U.S. Defense in 2021 and Beyond: Recommendations for the Next Administration

2021 Outlook Assessment

Introduction

Over the past four years, the Trump administration moved to innovate and radically change the posture of the U.S. military away from the counterinsurgency model. This dominated military thinking over the past two decades following the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The overwhelming focus had been on fighting Islamist guerillas in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and elsewhere. This gave America’s greatest rivals, China and Russia, breathing space to modernize their nuclear arsenals and to build their militaries.

China is on the verge of having a blue-water navy that has global power projection capabilities. Both Russia and China are on the fast track to being able to deploy hypersonic glide vehicles that can evade current U.S. missile defenses. And space has become increasingly militarized by Russia and China. The creation of the U.S. Space Force as a military branch distinct from the U.S. Air Force will stand as President Donald Trump’s most lasting achievement.

The incoming Biden administration must maintain focus on this return to great-power competition, while maintaining versatility to confront terrorist threats when needed. It should continue the Trump administration’s posture against Chinese and Russian nuclear modernization and their missile programs. Deterrence against potential aggression by these rivals must continue.

The new administration must maintain the proper balance of capabilities to ensure that the U.S. prevails in any potential conflict with China or Russia. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act’s (NDAA) $731 billion provides a good basis to start.

Nuclear Modernization and Arms Control

The Biden administration must continue the work started by Ambassador Marshall Billingslea under the Trump administration to compel Vladimir Putin to place short-range tactical nuclear weapons under treaty limitations. It should also push for limits on hypersonic nuclear delivery vehicles and a moratorium on Russian nuclear modernization.

Although Joe Biden says he plans to sign an extension of the 2010 START III treaty with Russia without any preconditions, he must view the treaty as a floor for further negotiations, not as an end. His administration must negotiate for the abolition of short-range nuclear capable missiles such as Russia’s Iskander. They threaten America’s allies such as Poland and the Baltics with nuclear blackmail. Russia’s stated strategy includes the use of nuclear weapons in case of a NATO counterattack.

It also should work to compel China to sign an arms control treaty limiting its planned future nuclear expansion, modernization and ballistic missile development. Within 15 years China could more than double its nuclear stockpile, a Defense Department report to Congress said in September. Like Russia, China is working on hypersonic nuclear delivery vehicles.

Although Joe Biden has opposed the expansion of U.S. nuclear arms for the past almost 50 years, he needs to learn that diplomacy accomplishes little of substance by itself. It took President Ronald Reagan’s brinksmanship with the deployment of Pershing 2 and ground-based Tomahawk cruise missiles in the former West Germany together with nuclear modernization and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to get the Soviet Union to the negotiating table.

Such strength formed the basis of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the first START Treaty in 1991.

Modernizing U.S. nuclear forces is a must. American passivity will not keep China and Russia from modernizing their nuclear arsenals. It also will not keep Russia from deploying next generation ballistic missiles like the SS-X-30 “SATAN 2” intercontinental ballistic missile or other systems.

Fielding the replacement for America’s 50-year-old Minuteman III ICBMs, the Columbia ballistic missile submarines and the B-21 Raider next generation stealth bomber offer deterrence both militarily and diplomatically.

President Reagan’s 1981 inaugural address remains as poignant today as it was on the cold winter day it was delivered 40 years ago. Biden and Reagan were political foes, but he should listen to his predecessor’s wisdom.

“As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it–now or ever,” Reagan said. “Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength.”

Naval Modernization

In the last few months, the Trump administration endorsed a proposal put forward by Bryan Clark at the Hudson Institute to expand the U.S. fleet to 500 ships by 2045. The recently passed 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) projects building 82 new ships between 2022 and 2026 at a combined projected cost of $147 billion.

This plan envisions:

• Approximately 140-240 unmanned and optimally manned surface and subsurface vessels;
• Between 60-70 small surface combatants, up from the current requirement of 52;
• 50-60 amphibious warfare ships, up from the current 38;
• 70-90 naval combat logistics ships, up from the current 32;
• Around 80 submarines, up from the current task force of 51;
• And build three Virginia-class submarines per year, up from the current one per year.

The Navy budget will have increased by an estimated 40 percent by 2022 from $16.6 billion in 2016. Current force projections estimate that the Navy will build a median average of 10 ships of various classifications annually between 2022 and 2050.

Supporting the Navy’s submarine-based deterrent is a major focus in the budget.

Achieving these goals will require additional resources to increase the nation’s industrial capacity. Achieving the goal of building three Virginia-class submarines annually is a bit unrealistic at this time for this reason. The Navy also plans to build the next generation Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) starting in the 2026 fiscal year, which will challenge the Navy’s existing industrial resources while it is being built alongside the Virginia-class submarines.

The proposal also suggests repurposing several America-class amphibious assault ships for service as light aircraft carriers.

Current projections show a clear shift from the counterinsurgency focus that has dominated the Pentagon budget since Sept. 11, 2001 toward a return to classical great-power competition. The Biden administration must preserve plans to increase the size, manpower and capability of the U.S. Navy in the face of China’s long-term stated desire to build a rival fleet with a global reach.

Increasing the size of the U.S. Navy both in terms of manpower and the number of vessels is crucial in maintaining deterrence against China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA[N]). Taiwan faces constant threats from the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) against its airspace. The PLA[N] no doubt would play a major role in any sort of an invasion of Taiwan.

Projections suggest that the PLA[N], which has the largest battle fleet in the world, with approximately 350 ships, could have 425 ships in its fleet within a decade.

“China’s navy is viewed as posing a major challenge to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain wartime control of blue-water ocean areas in the Western Pacific—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War. China’s navy forms a key element of a Chinese challenge to the longstanding status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific,” the recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress on China’s naval modernization said.

China claims the entire South China Sea as its territorial waters. This puts one-third of the world’s maritime trade under threat from China. The U.S. Navy plays a crucial role keeping the South China Sea, which is considered international waters under international law, open for navigation. It also helps to defend China’s weaker neighbors that border the South China Sea from being extorted or intimidated by China. These nations include Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia.

China has two aircraft carriers, the Lionang and Shandong, that follow the design of the Soviet Kuznetsov class. An indigenously designed third carrier currently is under construction and is expected to use electromagnetic catapults like the Ford-class American carriers. These ships are primarily intended as force-projection assets to show Chinese power around the world.

China has a new class of cruiser displacing between 10,000 and 13,000 tons, roughly comparable to the U.S. Ticonderoga class cruiser and Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

The PLA[N]’s construction of several classes of amphibious assault ships offer the most disturbing threat for regional stability because they give the Chinese increased capacity for invading Taiwan.

U.S. naval vessels and those of other nations face threats from China’s anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM) that can strike targets from 910 nautical miles away. Reports say that China hit a moving ship during a test. Should China mount hypersonic glide vehicles on these ASBMs, it would increase the threat posed to American warships and other vessels in the East and South China Seas.

Long-range Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles also threaten the U.S. fleet.

Presently, the fleet design of the U.S. Navy outclasses China’s despite the latter’s advantage in the area of fleet size. The U.S. outclasses China in terms of the number of aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and nuclear submarines.

The Biden administration should continue policies aimed at increasing naval deployments in the Western Pacific to maintain a balance in terms of manpower, aircraft and available ships. It must also work with allies such as Australia, India and Japan to help offset costs and to counter China’s burgeoning Navy in East Asia. Force structure should be tailored to counter China’s capabilities to deny access to the South China Sea.

It should continue the Trump administration’s push for the development of new military technologies and the acquisition of ships and weapon systems. These include lasers, electromagnetic rail guns, and hypervelocity rail guns. The Biden Pentagon should integrate Artificial Intelligence (AI) into shipborne missile-defense systems because they can react and respond to threats from missiles faster than humans.

This becomes more crucial as China pushes ahead with its own AI-based warfare systems.

The Biden administration must continue the policy of building up the U.S. Navy and modernizing its capabilities to deter China and to keep Russia in check in the Black Sea and in the Baltic.

Missile Defense

President-elect Joe Biden told the Council for a Livable World in a 2019 questionnaire that he thinks “an imperfect defense can have a deterrent effect.” Biden’s administration must expand the scope and sophistication of America’s current missile-defense system which was designed to counter North Korea’s nuclear missile program. Russian and Chinese intercontinental and intermediate range missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles together hypersonic glide vehicles carrying nuclear warheads can easily overwhelm existing defenses.

Russia deployed its Avangard hypersonic missile system a year ago in December 2019. The Russians claim it is impossible to defend against. China also has a hypersonic glide vehicle system under development

In November, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS John Finn shot down an ICBM fired from Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific using a SM-3 Block IIA anti-missile. It marked the first time an ICBM had been downed in a test.

The recently passed 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) instructs the Pentagon to move forward with the Next Generation Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. It will replace existing missile defense interceptors. The NDAA mandates deployment of an interim system by 2026.

The NDAA allocates $324.3 million to acquire additional SM-3 Block IIA missiles for the U.S. arsenal.

The NDAA allocated $1.2 billion for further development of the missile-defense program.

Currently, the U.S has 44 silo-based interceptors in Alaska and California aimed at countering the North Korean threat. Estimates suggest that North Korea may have enough fissile material for at least 65 nuclear weapons and ICBMs capable of reaching the U.S. mainland.

The NDAA envisions these interceptors will be part of a three-tiered homeland missile defense architecture. This includes the seaborne Aegis ballistic-missile defense system, which was successfully tested in November; the land-based SM-3 Block IIA; and terminal high-altitude defense system.

The Biden administration must turn its attention to securing additional funding for the development of anti-missile systems capable of defending against the hypersonic threat from China and Russia. Our current defense system is adequate for the limited threats from North Korea and Iran, but it is completely inadequate to confront China and Russia.

This includes research and development on space-based missile defense systems such as “Brilliant Pebbles” and energy weapons that can target and defeat the kind of massed attack that we could anticipate from China or Russia.

NATO

The Biden administration must continue the Trump administration’s permanent redeployment of U.S. forces in Europe under the auspices of NATO to increase their ability to rapidly deter Russian aggression. Current war plans fall short. They call for the days-long redeployment to warzones in the Baltics and Poland that could already have been occupied by Russian forces that have stated their willingness to use nuclear weapons to deter a NATO counterattack.

Joe Biden has vowed to re-establish closer NATO ties, but he should not allow a strategy from the 1980s to dictate American posture. The U.S. no longer faces off against a Soviet/Russian threat in Germany, where the 34,500 remaining U.S. troops are.

The 2021 NDAA objects to the Trump administration’s plans to withdraw troops from Germany. It requires the Secretary of Defense to consult with the heads of other agencies before doing so and to conduct a detailed impact analysis on the outcome. It also calls for the submission of a report to Congress on the U.S. military posture in Southeastern Europe and an assessment of Russian and Chinese military activities in the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean. This assessment calls for a review of available infrastructure and infrastructure improvements to support the increase of U.S. forces stationed in Romania, Bulgaria and Greece.

A redeployment of U.S. naval and air forces to the region would enhance the alliance’s ability to counter further Russian aggression in the Black Sea region. The Biden administration should look to enhance the permanent U.S. military presence in the area.

It also must examine permanently deploying U.S. forces to the Baltics and Poland as a deterrent against Russian aggression. This should include the deployment of heavy armored forces to counter the expected Russian use of similar forces to capture the Baltics. It also should include beefing up deterrence against Russian battlefield nuclear weapons that no doubt would be used in the event of a Russian invasion.

The Biden administration additionally must address the problem of disciplining Turkey, a NATO member since 1951, due to its procurement of Russian S-400 missiles and continued use of Syrian jihadists as mercenaries against its neighbors. Most recently, Turkey deployed these jihadists against Armenians in Azerbaijan’s region of Nagorno-Karabakh. These mercenaries have been accused of human rights abuses in Syria and Libya.

It should remove remaining U.S. nuclear weapons and forces from Turkish soil and redeploy them to neighboring NATO countries as a short-term show of displeasure to Turkey and suspend military cooperation with it.

Taiwan

Taiwan lies on the front line of the People’s Republic of China’s march toward aggression. It is imperative that the Biden administration continue the Trump administration’s effort to train and arm the Republic of China armed forces under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan deserves the capability to defend itself and to deter increasing aggression from the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA[N]).

The people of Taiwan have been friends of the United States since World War II. It is a burgeoning democracy in contrast with the Communist dictatorship on the mainland. The preservation of Taiwan’s democratic system is worth fighting for.

In October, the State Department greenlit the sale of four unmanned maritime patrol aircraft along with maritime radar and other support hardware for the aircraft, valued at $600 million. It also approved the $2.37 billion sale of 100 land-based Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

Previously, the Trump administration approved the sale of F-16 fighter jets and M1A2T battle tanks to Taiwan, valued at $10.2 billion. Over the next 10 years, the Republic of China Air Force will spend $62 billion to obtain a fleet of 90 F-16s.

Although the Biden administration will likely return to Obama-era policies of appeasing the People’s Republic of China, it should continue these policies aimed at strengthening Taiwan’s military as a deterrent against invasion. What good is talk about democracy if you are willing to abandon one of East Asia’s most vibrant democracies?

Space Force

The U.S. Space Force will be one of President Donald Trump’s most lasting achievements. Branching it off from the U.S. Air Force as its own service ensures that adequate funding goes to its mission of keeping America’s reconnaissance and military telecommunications secure. It proved its value almost a year ago when it detected the launch of 16 Iranian ballistic missiles toward al-Asad Air Base in Iraq following the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in January.

The Space Force fills the vital role of warning against missile launches, protecting U.S. communications satellites, intelligence and providing offensive capabilities against enemy anti-satellite weapons systems.

China and Russia have increased their investments in spaceborne weapons including anti-satellite (ASAT) that could destroy American spy satellites or communications satellites. Russia reportedly tested an ASAT weapon last July. Gen. Jay Raymond, chief of space operations, complained last February that two Russian satellites shadowed a U.S. KH-11 spy satellite, operated by the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). Russia also has shown the ability to jam U.S. Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) in the area near the Russian coast.

“With new weapons added to the Russian counterspace arsenal each year since 2018, it is clear that the country has renewed its focus on developing and maintaining its ability to disrupt, degrade, or destroy adversaries’ assets on orbit,” the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said in a March 2020 report on spaceborne threats.

Similarly, China conducted 10 ASAT tests between 2005 and 2018 that had mixed results. It has conducted tests using kinetic kill vehicles that aim to destroy other satellites and ground-based lasers fired from Chinese territory that can blind U.S. satellites. It also shown the ability to jam U.S. Global Positioning Satellites and to hack into a satellite run by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The Space Force’s doctrine released in July lists countering enemy ASAT technologies as an important part of the new service’s mission.

“Offensive operations target an adversary’s space and counterspace capabilities, reducing the effectiveness and lethality of adversary forces across all domains. Offensive operations seek to gain the initiative and may neutralize adversary space missions before they can be employed against friendly forces,” the doctrinal report “Spacepower: Doctrine for Space Forces” states.

The Biden administration should increase funding to allow the U.S. Space Force to successfully counter Chinese and Russian aggression in space.

Artificial Intelligence

Attaining true Artificial Intelligence (AI) remains the Holy Grail of today’s defense establishment. The 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) give AI a central place of importance. The race for AI is today’s equivalent of the race to the Moon during the 1960s.

The Trump administration created the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) in 2018 that “coordinate[s] the efforts of the Department to develop, mature, and transition artificial intelligence technologies into operational use.” The 2021 NDAA gives $132 million to JAIC to fund its mission.

The U.S. Air Force demonstrated the possibilities offered by AI earlier this month when a U-2 spyplane deployed with an AI algorithm called ARTUµ acting as a co-pilot.

Just as the race to the Moon revolutionized technology 50 years ago, the race for AI stands to revolutionize the battlefield on the ground, air, sea and in Space. China currently has AI-based weapons on the drawing board. It has focused heavily on robotics, swarming, advanced missiles with AI guidance systems and undersea AI applications. AI could heavily factor into efforts by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to overwhelm Taiwanese air defenses.

“Chinese advances in autonomy and AI-enabled weapons systems could impact the military balance, while potentially exacerbating threats to global security and strategic stability as great power rivalry intensifies,” a Brookings Institution report on Chinese military AI programs published in April said.

Brookings noted, however, that China’s lack of direct combat experience could lead to serious mistakes on the battlefield that could undermine its planning efforts.

AI offers the U.S. military a whole host of possibilities, both offensively and defensively. These include semi-autonomous vehicles, such as the aforementioned U-2 and the Air Force’s Loyal Wingman autonomous vehicle program. The Army and Marine Corps have tested AI integrated weapons systems to help soldiers and Marines.

The Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, a potential replacement for the almost 40-year-old M2 Bradley, could bring AI onto the battlefield, allowing it to operate with a crew of two instead of the traditional three-man crew.

The Navy has tested Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel in conjunction with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to hunt submarines.

The U.S. should ensure the security of its AI systems and bar the sharing of technology with China in any manner that could enhance Chinese AI capabilities. Strict legal proscriptions are needed to keep future American AI developments out of the hands of its nearest competitors.

The Biden administration should conduct a review of U.S. AI programs and assess them in comparison with what is known of AI programs conducted by China and other adversaries. It should address whether or not a gap exists and strive to develop homegrown American talent to close any technical gaps, as was done in the 1950s after the Soviets launched Sputnik I.

Conclusion

The Trump administration has brought about a dramatic shift in military thinking. The incoming Biden administration should resist the pull toward the comfortable and the familiar. The world has changed in the past four years.

Pretending that China is not a serious military as well as economic threat to the U.S. and its allies will not make it disappear. The same is true with Russia.

The U.S. military should return to a more Cold War-style doctrine of containment and deterrence to protect our allies in Eastern Europe and in the Western Pacific. We should enhance our own capabilities as well as strengthening our closest allies that face direct threats from the Russians and Chinese.

President Trump leaves behind a military that has a greater focus on the reality of the 2020s and beyond than where he found it. Let’s hope that the Biden administration will look at the good he leaves behind and build on it instead of tearing it down.