Indian Defence Review

The ASB’s vision of Networked, Integrated and Attack-in-depth (NIA) operations requires the application of cross-domain operations across all the interdependent war fighting domains (air, maritime, land, space and cyberspace to Disrupt, Destroy and Defeat (D3) A2/AD capabilities and provide maximum operational advantage to friendly joint and coalition forces. In the ASB Concept, networked actions are tightly coordinated in real time by mission-organised forces to conduct integrated operations across all domains without being locked into service-specific procedures, tactics, or weapons systems. Attack-in-depth to Disrupt, Destroy and Defeat and D3 represents the three lines of effort of the ASB Concept:

• Disrupt Adversary Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR or C4I).
• Destroy adversary A2/AD platforms and weapons systems.
• Defeat adversary employed weapons and formations.

In order to ensure freedom of access in the global commons, the ASB Concept is intended to foster future capabilities that directly support several of the U.S. Armed Forces primary missions described in the DOD’s Strategic Guidance (DSG): Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. These include missions to Deter and Defeat Aggression, Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges, and to Operate Effectively in Cyberspace and Space.

Primary Missions of the Us Armed Forces

• Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare
• Deter and Defeat Aggression
• Project Power despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges
• Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Operate Effectively in Cyberspace and Space
• Maintain a Safe, Secure and Effective Nuclear Deterrent
• Defend Homeland and Provide Support to Civil Authorities
• Provide a Stabilising Presence
• Conduct Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations
• Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief and Other Operations

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff’s force development vision detailed in the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint Force 2020 (CCJO), JOAC, and the emerging Joint Concept for Entry Operations (JCEO) describes the future operating environment and the high-order vision for how the future force will be needed to conduct Globally Integrated Operations across the Range of Military Operations (ROMO). The ASB Concept views the joint force in a holistic way to include Doctrine, Organisation, Training, Material, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities (DOTMLPF) within the Services’ purview to organise, train and equip.

The ASB Concept specifically addresses a range of threats such as ballistic and cruise missiles, sophisticated integrated air defense systems, anti-ship capabilities from high-tech missiles and submarines to low-tech swarming boats, electronic warfare and counter-C4ISR capabilities. Yet, the ASB Concept differs from other concepts because, while it contains the operational details needed in a limited objective concept, it is about fostering institutional change, conceptual alignment and materiel change in and among the Services. In late 2011, the Secretary of Defense endorsed the ASB Concept as a necessary first step to address the Anti-Access, Area Denial challenge and directed the services to work further to develop the Concept. To this end, the Services established a multi-service; flag level ASB Executive Committee (EXCOM), Senior Steering Group (SSG), and supporting staff charged with implementing the Concept. This plan describes the recommended processes and actions to develop forces and enhance military capabilities necessary to counter current and future A2/AD challenges, using 2020 as the objective year.

Tracing the Genealogy

The history of warfare is testimony to the indisputable fact that there is ever-present and ongoing quest to seek offence-defense balance in one’s favor.¹¹ Offence and defense while treated in compartments, share a complex dialectical relationship. The thin line that differentiates the two, if displaced, makes the assessment blurred. For example, all acts of War can be coded as ‘defensive’ or ‘offensive’, if ‘time’ is treated as a variable in each case. Alexander’s offence on Persian ports was inherently an act of Greek defense against the Persian navy. Similarly, Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was a defensive action against possible US naval operations in the East Pacific theatre. Even in modern warfare, the deep penetration strikes carried out by the USAF in Iraq are a defensive measure to the follow on land offence.

In order to interpret this current strategic environment, where concepts such as ADIZ and ASB are in vogue, the following key factors that shape the present environment require attention:

The present strategic environment is marked by the presence of post-colonial nation states with enhanced military power that new independent countries have now which lends them the capability and intent to uphold and defend their sovereignty.

The relative decline of colonial powers in upholding and defending their colonies and the values therein. The inability to project power in maintaining freedom of access to global commons.

From this perspective, both ADIZ and ASB are mechanisms to cope with the shifting reality of the present strategic situation. While ADIZ is a reflection of China’s increased confidence in projecting power and claiming sovereign ideals in nearby seas, ASB is the reflection of US vulnerability brought about by its inability to project power in faraway lands (or seas) to defend the Freedom of Navigation in global commons. This strategic reality is marked by the true and natural concerns of each. It is a mechanism to cope with the existing reality and in that sense, must not construe surprise. A historical framework further clarifies this situation.

Looking back into the future: South China Sea

The present condition though has lineage with the industrial revolution and the colonial empire building process by industrial powers since the fifteenth century is of recent origin. With end of World War II, given the relative decline in the ability of colonial powers to control their dominions, new independent nation-states were born, which for the first time, began exercising their sovereign rights. This contracted the total strategic space among colonial powers. For the first time, the number of claimants for global commons increased exponentially and their ability to defend these rights increased with proliferation of modern armament and its auxiliary. With this shift in strategic situation, a mechanism to incorporate new nation states and yet maintaining lost strategic space was initiated. The most verifiable example in this regard happens to be United Nations Convention on Laws of Sea (UNCLOS 1982). This third conference on Laws of Sea, exhibited this phenomenon, where new laws governing the global common at sea were agreed by multiple nations. While its intent was to put in motion a certain mechanism to avoid clashes of interest among nations, with respect to usage of sea, it had a limiting effect on the sovereignty concerns of newly independent states and their latest naval capability to claim these rights.

In this regard, certain ‘key concepts’ need to be grasped in order to comprehend the nature of the South China Sea disputes. These concepts make for the ‘principle’ for justifying claims by different claimants and are key to the disputes. The concepts on maritime boundary are unlike land boundaries for they are not demarcated; they are marked on the charts and it is the responsibility of the navigator to ensure that they are not violated. Land is mostly owned by single state or at most, disputed between two states; however oceans are parceled out among many states. Each state can exercise its will in exploring the resources on high seas and therefore likely to involve in competition with each other without an overriding authority. This makes ‘international law’ a key determinant of maritime affairs.¹²

The limit of a state’s control over the ocean, to a great extent, depends on the capacity of its fleet and fishing vessels. It was not until the end of the sixteenth century that the question of states’ rights to adjacent water developed into a legal pursuit.¹³ By the beginning of the seventeenth century, ‘sovereignty’ over water just as they had over land began to be contemplated. The ‘shore-domination principle’ in the early eighteenth century tended to reflect a concept of ‘sea-sovereignty’ premised on the fact that since sea belonged to all, domination of adjacent seas, as far as a cannon could throw a shot, was reasonable and could be conceded to those who owned the shore. In effect, it meant that a coastal state should exercise sovereignty over that part of the adjacent sea which it could command by means of guns mounted on the shore came to be generally accepted. However, Great Britain preferred the concept of ‘contiguous belt of equal width’, which was favoured by others as well. This width was settled at three-nautical-miles, and was based on the range of artillery of the eighteenth century.

This system began malfunctioning during the post-colonial period when many nation-states emerged and began claiming their territorial waters. The ‘contiguous belt of equal width’ ensured ‘Freedom of Navigation’ over a large part of the water surface of the earth as possible. Claims to territorial seas through the principle of ‘contiguous belt’ limits the better exploitation of new independent countries and safeguard their national interests effectively and puts in direct conflict with their erstwhile colonial masters, who prefer maximum area of high seas for ‘Freedom of Navigation’ to protect their commerce, which happens to be their national interest. This is the crux of the conflict between erstwhile colonial powers and their subjects in modern times. This equation is clear and present in the context of the South China Sea. This contradiction between the concepts ‘Freedom of Navigation’ and ‘sovereignty’ adhered to in various forms by different nations in the SCS region drives the dispute.

The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) first held in Geneva in 1958 to discuss the problems arising out of unilateral claims by a great number of newly independent nation-states which tended to threaten: (a) freedom of navigation in high seas and (b) freedom of innocent passage across international straits. The UNCLOS I codified most of what had developed in the field since its earliest days.

The following is a brief chronology of the developments in this field:

In given times, the accepted practice is the 12-nautical mile limit for ‘territorial sea’ and 200 nautical miles for Exclusive Economic Zone. However, this practice limits the concept of ‘freedom of navigation’. For example, while both Indonesia and Malaysia adhere to the 12 nautical mile limit for the ‘territorial sea’, if practiced, blocks the Malacca Strait entirely. In the past, when this was attempted, both the United States and the Soviet Union had threatened the use of force.

The practice of the 200 nautical mile limit would make one-third of the sea non-navigable. This intervenes with the national interests of those nations that bank on maritime trade. South China Sea in this regard handles nearly one-third of all international shipping. The practice of the concept of ‘sovereignty’ or extended ‘territorial sea’ limits would affect maritime trade which banks on ‘Freedom of Navigation’ and innocent passage. Therefore, the disputes in South China Sea have historical legacy to it and admit the continuation of colonial domination by core states in Asia, with strategic necessity to preserve freedom of navigation. In terms of its impact on grand strategy, this issue is crucial in deciding the balance of power between core states (colonial powers, erstwhile) and periphery states (colonies, erstwhile e.g. India and China).

Given the nature of the problem in hand in the SCS, the assessment of the following development will help gauge the future direction and nature of the problem. The problem has become crucial in many ways in deciding the fate of future international politics, for a simple reason that littoral nations of the SCS have now acquired or in the process of building up naval power. For the first time, this complicates the equation held so far, for these nations now are in a position to optimise the use of the sea for national development. The previous methods of handling sea, seems to limit this option in many ways. This contradiction is likely to play a role in determining the nature of future conflicts.

India and China will order 100 new naval ships and submarines each by 2032 due to the changing global security environment and increasing reliance on maritime trade in the strategic region. The new orders would include nuclear and conventional submarines and new aircraft carriers, a balanced mix of destroyers, frigates, smaller units, amphibious and logistics vessels, Coast Guard and maritime patrol forces.¹⁴ The combined order of the two countries would account for 30 per cent by volume and 45 per cent by value of the 1,048 naval vessels, worth about $200 billion, to be ordered by the Asia Pacific countries in next 20 years. “The Asia Pacific submarine investment is significant, with 100 to be ordered over 20 years, making it the single region buying more submarines than anywhere else in the world.”¹⁵

Comparatively, the US was projected to order 453 naval vessels, or about 14 per cent of the global orders between 2012 and 2032. South Korea, Japan and Australia were expected to acquire 220 new vessels worth $62 billion during the next 20 years. Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam were also active in the market with the new ship and submarine acquisition. Asia Pacific’s increasing trade, increasing reliance on maritime trade and positive economic growth provide the funds for naval investments.

India’s Scorpene procurement and follow-on P-75 submarine programme remain the centrepiece of the region’s largest confirmed spender on new submarine capability. The launch of the indigenous Arihant nuclear submarine also marks a long-awaited next step in India’s development as a global navy. Meanwhile, China was forecast to add 16 conventional and nuclear powered hulls to the fleet over the next five years, the most number of new hulls of any Asia Pacific navy for that period. China’s submarine procurements are also influencing other navies in the region to fill submarine and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability gaps, notably in Vietnam, where the first of six new conventional submarines from Russia are expected to become operational within the next 12 months.

Conclusion: The Game

The United States (US) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have based their approach on their unique military potential and limitations. At the moment, the PRC supposedly seeks a defensive approach, whereas the US approach is based on offensive doctrines. It is true for the evolution of warfare where the means of defense move in a parallel line and at about the same speed as those of offense.¹⁶ This approach is not necessarily a reflection of intent but of compulsions, constraints and limitations.

China is faced with the growing interest of US government policy – pivot to Asia – where it is believed that the next prime focus of US would be the Asia-Pacific which is now understood to be the next area for geo-political competition and this attention to the Asia-Pacific is primarily due to the evolving nature of the PRC’s growth – political and military. China’s imposition of the ADIZ and the US implementation of the ASB concept, indicate the varying approaches towards this new emerging reality in the Asia-Pacific.

The ASB concept, like its predecessor the Air-Land Battle concept is a ‘military strategy’ classified as a manoeuvre-based strategy. While the Air-Land Battle concept was designed to meet the challenge posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it was operationalised during the Gulf War. The US armed forces were designed to fight Soviet-equipped centrally directed forces. Not surprisingly, the equipment and doctrine developed to confront the Warsaw Pact did very well against Iraq.¹⁷

China has taken a serious note of this military strategy of the US and begun a multi-level transformation in its armed forces. This includes force restructuring, operational art, doctrines, training and organisational re-design. It has also been ascertained that manoeuvre-based military strategy enhances the ability of a nation in seeking military solutions to political problems. This is so since a manoeuvre-based strategy is designed to achieve quick victory by initiating war and reducing the duration of war and therefore, lucrative at the hands of policy makers who seek military solutions.¹⁸

While war between US and China is ruled out for multiple reasons, the military balance of power dictated by military strategy chosen has direct bearings on the political choices made by nation-states in the Asia-Pacific region. The balance of power between the US and China will decide the political evolution of the Asia-Pacific region in the coming years.¹⁹ The concept of ASB not only implicates a shift in military strategy but also the recipient of this strategy. If the Soviet Union was the imaginary adversary during the implementation of Air-Land Battle concept in the mid-1980s, the ASB concept is meant for contingencies with respect to China. The following factors dominate the strategic approach of the US towards the Asia-Pacific and China in the twenty-first century:

• China’s assertive role in defending its territorial claims in the South China Sea and the East China Sea.
• Regulation of foreign military activity in China’s 200-mile maritime Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
• Countering US influence protecting China’s Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC).

Click to buy: IDR Jan-Mar 2016 issue

China’s strategy seems to nullify the offensive deployment of the US Air Force and US Navy within a Joint Command Structure. In order to do so, China seeks for itself, a joint operational doctrine with a unified command structure.²⁰ While China is attempting to implement this strategy at nearby seas, the US is doing the same, far away from its shores. Both these developments are a reflection of International Law which the highlights the anarchical nature of the current geo-political environment.

The deployment of HQ-9 Air Defense Systems in the South China Sea allows China to further discourage a potential adversary (US-NATO) from projecting its offensive military power. However, while the present deployment does not necessarily convert into a threat for the US Navy in the SCS, it sets precedence for being so in the future.