The amphibious assault ships of Commander, Task Force Fifty One (CTF-51) come together in an unprecedented formation during operations in the North Arabian Gulf. This marked the first time that six large deck amphibious ships from the East and West coasts have deployed together in one area of operation. Led by the flag ship USS Tarawa (LHA 1), the ships are (from left to right): USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6), USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), USS Bataan (LHD 5), USS Saipan (LHA 2), and USS Boxer (LHD 4). CTF-51 led Navy amphibious forces in the Arabian Gulf region during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 32 ships of CTF-51 composed the largest amphibious force assembled since the Inchon landing, during the Korean War. Wikipedia
Peter Dombrowski, National Interest: Is America's Blue-Water Navy Doomed?
It has been nearly eight years since the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard announced their first tri-service vision, A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (CS21) on October 17, 2007. On Friday March 13, the current service chiefs, Admiral Greenert, General Dunford and Admiral Zukunft, revealed an updated version A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower: Forward, Engaged, Ready (CS21-2015) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC. As I write, analysts and maritime enthusiasts are already slinging arrows and darts at the document. The criticisms are predictable: CS21-2015 does not conform to one of the classic war college definitions of strategy; it does not pay sufficient attention to the latest headlines, some region or warfighting specialty is inadequately emphasized by the strategy, and on and on and on.
WNU Editor: The proliferation of A2/AD capabilities coupled with the rise of other navies (notably China's) has changed U.S. naval doctrine significantly .... and will continue to do so as the U.S. Navy decreases in size and the navies of other countries continue to expand and dominate their maritime spheres of influence.
2 comments:
I'll admit this is my first time posting and have been a continued reader of this blog for some time but I feel the author of this misses the point. The US would never give up its blue water navy in the face of increased A2/AD capabilities, rising powers like China or Russia and uncertainty surrounding the American public on weather it wants to give up being the world's police man.
I think the US has been lulled into a Post Cold War world where the US has been partying as the victor for 20 odd years with no real care about the rest of the world other than politicians and the military defending its interests. We are only now seeing the rise of competitors that could challenge the US in the future. With this it should only be evident for the US to confront these opponents rather than retreat from the global stage if it wants to remain the sole super power in the world which has been US policy since the end of the Cold War. The strategy outlined in CS21-2015 still reflect that the US isn't going to subside from the global stage. The strategy combined with American warmongering and government official analysis's on growing opponents globally should serve to at the very least stand as a warning to the American people to increase defense spending to match these threats globally especially if the US wants to remain as the global superpower. This strategy would then translate into more US ships/troops/weapon systems stationed abroad into troubled regions to match the defense spending of rival nations or regions regardless of the US diplomatic relations with these regions. TR's speak quietly and cary a big stick still applies. After all it's not the present world that is the issue for the US it's in 2020 and beyond when rival nations to the US have built up larger and more technologically advanced systems to match the US military where they can then begin to dominate them in the global world. This would serve as a proper deterrent from their aggression and if needed to suppress the threat. Just my opinion.
Andrew,
That's a good explanation of where we are and what is important. Funny, how it seems to boil down to: Do we want to fight with what, how, and near or far from home. You are very correct to point to the future for it will come and with it conflict.
Post a Comment