AirLand Battle - AirSea Battle

AirSea Battle

Inspired by the AirLand Battle concept, the United States Navy and Air Force are working on a new AirSea Battle doctrine. 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. 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.

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.”

The Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, led by 91-year-old 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.

CSBA has not only been the leading think-tank engaging in AirSea Battle research, but it is also the leading advocate of AirSea Battle. 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. 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.”

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution believes the phrase “AirSea Battle” is politically contentious and should be renamed to “AirSea Operations,” which he argues 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.” 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.”

The Pentagon's new Air-Sea Strategy Office will focus on anti-anti-access/area denial concepts.