130 likes | 216 Views
Overview. An emerging challenge A belated response Debating the alternatives Air-Sea Battle A distant blockade Maritime denial Conclusions. An emerging challenge. Motivation Countering US power projection The shocks of 1991 and 1995-96 Capabilities and doctrine Conventional
E N D
Overview • An emerging challenge • A belated response • Debating the alternatives • Air-Sea Battle • A distant blockade • Maritime denial • Conclusions
An emerging challenge • Motivation • Countering US power projection • The shocks of 1991 and 1995-96 • Capabilities and doctrine • Conventional • An evolving “reconnaissance-strike complex” • “Active Strategic Counterattacks on Exterior Lines” • Nuclear
Implications for the US • Growing vulnerability of forward forces, bases • Rising potential costs of intervention • Doubts about credibility of security guarantees • Increasing costs of long-term competition • Increasing risk of deterrence failure
A belated US response • Obstacles: • Intelligence failures • Conceptual shortcomings • Distraction • Service preferences • Money
Evaluating the alternatives:An overview of the debate • Two approaches • Direct: Air-Sea Battle • Indirect: Distant blockade and Maritime denial • Four criteria • Deterrence and crisis stability* • War-fighting and escalation control** • Long-term competition • Reassurance • Trade-offs and tensions • Implications for force posture and budgets
Air-Sea Battle • Recognizing the A2/AD challenge • 1991: Gulf War • 1997: National Defense Panel report • 2001: QDR • October 2008: “Pacific Vision” wargames • Crafting a response • July 2009: SecDef Gates memo • February 2010: QDR • May 2010: CSBA monograph • November 2011: Joint Operational Access Concept • May 2013: unclass Air-Sea Battle Office paper
Air-Sea Battle • Concept • What? • “Disrupt” (C4ISR) • “Destroy” (A2/AD weapons and platforms) • “Defeat” (weapons ‘post-launch’) • How? • “Networked, integrated, attack in depth…” • Kinetic and non-kinetic attacks • Active and passive defenses • Pros and cons • Escalatory risks • Would require significant new capabilities, but… • Militarily essential? • Would impose costs in return • A potentially effective deterrent
Distant blockade • Concept • Avoid strikes on mainland • Interdict energy SLOCs at distant chokepoints • Pros and cons • Implementation challenges (operational, legal, economic) • Speed, extent of impact? • Could leave friends, allies exposed • Permits a sanctuary for offensive operations • If it works, risks of escalation rise, but… • Doesn’t require major new capabilities • Targets existing concerns; costly to counter • Could be an effective deterrent
Maritime denial • Concept • Avoid strikes on mainland • Create “no-man’s land” within first island chain • Pros and cons • Speed, extent of impact? • May require significant additional USW capabilities • Permits a sanctuary for offensive operations • If it works, risks of escalation rise, but… • Plays to US strengths, PLAN weakness • Compatible with allied defense programs
Conclusions • Actual strategy will be a hybrid • Certain pieces are less controversial: • Need to reduce vulnerability • Coordination with allies • Undersea warfare an area of US/allied advantage • Key issues: • Offensive options: • How much (what type) conventional precision strike? • How much (what type) undersea warfare capability? • Defensive choices: • Pull back or stay forward? • Active vs passive defenses? • Kinetic vs directed energy • Role of cyber • Role of nuclear weapons • Prospects for control