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.
@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.
@@TheLAGopher More or less. The alternative is to attain such a preponderance of land - based air defense that a surprise attack on friendly forces in port would not be profitable. That would be ideal.
not as long as sequestration exists - can you imagine program managing a multi-year process that is forced to slam on the brakes and thereby lose skilled talent and institutional memory along the way
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.
The US spends so much time worrying about China its sickening. Look, China has been around in some form for over 5 thousand years- they have been there done that.....give it a rest fellas. Lets focus on our country and stop worrying about a country 5000 miles away.
Taiwan makes all of the semiconductor chips for almost every piece of technology that you use day to day from cell phones to cars. Up to 33 percent of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea. The short and long term second and third order effects of doing nothing puts America and the west at a huge disadvantage in the age of great power competition.
@@golfinguy423 Not to mention that if China takes Taiwan it also controls one of the most important global trade maritime routes to key US allies and trading partners such as Japan and South Korea.
Let’s be honest, there are 3 scenarios: 1. China leaves Taiwan alone; 2. China takes Taiwan; 3. The US tries to stop China from taking Taiwan and everybody dies in all out nuclear war, independent of some navy strategy, F18s, destroyers or aircraft carriers. Taiwan as a small isolated island off China’s shore can’t be supported in war without direct action against China.
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.
In addition to anything we do with our Navy to address China, we should help encourage local countries to China to improve their Navies in such a way to provide their own defense in a cost effective way. Taiwan & the Philippines for instance have small budgets for Navies & would be hard pressed to match China ship for ship or even just surface ship for Surface ships. Instead I’d advise them to build up a submarine force. While this might seem like a higher expense due to the technology required, they would not need to match ship for ship because that would be replaced by the inherent stealth of the Submarine. They would all still need small surface patrol ships for a visible presence & cost guard duties. However Submarines would ensure that China would not be able to easily remove one or more of these Navies at a stroke. For a small island Navy that can’t support large surface ships & Air Craft Carriers, submarines offer the best defense in the modern world. Encouraging them to form mutual defense pacts including the USA or not would allow them to complement each other in capabilities further reducing cost. Having local partners with credible defensive Navies would reduce our requirements to maintain a large force in the area long term.
In addition to anything we do with our Navy to address China, we should help encourage local countries to China to improve their Navies in such a way to provide their own defense in a cost effective way. Taiwan & the Philippines for instance have small budgets for Navies & would be hard pressed to match China ship for ship or even just surface ship for Surface ships. Instead I’d advise them to build up a submarine force. While this might seem like a higher expense due to the technology required, they would not need to match ship for ship because that would be replaced by the inherent stealth of the Submarine. They would all still need small surface patrol ships for a visible presence & cost guard duties. However Submarines would ensure that China would not be able to easily remove one or more of these Navies at a stroke. For a small island Navy that can’t support large surface ships & Air Craft Carriers, submarines offer the best defense in the modern world.
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.
One of the main reasons the US Navy has to build a bigger navy is because of the threat of China's rapidly growing navy and its many sea-control and sea-denial capabilities.
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.
Rather then trying to rebuilt Europe frigates to be lesser DDGs, the USN needes to up gun smaller cheaper us coast guard hulls like canadians with their frigate and make like ukraine with the drone boat swarms. Turning jet skies into cheap smart mines seems to be the modern way of naval war. As for logistics personnel, the US needs to be looking at mass mobilization strategies and insentiviesing and more importantly, subsudizing a reserve in these man power short industries; not only in sea lift but ship building. Need to do mass hiring and training of personel at government/navy expense cause it can't sustain organically in private enterprise, at least not yet but subsidzing the needed work forces might foster more capacity organically ling term in these industries, that how China is doing it!!!
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
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.
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.
Nothing takes me away from my daily woes like a great discussion on naval strategy
Best discussion in a few weeks. Excellent guest.
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.
So Japan should not even attempt to keep surface forces deployed in their own waters and station them in Pearl Harbor, or what? San Diego?
@@TheLAGopher More or less. The alternative is to attain such a preponderance of land - based air defense that a surprise attack on friendly forces in port would not be profitable. That would be ideal.
We make like 3 boats a year then retire them 10 years later. Addressing any other problem is a waste of time.
Can we possibly build a ship, aircraft, weapon system, on time and within budget?
not as long as sequestration exists - can you imagine program managing a multi-year process that is forced to slam on the brakes and thereby lose skilled talent and institutional memory along the way
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。
Filipinos are not smart enough to man Navel ships.
So the Sea Denial Phase is going to be Marines on islands with Anti-Ship Missiles ?
Not enough sailors? Recruit Vietnamese and Philippino fishing boat/ship captains, and crew... there more than willing and able to help out.
Brainwashed Filipinos maybe, but you think Vietnamese forgot about the 3 million Vietnamese the US slaughtered?
The US spends so much time worrying about China its sickening. Look, China has been around in some form for over 5 thousand years- they have been there done that.....give it a rest fellas. Lets focus on our country and stop worrying about a country 5000 miles away.
Taiwan makes all of the semiconductor chips for almost every piece of technology that you use day to day from cell phones to cars. Up to 33 percent of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea. The short and long term second and third order effects of doing nothing puts America and the west at a huge disadvantage in the age of great power competition.
@@golfinguy423
Not to mention that if China takes Taiwan it also controls one of the most important global trade maritime routes to key US allies and trading partners such as Japan and South Korea.
Let’s be honest, there are 3 scenarios: 1. China leaves Taiwan alone; 2. China takes Taiwan; 3. The US tries to stop China from taking Taiwan and everybody dies in all out nuclear war, independent of some navy strategy, F18s, destroyers or aircraft carriers. Taiwan as a small isolated island off China’s shore can’t be supported in war without direct action against China.
@@TheLAGopher So? Out country has enough problems to deal with you but we want to focus on semi-conductors- Jesus.
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.
In addition to anything we do with our Navy to address China, we should help encourage local countries to China to improve their Navies in such a way to provide their own defense in a cost effective way. Taiwan & the Philippines for instance have small budgets for Navies & would be hard pressed to match China ship for ship or even just surface ship for Surface ships. Instead I’d advise them to build up a submarine force. While this might seem like a higher expense due to the technology required, they would not need to match ship for ship because that would be replaced by the inherent stealth of the Submarine. They would all still need small surface patrol ships for a visible presence & cost guard duties. However Submarines would ensure that China would not be able to easily remove one or more of these Navies at a stroke. For a small island Navy that can’t support large surface ships & Air Craft Carriers, submarines offer the best defense in the modern world. Encouraging them to form mutual defense pacts including the USA or not would allow them to complement each other in capabilities further reducing cost. Having local partners with credible defensive Navies would reduce our requirements to maintain a large force in the area long term.
In addition to anything we do with our Navy to address China, we should help encourage local countries to China to improve their Navies in such a way to provide their own defense in a cost effective way. Taiwan & the Philippines for instance have small budgets for Navies & would be hard pressed to match China ship for ship or even just surface ship for Surface ships. Instead I’d advise them to build up a submarine force. While this might seem like a higher expense due to the technology required, they would not need to match ship for ship because that would be replaced by the inherent stealth of the Submarine. They would all still need small surface patrol ships for a visible presence & cost guard duties. However Submarines would ensure that China would not be able to easily remove one or more of these Navies at a stroke. For a small island Navy that can’t support large surface ships & Air Craft Carriers, submarines offer the best defense in the modern world.
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.
Fascinating stuff
How about we stop worrying about China and just learn how to build our own ships again?
One of the main reasons the US Navy has to build a bigger navy is because of the threat of China's rapidly growing navy and its many sea-control and sea-denial capabilities.
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.
in the internet age, even the most intelligent guest is only as good as their microphone...
Rather then trying to rebuilt Europe frigates to be lesser DDGs, the USN needes to up gun smaller cheaper us coast guard hulls like canadians with their frigate and make like ukraine with the drone boat swarms. Turning jet skies into cheap smart mines seems to be the modern way of naval war. As for logistics personnel, the US needs to be looking at mass mobilization strategies and insentiviesing and more importantly, subsudizing a reserve in these man power short industries; not only in sea lift but ship building. Need to do mass hiring and training of personel at government/navy expense cause it can't sustain organically in private enterprise, at least not yet but subsidzing the needed work forces might foster more capacity organically ling term in these industries, that how China is doing it!!!
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
DF 27 range 8000 km. what logistic u will have? none
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.
China has been predicted to "collapse next year" for like how long, 60 years? Good luck waiting for that
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.