DOCSLIB.ORG

Based, Multi-Domain Anti-Access/Area Denial Forces Play in Deterring Or Defeating Aggression?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Based, Multi-Domain Anti-Access/Area Denial Forces Play in Deterring Or Defeating Aggression? What Role Can Land- Based, Multi-Domain Anti-Access/Area Denial Forces Play in Deterring or Defeating Aggression? Timothy M. Bonds, Joel B. Predd, Timothy R. Heath, Michael S. Chase, Michael Johnson, Michael J. Lostumbo, James Bonomo, Muharrem Mane, Paul S. Steinberg C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1820 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9746-0 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents the results of the RAND Arroyo Center proj- ect entitled “Strategic and Service Implications of Developing and Deploying Land-Based A2AD Systems by the U.S. Army.” The objec- tive of this study was to examine how fielding land-based anti-access/ area denial (A2/AD) capabilities would affect regional, political, eco- nomic, and military dimensions of relations in key regions, as well as what would need to be done to establish appropriate force structure, doctrine, concept of operations, and other requirements to support counter-A2/AD strategy. This report examines concepts for employing land-based, multi-domain A2/AD forces to deter or defeat aggression in the western Pacific, European littoral areas, and the Persian Gulf. This research was sponsored by the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office, and conducted within the RAND Arroyo Center’s Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army. The Project Unique Identification Code (PUIC) for the project that produced this document is HQD156917. iii Contents Preface ............................................................................. iii Summary .......................................................................... ix Acknowledgments ............................................................ xxiii CHAPTER ONE Introduction ....................................................................... 1 Background ......................................................................... 1 Study Objective and Motivation ................................................10 Organization of This Document ................................................12 CHAPTER TWO China in the Western Pacific: Core Interests and Strategic Intentions ....................................................................15 China’s Core Interests ............................................................16 China’s Strategic Intentions ......................................................17 Disputes with the United States .................................................18 Sovereignty Disputes with Japan ................................................21 Sovereignty Disputes with the Philippines .....................................25 Sovereignty Disputes with Taiwan ..............................................32 Current Chinese Focus on Resolving Sovereignty Disputes .................33 CHAPTER THREE China-Japan Relationship from Japan’s Standpoint ......................35 Context: U.S. Relationship with Japan .........................................35 Potential China-Japan Conflict Scenarios ..................................... 36 v vi Land-Based, Multi-Domain Anti-Access/Area Denial Forces Addressing the China Threat from Japan’s Standpoint ...................... 40 What the U.S. Army Can Do to Help the Japanese GSDF Help Itself ... 43 CHAPTER FOUR China-Philippines Relationship from the Philippines’ Standpoint ....45 Context: U.S. Relationship with the Philippines ..............................45 Potential China-Philippines Conflict Scenarios ...............................47 Addressing the China Threat from the Philippines’ Standpoint .............51 What the U.S. Military Could Do to Help the Philippines Help Itself ... 56 CHAPTER FIVE China-Taiwan Relationship from Taiwan’s Standpoint ..................59 Context: U.S. Relationship with Taiwan .......................................59 Potential China-Taiwan Conflict Scenarios ....................................62 Addressing the China Threat from Taiwan’s Standpoint .....................65 What the U.S. Army Could Do to Help Taiwan Help Itself ............... 68 CHAPTER SIX The Growing Chinese A2/AD Threat and Blue A2/AD Strategies and Operational Concepts to Counter It ...............................71 Expected Growth in China’s National Power and Its Impact on Its Military Capability ..........................................................72 The Chinese A2/AD Threat ......................................................73 What Approaches Can the United States and Its Allies and Partners Take to Defeat Aggression Shielded by A2/AD Forces? .................75 Imposing Blue A2/AD Challenges to Deter or Defeat Aggression ......... 77 Imposing Blue A2/AD—Illustrative China Cases ............................82 The Russian A2/AD Threat ......................................................91 Defending the Persian Gulf ......................................................95 CHAPTER SEVEN Potential Roles for U.S. Land-Based Fires in Joint Missions ........... 99 Constraints on U.S. Land-Based Fires ........................................ 99 Potential Army Roles in Anti-Ship Operations .............................. 106 Potential Army Roles in Long-Range Ground Strike Operations ......... 117 Potential U.S. Army Roles in Defending Against Low-Altitude Air and Cruise Missile Attacks ................................................ 131 Contents vii Results of Ground-Based A2/AD Mission Assessment ..................... 134 Estimates of the Costs to Field Land-Based Missile Systems .............. 136 Near-Term Force Structure Options for Ground-Based Multi-Domain Fires ....................................................... 143 Future Force Structure Options for Ground-Based Multi-Domain Fires ....................................................... 147 CHAPTER EIGHT Recommendations, Open Questions, and Next Steps .................. 149 Areas for Further Analysis and Development ............................... 151 Figures and Tables ............................................................. 153 Abbreviations ................................................................... 155 References ....................................................................... 159 Summary Context China is seeking to build a regional and international order that ele- vates its status and influence, something that provides a primary strate- gic driver for China’s pursuit of control over Taiwan and the East and South China Seas. Given Chinese territorial ambitions and China’s aspirations for greater regional influence, the highest potential for crisis and conflict in the western Pacific lies in disputes between China and its neighbors that escalate into armed conflict. Because of U.S. security commitments to its allies in the region, a conflict involving China and an ally would almost unavoidably involve the United States at some level. Chinese military writing is placing increased emphasis on how to counter U.S. capabilities coming to the aid of the United States’ western-Pacific allies. The People’s Liberation Army has embarked on an ambitious modernization program that is steadily fielding a formi- dable anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) force—including A2 capabili- ties that limit the ability of opposing forces to enter an operational area and AD capabilities that degrade the ability of opposing air and naval forces to operate or maneuver freely. Russia also poses an A2/AD challenge to the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies. In 60 hours or less, Russian forces are capable of overrunning forces currently pos- ix x Land-Based, Multi-Domain Anti-Access/Area Denial Forces tured in the Baltics.1 NATO forces racing to reinforce the Baltic states must pass within range of Russian A2/AD forces, most notably those in Kaliningrad. Operating under this A2/AD umbrella, Russian naval and air forces could mount attacks and amphibious operations in the rear areas of Estonia and Latvia, seize Gotland and other strategic islands, and interdict sea traffic from Stockholm to NATO forces in Riga and Tallinn. To address these challenges, RAND Arroyo Center analysts exam- ined the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Should the United States Develop and Employ Strategic Information Warfare Capabilities?
    Should the United States develop and employ strategic information warfare capabilities? Information technologies have transformed U.S. and, indeed, international society. The ways we socialize, educate and inform ourselves, engage in business and practice our religions have been changed, and in many cases now rely, on digital information and communication. Can warfare—the defense and promotion of our national security and interests—be exempt under any circumstances from developing and employing the latest information strategies? Is this even a choice in the 21st century, much less a hard choice? Information warfare has been variously defined by different analysts but a standard general definition, as provided by the U.S. Air Force is “any action to deny, exploit, corrupt, or destroy the enemy’s information and its functions; protecting ourselves against the actions and exploiting our own information operations.” The goal of information war is now frequently described as “information dominance.” (1) Major General Kenneth Minihan, stated, “information dominance is not ‘my pile of information is bigger than yours’…It is a way of increasing our capabilities by using that information to make right decisions, (and) apply them faster than the enemy can. It is a way to alter the enemy’s entire perception of reality. It is a method of using all the information at our disposal to predict (and affect) what happens tomorrow before the enemy even jumps out of bed and thinks about what to do today.” (2) Pro: Information warfare is not a new concept that arose with the Internet. Information has always been a decisive factor in deciding the victory or defeat of one military force over another.
    [Show full text]
  • Unlocking NATO's Amphibious Potential
    November 2020 Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE J.D. WILLIAMS, GENE GERMANOVICH, STEPHEN WEBBER, GABRIELLE TARINI Unlocking NATO’s Amphibious Potential Lessons from the Past, Insights for the Future orth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members maintain amphibious capabilities that provide versatile and responsive forces for crisis response and national defense. These forces are routinely employed in maritime Nsecurity, noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO), counterterrorism, stability operations, and other missions. In addition to U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and U.S. Navy forces, the Alliance’s amphibious forces include large ships and associated landing forces from five nations: France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). Each of these European allies—soon to be joined by Turkey—can conduct brigade-level operations, and smaller elements typically are held at high readiness for immediate response.1 These forces have been busy. Recent exercises and operations have spanned the littorals of West and North Africa, the Levant, the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Given NATO’s ongoing concerns over Russia’s military posture and malign behavior, allies with amphibious capabilities have also been exploring how these forces could contribute to deterrence or, if needed, be employed as part of a C O R P O R A T I O N combined and joint force in a conflict against a highly some respects, NATO’s ongoing efforts harken back to the capable nation-state. Since 2018, NATO’s headquarters Cold War, when NATO’s amphibious forces routinely exer- and various commands have undertaken initiatives and cised in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic as part of a convened working groups to advance the political intent broader strategy to deter Soviet aggression.
    [Show full text]
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Naval Force Structure
    Alternative Naval Force Structure A compendium by CIMSEC Articles By Steve Wills · Javier Gonzalez · Tom Meyer · Bob Hein · Eric Beaty Chuck Hill · Jan Musil · Wayne P. Hughes Jr. Edited By Dmitry Filipoff · David Van Dyk · John Stryker 1 Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................ 3 The Perils of Alternative Force Structure ................................................... 4 By Steve Wills Unmanned­Centric Force Structure ............................................................... 8 By Javier Gonzalez Proposing A Modern High Speed Transport – The Long Range Patrol Vessel ................................................................................................... 11 By Tom Meyer No Time To Spare: Drawing on History to Inspire Capability Innovation in Today’s Navy ................................................................................. 15 By Bob Hein Enhancing Existing Force Structure by Optimizing Maritime Service Specialization .............................................................................................. 18 By Eric Beaty Augment Naval Force Structure By Upgunning The Coast Guard .......................................................................................................... 21 By Chuck Hill A Fleet Plan for 2045: The Navy the U.S. Ought to be Building ..... 25 By Jan Musil Closing Remarks on Changing Naval Force Structure ....................... 31 By Wayne P. Hughes Jr. CIMSEC 22 www.cimsec.org
    [Show full text]
  • Security & Defence European
    a 7.90 D European & Security ES & Defence 4/2016 International Security and Defence Journal Protected Logistic Vehicles ISSN 1617-7983 • www.euro-sd.com • Naval Propulsion South Africa‘s Defence Exports Navies and shipbuilders are shifting to hybrid The South African defence industry has a remarkable breadth of capa- and integrated electric concepts. bilities and an even more remarkable depth in certain technologies. August 2016 Jamie Shea: NATO‘s Warsaw Summit Politics · Armed Forces · Procurement · Technology The backbone of every strong troop. Mercedes-Benz Defence Vehicles. When your mission is clear. When there’s no road for miles around. And when you need to give all you’ve got, your equipment needs to be the best. At times like these, we’re right by your side. Mercedes-Benz Defence Vehicles: armoured, highly capable off-road and logistics vehicles with payloads ranging from 0.5 to 110 t. Mobilising safety and efficiency: www.mercedes-benz.com/defence-vehicles Editorial EU Put to the Test What had long been regarded as inconceiv- The second main argument of the Brexit able became a reality on the morning of 23 campaigners was less about a “democratic June 2016. The British voted to leave the sense of citizenship” than of material self- European Union. The majority that voted for interest. Despite all the exception rulings "Brexit", at just over 52 percent, was slim, granted, the United Kingdom is among and a great deal smaller than the 67 percent the net contribution payers in the EU. This who voted to stay in the then EEC in 1975, money, it was suggested, could be put to but ignoring the majority vote is impossible.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 30, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33745 SUMMARY RL33745 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) September 30, 2021 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Specialist in Naval Affairs Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. BMD-capable Aegis ships operate in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran, and in in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. MDA’s FY2022 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2022 there will be 48 total BMDS [BMD system] capable ships requiring maintenance support.” The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts. MDA’s proposed FY2021 budget requested a total of $1,647.9 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts, including funding for two Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. MDA’s budget also includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MilCon) funding for the Aegis BMD program. Issues for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify MDA’s annual procurement and research and development funding requests for the program; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the execution of Aegis BMD program efforts; what role, if any, the Aegis BMD program should play in defending the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A. Navy Activity Descriptions
    Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 APPENDIX A Navy Activity Descriptions Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS A. NAVY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................ A-1 A.1 Description of Sonar, Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Events .................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Sonar Systems and Other Acoustic Sources ......................................................... A-1 A.1.2 Munitions .............................................................................................................. A-7 A.1.3 Targets ................................................................................................................ A-11 A.1.4 Defensive Countermeasures ............................................................................... A-13 A.1.5 Mine Warfare Systems ........................................................................................ A-13 A.1.6 Military Expended Materials ............................................................................... A-16 A.2 Training Activities ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil War and Early Submarine Warfare, 1863 Introduction
    1 The Civil War and early submarine warfare, 1863 Introduction Civil War combat foreshadowed modern warfare with the introduction of the machine gun, repeater rifles, and trench warfare, and the use of trains to quickly move troops. However, one of the most celebrated tactical innovations of the war was the use of submarines by the Confederate Navy. An early example of this type of naval ingenuity was the CSS Pioneer developed by Horace Lawson Hunley, James McClintock, and Baxter Watson. The Confederates were forced to abandon the Pioneer during testing for fear of capture but she eventually found her way into Union hands, where the submersible was examined and sketched by Ensign David Stauffer of the USS Alexandria. Following the war, the Pioneer was scrapped for metal. Most accounts of actual Civil War submarine combat focus on the sinking of the USS Housatonic by the CSS H. L. Hunley in February 1864, but few mention an earlier but unsuccessful attack by a cigar-shaped vessel, the CSS David, in October 1863. This letter from Union sailor Lewis H. West is a rare eyewitness account of that incident, one of the earliest submarine attacks in naval history. On his first night on board the USS New Ironsides, West experienced the David’s attack. Stealthily cutting through Charleston Bay almost entirely submerged, the David crew attempted to explode a torpedo (what we now refer to as a mine) and in the process nearly destroyed their own vessel. According to West, the “nondescript craft” barely damaged the New Ironsides, and divers found “that not a plate or bolt is started.” The CSS David survived the explosion and the small-arms fire that raked the hull.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of the War at Sea During WWI
    The Importance of The War At Sea During WWI By: Taylor Pressdee, Anna Ward, Nathan Urquidi What Was the Impact of ‘The War at Sea’? ● Opened a new kind of warfare: Submarine Warfare ● Involved civilians as well as sailors and soldiers ● One of the major reasons that the United States joined the Allies ● Influenced major events during the war: Battle of Jutland, the naval blockade, submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania Who Was Affected By The War at Sea? ● “Total War” ● War At Sea affected civilians as well as soldiers ● Ship Liners, and Coastal cities were in danger of attack ● Starvation was prevalent in specifically Germany because supply ships were being sunk Timeline May 31st 1916 September 1915 Battle of Jutland Germans stop using U-boats February 1st 1916 Germans begin using U-boats again May 7th 1916 Lusitania Sinks Battle of Jutland Battle of Jutland ● Fought on May 31st 1916 ● Only major battle fought at sea ● Fought by the Jutland Peninsula between England and Germany ● Two Admirals in charge of both fleets: Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer (Left) and Admiral Sir John Jellicoe (Right) The Battle ● British forces intercepted a German message containing a plan to attack them on May 28th ● However, Admiral Scheer postponed the attack due to bad weather ○ Attempted to plan another attack down by the Jutland Peninsula, however Britain intercepted this plan as well ● Vice Admiral Jellicoe moved his fleet down to the Jutland Peninsula, awaiting the attack Aftermath of the Battle ● The British suffered losses, but not nearly
    [Show full text]
  • Explosive Weapon Effectsweapon Overview Effects
    CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS EXPLOSIVEEXPLOSIVE WEAPON EFFECTSWEAPON OVERVIEW EFFECTS FINAL REPORT ABOUT THE GICHD AND THE PROJECT The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva, the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge. Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more than 20 governments and organisations. Motivated by its strategic goal to improve human security and equipped with subject expertise in explosive hazards, the GICHD launched a research project to characterise explosive weapons. The GICHD perceives the debate on explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) as an important humanitarian issue. The aim of this research into explosive weapons characteristics and their immediate, destructive effects on humans and structures, is to help inform the ongoing discussions on EWIPA, intended to reduce harm to civilians. The intention of the research is not to discuss the moral, political or legal implications of using explosive weapon systems in populated areas, but to examine their characteristics, effects and use from a technical perspective. The research project started in January 2015 and was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in the humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This report and its annexes integrate the research efforts of the characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016 and make reference to key information sources in this domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Taiwan's Indigenous Defense Industry: Centralized Control of Abundant
    Taiwan’s Indigenous Defense Industry: Centralized Control of Abundant Suppliers David An, Matt Schrader, Ned Collins-Chase May 2018 About the Global Taiwan Institute GTI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit policy incubator dedicated to insightful, cutting-edge, and inclusive research on policy issues regarding Taiwan and the world. Our mission is to enhance the relationship between Taiwan and other countries, especially the United States, through policy research and programs that promote better public understanding about Taiwan and its people. www.globaltaiwan.org About the Authors David An is a senior research fellow at the Global Taiwan Institute. David was a political-military affairs officer covering the East Asia region at the U.S. State Department from 2009 to 2014. Mr. An received a State Department Superior Honor Award for initiating this series of political-military visits from senior Taiwan officials, and also for taking the lead on congressional notification of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. He received his M.A. from UCSD Graduate School of Global Policy and Strategy and his B.A. from UC Berkeley. Matt Schrader is the Editor-in-Chief of the China Brief at the Jamestown Foundation, MA candidate at Georgetown University, and previously an intern at GTI. Mr. Schrader has over six years of professional work experience in China. He received his BA from the George Washington University. Ned Collins-Chase is an MA candidate at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and previously an intern at GTI. He has worked in China, been a Peace Corps volunteer in Mo- zambique, and was also an intern at the US State Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge
    Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge Andrew Krepinevich, Barry Watts & Robert Work 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge by Andrew Krepinevich Barry Watts Robert Work Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments 2003 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent public policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking about defense planning and investment strategies for the 21st century. CSBA’s analytic-based research makes clear the inextricable link between defense strategies and budgets in fostering a more effective and efficient defense, and the need to transform the US military in light of the emerging military revolution. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundation, corporate and individual grants and contributions, and government contracts. 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 http://www.csbaonline.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... I I. NEW CHALLENGES TO POWER PROJECTION.................................................................. 1 II. PROSPECTIVE US AIR FORCE FAILURE POINTS........................................................... 11 III. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND ASSURED ACCESS: A CRITICAL RISK ASSESSMENT .29 IV. THE ARMY AND THE OBJECTIVE FORCE ..................................................................... 69 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 93 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the Cold War, the United States defense posture called for substantial forces to be located overseas as part of a military strategy that emphasized deterrence and forward defense. Large combat formations were based in Europe and Asia. Additional forces—both land-based and maritime—were rotated periodically back to the rear area in the United States.
    [Show full text]