"Air-Sea Battle concept carries risks in possible conflict .." Topic

…with China.

"Although the United States may welcome China's peaceful rise, last week's Valiant Shield exercise over the western Pacific Ocean plainly showed that Washington is hedging its bets on the "peaceful" part.

The U.S. military training brought 18,000 U.S. servicemembers together to fight a sophisticated enemy trying to block U.S. access to international waters and airspace.

Exercise officials scrupulously avoided any indication that this imagined enemy was any particular nation. Such is the diplomatic dance involved with China, America's second- largest trading partner behind Canada. However, China is the only nation in the Asia-Pacific region building the large-scale type of "anti-access, area-denial" capability that exercise participants fought against…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I'd much rather play

link

Well of course China was always the target.

This quote is interesting:

What remains unclear — and is nerve-wracking for U.S. allies in the region — is whether China will grow to resolve its disputes diplomatically or wield its newfound military clout.

Diplomacy is not an option. The reason for this is the USA has given 100% assurances to countries in dispute with China over their territorial claims.

Thus why would they come to the negotiating table and compromise with China?

If the US was a more neutral mediator, then there is scope for diplomatic options. But the US is openly taking sides.

It would appear that "row to resolve its disputes" is a euphemism for "surrender to US and her allies."

This bit is also interesting and positively scary:

It's a concept without strategy, and that may be the most dangerous aspect."

Still China's military remains a limited self defence force with no real power projection. That's not expected to change over the next 20-30 years at least.

I doubt they will ever use military forces whilst such an imbalance exists. The Chinese will continue to project "force" through economic and diplomatic means, making countries reliant on them.

Air-Sea Battle, like the AirLand Battle of the '80s and '90s, is a doctrine, not a strategy. Its very existence is to 'send a message' that there is a system in place to deal with a potential threat, in this case China, even though it's not officially stated, just like AirLand Battle was aimed at the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

The inherent risk is that if China decides to test this doctrine and is willing to risk 'acceptable' casualties, then a limited war is possible. But the US has clearly urged China to follow international law and UNCLOS, even if it did not reject outright China's historical claims in the SCS and ECS.

The inherent risk is that if China decides to test this doctrine and is willing to risk 'acceptable' casualties, then a limited war is possible.

I don't think the Chinese will ever test it.

They don't have the force to spare any "acceptable casualties."

Even small losses to their modern forces would send them back to pre-1996 in terms of military capability.

The Chinese are vastly outnumbered by US and its allies. And it's modern forces are small and struggling to keep up to date (e.g. most equipment entering Chinese service now is basically 1980s/early 1990s technology).

And by the time the 2030s have rolled over, the Chinese are still playing catch up – the US and allies are currently introducing next generation systems (aircraft, tanks, air defence, theatre missile defence).

By the time these systems reach Chinese frontline units, the US will have shifted to the next area.

The only risk is if US starts to wind down its military due to economic sustainability or if current issues with Russia and Middle East become more long term.

But the US has clearly urged China to follow international law and UNCLOS,

Ironic given the Chinese have generally followed international law over the last 70 years and the US generally doesn't.

even if it did not outright reject China's historical claims.

They have basically outright rejected China's claim on Senkakus and South China Sea Islands.

With Senkakus, the US has stated they fall under the jurisdiction of Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan.

This was confirmed by President Obama in April.

In essence that acknowledges Japanese control of islands and disregards claims by PRC and Taiwan.

The US has also supported Philippine claims by again asserting defence ties and providing military support for Phillippines to enforce claims (e.g. provision of ex-USCG cutters).

US is also offering Vietnam military equipment specifically for South China Sea area – e.g. -P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft.

It's clear the US does is biased towards countries opposed to China, even if it involves old enemies ala Vietnam.

It's also clear that the US expects China to backdown.

I've always said it: US prefered position on China and Russia is for them to be swallowed by the earth (but Arab terrorist sponsoring political donors are more than welcome to hang around).