Remembering Finnish Independence Day: December 6

12/08/2019

We want to remember our Finnish allies and their day of independence.

And that allows a chance to remember that most remarkable of Finns, C.G.E. Mannerheim.

In an article by Timo Vihavainen, a Finnish historian and professor emeritus of Russian Studies at the University of Helsinki, first published in February 2005, updated June 2017, the career of Mannerheim was reviewed.

C.G.E. Mannerheim (1867–1951) charted the course of Finnish history and was voted greatest Finn of all time.

He served in the Russian Imperial Army for decades, and later became a war hero in his home country of Finland. He was the symbol of the Finnish struggle against Soviet Russia during the Winter War of 1939–1940. He was hailed as a champion of liberty throughout the Western world during those 105 days of stubborn resistance against a vastly superior enemy.

This was not the first time that the stately representative of Finland’s Swedish-speaking aristocracy had been supreme commander in a war against Russia.

The War of Liberation in 1918 – later also called the Civil War – had been fought against Soviet Russia and against its allies, the Finnish “Reds.” And the Winter War was not the last war Mannerheim fought against Russia, either.

The period of combat known as the Continuation War, 1941 to 1944, during which German forces fought alongside the Finnish army, exacted a much heavier toll on Finland and Russia than the Winter War had.

Moreover, during the Continuation War, Finnish forces even advanced into Russian territory with the intention of annexing Eastern Karelia, a region which had never belonged to Finland.

Admittedly, Finnish policy towards the Russians and Finland’s methods of warfare substantially differed from those of the Germans. Finland declined to launch a ground attack or a bombing attack on Leningrad, despite German pressure to do so.

Mannerheim spent no less than 30 years in Russia, mostly in Saint Petersburg, serving in the Russian Imperial Army.

During this period he not only reached the rank of lieutenant general and was appointed commander of the Cavalry Corps of the Imperial Army, he was also known personally to the emperor and became a member of his suit

Mannerheim’s record as a soldier was impressive. He fought for Russia on the battle front in both the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 and in the First World War between 1914 and 1917. General Mannerheim was decorated with the St George’s Cross for gallantry and was famous for his military skill and efficacy.

Mannerheim was also an able sportsman whose horsemanship won prizes. This was evidently one of the reasons why he was chosen for the formidable task of undertaking a reconnaissance mission, on horseback through Asia, that lasted two years.

You could add courteous manners to the list of Mannerheim’s merits. This contributed to the progress of the young cavalry officer in high society and at the imperial court itself.

A non-Russian officer in the Imperial Army was no rarity. In fact, there were thousands of them. Many of these inorodtsy or “non-orthodox” subjects of the emperor serving in the Russian army came from the Baltic provinces, spoke German as their mother tongue and were Lutheran by religion, as was Mannerheim.

However, Mannerheim’s background differed from that of his Baltic brother officers. He came from the Grand Duchy of Finland, which sent more than 4,000 officers to serve in the Russian army between 1809 and 1917. Almost 400 of them reached the rank of general or admiral.

Most of the officers from Finland spoke Swedish as their mother tongue, Finnish being used mainly as a second language, if they knew it at all. Mannerheim’s Finnish before 1917 was far from fluent.

However, in common with the Baltic German officers, the Finnish officers served the emperor impeccably. In fact, there are no records of disloyalty among the Finns, even during the period from 1899 to 1917 when Russia began to pressure Finland by undermining its juridical status. In lieu of disloyalty, some of the officers chose to retire from active service.

Mannerheim did not retire. He remained a faithful soldier even though he privately deplored the emperor’s policies, which he regarded as unwise. Even when his own brother was exiled to Sweden, Mannerheim’s loyalty to the emperor remained unshaken. His relatives understood his position.

It was only when the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 crushed the old order that Mannerheim realised his ties of loyalty to Russia had been cut. After the revolution he became a champion of the White Finnish cause.

His loyalty towards his native land was now total and he always respected its democratic institutions even though he was hardly a true democrat by conviction.

Mannerheim’s career in the service of two states is an intriguing story that excites curiosity. To Russians, Mannerheim is above all the cultivated young officer of the Chevalier Guards who stood by Nicholas II during coronation procession.

In Finnish eyes Mannerheim stands tall as the elderly marshal, a man of honour and a fatherly figure whose moral integrity and intelligence could always be trusted

And in an article we published last year prior to the Trump/Putin meeting in Helsinki, we looked back at Finnish history and what lessons these two leaders might take away from that history.

Presidents Putin and Trump will meet soon in Helsinki.  At a time of uncertainty in the US-Russia relationship, the meeting is an important step forward in clarifying that relationship, one that should be not reduced to a Trump tweet or a Putin chess move.

Where it is being held is significant. Helsinki was part of the Russian empire for a century. It is now a century since the Finns have been independent, but always in the context of East-West realities. During the Cold War, “Finlandization” became a term of art for how smaller country could retain its independence on internal matters by bowing to a larger neighbor on international affairs.

Finland become independent as a result of World War I and the Russian revolution. If one visits Helsinki, the similarities to Saint Petersburg — just five hours away by car (or tank) — are obvious. And in the wake of the Russian revolution, Finland had its own civil war, its own clash of “Whites” against the “Reds,” with legendary Finnish leader Carl Mannerheimcommanding the German-backed Whites.

After withdrawing from Finnish politics, General Mannerheim would return to lead the fight in the famous “Winter War” against the invading Russians, who poured in more forces than the Western allies later did on D-Day. Amazingly, the Finns not only resisted but destroyed the initial forces which invaded Finland.  As the Western Alliance would fail to stop the Nazis, however, they would fail Finland as well.

And when the Nazis took Western Europe, including Norway, the Finns bowed to realpolitik and worked with them to do a dangerous dance with them to keep the Russians at bay.  What Finns call the Continuation War followed the Winter War, and the core ally of Finland in the Continuation War was Nazi Germany.

But the American leaders, working behind the scenes with Mannerheim and the Finnish leadership, de facto cut a deal with the Finns to not attack the supply lines coming through the North into Russia.  While the UK declared war on Finland, the US did not.  This was an enlightened move which provided flexibility for both the United States and Finland going forward.

The letter which Mannerheim sent to Adolf Hitler when leaving the war in fall 1944 highlights a core principle important to Finns and to any nation worthy of calling itself a nation – emphasized the absolute imperative to preserve the Finnish people and the Finnish nation. It read in part:

“In this hour of hard decisions, I’m impelled to inform you that I’ve arrived at the conviction that the salvation of my nation makes it my duty to find a means of ending the war…

“The Russian’s great assaults in June exhausted our reserves. We cannot expose ourselves to another such bloodletting without the whole future of the small Finnish nation being jeopardized.

“I wish specially to emphasize that Germany will live on even if fate should not crown your arms with victory. Nobody could give such assurance regarding Finland. If that nation of barely four million were militarily defeated, there can be little doubt that will be driven into exile or exterminated. I cannot expose my people to such a fate.”

It is clear that the Finns have not forgotten their history and are seeking today to protect themselves against the Russian actions in Europe.  To do so, they are pursuing a strong relationship with Europe through the European Union, which it joined in 1995, adopting the common currency in 1999; enhanced regional cooperation with their Nordic neighbors, as we’ve covered in depth before; increased cooperation with NATO, contributing to operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan; and strong relationships with the United States and the United Kingdom, even as both countries faced significant domestic change.

What might President Putin learn from the Finns?

Above all, stop threatening the Baltic States for all that does is drive the Finns and the Nordics into a closer relationship both with each other and with NATO.  The Russians complain about Finnish and Nordic action, but they have only themselves to thank.

President Putin might stand in front of the famous statue to Alexander II in the center of Helsinki and remember the Finns erected it, not simply to remember an important reformer, but to protest the reactionary policies of his successor Alexander III.  The Russians cast a long shadow, and Putin may be trying to make Russia Great Again through old-fashioned hardball tactics, but it is at the expense of fundamental interests which could be better served by Russian reform and reworking his relationship with the West.

For his part, President Trump might reflect on his meeting with the Finnish President when he butchered his name, while the Finns did not care in their happiness that that their President met the US President.  He might learn from the Finns that European security is not simply Germany and defense spending percentages; it is about the professional working relationship among the militaries and how Western solidarity has been built despite political differences.  He might learn as well that for smaller countries, organizations like the European Union play an important role alongside NATO.

As the Finns consider how to augment their defense capabilities, it is important for President Trump to consider how a smaller nation looks at their strategic position. He would do well to learn from the subtler approach followed by Secretary Hall and President Roosevelt during World War II.

As I stood in front of the Finnish defense ministry this past February, I know what I learned looking at the very powerful statue honoring the Finnish people for their resistance to Stalin and his dictatorship: The Finns love their nation and will risk their lives to defend it. Both Putin and Trump need to remember that.

This article was published by Breaking Defense on July 11, 2018.

Newcatle 500

The Royal Australian Navy, Australian Regular Army and the Royal Australian Air Force joined forces at the Newcastle 500 – Supercars 22-24 November, to showcase Australian Defence Force (ADF) capabilities through technology and teamwork.

A RAAF F/A-18A Classic Hornet from Number 77 Squadron based at RAAF Base Williamtown performed an adrenaline pumping aerial display and a flypast over Pit Straight before the main race on both days over the weekend.

At the ‘ADF ground precinct’, Supercar fans tested their skills as an Air Force fast-jet pilot at the Air Force Simulator Experience, plus browsed through Defence capability displays featuring Team Army’s project car and street machines.

The Australian Army Band Newcastle provided roving entertainment, and for young people considering a career in the ADF, Defence Force Recruiting career staff were on hand with information and resources to get career journeys started.

ADF participation in the Newcastle 500 – Supercars provided the opportunity to showcase local Defence capabilities and importantly highlight the dedication and commitment of our ADF men and women who serve at home and abroad on operations.

Australian Department of Defence

November 25, 2019

Finland Participates in NATO Cyber Coalition 2019 Exercise

12/07/2019

In an article published by the Finnish Ministry of Defence on December 5, 2019, the engagement of Finland in the NATO Cyber Coalition 2019 Exercise was highlighted.

Finland participated as a partner country in NATO’s Cyber Coalition 2019 exercise. Held in Tartu on 2 to 6 December, the exercise is an annual event that was organised for the ninth time.

In addition to NATO and the EU, 27 NATO member countries took part as well as a number of partner countries.

The purpose of the cyber defence exercise was to strengthen international and national cooperation and interoperability to respond to various cyber incidents.

Finland was represented by the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Forces that were supported by cooperating authorities.

In a recent article by Jean-Louis Gergorin and Léo Isaac-Dognin the central importance of the cyber dimension of defense and security was highlighted for both NATO and European defense.

Cyberspace encompasses all the global hardware and software means of storing, processing and transporting bits and bytes, but also, and most critically, all the information-content of that data.

Cyberwarfare is the offensive use of these multiple components with the purpose of exerting influence or control over an adversary.

Practically speaking, it can take the form of hacks that seek to compromise the confidentiality or integrity of digital systems for the purpose of espionage or sabotage, but also of assaults on the integrity of the information sphere, such as the mass dissemination of fake, biased or incomplete information through digital media.

To cite only a few examples, the disruption and partial destruction of Iranian centrifuges by the Stuxnet malware in 2010, the North Korean-led hack of Sony Pictures in 2014, the mailbox hacks of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the targeted social media propaganda operation orchestrated over the course of 2016 by a constellation of Russian-affiliated actors (most prominently, Russian military intelligence and the Saint Petersburg based Internet Research Agency), and, last but not least, the WannaCry and NotPetya attacks of 2017 have all made for headline-grabbing news.

Far from being isolated events, such operations are increasingly part of integrated strategies that seek to undermine an opponent by acting under the threshold of open warfare.

At this early stage of cyber competition, there are clear winners and losers. China and Russia were quick to recognise and experiment with the asymmetric opportunities of cyberspace.

China first specialised in the cyber theft of western intellectual property assets. Today, its leaders see digital technology as a major way towards global economic leadership.

Russia, for its part, has made cyber operations a key component of what it considers its legitimate response to western attacks on its sovereignty and sphere of influence. Following a string of events that range from endorsements of the “colour revolutions” by American officials and US-based NGOs to the enactment of economic sanctions against Russia, Moscow saw in cyber-attacks an opportunity to hit western countries at their weakest point while remaining below the threshold of open warfare.

Smaller actors, namely Iran and North Korea, have also recognised the extent to which cyber operations can transform an unfavourable balance of power.

Iran’s response to the Stuxnet attack is most telling: within the space of two years after discovering the US-Israeli malware, Iran was able to mount a series of incursions on US financial institutions that completely inhibited President Obama from further cyber offensive actions.

After two decades of overconfidence in their cyber intelligence collection, US officials were alarmed to discover foreign actors’ proficiency in hacking into their critical infrastructure, and completely caught by surprise by the information attacks that took place during the 2016 presidential campaign.

That said, the United States has come a long way since 2017, bolstering its defensive and offensive doctrine and capacities in cyberspace, to the point of pre-emptively knocking IRA servers offline in the run up to the 2018 midterm elections, and ensuring an increasingly active ‘forward’ presence on foreign networks to defend its own critical infrastructure.

Similarly it has been revealed by Reuters on October 16th that at the end of September a US cyberattack targeted the Iranian digital propaganda apparatus.

Our Old Continent, however, remains a step behind on both fronts. Europe has struggled to weigh in coherently against “digital powers”, whether they be states or private enterprises,and several EU Member States have already faced serious challenges to their electoral processes and wider security in cyberspace.

And according to a Financial Times article by Jim Brunsden, the Finns have been key players in one might call the coalition of the willing to drive forward on more cyber defense capabilities within the European Union.

The EU will conduct war-games to prepare for any cyber attacks in a sign of the bloc’s determination to increase co-operation against Russian and Chinese meddling.

Pekka Haavisto, Finland’s foreign minister, told reporters on Thursday that several practical exercises would be organised by Helsinki after it assumes the EU’s rotating presidency on July 1, including programmes involving the bloc’s finance and home affairs ministers. 

While EU defence ministers have already participated in such simulations, Helsinki believes that the range of “hybrid threats” that the bloc now faces — covering everything from fake news to cyber theft and attacks against critical IT systems — requires exercises with wider participation.  “We want the union and member states to strengthen their capacities to prevent and respond,” Mr Haavisto said.

“Military and civilian authorities can only do in times of crisis what they have been trained for.”

The featured photo: The Finnish initiative will bolster an existing EU push to tackle cyber security failings after high-profile attacks exposed weaknesses in the bloc’s electronic defences and networks for sharing warnings of breaches © Tanaonte/Dreamstime

Remembering Pearl Harbor in 2019: Anticipating Tactical and Strategic Surprise

By Robbin Laird

One way to remember December 7, 1941 is to go back to the actual day and recall the events.

December 7, 1941 dawned an ordinary Sunday for now-retired Lt. James “Jim” Downing and hearing his recount of the day is a very important way to remember the Day of Infamy.

Remembering Pearl Harbor from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

Another way to remember is thinking through how to prepare for and anticipate tactical and strategic surprise.

Obviously, a surprise is just that, not something which you anticipate.

But the much used term for what the military is seeking to become is more agile, and certainly, agility is precisely having an ability to contemplate that tactical and strategic surprises are going to happen.

And how you respond, and how you think about response is crucial to overcoming whatever the initial effects come from a tactical or strategic surprise.

In a 2011 article, I argued the case for sharping a much more agile military, the one I would now label the integrated distributed force, precisely because of the certainty of strategic and tactical surprise.

The US is in a strategic upheaval over the nature of its futures and what future capabilities will remain after Afghanistan and the budget dynamics. 

A key element to keep in mind – if the US wants to remain a strategic player globally – is how to rebuild its power projection forces. 

But it is clear that it is not an old understanding of power project we are discussing but a fundamental transition of forces for projecting power for strategic dominance to a core competence to deploy agile forces to deal with black swans.

Black Swans are Remaking the Notion of What Kind of Power Projection Forces the US Will Need in the Decade Ahead Credit Image; Bigstock

In the past two years, US forces have deployed to earthquakes, tsunamis, pick up wars, counter-piracy ops and a variety of impact points which could not have been planned in advance. 

At the center of every response were agile commands, agile forces and agile capabilities.  The difficulty is that every response to a Black Swan further degrades the remaining capabilities. 

Operations drain the remaining capability of deployed assets.  Leaders love to use the tools, but not to pay for their replacements.

It is more likely that Black Swans will continue to dominate our future, not 5-year Gosplans and insights from Commissions.  To be ready for Black Swans you need agility. 

Agile commands such as have built around the TACC, or the MEU structure are essential.  More flexible command and control as used by the French or the USMC in the recent Libyan engagement.

Agile forces such as the Agile Response Group built around the newly enabled Amphibious Ready Group. 

This is the building block for the future, not simply maintaining a legacy fleet with “geriatric” capabilities. 

The new force structure built around leveraging new platforms can provide the needed agility.

The author of the Black Swan underscored that key impediment to learning is that we focus excessively on what we do know and that we tend to focus on the precise. We are not ready for the unexpected.   For the author, the rare event equals uncertainty.

He argued that the extreme event as the starting point in knowledge not the reverse.

The author in the concluding parts of his second edition advocated redundancy as a core capability necessary for the kind of agile response one needs in a Black Swan Age.

The Black Swan: The Second Edition by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Random House).

A recent statement by the Africom Commander that the Libyan operations were sui generis and not relevant to the future of warfare is a case in point of a guy who does not get it; the unexpected introduces change, one needs to embrace it and not conclude that THAT unexpected event is the norm, rather the response necessary to deal with the unexpected is what needs to be focused upon for force planners.

The key conclusion here is rather simple: we need to rebuilt our forces to be MORE agile, with more flexible C4ISR D and more flexible expectations of what engagements we are about to engage in. 

And shaping plug and play capability with allies and partners becomes SIGNIFICANTLY more important in the period ahead.

And having significantly SCALEABILITY with regard to one’s forces would be a core advantage in responding to Black Swans.  As an event emerges, the National

Command Authority responds with what make sense to them. 

But then the situation evolves and the forces sent appear to be inadequate or the wrong ones. 

The deployed force can reach up and out to scale a response. 

And those forces can depart as new ones come.

One could easily argue that this will not happen the legacy systems which the US fights with have way to many stovepipes for agility, connectivity and coalition operations.

The featured photo was taken from the following source:

https://www.britannica.com/story/the-attack-on-pearl-harbor

For an interesting look at strategic surprise, see the following:

Intelligence-and-the-problem-of-strategic-surprise.pdf

For a CIA analysis of how intelligence needs to improve its approach to dealing with strategic surprise, see the following:

https://www.cia.gov/library/kent-center-occasional-papers/vol2no1.htm

And to follow up on my 2011 article, arguing for enhanced military agility, see my recent look at the amphibious task force as precisely enabling such a path:

Rethinking the Amphibious Task Force: Digital Interoperability and the Transformation of USMC Aviation

 

 

 

The Royal Australian Navy’s Amphibious Force at Full Strength

12/06/2019

By Lieutenant Rilana Ostheim

The Royal Australian Navy is now one of the world’s premier amphibious forces after the fleet’s two Canberra-class landing helicopter docks (LHDs) and landing craft achieved final operational capability.

The entire amphibious capability acquired under Joint Project 2048 – including HMA Ships Adelaide and Canberra, their 12 landing craft and amphibious supporting organisations – achieved the milestone in early November, confirming their ability to deliver and deploy the full scope of amphibious operations.

One of the officers on board Canberra, officer of the watch Sub Lieutenant Erika Peters, has been part of the ship’s company for the past 11 months.

“This year has been a busy year for Canberra and its crew, with the deployment on Indo-Pacific Endeavour our longest and most distant deployment to date, visiting India, Sri Lanka and countries across South-East Asia,” Sub Lieutenant Peters said.

“We have been involved in a number of foreign interactions and engagements, which all helped us to build strong relationships with our international counterparts and develop as a highly reliable and effective ship.

“It is a unique experience to be part of one of only two landing helicopter docks, especially due to the size of the ship and its deployable capabilities.”

As the centrepiece of Australia’s amphibious force, the Canberra-class have the ability to complete operations from amphibious warfare through to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

“It is a unique experience to be part of one of only two landing helicopter docks, especially due to the size of the ship and its deployable capabilities.”

Able Seaman Grant Davies, who joined the ship only weeks before its departure for Indo-Pacific Endeavour, said the past year had been a huge learning experience.

“This year has been the longest time I have been at sea and I have learned a lot about my job,” Able Seaman Davies said.

“Being away from home had its challenges, but Canberra is a very good ship and the team worked well together.

“Everyone’s job contributes to the bigger picture and we ensure that amphibious forces and other non-permanent crew feel integrated on board.”

At 230 metres long and with a possible speed of more than 20 knots, the 27,500-tonne LHDs are highly reliable and effective ships with capabilities that include six helicopter positions and four integral ship-to-shore connectors, which are able to carry all of Army’s in-service vehicles, including the M1A1 main battle tank.

This year, for the first time, both ships participated in Exercise Talisman Sabre.

Canberra has returned to her home port at Garden Island, while Adelaide is deployed to the South-West Pacific.

This article was first published on The Australian Department of Defence website on November 13, 2019.

The featured photo shows HMAS Adelaide and her sister ship HMAS Canberra sailing in company through heavy seas in the East Australian Exercise Area off the coast of NSW.

Photo: Leading Seaman Peter Thompson

RAAF’s P-8 Completes Initial Deployment to the Middle East

By Andrew McLaughlin

The deployment of an RAAF P-8A Poseidon maritime ISR aircraft to the Middle East has concluded.

The aircraft was deployed under the International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC) in September in response to the June shoot-down of a US Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk UAS by Iran, and subsequent Iranian attacks on commercial shipping near the Straits of Hormuz.

“Over the last month, the P-8A Poseidon aircraft has provided valuable maritime surveillance and reconnaissance to support the coalition partners in the IMSC,” Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds said in a November 24 statement.

“It is now time for the Poseidon to return home, having played a key role in supporting freedom of navigation and the free flow of shipping, which is crucial to regional security and stability.”

During the deployment, the aircraft completed 12 missions and flew for about 100 hours. Also deployed to Australia’s main operating base at Al Minhad AB in UAE was an E-7A Wedgetail, a C-130J Hercules, a KC-30A, and a visiting C-17A (pictured below).

Royal Australian Air Force personnel from Air Task Group 630, led by Group Captain Mark Barry, at the Australian Defence Force’s main operating base in the Middle East.

This article was first published by ADBR on December 4, 2019.

Editor’s Note: Visits to Bahrain this year certainly underscored the Australian presence in supporting Fifth-fleet led operations. 

The mission of the IMSC is described as to “assure, deter, and expose malign activity and threats to shipping in order to maintain freedom of navigation, international law, and free flow of commerce to support regional stability and security of the maritime commons.”

According to a story published by Aljazeera on November 7, 2019:

A US-led naval coalition officially launched operations in  Bahrain on Thursday to protect shipping in the troubled waters of the Gulf, following a string of attacks that Washington and its allies blamed on Iran.

The coalition, aimed at warding off the perceived threat to the world’s oil supply, has been in the making since June.

Iran, which has denied any responsibility for the mystery attacks, has put forward its own proposals for boosting security that pointedly exclude outside powers.

Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, joined the International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC) in August. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) followed suit in September.

Australia and the UK are the main Western countries to have agreed to send warships to escort Gulf shipping. The newest member, Albania, joined on Friday.

See, for example, the following:


NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY BAHRAIN, Bahrain (Nov. 7, 2019) International partners attend the opening of Coalition Task Force (CTF) Sentinel’s new command center at Naval Support Activity, Bahrain.

Participants from Australia, Bahrain, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States joined together at the ceremony to show their commitment to the international rules-based system.

CTF Sentinel is a multinational maritime effort to promote maritime stability, ensure safe passage, and enhance freedom of navigation throughout key waterways in the Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Oman.

(U.S. Navy video by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Christopher O’Grady/Released)

During the recently held BIDEC 19 Conference held in Bahrain, the Fifth Fleet Commander underscored the need for enhance proactive ISR to provide for the ability of the key players allied in the region to deal with threats posed by state and non-state threats to the rules based order in the region. 

Certainly, the RAAF’s P-8 contributed to that need.

Also, see the following:

BIDEC 2019: A Window into Bahraini Perspectives on Defense and Security

 

International Fighter Conference 2019: Special Report

12/05/2019

Last year’s International Fighter Conference provided a chance for the participants and the attendees to focus on the role of fighters in what we have been calling the strategic shift, namely, the shift from the land wars to operating in higher intensity operations against peer competitors.

It is clear that combat capabilities and operations are being re-crafted across the board with fighters at the center of that shift, and their evolution, of course, being affected as well as roles and operational contexts change.

This year’s fighter conference framed a much wider array of discussions on the overall threat and combat environment facing the current and future fighter fleets and discussed how they can contribute or better contribute to the evolving combat environment, and to be more effective in incorporating evolving technologies.

Notable issues included: how to best integrate the force as new platforms and technologies are introduced?

How to transition most effectively to multi-domain operations?

How to best connect the force to deliver higher levels of integration to give the force greater combat effect?

And underlying all of this is the key question: how to train pilots to do all of the above?

The transition is a significant one: from the legacy force in which multi-mission fighter training was the key focus, to a focus where warfighting was broadening to require mission command capabilities for pilots operating in a multi-domain combat environment.

The International Fighter Conference is clearly a place to be for those who are thinking about the evolution of the multi-domain combat environment and how best to prepare those flying fighters to prevail in that environment.

The F-35, CNI Evolution, and Evolving the Combat Force

12/04/2019

By Robbin Laird

The F-35 is termed a fifth-generation platform, but is better understood as a first generation flying combat system.

Or a next generation capability or foundation for building a C2/ISR infrastructure for the integrated distributed force.

Because the F-35 is being stood up worldwide with both the U.S. Services and multiple core allies, how the F-35 global enterprise is being shaped has significant consequences for interactive transformation of those forces.

A key aspect of the F-35 comprises the onboard combat systems and data fusion inside the aircraft.

Because the software is upgradable and concomitant hardware changes have been made to facilitate major software upgrades, separate combat systems are affected by innovation driven within each combat system, and separate innovations and upgrades are driven by the core companies and the partners responsible for each combat system.

The companies driving change in each combat system, along with their partners, can reach a global user community and use these innovations while considering how such innovations could proliferate into their wider force structure development.

A key example is the CNI system.

I remember that one of the early criticisms by some F-35 analysts was that it did not have a radio. But that was good news, not an oversight.

According to Lockheed Martin:

“The Communications, Navigation and Identification (CNI) system is the most advanced integrated avionics system ever engineered. The integrated CNI has been developed by Northrop Grumman and affords F-35 pilots capabilities derived from more than 27 avionics functions. Through software-defined radio technology, the CNI allows for simultaneous operation of multiple critical functions, such as identification of friend or foe, precision navigation, and various voice and data communications, while greatly reducing size, weight, and power demands.

“When we visited the then-head of the USAF Warfare Center, we asked what he found most interesting about the F-35 as a new combat capability and he instantly latched on to a discussion of the CNI.”

Major General Silveria, then head of the USAF Warfare Center and now Lt. General Silveria, Commandant of the USAF Academy, explained:

“Clearly, a key aspect of the F-35 is software upgradability. [It] provides for growth potential but requires a significantly different way to operate.

“This is difficult for people to grasp who do not fly the aircraft. One aspect associated with both fusion and software upgradability is that the F-35 is an integrated weapons system.

“Many articles have criticized this or that particular system on the aircraft; but [the F-35] aircraft is not really about this or that system; it is about the capability of a set of diverse systems to work together to deliver an effect and overall capabilities.

“Another key aspect is what software eliminates from the aircraft yet allows for enhanced combat effectiveness. A chief example is the CNI system. The plane has noneof the items traditionally on airplanes that transmit and receive. It does not have any of those.

“Instead, it has two CNI com and navigation racks. It has two racks and you instruct the airplane: I would like to transmit in the UHF waveform; it generates that waveform and transmits in the UHF waveform, which is a difficult concept to think about, because there is no UHF radio on the airplane. There is no ILS on the airplane.

“If I want an ILS, I have to go in, tap on my glass and say, ‘hey, good morning jet, I’m going to need an ILS today, so I need you to generate the ILS waveform when I need it.’

“What does this mean in terms of performance and maintainability? I do not have to maintain what is not there; I do not need to be affected by failure rates of systems that are no longer there.

“Let me use the example of the IFF transponder, which I do not have on the plane as a separate system. On an F-15 E, you can walk to the ramp and open a panel where you’ll find a little box that has all sorts of cannon plugs on it labeled ‘IFF transponder.’

“If it failed during the operation, when you came back you told maintenance it did not work. They’d undo the cannon plugs, they’d pull out this IFF and send it to the back shop; they’d go through all the testing, they’d figure out, they’d fix it, and it would come back. They would put in another one. Well, the F-35 doesn’t have that either to fail or to fix.”

As the infrastructure for Command and Control (C2) and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) evolves and transforms, the upgrades on the F-35 can benefit from those changes as well as generate them.

The CNI is a core case in point.

As the cards are transformed, along with the capabilities they enable, and any accompanying hardware changes occur, not only can an F-35 improve as a combat asset but the upgraded onboard technology can reshape the combat elements in the air, on sea, or land.

These can benefit F-35 connectivity directly and those demonstrated capabilities can inform decisions about modernization or transformation of other combat assets which can employ similar variants of the new systems contained in the CNI.

Cubic Mission Solutions’ (CMS) involvement on the CNI system and its recent contract with Lockheed Martin exemplifies this dynamic.

The contract is designed to provide Full Motion Video (FMV) capabilities for the integrated battlespace.

Cubic Mission Systems expertise focuses in part on the innovations that FMV can deliver as part of the C2 and ISR infrastructure modernization for an integrated distributed force.

CMS’ new contract with Lockheed Martin will provide new capabilities in the CNI, and they will bring that experience to bear for the benefit of the F-35 global enterprise.

They will also be able to work through the ways that communicating through FMV from the aircraft can impact related efforts for other key combat assets in the future.

A press release published by Cubic Corporation on June 11, 2019, highlighted the new contract:

Cubic Corporation today announced that its Cubic Mission Solutions business division was selected by Lockheed Martin as the Video Data Link (VDL) provider for the F-35 Lightning II Program. Cubic’s VDL capability for the F-35 will significantly increase the aircraft’s combat capability and is an essential capability to the overall F-35 follow-on modernization program. 

“We are very pleased to partner with Lockheed Martin to provide a secure video data link capability for the F-35,” said Mike Twyman, president, Cubic Mission Solutions. “Our team of protected communications experts has decades of experience supplying common data link systems and we look forward to partnering on this critical program.”

“With our proven track record of managing a program from development through fielding, along with the proven performance of our software-defined radio products including the nano Multiband Miniature Transceiver, we are confident in our ability to deliver a low-risk, cost-effective Video Data Link solution with built-in life cycle enhancements,” said James Parys, program director, Cubic Mission Solutions.

Cubic’s offering is a secure and mission-enhancing system that easily fits within the allocated CNI subsystem volume. The software-defined, radio-based VDL solution features high-performance processing that can support future live video enhancements, while minimizing Size, Weight, Power and Cooling (SWaP-C). Cubic’s solution enables the F-35 to transmit and receive sensor and metadata to and from multiple ground or airborne units.

 The significance of this way forward rests in part on the changing C2 and ISR infrastructure and the evolving role of full motion video as integral to transforming the infrastructure itself.

In a recent interview with Vice President and General Manager Bradford Powell, Cubic Corporation’s C2ISR Solutions business, he discussed FMV’s enhanced role within the evolving C2 and ISR infrastructure for the integrated distributed force.

According to Powell, the clear trend line is toward significantly expanding access to imagery and FMV while improving integration between the two:

“We are working to provide context within the full motion video feeds, which will enable the operational user to make tactical decisions more effectively.”

Powell described C2 as moving from a focus on maps to command and control operating from within full motion video. Such focus will require tools that provide context easily used by the tactical decision maker.

As a relatively simple example, Powell referred to how television networks superimpose yellow first-down markers over the video of a football game. Imagine, then, the various data clusters which could be laid down over the full motion video available to the tactical decision maker in his area of interest or the area where he is operating, and one can envision the coming future of video-driven context for C2 at the tactical edge.

The task is to insert relevant tactical data into the full motion video.

“The full motion video–focused C2 environment would thereby evolve to make a broader set of intelligence products discoverable in the video.”

The overall focus is to give the local decision maker much greater context for what he is looking at in the full motion video.

Cubic’s input into the CNI system will allow the F-35 to evolve along the lines suggested by Powell.

To expand my understanding of how this process was going to work, I had a chance to talk with James Parys at CMS, the man responsible for the teams working the new CNI capability into the F-35.

James Parys is the Director of Platform Communications Programs for Cubic Mission Solutions, a business division of Cubic Corporation. Mr. Parys has more than 25 years of experience in program management and business development in the defense, information technology, and computer science industries.

Parys began his career in the U.S. Navy and, after leaving the service, has worked in industry on a variety of C2 and ISR programs.

In his current role, he manages Cubic’s platform-focused communication system program organization, which includes the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and MQ-25 Unmanned Carrier-Launched UAS Video Data Link (VDL) programs for CMS.

As a combat system, the F-35 allows for significant upgrades over time, which is why some commentators’ notion about the F-35’s obsolescence makes little sense when one considers the aircraft’s built-in software and related hardware upgradability.

According to Parys, “We’re providing a set of cards that will integrate into our own segregated element of the CNI rack. It’s basically going to be, for lack of a better term, a rack inside a rack.

“We will take video feeds from other very complex sophisticated sensors onboard the aircraft and communicate informationto other users, whether they’re on other aircraft or on the ground, which they can leverage. Our data link’s primary CONOPSis to support close air support.”

Cubic has developed the ability to put into cards what once took up a lot of real estate and power generation to process the data and then communicate. Cubic is putting technology inside the F‑35 that is battle-tested and matured within other systems operating in the battlespace.

The data fusion on the aircraft is unique and also leverages proven technologies in step with modernization of the CNI function on the aircraft.

In other words, Cubic is harvesting their experience elsewhere and putting it on the F-35 as the aircraft matures and evolves.

They will be able to harvest some of those solutions to benefit universal enhanced capability for an ISR C2 integrated infrastructure, which is evolving for the overall force development of the integrated distributed force.

A key element of the new capabilities Cubic is providing for the F-35 is an ability to pass over the middleman, or to reduce the need to send the data to a processing center which, in turn, sorts through the data and then sends it out to the user.

Cubic is significantly reducing what one might call the tooth-to-tail relationship in the C2 and ISR infrastructure.

Parys said, “We are supplying data directly from the F-35 to the ground combat elements that have not had access to before.

“We will provide very-high-resolution information coming off the F-35sensors directlyto the ground forces.

“With our solution, we’re leveraging other capabilities, such as ISR Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination (PED)–type capabilities to be able to clean up the video, and enable higher levels of resolution and higher contrast.

“By that I mean, being able to clear fog or see through smoke and share that view to the troops down on the ground, rather than the data having to be back-hauled to a PED station somewhere.

“The troops on the ground receive that data directly, which helps them make better, time-urgentdecisions.”

Effectively, this capability contributes to building an infrastructure that connects the ground combat element to the aircraft’s systems.

The modernized CNI takes abundant visual data and transforms it to shape a more usable data stream that supports combat operations.

Parys added, “We aregoing to reduce the whole timeline of the mission and what they need to do.

“This information can be sent to other aircraft; it can also be sent to other ground units.

“It means taking this advanced sensor in the sky and making its information available for whoever needs to leverage it and use it, whatever their mission is.

“The information will be available at an enterprise level rather than be limited to the traditional single stakeholder to single stakeholder process.”

I have argued elsewhere that one advantage of the F-35 global enterprise for defense companies, and not just the prime contractor, is to provide global users with the experience of working with a variety of companies they might not have experienced before.

This certainly is the case with Kongsberg and its F-35 Joint Strike Missile (JSM), which additionally has led to broader understanding of what their technology can provide to other combat elements.

This was demonstrated when the U.S. Navy adopted a Kongsberg strike missile being coproduced with Raytheon.

A similar positive outcome is predictable for Cubic and its engagement on the F-35.

As users become familiar with innovative processes of incorporating full motion video into a decision-making flow, we will see a demand to replicate such experiences elsewhere for other combat forces.

Parys highlighted: “We’re taking what we’re putting on the F-35 and we’re making it even smaller; fully packaged, but even smaller, and we’re putting it in the hands of users on the ground as well.”

For Ed Timperlake’s concept of the Z Axis and the F-35, click through to the following:

Timperlake

Also, see Mike Skaff’s treatment of the F-35 and data fusion:

The Impact of Advanced Fusion in 5th Generation Fighters on Combat Capability

For a look at the impact of the F-35 global enterprise on widening the engagement with defense innovation overall, see the following:

The F-35, Allies and Global Investments in 21st Century Airpower