Jim Holmes on the Navy's New NavPlan
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- James Holmes, former U.S. Navy surface warfare officer and J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College, talks with Bill Hamblet about the CNO's newly released NavPlan.
Some thoughts:
1. Sea control is not necessary _because it's institutionally entrenched._ It's necessary because in a state of mutual sea denial, where China can't cross the strait and the Allies can't supply the First Island Chain, the Allies will lose. War reserves are inadequate and should certainly be increased, but either way, sea control will be necessary early in the conflict because the First Island Chain is too populous to be supplied by air. Sea control is therefore the basic mission and is more strategically important than sea denial in the Taiwan Strait.
2. The forward deployment of small surface forces (such as the longstanding CV task force) in the First Island Chain is a militarily bankrupt concept; attempting to rationalize it as a legitimate component of "sea denial" would be foolish. The present deployment flouts the most basic principle of naval warfare and _guarantees_ that the forward deployed forces will be destroyed immediately, for no gain, at the outset. Allied surface forces - US, Japanese, and other - should probably not be based any closer to China than Pearl Harbour, and perhaps still further back.
3. Drone swarms, which _are_ a legitimate means of sea denial, can also be used for blockade of the First Island Chain. Failure to counter this threat equals defeat.
Well said.
I'm still listening but this channel always has the best comment threads and you have set us out from the gate as such.
@WilliamSanderson86 Great points to have made as well. Regardless of how fierce the fight with PLAN would be with the USN, there is little chance that China would go with the Unrestricted Naval warfare across the theater and beyond.
They would take every action to not provoke others into joining the USA in defense of the region.
The USA should never leave the Japanese, Philippines or Australia alone in that theater. Bond should be considered unbreakable and we should go in with any of them if they're attacked on a grand scale by CCP/PLAN.
Wild card is always the Indian Navy. They have played the strategic ambiguity card often over the last decade and beyond that. Most effectively and blatantly over the last 10 years though.
Excellent logic. Your second point reminds me of Force Z during WWII. It was a political solution to a military problem- swing a few big British capital ships preemptively through the region- like the British always do- and the Japanese will be cowering in their boots. We’ll never have to actually “fight” them directly, because they wouldn’t dare challenge us… Oops. Huge mistake on the part of the British, as the remains of Force Z can be currently found about 50 miles off the coast of Malaysia and around 150 feet down.
We make like 3 boats a year then retire them 10 years later. Addressing any other problem is a waste of time.
If the USN is serious they should transfer decommissioned ships to the Philippines instead of having them on mothballs. They can be manned by Filipinos and they can add to aforward based defense of the first island chain.
那些退役舰船美国养不起，菲律宾更是养不起。
If raised naval warfare has continues to Asia-Pacific, whole Pacific islands and coasts (in particular Guam, mid-way, Western Alaska) need to consider extreme weather and gravito-magnetism uncertainty, in the meantime, modern military conflicts doesn't matter how many troops has moved from both sides, but military technology battles.
As many previous war models has demonstrated in South China Sea and Taiwan due to geopolitical tension raising, Congress has know there will be zero-point game or post-war consequences are similar to pre-historical floating, and debt crisis will coming firstly around the globe. No matter regional conflicts or full scale war has happened, EVERY ONLAND COUNTRY just have 2 to 4 years emergency storage(fresh water and food, etc) to civilians, that's doesn't considering what if new pandemic occurs).
Surface sea control and arm forces will costs military budgets rapidly, it's not easier than interplanetary or deep space control. Because 71% ocean and space are enough strange to modern society.
The MaoBama crowd , along with the RINOs are intentionally weakening the U.S.A.. The P.C. Left & D.E..I. functionaries (sic ) have a plan, and our Nation's decline is by No Accident.
I’m sorry to say this but I can barely make out what the guest is saying, at certain key points. He says Franchetti is trying to “‘break’ or at least ‘defend’” the Mahanian paradigm?? That doesn’t make sense- “breaking with” something, and “defending” it, are mutually contradictory ideas. I must be hearing incorrectly. There are a dozen points throughout the conversation where I’m having similar difficulties understanding. Unfortunate- from what I can comprehend he’s an intelligent and thoughtful guy. Just can’t understand him very well.
Not enough sailors? Recruit Vietnamese and Philippino fishing boat/ship captains, and crew... there more than willing and able to help out.
The more important point here during a Taiwan conflict is, *what allies can USN count on for logistical basing*? I doubt even S.korea is willing to be turned into Ukraine
Can we possibly build a ship, aircraft, weapon system, on time and within budget?
22:26 our best hope if the gamble of PLAN or peer competition being focused on our USNS and other supply assets would be to count on Allies to supply. Lending to chance that we wouldn't find them there to support after being threatened with attack by that new enemy.
So the Sea Denial Phase is going to be Marines on islands with Anti-Ship Missiles ?
Fascinating stuff
Because of China's dependency on food (and agricultural input) and energy imports, the USN need not transition to the offense. China can face societal collapse in a relatively short period (a year, two years at most). I am not say the USN should not transition to the offense, just that it doesn't need to go on the offense. Sea denial and a distant blockade should suffice.
Without all relevant allies in the game we don't have the resources to pull that off.
@@jm2453all relevant pacific allies are in the game though. Only thing up in the air right now is if NATO will support with ships.
DF 27 range 8000 km. what logistic u will have? none
The weaker side is ALWAYS the ones asking for negotiations! The stronger side decides whether to entertain a negotiation.. China should know and feel the same threat that they’re bargaining in the sea! By prepositions of anti ship and potent anti air wherever they are contesting any spaces.