Deep Strike Key to Air-Sea Battle

Deep Strike Key to Air-Sea Battle

U.S. Air Force and Navy officials are set to deliver the Air-Sea Battle concept to Pentagon leaders within a month, a senior Air Force official said today.

Representatives from both services have already briefed Defense Department brass on the topics to appear in the classified document meant to help the two services figure out how to defeat defenses aimed at holding U.S. ships and planes at bay, according to Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Air Force’s chief of operations, plans and requirements.

The plan “will be a tool for our president” and other leaders to use in case country must fight an enemy with advanced anti-access and area-deniability (A2AD) weapons and sensors, Breedlove said during a breakfast with reporters in Washington. “There are things our team has found that we can do better” against these threats as a team than as separate services, he added.

Key to making the plan effective was an unprecedented effort by both services to inform each other on their most-secret programs and how those programs would allow the Air Force and Navy to complement each other in such a fight.

One program likely to find a role in the concept is the so called “family of systems” which may combine Navy and Air Force assets to form a a deep strike suite capable of overcoming even the most advanced defenses. Everything from long range stealth bombers and ISR planes, to stand-off cruise missiles and conventionally tipped land-or-sea-launched ballistic missiles is being eyed for the family concept, according to Breedlove.

While Air Force chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz last month said the service is close to finalizing what it wants to see in the bomber-ISR contribution to the family, top Pentagon leaders have yet to sign off, according to Breedlove, who would not give a timeframe for when he expects the service to be given the green light to build a new bomber.

“We’re more worried about getting our recommendation right” for such an aircraft from a fiscal and performance standpoint than on wrapping up work on it by a specific date, Breedlove said.

Another factor that the concept should focus on is interoperability between the two services from both an equipment and operations standpoint, according to Jan Van Tol of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Interoperability is the “spine of the whole concept,” Van Tol Said. It “affects so many different things from command and control to communications and ISR.”

It also remains to be seen whether the document will be a simple vision statement or a more concrete operational concept of how the Air Force and Navy plan to fight in a denied area scenario of the type they could face in a conflict with China, Van Tol said.

Join the Conversation

You’re on fire Oblat. Go you good thing! (applause)

Hey Byron, today the last 11 parts of my 16-part answer to you about the Foxtrot submarines which you belittled, and a bit about the rise of the Red Navy in general, got finally released from “D.o.D. Buzz”‘s carcer:

It’s Ok if you’re not interested anymore in this topic, but I still hope it’ll teach you that “fast-food” commentaries are NOT your best dish.

Your being sarcastic right? You don’t want to encourage him.

What’s his vision for the future Navy and Air Force? He’ll never say, but you can bet the Chinese would approve.

Lets be realistic Bill, you’d sell your soul to the Chinese for 3% more money without a second thought. You have no problem selling America to them as it is.

Care to backup those claims? Or are you just spewing more idiocy about the “evil imperialist Americans” or whatever nonsense you buy into.

I’ve never seen you suggest an alternative Oblat, just criticize the military, the defense industry, and anybody involved in either. Would you so kindly tell us how you would fix everything?

Not feeling the Love Bill. gee that is sad.

The problem is that you are want the IRS calls ‘morally compromised’, you’ve been cheating on America for so long you don’t know anything else. You probably cheat on everything else too from your wife to your taxes — that’s why the IRS typically takes a special interest in such cases.

There is no secret to what need to be done, bring in real competition, let defense contractors go bust, make them pay for their own R&D. Make the contractors pay for their own mistakes, Start prosecuting for the kickbacks and collusion between generals and industry. Increase government procurement oversight.

Your upset because the interests and the interests of American citizens are diametrically opposed. Lets be honest for a moment Bill, you like it the way it is now — your sitting in the middle of the Augean stables of waste and corruption and you claim the place could use a bit more compost.

Glad to see the Air Force — Navy team tackling the anti-access dilemma. This is the key to bringing the EFV and forced entry back into relevancy.

The IRS is calling me morally compromised? The IRS? What sort of bizzaro world are you living in? I love how you are now making claims that I cheat on my wife, taxes, and everything. Why? Because you are under the impression that I am swimming in money? Because you want to demonize the rich and you mistakenly believe I am one of them? I hate to break it to you but me and the guys I work with aren’t flying around in private jets partying.

Look at the facts Oblat. What sort of company in this day and age is going to risk developing a multi-billion dollar 5th generation fighter without some guarantee it is going to be sold? Companies simply aren’t going to do that. Remember the Northrop F-20 Tigershark? None of them want to risk repeating that. I agree with you that companies should have to pay up when they make certain mistakes like Northrop Grumman’s latest ship-related problems. But some programs must have a certain margin of error and risk built into them. You to fail to understand that and when a program like the F-22 encounters problems you automatically chalk it up to some industry conspiracy. God-forbid there be actual humans working on these projects and that mistakes may occur.

And if you take “let them go broke” to it’s extreme you could end up with one monopoly and a generally weaker industry. Regarding persecuting officers and industry officials, what about the politicians in the mess? Why are they immune?

Finally oversight. Oversight, oversight, oversight. Yet at a certain point too much oversight causes the same problems it is supposed to prevent. Filling out mountains of paperwork can often be more trouble than it is worth. How many different agencies need to monitor the same thing?

It’s well known what happens when you prop-up failure the way you suggest — it just gets worse and worse. I know from your personal perspective it just gets better and better — but who cares ?

Keeping the deadwood in the defense industries alive at all costs may be your job but it isn’t America’s job.

Oblat the fact that you refuse to understand the realities of modern defense procurement isn’t my problem. You complain there are too many companies but should they fail you would complain if Lockheed was doing everything. You just seek to weaken the United States industrial and technological base for your own interests.

I’m excited to see how the concept combines capabilities to deal with diesel subs.

You have lived with failure for too long Bill I don’t think you know anything else.

Son, you are the very definition of failure.

LOL at the optimist!

What’s the plan of the U.S. Airforce and of the U.S. Navy if a SINGLE sea-mine drops into the Suez Canal, Panama Canal or Strait of Hormuz, but they need to cross it fast? (Just an off-the-hat thought…)

…and also LOL at the argumentative pessimist.

Attacking any one of those places is far from a new idea. I imagine that both the first person who thought of attacking the Panama canal, and also the first one to think of defending it are no longer alive. If either is, he is probably far older than anyone that visits this site.

Funny how my posts keep disappearing while other commentators’ posts even appear in triplicate.

You and Byron are paranoid. That said, I wouldn’t mind if yours did vanish — all fourteen of them on any one topic.

You’re completely incoherent.

I’d like to say HOA but the future enemy (N. Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Osama, Taliban and others) is bigger than us.

Doesn’t anyone moderate this discussion? I parachuted in here to see a good article on Air-Sea Battle and found bizarro-world. Let’s go back to “Great Power 101″ class and only the people who get “A’s” get to comment.

In one month, when the Air-Sea Battle concept is ready and delivered at the Pentagon, it’s show time for your “A”-rated comments (can’t wait to read them).

And since you haven’t even read this article you commented on: It’s merely an announcement of its publishing date.

Part 2 / 3

After the 1967 Arab-“Israeli” War, the djoows spread the rumour that they had mined the comparatively small and narrow Suez Canal. It took the U.N.O., mainly you Anglos, your divers and your latest mine-hunting equipment at the time SEVERAL MONTHS to find out that this was a canard (a lie) – but until then all global sea traffic through the Suez was halted!

During the 1973 Arab-“Israeli” War the djoows REALLY mined the Suez Canal, and this time it took international forces 2 Y-E-A-R-S to clear (99 % of all) the sea-mines! Do you think that modern de-mining techniques can clear 193 (1–9-3) km of MUDDY waters much faster, maybe even clear the entire Persian Gulf??! (How about de-mining Vietnam and Angola then, or just the rest of the Ardennes forest, where I live?)


Part 3 / 3

You see, that’s what sea-mines share in common with submarines:

1) They’re both for sea-DENIAL , not for sea-control,


2) their ABSENCE counts as much as their presence: You never know what’s out there, beneath those waves,

(“was that a shark or a periscope?”)–2/submarine.jpg

so mind every step. It may even return.

I suspect that your patriotism clouds your mind, but are changes in basic naval warfare really measured in U.S. American “ Air-Sea Battle” symposiums? Or, for that matter: Can the duration of the Middle East Conflict really be measured in U.S. presidential mandates, as some in Politics delude themselves?

Does time change everything?

Tic-tac, tic-tac…

The unspoken lesson of the Iraq and Afghan long wars is that they are losers. They are wars fought on the enemies terms…Our fine young men have shown a willingness to go and fight successfully, but the leadership and nation no longer believe.…The current political leadership hates the idea of American power.

Looking forward, military spending will decline…significantly. Unions and retirees will see defense as a competitor for the subsidies they want to claim for their own. The Unions and elderly will win.

That means the US will officially or unofficially withdraw its frontiers to the ocean boundaries. The inevitable result for defense for those who still care about such things, means Airforce, Navy and Marines. No more low intensity war. No more asymetric contests. Its back to wars of annihilation or more likely slow, fighting retreat.

Given that context, deep strike ideas make perfect sense. That will be the left jab to hold the enemy off for a little longer until it’s somebody elses problem

I don’t like going into 3rd world dumps and trying to “nation build” at the cost of American lives and money either, but don’t sit by while we let these the political/social left gut American power. Look at the picture used for this report, it’s a true example of America’s strength, our great technological and industrial capability, and it makes me proud. Lets ensure we keep that strength, rather than gain the ability to wait an extra three months to see a doctor.

Some need to do more research„ Our sub fleet will be out ahear and around any task force looking for threats just as they always are, that should have been obvious to you. It takes a sub to successfuly track a sub and while diesel subs are concistently more quiet — thier crews are not as dedicated to stealth to make them fully effective. We will be out in front far enough for them to have to recharge thier batteries and give away thier position and seal thier fate, There is no escaping an ADCAP torpedo period. The SSGN’s — I class 688’s will be able to kncok out most surface ship threats on land via T hawk launches while the subs then planes finnish of the enemy surface combatants, Then the air raids will commence followed by more inland bombardments and possibly a amphib landing ( could be unilateraly joint Army and Marines). we will suffer losses but not to the extreame some here wish upon us. AND BY THE WAY, YOU CANT GET THROUGH THE SUEZ OR PANAMA SUBMERGED, THEY ARE A SERIES OF LOCKS THAT MUST BE FLOODED AND DRAINED TO NAVIGATE THE VARIOUS ELEVATIONS SO IT WOULD BE PRETTY HARD FOR AN ENEMY SUB TO DROPP OFF MINES THERE.

I think our conventional strategy towards self defense is outdated. We should review how the Russians did it faster in less than one week like the one with Georgia on August 2008.

They are faster because they do not believe in such as thing as collateral damage in enemy held territory, that enables them to deploy whatever is in the area and use it rather than sitting back and deciding what type of weapon and delivery system would best suit this building or that one but not hurt the one in the middle. So basicly I agree with you — we do need to think more like the russians in terms of rapid deployment to threats.

Since DoD doctrine is to achieve “Full Spectrum Dominance”, why do they need a new doctrinal concept of Air Sea Battle? Or is this just a bunch more balogna from a Department that can’t manage projects, account for costs, and maintain gear properly? Please, DoD managers, spare us newfangled snakeoil obfuscated mumbo jumbo, and instead prove that you can actually manage projects and resources professionally, with integrity, and in a non-nausea inducing manner.

Of course you can evade an ADCAP torpedo. Stay on land.

People live on land. That limits the utility of even the stealthiest submarine.

Considering the Russians already had forces in Georgia before their “invasion” began, the correct parallel is the US “invasion” of Panama in the 1980s. Why would anyone think it should take a week?

Full Spectrum Dominance means we can’t count on a stupid enemy. Of course you can’t account for costs, because the enemy might not be stupid, and the enemy gets a vote. Of course you can’t predict how much it will cost to invent something. “If we knew what we were doing it wouldn’t be called Research.”

There is is an edge to knowledge, and the way to get an advantage over an enemy is to use their edge, and invest to push your edge. That means that there will be some waste of money. In general that is preferred to wasting hundreds of thousands of lives. Better to waste your tax$ in money than in blood, I say.

Truth be know — it would had ocured sooner had the Army not insisted that they be allowed to participate as well, An expeditionary and strike force was already on station along with Marines and SEALS at Gitmo and Rosie Roads when they were to to stand down and wait.

But then you are open to cruise missiles and air bombs are you not?

interesting, I do not follow what you mean. “Of course you can’t acount for costs”… hmmmmm you are aware that DoD is required by law to do this? “Of course you can’t predict how much it will cost to invent”.. hmmm you are aware that DoD has an acquisition workforce and trained professionals whose job it is to do this?? “If we knew what we were doing it wouldn’t be called Research”.. FYI I support DARPA research but System Develop (RDT AND E) MDAPs where PM’s who might claim “if we knew what we were doing” basically have a rendezvous with the hurt locker for all I care. I could use much more colorful language. Wasting money = wasting lives BTW. While the Services wasted money on their modernization profile, troopers died by the thousands until courageous outsiders had to break the rules to force mass production of MRAPs.

What I mean by “Of course you can’t account for costs” is that you don’t know what a program, project or effort will cost. You can predice and track, but none of the methods used to predict or track will tell you what the effort will cost if you are doing something that hasn’t been done before. If you are going to build a B-52, you can probably come up with good cost estimates. If you are building a new aircraft, the physics trumps the accountants every time. If the law supposes that is not the case, then the law is an ass.

Of course long wars are losers. After all, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, South Korea are still third world hellholes. Why would we ever try to transform those squabbling states into productive allies and trading partners?

Oops. Nevermind.

I think what he meant is that they are only fought by losers.

France Italy and Germany and Japan were never third world countries.

Loss of the Panama Canal would harm China“s access to the European ans Eastern USA markets. The Canal is vital to China’s economy.

Well I guess you don’t understand the Pentagon, because like I said, we taxpayers pay many GS-14 and –15 salaries to ESTIMATE the costs of these boondoggles. There is a great deal of uncertainty in estimates, the problem is that when DoD politics take over, Uncertainty & Risk in the estimates is frankly IGNORED. BTW there would be a lot of uncertainty in attempting to rebuild the B-52 too. Ultimately what matters is how well programs are executed. Since almost all programs are pooch screws, we end up with pooch screw results. My view? Stop the pooch screwing, cut down the appetite for pushing the limits of technology in MDAPs. Leave the high risk technology development to DARPA.

If you lower your appetite for pushing technology, you increase your appetite for casualties and attending funerals.

I think a pint of sweat is well spent saving the gallon of blood. Your mileage may differ

Prove it. We have scarce resources and competing programs (courses of action) with which to make investments. DoD wasted billions in failed MDAPs and ignored MRAP requirements (LIVES) until SecDef Gates had to break the rules & beat the system. And I’m not opposed to pushing technology, I’m opposed to pushing it in MDAPs. MDAPs require insanely complex integration and oversight compliance. It’s hard enough to integrate the current state of technology and keep a program together to pass independent verification. Basically, DoD’s current risk tolerance puts too much risk on the Taxpayer. DARPA is the place to invest in high risk technology. Then if the DARPA program fails, it’s not like you’ve lost decades when Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen desperately needing replacement platforms for their 70s and 80s vintage systems.

Re — boomer’s comment that it takes a sub to track a sub. Seems very myopic to me… and not particularly cost effective. Why use a 2 billion dollar SSN t.o track a 500 million dollar diesel sub? An mpa (p3 or p8) is a lot cheaper and can cover a lot more water.

Oblat, your tea-partyism has been seeping into your brain for too long. Have you run out of space for shotgun shells and spam in your trailer?

Don’t understand why the US thinks that they can swagger into somebody else’s neighbourhood like John Wayne, shoot up the place and leave without so much as a bloodied nose.

Or why the US thinks it has the right to move into somebody else’s neighbourhood and export wars to other nations. Force projection across the other side of the world or over the horizon to someone else’s place is nothing but aggression and arrogance, ignorance and intolerance. No nation has the right to dominate over others.


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.