U.S. think tank, said water mine warfare naval blockade against China sea lines of communication
U.S. Navy personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, naval base for demining training. (U.S. Navy website)
[U.S. Lexington Institute website on November 2 article] title: whether the U.S. Navy is serious about “anti-access” threat? (The author is deputy director of the Lexington Institute Daniel Gul)
U.S. national security policy and defense strategy for the Asia Pacific region changes occur, will cause further pressure on the U.S. Navy. Over the past 10 years, the U.S. Air Force and Navy forces in the world is facing the threat of rapid increase, led by China. The PLA’s military services are more numerous in spending money to import advanced weapons systems, not just air defense systems, attack submarines, mines and anti-ship ballistic missiles, as well as to identify and target the U.S. military’s joint command and control capabilities.
There are rumors that the Pentagon is trying to study how the focus of military activities and the deployment of more troops to the Asia-Pacific regions. In this context, for the area to deter threats and counter-intervention, and how to deal with this threat a lot of analysis.
but I doubt the U.S. Navy really want to fight anti-intervention and the development of the region to deter threats. There is a case I am troubled. Expeditionary operations in a recent meeting, the Navy is planning an official announcement before the end of this financial year, completely abandoned submarine-launched torpedoes. M K67 submarine laid mines through its own power motor to reach very far, and there wait for passing ships, the use of multiple sensing devices to identify and target their prey. M K67-type mines based on 1950s technology, a single point from their years, is indeed a weapon to be replaced sooner or later.
Presumably, the Navy is seriously considering the future of offensive mining capability in all aspects of choice. But we all know, if not currently an active program, the U.S. needs at least 10 years to deploy a new generation of mines. Moreover, the Navy is not clear whether there is interest in making such a choice. Familiar with the situation the Navy, to study the issue say trapped in the Navy, “Diana effect”, that is, any form of mine (mine) war disgust. In fact, the U.S. Navy’s leadership has never been more attention on mine warfare, anti-mine campaign even before the start.
for the U.S. Navy, the response to the PLA anti-access and area to deter threats, not only means finding ways to tear opponents defense network.
contrast, the U.S. Navy needs to invest in the means of the following roles: to understand the PLA’s strategy of reducing its wants to take a variety of means, and force them to invest in additional and complex, making it the capital from anti-ship ballistic missiles out of the current areas of strength, into China’s current deficiencies in the military field.
means of strategic mine warfare. Only a relatively small threat to the United States will be able to modernize the PLA’s mines any amphibious operation, its combat forces trapped in the ports, and the blockade of China’s sea lines of communication. People’s Liberation Army Navy has yet to track the enemy the ability to mine large investments required, nor a lot of training in this area. Modern submarines laid mines will be mobile in the U.S. Navy arsenal and the best area to deter anti-intervention platform — that is, “Virginia” class attack submarines to deploy the best weapon.
in the Navy when considering various options, anti-intervention and the growing threat of regional deterrence. Fortunately, the Navy is developing a new coastal combat ship will be deployed in the mine against the capacity. Now, the question is whether the Navy’s ability to understand the strategic deployment of mine what kind of weapons.share: