Air-Sea Battle endures amid strategic review

Air-Sea Battle endures amid strategic review

The U.S. military’s much-discussed AirSea Battle will remain a priority in light of rising tensions with North Korea, ongoing military strategy assessments and continued budget constraints, Pentagon officials said.

In fact, Air-Sea Battle officials specifically said sequestration will in no way impede the development or continued importance of the Air-Sea Battle operating concept. However, its place within the new defense strategy is still being determined.

“Air-Sea Battle is a set of agreed-upon ideas and actions to create the joint force needed for operations in contested and denied environments and what that force needs to be able to do.  Having smaller budget authority does not change the validity of [Air-Sea Battle’s] ideas and actions for force development, although it may slow [Air-Sea Battle’s] implementation,” according to a statement from the Air-Sea Battle office.


Air-Sea Battle currently being worked on by a conglomerate of Navy, Air Force and Pentagon strategists, was conceived of several years ago and articulated by both Pentagon strategists and think tank intellectuals.

“Air-Sea Battle’s central idea is to develop networked, integrated forces capable of attacking and defending in depth,” according to a statement by the Air-Sea Battle office.

Air-Sea Battle is designed to counter what’s discussed as Anti-Access/Area-Denial strategies, a common buzz word in Pentagon circles as the military tries to transition from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a potential conflict with a hybrid military such as Iran or North Korea.

The rapid development and proliferation of technologies has engendered a global environment wherein more sensors, jamming equipment, unmanned aircraft and precision-guided munitions are being developed and produced by more countries.

As a result, the U.S.’s longstanding monopoly on various kinds of technological superiority is slipping to countries like China, Frank Kendall, the top Pentagon weapons buyer, said in March.

Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, explained that Air-Sea Battle is grounded in the goal of maintaining stability, deterring aggression and coercion.

“The basic idea is if you have a new and different kind of challenge in an area of vital interest — - the kind of equipment you will need will depend upon how you intend to fight,” said Krepinevich, who co-authored of the CSBA’s 2010 essay “Air-Sea Battle – A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept.”

This is not the first time services have tried to team up. The Army and Air Force developed a cooperative in the late 1970s and 1980s to defend the European Central front from a potential Soviet threat, Krepinevich explained. The idea was to have an integrated battle plan so that separate air and ground strategies were not developed in isolation, the essay explains.

Air Force and Navy leaders have tried to explain that Air-Sea Battle was not designed to defeat China. However, it’s hard not to recognize Air-Sea Battle’s importance when discussing a potential conflict in the Pacific Theater and the quickly increasing military capabilities of the Chinese military.

Potential adversaries to U.S. and its allies outside of China have made advances to long range ballistic missiles, to include various forms of precision guidance. Air-Sea Battle proponents point to the recent tests in North Korea as an example. Therefore, potential adversaries are able to make it much harder for U.S. ships to move into or operate in closer waterways.

Stealth long range bombers stands to serve as a key tenet of Air-Sea Battle. The Air Force continues to keep its next generation bomber alive despite the constant threat of budget cuts.

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms will also play a key role within the Air-Sea Battle concept, Air Force officials have said. Ground commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan depended on the intelligence collected by the Reaper and Predator drones.

Air Force and Naval leaders anticipate that long range, speedier versions of these drones could serve a similar role over the Pacific to monitor ship movements.

The name of this new concept has left the Air Force and Navy’s sister services feeling left out. Army leaders have gone before Congress to emphasize their important in the forthcoming Pacific pivot to include a place within the Air-Sea Battle concept.

Some would disagree that Air-Sea Battle would not include the Army. A Navy captain and Air Force colonel wrote in the Armed Forces Journal that Air-Sea Battle is by no means intended to preclude the importance of ground forces but rather help set the conditions wherein they could successfully operate if called upon.

“Perhaps the most troubling misperception is that [Air-Sea Battle] is only about air and naval forces, that it ignores the land component. To the contrary: It is an operating concept that seeks to assure, in the face of rising technological challenges, that all components of U.S. and allied forces can be brought to bear as deemed necessary,” wrote Navy Capt. Philip Dupree and Air Force Col. Jordan Thomas.

Tags:

Join the Conversation

“Perhaps the most troubling misperception is that [Air-Sea Battle] is only about air and naval forces, that it ignores the land component. To the contrary: It is an operating concept that seeks to assure, in the face of rising technological challenges, that all components of U.S. and allied forces can be brought to bear as deemed necessary,” wrote Navy Capt. Philip Dupree and Air Force Col. Jordan Thomas.

LOL, sure it does! What does AirSea Battle say about how the Army is incorporated? cricket… cricket… cricket.…

I’m not against the Air Force and Navy ensuring they justify their piece of the pie (or trying to get a larger piece) but call it for what it is.

BTW, the comparisons to AirLand Battle are optics. Besides specifically addressing the threat (and not being PC about it), it was doctrine and impacted the whole DOTLMPF spectrum. It also recognized that if the Navy could not keep the sea lanes open and the Air Force couldn’t keep the air bridge open it would fail.

HUGE differences! The attempt to compare is to create credibility and camouflage the budgeting campaign.

Just some thoughts…
Fold the Coast Guard into the Navy, for obvious reasons…
Stand-up the USMC as a UNIQUE air-ground-sea lift capable Force…
Being, arguably, the sharpest tip of the Ground Combat Spear, let the USMC take the lead
in the air-sea-land activities of the AF, Navy, and Army…
Having FOUR partners at the table, under DOD, makes more sense, to me…
The USMC will always need unique, mission specific vehicles, but as the numerically smallest Force, that will be a good budgetary move…
Having the USMC 2-partner on air, sea, land ops.…better coordinating…
Do all this as a years-long, phased in transition…as retirements of Brass allow…
Each of the 4(5) current services would then become ONE4.…
Got that?.…start it yesterday.…
~silentum~::~excubitor~
*SEMPER*FIDELIS*America*

***USMC COMBAT MEDICS, duh.…sorry, Navy Corpsmen…you can switch when you re-enlist…

Other than Korea, where would the US commit large scale land forces anywhere else in the Pacific? The Marines can handle the odd island disputes, and nobody in their right mind would ever envision engaging the Chinese on their own turf. It is about containment on a vast scale, over mostly water, with no contiguous land mass to stage ground forces. As long as the Chinese refrain from invading their neighbors, the Army doesn’t have much to do in the Pacific. Sorry Army.

All we have to do is declare martial law to fold the coast guard into the navy for it to perform its mission.

You mean other than providing missile defense and garrisoning US territories? Hardly anything.

I know this is way out of left field. But why couldn’t the Chinese, if given enough resources and time to raise the required forces, threaten to invade the Philippines, Thailand, or Taiwan?

Not to occupy and absorb into the PRC (except Taiwan) but as to deny us air bases, naval bases, radar installations, BMD sites, and areas for staging forces to either repel Chinese military excursions in the SCS area or attacking China through the aforementioned air and naval bases.

For example, if we were to enter a hot war with China wouldn’t we want to use Korat, Takhli, U-Tapao, Basa, Clark, and Subic Bay as resources to strike into the heart of mainland China? Whose to say the Chinese wouldn’t deny us these bases by either using their Marines or Airborne forces to invade those countries, destroy/occupy those bases and keep us out?

It seems to me that our Army through light infantry divisions, Stryker brigades, paratroopers and stay behind defense forces (Rangers/Special Forces) would be used to regain said territories, would they not? The Marines are great but they can’t do everything and I think it’s a bit disingenuous to completely dismiss the use of the Army in the Pacific or the possibility of a land war in Mainland China.

Anyway, just spitballing.

P.S. If the PRC invades Taiwan aren’t we obligated to defend her? I don’t think it’s possible to properly do that without infantry (in the form of BCTs) on the ground in Taiwan. Am I wrong?

Who’s to say*

There wouldn’t be a way to do that sneaky. We and the associated nations would see that coming. Invading Taiwan would be a huge blunder for the Chinese and if they are dumb enough to do it I’d wave and laugh, nevermind the Philippines. Invading Thailand means cutting through someone else’s country and I don’t think the Vietnamese will be real happy about that. Then there is the notion that if China starts invading willy nilly every nation in that region is gonna have a fit about it thinking they’re next.

You have to ask yourself — honestly — whether the purpose of Air-Sea Battle is to secure strategic strike and force projection — or to do without force projection and just really on strategic strike. Krepinevich, the guy who wrote that we could have won in Vietnam, and is as good a representative of the Aurborne Club as ever was, is ambiguous on that subject. Such are the times in which we live. Among his other virtues, the “Brilliant Comrade” has helped clarify the situation (if nothing else).

I doubt the Laotians or Burmese junta would mind if Chinese paratroopers overflew their territory; the PRC doesn’t need to go through or over Vietnam necessarily. Also, the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Thais, Filipinos, Taiwanese or anyone else in the region save the Japanese or South Koreans has the combined arms able to militarily resist the PRC if they have precise and limited military objectives.

I know we would see a military arms buildup coming a mile away but then so what? If I were to make predictions today it would seem that the political balance in our country is shifting towards the left which is in favor of downsizing our military (not to say they are doing so with ill intent it’s just they believe in an America with little to no substantial military power) thus affecting our ability to stand up to the PRC and support our allies. On top of that none of the countries I mentioned (Thailand, Laos, and Taiwan) can stop or repel a Chinese invasion or incursion even under the best of circumstances.

Why would China invading Taiwan or the Philippines be a blunder when in the future we can’t respond or stop them due to military shortcomings and the lack of political or national willpower?

Remember I’m not talking about the PRC absorbing these countries but instead destroying our military bases (or ones we could use) and changing the political dynamic either directly by installing puppets or indirectly through their presence in order to turn the region against us. Is that so far out?

(Thailand, the Philippines, and Taiwan)* I have to stop making these errors.

How do you propose the Chinese enter multiple countries, destroy quite a lot of infrastructure, and then exit, all the while being able to maintain their own economy and the ability to resist the US and other countries that might not be all that happy with their actions? You’re sort of assuming a lot goes swimmingly for them to be able to do all that.

Your assertion we are downsizing with little or no military power is based on what? Tell precisely what capabilities are no longer present that would make that scenario for the Chinese plausible.

In regards to invading another man’s country, blowing things up and installing a government that does what you like, how well did that work out for the US in Iraq and Stan?

Invading Taiwan would be folly. It is a country that has enjoyed a western democratic system for decades, and for all the bluster when it comes down to the mud is actually very heavily armed. In addition the Taiwanese have the ability to inflict enormous damage on the Chinese if they choose to.

People see to think China is somehow invulnerable. China is very vulnerable. It’s Achilles heel is oil and there is no way around it. The oil can be shut off easily and the ability to refine it into anything useful can be crippled, as the overwhelming lion’s share of their refining capacity is on the coast. Disrupt their oil and you send their economy into hyper collapse.

I’d like to know what future it is you can point out that shows specifically what shortcomings in our military that allow China to carry out this Dr. Evil operation across the breadth of the Pacific totally unopposed?

In addition after doing all this what happy place is there for China? You’re suggesting they invade and/or severe their relations with essentially their top ten trading partners. How does that accomplish anything other than their destruction?

My assertion that we are downsizing is backed up by the fact that our Air Force’s tactical fighter numbers are going down year after year. Our bombers aren’t getting any younger nor are they being replaced with aircraft that provide a leap forward in technology and superior numbers.

The size of our carrier air wings are declining from over 90 aircraft, including 60 combat aircraft, to just over 60 aircraft including 44 combat aircraft.

Our numbers of surface warfare vessels (Patrol Boats, Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers) are declining, the cost of the vessels to replace them continues to rise and in some cases the vessels that we have as replacements are significantly less able to do the job we need of them (see LCS). Personnel wise the navy has shrunk from 322,000 in January of last year to 317,000 in January of this year.

The number of our attack submarines is declining from over 50 to somewhere in the mid 30s by the 2030s.

We are replacing 14 Ohio class submarines with a total of 336 Tridents with 12 SSBN-Xs with 192 Tridents.

Our Army is facing downsize not recapitalization, reorganization or refocusing but downsizing as in the number of troops has decreased from 560,000 in January of 2012 to 540,000 in January of 2013. I can go on and making an essay if you want me to.

Now for invading another man’s country, blowing things up and installing a government that does what you like. What does it matter what we did in Iraq or Afghanistan? One, are you equating Iraq and Afghanistan to a hypothetical invasion of Thailand, Taiwan or Philippines? Two, the Chinese don’t play by our rules. Why would they put with niceties of maintaining law and order, repairing the infrastructure of the invaded country, trying to set up a dialogue with the local population, engaging the local population and attempting to install a democratic and liberal government? Why won’t they just stick to their objectives of denying us access to the region and f*ck any insurgency or nosy civilians who get in their way?

I’m sure the Taiwanese are outstanding soldiers with the grit and determination to hold off the PRC come hell or high water but against a powerful, resourceful and well endowed nation like the PRC what realistic chance do they stand without us coming to the rescue or stopping the invasion from ever happening? I know wikipedia, the FAS, global security and the other numerous websites are not the best places to get info on the state of the ROC’s armed forces but it doesn’t look like they have much compared to the PRC. Am I wrong? Is Taiwan Fortress Pacifica, the Gibraltar of the East (see Singapore in 1942), an impenetrable and invincible island nation that can never be toppled or subjected to the will of an adversary through overwhelming and continuous attack?

Maybe you think this scenario I was initially talking about is taking place two years from now. In my mind this is going on 30 years from now after the PRC is seemingly invincible, has the greatest industrial capacity in the world, has kicked the oil habit like we have (either through natural gas, nuclear or synthesized coal), and has the sway to do what they want after a kicked and downtrodden US with the inability and unwillingness to fight can do nothing but sit on their side of the Pacific and write angry worded letters to the Premier.

The happy place is regional hegemony with no serious competitors and no outside influence from the greatest champion of Western democracy, republicanism, and constitutionalism the world has ever seen.

Do you honestly think the world would stand up to the PRC if they ever attain the power that we dread in our worst nightmares?

temp — “how well did that work out for the US in Iraq and Stan?” Not as well as it worked out for the Chinese in Tibet and parts of Mongolia. Don’t assume because we didn’t have the will to win in those places that the Chinese can’t elsewhere. Totalitarian regimes specialize in oppressing people.

You also forget God forbid if we have to go into Iran, the Corps is not going to go by itself nor will we use the Corps to display any long term commitment to nations being threatened by another and our interests are involved.

There’s also the nasty little friendship Russia and China are fiddling with. Did you catch the news about Backfire bombers practicing missile runs on Guam, and on our destroyer based missile defense?

Much of the reason we should incorporate the Army is because we don’t know what a future conflict will look like or where it will start. It makes little sense to exclude the Army, unless this is as I’ve always said a publicity campaign to protect/grow a budget. In that case it makes perfect sense to exclude the branch with the largest amount of ground power in the Pacific theatre.

The other criticism I have of ASB is its end state is stalemate against a nonspecified threat. Great way to ensure the threat remains (and so does the budget).

B3 program is underway and the last time I checked 5 of those old bombers destroyed 150 targets in 2 sorties in Libya, some someone must have chewed some extra bubble gum and got them air worthy.

I’d like to see your attack boat source because from what I’ve read the plan now is for 40 to 50 to be maintained as 688s come offline and VAs go online.

I never said the Chinese would play nice in these countries, but they will resist, the Chinese will have to occupy, that will bleed them like Stan and Iraq did. It’ s a manpower sink and while their military is big, it isn’t that big to do forcible occupations across the western Pacific.

You’re right the web sites aren’t great sources of information. Just look at how resourceful the Taliban have been. Everyone is when they are pissed and feel like they’ve been invaded.

You also did not answer just what do you think happens to China when they essentially go to war with their top ten trade partners.

Right on Major! I never understood the concept that America would fight a war without first achieving or at least attempting to achieve VICTORY! You know that crazy concept where you fulfill all of your objectives, your enemy surrenders or is destroyed and you leave the theater with your back straight, chest out and head held high.

Why would we ever let the threat remain alive and able to rebuild itself?

I’m still waiting for an answer from either of you precisely how China survives going to war with its top ten trade partners.

It’s completely facetious to compare Libya’s decrepit air defense systems sold (exported) to them by the dead and gone Soviet Union to an advanced and well funded Chinese system meant to protect the Chinese HOMELAND from American bombers. I don’t think the B-1, B-2 or B-52 can penetrate Chinese airspace and hope to survive let alone reach the target. Again, just my opinion but it would seem to be logical and in China’s best interest to have a way of taking down are current aging bombers.

Ok, I don’t think ASEAN will do anything militarily significant to China. They won’t resist. They will protect their economic and personal interests from destruction by kowtowing to the PRC. I don’t see Indonesia or Malaysia (with their significant Chinese diaspora) let alone Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, the Philippines, Brunei or Singapore taking a stand against China in case of war.

It’s not as though they would rally around one banner to stand against the Chicoms they will most likely take the path of least resistance and not resist Chinese demands or power.

The attack boats source is a CBO report from 2009, I’m reading the 2012 one now. The Navy intends to field 48 Virginias by 2035.

It is much easier for ASEAN to throw us under the bus and pay heed to the PRC rather than rally around a single banner and stand with us (outsiders who have been kept behind the first or second island chain and no longer can support or influence them) against the PRC.

I responded to you in the previous thread.

Bombers dont need to penetrate their airspace to hurt them, bad. Show me where they intend to be weened off oil imports in the next 30 years, you can’t because that is completely facetious. Their need for oil is their weakness. Their oil industry is on the coast.

How do you draw these conclusions about AESEAN nations? They all are arming, they all are getting in low level clashes in the south China Sea. what empircal proof can you show they intend to just roll over and capitulate?

Your assertion is that the Chinese will destroy the 7th fleet and associated reinforcements, wage war across southeast Asia afterwards or during I guess, and still have any sort of economy to speak of? You realize that is pure fantasy of course.

Oh and what is your response to the B3? It;s a program, it’s under development, its funding is dialed in despite sequestration, it will be deployed in your time frame.

The USN is developing an anti ship version of JASSMER or is the dread Chinese navy able to counter hundreds of anti ship JASSMS launched from bombers as well?

You think they don’t understand the concept of SLOCs or the String of Pearls? Do you think they are proud to be the number one importer of oil? Of course not.

Are you waving off their forays into nuclear energy (thorium, molten salt, integral fast reactors, etc…), natural gas drilling in Western China and the SCS, solar power, hydropower, or the annual building of dozens of coal power plants that can not only be used to burn coal for electricity but with conversion can be used to synthesize coal into liquid fuel (using the 12.6% of the world’s coal which they own)? Really dude?

Do you call 8 Apaches bought by Indonesia to be rearming? How about the eight T-50s that the Filipinos are about to buy from South Korea? That’s rearming? That’s child’s play compared to the PRC or what we could do in a good year.

What good would it do them (ASEAN) to resist a ruthless government and military in the form of the PRC. They would just be losing all of their hard won assets to the Chicom’s bombs and missiles. They won’t resist; they can’t resist. They will do whatever they can to protect their political standing and economic/financial interests.

I’m not arguing that the Chinese will destroy the 7th fleet; I don’t believe we will have a show down with them at all. A president like the ones we have had in the last 20 years will not want to face an enemy that is equal or God forbid superior. Imagine the political cost to them of a destroyer being sunk or being dragged into another war and being labeled a warmonger, baby killer, imperialist or fascist. No politician now or thirty years from now will stick their neck out. And no PACFLEET commander is going to engage an equal or superior PLAN battle group and have to be interrogated at a Congressional inquiry as to why and how ships were lost and Americans killed.

Fantasy? More of a dreaded future that can come to fruition.

Your response was ‘just will surrender’. That’s no answer.

This is “just will surrender”:

You think they don’t understand the concept of SLOCs or the String of Pearls? Do you think they are proud to be the number one importer of oil? Of course not.

Are you waving off their forays into nuclear energy (thorium, molten salt, integral fast reactors, etc…), natural gas drilling in Western China and the SCS, solar power, hydropower, or the annual building of dozens of coal power plants that can not only be used to burn coal for electricity but with conversion can be used to synthesize coal into liquid fuel (using the 12.6% of the world’s coal which they own)? Really dude?

Do you call 8 Apaches bought by Indonesia to be rearming? How about the eight T-50s that the Filipinos are about to buy from South Korea? That’s rearming? That’s child’s play compared to the PRC or what we could do in a good year.

What good would it do them (ASEAN) to resist a ruthless government and military in the form of the PRC. They would just be losing all of their hard won assets to the Chicom’s bombs and missiles. They won’t resist; they can’t resist. They will do whatever they can to protect their political standing and economic/financial interests.

I’m not arguing that the Chinese will destroy the 7th fleet; I don’t believe we will have a show down with them at all. A president like the ones we have had in the last 20 years will not want to face an enemy that is equal or God forbid superior. Imagine the political cost to them of a destroyer being sunk or being dragged into another war and being labeled a warmonger, baby killer, imperialist or fascist. No politician now or thirty years from now will stick their neck out. And no PACFLEET commander is going to engage an equal or superior PLAN battle group and have to be interrogated at a Congressional inquiry as to why and how ships were lost and Americans killed.

Fantasy? More of a dreaded future that can come to fruition.

I’m saying they won’t be remotely close to being weaned off oil imports in 30 years or they wouldn’t be partnering for the number of pipelines they are. they wouldn’t be investing in exploration contracts around the world if they had any intention of being weaned off oil imports in 30 years.

Do you think the Indonesians are buying 10 diesel electric subs to shoot at America? Is Malaysia buying a pair to shoot at the US? Did Singapore buy 6 subs to have something to stand on while they surrender to China? Did Vietnam buy 6 kilo class boats to wave to Chinese as they assume control over south east asia? Wiki says that was the entire Vietnamese defense budget for 2009, sound like a country that intends to surrender? The AESEA nations are loading up on diesel electrics precisely to make your scenario too costly for China.

The B-3 is fine it’s not going to be the F-22 of the bomber world (a leap ahead) from what I’ve read it’s going to be an F-35 like bomb truck.

If we expect our Aegis ships to splash hundred of inbound Sunburns and Klubs is it too much to think the PLAN expect their ships to do the same to our JASSMs and LRASMs? Why do you think so little of the PRC? I hope it isn’t the arrogance that we Americans are so renowned for.

I dont think little of China, I just dont play the boogeyman game like you clearly do. I dont play the tit for tat system game like people do. US bombers alone would render any surface force as new reefs. We have so much capacity it is absurd to think we are going to just roll over. Plus, this grand war some of these forums propose is devoid of financial reality. China cannot not go to war or conquer southeast Asia and survive economically, it can’t.

They are investing in exploration contracts around the world in order to control (or seriously influence) the world’s oil markets. With India and Southeast Asia growing economically (the blossoming middle class) the PRC needs to be able to moderate oil prices in order to keep their ascension smooth.

Ten years ago we weren’t supposed to be close to being weaned off either but look at us now. We’ve taken proactive steps through just expanding domestic drilling and fuel efficient vehicles. The PRC is doing that and more. They will be weaned off oil sooner than you think if they even have half the success we’ve had.

Where do you get ten Indonesian subs the reports I’ve read so far only point to 5 at most and three practically. In anyway the PLAN’s growing frigate and destroyer fleets with most of it being based in the South Sea can handle them don’t you think?

The Singaporeans are using used European diesel subs. They haven’t grown the fleet; it has been static.

They aren’t conquering Southeast Asia, this isn’t the new Japanese Empire, they are managing it/controlling it/commanding it. They are using their position as a regional military, political and economic hegemon to have all countries in the Southeast Asia (and eventually greater Asia) defer to them. You know, something counter to our economic, political and military interests. People like you underestimate them, scorn them, and scoff at them and it’s absolutely ridiculous.

Our bombers would render them reefs? How arrogant and cocky can one get? Would you have been saying the same thing in 1941?

I hope you don’t take this as offensive, I’m glad we’ve kept it civil for so long, but this is just rank and dangerous arrogance.

I don’t think anybody handles subs well, particularly diesel electrics. Plus ask yourself how many coastlines does the PLAN navy do forcible landings on when all those nations repeated diesel electric subs start taking a toll?

All of which is irrelevant, if China started a major naval clash in the Indonesian Straits are they will literally piss off the entire world. 40% of the world’s trade sails right through the Straits of Malacca and if they interrupt that the whole planet would want to kick their asses.

The whole planet would want to kick their ass? What do you mean?

Sanctions or a military response. I don’t see the most of the world (think outside of Western Europe and North America) would want to try the PRC. I hardly expect to see a Brazilian Expeditionary Force or Eurocorps in Southeast Asia in response to a potential closer of the Malacca Straits.

Besides the South Americans, North Africans and South Africans will probably take the golden opportunity that a PRC caught in war would present in order to entice the multinational corporations of the world to move some of their production into the aforementioned countries. The PRC can manage a war if they want to.

As to ASW practice makes perfect. The Chinese are growing exponentially and at a rate that no one in ASEAN can hope to match alone or together. And besides if they can gain air superiority and saturate the area with ASW surface assets, AIP submarines, and ASW aircraft it doesn’t matter if the Singaporeans operate good 40+ year old Dutch submarines or the Indonesians fresh South Korean subs.

Southeast Asia needs us and we need Southeast Asia. It’s time we built our armed forces, engage in sensible reform that doesn’t shrink the force but can make it do more with the money it currently has and adopt political and national security positions that strengthen our national resolve across the entire domestic and international political spectrum.

See, the Army does have role in Air Sea Battle. lol

You’re the one who said they were going to invade all over the region to deny us access if we engaged in a hot war. So are you talking they are waging war or not, I am confused.

I don’t scorn China, I scorn the notion that China is going to bully the region when everything going on recently shows the opposite with multiple nations angry with them and arming themselves to deter China.

The Japanese invaded china before ww2 and would have won if the US had not gotten involved. Japan should not have attacked Pearl and started a two front war especially against the most powerful industrial power in the world. We dropped the the ball in post ww2 china should have stayed in china and made sure the commies did not take over like they did or stay out of it in the first place and let japan have it. Also, china is not some invincible foe that cant be beaten ‚you just have to have the right plan and the will to kill alot of people

I don’t think the PRC would laugh off trillions in trade drying up.

I also don’t see how the PRC is practicing ASW, they do what? 10 patrols a year maybe with their SSNs. They’ve never done a single deterrent patrol with their lone SSBN, not sure what practice you are referring to but it seems to me if you’re going to learn to hunt subs you might want to sail them occasionally.

If the “Pacific Pivot” (won’t call it Asian Pivot for politically correct purposes) is to be predominantly Navy and Air Force why don’t we develop an “Atlantic Pivot” in which the Army and the Air Force are the predominant players? The Army develops Marine Corp quick reaction forces “break in” tactics to grab territory in the Middle East and the Air Force provides the logistic lift to get them to secure landing sites as well as close air support. We could preposition heavy equipment (just leave the Afghan gear in Israel or Bahrain, etc,) similar to the “cold war” POMPCUS concept in West Germany. That would free up more Carriers to play in he Pacific theater but would require NATO to assume more of the “heavy lifting” of actual combat. Just a thought.

“Obvious reasons” being that the Coast Guard and Navy both use boats and ships on water? Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has a *totally* different mission than the Navy.

Except that the whole point seems to be to get us OUT of the Middle East. Besides, we can’t position heavy lift materials in Israel (hardly safe!) and NATO doesn’t really WANT to do the lifting.

Trade is important Templar. It didn’t stop the Japanese going to war. There is much to learn in comparing pre WWII situations and the Japanese strategy. First off, we aren’t going to war with China tomorrow unless Korea escalates and the S. Koreans try and do regime change.

Trade is important it alone doesn’t stop wars from happening. China has a problem. It needs to keep those markets open to keep its populace employed. War also tends to employ a populace (and distract from domestic issues).

Oil is a Chinese weakness as it was for Japan. The Japanese found a novel way to secure oil supplies (they invaded them) and kicked us across the Pacific expecting us to negotiate a peace instead of fighting a very costly war. They guessed wrong. Considering our hypersensitivity to casualties and strong current of isolationism why would you think the Chinese chess game isn’t pushing us out of the Pacific when they are ready and this time they may be right? We never lost a war before WWII but we’ve negotiated “losses” since then.

I don’t underestimate the Chinese I just think the people of these forums repeatedly underestimate the US, generally because their favorite program got cancelled. It’s a popularity contest on here usually. I don’t see how someone gets universal disarmament from JASSMER, LSRAM, B3, SSGNs, UCLASS all being funded.

I also don’t get the notion everyone will roll over in the region when they are all buyings SSKs, advanced strike aircraft, advanced surface combatants, etc.

Plus show me this alleged sophistication and master strategy skillset. They were actually surprised and frustrated when Hillary said the territorial issues should be dealt with in a multilateral forum. Like they expected everyone to line up for bilateral bullying by China. Look at the norks, they don’t like he isn’t doing what they want. Guess all that regime propping up money wasn’t terribly well spent since they’ve now got an actual nuke threat 600 miles from their capital. How smart are they again?

Charley A made the point that the Army, with its heavy equipment, will not fight a land war in Asia except maybe S Korea. I agree with him but the Army does have the capability to hold ground in the Middle East which the USA just cannot abandon. We have allies there that will require our ground combat support and probably in the near future once Iran gets nukes. The Army will downsize and it must go thru a transformation process in order to be relevant. Yet, tank warfare is still necessary and as we learned during the “cold war” we had to preposition equipment in W Germany simply because we did not have the lift to respond to a Warsaw Pact assault in time to respond. The POMCUS equipment was indeed vulnerable to a Soviet first strike but that would have necessitated the immediate use of tactical nukes since our conventional equipment was at great risk. So would be the case if we “POMCUSed” Israel; it would immediately elevate to nuke warfare if Iran or Syria attacked our stockpile. Israel must become the staging point for the Army where ground warfare is still feasible and plausible.
As for NATO and the Europeans they have the manpower to assume their own responsibilities and it is long past the time when they carry their own load and let us protect our strategic interests which is still in the Middle East.

I don’t disagree that there is a lot of BFF program stuff out there but we’re discussing strategy and, threats here. Aren’t we? Well I am and that’s why I ding the ASB campaign. They touch on threats but offer an incomplete strategy to deal with them. Saying we (Navy USAF) are going to work together better isn’t earth shattering or new.

Nations will roll over if capability and leadership is absent. The purchases being made are positive but drops in the bucket.

Just because Hillary proposed regional discussions doesn’t mean China will go along. Have you been following the latest over the islands off of Japan where the Chinese directed targeting radar at a Japanese destroyer and the recent Chinese amphib exercises on coral reefs off the coast of Malaysia? Yeah HILLARY showed them. They are stunned.

You need evidence of Chinese master strategy? International electronic and aggressive espionage, cyberwarfare, obstructionism in the UN, engagement from the Middle East to South America, antisatellite capabilities demonstrated, as well as challenges to sovereignty in not ONE area but multiple to include allies like the PI and Japan, 3000 miles of tunnels for ICBMs, a military growing and improving in every category and capability isn’t enough for you? (I won’t even touch the economic gamesmanship and undermining of the dollar) Yeah, it’s all just a coincidence

BTW, N. Korea can always be counted upon to distract or threaten when the need is necessary. That nuke threat 600mi from them isn’t aimed at them. It’s aimed at the US and every US ally. N. Korea is a nuclear armed puppet that can threaten nukes and proliferate nuke and missile technology (much supplied by China) to other nations opposed to us at no cost to China. Yeah, those Chinese are really dumb…

“And no PACFLEET commander is going to engage an equal or superior PLAN battle group and have to be interrogated at a Congressional inquiry as to why and how ships were lost and Americans killed.”

We have in WWII.

We did well in those battles.

Thought you were always one to say Europe was the battlefield to worry about majrod.

The next war of the Pacific will not go to who is the strongest, but fights the smartest.

True, the risk is there.

I do agree with much of what elportonative77 is saying, minus a bunch of army assets.

Much can be neutralized in the Pacific via destruction by bombing, or siege.

Destroy their capability, make them static, and keep them out of the fight.

As for oil, again the “Island hopping” concept that was used in WWII seems quite feasible.

What islands are being disputed nowadays in the Pacific?

Ones with resources, or ones with people?

There is only one way the “just will surrender” scenario would appear imho.

When there is one, huge, irrecoverable, knockout blow to all US Forces in the Pacific.

majrod knows what I mean.

I’ve never said that. Feel free to quote me. I don’t remember ever predicting where the next war will be.

Major0d, why dont you take a look at the map. There is a reason the army is not involved in AirSea. A soldier cannot fly by himself and it is less effective to have infantry swimming around with their M-4s in the middle of the Pacific. Get over it, and again, look at a map. All the countries that we could possibly come into conflict with (Iran, China, NK) have long coastlines. The Navy would not want to partner with a force that is getting cut by 60% anyways.

After Iraq and Afghanistan is its going to be a LONG time before we enter into any ground wars (with the exception of possibly landing Marines on the south coast of Iran to sweep out small ports and areas where they might release mines into the SoH) but that would also fall under the Dept of Navy.

To preempt the responses to my comment about soldiers swimming around in the pacific. Its questionable if a WWII style island hoping campaign would even be needed in the case of a protracted war. 1 or 2 bombs today could destoy the underground fortifications like the Japanese built in WWII (ala Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc). The USMC would handle securing more strategic areas that are not just little spits of land.

Thanks Brad. Quite familiar with maps. Appreciate the concern. You don’t seem to be knowledgeable on a host of subjects though so maybe I can help.

Are you familiar with how big and populated Iran is? How about history? All major amphib landings involved Army troops (e.g. Saipan, Okinawa, the Philippines etc.) . We do anything more than a raid in Iran and it won’t be just a Marine Op. If we have to put a presence anywhere for a significant period like Vietnam, Laos, Malaysia it will be Army.

By the way, Marines can’t fly themselves either or do amphib assaults (not in any appreciable numbers or distance) without help.

The enemy will have a vote where the next fight is.

BTW, any amphib op that occurs won’t be under the Dep’t of the navy. Google “unified combatant command”. (Take out the quotation marks)

I’m not asking for the Army to be in ASB. ASB is a publicity campaign to secure a budget.

Why repeat in NK? We have retiring Minuteman missiles from the latest Bush/Bamster strat talks with Putin.

Remove the RVs from bus and replace with stainless steel/titanium rods covered in ablative heat shielding equipped with GPS guidance from GBU-15 including steering fins.

Launch 2–3 rods per NK nuke site midcourse from the bus. One more for NK military head command. One “conventional” minuteman so armed and with prior notice to the world including China, Putin, Tehran would remove the paper tiger label. Did not NK revoke the peace?

The Army don’t need to be apart of this “AirSea battle”, the Army has it’s own “battle” plan(as with each branch, I’am sure), with the Air Force as a support element. If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that you cannot win a war with Air and Navy power alone, but with enough troops on the ground you can win a war. The truth is, every branch has it’s own function in combat, each branch doing what it’s design to do at the right time. The way it works is, the Air Force support the Army from the air, and the Navy support the Marines from the sea. To try to combine the Air Force and the Navy into a single combat unit in the event of a war is not sustainable.…it too expensive. I get the feeling that this is concept for budgetary reasons only.

“Charley A · 2 days ago
Other than Korea, where would the US commit large scale land forces anywhere else in the Pacific? The Marines can handle the odd island disputes, “__________________________________________No, not really. The Marines can only engage and hold until the Army arrive, they are too small a force for what you propose.…And North Korea is one of the main reasons for the Pacific Pivot.

I suspect that if China did invade one of its neighbors, the US would utilize economic sanctions first, unless we were committed to defending that state by treaty. Taiwan, the Phillipines and Vietnam are all out of box. Unconventional warfare is an option, and would benefit from seabaosing, but would take years to yield. Keep in mind the history of Japan’s incursion in China during the 30s. They marched into Manchuria in ten years before Pearl Harbor, and attacked Nanking four years before Pearl Harbor. One may hypothesize that the tempo of future conflict will be faster, and so we need larger forces deployable in less time. Defense of the Phillipines is an interesting problem, a test we flunked in 1941–42.

We don’t get well by making Army combat vehicles heavier. I’m still waiting for some acknowledgement that the FCS requirements were grounded in a correct appreciation of our strategic problems and that slow rolling strategic deployment is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Major 0 your spot on, except for nk, they are a proxy military force used to test how China’s neighbors will react to provocations, period! Please tell this ol wardog what’s our foreign policy beyond the latest public opinion poll. While SECSTATE Clinton traveled a million miles & 101 nations laying down a worldwide campaign finance network for 2016 the Chinese yes have indeed been busy. Then their was Benghazi… out of respect for our fallen fellow Americans, I’ll pass on spec’s but that u-tube video.…..well it project’s one thing to “the street” weakness. Then the bumbling response about a mob.…..weakness This “crowd” in D.C. now makes me yearn for POTUS Carter!

VeP: If I’m not mistaken we still have Treaty Commitments w/Taiwan, ROK, Japan, Oz,NZ &Thailand. We’re neq. as we speak basing rights in many of the countries u say r out of the box, including VN! You present an interesting scenario, just rewinded to the 20’s-30’s and substitute offen. mil act. w/ eco espionage, theft of int. prop. undermin. the USD, and NK’s provocations.…. deja vu all over again.

*sigh*

Depends on the terrain, and let’s face it Asia’s terrain is not always ideal for hot and heavy.

Otherwise, Vietnam would have been a done deal.

And tell us how Army assets would arrive over the vast expanses of ocean that separate much of Asia?

Via massive air assets or via naval assets?

Why are the numbers of MarForPac and USARPAC the way they are?

Highly doubt it…

Major0d, the Army is part of the Air-Sea Battle Office and has rotating leadership over it, like the other three Services. The Army has major contributions to ASB related to air and missile defense, communications, engineering, force protection, vertical lift, rotary wing attack aviation, and airborne corps. It will likely have even more important roles in the future as new ground-based fires capability sets are developed.

inadvertent escalation. PLA force posture is basically just daring us to hit their C4ISR/ballistic missiles and see what happens.

Although I certainly appreciate sarcasm (as I’m sure you could tell from my post). You are just not getting the new national mindset, neither is anyone else in the Army. We will not be entering into long term, occupy the enemy, land wars for at least half a decade. We have no interest in occupying Iran, just destroying their nuclear facilites (from the air) and keeping the SoH open (from the sea and air).

Yes, the Army is involved in ampib operations after most of the fighting is done the Army follows the USMC and consolidates their gains. I’m not saying that does not have value, but that prospect is increasingly unlikely in the new Pacific pivot (key work Pacific).

Why don’t you ask Muammar Gaddafi if ASB is just a publicity stunt. That is the new American way of war, low end indigenous ground forces backed by high end air and sea support. Even in Syria the brass refuses to even consider a long term occupation.

I meant half a century, 5 years is not a very long time.

Really? When did that change? (rotating leadership to include the Army)

“As it is currently structured, the ASB Office is designed to comprise at least two individuals from the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps at the O-4/5 and O-6 level. While the work of the current representatives in the inaugural year has been admirable, the office might benefit from being led by a more senior officer who could be a full-time advocate for AirSea Battle priorities.” Rep Randy Forbes http://​defense​.aol​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​9​/​1​3​/​a​i​r​s​e​a​-​o​f​f​i​c​e-m

Maybe you’re confused with the strategic Landpower Office? That has Army, Marine and SOCOM representation.

“.…but we’re discussing strategy and, threats here. Aren’t we? Well I am and that’s why I ding the ASB campaign. They touch on threats but offer an incomplete strategy to deal with them.”

ASB is not a “strategy”. It is an operating concept. No strategy there.…nadda.

One thing I am interested in is the idea of pressuring China from the west alongside ASB — we have Pakistan and Afghanistan as allies, possibly Uzbekistan (they weren’t happy that we criticized a government crackdown there, but they were our friends before). How feasible would it be to use the Army to pressure them that way? It also seems to me that China has significant internal divisions — HUGE disparities in wealth between the coastal and inland regions, and ethnic tensions between Hans, Uighurs, Tibetans and Mongolians. Perhaps China is weaker than it seems.

If you want to consider some wild what-ifs…

What if China was to acquire a permanent navy base on the horn of Africa, using a tiny fraction of the US Dollars that China holds in reserve to acquire a permanent lease of Xaafuun from Somalia for the PLA(N) to use as Naval base, including a dredged protected port and a large naval airstation. Never say never. Consider that US acquired permanent lease for Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903. A few billion US Dollars up front could grease a lot of Somali palms.

Navy should kill the F-35C, buy some more F/A-18E/F/G near term and begin developing the XF-23 into an EFBK-23, a stealthy CATOBAR capable twin engine fighter bomber, stretched as large as is practicable for use with a CVN, with large internal stores, with organic mission tanking ability, and with organic electronic warfare ability.

Air Force should also buy that CATOBAR capable EFBK-23 to deploy from land bases and use CVNs to rearm and maybe also to recrew for additional sorties. While tankers can enable an aircraft to super-sortie long distances from base, no tanker can rearm the aircraft.

Using CVNs as FARP lilipads nearer the objective for CATOBAR capable Air Force EFBK-23 fighter bombers would be a significant force multiplier, enabling more sorties per CVN, and enabling more sorties per aircraft, both, while using some of those stealthy aircraft to provide mission tanking to much nearer the objective than a conventional tanker could operate.

That would be ASB.

How about Air-Land-Sea-Space-Cyber Battle?

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 | , and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.