|
nAVY tECHNOLOGY
November 2007
Facing Uncertainty, Navy Contemplates ‘Alternative Futures’
By Sandra I. Erwin
 In a world where oil is king, weapons of mass destruction lurk in container ships and “peer competitors” could emerge to challenge the naval dominance of the United States, there should be no shortage of responsibilities for the nation’s sea services.
That is the thinking behind the Navy’s latest attempt to articulate the role of maritime forces, and to provide a sensible justification for its plan to increase the current 278-ship fleet to 313 during the next three decades. Navy officials worry that fleet expansion efforts could be wrecked if the Defense Department cuts naval budgets to pay for the addition of thousands of troops to the Army and Marine Corps over the next four years.
As they unveil a newly drafted plan for future maritime operations — titled “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” — Navy officials are seeking to convince the Defense Department and Congress that it would be unwise for the United States to not invest in the modernization of the fleet, and that the projected increases in the size of ground forces should not come at the expense of naval assets. To the contrary, Navy officials contend, the United States needs to strengthen its maritime forces in anticipation of future military threats.
The Navy contends that the future is so uncertain that the sea services — Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard — must be prepared for the unexpected.
As they draw up their weapon procurement budgets, Navy planners are being asked to consider how ships, aircraft and other technologies would be relevant in various “alternative futures” such as humanitarian operations in Third World countries, counterterrorist interdictions on the water and full-blown wars at sea against rising naval powers like China.
“We have to be prepared for different views of the world,” says Vice Adm. John G. Morgan Jr., deputy chief of naval operations for plans and strategy.
The increasing importance of oil as a global strategic commodity means the United States will be expected to help protect the oceans and waterways that serve as conduits for fuels, experts say. Disruptions of oil supplies potentially could ignite tensions around the world and even degenerate into armed conflicts, they warn.
To prevent the escalation of oil-related wars, the United States should rely on the Navy and the other sea services to engage in “resource diplomacy,” says Robert D. Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. The intent would be to “reassure China and others that they would not lose access to oil supplies, so they don’t feel they have to expand their navy to deal with this,” Hormats tells a recent conference in Washington, D.C.
The high efficiency of the commercial shipping industry that moves most of the world’s commodities creates an environment where any disturbance would wreak havoc on global markets, Hormats says. “If there is interdiction of supply there would be major disruptions to oil, food” and other critical goods. “We get as much oil from West Africa as from the Middle East,” says Hormats. There are “volatile areas with not much protection.”
An ongoing standoff between Canada and Russia over the control of Arctic waters also could be a bellwether for future confrontations over natural resources. Researchers speculate that significant supplies of yet-to-be-discovered oil and hydrocarbons exist underneath Arctic Ocean sediments. Over time, says Morgan, there will be “increased competition for resources offshore.”
If the United States had to dispatch military forces to the Arctic, only the Coast Guard would be equipped to go, says Rear Adm. Brian M. Salerno, assistant Coast Guard commandant for policy and planning. “We are the only service that operates an icebreaker and can operate in the polar regions,” he says.
The commandant of the Coast Guard, Adm. Thad Allen, says the United States should consider setting up military bases in the Arctic. “It’s time to have a discussion on this,” he says at the conference. These bases would allow the United States to more closely monitor future oil and natural gas exploration and establish a “warm-water path over the top of Russia,” says Allen. He also laments that the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet has dwindled from 10 down to three. “As we look at the maritime strategy on a global basis, we can’t ignore the future of the Arctic, the implications and access to the Arctic.”
The Marine Corps, for its part, also would be a major participant in future maritime operations, says Lt. Gen. James F. Amos, deputy Marine commandant for combat development and integration.
With thousands of Marines committed to the war in Iraq, the Corps has not been able to rehearse for future maritime deployments, but that could change after more troops join the service and forces are drawn down in Iraq. Marines envision that their future deployments will require smaller, specialized units that would help train friendly foreign militaries and secure access for U.S. forces if a conflict erupted.
“We need to change how we do business and how we use ships to influence the world,” Amos says. The traditional ways of dispatching forces to hotspots — such as large Navy aircraft carriers and Marine Corps expeditionary units — take too long to get there and may not be appropriate if the United States is trying to garner international cooperation and avert large-scale conflicts, says Amos. “To prevent wars, you can’t always send a carrier or MEU.”
The theme of international cooperation has dominated the Navy’s official rhetoric during the past two years. In that vein, former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Mullen coined the term “1,000- ship navy” to illustrate the notion of naval deployments where multiple navies would participate in multinational operations. But the concept was poorly understood and prompted conspiracy theories about how it would be implemented. The term has been banned from the new maritime strategy document, says Morgan. “We are beginning to distance ourselves from that moniker.”
Please email your comments to SErwin@ndia.org
Back To Top
|
Search Tips
