Set HomepageAdd a favorite

Chinadaily Forum

 Forgotten your password?
 register

QQ登录

Search
Author: myfriend

China is in urgent need of aircraft carriers [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-4-25 09:28:08 |Display all floors

VTOL

seems China's military are well planned and prepared for the worst scenario, concerning defending Taiwan.  We are all content with the improvements they made in advancing China's defense capability.  BTW, guangzhou52, what does VTOL stand for?
Support[0]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 3Rank: 3

Post time 2007-4-25 09:52:14 |Display all floors
VTOL = vertical take-off and landing.
Support[0]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2007-4-25 13:32:22 |Display all floors

VTOL

Yes, that's right.It stands for Vertical Takeoff Or Landing.By the way ,Yakovlev is working on a new design
STOVL - Short Takeoff  Or Vertical Landing.
These type of fighters are very suitable for carrier deployment, or could even be used on smaller ships.
yaklolev.jpg
Support[0]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-4-25 17:06:28 |Display all floors

US Navy Operational Art and Tactical Doctrine

Ref:  Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment - North America March 29 2007         

The core foundation of operations for the USN is based on three publications produced in the 1990s: From the Sea (1992); Forward... From the Sea (1994) and Forward... From the Sea - The Navy Operational Concept (1997). The overwhelming theme running through all US military doctrine is that of 'jointness'. The foundation of much current doctrine comes from Joint Vision 2010, and which is being expanded on by Joint Vision 2020. The key identified operational concept for the USN is known as network-centric warfare. This concept is the centrepiece of efforts to transform the Cold War Navy, which focused on bluewater operations, to the post-Cold War world and an emphasis on operating in the littoral environment. The network-centric concept is that of a data network of advanced communications. Information technology (essentially C3I) is developed to co-ordinate dispersed forces into an effective and united team.

The basis of USN operational art comes from the requirements of peacetime engagement, deterrence and conflict prevention, and 'fight and win'. The unique capabilities of the Navy allow it to have a key role in all of these aspects and the USN is keen to see itself as the front-line force operating under all of these banners, even while characterising itself as part of a joint force. During peacetime the Navy is designed to act as a tool of foreign policy and acts to promote regional economic and political stability wherever it is deployed. The constant presence of USN ships in potential trouble areas is also designed to reassure allies and enhance the validity of US commitment to action. The idea of theatre visibility is a key element in all naval operations in peace and conflict.

When acting for the purpose of deterrence and conflict prevention the USN is again designed to provide the first visible line of deterrence. The Navy's flexibility, both in terms of mobility and the fact that it does not require basing rights from foreign countries, ensures that it can be in the required theatre rapidly. Once in theatre it assumes the role of shaping the battlespace and also acts to demonstrate to potential adversaries both the capability and intention of the US. The presence of a Carrier Battle Group or an Amphibious Reaction Group are designed to not only make sure forces are in theatre if deterrence fails but also as a symbol of the overwhelming power the US can bring to the arena.

If deterrence fails then the Navy moves to the 'fight and win' stage of the doctrine where again the key role is the shaping of the battlespace. The concept acknowledges that in the vast majority of cases the US will enter a conflict on the 'strategic defensive' in response to an opponent's aggression. The conduct of any offensive operation involving the USN is designed to begin with the use of forces, including submarines, to deliver naval fires, notably the Tactical Land Attack Missile (TLAM), and potentially insert Special Forces. Then using naval air power and firepower the USN is tasked with degrading enemy defences and also offensive forces leaving the opponent vulnerable to sustained attack. The construct of forces is also designed to ensure access to the theatre for friendly forces and to extend defensive systems over forces operating in the littoral region.

The domination of the littoral involving air, surface and underwater fleets is the most important task for the USN and from this all other activities, both naval and joint operations, flow. Specific naval roles include maintaining the flow of logistics into the region and, as in 'Enduring Freedom', providing command and control capabilities afloat. In all three of these operational environments the capabilities of the USN allow it to operate alone in pursuit of the goals designated by Washington, however the doctrine also allows, when required, the seamless integration into joint operations.

The Navy is now advancing a coherent vision of transformation for the new strategic environment based a new doctrine known as "Sea Power 21", developed by former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, and since adopted by his successor, Admiral Mike Mullen. Sea Power 21 rests on three operational pillars: Sea Strike, the projection of offensive power; Sea Shield, projecting defensive power; and Seabasing or projecting sovereignty. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) further reinforced the US Navy's commitment to expeditionary themes by confirming a long-term commitment to seabasing, with the decision to procure the first eight ships of the Maritime Pre-Position Force (Future) (MPF(F)), which, coupled with efforts to decrease the Fleet 'down time' and permit immediate deployment of six of the navy's 11 carrier strike groups, boosts global expeditionary capabilities by enabling the Navy to operate far a field without relying on third-country support.
Support[0]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-4-25 17:08:50 |Display all floors

US Navy main vessels

Major Surface Vessels            
Type         Role         Quantity         Commissioned
Enterprise class         Aircraft carrier         1         1961
Nimitz class         Aircraft carrier         9 1         1975-98
Kitty Hawk/John F Kennedy classes         Aircraft carrier         3         1961-68
Ticonderoga class         Guided missile cruiser (Aegis)         22         1983-94
Arleigh Burke class (Flight IIA)         Guided missile destroyer (Aegis)         6 2         2000-06
Arleigh Burke class (Flights I and II)         Guided missile destroyer (Aegis)         28         1991-99
Spruance class         Destroyer         22         1975-83
Oliver Hazard Perry class         Guided missile frigate         30         1979-89
Blue Ridge class         Command ship         2 3         1970-71
Converted Austin class         Command ship         1         1970
Converter Raleigh class         Command ship         1         1964

   1. Note: Following the delivery of the USS Ronald Reagan in mid-2003 there is one more Nimitz class carrier still to be commissioned - the USS George H W Bush is expected to be commissioned in December 2008.
   2. Nine additional Arleigh Burke class destroyers commissioned for January 2002 to September 2006.
   3. These are large force command ships of post-Second World War design. They can provide integrated command and control facilities for sea, air and land commanders.

Submarines            
Type         Role         Quantity         Commissioned
Los Angeles class         Attack, nuclear powered (SSN)         48         1976-96
Seawolf class         Attack, nuclear powered (SSN)         3         1997-98
Virginia class         Attack, nuclear powered (SSN)         1-5         2005+
Benjamin Franklin class         Attack, nuclear powered (SSN)         1         1965
Ohio class         Ballistic missile, nuclear powered (SSBN)         14         1981-97
Ohio class SSGN         Auxiliary, nuclear powered (AGSS)         4         2005+

   1. Note: Four Ohio SSBN's under conversion to SSGN with Tomahawk & ability to operate SEAL forces.

Amphibious Forces            
Type         Role         Quantity         Commissioned
Wasp class         Amphibious assault ship         7+1 1         1989-2001
Tarawa class         Amphibious assault ship         4         1976-80
Austin class         Amphibious transport dock         10         1965-71
San Antonio class         Amphibious transport dock         1+8         2005+
Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry classes         Dock landing ship         8/4         1985-98
Newport class         Tank landing ship         1         1970
Frank S Besson class         Logistic support vehicle         6         1987-94
LCM 6 Type         Mechanised Landing Craft         34         n/a
LCM 8 Type         Mechanised Landing Craft         89         n/a
LCU 1600 class         Utility Landing Craft         51         n/a
LCU 2000 class         Utility Landing Craft         35         1990-2000
Various         Landing Craft Personnel         145         n/a
Various         Landing Craft air cushion         91         1982-1993

   1. Note: An additional Wasp class amphibious assault ship is commissioned for September 2006.
   2. Four San Antonio class amphibious transport docks commissioned, the Austin class will de-commission..
Support[0]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-4-25 17:10:36 |Display all floors

US Navy Aviation Inventory

Naval Aviation            
Type         Manufacturer         Role         Original Total         In Service         First Delivery
F/A-18A Hornet         Boeing         Multirole Fighter         380         64         1980
F/A-18B Hornet         Boeing         Multirole Fighter         41         25         1980
F/A-18C Hornet         Boeing         Multirole Fighter         466         293         1988
F/A-18D Hornet         Boeing         Multirole Fighter         161         42         1988
F/A-18E Super Hornet         Boeing         Multirole Fighter         174 4         110         1996
F/A-18F Super Hornet         Boeing         Multirole Fighter         213 4         140         1996
AV-8B Harrier II         McDonnell Douglas/BAe         Attack         - 1         3         1984
AV-8B+ Harrier II Plus         McDonnell Douglas/BAe         Attack         - 1         3         1993
AH-1W SuperCobra         Bell         Combat Helicopter         - 1         7         1986
AH-1Z SuperCobra         Bell         Combat Helicopter         - 1         3         2002
SH-60B Seahawk         Sikorsky         Anti-Submarine Helicopter         181         148         1983
SH-60F Ocean Hawk         Sikorsky         Anti-Submarine Helicopter         82         72         1989
MH-60R Seahawk         Sikorsky         Anti-Submarine Helicopter         270         2         2001
P-3C Orion         Lockheed Martin         Maritime Patrol         266         150         1969
S-3B Viking         Lockheed         Maritime Patrol         122         49         1973
E-2C Hawkeye         Northrop Grumman         Airborne Early Warning         178 4         66         1973
EP-3E Orion         Lockheed Martin         Elint         22         11         1970
E-6B Mercury         Boeing         Command Post         16         16         1989 (1997)
C-40A Clipper         Boeing         Transport         15 4         8         2001
C-9B Skytrain II         McDonnell Douglas         Transport         17         15         1973
DC-9         McDonnell Douglas         Transport         12         2          
C-2A Greyhound         Grumman         Transport         58         35         1966
C-130T Hercules         Lockheed Martin         Transport         20         20         1991
KC-130F Hercules         Lockheed Martin         Tanker-Transport         - 1         5         1960
KC-130J Super Hercules         Lockheed Martin         Tanker-Transport         - 1         1         2001
UC-12B King Air 200         Beech         Communications         66         13         1979
UC-12F King Air 200         Beech         Communications         12         6         1986
UC-12M King Air 200         Beech         Communications         12         10         1987
RC-12F King Air 200         Beech         Communications         2m         2         1987
C-26D Metro III         Fairchild         Communications         7         7         2000
C-20A Gulfstream III         Gulfstream Aerospace         Communications         1         1         2004
C-20D Gulfstream III         Gulfstream Aerospace         Communications         2         2         1987
C-20G Gulfstream IV         Gulfstream Aerospace         Communications         5         4         1994
C-37A Gulfstream V         Gulfstream Aerospace         Communications         1         1         2002
C-37B Gulfstream G550         Gulfstream Aerospace         Communications         3 4         3         2005
VP-3A Orion         Lockheed Martin         Communications         5         1          
MV-22B Osprey         Bell Boeing         Utility Tiltrotor         - 1         6         1999
HH-1N Iroquois         Bell         Utility Helicopter         44         8         1971
UH-1N Iroquois         Bell         Utility Helicopter         - 1         1         1971
UH-1Y Iroquois         Bell         Utility Helicopter         - 1         3         2002
UH-3H Sea King         Sikorsky         Utility Helicopter         56         21          
CH-53E Super Stallion         Sikorsky         Utility Helicopter         - 1         1         1981
MH-60S KnightHawk         Sikorsky         Utility Helicopter         200         4         1999
EA-18G Growler         Boeing         Combat Support         18 4         -         2006
EA-6B Prowler         Grumman         Combat Support         170         92         1971
F-16A Fighting Falcon         Lockheed Martin         Combat Support         10         10         2004
F-16B Fighting Falcon         Lockheed Martin         Combat Support         4         4         2004
F-5E Tiger II         Northrop         Combat Support         39         13         1974
F-5F Tiger II         Northrop         Combat Support         4         3         1974
F-5N Tiger II         Northrop         Combat Support         9 6         9         2004
HH-60H         Sikorsky         Combat Support Helicopter         42         38         1989
MH-53E Sea Dragon         Sikorsky         Combat Support Helicopter         52         32         1986
T-34C Turbo-Mentor         Beech         Trainer         352         270         1976
T-44A Pegasus         Beech         Trainer         61         54         1977
TC-12B King Air 200         Beech         Trainer         27         25         1997
TH-57B SeaRanger         Bell         Trainer         51         45         1968
TH-57C SeaRanger         Bell         Trainer         89         77         1982
TAV-8B Harrier II         McDonnell Douglas/BAe         Trainer         - 1         1         1987
T-45A Goshawk         Boeing/BAE Systems         Trainer         83         74         1990
T-45C Goshawk         Boeing/BAE Systems         Trainer         140 4         105         1997
T-2C Buckeye         Rockwell         Trainer         231         24         1969
Beech T-6A Texan II         Raytheon         Trainer         328 3         49         2003
TE-2C Hawkeye         Northrop Grumman         Crew Trainer         5 9         1          
T-39G Sabreliner         Rockwell         Crew Trainer         8         6          
T-39N Sabreliner         Rockwell         Crew Trainer         17         15 7         1991
NAV-8B Harrier II         McDonnell Douglas/BAe         Experimental                   1          
NC-12B King Air 200         Beech         Experimental                   1          
NAH-1Z SuperCobra         Bell         Experimental                   1          
NSH-60F Ocean Hawk         Sikorsky         Experimental                   1          
X-49A (Ocean Hawk)         Sikorsky         Experimental                   1          
NF/A-18C Hornet         Boeing         Experimental                   2          
NF/A-18D Hornet         Boeing         Experimental                   2          
NVH-3A Sea King         Sikorsky         Experimental                   1          
NSH-60B Seahawk         Sikorsky         Experimental                   2          
NC-130H Hercules         Lockheed Martin         Experimental                   1          
NP-3C Orion         Lockheed Martin         Experimental                   3          
NP-3D Orion         Lockheed Martin         Experimental                   10          
T-39D Sabreliner         Rockwell         Experimental                   1          
OH-58C Kiowa         Bell         Test Pilot Training         4         3 8          
C-12C Huron         Beech         Test Pilot Training         4         4 8          
NU-1B Otter         DHC         Test Pilot Training         3         1         1955
U-6A Beaver         DHC         Test Pilot Training         5         2         1961
TH-6B Cayuse         McDonnell Douglas         Test Pilot Training         6         5 8          
T-38A Talon         Northrop         Test Pilot Training         c23         5 5         1969
T-38C Talon         Northrop         Test Pilot Training         6         6 5         2004
UH-60L Black Hawk         Sikorsky         Test Pilot Training         4         4 8          
X-26A (SGS 2-32)         Schweizer         Test Pilot Training         5         2          
DC-130A Hercules         Lockheed Martin         Drone Launcher         7         1 2         1969
Missiles                                                  
AIM-7F Sparrow         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-7M Sparrow         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-7P Sparrow         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-9L Sidewinder         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-9M Sidewinder         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-9X Sidewinder         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-54A Phoenix         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-54B Phoenix         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-54C Phoenix         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-120A AMRAAM         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-120B AMRAAM         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AIM-120C AMRAAM         Raytheon         Air-to-Air                              
AGM-65F Maverick         Raytheon         Air-to-Surface                              
AGM-84E SLAM         Boeing         Air-to-Surface                              
AGM-84H SLAM-ER         Boeing         Air-to-Surface                              
AGM-88A HARM         Raytheon         Air-to-Surface                              
AGM-88B HARM         Raytheon         Air-to-Surface                              
AGM-88C HARM         Raytheon         Air-to-Surface                              
AGM-88D HARM         Raytheon         Air-to-Surface                              
AGM-122A Sidearm         Motorola         Air-to-Surface                              
AGM-123A Skipper 2         ESC         Air-to-Surface                              
AGM-84A Harpoon         Boeing         Anti-Ship Attack                              
AGM-119B Penguin         Kongsberg/Northrop Grumman         Anti-Ship Attack                              
ADM-141 TALD         Brunswick         Decoy                              

   1. Note: See US Marine Corps inventory for details of original total
   2. Operated by defence contractor under bailment arrangement
   3. Total requirement
   4. Procurement continuing
   5. Includes some on loan from US Air Force
   6. Additional aircraft being acquired second-hand from Switzerland
   7. Owned by civilian contractor and operated in miliary markings
   8. On loan from US Army
   9. An additional five are on order
Support[0]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-4-25 17:16:15 |Display all floors

US Pacific Command

The US is putting a new emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region, expanding its forces and strengthening partnerships, reports Robert Karniol

The US military posture in the Asia-Pacific region is changing, in some ways with subtlety and in others with potentially dramatic consequences.

Much of this shift is driven by technology, the result of a global transformation and force realignment process. Some is a reflection of geopolitical trends that encompass post-Cold War strategic developments, emerging state powers and a nascent acceptance of multilateral military solutions in the Asia-Pacific. Overall, the regional landscape is being irrevocably altered.

These trends are most evident in Japan and the Republic of Korea (RoK, South Korea), both anchored to Washington by security alliances that are being significantly reshaped. They are seen in Australia, where developments are more evolutionary, and in new relationships that Washington is forging with countries such as India or rebuilding with the Philippines and Indonesia. However, there are broader changes under way as well.

"The US Army Pacific - from early 2005, when we started this process, to the end of this fiscal year - will have grown by 38 per cent in the number of active-duty soldiers," said Lieutenant General John Brown III, the component commander. "That's a demonstration of the army's commitment to the Pacific Command and the US strategy in the Asia-Pacific. I think it's indicative of the importance of the Pacific theatre to the nation."

His navy counterpart, US Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Gary Roughead, paints a similar picture. "Instead of having half our submarine force in the Pacific and half in the Atlantic, we're now biasing that to 60 per cent Pacific and 40 per cent Atlantic. We're also going to be moving an additional aircraft carrier to the Pacific," he said of initiatives outlined in the US Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR.).

"We're making investments, enhancing combat capability, enhancing response and then realigning force posture into the Pacific."

Transformation is the engine powering this process. In a study published by Hawaii's Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, researcher Richard Bitzinger writes that "defence transformation is driven and enabled primarily by advances in information technologies and network-centric warfare". Innovative operational and organisational concepts are equally significant, he added.

This thinking is reflected in the US Army's reorganisation to become a modular expeditionary force, with restructuring at the tactical level, and introduction of the Blue Force Tracking System or Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). It is further seen in the Maritime Prepositioned Force (Future) programme promoted by the US Navy (USN) and US Marine Corps (USMC), as well as the RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programme of the US Air Force (USAF).

Several characteristics of the Asia-Pacific region make the application there of such technologies and concepts unique. Most often cited are the 'tyranny of distance', reflecting the vast geographic imperative involved, and the lack of any cohesive security structure comparable to the Atlantic region's NATO. Both encourage the US to seek out bilateral and, more recently, multilateral security relationships.

US officials view greater access and engagement as their foundation for Asia-Pacific security.

"We don't envision a NATO-type organisation out here. What we see, instead, is a better common understanding that some time your nation and mine might choose to support one another with regard to a particular challenge we're facing," explained General John Goodman, the USMC Forces Pacific commander. "If that's the case, then we have a responsibility to train together in order to build the confidence that we can do this if necessary. Our entire architecture fits into that."

However, US military transformation has regional allies and potential partners increasingly concerned about capability gaps. Gen Brown acknowledged that this is a problem requiring close attention.

"Transformation widens the technology gap, but the key in every case is that you first recognise the gap exists. Then, in training and exercises together, you work out procedures that allow you to overcome these differences," he said. "In some cases the answer may lie in liaison staff, in others it might involve creating combined organisations that allow the technological advantages of one side to feed the needs of the other force, or it may get down to a simple division of labour."

Gen Goodman, speaking separately, highlighted a particular complexity: "The key lies in protecting information that needs protecting and yet creating a forum for sharing information that [coalition members] want to share. Our [USMC] command-and-control system does that and the navy's new version does the same."

These, together with a broad range of related developments, portend a renewed US military commitment to the Asia-Pacific and varying levels of regional response.

For the US Army Pacific, transformation in the region began with a restructuring at tactical level launched three years ago and now nearly completed. "From Alaska to Hawaii, to Guam, to American Samoa and all those other little places across the central Pacific, we started by taking our brigades and battalions and converting them to the new modular army structure. We have transformed them and also increased their number here in the Pacific," said Gen Brown. "In Alaska, when we started this process, we had one infantry brigade. Today we have a Stryker brigade combat team and an airborne infantry brigade combat team together with a new aviation brigade task force."

This reappraisal also saw the creation of a second army air- and missile-defence command (AAMDC) to supplement the only other such unit, based in Texas to support all US Army combat commands. The 94th AAMDC was activated at Fort Shafter, Hawaii, in October 2005 for the dedicated support of PACOM operations.

The realignment of US forces in South Korea is still being finalised, but several trends are nevertheless evident. Central to these is a reduced role for the US Army, together with a diminished presence, both reflecting positions outlined in Washington's wider 2003 Global Defence Posture Review.

Developments to date have seen the RoK Army assume several roles and missions previously undertaken by the locally-based US 2nd Infantry Division, and plans for Seoul to resume wartime operational control of its forces from 2012. A consolidation and relocation of US bases to rear areas is under way and an initial reduction in US force strength will almost certainly be followed by more. These and other changes under discussion most strongly affect the US Army.
Support[0]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2007-4-25 17:16:56 |Display all floors

contd

In Japan, the current push aims for a closer integration of forces under terms agreed in 2006 to revitalise the Japan-US security alliance. "Starting this summer, we will move a forward command post of the 1st US Corps out of Fort Lewis, Washington, to Camp Zama [the main US Army base in Japan]," said Gen Brown by way of example.

The Japanese Ground Self-Defence Force will, meanwhile, relocate by Fiscal Year 2012 its newly established Central Readiness Command (CRC) to the same facility. The CRC's mandate includes all military operations outside Japan and it will have a pivotal role in strengthening interoperability with US forces.

Gen Brown pointed out that his growth in active-duty strength allows for a greater capability to undertake military-to-military engagement under the US Theater Security Co-operation Program, which means participation in more exercises. But, he said, there is also a less apparent process under way.

"I have non-commissioned officers [NCOs] from US Army Pacific training Mongolian NCOs. I have NCO candidates from multiple nations across the region attending the US Army NCO Academy at Schofield Barracks [in Hawaii], learning how to be instructors for a basic NCO course. It is the number one requested mil-to-mil assistance relationship that I get throughout the region," he explained.

At the same time, the Pacific region's vast geography combined with the US military's long-standing accent on jointness has encouraged cross-service co-operation as these changes unfold. "If you look at where we laid down our Stryker Brigade combat teams, you'll find a [USAF] C-17 [strategic transport aircraft] squadron across the fence or just down the road. That's not by accident," said Gen Brown.

"If you look at the [US] Navy's Littoral Combat Ship programme, there's an awful lot of support to ground forces built into it.

"That didn't just happen. I have ground representatives sitting on the navy-led littoral working group here in the Pacific."

The US Army Pacific commander then turns to the broader picture of transformation. "No matter where you go, you'll see the modular part of it and the expeditionary part of it," he said.

"If it's one of the component commands outside the continental US [where 15 per cent of the US Army is based], you'll see us focusing on initial and entry forces along with the things that sustain them and command and control them. Inside the US, you'll see them building a rapid deployment capability to push their units forward."

Admiral Gary Roughead, the US Pacific Fleet commander, added: "The US Navy several years ago began to look at the Pacific in a significant way, to look at what kind of capability we wanted to have there. We began to move our more capable forces to the Pacific and also introduce some enhancements, particularly with our forward-deployed naval force in Japan. The emphasis was on areas such as anti-submarine warfare and ballistic missile-defence."

Part of the aim was to improve global responsiveness; this has been pursued through the Fleet Response Plan adopted in 2003. The plan includes a requirement for six of the navy's 12 aircraft carriers to be available for deployment within 30 days, with another two available within 90 days. More specific to the Asia-Pacific, given the QDR's reaffirmation of the region's importance to the US, the navy began to shift some force structure from the Atlantic to the Pacific with a concurrent expansion in strength by about 2,000 personnel.

"But you won't see any desire for increased basing," Adm Roughead emphasised. "We're very grateful for the access we enjoy and for the opportunity to visit countries, but we don't want to add any bases in the region. We're very mindful of the sovereignty issues that play so heavily here."

Nor are there current plans to base additional ships in Guam, an expanding locus for the air force and marines, or to seek new ship pre-positioning locations to supplement those in the Marianas and Diego Garcia.

Japan's growing importance to the US Pacific Fleet is, instead, emphasised through the replacement there from 2008 of a conventional aircraft carrier by a far more capable and responsive nuclear-powered carrier and by the deployment last year to Yokosuka, Japan, of the US Navy's first upgraded Ticonderoga-class cruiser for ballistic missile defence.

"The key challenges really come down to the distances involved and the need to take some of the technology we have today and enter into agreements with some of our friends and partners to allow the operational sharing of information," said Adm Roughead. "For example, in the 'Rim of the Pacific' exercise held here in Hawaii last summer we had all the participating countries - that's eight countries - for the first time all operating in the same information domain."

The admiral further noted a rising awareness throughout the region of the utility of navies working more closely and collaboratively in maritime domain awareness and maritime security, as well as in disaster relief. This has led to "an increasing interest in information sharing that is tempered, at times, by sovereignty concerns and by the need countries have to safeguard bits of information".

Security in the Strait of Malacca, which sees some 60,000 ship movements annually, has been a particular focus of Washington's attention in recent years - and this has raised questions in some countries, most notably Indonesia and Malaysia, over US intent. "I'm very clear when I talk to people in the Asia-Pacific region that even though the flow of commerce in the Strait of Malacca is very important to me, I have no desire for the US Navy to be there. But we can work together, we can train together, we can share information that does not affect the sovereignty of the nations involved. From that co-operative effort we all become better, we all become more effective, and we make it more likely that the flow of commerce will continue unimpeded," Adm Roughead commented.

Then there is China, whose rise is seen by some in the region and beyond as a potential concern. The US Pacific Fleet commander's view is anchored in realism. "I see an increasing capability on the part of the [Chinese] People's Liberation Army Navy, but it's a navy that's building in a way that's not inconsistent with their economic growth and the interests that they too have in security and stability on the world's oceans," he said.

"When you talk about threat, you have to look at capability and intent. What the intent is and what their operational patterns will be are all still very unclear."

Much of the focus for General Paul Hester, the US Pacific Air Forces commander, is on Guam. "The other places in the region [where the USAF is established] are principally static, and Guam will be a growth area," he said, but there is some nuance to his statement, as "static" refers to numbers rather than capability.

South Korea is a case in point. Much of the US force realignment on the Korean peninsula remains under discussion, but the USAF presence at Kunsan and Osan air bases is expected to remain unaffected, with the current command structure staying intact.

However, over coming years, F-16 fighters based there are due to undergo an upgrade to Common Cockpit Integration Programme (CCIP) standard. Also, the squadron of F-16 Block 30 aircraft at Kunsan should be replaced by Block 40s so that both squadrons there are at the same higher standard.

USAF F-16s in Japan have also been upgraded to the CCIP standard and about 12 C-130E transport aircraft are to be replaced by the more capable C-130H. Four more C-130H aircraft are to be deployed to Okinawa, while older F-15C fighters are being replaced by newer F-15C models coming out of the 1st Fighter Wing in Langley, Virginia. However, structure and personnel levels in Japan are to stay unchanged.

Separately, the Japanese Air Defence Command is due in 2010 to relocate to the USAF's Yokota Air Force Base (AFB). "Their commander is dual-hatted as the air-defence commander and the joint task force ballistic missile-defence [BMD] commander. So we will have the commander of our air force in Japan and his staff sitting side-by-side with the Japanese and looking at a common operating picture, all focused on BMD," Gen Hester noted.
Support[0]

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Archiver|   

GMT +8, 2013-5-25 00:58

Contact Us :

Office number : 86-10-84883534 , 86-10-84883548   Email: chinaforum#chinadaily.com.cn, Switch the # to @ when you send email to us.

Back to the top