Memorial Day, May 25, 2020: A Turkish Colleague’s Perspective

05/25/2020

All over the world, at different tough geographies, there are immortal signatures of U.S. soldiers and their friends to let the democracy, human rights, and justice become sovereign over the countries and the people.

This is the day we all remember of those ones as President Reagan said ” Heroes may not be braver than anyone else.

“They’re just braver 5 minutes longer.”

Our colleague added the memorial message carved into a stone found at the site of the battle of Gallipoli.

Those heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives!

You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.

Therefore rest in peace.

There is no difference between the Johnnies and Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country to of ours.

You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace.

After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.”

Gallipoli, Mustapha Kemal Atatürk, 1934.

C-2A Operating With USS Abraham Lincoln

ATLANTIC OCEAN (April 9, 2019) C-2A Greyhound aircraft from the “Rawhides” of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 40 conduct their first flight operations from aboard USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in sixth fleet.

Abraham Lincoln is underway as part of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group (CSG) deployment in support of maritime security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th, 6th, and 7th fleet areas of operation.

With Abraham Lincoln as the flagship, deployed strike group assets include staffs, ships and aircraft of Carrier Strike Group 12 (CSG 12), Destroyer Squadron 2 (DESRON 2), USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) and Carrier Air Wing 7 (CVW 7); as well as Alvaro de Bazan-class Frigate ESPS Mendez Nunez (F 104).

(U.S. Navy video by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jeff Sherman/Released)

Laser Kill for the Maritime Kill Web

05/24/2020

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii

Amphibious transport dock ship USS Portland (LPD 27) successfully disabled an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with a Solid State Laser – Technology Maturation Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) MK 2 MOD 0 on May 16. 

LWSD is a high-energy laser weapon system demonstrator developed by the Office of Naval Research and installed on Portland for an at-sea demonstration. LWSD’s operational employment on a Pacific Fleet ship is the first system-level implementation of a high-energy class solid-state laser. The laser system was developed by Northrup Grumman, with full System and Ship Integration and Testing led by NSWC Dahlgren and Port Hueneme. 

“By conducting advanced at sea tests against UAVs and small crafts, we will gain valuable information on the capabilities of the Solid State Laser Weapons System Demonstrator against potential threats,” said Capt. Karrey Sanders, commanding officer of Portland.

The U.S. Navy has been developing directed-energy weapons (DEWs), to include lasers, since the 1960s. DEWs are defined as electromagnetic systems capable of converting chemical or electrical energy to radiated energy and focusing it on a target, resulting in physical damage that degrades, neutralizes, defeats, or destroys an adversarial capability.

Navy ships face an increasing number of threats in conducting their missions, including UAVs, armed small boats, and adversary intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems. The Navy’s development of DEWs like the LWSD, provide immediate warfighter benefits and provide the commander increased decision space and response options.

“The Solid State Laser Weapons System Demonstrator is a unique capability the Portland gets to test and operate for the Navy, while paving the way for future weapons systems, “ said Sanders. “With this new advanced capability, we are redefining war at sea for the Navy.”

Portland is the 11th San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship. While it is the third ship to bear the name ‘USS Portland,’ it is the first ship to be named solely after the largest city in Oregon.

The video was released on May 16, 2020 and is credited to Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet

Directed energy weapons will become a key part of the maritime kill web over the next few years, as the US Navy their approach to dynamic targeting in the air-maritime domain. 

The new carriers, the USS Queen Elizabeth and the USS Gerald Ford, have significant power generation capabilities, in part, to enable a directed energy weapons future.

 

Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Clark, Royal New Zealand Air Force, Air Power in the Indo-Pacific Region

Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Clark of the Royal New Zealand Air Force spoke recently to the virtual RAAF Airpower Conference on the Indo-Pacific Region. Originally, the conference was to be held in March 2020, but was postponed due to COVID-19.

But the RAAF’s Airpower Development Centre has moved ahead with a virtual conference, consisting of the core presentations which would have been given in person.

In his presentation, Air Vice-marshal Clark focuses on why pulling up the drawbridge which has been done to hold COVID-19 at bay is not the way ahead for New Zealand in the South Pacific region.

This is a maritime region, with vast distances and many small nations.

He argued that geography is an important definer for New Zealand security but that geography is being altered by forces which are not limited by geography, such as cyber and space.

He argues that the New Zealand neighborhood had many “disrupters” in play reshaping the security environment, such as climate change.

He explained that New Zealand worked a wide variety of partnerships but was fully committed to supporting a rules based order in the region.

He noted that New Zealand needed to enhance its situational awareness and reach in the region, which is leading to acquisitions in the maritime awareness and lift domains.

These priorities were highlighted in the 2019 defence capability plan for New Zealand.

Defence-Capability-Plan-2019

He argued for a broader view of the “gray zone” which is the area within which New Zealand operates its forces and its relationships going forward.

His presentation can be viewed below:

Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Clark

Air Vice-Marshal Clark joined the Royal New Zealand Air Force in 1986 as a Navigator. During his flying career he has had four operational tours on P-3 Orion aircraft, as well as a tour as an instructor with the Royal Australian Air Force. His flying career has included command of an operational mission in the Middle East, and culminated with a tour as Commanding Officer of No. 5 Squadron.

Throughout his career Air Vice-Marshal Clark has held a variety of operational and strategic level staff positions. In recent years these positions have included Assistant Chief of Air Force – Strategy Management, Director of Strategic Commitments, Director of Defence Intelligence, Deputy Chief of Air Force, Assistant Chief Capability and Air Component Commander.  In addition, he has served as the New Zealand Defence Adviser to India.

Air Vice-Marshal Clark completed Staff College in Australia. He has a Masters degree in Management (Defence Studies) from the University of Canberra and a Graduate Diploma in Defence Studies from the University of New South Wales.

Air Vice-Marshal Clark was appointed Chief of Air Force in September 2018.

Blue Water and Blue Skies: Working Air-Maritime Integration

05/22/2020

It is clear that when either looking at the North Atlantic or the Pacific theater of operations, neither the USAF nor the USN are in a position to dominate as stove-piped services or without integrated operations with core allies.

In building out the integrated distributed force, a core challenge facing the sea and air services is how to work more effectively together, how to leverage interactive kill webs to make the right decisions at the right time to deliver the right outcome.

Discussions with the cutting edge war-fighting centers in the United States have made it clear that that this is a core priority for the sea and air services, but that it is also a work in progress.

Last Fall, the head of the RAF made a presentation at the Mitchell Institute which focused on RAF and USAF collaboration.

And this month a Forum publication was released which drew from that presentation.

The summary to the Forum piece highlighted the core points:

Based on an address he delivered during a ‘Mitchell Hour’ on October 11, 2019, Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Mike Wigston gives his appraisal of the current and future state of the RAF-USAF bilateral relationship.

After setting out the changing geostrategic context which is challenging the post-1945 rules-based international order, ACM Wigston provides his analysis of the growing state-based threats across all domains that are stalking the U.S., U.K. and their allies.

He goes on to demonstrate the enduring closeness of the two air forces’ relationship and why, in an emerging era in which multi-domain operations and information advantage will be decisive, the USAF and RAF need to redouble their partnering efforts.

He argues that ‘control of the air’ – and, increasingly, space – remains the foremost responsibility of air forces, but the U.S. and U.K. edge has been eroded in recent decades as competitor states have advanced their own capabilities.

ACM Wigston identifies the F-35 program as a vital vehicle through which to promote the collaborative ideals stated in the USAF- RAF Shared Vision Statement – not least through the close location of the RAF’s and USAFE’s F-35 bases in England – but that advancements in information exchange, logistics systems, and C2 systems are even more important.

The renaissance of the U.K.’s carrier strike capability will provide further collaborative opportunities, not least through the embarkation of USMC F-35Bs on U.K. aircraft carriers.

The intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) sphere provides evidence of excellent and efficient collaboration between the USAF and RAF, not least through the RC-135 Rivet Joint and MQ-9 Reaper programs. The RAF has also developed strong links with the U.S. Navy, which has paid dividends in the restoration of the RAF’s maritime patrol capability.

The RAF air chief noted later in the piece the core point about integratability:

But integration goes much further than simply being able to operate in the same piece of sky or from the same carrier deck. The real challenge is ensuring that our information systems, data links, tactics, and logistical systems are all aligned.

We have driven forward 4th and 5th generation integration through the ‘Point Blank’ series of exercises that involve RAF F-35s and Typhoons, and USAF F-15s and F-35s.

Back in July, our F-35s exercised with B-2 Spirit bombers during their deployment to RAF Fairford in England – the first international fifth-generation training of its kind. We have hot-pitted and cross-serviced visiting F-35 fighter squadrons, just like the old AMPLE GAIN exercises we conducted as NATO partners in Germany before the end of the Cold War.

Our ambition doesn’t stop there. The ability to share data and forge deeper interoperability across datalink networks has to reach the point where U.S. and

U.K. F-35s are interchangeable in a four- ship formation, where our synthetic environments are fully connected to allow relevant collective training, and where follow-on operational test and evaluation is optimized….

What can be missed is the maritime services part of all of this.

First, the RAF and the Royal Navy are operating their F-35Bs (a Marine Corps variant) as an integrated force.

Second, the RAF is shaping a core part of their extended battle space efforts around the contribution of the UK’s large deck carrier.

Third, a significant targeting contribution to the 4th Battle of the Atlantic will be delivered by the RAF in its role within the allied maritime domain enterprise, and those targets are both for air and maritime operations.

And when discussing the kill web, it is not about the service insignia on the asset, it is about the ability to craft an interactive and integrated sensor shooter enterprise.

USAF and RAF Integration.

The featured photo shows an F-35B on HMS Queen Elizabeth for First of Class Flight Trials (Fixed Wing) on Oct. 10, 2018.

For an interview in 2014 with an airman involved in the UK’s airpower transition which highlights the cross-learning between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, see the following:

The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force Prepare for Cross-Domain Transformation: The F-35 and the Queen Elizabeth Carrier

And in a 2016 Williams Foundation Seminar, the evolution of air-sea integration with the emergence of a fifth generation force was the focus of analysis:

 

 

CV-22 Onboard San-Antonio Class Amphib

GULF OF THAILAND (March 4, 2020)

A CV-22 Osprey assigned to Air Force 21st Special Operations Squadron conducts flight operations aboard San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS Green Bay (LPD 20) in support of Exercise Cobra Gold 2020, March 4, 2020.

America Expeditionary Strike Group-31st Marine Expeditionary Unit is participating in Cobra Gold 20, the largest theater security cooperation exercise in the Indo-Pacific region and an integral part of the U.S. commitment to strengthen engagement in the region.

(U.S. Navy video by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Maria G. Llanos)

Training for Force Integration: The Perspective from the Air Warfare Center, Nellis AFB

05/21/2020

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

We visited the USAF Warfare Center in 2015, when Major General Jay Silveria, was the commanding officer. A visit last month was postponed due to the COVID-19 impacts, but, hopefully, we can return later this year.

But we did have the opportunity to have a round table via teleconference on May 12, 2020 with the following officers: Colonel Jack Arthaud, Commandant of the USAF Weapons School (USAFWS), Lt. Col. Ethan Sabin, Commander of the 6th Weapons Squadron, and Lt. Col. James Combs, Commander of the 8th Weapons Squadron, Major Peter Mattes, Director of Operations, 19th Weapons Squadron.

We started by asking Col. Arthaud how the training approach being pursued currently differed from his earlier experiences.

“In a word, I would say integration. Clearly, what has evolved is a much more challenging and complex air warfare environment.  We have shifted from a primary focus on training to execute de-conflicted operations or parallel operations, to higher levels of teaming, higher levels of group coherency and integration, because that’s what the threat demands.

“When I was a student in 2006, the 22-week course spent 20 and half weeks on individual weapon systems expertise with the remainder on collaboration. Our way of war then was focused on de-conflicted air warfare or sequential air operations, As an F-15C operator we would focus on doing our air sweep and then there would be follow up strike packages and then a wide variety of support assets in the air operation.

“We were not an integrated weapons school but we added a number of elements, such as the Mobility Weapons School, and a full complement of air, space, cyber and special operations platforms, all resident in the Weapons School today which facilitate training for integrated force packaging.

“And with the shift to deepen integration, our integration phase of training is now six of the 22 weeks versus to the week and a half I went through as a student 15 years ago.

“With this has come a shift in the skill-sets we prioritize and develop. What it means to be credible has changed over the last 15 years.

“At that time, being credible really meant being the best fighter pilot in your aircraft or being the best tactical C2 controller, as examples. And now what we’ve seen is that there’s a need for leadership of the integrated force.

“There’s an increased need for critical thinking and problem solving. There’s a need to understand the capabilities of your platform in depth —   not only so you can optimize the employment of your own platform, but so you can understand how best to combine your platform with others, to best to accomplish the functions and tasks that are necessary to solve the tactical problems facing the integrated force.”

The Colonel provided a very clear differentiation between then and now, and in the discussion which followed we discussed a number of key aspects of the approach being shaped now in close interaction with the other warfare centers which are operating in relative close proximity, namely, USN NAWDC, and the USMC MAWTS-1.

In fact, officers are embedded from each of these centers within each other’s centers as well.

What we will do for the rest of this article is to highlight some key takeaways from the discussion, with some extrapolations from those takeaways along the way as well,

The first takeaway is that clearly the services are working dynamic problem-solving approaches.

They are dealing with evolving adversary capabilities and approaches, and the services clearly are not assuming that they “know” in advance what will be experienced the battlespace.

The warfighting centers are cross-learning with regard to anticipated threats, tactics and challenges rather than coming up with single service solution sets.

A very different training regimen is required for force integration to shape a force designed almost on the fly to operate against an evolving threat environment.

At Nellis, they are focusing on effects-based training where the focus is upon problem solving to achieve a specific effect required for specific tactical operational settings.

As one officer put it: “We’re trying to train our weapons officers, our instructors, and our operational Air Force officers to be able to adapt effectively in a period of uncertainty or in a fight with more uncertain terms.

“I think that we need to be prepared for some technological surprises that might occur and we need to train to that reality.”

The officer added: “We don’t know for sure exactly what we might see, but let’s go ahead and make some reasonable guesses about what a difficult task or problem might be, and then let’s allow our instructors and our students to innovate and try to go solve that forward-looking tactical problem.”

The second takeaway is that the USAF is clearly leveraging what fifth generation capabilities can provide for the joint force.

During our 2015 visit, the first F-35 for the Weapons School had just arrived and Major General Silveria had recently become the first USAF general officer to complete qualification training in the F-35.

Now with the three services each operating the jet, they are working the significant integration opportunities which flying the same aircraft provides across the force, but remembering that the USAF has forty years of experience in flying low observable aircraft, a legacy experience which provides certainly a leg up on global adversaries, if leveraged properly in the training and operational arenas.

The third takeaway is clearly that the team is thinking in kill web terms, or in terms of an integrated, distributed force. 

They are working closely with the US Navy in terms of shaping how distributed maritime operations can come together most effectively with the USAF’s evolving airpower distributed operations capabilities as well.

And with the USMC able to shape a very flexible mobile basing capability on the kill web chessboard, shaping ways to maximize the capabilities the individual services bring to the fight but to do so through interactive sensor webs to shape effective distributed strike is an evolving focus for force integration.

And for distributed operations to work effectively, one of the challenges is finding ways to enhance C2 capabilities at the tactical edge and resident in mobile bases to support the overall integrated force.

The fourth takeaway is that the objective is clearly to have greater capability to operate through what is be labelled the advanced battle management system.

But in many ways, the force is already doing so through the capabilities already fielded and being shaped on the training ranges. One officer referred to ABMS as the available battle management systems which is a good way to differentiate between the training for the fight, we are in now versus a world in 2030.

“The best way I would characterize how C2 has changed in the last decade is less vertical orientation and more horizontal feeders out there in order to create our own web of information sharing with what I term the current ABMS, which is the available battle management system.”

The fifth takeaway is how training for distributed integrated operations is yielding innovative ways to operate which have strategic consequences.

Too often it is assumed inside the beltway that operations and tactics are on a level distinctly different from the strategic level, thereby easily missing the kinds of innovations going on at Nellis and its sister warfighting training centers.

The kind of kill web integration which is being shaped now and with the addition of new capabilities in the near and midterm has a strategic consequence.

For example, the challenges China presents to the United States and our allies in the Pacific requires that air and maritime domains partner well.

Working to shape how to partner effectively at the tactical level in a kill web approach allows the United States and its Allies to keep the Chinese off balance and not allow them to prepare for a one attack vector.

They have to be prepared for a much wider variety of potential dilemmas that we could throw at them.

For example, the US Navy and USAF are working closely together in the electronic warfare domain. The approach is to leverage the relevant platforms to provide for a variety of capabilities which can be used to degrade the enemy’s C2 or air defenses.

Training to integrate the platforms to achieve a wider range of attack envelopes to complicate the adversary’s calculations is tactical training with a strategic impact.

And this area is clearly a growth area given the enhanced importance of digital systems to the combat force, both Blue and Red.

The sixth takeaway which is clearly kill web related is the significant change over the past decade with regard not just to sensors but the ability to move sensor data around more rapidly in the battlespace to allow for more effective decision making at the tactical edge.

Obviously, this is a key driver changing both the capabilities to integrate platforms, but also how to command task forces operating in integrated rather than sequential manner.

The shift from hierarchical C2 to empowering tactical decision making at the edge is clearly a significant part of the change as well for the training world.

How best to empower rapid decision making at the tactical edge but ensure more effective strategic decision making with regard to how to manage the battle, and how to best determine which targets are prioritized?

Notably, in the Pacific there are three nuclear powers.

Nuclear deterrence is woven throughout any considerations of conventional operations, so there is a clear need to add a strategic overlay of the battlespace, which considers potential consequences and focuses on making the right target decisions in a fluid battlespace.

In short, what we heard from the USAF officers was, not surprisingly, highly congruent from what was learned from discussions at Norfolk, Virginia earlier this year in a discuss with three senior admirals with regard to the shift in training.

“The synergy across the training enterprise is at the heart of being able to deliver the integrated distributed force as a core warfighting capability to deal with evolving 21st century threats.

“There are a number of key drivers of change as well which we discussed.

“One key driver is the evolution of technology to allow for better capabilities to make decisions at the tactical edge.

“A second is the challenge of speed, or the need to operate effectively in a combat environment in which combat speed is a key aspect, as opposed to slo mo war evidenced in the land wars.

“How to shape con-ops that master C2 at the tactical edge, and rapid decision making in a fluid but high-speed combat environment?

“In a way, what we were discussing is a shift from training preparing for the next fight with relatively high confidence that the next one was symmetric with what we know to be a shift to proactive training.

“How to shape the skill sets for the fight which is evolving in terms of technologies and concepts of operations for both Red and Blue?