Multi-domain battle doctrine
This article is about the USAF-USN battle doctrine. For the video game, see
Air-Sea Battle
.
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]
Background
[
edit
]
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
[
edit
]
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
[
edit
]
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
[
edit
]
- American geostrategy
- Chinese geostrategy
- Bi and multilateral relations
References
[
edit
]
- ^
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
.
- ^
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
.
- ^
Stephen Glain,
The Pentagon's new China war plan
Archived
2013-04-09 at the
Wayback Machine
,
Salon
, August 13, 2011.
- ^
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
.
- ^
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
.
- ^
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
.
- ^
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
)
- ^
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
)
- ^
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.
- ^
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
.
- ^
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
.
- ^
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
.
- ^
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.
- ^
"Air Sea Battle Under Fire From Congressional Committee"
.
Archived
from the original on 2013-06-17
. Retrieved
2013-07-16
.
- ^
"The future of amphibious warfare is airborne"
. Archived from
the original
on 2013-06-02
. Retrieved
2013-07-16
.
- ^
"Resiliency Goes Beyond Hardening"
. 29 April 2013.
Archived
from the original on 2015-12-07
. Retrieved
2013-07-16
.
- ^
"Air Force Bolstering Andersen's Survivability"
.
Archived
from the original on 2017-06-22
. Retrieved
2013-07-16
.
- ^
"Fighting for Access"
.
Archived
from the original on 2013-07-14
. Retrieved
2013-07-16
.
- ^
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
.
External links
[
edit
]