By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
The newly arrived Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti called for more wargaming as a key part of a series of inspirational remarks about the Navy’s purpose and resolve as it surges quickly into a new threat environment.
Franchetti’s core message was quite clear … that the US Navy is no longer the singular global dominant maritime force in the world… to the extent to which it has been in recent decades.
“Gone are the days of operating from a maritime sanctuary against competitors who cannot threaten us,” Franchetti said.
Franchetti’s recently delivered inaugural remarks called “America’s Warfighting Navy” at the 2024 Surface Navy Association Symposium emphasized the growing need to deter and counter a fast growing “People’s Republic of China,” specifically suggesting that wargaming and disruptive technologies can ensure the US Navy can be “prepared to prevail” in a conflict with China.
“We must defend our homeland, deter strategic attack, deter and be prepared to prevail in conflict against the People’s Republic of China, and meet the acute challenge of an aggressive Russia and other persistent threats,” Franchetti writes in her America’s Warfighting Navy text.
While the Chinese threat has indeed been on the radar for many years at this point, Franchetti’s warning about the pace of Chinese growth and modernization in relation to a fast-evolving threat environment seems well placed, as it aligns with her emphasis upon the growing need for innovations, disruptive technologies and wargaming. Essentially, Franchetti challenges the Navy to embrace a new, potentially more intense and rigorously competitive mindset, based on the very realistic prospect of a conflict with China. At the same time, Franchetti is clear about intent, meaning that preparing an unrivaled warfighting Navy will “deter” China and therefore keep peace by preventing conflict. She instructs the Navy to “think differently.”
“We must think, act, and operate differently, leveraging wargaming and experimentation to integrate conventional capability with hybrid, unmanned, and disruptive technologies,” Franchetti writes.
Wargaming emphasis
There are several variables likely informing Franchetti’s rationale for stepped up “wargaming,” the first and most visible of which is the clear growing, high-tech and high-volume nature of the Chinese threat and the PRC’s unambiguous stated ambition to annex Taiwan. This posture, explained at great length in the Pentagon’s annual reports on China, is grounded in evidence that the PRC intends to quite possibly retake Taiwan by force and is consistently conducting amphibious attack drills off the coast of Taiwan and violating Taiwan Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) with fighter jets. A concern cited by US military officers in the Pacific articulates that a seemingly routine war preparation drill or combat exercise within striking range of Taiwan could be used as a pretext for a surprise rapid attack and attempted “fait accompli.” In short, the prospect of a Chinese military attack on Taiwan is becoming increasingly realistic and fortified by People’s Liberation Army military growth and expansion. Added to this equation, for several years now the Pentagon’s annual China military report has specified that indeed the PRC intends to become the singular dominant global power by its centennial in 2049, an ambition which China may now envision as being achievable much earlier than that.
Both the Rand Corporation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have recently conducted US-China Wargames, and US Army Pacific also published a series of wargame findings as well. With the pace of change, it seems there simply cannot be too much wargaming, it seems. Rand’s wargame, for instance, identified 17 specific solutions which showed a massive ability to improve US performance in US-China wargame outcomes. Most of the 17 points related to “information dominance” and “networking,” something which the study found would save hundreds of US and allied 5th-generation aircraft from being destroyed on the ground before take off by incoming Chinese ballistic missiles.
Franchett’s reference to a no-longer existent maritime “sanctuary” in which the US could operate unchallenged also seems well-placed, given the widespread recognition that the PLA-Navy is now numerically larger than than the US Navy. While this by no means suggests the PLA-Navy is superior to the US, it does indicate the growing seriousness of the threat. The pace at which the PLA-Navy is adding carriers, destroyers and amphibs is a source of great concern.
Tracking Chinese Growth
Given this, one way to track the pace of change within the Chinese military is by observing their force growth, modernization and exercises in the region with a specific mind to how they could be countered by a US-allied force. Franchetti’s call for regular wargaming seems to suggest she is referring to the fact that the seemingly slightest PLA force size change, such as the addition of a new PLA-Navy operational carrier or the anticipated arrival of China’s stealthy 5th-generation carrier-launched J-31, can massively reshape the threat equation to the point where war outcomes would be quite different. Once J-31s arrive in impactful numbers, giving the PLA an ability to project 5th-generation air power from the ocean which they currently do not have, the threat equation will become quite different. This is particularly true if an ability to project 5th-generation stealth air power from the ocean were supported by additional aircraft carriers and heavily armed destroyers. PLA-N dual carrier war preparations have already happened, as the PLA-N copied the US Navy’s dual-carrier drill in the Pacific last year by conducting its own dual-carrier drills with a second operational carrier.
The possibilities for changes in conflict outcomes are likely to change in relation to a seemingly endless number of variables. What if the PLA’s Y-20 Cargo planes continue to be converted into tankers? Does that mean its land-based J-20 can further threaten US Navy forces at longer ranges at sea? What if China’s fast-growing arsenal of ballistic missiles increases the likelihood that a massive surprise “salvo” attack could overwhelm Taiwan’s air defenses and inflict catastrophic damages upon its defenses in advance of an amphibious attack?
Conversely, what happens to a US-led allied chance of victory as Japan continues to add hundreds of F-35s, including short-take-off-and-landing F-35Bs? What if the US continues its rapid ability to conduct real-time, AI-enabled, multi-domain networking to decrease sensor-to-shooter time? This would place US forces ahead of any PLA attack in terms of a decision-making curve in the realm of targeting and attack.
Also, computer simulations have become increasingly accurate at replicating warfare scenarios and weapons performance parameters such that conflict scenarios can be analyzed with increased accuracy.
Essentially, Franchetti seems to suggest that one clear way to stay current with a changing threat …. Is through wargaming.
“Our adversaries have designed their militaries to overcome our traditional sources of strength. We must move rapidly to stay ahead and continuously create warfighting advantages,” Franchetti said.
Kris Osborn is the President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization and Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at nationa
l TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
