Advantage at Sea, Prevailing with Integrated All-Domain Naval Power

Source: U.S. Dept. of Defense.

Military strategy statements can be pretty boring. This one, for example, shows for the nth time there can be no such thing as an aesthetically interesting photograph taken of ships at sea. Nevertheless, these periodic statements retain some practical interest because they actually are used to establish military doctrine, operations, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities — all the things we taxpayers pay for.

In that context Advantage at Sea (published yesterday) is noteworthy in several respects.

One is the significant emphasis on China as a national security threat. This is not surprising in any logical sense, but it does represent a newly defined formal commitment.

Another is the warning that our naval services may well lose maritime superiority within a decade. Some may dismiss the warning as a plea for more funding, but what if it is merely true?

Most interesting to me, however, is this statement: “Activities short of war can achieve strategic-level effects. The maritime domain is particularly vulnerable to malign behavior below the threshold of war and incremental gains from malign activities can accumulate into long-term advantages. Rivals are exploiting new avenues to advance their interests, including weaponizing social media, infiltrating global supply chains, and using space and cyber as warfighting domains. We must compete in these spaces.”

This represents a significant, if nuanced, expansion of the maritime mission. Life was a lot simpler when our biggest fear at sea was only Russian submarines.

I’m generally in favor of us (U.S.) having the most advanced, capable and effective naval force on Earth. The strategies put forth in Advantage at Sea would pursue that goal by continuing existing trends in net-centric warfare, platform specialization, and joint operations. Except for the money, it looks like a fairly conservative plan.

One thought on “Advantage at Sea, Prevailing with Integrated All-Domain Naval Power

  1. Good post and I appreciate your commentary on it.

    As a retired SCPO with over 24 years of service, I have an understanding of what should be done. I do not believe a 355 ship Navy, as some on both sides of the aisle have called for, is necessary. But a better use of the resources we currently have, holding defense contractors to their cost analysis, and training our sailors (and Marines, Airmen, Soldiers and Guardsmen) to be prepared for 21st century (and beyond) warfare (or peace-fare, if you will).

    “Except for the money, it looks like a fairly conservative plan.”

    It is a “conservative” plan, no doubt. The issue is the money, which conservatives, when it comes to defense spending, never are.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s