Big Day Next Week For AirSea Battle Fans

On Tuesday, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments will release their new report “AirSea Battle: A Point of Departure,” at an event on the Senate side of the Hill, hosted by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Thune. This is the follow on to an initial paper written by CSBA’s Andrew Krepinevich that examined some of the underlying assumptions driving the new joint Navy-Air Force concept intended to find ways to ensure access in the Western Pacific and the Gulf in the face of ever more capable Chinese and Iranian precision guided weapons and anti-access battle networks.

Pentagon sources tell Defense Tech CSBA is way out in front of the services on adding some much needed conceptual meat to ASB. As one source said, “right now the big think idea coming from certain services is to pour a bunch of cement in the Pacific”; referring to the idea that aircraft shelters on Guam must be hardened against potential Chinese ballistic missile attack.

Another source said some innovative ideas are in fact bubbling up: including using Air Force bombers to attack enemy subs and using the Navy’s stealthy subs to attack enemy command and control networks. We’ll of course be at next week’s CSBA briefing and will provide you with a complete run down.

— Greg Grant

  • Holyland

    I am afraid that Joint Air-Sea Battle Concept will be a kind of death sentence for Japan-US alliance.
    US Forces project its power from outside 2000nm from China, but almost all Japanese island falls within 2000nm from China .
    CSBA previous report clearly pointed out within 2000nm area will be at high risk area. Maybe tuesday report will describe how US Forces in Japan withdraw when tention between China and US or Japan comes explosive point.
    Current ideas include hardening Andersen but no refference to Kadena and Misawa.
    This means that A-S battle concept will allow area within and on the 1st island chain area will fall on Chinese hand.
    So Japan will not be able to find the meaning of Japan-US alliance and the motivation for keeping that relation.

  • Superraptor

    if 130 new B-1Rs with a focus on maritime strike were added to the conventional strategic US bomber force, one could eliminate most US bases in Japan and South Korea, reduce the need for the purchase of tactical fighter aircrafts and reduce the number of carrier battle groups. At a presumed cost of 500 mill dollars/plane this actually would save quite a bit of money, yet would provide unparalleled forward striking power. As BVR missiles such as the meteor could be integrated into these new B-1Rs, they would be able to protect themselves against enemy fighter aircraft.

  • john moore

    What i find intresting is that they are saying harden the bunkers in case on ballistic missile attack and is that only because Obama has made it perfectly clear hewont retaliate.

    I thaught the idea was u shoot a balist missile at us we’ll nuke the frig outta ya or am I wrong?

    • Fatman650

      “I thaught the idea was u shoot a balist missile at us we’ll nuke the frig outta ya or am I wrong?”

      Yes John you are wrong, at least while obama is President.

      • GreensboroVet

        Na John. Obama WILL SHOOT. Don’t let the pretty speeches fool ya.

  • Tony C

    The issue is finding a role for the US Navy and Air Force in the counter terrorism agenda that the DOD has been presented. The current wars are not typical of a state sponsored battle plan, therefore, should not be the basis for all weapons development. The DOD weapons development must continue to account for high end militaries around the world, despite SecDef Gates theories to the contrary. The new AirSea Battle Plan may actually help each service to justify expendatures outside of counter terrorist activities.

  • blight

    Well, now that General Motors is back we can build us some Bolos.

  • STemplar

    I think Gates has mentioned the increased roll of subs. It seems to me given that the converted Ohio SSGNs can carry 154 Tomahawks, were we to build a purpose built vessel of that size, it could easily carry I wager double the number of weapons, or more. With all this talk of access denial and making surface combatants stealthy, it seems to me the easiest way to insure our ability to penetrate and strike unhindered would be to develop the strike abilities of a sub surface force.

  • Guess

    Blight and STemplar, would this be the point were the hypersonic EXPERMENTAL missiles come in to play? Yea I know if we build them. But can you imagine 143 hyper cruise missiles on a sub 400 miles off the coast of china just picking off targets with the help of a globalhawk or the new predator-C?