By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
The Army is massively revving up force presence, wargaming and joint training operations in the Pacific theater in what could be seen as a clear, observable effort to counter, deter and limit China’s well known expansionist aims in the region.
When it comes to deterrence in the Pacific, much of the discussion is understandably focused on forward Naval power projection bringing sea-launched 5th-generation air assets, amphibious assault ships and the ability to quickly challenge or thwart any surprise Chinese moves on Taiwan. Clearly maritime forward presence and Naval response time would prove pivotal if not paradigm shifting in the event an immediate need to defend Taiwan emerges. Along with Naval presence, there is also an equivalent focus upon air power in the region to deter China in the form of Bomber Task Force patrols, B-52s and B-2s operating out of Guam and critical multi-national exercises such as US-Japanese-Korean F-35-driven Theater Sustainment Packages.
What about the US Army and Land Power in the Pacific? Upon initial consideration, it may seem counter-intuitive to consider placing large land-forces in the Pacific, given the geographical “expanse” and vast ocean areas known to exist in the region. However, US Army Pacific Commander Gen. Charles Flynn is working closely with the other US services to massively uptick “joint” training and “forward, multinational presence” in the Pacific theater.
With the rapid arrival of new applications of unmanned systems, long-distance precision fires and transport-layer data networking, the Pentagon is heavily emphasizing “Joint,” “multinational” deterrence based upon air-surface-undersea-land integration. This is now far more possible than it ever has been due to combat modernization breakthroughs with AI-enabled data processing, greater autonomy and “mesh” node networking across mass distances and a vastly improved ability to mobilize and deploy forces across the ocean.
The Army figures prominently with all of this, a key reason why US Army Pacific is working with other units and commands to establish the first-ever training center the Army has build outside of the US and Europe. It is called the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center(JPMRC), and although the Army has been working with the Navy and Airforce on multi-domain task force training exercises in the Pacific in recent years, this new JPMRC is intended to support the US Army’s massively intensified training and war preparation efforts in the Pacific called “Operation Pathways,” according to Gen. Charles Flynn, Commanding General, US Army Pacific.
From a strategic and tactical perspective, there are many ways the Army could support, enable and sustain a networked, multi-domain combat force in the Pacific. There is clearly the possibility of force reinforcement, as US Army Black Hawk helicopters and even land artillery weapons have operated from US Navy ships in joint exercises. This kind of weapons application could greatly improve land-attack options in coastal and island areas and also extend deployment reach for reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare and troop transport in potential “island hopping” warfare scenarios. Several years ago, the Army intensified training with efforts to place and test long-range land-fired weapons in critical forward positions in the Pacific, something which greatly reinforces Maritime combat power and precision-strike ability against enemy ships. Several years ago, one senior Army weapons developers told Warrior that, as long as breakthrough land-fired weapons were emerging and improving, there is no reason a land-fired weapon can’t destroy enemy targets at sea if stationed on islands, coastal areas or even Navy platforms at sea, the Army’s fast-growing arsenal of rockets, missiles and artillery could prove extremely impactful in a maritime or amphibious environment. This would be particularly true in the event of the Army’s Extended Range Cannon Artillery effort able to fire precision-guided 155mm rounds beyond distances of 62km, twice the reach of standard artillery. Perhaps enemy ships or formations are operating beyond the reach of traditional deck-launched 5-inch guns on destroyers and cruisers? Perhaps a target needs to be blanketed with precision artillery across a sphere of multiple targets such that a single Tomahawk might not prove sufficient, even if it is a modern Tactical Tomahawk able to hit moving targets.
Land Army in Pacific to rescue Taiwan
“Going all the way back to World War II, tanks have been an important part of the Combined Arms force out here (the Pacific)….. a number of nations in the region have tanks, they have armored divisions. The Philippine Army is a good example……Australia just purchased M-1 tanks. And we trained with the Australian Army in Talisman Sabre with their newly arrived M-1s,” Flynn said.
Land-armies of course operate as a deterrent in the Pacific, and although the US and its allies are unlikely to attack mainland China, there certainly are some potentially serious warfare scenarios wherein armored ground units might need to attack or occupy large land areas. The most likely scenario would consist of a need to mobilize a massive ground force capable of “extricating” an occupying Chinese force from Taiwan. While such a task would involve a serious decision of great consequence not likely to fall easily upon US military leaders, a quick look at available weapons and manpower suggests that a dangerous and high-casualty, costly endeavor might be both possible and realistic. Japan has more than one-million soldiers, including reservists, and South Korea operates as many as two-to-three million soldiers historically prepared to defend the DMZ. Should a US-allied coalition of forces operate with air superiority, it does seem feasible that a multi-national ground force might be positioned to “re-take” Taiwan, however the intent would of course be to deter or stop any Chinese invasion well before Taiwan were taken over. This is perhaps one reason why Flynn and other commanders heavily emphasize the importance of Army-to-Army connectedness and multi-national training between forward-positioned US Army forces and their Philippine, Japanese and Australian counterparts.
“Going all the way back to World War II, tanks have been an important part of the Combined Arms force out here (the Pacific)….. a number of nations in the region have tanks, they have armored divisions. The Philippine Army is a good example……Australia just purchased M-1 tanks. And we trained with the Australian Army in Talisman Sabre with their newly arrived M-1s,” Flynn said.
Nonetheless, these kinds of contingencies explain why US Army Pacific Commanders, such as Gen. Flynn, believes strongly in the need for forward-positioned ground-war power in the Pacific.
“In my view, the security architecture that actually binds this region together is the Army. These nations have large armies. They don’t have large navies and air forces, but they have large armies. And the dialogue and the relationships and the rehearsals and the readiness that we gain and the interoperability increases that we gain is of enormous value,” Flynn said.
A perhaps lesser recognized advantage of having more Army assets, platforms and weapons in the Pacific would likely pertain to “air defense,” something which is now almost entirely “joint” when it comes to the Army’s contribution. The Army’s Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS), for example, has demonstrated an ability to construct an otherwise disparate set of integrated radar
and missile defense “nodes” across vast distances. Perhaps of greatest significance, IBCS can network Patriot missiles with Sentinel Radar and other land-based missile defense assets with a common software backbone designed to enable data transmission, networking and collaborative or multi-domain target tracking. IBCS is now almost entirely joint as it has shown it can interoperate with both space assets and air-platforms such as drones and even F-35s. In recent years, there have also been efforts to link IBCS with ship-integrated Aegis radar. These kinds of synergies enable a joint force to blanket an area with air defenses or establish a “mesh” multi-domain network of air defenses sufficient to protect critical land and sea assets.
Operation Pathways
Given these tactical and strategic variables, operations greatly fortified and reinforced by advanced networking, the Army’s accelerated and massively enlarged training presence in the Pacific makes a lot sense. conceptual and logistical thrust of Operation Pathways, Flynn explained, is grounded in the importance of a concept he calls Joint Interior Lines, which amounts to putting “combat credible forces forward in the region.”
“Those forces largely must consist of command and control, protection, sustainment, and collection reconnaissance forces that can see, sense, and understand what’s actually happening in the region, whether that is environmental conditions, adversary actions or friendly actions,” Flynn explained.
Flynn explained that forward, multi-national and multi-domain forces refining concepts of operation with US Navy, Air Force and Space units in the Pacific form the essence of strategic deterrence. Flynn described this as creating “operational endurance for the joint force so we can deter war … because the aim out here is no war.”
Kris Osborn is the President of Warrior Maven – the Center for Military Modernization. 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 national 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.
