FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,278
- Points
- 1,160
How will this effect Canada?
How should Canada respond?
The Army is uniquely qualified to maintain and expand this vital network. Our
relationship with Allies and partners is an unmatched strategic and competitive advantage,
allowing us to out-think and out-position our competitors. Partner militaries, including their
senior leaders, are predominately land force-centric. In the Indo-Pacific, 24 of 29 armed forces
chiefs are army officers, and of the 30 NATO member states, 22 have armed forces chiefs from
their respective armies. Through this professional kinship, the U.S. Army can play an outsized
role in supporting U.S. inter-agency objectives in a whole-of-government approach.
. . . The Army plans to build five MDTFs: two aligned to the Indo-Pacific; one aligned to Europe; one positioned in the Arctic and oriented on multiple threats; and the final MDTF aligned for global response. MDTF 1, aligned to the IndoPacific, will be the centerpiece of Project Convergence 2021.
This paper lays out a clearly understandable road-map for where the US Army wants to go.
And becasue they think they can do it alone, mainly, they will fail because power projection is largely navy centred ...
The Army and the Joint Force’s foundation of success in Assured Rapid Power Projection is in the resiliency of Army installations with a special emphasis on Power Projection Platforms (PPPs), Mobilization Force Generation Installations (MFGIs), and Military Ocean Terminals (MOTs), as well as supporting commercial facilities, to continue to operate in a contested and degraded environment.
APS is evolving into more than power projection in crisis and contingency: it serves as a tool in itself to build relationships during competition. For instance, APS in the Indo-Pacific (APS-4) is breaking ground with our emerging regional partners. These facilities bolster relations with local and national host nation governments, and enhance the speed for forces arriving in crisis or conflict.
‘$64K Question’: Where In Pacific Do Army Missiles Go?
“Today, there is probably not one of our regional partners in the first island chain that would be willing to base Army -- or any other service – long-range strike missiles in their country,” retired Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr says.
The Army hasn’t yet figured out which countries would actually host the new long-range missiles it’s developing, an Army strategist acknowledged today. Experts point out that just hosting US weapons with the potential to threaten China may be a risky move for any nation in the region.
While not an immediate crisis for the service, since prototype missiles don’t enter service until 2023, it’s still a distinct problem for the Army’s new strategy of operating as an “inside force,” one able to deter China from forward positions in the so-called First Island Chain. That line runs from Southeast Asia through the Philippines to Japan and Korea.
The closest US territory to China is in the Second Island Chain, specifically Guam, Saipan, and the other Mariana Islands — almost 2,000 miles from the Chinese mainland. While exact ranges are highly classified, of the multiple long-range missiles the Army is exploring, it’s probable that only the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) could hit China from Guam.
For any missile less long-ranged (and less expensive), the Army would need to persuade a friendly nation to accept American launchers on their soil, at least as part of a temporary “rotational” presence. While the service is drawing up plans and discussing its new Pacific strategy with allies and partners, at least in general terms, any specific agreement on hosting missiles is a long way off – if it ever comes.
“In terms of the Indo-Pacific, where we would posture these capabilities…is about working with allies and partners,” said Col. Jason Charland, a senior strategist in the Army’s Pentagon headquarters. “We have objectives based on the range of our capabilities, [and] we’ve got a plan that we’re looking at right now –a calibrated force posture plan in the Indo-Pacific.” (Emphasis ours).
“Ideally, what we’re looking at is a rotational presence,” he noted, where units come and go from time to time, rather than permanent bases: “We’re not talking about permanent presence necessarily.”..
'$64K Question': Where In Pacific Do Army Missiles Go? - Breaking Defense
“Today, there is probably not one of our regional partners in the first island chain that would be willing to base Army -- or any other service – long-range strike missiles in their country,” retired Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr says.breakingdefense.com
A big problem for the US Army (and USMC) in the Western Pacific:
Some wishful thinking, I'd say.
Mark
Ottawa
Even better if many of those 'missile slingers' are SSN/SSGN, IMO.Which is why the Navy will continue to be the 'missile slingers' of choice. Politically and strategically much less contentious, and far more flexible tactically.