Asia Pivot Requires Better Maritime Defenses
The Obama administration’s “Asia pivot” rests on a strategy of hope: a hope that America’s big wars are a thing of the past and a confidence that underfunding defense requirements will not jeopardize the lives of American soldiers. However, if our record of predicting future military engagements is any indication, there is little reason to accept such wishful thinking. Despite all the talk about the “Asia pivot,” draconian defense cuts are already here and they are eroding the U.S. Navy’s decisive advantage.
Each new budget request from the Pentagon reveals how its ability to defend the nation is being undermined. The uncertainty of sequestration remains, but is unaccounted for in Pentagon budget planning beyond this year. However, the FY2015 budget request unveiled by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel shows how $1 trillion in cutbacks is putting the military on a path towards drastic reduction in its size and capabilities.
While the Navy may be least severely impacted by ongoing defense cuts, a decade of combat operations and two decades of underinvestment have left the Navy inadequately sized and equipped to meet ever-increasing operational threats, including anti-ship ballistic missiles and supersonic cruise missiles. Much of the Navy’s equipment is old, unreliable, increasingly obsolete, and insufficient in number. These shortcomings pose a grave risk to our sailors and to our national security.
Since 1945, the U.S. Navy has ruled the waves as the most preeminent naval force in the world. In addition to playing critical roles in times of war, it has also preserved peace by ensuring freedom of the seas and deterring international aggression around the world. The Navy maintains its supremacy not only because it has the best-trained sailors, but also because it possesses the most advanced technology.
Radar has played a key role in maintaining the Navy’s technological superiority over its adversaries. For the last 70 years, these systems have provided a means for volume search, tracking, missile discrimination, and missile communications. While the Navy has an enduring advantage in radar design, construction, and operations, its current radar technology – the SPY-1 radar manufactured by Lockheed Martin – is increasingly unable to address existing and emerging strategic capabilities, especially in the Asia-Pacific.
China is pursuing an anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) strategy focused on the development of advanced missiles to target U.S. forces, such as the DF-21 “carrier-killer” missile. A recent Chinese test of a hypersonic glide vehicle could presage further enhancements to the range and sophistication of existing medium- and long-range ballistic missiles. Such technology could also be part of a hypersonic long-range strike system similar to Prompt Global Strike. North Korea still seeks ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the U.S. mainland.
Advancing ballistic missile threats must not be ignored by bean counters in the Pentagon. In the interests of our national security and the safety of our warfighters, the Pentagon must continue to invest in maritime defense capabilities that keep pace with real-world threats.
As Chinese and North Korean offensive missile capabilities mature, so must our naval radar systems. The Pentagon must invest in improved and integrated radar systems, such as the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), to fill these critical capability gaps and ensure our sailors can meet the ever-changing demands of today’s challenging global threat environment. Significant advancements in threat detection range and discrimination accuracy provided by AMDR’s S-Band radar (AMDR-S) expand our capacity to protect U.S. forces and assets as well as those of our allies.
Yet, it is not just the Navy’s radar system that needs upgrading. Crucial investments in maritime defense capabilities are necessary to deter, defend, and defeat potential adversaries. And even before the latest round of defense cuts the military services struggled to meet regional commanders’ fleet requests. But even as the number of threats to stability in Asia continues to multiply, there has not been a proportionate commitment to modernizing U.S. capabilities.
The impact of budget cuts, which has fallen disproportionately on defense spending, has already affected regional views of American credibility. Although American security requires the U.S. getting its economic house in order, it cannot be obtained at the price of ransacking American security. Underfunding defense requirements could restrict a potential U.S. response and increase risk for U.S. forces during any future Asian engagements. And, ultimately, the price of such in American lives lost will be far more costly.
