement if customers deem it necessary. It isn’t an Su-27 but then again it isn’t meant to be. More of a modern F-20.

JH-7. (another huge plane with little internal fuel capacity and obsolete engines that are not shared across platforms).

JH-7’s have a respectable internal fuel capacity for its size, I believe. Its engines are old, but reliable, able to be mass produced, and are used sufficiently across the entire fleet that the lack of standardized engines isn’t a problem. You’ll find few large air forces in the world whose combat aircraft are standardized around one or two types of engines, VVS, USAF, etc.

Now this J-20 is cross between MIG-1.42/J-10. It is 20th century project.

Considering the original proposal was suggested in the late 90s, that is correct. Then again, F-22, F-35, PAK FA are all in the same boat, semantically.

It does not even have TVC

You know as well as we do that TVC is not the end-game for kinematic maneuverability.

or Carrier version

Just like PAK FA, there does exist a proposal for it. Whether it will be developed is another issue, but F-22 was never developed into a carrier fighter as well, I suppose it must be a failure.

and still progress is extremely slow.

You can’t claim that because we don’t know how far they are along, they’re not like the PAK FA team who give us high profile updates and news articles and fly their planes at airshows.

J-31 heavier stealth fighter in medium size body. recipe for failure.

Its standard takeoff weight is 17.5 tons. In its dimensions, it is actually a fairly light aircraft.

It is not very effective airforce in making that can carry long range missions efficiently

You’re blurring the lines between defense aviation industry and air force.
But yeah, no s**t, PLAAF doesn’t have a fleet of bombers like USAF and VVS. But they do have 300 odd flankers, 200 odd JH-7As that can conduct long range persistent missions as well as any other aircraft of their size.
And a hundred odd H-6s of various types. Not survivable of course, but then again, neither are Tu-95 and B-52.

nor there is any version of planes that are in development that have enlarge comfortable cockpit that can carry CFT or extra large ETs.

Interesting, I never knew CFTs were related to large cockpits in any way.

The reference to its massive size is more related to its “thickness” than length. Flanker is an elegant machine. The J-20 is just brute.

That’s a statement regarding aesthetics, but point remains that J-20 isn’t a “massive” plane (depending on what you’re comparing with).

For instance, J-20s fuselage cross section isn’t much different to F-22, and its overall length is only a meter or so longer by all estimates. It just has a greater effective volume I’d hazard extra space for more fuel.

As for aesthetics… well that’s in the eye of the beholder, ain’t it. I personally feel F-22 and F-15 look better than the fuselage/nacelle arrangement of T-50 and Su-27 (and F-14, as well, for that matter)

Hard to predict.. The J-20 will be living in 2020-2050+. These will be times completely different to what we know today..

By “regional ambitions” I was referencing J-20s long range and ability to project power in westpac

Probably the best example of wholesale copying of western procedures are carrier operations aboard the PLAN carrier Liaoing. The deck crew operates as though it was pantomime

My reply is in three parts:
1: integration of elements of USN carrier deck operations is probably the best thing PLAN can do, rather than build up an entirely new operating procedure themselves (insert saying about wheels and reinvention here). Considering USN are most successful and prolific at carrier ops by a massive margin, taking notes from them is probably a good thing.
2: “wholesale” is stretching it, because we haven’t seen them at work on a fully loaded liaoning yet (it’s also doubtful to think PLAN could copy every aspect of USN carrier ops even if they wanted to, because there’s only so much you can derive from a manual)
3: the deck crew at the moment are still in training, and only operating two or three aircraft at one time, at low tempo, you’d expect them to look awkward.

So all in all, I think this is a poor example of “wholesale copying”. But I certainly don’t dispute that PLA have been inspired by many western procedures and doctrines and used them in developing their own, as well as finding weaknesses to exploit in the opfor.