Well, better late than never --- now get to work.
The Department of Defense announced today the creation of a new office to integrate air and naval combat capabilities in support of emerging national security requirements.One request: more thought and less Join Onanism, please.
In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates directed the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps to develop a comprehensive concept to counter emerging anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) challenges. The services collaborated to develop the Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept. On Aug. 12, 2011, Navy Adm. Jonathan Greenert, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, and Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove established the Air-Sea Battle Office (ASBO), creating a framework to implement the ASB concept.
The ASB concept will guide the services as they work together to maintain a continued U.S. advantage against the global proliferation of advanced military technologies and A2/AD capabilities. Air-Sea Battle will leverage military and technological capabilities that reflect unprecedented Navy, Marine and Air Force collaboration, cooperation, integration, and resource investments.
The ASBO will oversee the concept implementation by facilitating coordination among the services, influencing service wargames, fostering development and integration of air and naval capabilities, and collaborating with the joint forces. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will each dedicate a minimum of two field grade officers or civil service equivalents to the ASBO.
Implementation of the ASB concept by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will foster positive change in the institutional relationships among the services, the integration of acquisition strategies, and the conceptual approach to warfare. The ASB concept is a natural and deliberate evolution of U.S. warfighting to counter emerging A2/AD threats that include conventional ballistic missiles, long-range precision cruise missiles, advanced integrated air and missile defense systems, electronic and cyber warfare capabilities, submarines, surface combatants, and modern combat aircraft. Air-Sea Battle will enable the projection of force in defense of U.S. interests and those of our allies and by sustaining stability and freedom of access throughout the global commons.
They (DoD) just won't JFCOM die, will they?
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see their manning document to see where all those paid billets come from.
ReplyDeleteSo, why do they need the Marine Corps? Aren't the Navy and Air Force going to do it all with ships and aircraft? Perhaps they have done some hard calculations regarding the tyranny of distance, and have seen the foolishness of the assumptions that have been trumpeted to this point.
ReplyDeleteIf one does not have a credible and capable ability to project power ashore, one is merely a day-shopper in WESTPAC. Continental drift since 1945 not being enough to close the ranges to vital terrain as significantly as we would wish.
From all the "Diversity" offices?
ReplyDeleteA nice issue to discuss, but given the inevitable decimation of assets, there may not be much to contribute to the mission (not the study) from any of the services.
ReplyDeleteBut, I am sure the LCS will be a coveted asset for this mission accomplishment.
What, there's no diversity czar in the office?
ReplyDeletePAIN!!!!
ReplyDeleteHere is a thought.. GET A MARITIME STRATEGY that makes sense...
"You make plans to fit circumstances not Circumstances to fit the plan.." -GSP jr
I may have missed it in all the PP motivational speaker jargon, but I didn't see any mention of breaking things and winning.
ReplyDeleteIsn't global warming supposed to accelerate continental drift, with corresponding effects on the number and intensity of earthquakes, the rate of sea level rise, etc etc?
ReplyDeleteIt always amused me as a 3rd Fleet kind of guy the way that my east coast compadres had to kowtow to JFCOM. Never experienced anything like it working for CINCPAC.
ReplyDeleteVersion I'm reading has a fair share of door-kicking and china breaking...
ReplyDeletew/r, SJS
Cdr, Your question was how did we fight WWII. the answer is we had a WAR Department and a Navy Department. We did not have a Defense Department. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I would invite everyone's taking a look at our won / lost record with a War Department Vs the record with a Defense Department. War and Navy indicate a readiness to "take charge and carry out the P.O.D.," and to break things when required. A defense department, at least to me, indicates a willingness to sit back and try to right things after they have gone wrong. Once again, look at the won lost record of each. 'Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteA lot of discussion right now about shifting the Marines to PACOM and the Army to EUCOM/AFRICOM/CENTCOM. Personally I like it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Navy Department / War Department model, I like that too. Cooperation works best when the forcing function is victory in combat, not just satisfying the admin lust of the Cult of Jointness. Jointness has been a frackin disaster for the Navy, from the creation of the National Military Establishment, to its morphing into the DoD, to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CJCS (Goldwater Nichols). While I agree with the COCOM structure, Washington DC Jointness has led to more frickin problems than it has solved. But on paper it seems like such a good idea that folks can't seem to divorce themselves from it. Screw the enemy, I have a plan!