Pete’s blog

In the Post Cold War era the successful projection of maritime power ashore has meant that navies now have an important role in warfare on land. Examine the impact of the projection of naval power ashore during Operation Enduring Freedom and more recently Operation Iraqi Freedom. Analyse and discuss.

In the Art of War, Sun Tzu observes that “the difficulty of armed struggle is to make long distances near and make problems into advantages.[1]” The ability of modern naval forces to move almost anywhere in the world and to attack targets kilometres away has created some big advantages for America. Ships are no longer limited to the sea and can now project their power far onto land, making long distances near and turning the problems of distance and being confined to the sea into an advantage.

Traditionally, naval power has been a vital part of warfare, especially with regards to the protection and attack of shipping and supply lines, but as such has been limited to the sea and shore. In modern warfare, with the advances in weapons and information technology, this limitation has been lifted and ships can now take part in land battles. Most recently, the coalition navies played a vital role in ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’, even though Afghanistan has no coastline. This ‘maritime power projection’ is defined by Frank Uhlig as “bombardments by aircraft, missiles, and guns, small-unit raids ashore, and invasions, all coming from across the sea.”[2] The US navy has considerable power projection under this definition.

The American aircraft carriers are able to carry as many as 85 planes[3], including logistics aircraft (C-2A Greyhounds), fighters (F-14 Tomcats), strike fighters (F/A-18 Hornets), electronic warfare jets (EA-6B Prowlers), early warning and control aircraft (E-2C Hawkeyes), helicopters (CH-46 Sea Knights) and many more. In particular, the F/A-18 Hornets are able to carry a wide variety of precision guided missiles and bombs, and so attack almost any land-based target. These planes were all extensively used during both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In two and a half months, one task force involved in the Afghan conflict flew nearly 4 000 sorties[4].

Sea-launched missiles include the Tomahawk cruise missile, able to travel 1 600 km at a speed of 880 km/h at low altitude (beneath enemy radar) and strike a target with extreme precision using a GPS targeting system[5]. During the first 24 hours of the Iraqi conflict, more than 500 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from cruisers and destroyers in the Red Sea[6]. Compared to this the naval guns only have a range of 20km, but are still important to littoral warfare, as they are able to provide high accuracy fire onto targets close to shore[7], thereby supporting amphibious operations.

In term of raids ashore and invasions, the US has a separate armed force created for that task – the US Marine Corps.

“Together, the Navy and Marine Corps provide the Nation with its primary capability to project and sustain power ashore in the face of armed opposition. Amphibious forces reinforced, if required, by maritime prepositioning forces allow the United States global access to protect our interests and reassure allies that we have the ability to come to their aid.”[8]

In Iraq, the US 1st Marine Expeditionary Force of approximately 14 000 troops played a very significant role. It should be noted however, that the deployment of the marine forces in Afghanistan and Iraq did not occur as an amphibious assault, even though it is one of their deployment methods. It is the versatility of the Marines that has earned them the respect they carry, being able to deploy either from sea, land or air. They are highly trained and respected around the world. The appearance of US warships and approximately 2 000 Marines off the coast of Liberia, did much to improve peace negotiations recently[9].

Key to America’s projection of power is how everything is brought together into the Carrier Strike Group. Typically these strike groups contain a carrier, two guided missile cruisers, a guided missile destroyer, a destroyer, a frigate, two attack submarines and a combined ammunition, oiler and supply ship[10]. In this way the air, missile and gun, and troop carrying abilities are all combined into floating weapons and support platforms. Whenever there has been a crisis, the first question has been: “Where are the carriers?”[11] The carrier being the heart of these strike groups. Four carriers and at least 20 other ships were involved in the Afghan conflict[12], as many as five carriers were involved in the Iraqi War[13]. “The gulf is getting crowded,” was the remark of one sailor[14].

But power isn’t just about offensive capabilities. The Chief of Naval Operations has identified three roles of the navy:

­ Sea Strike. Projecting precise and persistent offensive power

­ Sea Shield. Projecting global defensive assurance

­ Sea Basing. Projecting joint operational independence[15].

These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, defensive roles, and support, logistics, and command and control. A naval task force is able to deploy in the international waters anywhere in the world, and therefore project its power from almost anywhere in the water. The communications, intelligence and command equipment necessary is already installed on the ships. Support, supplies and logistics can all be easily supplied by sea. The naval group can provide any support necessary to ground forces – close air support, surveillance, air strikes, supplies, airlifts, etc. During the Iraqi conflict, hospital ships provided state of the art medical care for any wounded soldiers. Rather than having to establish a mobile, ground-based army hospital, an already equipped, prepared and staffed hospital ship was anchored offshore. The naval groups are like a floating army headquarters, meeting any possible needs of the armed forces.

So with these powerful, flexible and mobile weapons platforms, will this be the future of warfare? America is currently the only country in the world that can afford the massive nuclear carriers and they have the largest navy in the world. In both the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts, they were able to deploy their navy virtually unopposed. As Uhlig suggests, maritime power projection is mainly an option for strong navies when the enemy’s navy is weak and when their coastal defences are thin[16]. Would such tactics work with a strong opposing navy? At $4,5 billion a carrier[17] (not including the aircraft and other expensive equipment), it would be a very costly loss if one of these ships were sunk. With a stronger opposition, more of the naval group’s time would be spent on sea offensives and defence, and ground offensives would be far riskier. I would argue that in such a situation, the naval forces would revert to their far more traditional battleground of the sea … with one exception – cruise missiles. Being able to fire such missiles from far distances with incredible accuracy is something that has never been possible before. Their abilities to be fired from submarines, and to fly beneath radar make them very difficult to defend against. Precision-guided, long-range missiles fired from ships will probably continue to be a feature of modern warfare. America is currently converting four submarines to Guided Missile Submarines, which will be able to carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles[18] each.

The question is whether any country has the will and the finances to oppose the Americans, to build their navy to an equivalent level. It is also a question whether America will allow another country to challenge them in military strength. America should continue to be able to use their naval power as they see fit into the foreseeable future.

The ability to project naval power ashore is a luxury that the Americans currently possess. Through superior firepower, superior technology and massive investment they have been able to purchase this luxury. As long as the United States maintains their dominance, the projection of maritime power will be a feature of modern conflict. Sun Tzu could be talking of America’s naval abilities when he suggests, “Appear where they cannot go, head for where they least expect you. To travel hundreds of miles without fatigue, go over land where there are no people.[19]”

[1] Sun Tzu, “The Art of War” translated by Cleary, T., Shambhala, Boston, 1988, pg 114

[2] Uhlig, F. “Fighting at and from the Sea: A Second Opinion” in Naval War College Review, Vol LVI, No 2, Spring 2003, pg 40

[3] “Navy Fact File: Aircraft Carriers” http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html, 11 August 2003

[4] Nathan, R. “We Were Great: Navy Air in Afghanistan” in US Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol 128, No 3, March 2002, pg 96

[5] “Navy Facts: Tomahawk” http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-toma.html, 11 August 2003

[6] Merle, R. “Battlefield is a Showcase for Defense Firms”, Washington Post, 1 April 2003, pg E01

[7] “Navy Fact File: Gun, 5-inch (Mark 45)” http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-5in.html, 11 August 2003

[8] Marine Corps: Strategy 21, Department of the Navy, Washington DC, 2000, pg 2

[9] Clarke, D. “U.S. Warships Off Liberia to Help Peace Efforts”, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3217934, Reuters, 4 August 2003

[10] “U.S. Navy – Carrier: The Carrier Battle Group” http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/powerhouse/cvbg.html, 11 April 2003

[11] “Navy Fact File: Aircraft Carriers” http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html, 11 August 2003

[12] Ham, W. “CNO Says Navy Taking Fight to Enemy in Afghanistan”, http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/news/clark011109.txt, 9 November 2001

[13] Layton, L. “Steaming Toward the Record Books, With No End in Sight”, Washington Post, 11 March 2003; Page A12

[14] Ibid.

[15] Clark, V “United States Navy: Chief of Naval Operations – Guidance for 2003” http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/clark-guidance2003.html, 2003

[16] Uhlig, F. Op. Cit., pg 40

[17] “Navy Fact File: Aircraft Carriers” http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html, 11 August 2003

[18] “Navy Fact File: Guided Missile Submarines” http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ssgn.html, 21 January 2003

[19] Sun Tzu, Op. Cit., pg 102