Brumby
Major
I am just trying to understand your premise and it appears to me that it is based on one big assumption
Future PLAN naval and carrier operations
- Thread starter Tam
- Start date
Well, you're just going to have to accept that such understanding is beyond your ken. I was going to write off your silly baiting and ignore your pathetically transparent attempt to derail this thread (such unintended transparency is often a problem with those who think they're smarter than they actually are), but you inadvertently hit on a truth I should highlight. @Bltizo did make one big and unwarranted assumption: that the US would have the courage to stand and fight instead of slinking away with its tail between its legs.
Jura The idiot
General
what Brumby might've meant was alternative(s) to what you described in posts #8 and #16 and which is kind of Outer Sea Battle (such strategy would likely lead to one decisive encounter, and I think the USN would strive for such an encounter);
(one of the alternatives would be like Soviet strategy of coastal protection and an emphasis on long-range aviation instead of carrier-based)
oh and you may want to take a look at
Czech Republic thread: news only, no discussion https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/czech-republic-thread-news-only-no-discussion.t8593/ by zgx09t
I have a good sense of humor so I attached 'Like' but still
Last edited:
Bltizo has offered his thoughts on potential PLAN (in joint operations with other branches of PLA) in the not far distant future (circa '40), which is helpful in visioning and visualizing how the PLAN will put its vast array of assets under development or to be developed together for large-scale and complex operations.
Apparently, his assumption that PLAN will contest and operate up to the second island chain and beyond with even a fighting chance really makes some people uncomfortable: how dare China even entertain the idea of breaking through the first island chain?
I would suggest these people start a new thread with a title of something like "PLAN will NOT make it pass through first island chain, never!" and indulge in your wildest dream/nightmare there, instead of derailing the current thread.
Apparently, his assumption that PLAN will contest and operate up to the second island chain and beyond with even a fighting chance really makes some people uncomfortable: how dare China even entertain the idea of breaking through the first island chain?
I would suggest these people start a new thread with a title of something like "PLAN will NOT make it pass through first island chain, never!" and indulge in your wildest dream/nightmare there, instead of derailing the current thread.
Brumby
Major
The assumption that a Chinese CBG will prevail in the 2nd island chain and beyond of achieving air and sea control .
My assumption is that my conops provides a means in which the PLA can prevail in the 2nd island chain and beyond of achieving air and sea control.
Note the difference in word choice between "can" and "will".
"Can" -- meaning having the opportunity to achieve those objectives, or being able to achieve those objectives.
That was literally part of the opening sentence of my post #8 where I laid it out:
I'm assuming you are still writing this out of genuine misunderstanding but with every reply I'm finding it harder to understand if you're being facetious or not.
If you're being genuine, then I can only assume you've somehow interpreted my previous posts as if I believe that my conops means the PLA "will prevail" -- which implies that I believe that in every single conflict scenario that the PLA "will" prevail.
Obviously such a position would be ludicrous to hold and is not a position any reasonable person would argue for, and it is certainly not what my previous posts suggested.
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
Whether it is "will" or "can" is nevertheless an assumption. I am not saying that you are wrong to make such an assumption. I am just saying your entire premise is based on an assumption and by meaning it is not grounded on any case that you have articulated.
When I communicate I am careful with my choice of words and so I will appreciate you do not add any interpretation beyond what I said. The conversation is about 2nd island chain and beyond. This is what you have outlined and I have been adopting the scope of your narrative. So far I have been trying to understand the basis of your position that a Chinese CBG "can" prevail in the domain that you have outlined. I had been trying to understand your underlying basis for such a position. It seems to me that it is predicated on an assumption. It seems rather strange to me that we are spending time debating whether it is an assumption or not. . .
This is simply semantics now.
Sure -- whether it "will" or "can" is an assumption just like whether it "won't" or "cannot" are also assumptions.
Just like how any statement or argument is predicated on assumptions in general.
I don't know how much more I can explain my "underlying basis" than I already have.
The above really makes me agree with weig2000's post previously, that the fact you ask for a further "underlying basis" of my so-called "assumption" suggests that you believe the very idea of a future Chinese CSG having the ability to "operate up to the second island chain and beyond with even a fighting chance" (quoting weig2000) is such a difficult to comprehend prospect that it requires explanation or justification.
If that is the case then I don't think I can provide to you an explanation of the "underlying basis" because it can only mean we have fundamentally different views of what the balance of overall military power is like such that there would be a major divergence in opinion over something like a future PLAN of the medium to long term future being able to wage a conflict in the 2nd island chain or beyond to seek and contest air and sea control.
Last edited:
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Well, then there is the assumption that US CBG can even make it close enough to second island chain to even contest the air space and sea. That is yet another premise that Bltizo's projection hinges on, yet nobody else is raising a fuss about it.