The naval force structure proposed by the 1993 Department of Defense "Bottom Up Review" was analyzed in terms of three force planning cases built around illustrative scenarios using representative depictions of future threats. Each case included: regional analysis in terms of mission, forces, area, and command and control; development of military requirements; and comparison of requirements and capabilities, identification of shortfalls, and characterization of risk. A notional U.S. carrier battle group and air wing for the year 2000 were examined in scenarios involving a conventional global war with a reconstituted Russia, a major regional contingency on the Korean peninsula, and a lesser regional contingency involving a freedom of navigation dispute with Indonesia. The scenarios represent different levels from the spectrum of conflict. The future naval force was found insufficient to ensure victory in global conventional war, the scenario which involved the greatest risk to U.S. interests. The future force, optimized for blue-water operations, was also shown seriously deficient in countering mines and diesel submarines, another threat which entailed the potential for damage to U.S. interests.

ADA 284646 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)