The Utility of Amphibious Vessels

Last year's TIME magazine article on the United States Navy's (USN) LPD-17 raised a number of important issues, most of them having to do with technical problems associated with the first of class USS San Antonio. As an admirer of amphibious vessels, and the San Antonio class in particular, I appreciated Mark Thompson's efforts to point out some of the challenges the American naval shipbuilding industry has confronted in recent times. However, the article's concluding paragraph left me uneasy:

The rush to produce the fleet might make military sense if they were needed, but the last time Marines stormed ashore — the key reason the taxpayers are spending $14 billion on the San Antonio and at least eight more ships just like it — was nearly 60 years ago, at Inchon during the Korean War.

While the paragraph may amount to a minute portion of the article, it carried by far the harshest criticism by slamming the utility of the USN's amphibious forces. In my opinion, it was an assertion based on narrow understanding.

The purpose of the USN's amphibious vessels aren't simply to land marines ashore nor are amphibious operations always necessarily of war-fighting nature. When viewing today's USN, as well as a number of other developed navies, one must distinguish between the concepts of "naval force" and "maritime force." The USN, along with numerous navies of developed countries, belong in the latter category.

A naval force, I believe, is a navy which is conceived and developed solely for naval warfare. In other words, its purpose is to combat other navies and their platforms on all three dimensions of air, surface and underwater. As for a maritime force, such a navy not only undertakes war-fighting operations, but also orchestrates the likes of anti-piracy, stability/peace operations and humanitarian operations at and from the sea. In short, a maritime force is a force that maintains general order at sea against a wider range of both state and non-state threats as well as other concerns of political nature that affect the maritime domain.

The San Antonio class, along with a slew of other amphibious vessels belonging to a range of other navies, reflect the needs of such a navy. For now, the video below captures the general idea concerning the role of amphibious vessels. While the vessels themselves aren't visible, nearly all capabilities exhibited in the video (e.g. naval aviation, special forces, medical teams, humanitarian relief, etc.) derive from them:

Climate Change & North-East Asian Navies

How big a challenge is climate change to military establishments in North-East Asia? While close friends of mine may be quite surprised to hear, my opinion is that climate change may be a greater concern for the United States and its North-East Asian allies than China's military modernization.

Losing the likes of fertile land, clean water supplies and entire cities to the effects of climate change may bring about instability, and possibly anarchy, at a scale not experienced in recent years by North-East Asia's economically affluent countries of Korea and Japan, as well as those in the European Union.

More specifically, most of East Asia's major metropolises are situated along or near the coast. After all, with over 90% of world's trade happening at sea (yes, even today), it is inevitable that centers of economy be located within close proximity of port facilities. Should such cities drown (Beijing and Shanghai are expected to disappear), the economic effects would be beyond the human imagination, and the resulting mass migration could very well devastate the economic and social stability of neighboring countries.

While it is important that politicians across the globe take action to prevent or delay such events, militaries should be better prepared to respond to the disasters, whether it is to help their own respective population (and learn the lessons of Katrina) or to cope with and assist large flows of migrants seeking shelter. Certainly, the likes of South Korea and Japan need sea-based heavy lifting capability from light aircraft carriers, as well as the training of greater number of ground troops to conduct stability operations and other military missions that largely fit under the rubric of Sir Rupert Smith's "war amongst the people."

In addition, Korea and Japan stand as two of the world's five largest oil importers, along with China and the US. With their obvious and understandable attention on improving their respective naval and air capabilities, the armed forces of both countries must plan to utilize alternative energy sources which are of a more environmentally friendly variety. As years pass and competition for traditional energy resources heat up to unprecedented heights, it will become increasingly risky to depend on oil for the training and conduct of naval and air operations, which could very well handicap power projection and dilute the two countries' respective force gradient. After all, the global oil consumption today stands at 85 million barrels per day. Should China realize its potential as an economic super power, China alone is expected to consume 90 million barrels on a DAILY basis.

Seoul and Tokyo certainly have much to worry about, and China is of tremendous concern for both countries. Indeed, the two countries' ongoing military reform, modernization and buildup are largely motivated by the unclear implications of China's economic and military ascendance. While preparing for conventional warfare of all scales is crucial for both countries, the threat of climate change must be addressed, and their militaries must be prepared. This certainly will not be an easy task for either country, and far more difficult when compared to major European militaries, none of whom have state-to-state threats in their home region.

With China emerging as a foremost concern, Korea has devoted and plans to spend far more cash on developing and acquiring the likes of 5th generation fighter jets, air-refuelling tankers, and an array of naval vessels, while kickstarting its own rotorcraft program with the help of Eurocopter. The positive side is that many of these platforms may prove useful in dealing with the effects of climate change. However, in order to prepare for stability missions, South Korea would have to train greater number of its ground troops to undertake "softer" missions, which may dilute the country's focus on conventional warfare vis-a-vis China and North Korea. Meanwhile, the Japanese simply need a far larger number of ground troops, which would require revising the Pacifist Constitution. That in itself is a handful for the Japanese.

Just to clarify, I am by no means opposing either country's military buildup. In fact, I support them. My point is that the two countries need to prepare for another potential major threat that would need to be addressed in a far different manner and require different array of military capabilities.

While I am still gaining my footing with regards to the question of military preparedness for the effects of climate change, the clever folks over at the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) in Virginia have published a very intriguing report titled, "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," which is authored by CNA's Military Advisory Board ("Board") that consists exclusively of retired admirals and generals. Their message appears to be that climate change is not simply a '"soft" issue for activists, but a matter of national security and national interest. I couldn't agree more. As one of the Board members said, "It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.”

Below are the Board's overall threat perception with regards to climate change:

1. Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world

2. Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.


Below are the Board's recommendations:

1. The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies

2. The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability

3. The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts

4. The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency

5. The Department of Defense should conduct an assessment of the impact on U.S. military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other projected climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years.


For more, please refer to the report which is available in PDF format.