Exercise Brolga Run 2020

10/14/2020

Throughout 2020, Joint Fires Teams (JFT) from the 4th Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery have been utilising realistic simulators to train in the engagement of enemy targets by joint fire assets and calling for indirect fire support from artillery and mortars.

This training culminated in Exercise Brolga Run 2020 with the JFT calling in both mortar and artillery fires onto enemy positions.

The Dome Simulator is a key training facility at 4th Regiment and provides a realistic training environment for a number of training objectives, including all arms calls for fires training, command decision making exercises, mortar training and more.

Australian Department of Defence

July 17, 2020

Exercise Joint Warrior 2020-2

10/13/2020

In an article published by the UK Ministry of Defence on September 28, 2020, the UK role in Exercise Joint Warrior was highlighted.

Taking part will be the Royal Navy’s largest and most powerful warship HMS Queen Elizabeth, taking her place at the heart of a UK-led NATO Carrier Strike Group.

With her will be F-35B stealth jets from the UK and US, training together in UK skies for the first time.

Exercise Joint Warrior, taking place for 11 days off the coast of north west Scotland from next Monday, will feature 11 nations combining an overall contribution of over 6,000 personnel, 81 aircraft, 28 ships and two submarines.

Minister for the Armed Forces James Heappey said:

“Allies and adversaries alike will not fail to take note of the powerful new contribution the UK’s Carrier Strike Group offers NATO when it participates in Exercise Joint Warrior next week.

“With US and UK F-35B jets exercising together over our shoes for the first as part of a group featuring 6,000 personnel from 11 nations, this UK-led exercise underlines the leading role we play in upholding European security through NATO.”

NATO Allies taking part in the exercise are the UK, USA, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Canada, France, Denmark, Norway and Lithuania. NATO Enhanced Opportunity Partner Australia will also contribute.

In order to protect all armed forces personnel and the public, a wide range of mitigations measures have been introduced to reduce the risks posed by the Covid-19 virus.

Exercise Joint Warrior is a UK-led multinational military exercise held twice a year in the spring and autumn that features all three single services of the UK Armed Forces – the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force conducting combined joint operations. It offers a crucial function in training NATO forces for high-readiness deployments on operations, representing a significant pillar of the UK’s leading role in the Alliance.

This autumn’s exercise offers a key step in the development of the UK’s Carrier Strike Group (CSG) capability. With US Marine Corps F-35B jets and their UK counterparts training embarking on HMS Queen Elizabeth, this is the largest number of aircraft at sea on a British Royal Navy carrier since 1983 and is the largest number of F-35B jets at sea in history. 

On October 5, 2020, the second phase of the exercise commenced.

The second phase of the UK-led Joint Warrior (JW) 20-2 exercise has commenced in the Atlantic Ocean.

The exercise incorporates surface, subsurface, airborne, and land assets in a joint training for Nato units.

It also has a certification of Forward-Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) in order to prepare them to operate as part of a Combined/Joint Task Force.

Task Force (CTF) 65 commander Captain Joseph Gagliano said: “Joint Warrior is our premier venue for recertifying our ships for fleet operations, and the synergy with the Royal Navy could not be better.

“We count on them to keep our ships ready, and they can always count on our commitment to security in this theater.”

The US Navy and US Marine Corps (USMC) will join maritime, land, and air units from allied and partner nations of Nato.

Over 6,000 personnel, 81 aircraft, 28 ships and two submarines from 13 nations will take part in the exercise.

The participating nations are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and the US.

This was the first time the Queen Elizabeth carrier led a carrier strike group in an exercise.

The ship has USMC and UK F-35s onboard.

 

Rapid Airfield Repair: MAWTS-1 Shapes the Skill Set

U.S. Marines with Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One (MAWTS-1) participate in airfield damage repair practical application during Weapons and Tactics Instructor (WTI) course 1-21 at Cannon Air Defense Complex in Yuma, Arizona, Sept. 28, 2020.

The WTI course is a seven-week training event hosted by Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One, providing standardized advanced tactical training and certification of unit instructor qualifications to support Marine aviation training and readiness, and assists in developing and employing aviation weapons and tactics.

(U.S. Marine Corps video by Cpl. Sarah E. Taggett)YUMA, AZ, UNITED STATES

09.28.2020

The Abraham Accords: The Art of the Deal and Middle East Dynamics

10/11/2020

By Kenneth Maxwell

Calouste Gulbenkian set the rules for the division of the oil spoils in the Middle East in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

He did so under the “red line” self-denying agreement of 1928 between the major oil companies (including the America companies of Mobil and Standard Oil of New Jersey), which embraced the whole of the Arabian peninsula.

Gulbenkian, an Armenian Ottoman, who was educated at King’s College, London, and became and remained a British citizen, was a supreme shrewd persistent and highly litigious deal maker who carved up the Middle Eastern oil resources and took a five percent share of the profits through his Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC).

He became the richest man in the world in the process. His extraordinary story is the subject of superb recent biography by the historian Jonathan Conlin. After Gulbenkian’s death in 1955, the Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon where he spent his last years inherited Pandi, his London based holding company, through which Gulbenkian held his famous 5 per cent.

Thanks to the opening of the Kirkuk-banias pipeline (1952) and another line from Basra to Fao on the Persian Gulf,  Pandi’s revenues increased dramatically during the 1950s. Iraq nationalized its oil resources in 1958 and was a founding member of OPEC in 1959, but Gulbenkian’s concessions in Oman and Abu Dhabi secured in 1937 and 1939 remained. Oil was discovered in Abu Dhabi in 1960, and in Oman, Gulbenkian’s 2 per cent of what became the Petroleum Development Oman became extremely profitable.

It was not until 2014 that the onshore Abu Dhabi Gulbenkian-era concessions expired.

In 1938 vast quantities of oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia. During WW2 President Franklin D. Roosevelt took over the financing King Abdul Aziz Ibn Said of Saudi Arabia from the British, and in 1944 Aramco was formed by renaming the Saudi subsidiary of Standard Oil of California (SoCal) and the Bahrain Petroleum Company which held a controlling position.

Vast oil resources were discovered at the Saudi Ghawar on-shore oil field, and in 1951 in the Saudi off-shore Sataniya field, the world’s largest oil field.

The government of Saudi Arabia took over Aramco completely in 1988. Saudi Arabia has the second largest proven crude oil reserves in the world.

The recent Abraham Accords signed between Israel and the UAE (United Arab Emirates) and Bahrain on September 15th, 2020 at the White House in Washington D.C., establishing full diplomatic relations and direct flights between Tel Aviv and Dubai and Abu Dhabi, made the UAE the third country In the Middle East after Jordan and Egypt to normalize ties to Israel.

These accords could well alter the geo-political dynamics of the Middle East in very important ways re-establishing old long forgotten connections which were unraveled in the aftermath of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

Since 1948 Arab uprisings, wars, and foreign interventions, have all racked the region aggravating the old Sunni-Shite conflict and stimulating the ongoing conflict between the Islamic Republic of the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Saudi Arabia of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS).

The Dubai based port operator, DPWorld, has already said it would partner with Shlomi Fogel’s Israeli firm in a bid to take over Haifa Port which is being privatized with the Israelii government selling 100% of the shares in the Haifa Port Authority (HPC).

Haifa is the largest shipping hub in Israel. Shlomi Fogel is the co-owner of Israel Shipyards and of the Port of Eilat at the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea. DPWorld chairman and CEO, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, has said that his objective is “to build trade routes between the UAE, Israel, and beyond, which will help our customers do business in the region more easily and efficiently.”

The UAE has constructed a Abu Dhabi Crude Oil pipeline to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman which circumvents the choke point of Strait of Hormuz.

DPWorld has its eye on a seaborne route between Dubai and Eilat. The UAE is a major producer and exporter of petroleum and natural gas, most of it located onshore within Abu Dhabi. The UAE is the seventh highest total exporter of petroleum and liquified natural gas in the world. Shlomo Fogel has already set up a fund for Gulf States businesspeople to invest in Israeli high-tech companies.

Israel is an importer of petroleum and is dependent on oil for Russia and Kazakhstan which provide over 99% of Israeli consumption.

Israel had planned a new rail air and sea link to Eilat from the Jordan valley with the logistical center planned to be located in the desert to the north of Eilat, though the project was shelved indefinitely in 2019. The Chinese had expressed an interest in the rail route. The use of the port of Eilat has the advantage for Israel in that it avoids dependence on the Suez Canal. In the past, before the recognition of Israel by Egypt, the Egyptians had blocked the straights of Tirana where the gulf of Aqaba reaches the Red Sea hence cutting off access to Eilat.

The Israeli diplomatic opening to the UAE offers enormous commercial opportunities.

In particular it opens up access to the Indian Ocean routes where the UAE has long established relationships. 80% of the oil exported from the Persian Gulf goes to Asian markets: China, Japan, Indian, South Korea and Singapore.  Questions remain about the role of Qatar and about Saudi Arabia. The UAE and Bahrain like the State of Israel all regard Iran as an existential threat.

Qatar, which is the host to the Doha based and Qatari-owned Al Jazeera television network, is involved in a dispute with the UAE (and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt) which accuse it of supporting Islamic extremists and conniving with Iran. Qatar remained quiet on the UAE’s Abraham Accords, however, in talks with Palestinian chief negotiator, Saen Erekat, when he discussed in a phone call “developments on the Palestinian arena” with Qatar’s Foreign Minister, Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman Al-Thani.

Turkey and Qatar have signed a tripartite deal with the Libyan government for military cooperation in the Libyan government’s defense against the forces of Khalkha Haftar. Qatar will provide funding for military training centers and the establishment of a trilateral coordination center and Turkish base in the city of Misrata. Doha has an on-off relationship with Israel and has funded welfare programs in the Gaza Strip with Israel’s acquiescence. In 2019 together with the UN and Egypt, Qatar brokered a Gaza truce. Liquified natural gas (LNG) from Qatar provides more than 30% of the global trade.

Israel had hoped to restart the Gulbenkian era abandoned pipeline from Mosul and Kirkuk in Iraq to Haifa.

This oil pipeline was originally built from the Ottoman vilayet in northern Iraq (Mosul and Kirkuk) and supplied the oil distilleries in Haifa between 1935 and 1948. This deal was brokered by Calouste Gulbenkian, who also assured that the vast oil fields of Mosel and Kirkuk become part of the post-WW1 and post-Ottoman empire Iraq, and not part of Turkey.

A second pipeline branched at Haditha in Jordan (pumping station K3) and took oil on to the coastal port of Tripoli in Lebanon. Originally this pipeline had been constructed to satisfy the demands (and the commercial oil interests) of the French mandate in Lebanon.

The pipeline to Haifa provided the fuel used by the British and American Armed Forces in the Mediterranean during WW2.

Haifa was the last British outpost turned over to the David Ben-Gurion in 1948. This pipeline was discontinued in 1948 when Iraq refused to pump more oil to the new State of Israel. Iraq has long depended on transnational pipelines to export its oil. After the abandonment of the pipeline to Haifa in 1948 a new pipeline was built to Baniyas in Syria and to Tripoli in the Lebanon. In 1977 a large pipeline joined the oil field of Mosul and Kirkuk to the Turkish Mediterranean coast at Ceyhan and Iraq ceased using the Syrian pipeline. In 1985 Iraq constructed a link to the Petrolina line across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea port at Yanbu al Bahr.

All these routes have come problematic since the two Gulf Wars first in Kuwait and then in Iraq. Bagdad has been trying recently to develop gas exports routes again through Syria and Jordan.

The Iranians have also been seeking a route for the export of natural gas from their South Pars field through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to European markets. But the Syrian pipelines have been subject to sabotage.

And the Kurds in both Iraq (and in Syria) sit at an important junction in this scheme.

The Abraham Accords now offer a much better solution.

It may well lead to the reconstruction and reactivation of the 1,213-kilometer Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPLINE) from the main Saudi Arabia oil fields at Abqaiq, which was the southern terminus of TAPLINE, which ran west to Sidon on the Mediterranean coast in Lebanon. The Trans-Arabian Pipeline Company was originally a joint venture between Standard Oil of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil), Standard Oil of California (Chevron), Texas Company (Texaco now part of Chevron) and was managed the US company Bechtel.

The TAPLINE subsequently become fully owned by Aramco. It ceased to operate beyond Jordan in 1976 and the section between Saudi Arabia and Jordan was cut off in 1990 by Saudi Arabia because of Jordanian support for Iraq during the first Gulf War. When constructed it was the largest oil pipeline in the world.  Oil was pumped though the TAPLINE until 20O2. It has been unfit for transporting oil since then. It was estimated in 2005 that it would cost some US$100 to US$300 million to rehabilitate the pipeline.

It has also been estimated that it would save 40% less to pump oil overland compared with the cost of oil shipped by tanker through the Suez Canal. Haifa would be the ideal Mediterranean terminal for Saudi oil. As it had been in the 1930s the ideal terminal for Iraqi oil. And of course, in theory it could become again. And in particular if Saudi Arabia should join the Abraham Accords.

The Abqaiq plant is the biggest Saudi Aramco oil processing and crude stabilization facility. Located in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia it is 25 miles (40 km) west of the Persian Gulf, close to Bahrain. The Abqaiq-Khurgis oilfield is among the biggest in the world. On September 14, 2019, drones attacked Aramco’s oil processing facilities at Abqaiq. The Iran supported Houthi movement in Yemen claimed responsibility.

Saudi Arabia said that the drones and cruise missiles were of Iranian manufacture. The result of the attack was to cut Saudi production by half effecting 5% of global supply. Uzi Rubin, the Israeli air and missile defense expert, said the attack was “a kind of Pearl Harbor”. US analysts concluded the attacks originated in Iran.

The Abraham Accords have significant geo-strategic implications.

Bahrain, where the US Fifth Fleet is based at Manama, provides US Naval Forces coverage of the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and Arabian Sea, and part of the Indian Ocean, and hosts the US Central Command. This is near the key Saudi oil fields. Bahrain is ruled by a Sunni dynasty, but the opposition is led by Shias and there have been clashes in the past.

But it is highly unlikely that Bahrain would have entered the Abraham Accords without Saudi approval.

The US Navy has also expressed concern with Chinese influence in the Haifa port complex.

The Shanghai International Port Group has been interested in the port of Haifa although it has run into the opposition of Israeli longshoremen. The ex-chief of US Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead (USN ret’d), the former Chief of Naval Operations, has warned that Chinese “information and electronic surveillance systems jeopardize US information and cyber security.”

Haifa has regularly hosted American warship including the USS George W. Bush. The Chinese won a 25-year concession for Haifa’s new bay terminal in 2015 and will take over in 2021.

The U.S. has again recently raised concerns about China’s interest in the US$586m Haifa port sale. The UAE’s DPWorld and Shlomo Fogel since the Abraham Accords could be a much more acceptable alternative.

The Russians are of course well established at the Khomeini air base in western Syria’s Latakia Province and have a naval base at Tartus on the Syrian Mediterranean coast and last year Vladimir Putin committed to spend millions of dollars to modernize the port facilities.

Contingencies matter in history.

Benjamin Netanyahu, MBS, Donald Trump (and Jared Kushner) and the sheiks of the UAE and Bahrain, may none of them be “your cup of tea” as the saying goes.

But they have together, potentially at the very least, reset the geo-strategic equation in the Middle East in the most dramatic way since the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948. Calouste Gulbenkian undoubtedly would have appreciated the deal.

The slide show highlights the author’s sketches during a visit to Jerusalem in 1961; the two maps show pipeline routes from the 20th century.

The Trans-Arabian pipeline was originally projected to terminate in Haifa.

 

Also, see the following:

The Abraham Accords: What They Mean and Shaping a Way Ahead

A Look Back at the Remarkable Life of Calouste Gulbenkian

 

Reshaping Combat Architecture and Training: An Evolving Dynamic

10/09/2020

By Robbin Laird

With the shift from the land wars to rebuilding U.S. forces for contested operations with peer competitors, the role of training is changing significantly. There clearly was innovation during the land wars, but the geographical battlespace was well known, and air and maritime power could operate with impunity in support of ground forces, whether for the maneuver force or counter-insurgency forces.

Those skill sets and concepts of operations reshaped U.S. military forces but in so doing created a generation which has not faced adversaries focusing on denying sea and airspace to those U.S. military forces.

As Major James Everett, Head of the Assault Support Department at MAWTS-1 has put it:

“The vast majority of us grew up in a Fleet Marine Force that understood and constantly trained to fight the insurgencies that ripened in these uncertain environments. And we’ve become quite proficient at it. However, over the past fifteen years, threat of another Great Power Competition has grown quietly in the background….

“Now, having been content to watch China’s rise and its concurrent development and maturation of a modern military, we are faced with a force of devastating potential. This problem set is wildly different than anything that we, as planners and operators, have ever faced before.”

So how do you train in such a way that you are able to break old patterns and learn new ones?

Or even more challenging, how do you shape what those new skill sets need to be?

Shaping a transition from the land wars to full spectrum crisis management is a very significant one, but that transition is enabled by the introduction of new platforms, technologies and approaches.

There is much discussion of multi-domain warfare, but what is really happening with the current force, is leveraging new capabilities to allow for force packages or modules to work together in new ways.

And this is built around a number of innovations in the ISR and C2 domains but does not require the entire force to operate as a multi-domain combat capability.

The combat architecture is evolving and being reshaped in operations, and in training.

In fact, training, operations, and development are part of an interactive cycle whereby U.S. military forces are being reshaped in a dynamic and ongoing manner.

During my visit to NAWDC in July 2020, one clear indication of the change could be seen with the focus there on hosting working groups to redesign the tactics, techniques and procedures, with the operators and for the operators.

It is not just about learning the TTPs for the integrated air wing; it is about rethinking, reworking and training the maritime force to work in an integrated, distributed manner, to deliver the desired combat effect.

Put bluntly, this is about force operational redesign driven by the inputs from the fleet planners as well as key military training centers.

What this approach will highlight are the gaps which emerge as integrability is worked and recommendations with regard to acquisition of where best to fill those gaps.

This is an open-ended process, not a closed loop.

During my NAWDC visit, I had a chance to discuss this evolving approach with CDR Jeremy “Shed” Clark, Senior Leader at the Naval Rotary Wing Weapons School (SEAWOLF) at NAWDC, and with CDR Tim Myers, the CO of TOPGUN at NAWDC.

The topic of the working group-led approach to redesign came into the discussion with CDR Clark after we finished our discussion on the Romeos’ ASW mission sets. He argued that they needed to look at where improvements would most benefit the fleet, and then consider the applicable platforms whose upgrades could address those areas most expeditiously and cost effectively.

The goal would be to look for the most advantageous solutions on a particular platform, rather than looking to upgrade the entire force. These solutions could well be provided via changes or upgrades to other (non-aviation) DoD platforms, identifying a need for a holistic approach.

CDR Clark argued that the U.S. Navy’s ASW community pursued something akin to this in the 1980’s and 90’s but moved away from the approach as ASW became of lesser significance. This meant that for the last decade plus, more stove piped views have prevailed.

But NAWDC is leading a new approach. “We have set up a number of working groups to look at the broader mission areas and to rise to the challenge of establishing the larger TTPs for those mission areas.

“For example, we are looking at how we can accomplish defense of the fleet across the joint force, and then identifying any mission gaps we may have. Then the question is how would we close those gaps across our joint force?”

He noted that they are scheduling quarterly working groups, which include the USAF and USMC as well. While COVID-19 has complicated the schedule, the trajectory is clear. “If we are going to do a full maritime strike, what would that look like and who can contribute?” In the first quarter of this year, NAWDC hosted such a working group which lasted for 2 weeks and essentially was focused on functional TTPs vice platform-centric TTPs. This was the first time NAWDC did this.

Such a “training approach” raises key questions about how best to train to fleet-wide TTPs based on joint capabilities. “This will open people’s eyes to optimizing the acquisition process to fill critical needs.”

The first working group was done largely within the Navy weapons schools but with clear intent to broaden the joint participation. In addition, fleet planners are being included as part of the broader effort.  “The approach has been to bound the problem at NAWDC and then take the effort outside for wider fleet and joint force engagement.”

I was able to continue this discussion with the CO of TOPGUN.  He is also the action officer for the working groups.  “We want to shape a process that could deliver a valuable product, rather than just having a set of meetings. We want products that are key parts of the rethinking process.”

Now that they have demonstrated the proof of concept, they are focused on growing the effort. They are framing key questions which allow for interactive working on end-to-end con-ops. Frankly, from my point of view, what is really being discussed is shaping a kill web-enabled force; one in which the area of interest by the assets currently engaged in combat can work together to deliver the kind of combat affects you want to achieve.

For me, a kill web is focused on combat effects, while a kill chain is focused on targeting as its primary outcome. A kill web about creating a foundation to allow strike group commanders to think about how they employ their combat assets in conjunction with relevant joint or coalition assets, rather than just relying on what they organically own.

When we talked, the next working group was scheduled to meet to focus on integrated air defense. According to CDR Myers, who sent an update on that meeting after it concluded:

“The working group included USAF fifth generation pilots, unmanned combat asset operators, suppression of air defense experts, DoD weapons subject matter experts, and Navy undersea warfare and SEAL officers.”

CDR Myers noted: “We have shared the maritime strike concept of operations with the USAF as they are working on how to project power into the maritime domain. A lot of these TTPs translate nicely to USAF operations.”

The teams are working a very different approach to joint operations in the Pacific compared to joint practices used in the Middle East.

Their ultimate vision is to convene quarterly working groups that would focus on developing the right kind of methodology; maritime strike, counter IADS, full-spectrum defense of the fleet, then more classic air interdiction in more permissive environments. The classic Air Wing has lots of capital in this fourth one, but maritime strike, counter IADS and defense of the fleet required a significant rework, applying gap analysis to shape the way ahead.

He added: “The timeline for implementing these tactical changes is aggressive. To accelerate learning, we are providing these new CONOPS to the fleet and asking for feedback. Strike groups are executing our TTPS as a part of their work-up cycles, and we are immediately taking their lessons learned, what worked and what didn’t, and folding them back into the process.”

“Our CONOPS are written generically but can be applied to specific scenarios. We plan to take the counter-IADS product and have the working group apply it to some very specific operational plans. This will serve as an exemplar for the CONOPs, and hopefully provide constructive feedback to the operational planners.”

“Several feedback mechanisms are in play; we receive feedback on our CONOPS from the Fleet, and as a result of our integrated training events; we provide feedback to the fleet operational planners, including asset allocation, missions and target sets, prioritized targeting lists – all of these feedback mechanisms are going through NAWDC.”

“These functions are really not platform-centric and are happening across platforms; some platforms are optimized for specific aspects of the functions which need to be performed, and others for other aspects; and at certain periods of time, in the combat space.”

I would submit this is a very different concept of training than what was inherited from the land wars – one designed to empower the combat force with innovation from within, rather than being designed in a briefing room and enforced by a hierarchical centralized command. In other words, the ops, training, and development cycle is being reworked, and with it the combat force incorporating those changes and driving further change.

As a result, the kind of innovation required for escalation dominance and control is much more likely to be generated.

Featured graphic: Two The F-35 Lightning II and Aegis Weapon System, worked together for the first time during a live fire exercise at White Sands Missile Range on Sept. 12, 2016. The joint Lockheed Martin, (NYSE: LMT) U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps exercise was the first live fire missile event that successfully demonstrated the integration of the F-35 to support Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA).

As harbinger of the future, I wrote this piece in 2011:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012/january/long-reach-aegis

The Long Reach of Aegis

 

Exercise Deepwater 2020: Aerial Assault Support

U.S. Marines with Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron and Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 366 participate in exercise Deep Water 2020 at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, July 29, 2020.

The purpose of this exercise is to increase 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing’s interoperability and readiness on a scale that simulates a peer-level threat. (U.S. Marine Corps Video by Lance Cpl. Gavin T. Umboh)

07.29.2020

Video by Lance Cpl. Gavin Umboh

2nd Marine Aircraft Wing

This was the announcement of the exercise:

Marines with 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, and 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing are conducting Exercise Deep Water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, US. Army Fort A.P. Hill, VA, and Piney Island and Atlantic Field, N.C., 29 July 2020.

II MEF conducts these training events on an annual basis; this year, Exercise Deep Water will see two battalions from the 2nd Marine Regiment conduct an air assault in order to command and control many of the various capabilities organic to II MEF.

Exercise Deep Water 20 is a great opportunity for 2nd Marine Regiment to work with multiple Marine Aircraft Groups, and Combat Logistics Battalion 8, as well. A third battalion will act as the opposing force that will resist and react to the air assault.

This added realism provides a unique “force on force” training opportunity.

Ready Spartan Prove 2020

10/08/2020

The Royal Australian Air Force deployed C-27J Spartan aircraft and personnel from RAAF Base Amberley to participate in Exercise Ready Spartan Prove (RSP) in Townsville Queensland from 10 – 18 September 2020.

No. 35 Squadron and No. 383 Squadron operated at austere airfields in a simulated uncertain security environment to practice operational integration.

This included flying from RAAF Base Townsville and establishing deployed airbase infrastructure at the Benning and Macrossan Airfields, approximately 100km inland.

The exercise tested both Squadron’s abilities to integrate with the battle rhythm, information structure and planning products typical of a combined air operation.

According to an article published by Australian Defence Business Review on September 24, 2020:

The RAAF’s C-27J Spartan battlefield airlifter capability has recently been put to the test in an exercise as it seeks to recover from a period of low aircraft availability and missed project milestones.

Exercise Ready Spartan Prove (RSP) was conducted from September 10-18. 35SQN deployed to RAAF base Townsville in Queensland and conducted operations at austere inland airstrips to test the unit’s ability to integrate with the battle rhythm, information structure, and planning products typical of a joint operation.

The exercise saw 35SQN operate on what was basically an operational footing, including aircrews wearing body armour, carrying sidearms, and performing realistic pre-mission tactics briefings. It also worked closely with Townsville’s contingency response unit, 383SQN, which provided ‘adversary’ support to exercise the aircrews’ search, evade, resist, and escape (SERE) training through a series of drills.

“The C-27J is well known for its humanitarian aid and disaster relief efforts,” 35SQN B-Flight commander, SQNLDR Justin Della Bosca said in an ADF news release. “RSP is a ‘home-grown’ exercise, planned by 35SQN members with 383SQN to demonstrate that the aircraft, aircrew and support teams are prepared to respond to the full spectrum of government-directed tasks in future.

“The key training objectives for this exercise include testing agile basing operations and C-27J operations in uncertain security environments,” he added. “This week we have seen self-protection countermeasures loaded into the C-27J by 35SQN’s maintenance teams and their subsequent use in the air, the carriage of a G-Wagen and combat offloads conducted to prove deploy ability, and improve interoperability between expeditionary combat support and tactical air mobility elements.”

The exercise is also being used to exercise the C-27J’s immature sustainment system which continues to fall short of providing budgeted aircraft availability.

The C-27J was placed on the government’s projects of interest watchlist – formerly the projects of concern list – in May 2020 after failing to meet key performance, availability, and project schedule milestones.

“At that time, further effort was required to deliver the electronic warfare self-protection (EWSP) system upgrades, a military type certificate (MTC) and to address long lead time spares delivery,” a Defence spokesperson told ADBR in a September 24 response to written questions. “A Military Type Certificate was subsequently issued in June 2020 (and) sustainment to the C-27J is maturing and showing signs of improvement.”

The aircraft’s capability steward Northrop Grumman Australia and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Leonardo have reportedly had difficulty sourcing line-item spares for the aircraft and in developing a baseline configuration, meaning many of the aircraft have been unavailable while waiting for spares to be delivered or components repaired.

“C-27J availability – that is, aircraft not undergoing planned deeper maintenance – is currently below required targets,” the spokesperson said. “There has been an increased focus on the planning of scheduled servicing and modifications to the aircraft in order to optimise the aircraft availability. Further efficiencies have been achieved through initiatives in the management of maintenance resources. Additionally, there has been an increased emphasis in sourcing Australian industry support to reduce the turn-around times of unserviceable parts. 

Defence has been working with industry and the OEM to improve spares availability in support of the aircraft,” they added. “The greatest impact will likely be achieved through refinement of the maintenance policy, which is currently being reviewed by Defence experts.

The RAAF expects aircraft configuration and availability to improve once all of the 10-strong fleet have undergone their first major service. “Defence has not as yet carried out all the applicable major servicing,” the spokesperson said.

“As these are conducted, Defence learns more about what is required in the support system, and is able to appropriately address any deficiencies as they occur. This in turn matures the sustainment system as we learn more about the aircraft. Concurrently, Defence and industry have implemented a number of initiatives to improve the sustainment system.”

The spokesperson noted that, “The strategic environment has changed significantly since project approval,” and that, “in the context of the 2020 Force Structure Plan, Defence is reviewing the role of the C-27J into the future…[which] will provide clarity on what capabilities need to be achieved for FOC, and subsequently when FOC could be declared.”

This is a not insignificant statement, perhaps hinting that additional capabilities not originally envisaged when the C-27J was selected for Project AIR 8000 Phase 2 in 2012 – such as secure datalink/SATCOM communications or additional sensors or EWSP capabilities such as those fitted to the RAAF’s C-130Js – will be added in order for the C-27J to achieve FOC.