| Part of a series on |
| War (outline) |
|---|
.jpg) |
Sea denial is a military term for preventing an enemy from using the sea. It is anaval warfare subset ofanti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategies,[1][2] and does not necessarily mean that the denier itself will use the sea. It is a parallel concept tosea control, which implies that that controlling force cannot be successfully attacked.
Vego describes sea denial as "preventing partially or completely the enemy’s use of the sea for military and commercial purposes".[3]
Corbett states that the object of sea denial is defensive. It is a less ambitious strategy than sea control and is often carried out by a weaker power.[4] It is possible to pursue sea denial in one area of operation while pursuing sea control in another.
Sea denial can act as a direct complement to sea control. A nation may achieve sea control in itslittorals, while enforcing sea denial outside the littorals, as was seen with theSoviet Union during periods of theCold War.
Sea denial is achieved in many different ways. The method depends on factors such as geography, ambition, and capabilities. Geographically it is easier to conduct sea denial operations inchoke points such as narrow waters, straights, or congested waters.
Example techniques includenaval mines,anti-ship missiles,drones, andsubmarines.
Barrier operations seek to hinder access to certain areas. Commerce raiding requires the enemy to put resources into escorting merchant ships.Asymmetrical warfare can involve attacking expensive ships with low cost uncrewed vessels. Afleet in being can threaten offensive operations without actually conducting them.[2]
DuringWorld War I andWorld War II, Germany pursued sea denial usingU-boats. Owing to the substantial superiority of theRoyal Navy's surface forces, Germany'sImperial Navy (in World War I) andKriegsmarine (in World War II) had little hope of sea control, but withsubmarines, the Germans hoped to choke off their access to seaborne commerce. In both wars, the United Kingdom successfully resisted the German strategy with a combination ofstrict rationing and anti-submarine weapons and techniques.
During theCold War, theSoviet Union invested heavily in submarines and would likely have pursued a similar strategy of sea denial had tensions withNATO escalated to open warfare.
Since World War II, the most notable example of a sea denial involved the so-called 'Tanker War,' whereinIran andIraq sought to close thePersian Gulf.
Today the term A2/AD has gained traction, and refers to a sort of sea denial strategy where a state aspires to challenge access to certain areas while hindering freedom of movement in an adjacent area. It can include a combined effort of navy, air force, and army. The army deploys missiles and sensors. The air force deploys assets to gather intelligence, conduct surveillance and reconnaissance and target ships with airborne weaponry. The navy deploys sea mines, surface ships, and submarines in a layered defence and distributed lethality.[1]
Modern sea denial addressesarea denial weapons, for example in the context of a land power using land-based missiles to strike sea targets. Such missiles can followcruise missile (terrain-skimming) orballistic missile trajectories.
 | This naval article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |
