As the only superpower in the world, the United States has strong military strength and its global intervention policy pursued after the Cold War to a certain extent, which has given rise to the military construction goal of "the United States first" that it adheres to and the "global public space must be protected to maintain intervention in global markets and resources".
In the view of the US military, the US Navy and Air Force is still the world's leading combat force, and there will be no military force that can compete with it for a long time in the future. However, there are still some regional military powers that can use anti-access and regional denial strategies (Anti-Access/Area Denial) and related capabilities to block US military intervention forces outside the designated areas, or significantly reduce the US military's combat capabilities in related areas. As the anti-intervention combat system of these regional military powers continues to improve, responding to anti-intervention and regional denial of operations is no longer just a simple excuse for the US military to seek defense grants from Congress, but has become a problem that the US military needs to face seriously.
Anti-Architectural and Regional Denied Strategy
Anti-Architectural Operations Thoughts have a long history, and the earliest expression can be considered to be from Andrew Klepinnevich. In 1992, the Cold War just ended, Andrew Klepinnevich, who was working in the Office of Cyber Assessment of the U.S. Department of Defense, wrote in the article, "Our purpose is to control or dominate areas such as air, sea, and sky, and many opponents may want to stop us from doing this."
The first use of anti-intervention operations by the US official was in the 2010 "Four-year Defense Assessment Report", defining anti-intervention as "suspending and denying the US power delivery in all areas." After this, the concept of regional denial emerged. In contrast, anti-intervention focuses on using various means to prevent the US military's intervention forces from entering the battlefield for intervention, while regional denial emphasizes that although it cannot prevent the US intervention forces from entering relevant areas, it can hinder the US military's actions in areas where they have control, thereby effectively reducing the effectiveness of US military intervention.
How the US military responds to anti-intervention operations
Facing the continuous improvement of A2/AD (anti-intervention and regional denial) system in Russia, Iran and other countries, the military pressure and costs to be paid for the US military in key areas such as the Black Sea , and the sea to land are increasing. Therefore, the US military is also constantly exploring various means to deal with anti-intervention and regional denial in order to seek new military advantages, and strives to rebuild the overwhelming regional military advantages of global intervention and global control.
1. Innovative combat concept
In order to combat the enemy's anti-intervention and regional combat system, the US military proposed the concept of " air-sea integrated war ". The Four-Year Defense Assessment Report released by the US Department of Defense in February 2010 requires the US Navy and Air Force to jointly develop the combat concept of air-sea integrated warfare, defeating opponents in various fields, especially those equipped with advanced anti-intervention and regional denial weapons, thereby ensuring the United States' control in the air, sea, space and electricity fields and maintaining the free actions of the US military. In 2011, the US Department of Defense officially established the Air-Sea Integrated War Office. Two years later, the Air-Sea Integrated War Office released the document "Air-Sea Integrated War: Services Cooperation to Respond to the "Anti-Enter/Regional Denied" Challenge", marking the idea of the Air-Sea Integrated War Entered a Stage of Substantive Development.
Under the guidance of the idea of integrated air-sea warfare, the US military gradually increased its efforts to build military facilities in the Western Pacific region, transformed military base located in the first and second island chains , further promoted Air Force strategic strike forces, and the conventional combat forces of the navy and air force deployed in the Western Pacific region were further strengthened, significantly increasing joint naval and air combat exercises in the Western Pacific region. The US military believes that once the war begins, the first stage of the operation will paralyze the opponent's space, air, land-based and underwater intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, followed by destroying the opponent's air defense capabilities and land-based ballistic missile base; the second stage will be committed to a protracted war involving long-sea blockades and strengthening logistics support.
In short, the integrated air-sea warfare emphasizes joint combat between the navy and air force to realize the delivery of troops on the anti-intervention and regional denial battlefields. Although the US military later abandoned the theory of integrated air-sea warfare for various reasons and instead proposed the "global public domain intervention and maneuver joint concept" and the "distributed killing theory" specially proposed to combat enemy anti-intervention and regional denial combat systems.
2. Continue to strengthen technological advantages and strive to break through the anti-intervention system
The US military has long pursued the advanced nature of equipment technology. Since World War II won with its strong national strength and military technological advantages, it has attached great importance to the role of science and technology in military struggle. Later, the US military, who tasted the sweetness of technology in Iraq War , Libyan War , and invaded Yugoslavia , and the US military has firmly adhered to the concept that the advanced nature of military equipment is combat effectiveness. Similarly, in order to deal with anti-intervention and regional denial systems, the US military is trying to seek breakthroughs based on its own equipment and technology advantages.
For the future illusion battlefield environment, sea-based forces will be the main force delivery platform for the US military to conduct intervention operations in the future. In order to enhance the penetration and strike capabilities of the sea-based system, the US military has carried out a series of explorations and attempts in recent years. For example, in order to increase the range of strikes by the carrier-based aviation forces to reduce the threat of anti-intervention weapons to the fleet itself, the US military is promoting the ship-based stealth unmanned tanker project, promoting the LRASM project, etc. For example, in order to effectively fight the attacks of the enemy's anti-intervention system, the US Navy is also constantly updating anti-missile weapons to enhance regional anti-missile interception capabilities.
In terms of air base, the US Air Force mainly focuses on further leveraging its stealth advantages to carry out regional breakthroughs and key strikes. At present, the B-2 stealth bomber, the backbone of the US air strike force, has gradually advanced to the front line and further studied the use of other aviation troops, such as F-22, F-35 fighter jets and tanker units, thereby forming the ability to perform full stealth strike missions. In addition, in addition to further consolidating the existing stealth advantages, the US Air Force is also accelerating its research in airborne laser weapon , a new generation of electronic warfare aircraft, etc.
land-based, there are two main tasks for the intervention of the US military. On the one hand, it is used as a springboard for the intervention forces to provide various support and support. On the other hand, land-based forces need to play an important role in fighting the enemy's anti-intervention strikes and intercepting the ballistic missile , especially the anti-ship ballistic missile . In addition, after withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Rail Treaty, there will be no restrictions on the development of the medium-range ballistic missile . If the newly developed medium-range ballistic missile can be deployed around the frontier base, it will pose a huge threat to the anti-intervention system of the regional countries. Even if the high cost of medium-range ballistic missiles is taken into consideration, the new cruise missile deployed on the land-based basis will be a powerful weapon to strike the opponent. Going further, the US military's attempts toward hypersonic weapons have never stopped.
3. Enhance the anti-destruction capability of the existing combat system
The US military's attempt to enhance the anti-destruction capability of the existing combat system is mainly reflected in two aspects. First, it is to enhance the anti-destruction capability of the frontier positions (including bases, ports, airports and other facilities near conflict areas), and then it is to reduce the damage capability of the enemy's anti-satellite weapon to the fragile space system. For those front-line bases deployed in close combat zones, they are the starting positions of the intervening parties during wartime and will also be the primary target of the anti-intervention side, and will be subject to the most direct anti-intervention strikes, including long-range rocket launcher bombardment, air force fighter bombing, land-based air-based cruise missile strikes, and even medium- and short-range ballistic missile attacks. In response to this, the US military mainly adopted measures such as strengthening facilities, deploying active defense system , and trying to develop low-cost kinetic non- kinetic weapon .
There are two main ideas about how to reduce the damage ability of enemy anti-satellite weapons to the US space system. One is to enhance the maneuverability of satellite systems, thereby increasing the difficulty of the enemy's shooting down satellite , or deploying a large number of low-orbit nano satellite , so as to greatly reduce the realization of enemy anti-satellite combat. The other is to improve the rapid recovery ability after damage. For example, after the satellite is destroyed, temporary communication and reconnaissance links are built through the air platform to ensure the continued execution of combat missions. It can also build a rapid replenishment mechanism for space satellites, seeking the ability to quickly deploy and reorganize space positions. In addition, the US military also intends to conduct "reduced-order training" in case of satellite destruction.
"Future" of anti-intervention and regional denial strategies
Engels believes: "Once technological advances can be used for military purposes and have been used for military purposes, they immediately almost forcefully, and often violate the will of the commander and cause changes or even changes in combat modes." Whether advocates or responders of the A2/AD strategy, they must have advanced sensitivity and architectural capabilities to future war models in order to adapt to future wars. The development of military technology and related equipment has led to the continuous updating of combat methods, and the meaning and application methods of A2/AD strategy are bound to be unchanged. It can be foreseeable that the US military has never stopped relying on new technologies and new equipment for research and development and innovation and application of new combat concepts. The threat of A2/AD capabilities to the US military has gradually disappeared with the third offset strategy centered on artificial intelligence : more intelligent rapid response troops, more agile command system, more advanced electronic warfare means, etc. are under construction.
In the future, the US military will have more effective solutions to choose from when dealing with the anti-intervention system created by the enemy. Breaking through the anti-intervention system carefully created by the enemy is no longer an unsuccessful task for the US military with the support of new concepts and new technologies. For regional countries, how to effectively deal with the intervention of the US military will still be a matter that needs to be seriously considered in the future. Being self-confidence will only waste the period of strategic advantage. In order to maintain regional advantages, regional powers that implement the A2/AD strategy will also innovate the military technology and equipment required by the strategy, and in turn affect the development of the strategy: from the perspective of technology itself, long-range anti-submarine weapons with the core of anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) will still play a mainstay in the A2/AD strategy, and indicators such as accuracy, range, and intelligence of related weapons will be greatly improved by relying on existing technological achievements. In addition, the continuous development of strategic deterrent forces such as aircraft carrier , long-range strategic bombers, nuclear submarine will break through the strategic connotation of A2/AD itself, expand the scope of military deterrence from the region to a larger space, truly making the US military exhausted to deal with it.
jointly produced by: Popular Science China Guangming Military
Source: Popular Science China-Military Science and Technology Frontier
