Vlad Plasmius
Junior Member
Why would they have an amphibious ship in a carrier group? Typically amphibious ships have their own escorts.
Future PLAN Forecast Thread: Number, disposition, etc.
- Thread starter USAalltheway
- Start date
Why would they have an amphibious ship in a carrier group? Typically amphibious ships have their own escorts.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I admit it I am not an Expert. but there are cases when landing ships are attached. there missions are not mutuality exclusive and I imaging haveing a group with more flexibility is going too be a must in the coming years.
antiterror13
Brigadier
I think you are being too pessimistic, there are already 3 LPD (071) now in 2011, I think 8 LPD and 4 LHD is more realistic
Lol I think most of us know the answer to what most SDF members would say... the question, is do you agree with what he said?
It's just posturing isn't it. "Oh yes our tough talk has made the PLAN decide to be less "aggressive"..."
Yeah right.
pugachev_diver
Banned Idiot
This is a very right winged paper. Plus, there is no events happening right now in the west pacific. This is just pure talking. I read the same sort of stuff on Chinese sites all the time, the same bullshit we see on Washington posts and financial times, either Chinese saying US scared or US saying CHinese are backing down. It's all bunch of useless stuff....
Red___Sword
Junior Member
This thread got this "tendency":
When there is a claim, as long as it is coming from OTHER SOURCES, even the claim is being politically accusing China, that post itself will not be considered hostlie to fourm rule.
But if some member fights back, that crys out "I am not aggressive, in fact, it is YOU being aggressive all the time!", that post is having tendency to be consider political flaming.
I don't want to add more fire to this issue, but I do suggest, if this professional fourm is going to maintein its political neutral, Mods need to constantly delete those political flaming "Citation of other sources" as well.
"Citing others" dose not give one the right to preaching flame (if not rubbish) around. Otherwise, EVERYBODY can do this: I write some rubbish at other fourm / blog, and I citing those rubbish as some kind of claim, at this fourm. - what's next?
When there is a claim, as long as it is coming from OTHER SOURCES, even the claim is being politically accusing China, that post itself will not be considered hostlie to fourm rule.
But if some member fights back, that crys out "I am not aggressive, in fact, it is YOU being aggressive all the time!", that post is having tendency to be consider political flaming.
I don't want to add more fire to this issue, but I do suggest, if this professional fourm is going to maintein its political neutral, Mods need to constantly delete those political flaming "Citation of other sources" as well.
"Citing others" dose not give one the right to preaching flame (if not rubbish) around. Otherwise, EVERYBODY can do this: I write some rubbish at other fourm / blog, and I citing those rubbish as some kind of claim, at this fourm. - what's next?
With respect to the PLAN's areas of future operation, I would say the Indian ocean and the passage ways to it through SE Asia, China imports a lot of energy and raw materials from Russia and central Asia. But the raw materials from the middle east Africa and Australia (to a degree) must travel these areas.
The kind of operations the PLAN would undertake would most likely be protection of China's economic assets in the middle east and Africa, for example if a Chinese owned mine/oilfield/etc were to be threatened, China could respond with a CBG or LPD, or whatever suits the situation.
Sometimes I think there's a feeling that China could be involved in a violent confrontation with a rival power in the near future, however I think this is somewhat unlikely. After all, what has China to gain from a direct confrontation with the US/Japan/India.
Outside the 10-20 year timeframe, if the large global economies cant adapt to supply and demand challenges then this could well happen, for example if shortages of food/raw materials/energy develop. By then the PLAN should look very different and
have the string of pearls port infrastructure to support it.
The kind of operations the PLAN would undertake would most likely be protection of China's economic assets in the middle east and Africa, for example if a Chinese owned mine/oilfield/etc were to be threatened, China could respond with a CBG or LPD, or whatever suits the situation.
Sometimes I think there's a feeling that China could be involved in a violent confrontation with a rival power in the near future, however I think this is somewhat unlikely. After all, what has China to gain from a direct confrontation with the US/Japan/India.
Outside the 10-20 year timeframe, if the large global economies cant adapt to supply and demand challenges then this could well happen, for example if shortages of food/raw materials/energy develop. By then the PLAN should look very different and
have the string of pearls port infrastructure to support it.