In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
Washington DC. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh visited the Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana and Naval Station Norfolk on December 17.
The visit highlighted the depth of the US-India defence partnership and the close ties between the Navies of the two countries.
During the visit to NAS Oceana, he inspected a Boeing Mobile Flight Simulator, static display and F/A-18E flight demonstration. The Indian delegation also toured the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), which is located at Naval Station Norfolk.
Mr Rajnath Singh was accompanied by Indian Ambassador Harsh Vardhan Shringla, Defence Secretary Dr Ajay Kumar, other senior officials of the Government of India and active-duty military officers including those located in Washington.
Washington DC. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh visited the Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana and Naval Station Norfolk on December 17.
The visit highlighted the depth of the US-India defence partnership and the close ties between the Navies of the two countries.
During the visit to NAS Oceana, he inspected a Boeing Mobile Flight Simulator, static display and F/A-18E flight demonstration. The Indian delegation also toured the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), which is located at Naval Station Norfolk.
Mr Rajnath Singh was accompanied by Indian Ambassador Harsh Vardhan Shringla, Defence Secretary Dr Ajay Kumar, other senior officials of the Government of India and active-duty military officers including those located in Washington.
The US officials echoed his sentiments, saying they were honoured to host Mr Rajnath Singh and the Indian delegation to Naval Air Station Oceana and onboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, adding that the visit will further bolster the partnerships between the two countries.
Notably, India and the United States are continuing to build defence ties through military exercises, defence trade and official visits and exchanges. Oceana in Virginia is one of the biggest naval air stations in the world, and has the most sophisticated and advanced systems for ships, aircraft, weapons and missile defence.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh visiting the Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana in Virginia, United States on Tuesday, December 17. Also seen are Ambassador of India to US, Mr Harsh Vardhan Shringla, Defence Secretary Dr Ajay Kumar and Secretary (Defence Production) Mr Subhash Chandra
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh onboard Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69)at the Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, United States
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inspectingthe Boeing Mobile Flight Simulator at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana
On 24 October 2019, the Sir Richard Williams Foundation held a seminar examining the requirements of Fifth Generation Maneuver Operations.
The aim of the seminar, building on previous seminars was to examine the differences and potential gaps in how the Australian Defence Force (ADF) must equip and organise for multi-domain operations.
During the seminar, The Central Blue interviewed several speakers to gain greater insight into senior leadership thoughts on the topic. The following is a quick summary of those interviews.
Brigadier Langford has held a range of command and staff appointments in the Army and Special Forces during his career and is currently Acting Head Land Capability. Brigadier Langford is a Distinguished Graduate of the United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College and the School of Advanced Warfighting. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Management, a Master of Arts, a Master of Defence Studies and a Master of Strategic Studies. He has been published in multiple service journals and as an independent author and is currently undertaking PhD studies.
What is 5th Gen manoeuvre?
It is a philosophical construct.
It is about a way of thinking, not about technology.
It is a way of codifying and understanding the world and being able to anticipate change.
Why is it different from what has come before?
It is different because of the changing character of war and the pace at which change is occurring.
Things are occurring quicker.
In the current context, there will be some degrees of change with the volume of data over the next five to seven years.
If we accept that we need to change the way in which we fight, how do we identify and test ideas that will work and those that won’t?
This can be achieved through the aggressive use of experimentation in training environments.
By the plausible future developments of concepts to future proof ourselves.
By pulling the future towards us and by embracing what is about to happen.
Who will be best placed to command a force that will be required to orchestrate new ways of fighting characterised by increased tempo and new ways and means of projecting power?
The person who is viewing the operational level of war is best placed to command a force and orchestrate operations.
Big data is leading to compression of decisions for tactics and operations.
This new paradigm can enable the digitising of networks to conduct targeting operations.
And how do we identify and train them to fight with adaptability and agility?
This can be achieved through classical training and rhetoric akin to the Prussians.
Studying natural history and humanities as they matter for the fact that they reflect the human experience.
How do we engage the workforce to not only think about this problem set but also encourage them to speak and shape the battlespace?
Brigadier Langford’s presentation is available here, on the Williams Foundation webpage.
Air Commodore Phil Gordon, Commander Air Warfare Centre, Royal Australian Air Force
Air Commodore Gordon joined the RAAF in 1987 has an extensive background flying fast jets. Air Commodore Gordon has commanded Air Task Group 630 from July 2016 to February 2017 and was subsequently appointed of Director General Air Command Operations in Headquarters Air Command, and Director General Air in Headquarters Joint Operations Command. On 30th November 2018, Air Commodore Gordon commenced his current appointment as Commander Air Warfare Centre.
The ability of our forces to dynamically adapt and respond in a contested environment to achieve the desired effect through multiple redundant paths.
Remove one vector of attack, and we rapidly manoeuvre to bring other capabilities to bear through agile control.
Why is it different from what has come before?
It is an evolution, not a revolution.
We are reaching a tipping point, changing from an uncontested C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) leading to centralised control.
This construct is not ready for contested space.
If we accept that we need to change the way in which we fight, how do we identify and test ideas that will work and those that won’t?
This can be achieved by a deliberate plan to train and experiment in degraded environments and free from assumptions.
This can include different forms of command and control.
Namely, learning through doing.
Who will be best placed to command a force that will be required to orchestrate new ways of fighting characterised by increased tempo and new ways and means of projecting power?
Commander, Joint Operations, is the right person to command and the use of Joint Task Force commanders is correct and valid.
There is a difference between command and control.
Control depends on the environment and the person with the best SA that can enact the Commanders’ intent.
And how do we identify and train them to fight with adaptability and agility?
By implementing more sophisticated ways to anticipate the Commander’s intent.
Train and develop by exercising and experimenting when the comms is broken/degraded.
There is a lower risk profile when everything is working.
Graceful degradation whereby 1st, 2nd, 3rd tier within the CoC cleared to execute mission.
This may include acceptance of higher levels of risk to get the job done.
How do we engage the workforce to not only think about this problem set but also encourage them to speak and shape the battlespace?
Through attending courses delivered by the Air Warfare Centre and advanced air warfare courses.
I am not sure about professional military education and training.
Air Commodore Leon Phillips, Chief Information Officer Group, Department of Defence
As an engineer and project manager, Air Commodore Phillips has over 30 years of experience in the RAAF, predominantly delivering highly complex aerospace projects and managing their in-service support. He is currently Director General Business Relationship Management within the Chief Information Officer Group, helping to connect Defence Groups and Services with ICT solutions.
What is 5th Gen manoeuvre?
5th Generation manoeuvre is distributed sensors, a fusion of information and quick decisions for effect.
Technological improvements will compress our decision-making time and potentially paralyse us with choice.
The threat from ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missiles will challenge any single weapon system to respond as will the proliferation of unmanned technologies.
Shorter response times and the need to prioritise response options is driving the need for greater information sharing and greater system co-ordination.
For us to be effective we need to ensure our systems are well connected, through robust, multi-pathed networks and that we are capable of operations despite degraded networks.
Why is it different from what has come before?
There is a need for more integration, and it is not platform-centric.
If we accept that we need to change the way in which we fight, how do we identify and test ideas that will work and those that won’t?
Exercising decision making.
Time to think and practice in exercising command in grey zone degradation.
Understanding and experiencing complexities of choice in the grey zone.
Who will be best placed to command a force that will be required to orchestrate new ways of fighting characterised by increased tempo and new ways and means of projecting power?
Those who best understand the source and exploit it. In this context, is the traditional framework the correct way to operate into the future?
Moreover, how do we identify and train them to fight with adaptability and agility?
How do we engage the workforce to not only think about this problem set but also encourage them to speak and shape the battlespace?
Editor’s Note: We have generated an F-35 micro site during the standup of F-35 1.0.
We are now launching a follow-on micro site, built around the concept of the building, shaping, procuring, and operating of the integrated distributed force, the new approach of the liberal democracies to building a full spectrum crisis management force.
The build out of what we have called F-35 2.0 is a key part of shaping the integrated distributed force, but clearly not the sole driver of this next generation capability.
In effect, the discussion of fifth generation has been a bit limiting and the innovations within fifth generation have been hidden in plain view for many analysts and policy makers.
A broader concept is needed to capture the macro changes in concepts of operations to deal with full spectrum crisis management.
The Australians refer to to the shift to fifth generation warfare, but their approach is, in effect, the building and operating of an integrated distributed force.
We will be looking at the platforms, the connectors, the enablers, and the competitive concept of transformation among the liberal democracies about how to build out and operate such a force.
We will formally launch the micro site on January 15, 2020.
Col. Frank Latt experiences the Shop Equipment Contact Maintenance Vehicle with Marine Air Control Squadron 2, Charlie Detachment at Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field Bogue, North Carolina, October 18, 2019.
Latt experienced new equipment during his “Winging it with the AWC” series.
Latt is the assistant wing commander of 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW).
MARINE CORPS AUXILIARY LANDING FIELD BOGUE, NC, UNITED STATES
With the transformation of Marine Corps Aviation, the older notion of the ARG-MEU is being replaced by a much more flexible concept of the amphibious task force.
And with the central importance of dealing with full spectrum crisis management, the capabilities resident in the task force as well as its enhanced capabilities to reachback to capabilities not organic to the task force is changing the concept of operations as well.
With the coming of the Osprey, the tyranny of helicopter range was broken, which allowed for the expansion of the core ARG-MEU to be able to cover a much wider range of operations.
With the addition of the F-35B to the force, and the building of a new class of large amphibious ships, the combing of Ospreys with F-35Bs has allowed the emergence of a new ampbhious based assault carrier concept.
By committing Marine Corps Aviation to shaping a digital interoperability capability, and with the coming of the CNI enabled F-35, the amphibious task force can add other new capabilities to extend its operational approach and envelope.
And enhanced capabilities to move data throughout the force to enable its capabilities to operate as an integrated distributed force means that the amphibious task force can be tailored to the threat and leverage reachback assets to the wider Navy fleet or Air Force assets as well.
Envisaged more than a decade ago, the Lightning Carrier concept is becoming a reality.
In an article by Megan Eckstein published by USNI News on October 23, 2019, the test of concept was highlighted.
The Navy and Marine Corps recently tested out the “Lightning Carrier” concept of packing an amphibious assault ship with F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter jets, and they will likely continue to expand and exercise this capability.
On Oct. 8, USS America (LHA-8) was photographed with 13 F-35Bs from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 122 on its deck. America is one of two aviation-centric amphibious assault ships in the fleet, eliminating a well deck from its design and instead using that vast space for aviation maintenance areas, greater jet fuel storage and more.
Knowing that America and sister ship Tripoli (LHA-7) would have the capability to support so many F-35Bs, the services have long talked about the Lightning Carrier concept as a capability that would be useful in a high-end fight.
The jets’ stealth, ability to collect and distribute vast data and strike targets would make them ideal for the opening of a fight: they could come off a ship at sea and take out enemy defenses with jamming and missiles, collect information and share it with the rest of the fleet at sea and Marines on the ground or heading ashore.
Still, though the jets routinely operate on the forward-deployed big-deck in Japan and have conducted a deployment from the U.S.-based Essex Amphibious Ready Group, operating so many at once is much different than previous operations with about six jets onboard and supplemented by tiltrotors and helicopters.
With the ampphibious task force concept, the Marines and the Navy can rethink what constitute the platforms which can become part of the task force going forward as well.
During a National Defense Industrial Association’s annual Expeditionary Warfare Conference held last October, several panels and speakers addressed the idea of what comes next for the mix of ships in the amphibious fleet.
Megan Eckstein in her article published on October 29, 2019 reported on some of those discussions.
Under a “think exercise” explained by Congressional Budget Office senior analyst for naval weapons and forces Eric Labs, some LPD funding would be diverted to pay for the alternate ship. Labs made clear this was not a recommendation but rather an exercise to show what other kinds of fleets could be bought for the same money.
Under the long-range shipbuilding plan today, the Navy over the next 30 years would buy eight America-class LHAs and 20 San Antonio-class LPDs, which gives it a force of 37 ships in 2040 and just 35 in 2049. This current plan comes with a $75 billion price tag.
Under a new plan that diverts some LPD funding and invests in ships that cost $600 million to $700 million apiece, that same $75 billion could instead buy the eight LHAs and 60 to 70 alternate ships. That would create a force of 57 to 61 ships in 2040 and 83 to 93 ships by 2049.
Labs said the $600 million figure is more than an Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) and more than an LCS but less than an amphib. What that alternate ship looks like is unclear, but it could be a modified EPF with greater range, it could be a Landing Ship, Tank (LST) connector that is modified to support other missions beyond tank transport ashore, or it could be a commercial ship modified to support the movement of Marines from ship to shore and island to island.
Other speakers during the conference kicked around other ideas; John Berry, the director of the concepts branch at the Marine Corps’ Combat Development and Integration directorate, suggested something akin to an Australian stern landing ship or a Danish Absalon-class support ship.
While many speakers focused on this new alternate amphib ship, one was highly focused on how to modernize or adjust today’s LPDs and LHAs to better support operations. Rear Adm. Cedric Pringle, who until recently commanded Expeditionary Strike Group 3 and now serves as the commandant of the National War College, is focused on how today’s ships can be better optimized for the fight he sees coming.
For example, Pringle said during the conference, “how do we actually get the LPD-17-class ship to give fuel to some of the smaller ships that are operating in the littorals? So right now the LCS, the Mk-6, all of the EPFs, as well as a lot of other assets that are being developed at speed; we have a lot of great assets that are coming online – the expeditionary staging base, the expeditionary staging dock – all of those assets will operate in the same battle space as our amphibious ships, who are already there, who are already delivering Marines to the mission set, who are already providing that command and control,” he described.
“Why not have that integrated command and control? Why not figure out how to have the ships integrated, so that when the smaller ships need a drink of gas, so to speak, they don’t have to go to the big-deck amphib, which currently is the only ship that can give fuel?”
He said he had the chance to speak to students at the Naval Postgraduate School in California during the course of his last assignment, and he told them he wanted to see thesis papers on these kinds of topics. Another he gave as an example is how to update today’s steam-powered amphibious assault ships to include more modern hybrid propulsion systems that reduce operations and maintenance costs: would it be better to backfit the hybrid propulsion system onto existing ships, or build new ones to replace them ahead of the end of their service lives?
“My personal opinion is, it’s probably cheaper to build a new ship from the keel up, because that gives you that foundation of technology that you can then build upon. And to me – and I’m biased, having commanded Makin Island,” which is the first hybrid propulsion drive amphib that runs on electric auxiliary propulsion motors at low speeds and gas turbines at higher speeds.
“I think that as we start looking at directed energy weapons systems and some of those things, we have to look at the underpinnings for those systems as well. And Makin Island has a high-voltage electrical system; why can’t we have something similar to that on future ships?”
It is clear that the digital interoperability piece is crucial to any such operational remaking of the amphibious fleet to become an effective full spectrum crisis management task force.
And at the heart of this capability is the transformation of the Naval aviation, from the Osprey, to the F-35B, to the modernization of the attack helicopters, the Venom and the Zulu, to the coming of the CH-53K, to the preparation to integrate a new air remote system to the force (MUX), to operating an ashore radar system which can call in fires from a variety of combat sources (G/ATOR), and doing so with a core focus on integratability and ability to operate in a full spectrum combat environment.
It is not just that there are new air platforms added to the force which open up new combat capabilities, but it is the ongoing modernization opportunities for the force to leverage those new capabilities through interactive modernization cycles.
A good case in point is the next phase of Osprey modernization, which is clearly driven by the coming of the F-35B to the force and anticipating the coming of the CH-53K and the MUX.
As Col Matthew Kelly, who is in charge of the V-22 Joint Program Office (PMA-275), put it in a recent interview with us:
Col. Kelly has come to the program with a major shift underway for the Marines.
That shift requires the aircraft not simply to be a robust distance runner but to become smart in the digital battlespace.
This requires major modifications to the aircraft in terms of its ability to work with data, generate data and to work in the evolving C2 and ISR infrastructure which the Marine Corps is building for its approach to building an integrated distributed force.
Coming from the F-35 program provides Kelly with a leg up in terms of understanding what that aircraft can contribute to the Osprey and how, in turn, the V-22 aircraft needs to be modified to a more useful member of the integrated distributed force.
“With the Marine in the back of the Osprey working with his MAG-Tab (tablet), he or she is able to gain access to information flowing in from other platforms in the battlespace.
“And that is one key aspect of what we are focused on as we rework the program.
“Indeed, we have already done exercises at MAWTS-1 and VMX-1 where the Marine in the back of a V-22 can be looking on his MAG-TAB at a video generated from an H-1 or an F-35 operating in the same battlespace.”
And the V-22 working with the F-35 is a key element of being able for the Marine Corps/Navy team to work a Lightening carrier approach whereby an LHD like the USS America can operate a significant number of F-35s with accompanying Ospreys.
And this approach clearly is about changing dramatically the nature of what a Marine Corps assault force looks like as well as the combat effect it can achieve.
Col. Kelly, in language reminiscent of how the ADF describes the impact of the F-35 on its combat transformation, refers to what he calls a fifth-generation assault force.
And that process this means changes need to and are being made to the Osprey itself….
The interactive modernization piece driven by integrative dynamics is clearly seen with regard to the next phase of Osprey modernization.
The aircraft which replaced the CH-46 became a physically wondrous asset that changed how the Marines could operate in the Middle East land wars to now becoming part of the fifth-generation revolution.
Although interesting to speculate about technology and the future of warfare, the core point is the future is now. The US and its allies have to be ready in the near to mid term to deal with 21stcentury adversaries who will use a variety of crisis management and warfighting tools to advance their interests.
This means leveraging the force we are evolving now to reshape effective concepts of operations to prevail now. For the United States, this means, in significant part, learning how to really leverage fifth generation aircraft and shape what the Aussies referred to as a fifth generation force.
We have written for more than a decade that one piece of key technology – the F-35B – when combined with the Osprey and the new heavy lift helicopter will deliver now and in the next five years, significant distributed warfighting capabilities.
Not in 2030 or in the misty days of the third offset, or not with Dr. Griffin’s space based hypersonic detection force, or with the 6thgeneration aircraft, or the Future Combat System, but right now.
It is clear that an ability to operate basing across a range of mobile basing options is a key to defeating or deflecting adversaries who are stockpiling strike missiles to go up against fixed targets.
Clearly, the Marines are well positioned right now to work through ways to enable the United States to get away from the Middle East basing construct of large fixed bases with aircraft maintained with a wide range of specialized maintenance skill sets.
It is clear as well that in the Pacific, the ability to leverage islands from which to operate an offensive-defensive enterprise is a crisis dominance capability which the Chinese would not want to contend with.
Five years ago, Ed Timperlake highlighted the strategic opportunity, which mobile ADA could provide when leveraging an island deployment strategy.
WW II was Island hopping for offensive air power-but first the enemy air threat had to be beaten back, or there would be big holes in runways and destroyed aircraft on the ground.
One could imagine the PLAAF and 2nd Arty surprise if a lot of “rocks” off shore around PRC became fortified shooters linked into Aegis Carrier Battle Groups, the USN/USMC “Gator Forces” and 7th AF air mobility and Pacific strike capability mutually cross linked and reinforced with allied capability into a solid honeycomb of Pacific defense only activated when needed.
And in a future is now approach, the premier crisis management force for the United States, the USMC. is moving out on leveraging its current technology to reshape significantly the options available to the combatant commander.
In so doing, they are highlighting why the new heavy lift helicopter, the CH-53K needs to be available to the force now and not in some distant time when the testers and Chinook advocates are satisfied.
An article by Megan Eckstein published on April 23, 2019 highlighted that the Marines are folding their F-35Bs into a new Pacific island-hopping concept.
The Marine Corps is learning how to incorporate its new F-35B Joint Strike Fighter jets into its island-hopping concept of Expeditionary Advance Base Operations, with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit rehearsing this concept recently in the Pacific.
The Japan-based MEU was the first to operate with the new F-35B, though its experience with the jet has been quite different than that of the 13th MEU and Essex Amphibious Ready Group, which were the first to deploy with the F-35B from the United States and the first to conduct an operational air strike with the Joint Strike Fighter.
The 31st MEU, unique in being the only forward-deployed amphibious group, has been focused on integrating the new jet into its crisis-response and self-defense missions and showing off the new plane to Pacific allies and partners, MEU Commanding Officer Col. Robert Brodie said today at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. If a conflict were to emerge in the Pacific, 31st MEU would likely be among the first on the scene and would likely use its island-seizing EABO concept – so, figuring out how to conduct this mission with the new airplane was the focus of a recent exercise on a small Japanese island, Brodie said.
On Ie Shima, off Okinawa, 31st MEU conducted a standard raid and seizure: a recon team jumped in to pave the way for a raid force being flown in to seize the island.
Once the island was secured, CH-53E heavy-lift helicopters flew in fuel bladders and ordnance to conduct a forward arming and refueling point (FARP) operation with the F-35Bs.
“We were actually able to set up a refueling point, and our 53s were taking the gas from a bladder and filling up F-35s, and then the F-35s were going and flying missions,” Brodie said.
“That’s kind of the concept we rehearsed there. And the key to this is speed: we did not rush through it because we wanted to be very deliberate and we’re in a learning phase, but I think you could do these types of things relatively quickly if you had the right ground.”
Brodie said the Marines could do this type of operation with either the CH-53E or the MV-22B Osprey, but the MEU has found the helicopter works best.
“We find the 53 works out really well with the F-35, it does a great job pumping gas into it. And I think the 53K will be a tremendous asset when we incorporate it in the future,” he said of the replacement heavy-lift helicopter still under development.
“We utilized our CH-53 with aviation ordnancemen; they just rolled [the munitions] right off, put it right in while the 53 was gassing up the aircraft….”
And for those who simply wish to ignore the weapons load out which the F-35 can carry when not operating in a LO mode (something which the F-15 for example can NEVER do), there is this reminder from the good Colonel.
Though the F-35B is known for its fifth-generation stealth capability, the jet can also be loaded up with weapons to serve as a fourth-generation bomb truck, and 31st MEU got to practice with that configuration for the first time outside of a test environment. Brodie said he loaded the jets up with six bombs and two heat-seeking missiles on the external pylons, and the jets dropped 30 precision-guided munitions over three weeks of training in the fourth-gen mode.
And with regard to its island operations, it could then as well provide protection for the sea base, and this could be for any of the various sea based key assets, whether carriers, destroyers or amphibious ships.
Defending the amphibious task force has been a recent push within 31st MEU, and Brodie said the F-35B could play a role in that mission that its predecessor, the AV-8B Harrier, never could. 13th MEU leadership told the Potomac Institute earlier this monthat a similar event that they used the F-35B for blue-water missions the Navy assigned the ARG/MEU team.
While the 31st MEU hasn’t gone quite that far yet, Brodie said the JSF would be able to spot and follow surface targets, pass information, conduct armed reconnaissance missions and more to increase the combat capability of the ARG/MEU.
Brodie brought six F-35Bs to sea, supplemented by 10 V-22 Ospreys and four CH-53Es. He said the F-35s maintained an overall readiness rate of 90.5 percent and averaged five of six jets being up and fully mission capable on any given day.
The importance of the FARP to such an approach is crucial.
Which is why in turn the need to get the K into the fleet rapidly is also crucial.
There is simply no comparison between what the legacy CH-53 can do and what the new CH-53 can do in terms of lift, C2, situational awareness, and an ability to deliver supplies over a much wider area of delivery and more rapidly.
If base mobility is important, a FARP is a key enabler.
Then why is the K not being accelerated into the fleet to support the B and its distributed force capability?
Featured photo: An F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 refuels at an established Forward Arming and Refueling Point during simulated Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations at Ie Shima Training Facility, March 14, 2019.
Marines with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit are conducting simulated EABO in a series of dynamic training events to refine their ability to plan, rehearse and complete a variety of missions. US Marine Corps photo.
And not to be subtle about it, we wrote about this as well in our book on Pacific strategy finished in 2012, and published in 2013.
And what follows is the 2014 article by Ed Timperlake focused on an island hopping strategy.
The Role of ADA in the Attack and Defense Enterprise: Reinforcing Forward Deployed Defensive Capabilities in the 21st Century
2014-01-07
By Ed Timperlake
In our recent book on the rebuilding of American military power in the context of shaping a new Pacific strategy, we highlighted the significance of shaping a new template for the synergy between defense and offense.
With the new multi-mission systems – 5th generation aircraft and Aegis for example – the key is presence and integration able to support strike or defense in a single operational presence capability. Now the adversary cannot be certain that you are simply putting down a marker.
This is what former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne calls the attack and defense enterprise.
The strategic thrust of integrating modern systems is to create an a grid that can operate in an area as a seamless whole, able to strike or defend simultaneously. This is enabled by the evolution of C5ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance), and it is why Wynne has underscored for more than a decade that fifth generation aircraft are not merely replacements for existing tactical systems but a whole new approach to integrating defense and offense…..
By shaping a C5ISR system inextricably intertwined with platforms and assets, which can honeycomb an area of operation, an attack and defense enterprise can operate to deter aggressors and adversaries or to conduct successful military operations.
Our interview with PACAF Commander, General Hawk Carlisle, highlighted a key way ahead is forging various paths towards cross-domain synergy among the joint and coalition forces.
One of the key examples he provided was the role of the first THAAD deployment to the Pacific.
THAAD being fired as part of exercise. Credit: Lockheed Martin
Thanks to a demonstrated rapid THAAD deployment to Guam, the Air Defense Artillery (ADA) branch of the US Army has demonstrated their significant role in US and Allied Air Sea Battle planning.
And this interview made it clear that ADA capability far transcends moving infantry around the Pacific tying up precious Air Force resources. Army Pacific battle planning was reported as being called “Pacific Pathways.”
In a recent Washington Post article the Senior Army Pacific Commander, General Brooks, a command based in Hawaii, was recently elevated to four stars, and makes a significant point:
“We can no longer afford to build [combat] units and put them on a shelf to be used only in the event of war,” the Senior Army Pacific Commander’s command wrote in an internal planning document.
He is exactly correct and the best answer to General Brooks thinking is very simple: just don’t do it.
There is no need for a large standing army to be built. America has shown the ability to very successful in mobilizing what is often called “trigger pullers.”
In fact The Washington Free Beacon has given a wonderful tribute to the men and women in today’s US Army. “2013 Man of the Year: The American Soldier.”
With the Afghan transition comes the opportunity to shift from a land heavy mobilization force. Indeed in our forthcoming piece in the Joint Forces Quarterly, we argue that the decade ahead has little in common with the decade behind and that “the force being remade by new technologies ripening in the decade ahead, there are significant possibilities for innovation and re-shaping of the force structure.”
In the decade ahead, it is clearly the time for Big Army demobilization.
The current Chief of Staff of the US Army, General Odierno, West Point 1976, has an appreciation for the combat legacy of the Long Gray Line. As a strong advocate for the US Army, he told Congress and hence the American people that to win a war send in the Army. He was exactly right for the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
Unfortunately, unless he wants to argue to support, equip and train a standing “Big Army” to capture Beijing or Tehran, his vision for Army resources has to be modified to recognize the realities of the potential combat facing America in this half of the 21st Century.
Hussein assumed that Kuwait was his. Neither Iran nor China should believe that they can make such an assumption about any of their neighbors.
It is American power projection backed by mobilization if necessary which adds a key deterrent quality to Iranian or Chinese thinking.
America, can mobilize an Army, but the need for ready now survivable aircraft, and air bases and Navy ships with a 9/11 force of US Marines afloat to shape an attack and defense enterprise is the key challenge.
And not funding these forces along innovative lines while maintaining an Army built for Iraq and Afghanistan makes little sense in the decade ahead.
Our role is to shape global reach and bring power to bear for our allies, which makes any adversary like Iran or the PRC lack certainty that a perimeter attack on one of their neighbors is just that.
Also involved is the challenge of shaping a key understanding of the appropriate tactical and strategic role of the US Army in the Pacific. One just has to look at the geography of the Pacific and ask why just Guam and does a THAAD Battery always have to be moved by truck?
The answer to this question is part of a larger question: how does Army missile defense play in the attack and defense enterprise within the strategic quadrangle?
US Navy and Japanese Aegis ships, THAAD on islands, and “Rapid Raptor” which are a parts of an evolving con-ops that can be proof of concept for F-35 and tankers can make tactical and strategic moves to many PacRim airfields.
The problem is the US Army is not a lift command. It borrows USAF lift to move around the vast Pacific. And the Afghan war has weighed heavily on the lift and tanking resources of the USAF and its ability to support the joint force.
What is needed is to rethink how to support ADA in the Pacific without overtaxing lift assets.
During exercise Stellar Avenger, the Aegis-class destroyer USS Hopper launches a standard missile 3 Blk IA, successfully intercepting a sub-scale short range ballistic missile, launched from the Kauai Test Facility, Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sans, Kauai. (Credit: USN Visual Service, 7/31/09)
An alternative way to think about the ADA approach is to build the support facilities throughout the Pacific whereby THAAD and air defense can be supported. THAAD–globally transportable, rapidly deployable capability to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles inside or outside the atmosphere during their final, or terminal, phase of flight. THAAD Weight launch vehicle, fully loaded 40,000kg=88, 184 lbs or 44 short tons.
The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of missile battery truck alone is 66,000 lbs.
Now let us rethink how it might be deployed to remote islands as part of a flexible grid.
The CH-53 can take 30,000 lbs internal or sling 36,000 external-range unrefueled is 621 nm. The MV-22 human capacity is 24 combat-loaded Marines-range app 700 miles.
The actual missile battery is 26,000 lbs and well inside the lift capacity of a CH-53.
The problem is the mechanics to raise and lower the battery and rearm. A battery lowered from the air sans truck on reinforced concrete pads with calibrated launch points may make sense. A separate modular lift device could be put in place to load and reload.
Consequently, taking apart modules doesn’t appear to be a showstopper, and Marine MV-22s flying in Army ADA troops into any reasonable terrain is absolutely no problem.
The weight of TOC and Radar maybe of concern, and it appears that in todays world there may have been little appreciation by Big Army on using MV-22 and CH-53Ks.
To be very fair the US Vietnam War Army did get it brilliantly by setting up firebases in remote areas with helo lift of very heavy guns.
A THAAD island maneuverability concept is the same in principle but with different technology.
Combine ADA Batteries with the ability to move a floating airfield as needed inside the potential sanctuary of a 200+ KM protection umbrella of disbursed island bases with ADA batteries and power projection of the sort needed in Pacific defense is enhanced.
The targeting and thus war fighting capability of a projected threat from any PLAA2AD becomes incredibility complicated. A distributed offensive defensive grid is an additional factor in the US current PLA or North Korean IRBM kill chain R&D efforts.
The most fundamental point is US technology is already tested. Some weapons already in combat others on ranges. The US does do rigorous testing and has many important ways to share technology with all allies.
In contrast, the PLA has not tested any of their asserted A2AD capability, which is much quoted in US-search, acquisition, launch, guide, and end-game maneuver. So far they have poked a few holes in their land target outlined like a Navy Carrier. This is 1960s stuff.
The involvement of THAAD in an Aegis engagement grid may actually give” Big Army” employing ADA capability both a realistic and important way ahead to for them to make a contribution to the Air Sea Battle within resources available.
Currently it looks like the Army is assuming they can utilize AF lift as their announced right to move 700 troops around the Pacific every three months, which is an incredibly waste of resources and taxing on a lift fleet already stretched to the limit. The Afghan tax on Air Force lift has to be paid back.
The Marines know how to maneuver forces at sea and in the air to protect islands–and also deny the PLA any opportunity for them to go “feet wet” to grab Islands for their strategic use.
The USAF could stage an Army THAAD battery on a runway anywhere around Pacific. The USAF would have no problem doing just that and it sure beats the resource drain on AF heavy lift of moving 700 Army troops around every three months as proposed in their Pacific Pathways emerging doctrine.
The THAAD package could go from the runway to an Amphip, Deck or directly to MV-22s and Heavy lift helos to move this capability to a couple of rocks jutting out of Pacific.
The Island Geography around the Pacific Rim is a critical physical reality which such a deployment approach can play to:
Japan is an archipelago of 6,852 islands;
The Philippine archipelago comprises 7,107 islands, of which only about 2,000 are inhabited;
Korea has more than 3,300 islands;
Vietnam has 20 Islands-including their claim on Sprats and Parcels cluster;
And finally, Republic of China islands provide additional deployment options.
The geography of islands inside the Pacific strategic quadrangle can favor moving a THAAD Battery to various pre-planned island launch pads to protect vital runways and harbors.
The Pacific Strategic Quadrangle. Credit: SLD
When combined with Aegis ships and 7th AF maneuverability, cross-domain synergy is enhanced which can then greatly complicate PLA and NK targeting and thereby enhance deterrence.
So much for the “run-away” A2AD bogy man-especially with F-35 arrival in the region, which will extend significantly the forward reach of the sensor package to work with defensive systems!
Now if the US National Command Authority and Secretary of Defense could just convince the Army to consider accepting a strategic view that cross-domain 21st Century technology (not just boots on the ground for their own sake) can move war wining capability ADA into a strategic battle position inside our Strategic Quadrangle by Air instead of “the caissons go rolling along ”
The biggest show stopper could be fighting a tradition from 1908 (date of song)-that has very little appreciation for an Air/Sea Battle–over the expanse of the Pacific OCEAN.
WW II was Island hopping for offensive air power-but first the enemy air threat had to be beaten back, or there would be big holes in runways and destroyed aircraft on the ground.
One could imagine the PLAAF and 2nd Arty surprise if a lot of “rocks” off shore around PRC became fortified shooters linked into Aegis Carrier Battle Groups, the USN/USMC “Gator Forces” and 7th AF air mobility and Pacific strike capability mutually cross linked and reinforced with allied capability into a solid honeycomb of Pacific defense only activated when needed.
Paris – France seeks to maintain close ties with Britain after Brexit on a bilateral and multilateral basis, with the Macron administration proposing a European council for security and defense as an institutional link, a government official said.
The Dec. 12th election resulted in the UK seeing the Conservative party returned with a comfortable 80-seat parliamentary majority, allowing prime minister Boris Johnson formally to take the UK out of the European Union at the end of January.
“A page will turn,” the French official told Dec. 17 the Anglo-American Press Association.
France sees the UK as a valuable partner and is promoting creation of a European security and defense council, which would work with the European Council, a high-level EU political institution.
“The European defense and security council is not necessarily an instrument solely of the 27 (EU members),” the official said. The council would serve as a “means of structured exchange between the European partners and the United Kingdom.”
“We need to reach agreement on the council’s mission,” the official said.
The idea of such a council has been accepted and there are talks on procedure.
There are already European institutions covering foreign affairs, defense and security but no such high-level political institution dedicated to defense.
The European Council is the political forum for heads of state and heads of government of the EU, which Britain will leave on Jan. 31. The European Council sets the political agenda, while the European Commission acts as the executive arm.
France and Germany have floated the idea of a security and defense council, which has been considered by think tanks, a European source in Brussels said. There is not a formal proposal and it remains to be seen how such an organization would fit into the institutional landscape.
French president Emmanuel Macron stirred heated debate by evoking the “brain death” of Nato, in an Nov. 7 interview with British weekly, The Economist, with that critical state stemming from a lack of reliable support from the US.
US president Donald Trump said Macron’s comment was “very, very nasty,” when a few weeks later the political leaders gathered for the Nato summit, held at Grove hotel on a golf course at Watford, north of London. That meeting marked the 70th anniversary of the Atlantic alliance.
How the council would be set up raises questions as the UK will have left the EU if and when the institution were set up.
If Britain were on the council, which other nations would have a place at the table, said Jean-Pierre Maulny, deputy director of think tank Institut des Relations Internationales et Stratégique.
One way round the structural problem raised by Brexit might be an informal group, he said.There are informal groups such Britain, France and Germany speaking as a three-strong European group on Iran.
“Perhaps it will be an informal solution, but an institutional one,” he said.
“It’s a great idea in principle,” said Nick Witney, senior research fellow at European Council for Foreign Relations, a think tank.
Such a council might yield a strategic overview seen as needed in Europe.
“The need to re-engage in serious, collective strategic thinking, as opposed to waiting to be told what to do by the Americans, may be the single most important step towards a Europe that is significantly more capable of defending itself, ” Witney said in a June 25 ECFR report.
“Such a Europe is more likely to survive the twenty-first century as a protagonist rather than prey. ”
The ECFR report was titled Building Europeans’ Capacity to Build Themselves.
Macron in a March 4 speech called for a “European security council with the United Kingdom on board to prepare our collective decisions ”
In that discourse, titled For European Renewal, Macron sought a Europe backed by a defense and security treaty “to define our fundamental obligations in association with NATO and our European allies.”
Macron also called for more defense spending.
On the bilateral front, there will be celebration in November of the 10th anniversary of the Lancaster House treaty, the French official said.
A French senate report on arms procurement on Nov. 27 called for France to put fresh energy in the Lancaster House accord.
That Anglo-French treaty is a bilateral agreement for operational and industrial cooperation, including research in nuclear weapons, a joint combined expeditionary force, and sharing technology for a combat UAV.
There are also plans to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the call by the late French president, Charles de Gaulle, for France to fight back against the Nazis. The BBC broadcast that call to arms from London on June 18 1940.
On the operational front, the British help in a “very significant way ”, in the sub-Saharan Sahel region, flying Chinook heavy transport helicopters supporting French forces. Those Chinooks are “of high value,” the official said.
There is much scope for industrial cooperation, the official said.
“We are confident we can deepen the cooperation in defense and security. ”
Asked on whether Britain could join the Franco-German project for a Future Combat Air System, the official said, “It’s clearly a Franco-German project, with a “prime partner ” and “junior partner ” in each significant part of the aircraft.
These partners have French, German, and French-German-British links, the official said, adding that there was no knowledge of a British request for direct partnership on FCAS.
On the industrial front, “obviously MBDA is an Anglo-French success,” the official said.
MBDA is a missile maker, with joint ownership in Britain, France and Germany.
There is also close French cooperation with Germany, with two flagship industrial projects, namely a New Generation Fighter in FCAS and a new tank in the Main Ground Combat System, and an agreement for arms exports.
“We are working, and Germany works with us,” the official said.
The new tank is a key element in a planned MGCS, designed as a system of systems composed of several land vehicles, both manned and unmanned.
The French vehicles will work in the Army’s Scorpion modernization program, while the German vehicles will plug into the equivalent national system.
On the institutional front, the European Commission is gearing up for a stronger presence in defense, with the appointment of Thierry Breton, European Commissioner for internal markets, and creation of a directorate general for defense.
Breton is former CEO of Atos, a French technology company, and former finance minister.
The EU is setting up the European Defense Fund with a 2021-2027 budget of €13 billion to co-fund research projects with industry. That fund is part of a bid to boost European strategic autonomy and sovereignty.
Macron pursues a strong Europe, which includes European defense. In the pursuit of the latter, the projects for FCAS and the MGCS tank system were launched. There is also a planned medium-altitude long-endurance UAV.
U.S. Marines with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 161, attached to Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force – Crisis Response – Central Command 19.2, perform MV-22 landing qualifications and logistics runs with the expeditionary landing base (ESB-3) USS Lewis B. Puller in an undisclosed location, Oct. 29, 2019.
The SPMAGTF-CR-CC is a quick reaction force, prepared to deploy a variety of capabilities across their area of operation.
(UNDISCLOSED LOCATION)
10.29.2019
Video by Sgt. Kyle Talbot
Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response – Central Command
Mike McCord, Scan Eagle site lead, and his team conduct Small Unmanned Aerial System or drone aboard USCGC Stratton (WMSL 752), in the Pacific, Oct. 31, 2019.
The cutter’s crew spent half of 2019 underway in support of joint operations in the Pacific.
