Sea Denial vs. Sea Control

Galrahn is out for a few days fighting the war against Irene, so I’ll stand in for another post or two.

Good piece here from Hugh White on “Sea Denial” versus “Sea Control” in relation to China. One disagreement here: “But only aircraft carriers offer the round-the-clock protection for other ships needed to achieve sea control.” This was true before the advent of aegis and when we still had robust ASW aircraft on carriers, but now that protection role has reversed with CRUDES ships providing the protection for others. He writes: “The central fact of modern naval warfare - which the Chinese grasp as well as anyone - is that sea denial is relatively easy to achieve, but control is extremely hard. We seem to be entering an era in which many countries can achieve sea denial where it matters to them most, but none can achieve sea control against any serious adversary.” Are sea denial and sea control mutually exclusive? Or are they dynamic terms that can vary in time and space and pass fluidly between combatants? Also, I’d hasten to add from an irregular warfare perspective that this dynamic applies to a number of non-state actors, too.

Along those lines, witness this little noticed incident in the Gulf of Aden. Well done to Yemen's Navy, who has their hands full trying to contain AQAP's maritime ambitions.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.