Source: DTN News / By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer AirForceTimes(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - May 23, 2010: A new major strategy under construction at the Pentagon calls for the Air Force and Navy to cooperate in ways they never have before, such as Navy surface 
ships defending Air Force bases against missile attacks and Air Force bombers laying mines.
Called Air-Sea Battle, the military doctrine is being researched and developed by about a dozen colonels from the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, with input from joint combatant commands.
The colonels are scheduled to give Air Force and Navy commanders an early look at their work May 27 at the Navy/Air Force war fighters conference in Washington.
Lawmakers and defense experts got their chance to learn more about the concept May 18 at a briefing by four analysts from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent, nonpartisan think tank for national security policy.
The analysts said that Air-Sea Battle is a viable option to the rising threat of China but will be a challenge to implement for many reasons, including shrinking budgets, stubborn service cultures and a long-term focus on ground insurgency.
“Unless offsetting actions are taken, the strategic balance in the Western Pacific will become unfavorable and unstable,” said Andrew Krepinevich, the center’s president.
Included in the analysts’ 123-page study is an example of how the Air Force and Navy would use Air-Sea Battle to counter an attack by China on Taiwan.
Air Force land bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam would be highly vulnerable to Chinese attacks, for example, so the Navy’s Aegis ballistic missile defense ships might be tasked with defending them in the early days of a war. Navy submarines would be given so many important assignments — from surveillance to launching cruise missile strikes — that Air Force bombers might take up the slack of subs’ traditional jobs, including attacking surface targets and laying mines to try to bottle up the Chinese fleet.
The analysts conceded it would be difficult for leaders in the Pentagon to make the policy changes and spending decisions necessary to put the U.S. on the footing called for by Air-Sea Battle planners.
On the fiscal side, Congress would have to fund a variety of new weapons systems and construction projects, including a new long-range bomber, a new anti-ship missile, hangars and runways able to withstand missile attacks and expansion of alternative airfields on small Pacific islands such as Tinian and Saipan.
“This isn’t something we’re going to pop into the budget next year,” analyst Mark Gunzinger said. “This is going to take a couple decades of defense spending.”
The cultural obstacles probably would be tougher to overcome: The services will not want to surrender some missions, such as the Navy’s claim to maritime surveillance, or share aircraft other than the new Joint Strike Fighter or the unmanned Global Hawk.
And there is a philosophical debate for the Pentagon: ground-based counterinsurgency versus air and naval strategy.
The focus of Defense Department and independent planners today is ground-based counterinsurgency — Defense Secretary Robert Gates has struggled to pull the Pentagon’s attention away from major-war thinking and toward the war in Afghanistan. Air-Sea Battle, with its explicit emphasis on World War III in the Pacific, runs counter to “hybrid war,” “balance” and the Pentagon’s other latest buzzwords.
Some of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analysts’ suggestions are things the services already do, such as having Air Force tankers refuel Navy fighter jets and Air Force tactical air controllers guide in Navy strikes, pointed out Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Air Staff’s director of operations and one of the officers overseeing the development of Air-Sea Battle.
Breedlove complimented both services on working well together already, yet made a point to highlight their distinct capabilities.
“Clearly an aircraft carrier brings access to places where we [Air Force] have problems getting land-based air, sometimes,” Breedlove said. “Clearly, land-based air brings the ability to generate mass sorties. ... That is harder to generate from a carrier.”
Breedlove compared Air-Sea Battle, a collaborative effort by Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, to the Air-Land Battle hammered out by the Air Force and Army in the 1980s.
The Air-Land practices, put in place to turn back a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, proved effective in Operation Desert Storm in late 1990 and early 1991 and in Afghanistan and Iraq today, said Breedlove, who as an F-16 pilot spent seven years based in Europe, including two as air liaison officer with the 3rd Infantry Division.
“I embrace Air-Sea because I am truly a product of where Air-Land Battle took the Air Force and the Army,” he said.
----
ships defending Air Force bases against missile attacks and Air Force bombers laying mines.
Called Air-Sea Battle, the military doctrine is being researched and developed by about a dozen colonels from the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, with input from joint combatant commands.
The colonels are scheduled to give Air Force and Navy commanders an early look at their work May 27 at the Navy/Air Force war fighters conference in Washington.
Lawmakers and defense experts got their chance to learn more about the concept May 18 at a briefing by four analysts from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent, nonpartisan think tank for national security policy.
The analysts said that Air-Sea Battle is a viable option to the rising threat of China but will be a challenge to implement for many reasons, including shrinking budgets, stubborn service cultures and a long-term focus on ground insurgency.
“Unless offsetting actions are taken, the strategic balance in the Western Pacific will become unfavorable and unstable,” said Andrew Krepinevich, the center’s president.
Included in the analysts’ 123-page study is an example of how the Air Force and Navy would use Air-Sea Battle to counter an attack by China on Taiwan.
Air Force land bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam would be highly vulnerable to Chinese attacks, for example, so the Navy’s Aegis ballistic missile defense ships might be tasked with defending them in the early days of a war. Navy submarines would be given so many important assignments — from surveillance to launching cruise missile strikes — that Air Force bombers might take up the slack of subs’ traditional jobs, including attacking surface targets and laying mines to try to bottle up the Chinese fleet.
The analysts conceded it would be difficult for leaders in the Pentagon to make the policy changes and spending decisions necessary to put the U.S. on the footing called for by Air-Sea Battle planners.
On the fiscal side, Congress would have to fund a variety of new weapons systems and construction projects, including a new long-range bomber, a new anti-ship missile, hangars and runways able to withstand missile attacks and expansion of alternative airfields on small Pacific islands such as Tinian and Saipan.
“This isn’t something we’re going to pop into the budget next year,” analyst Mark Gunzinger said. “This is going to take a couple decades of defense spending.”
The cultural obstacles probably would be tougher to overcome: The services will not want to surrender some missions, such as the Navy’s claim to maritime surveillance, or share aircraft other than the new Joint Strike Fighter or the unmanned Global Hawk.
And there is a philosophical debate for the Pentagon: ground-based counterinsurgency versus air and naval strategy.
The focus of Defense Department and independent planners today is ground-based counterinsurgency — Defense Secretary Robert Gates has struggled to pull the Pentagon’s attention away from major-war thinking and toward the war in Afghanistan. Air-Sea Battle, with its explicit emphasis on World War III in the Pacific, runs counter to “hybrid war,” “balance” and the Pentagon’s other latest buzzwords.
Some of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analysts’ suggestions are things the services already do, such as having Air Force tankers refuel Navy fighter jets and Air Force tactical air controllers guide in Navy strikes, pointed out Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the Air Staff’s director of operations and one of the officers overseeing the development of Air-Sea Battle.
Breedlove complimented both services on working well together already, yet made a point to highlight their distinct capabilities.
“Clearly an aircraft carrier brings access to places where we [Air Force] have problems getting land-based air, sometimes,” Breedlove said. “Clearly, land-based air brings the ability to generate mass sorties. ... That is harder to generate from a carrier.”
Breedlove compared Air-Sea Battle, a collaborative effort by Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, to the Air-Land Battle hammered out by the Air Force and Army in the 1980s.
The Air-Land practices, put in place to turn back a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, proved effective in Operation Desert Storm in late 1990 and early 1991 and in Afghanistan and Iraq today, said Breedlove, who as an F-16 pilot spent seven years based in Europe, including two as air liaison officer with the 3rd Infantry Division.
“I embrace Air-Sea because I am truly a product of where Air-Land Battle took the Air Force and the Army,” he said.
---- Staff writer Philip Ewing contributed to this report.
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News, contact: dtnnews@ymail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment