AirSea Battle

Last updated

AirSea Battle is an integrated battle doctrine that forms a key component of the military strategy of the United States. The doctrine became official in February 2010, and was renamed to Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC) in 2015. [1]

Contents

Background

A United States Air Force Bomber Aircraft B-52 Stratofortress flying over United States Navy Aircraft Carrier USS Ronald Reagan during The Valiant Shield Exercise. B-52 and FA-18 aircraft flying over the Carrier Strike Group Five during Valiant Shield 2018.jpg
A United States Air Force Bomber Aircraft B-52 Stratofortress flying over United States Navy Aircraft Carrier USS Ronald Reagan during The Valiant Shield Exercise.

Inspired by the AirLand Battle concept, the United States Navy and Air Force are working on a new AirSea Battle doctrine. [2] A version was codified in a 2009 Navy-Air Force classified memo which addressed "asymmetrical threats" in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf, which are seen as meaning China and Iran. The Pentagon has created a China Integration Team composed of U.S. Navy officers to apply AirSea Battle lessons to a potential conflict with China, particular in and around the first island chain. In 2010 the Obama Administration declared that freedom of maritime navigation in the South China Sea, whose islands are claimed variously by China, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines, is a U.S. national interest. The comment was seen as a response to a Chinese official stating the region was a "core interest" of Chinese sovereignty. [3]

AirSea Battle officially became part of U.S. grand strategy, when, in February 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review stated: "The Air Force and Navy together are developing a new joint air-sea battle concept for defeating adversaries across the range of military operations, including adversaries equipped with sophisticated anti-access and area denial capabilities. The concept will address how air and naval forces will integrate capabilities across all operational domains—air, sea, land, space, and cyberspace—to counter growing challenges to U.S. freedom of action. As it matures, the concept will also help guide the development of future capabilities needed for effective power projection operations." [4]

The conceptual background of AirSea Battle also stems from the "Revolution in Military Affairs" theory. Proponents of the theory have sought to direct American battle planning with new technological abilities in mind, such as precision-guided munitions and improvements in communication and ISTAR. [5]

History

The Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, led by Andrew Marshall, has played a leading role in designing U.S. strategy in the Pacific. Marshall's office works closely with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) led by Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Krepinevich, whose outfit helped coin the phrase AirSea Battle. [6]

CSBA is a think tank engaging in AirSea Battle research and the leading advocate of the AirSea Battle concept. In April 2010 the CSBA released the report, "AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept," outlining the U.S. military's growing operational difficulties in the Western Pacific Theater of Operations (WPTO). The report argues for the United States to diversify its military strategy away from "the demands of modern irregular warfare" and fielding forces designed for "security threats that are fading into history" to one that highlights the Chinese People's Liberation Army's (PLA) quick ability to field anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) technologies. [7] The authors are quick to point out that they are not suggesting the United States seeks a confrontation or a war with China, but rather "offsetting the PLA's unprovoked and unwarranted military buildup." [8] [9]

Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution believes the phrase "AirSea Battle" is politically contentious and should be renamed to "AirSea Operations," which he thinks better reflects the doctrine. "It may seem curious to worry about semantics and political correctness when talking about military systems or plans for war. But in Asia, semantics count a great deal; on a recent trip there, I heard lots of complaints about America's perceived efforts to contain China with frequent reference to…AirSea Battle doctrine." [10] O'Hanlon is a strong supporter of the doctrine but thinks a change in semantics, along with more dialogue and transparency will mitigate the security dilemma between the United States and China. O'Hanlon and James Steinberg argue that "policymakers must put this military doctrine into perspective and not let it become a prescription for unfettered rivalry." [11]

The 2014 Exercise Valiant Shield tested Air-Sea concepts. [12]

Coordination

The Pentagon's new Air-Sea Strategy Office will focus on anti-anti-access/area denial concepts. [13] The House Armed Service Committee has questioned if this office was duplicate of other Pentagon bureaucracy. [14]

Kenneth McKenzie defines the United States Marine Corps role in AirSea Battle as an airborne assault force that operates from ships to seize bases. [15]

The United States Air Force is responding to the threats against their foreign bases with the Pacific Airpower Resiliency Initiative. [16] [17] [18] In 2014 Seventh Air Force commander Lt Gen Jan-Marc Jouas stated that AirSea Battle would be the new warfighting doctrine for Korea. [19]

See also

American geostrategy
Chinese geostrategy
Bi and multilateral relations

Related Research Articles

Military strategy is a set of ideas implemented by military organizations to pursue desired strategic goals. Derived from the Greek word strategos, the term strategy, when first used during the 18th century, was seen in its narrow sense as the "art of the general", or "the art of arrangement" of troops. and deals with the planning and conduct of campaigns, the movement and disposition of forces, and the deception of the enemy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military</span> Organization primarily tasked with preparing for and conducting war

A military, also known collectively as an armed forces, are a heavily armed, highly organized force primarily intended for warfare. Militaries are typically authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, with their members identifiable by a distinct military uniform. They may consist of one or more military branches such as an army, navy, air force, space force, marines, or coast guard. The main task of a military is usually defined as defence of their state and its interests against external armed threats.

Full-spectrum dominance also known as full-spectrum superiority, is a military entity's achievement of control over all dimensions of the battlespace, effectively possessing an overwhelming diversity of resources in such areas as terrestrial, aerial, maritime, subterranean, extraterrestrial, psychological, and bio- or cyber-technological warfare.

Military doctrine is the expression of how military forces contribute to campaigns, major operations, battles, and engagements. A military doctrine outlines what military means should be used, how forces should be structured, where forces should be deployed, and the modes of cooperation between types of forces. "Joint doctrine" refers to the doctrines shared and aligned by multinational forces or joint service operations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joint Chiefs of Staff</span> Senior-most military leaders who advise U.S. executive government

The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) is the body of the most senior uniformed leaders within the United States Department of Defense, which advises the president of the United States, the secretary of defense, the Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council on military matters. The composition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is defined by statute and consists of a chairman (CJCS), a vice chairman (VJCS), the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau. Each of the individual service chiefs, outside their JCS obligations, works directly under the secretaries of their respective military departments, e.g. the secretary of the Army, the secretary of the Navy, and the secretary of the Air Force.

A revolution in military affairs (RMA) is a hypothesis in military theory about the future of warfare, often connected to technological and organizational recommendations for military reform.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Goldwater–Nichols Act</span> 1986 U.S. law strengthening civilian authority in the Department of Defense

The Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of October 4, 1986 made the most sweeping changes to the United States Department of Defense since the department was established in the National Security Act of 1947 by reworking the command structure of the U.S. military. It increased the powers of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and implemented some of the suggestions from the Packard Commission, commissioned by President Reagan in 1985. Among other changes, Goldwater–Nichols streamlined the military chain of command, which now runs from the president through the secretary of defense directly to combatant commanders, bypassing the service chiefs. The service chiefs were assigned to an advisory role to the president and the secretary of defense, and given the responsibility for training and equipping personnel for the unified combatant commands.

AirLand Battle was the overall conceptual framework that formed the basis of the US Army's European warfighting doctrine from 1982 into the late 1990s. AirLand Battle emphasized close coordination between land forces acting as an aggressively maneuvering defense, and air forces attacking rear-echelon forces feeding those front line enemy forces. AirLand Battle replaced 1976's "Active Defense" doctrine, and was itself replaced by "Full Spectrum Operations" in 2001.

Geostrategy, a subfield of geopolitics, is a type of foreign policy guided principally by geographical factors as they inform, constrain, or affect political and military planning. As with all strategies, geostrategy is concerned with matching means to ends Strategy is as intertwined with geography as geography is with nationhood, or as Colin S. Gray and Geoffrey Sloan state it, "[geography is] the mother of strategy."

Principles of war are rules and guidelines that represent truths in the practice of war and military operations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Norton A. Schwartz</span> US Air Force general

Norton Allan Schwartz is a retired United States Air Force general who served as the 19th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from August 12, 2008, until his retirement in 2012. He previously served as commander, United States Transportation Command from September 2005 to August 2008. He is currently the president and CEO of the Institute for Defense Analyses, serving since January 2, 2020.

The String of Pearls is a geopolitical hypothesis proposed by United States political researchers in 2004. The term refers to the network of Chinese military and commercial facilities and relationships along its sea lines of communication, which extend from the Chinese mainland to Port Sudan in the Horn of Africa. The sea lines run through several major maritime choke points such as the Strait of Mandeb, the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Lombok Strait as well as other strategic maritime centres in Somalia and the littoral South Asian countries of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and the Maldives.

U.S. President Barack Obama's East Asia Strategy (2009–2017), also known as the Pivot to Asia, represented a significant shift in the foreign policy of the United States since the 2010s. It shifted the country's focus away from the Middle Eastern and European sphere and allowed it to invest heavily and build relationships in East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, especially countries which are in close proximity to the People's Republic of China (PRC) either economically, geographically or politically to counter its rise as a rival superpower.

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, non-profit, Washington, D.C.-based think tank specializing in US defense policy, force planning, and budgets. It is headed by Thomas Mahnken. CSBA's stated mission is "to develop innovative, resource-informed defense concepts, promote public debate, and spur action to advance U.S. and allied interests."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert O. Work</span> American marine, military strategist and politician (born 1953)

Robert Orton Work is an American national security professional who served as the 32nd United States Deputy Secretary of Defense for both the Obama and Trump administrations from 2014 to 2017. Prior to that, Work was the United States Under Secretary of the Navy from 2009 to 2013, and before that served as a colonel in the United States Marine Corps; Work retired in 2001 and worked as a civilian at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) and the George Washington University in various positions relating to military and strategic study. From 2013 to 2014, he was the CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). After his time as Deputy Secretary of Defense, he went on to serve on the board of Raytheon. As of October 2023, he serves on the Special Competitive Studies Project's board of advisors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gilmary M. Hostage III</span> United States Air Force general

Gilmary Michael "Mike" Hostage III is a retired United States Air Force four-star general who last served as commander, Air Combat Command from September 13, 2011, to October 2014. He previously served as commander, United States Air Forces Central, Southwest Asia. He retired from the Air Force after over 37 years of service.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-access/area denial</span> Military strategy

Anti-Access/Area Denial is a military strategy to control access to and within an operating environment. In an early definition, anti-access refers to those actions and capabilities, usually long-range, designed to prevent an opposing force from entering an operational area. Area denial refers to those actions and capabilities, usually of shorter range, designed to limit an opposing force's freedom of action within the operational area. In short, A2 affects movement to a theater, while AD affects movement within a theater. A2/AD typically refers to a strategy used by a weaker opponent to defend against an opponent of superior skill, although a stronger opponent can also use A2/AD.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First island chain</span> First chain of archipelagos in East Asia

The first island chain refers to the first chain of major Pacific archipelagos out from the East Asian continental mainland coast. It is principally composed of the Kuril Islands, the Japanese archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan (Formosa), the northern Philippines, and Borneo, hence extending all the way from the Kamchatka Peninsula in the northeast to the Malay Peninsula in the southwest. The first island chain forms one of three island chain doctrines within the island chain strategy in the U.S. foreign policy.

A battle lab or battle laboratory is an organization dedicated to studying changes in the military.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul J. Selva</span> 10th vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Paul Joseph Selva is a retired United States Air Force general who served as the tenth vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In this capacity, he was the nation's second-highest-ranking military officer, and the highest-ranking officer in the Air Force. He assumed his last assignment on July 31, 2015, and retired on August 1, 2019. Selva is a command pilot with more than 3,100 hours in the C-5, C-17A, C-141B, C-37, KC-10, KC-135A and T-37.

References

  1. ↑ Goldfein, David (8 January 2015). "Document: Air Sea Battle Name Change Memo". news.usni.org. Pentagon. Archived from the original on 20 January 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2015.
  2. ↑ Krepinevich, Andrew F. (2010). CSBA: Why AirSea Battle? (PDF). Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) - Scenarios. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-05-28. Retrieved 2013-07-16.
  3. ↑ Stephen Glain, The Pentagon's new China war plan Archived 2013-04-09 at the Wayback Machine , Salon, August 13, 2011.
  4. ↑ U.S. Department of Defense (February 2010). "Quadrennial Defense Review Report" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 3 October 2012.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  5. ↑ Jaffe, Greg (1 August 2012). "U.S. model for a future war fans tensions with China and inside Pentagon". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 25 October 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
  6. ↑ Jaffe, Greg (1 August 2012). "U.S. model for a future war fan tensions with China and inside Pentagon". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 24 September 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012.
  7. ↑ Tol, Jan Van and Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich, and Jim Thomas (April 2010). "AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept". CSBA: xv. Archived from the original on 17 October 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ↑ Tol, Jan Van and Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich, and Jim Thomas (April 2010). "AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept". CSBA: xv. Archived from the original on 17 October 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ↑ Douglas Peifer, “China, the German Analogy, and the New AirSea Operational Concept,” Orbis. A Journal of World Affairs vol.55, nr.1 (Winter 2011), 114-131.
  10. ↑ O'Hanlon, Michael (18 September 2012). "The Case for a Politically Correct Pentagon". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 21 September 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012.
  11. ↑ O'Hanlon, Michael and James Steinberg (23 August 2012). "Going beyond 'Air-Sea Battle'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 11 September 2012. Retrieved 3 October 2012.
  12. ↑ Slavin, Erik (28 September 2014). "Analysts: Air-Sea Battle concept carries risks in possible conflict with China". www.stripes.com. Stars and Stripes. Archived from the original on 29 September 2014. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
  13. ↑ Garamone, Jim. "Pentagon Office to Coordinate New Air-Sea Strategy." Archived 2013-07-13 at the Wayback Machine American Forces Press Service, 10 November 2011.
  14. ↑ "Air Sea Battle Under Fire From Congressional Committee". Archived from the original on 2013-06-17. Retrieved 2013-07-16.
  15. ↑ "The future of amphibious warfare is airborne". Archived from the original on 2013-06-02. Retrieved 2013-07-16.
  16. ↑ "Resiliency Goes Beyond Hardening". 29 April 2013. Archived from the original on 2015-12-07. Retrieved 2013-07-16.
  17. ↑ "Air Force Bolstering Andersen's Survivability". Archived from the original on 2017-06-22. Retrieved 2013-07-16.
  18. ↑ "Fighting for Access". Archived from the original on 2013-07-14. Retrieved 2013-07-16.
  19. ↑ Keck, Zachary (20 June 2014). "America's Air-Sea Battle Plan in Korea". thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 3 July 2014. Retrieved 29 June 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.