Skip to comments.Letís Talk AirSea Battle
Posted on 03/12/2010 10:49:36 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Earlier this week, on a flight back from Utah where I was visiting my ageing parents, I finished reading CSBA president Andrew Krepinevichs new paper titled Why AirSea Battle? (.pdf) The evolving AirSea Battle concept is a spin on the Armys 1980s AirLand Battle concept that aimed to rain punishing ground and air strikes on Soviet shock armies before they could steamroll NATO defenses.
Today, AirSea Battle is targeting Chinas rapidly growing arsenal of anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) weapons, such as aircraft carrier killing ballistic missiles, sea-skimming missiles, stealthy submarines, bristling air-defense networks, anti-satellite and cyber weaponry.
Krepinevich writes that China is creating a no-go zone off its coasts with its assassins mace war doctrine to prevent U.S. naval and air forces freedom of movement. Beijing has been building up its A2/AD network for decades, but things really accelerated since the 1996 Taiwan Straits crisis when the U.S. sailed two carrier strike groups into the strait.
U.S. military dominance is eroding at an increasing and alarming rate, Krepinevich writes, because precision guided munitions pit very costly U.S. platforms, such as ships and aircraft, against an opponents much cheaper and voluminous missile magazines. The ability to project and sustain military forces overseas is threatened by this modern, high-tech equivalent of the U-Boat menace.
The Chinese military buildup aims to threaten key point targets such as Kadena Air Force Base in Japan and Andersen Air Base on Guam. Early in any conflict, the Chinese would launch massive salvos of ballistic missiles at those bases followed by waves of strike aircraft, Krepinevich writes.
(Excerpt) Read more at defensetech.org ...
Here is the report
LOL. Those were the good ole days!
We also need to get back a variation of AirLand to deal with the ever expanding Russian and Russian Union armies.
I agree with you 100 percent.Their latest “wargaming” with their Strategic Missile Force is a good example.
We (the US and its allies) need to develop a defense strategy that can deal with Both the entire Former Soviet Union and China, and their allies (EG Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, ect), at the same time.
All those countries form a counterweight to Russia and its “nexus of evil”.
With Red BO in the White House? Seen the quadrennial defense review?
Hope you have a strong stomach.
As the Chinese industrial capacity enables them to produce a volume of manned and unmanned weapons which will have the capacity simply to overwhelm our carrier forces, and as our carriers become increasingly vulnerable to the missile, the need for a platform to sustain our weapons will become increasingly critical. In settling on the proper platform, we should, of course, let strategy drive the decision. Do we want to contain China, destroy China, deter China? Do we want to maintain a collateral or parallel the capacity to wage brush fire wars in the Third World? Are the two compatible?
As the author points out, the Cold War strategy or even the earlier articulated Admiral Mahan conception of controlling the sea lanes is rapidly becoming obsolete and will become strategically irrelevant.
In pondering these questions, sooner rather than later, military strategists will look to space. Lasers and electromagnetic strikes will become the new aircraft carrier. The carrier remains a viable option so long as it does not confront a superpower, such as China is rapidly becoming.
I believe Admiral Mahon would be the first to say that space has become the essential sea lane; the very great pity is that our commander-in-chief will be the last to recognize it.
The author’s observations on tactics and technology appear to be right on but I’m having a difficult time with the strategic interest of the Chinese that would cause them to attack the US with missiles aimed at our seapower assets. If they really want the US to bend to their will, then they would stop loaning us money. The difficulty in that is we would then stop buying their ChinaMart crap so there is no percentage in using their debt-missile weapon anymore than a sea-skimmer cruise missile to take out a carrier.
Reduced demand for Treasurys would drive up U.S. interest rates, probably pushing down home prices even more than they’ve already fallen, and also could start a run on the dollar.
“...is that our commander-in-chief will be the last to recognize it...”
as soon as someone teaches him to look up...
The Chinese are very sensitive to history. Traditionally they have not done well at sea. Conversely, they have done very well on land.
My take is that Vladimir Putin has a lot of empty territory that is mineral rich to defend against a lot of Chinese.
If one thinks logistics it is cheaper and easier to move troops and materiel by land, not sea.
Vladi! Watch your back, hey!
Gerrrrr! I meant of course its EAST coast!sheesh!