The traditional roles of the surface ship—antiair warfare, antisurface warfare, and antisubmarine warfare— have been refocused toward the shore line. To strengthen the surface combatant’s ability to fight in the littoral, we must draw on new ideas.
Three assumptions can be made about the future of littoral warfare:
- Regional conflict around the globe will remain the norm into the foreseeable future, creating the requirement for a littoral warfare capability.
- The inventory of U.S. Navy ships will remain large enough to allow for continued deployments of joint task forces, including CV battle groups and amphibious readiness groups.
- The evolution of technology will continue to support the requirement for the United States to land troops—from the sea—on foreign soil when and where the need arises..
All services could benefit from joint billet assignments (Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps officers) on board Navy combatant units. For instance, Marine Corps and Army officers could be employed to provide guidance and instruction on naval gunfire, and an Air Force officer could help in fighting the air war over the littoral.
An Army artillery officer could serve as the gunnery assistant to a ship’s combat systems officer, with the associated armament similar to the Army’s field artillery. In addition, the Army and Marine Corps are the experts in air cavalry in support of ground forces ashore. We should use them for sea-launched helicopter control. Navy helicopter crews could operate with ground-based units while providing combat search and rescue.
A Marine Corps officer could provide valuable insight to the combat team on a surface combatant during amphibious operations. This officer could relay detailed information on the activity occurring ashore as well as on the amphibious assault and command ships. As demonstrated during the Gulf War, the early phase of a campaign can achieve success—even if employment does not actually occur—because of the psychological effect on an adversary. The huge logistical effort required for U.S. ground forces in a foreign country also may generate a need for the offshore “maritime soldier” to be embarked in surface combatants and amphibious ships.
Special forces traditionally have deployed from submarines, but if large numbers of special forces were needed to be sent inland from a selected beach area, a surface combatant could become the platform of choice. With navigational drafts from 25-35 feet, these ships could get close enough to the point of entry.
An Air Force officer could be put to direct use in the combat information center of an Aegis cruiser or destroyer, given their normal employment as the Antiair Warfare Commander (AAWC). Incumbent in this role is air control for land-based tactical and surveillance aircraft, while waging the air campaign. The Air Force officer could assist in the close control of the E-3 AWACS. This officer also could help in the mission planning and tactical employment of these important assets to enhance shipboard air combat operations.
Both Army and Air Force officers could provide immediate assistance in the littoral mission of theater ballistic missile defense (TBMD). These services have experience in providing high-altitude air defense, although their methods of ordnance delivery are different. This was evident during the Gulf War while targeting Iraqi Scud missiles. This would be a natural assignment for an Army or Air Force officer on board an Aegis cruiser assigned the sea-based role for TBMD.
Two additional areas of littoral warfare that would benefit from joint billets are C4I (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence) and military space capabilities in support of theater and tactical operations. Superior C4I is an outstanding force multiplier over any adversary and is essential to our assured victory in war. A technically adept Air Force officer could provide immeasurable assistance during the littoral campaign by pulling the right amount of information from overhead assets.
Our surface combatant force has been reduced in total numbers, but the durable surface combatant force remains solid. The surface combatant’s increased responsibilities in littoral operations could overload our normal staffing levels. Our once disparate armed forces are becoming more compatible and mutually interoperable. Permanent assignment of Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps officers on board Navy surface combatants would significantly increase the warfighting capability of our ships. The nature of U.S. warfighting capabilities is changing too fast to expect surface combatants to do it alone in the littoral.
Lieutenant Commander Lind is the Executive Officer in USS Caron (DD-970).