Asymmetric warfare is war between groups, country or other entity where there is a mismatch in the combat power of the opposing forces. This also results in the adoption of significantly unconventional strategy or tactics by the weaker force or who does not have conventional combat power. Such tactics are adopted to compensate for the deficiency in its combat power. There is all possibility that an overlap will exist between the conventional warfare and asymmetrical warfare during the conflict. This term is also used to define guerrilla warfare, insurgency and terrorism which are primarily armed conflict between conventional military forces and an informal, poorlyequipped opponent who adopts suitable tactics to overcome his weaknesses. There is a view that asymmetric warfare is a component of fourth generation warfare. It becomes terrorism when it is carried out without adhering to any customary or lawful rules of engagement as seen amply in Iraq, Afghanistan, India, and in many other parts of the world. The term ‘asymmetric’ was first used by Andrew J.R. Mack in an article “Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars” written by him in 1975 where he wrote about the mismatch between economic, technological and military power of opponents in a conflict. However, not much thought was given to this term till the end of the Cold War when the academics started talking about it. End of 1990s saw the emergence of ab initio research on the subject. Since 2004 the US started facing such a situation in various parts of the world including Iraq and Afghanistan, and its military and academic thinkers started applying their mind to it. This resulted in many shades of interpretation. However, two constant factors remain i.e. war fighting is unconventional and the weak is pitted against the strong. It has also emerged that finally the weak come out successfully. Examples of the US in Vietnam, Israelis against some Palestine organisations and erstwhile Soviet Union in Afghanistan are there. This is despite the fact that these countries had immense edge in economic and military power. Use of asymmetric tactics such as small, fast moving, hard hitting teams which needed negligible logistic support; cross-border sniping; hit-and-run raids; rocket attacks, use of improvised explosive devices and suicide bombing, made up for the lack of superior combat edge. The Persian Gulf War of 1991 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition forces reinforced the doctrine that superior combat power can provide victory in conventional warfare but was not much of a use once the scenario shifted to asymmetric warfare phase. Starting as a tool for revolt of the weak against the strong, asymmetric warfare has come to stay and with ingenuity can be applied to any dimension of warfare including sea and air.

Naval Asymmetric Warfare

The Navy has to be prepared for irregular threats by being able to identify them as they may be operating in the nebulous shadow of the complex environment of local intra or inter regional, caste, religious and civilisational conflicts. Use of cyber space has added another dimension to asymmetrical warfare as seen in the recent conflicts in North Africa and the Middle East. It includes the struggle among state and nonstate actors for achieving power and legitimacy over the effected population. In such a situation, adoption of indirect and asymmetric approach becomes necessary to compensate for ones weaknesses. Littoral warfare plays a major role in this aspect. Naval planning will also have to include decentralised small units operating with minimum logistic support, move swiftly to deliver a hard punch and disappear under the cover of stealth. Technology is also required to neutralise the twin threat of people hiding behind the local population and the threat from improvised explosive devices (IED). The aspect of cyber space will have to be taken care of and the sensitivities of local population and their socio-cultural environment will also form part of the asymmetric warfare matrix. The requirement will be to acquire skills, organisations and technologies to counter asymmetrical warfare.

Maritime Domain Awareness

This is an important aspect for threat anticipation and evaluation where a target could be located, identified and tracked under or over water with a network of effective sensors in the area of interest. The maritime domain in its entirety includes blue waters, littorals and riverine areas. The success of the naval forces will heavily depend upon the situational awareness in the maritime domain but becomes a bit tricky when the adversaries are widely dispersed small units which are elusive, employ irregular tactics and have a better grasp of the environment. They also have the initiative as in most of the situations they have surprise on their side. The other aspect of domain awareness is the development of signals intelligence (SIGINT) capability to understand human activity, characterisation of acoustic signatures and identification of entities and events via electromagnetic signatures. It will be quite a challenge due to the chaos, disorder, uncertainty and complexity of the irregular warfare environment.

US Navy and Asymmetrical Warfare

Terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda have been carrying out asymmetric wars which includes recruitment, training, selection of targets and funding. The suicide attack on US Navy’s destroyer USS cole on October 12, 2000, while it was refuelling in the Yemeni port of Aden, resulted in the death of 17 US Navy sailors and injuries to 39 apart from damage to the destroyer. This was the deadliest attack since 1987 when on May 17, 1987, an Iraqi attack aircraft fired two Exocet missiles, killing 37 US Navy sailors and wounding 21 others aboard USS Stark. Later Iraq apologised, stating that it was due to the pilot’s error. The then President Bill Clinton stated, “If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable.” The attack on USS Cole signaled the arrival of the asymmetric threat in the maritime domain and triggered introspection by the US Navy for setting up instruments for anti-terrorism and force protection methods. The Centre for Asymmetric Warfare (CAW) was established in 1999 which was a navy entity whose objectives were to support military forces, as well as other government organisations in countering and controlling the effects of asymmetric warfare. It also provided support on US’ Global War on Terrorism. The US Navy also stepped up random anti-terrorism measures which were aimed to make the task of a terrorist more difficult. As a follow up, the US Navy also started an anti-terrorism and force protection warfare centre at Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Little Creek during November 2001 then in 2004 consolidated all the forces deployed for anti-terrorism and force protection under a single new established Maritime Force Protection Command (MARFPCOM) at NAB. It included the existing organisations i.e. the Mobile Security Forces, Naval Coastal Warfare, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), and Expeditionary Mobile Diving and Salvage Forces.

The US Navy has been taking measures like placing more machine guns and 25-millimetre gyro-stabilised guns on the decks of warships, have modified the five-inch gun to make it more capable of dealing with highspeed boats. It has also improved the sensor suit of the Aegis computer-integrated combat system aboard destroyers and cruisers. The US Navy has been working on the littoral combat concept and a couple of littoral combat ships which would provide protection against swarm attacks, have joined the fleet. But it would take some time before adequate numbers are ready. The US Navy is still a conventional blue-water force organised and equipped to rule the oceans with its superior force levels and technology but it has to gear for fighting a close-in, dirty war in narrow coastal waters.