U.S. Marines with 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force participate in a large scale air assault during Exercise Steel Pike 19 at Camp Davis, North Carolina, June 11, 2019.
Steel Pike is a joint regimental exercise designed to provide Marine Air Ground Task Force capabilities in order to increase lethality and combat effectiveness to prepare for possible future combat operations
CAMP DAVIS, NC, UNITED STATES
06.11.2019
Video by Sgt. Sylvia Tapia
2nd Marine Division
By Andrew McLaughlin
The Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) has conducted a 9,000km rapid reaction deployment training mission from Edwards AFB in California to a range in the Netherlands.
The June 13 strike mission was conducted RNLAF pilots and two F-35As based with the joint 323rd Test and Evaluation Squadron (323rdTES) at Edwards AFB, and was supported by a RNLAF KDC-10 tanker. The mission was a key element of the Dutch operational testing and evaluation (OT&E) program.
“The approach of Rapid Reaction Deployment is that a number of F-35s can be deployed within 24 hours, self-supporting, flexible and worldwide to carry out missions, with support from tanker and transport devices,” a RNLAF release reads. “This can be carried out in an environment with a high threat, day and night and in all weather conditions.”
The two aircraft were delayed on the mission after the first tanker experienced refuelling problems.
But after a replacement joined the mission in Canada, they crossed the Atlantic and dropped two GBU-49 GPS and laser-guided and two GBU-12 laser-guided bombs on a target of four containers on the Vlieland range with support from Dutch ground-based Joint Terminal Air Controllers (JTACs).
After the mission, the two aircraft landed at Volkel Air Base in The Netherlands where they took part in an open days event on June 14 and 15.
The mission was supported by a single USAF C-17A with 18 personnel to provide all maintenance, armament, life support and spares support.
This article was first published by Australian Defence Business Review on June 26, 2019.
By Lt. General (Retired) Deptula
After the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down an unmanned and unarmed U.S. Navy surveillance drone last week, President Trump exercised significant restraint, calling off a planned kinetic strike against the offending surface-to-air missile (SAM) launch site.
Many—including the Iranian leadership—expected to see a retaliatory attack in response to the unprovoked attack. While fully justified and empowered by Article II of the Constitution to take military action to protect important national interests—even without specific prior authorization from Congress—the President did not launch the strike.
To understand the President’s decision, we must put near-term response options in the context of longer-term desired strategic outcomes.
In other words, while the President and his advisers must act one step at a time, they must always be thinking 10 steps ahead.
The U.S. Navy Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Demonstrator (BAMS-D) aircraft is a Navy version of the U.S. Air Force block 10 RQ-4A Global Hawk high-altitude, long-endurance, unmanned, unarmed aircraft used to conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. It has a wingspan about the same size as a Boeing 737 airliner.
The BAMS-D is the precursor to the Navy’s MQ-4C “Triton” that is designed to support a wide variety of missions, including maritime ISR patrol, signals intelligence collection, search and rescue, and communications relay.
The Navy BAMS-D aircraft was operating in international airspace, never flying closer than about 34 kilometers from the Iranian coast. After its downing, three BAMS-D aircraft remain in the Navy’s inventory.
The SAM missile system that shot down the BAMS-D aircraft was claimed by Iran to be a domestically-built system known in Iran as the 3rd Khordad transporter erector launcher and radar, a variant of its Raad SAM system.
It appears to be a copy or derivative of the Russian Buk M3 / SA-17 GRIZZLY, similar to the system that the Russians used to shoot down the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014.
Iran also claims the system incorporates the Bavar 373 surface to air missile that seems to be a derivative of the Soviet 5V55 / SA-10B with additional controls.
The reason it is important to understand the type of SAM system used in the attack is that while this incident highlights the value of using an unmanned aircraft to expand response options that would be limited if a manned aircraft was involved, it also underlines a very significant point.
Global Hawk/Triton unmanned aircraft are subsonic, non-stealthy platforms that were not designed to operate in areas covered by advanced SAM or air-to-air aircraft threats.
The fact that Iran was able to destroy the BAMS-D Global Hawk illustrates how advanced SAM threats have proliferated, even to second-rate military powers.
More importantly, from a capability perspective, it illustrates why the U.S. military needs to accelerate the fielding of next-generation manned and unmanned stealth aircraft instead of continuing to rely on aging non-stealth 4th generation aircraft that were designed for less lethal environments.
The long-term goal of the U.S. and her allies seeking a peaceful and prosperous Mideast, is to get the leadership in Iran to realize that it is in their best interests to abandon their goal of achieving nuclear weapons.
Contrary to the proclamations of the members of the Obama administration that put it in place, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or the “nuclear deal with Iran,” only delayed—rather than prevented—a nuclear-armed Iran.
Through its hostile act against an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft flying in international airspace, Iran is trying to drive a wedge between the United States and her allies, as well as create dissension in American domestic politics by painting President Trump as a warmonger.
His restraint in holding back from rapid military action is therefore prudent; it shows he and his advisors are thinking about the long game.
First, President Trump was right that the significant loss of life that could have resulted from U.S. air and missile strikes would have been a disproportionate response to the shoot-down of an unmanned aircraft.
Second, he left little doubt that additional acts of aggression by Iran will result in a harsh military response. While some may criticize as waffling the President’s decision to withhold a counterstrike, he sent a clear signal that further provocations will not be tolerated while at the same time offering an off-ramp for Iran to seek a different, more peaceful path.
At the same time, it is also important to realize that options involving the use of military force are not binary. This was not a choice over whether or not to go to war.
The use of military force should not be confused with getting into inextricable long wars—that is a matter of choice.
Military force in response to hostile aggression can take a variety of forms without long-term commitment.
For example, President Trump in 2017 and 2018 successfully used air and missile attacks against elements of the Assad regime in Syria to curb Assad’s use of chemical weapons without committing the U.S. to war against Syria. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was reversed in 43 days in 1991 with Operation Desert Storm.
The humanitarian catastrophe that was then unfolding in Kosovo in 1999 was halted in 79 days with Operation Allied Force.
These were all campaigns where airpower was the key force behind their success.
Military options for dealing with Iran must avoid committing large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground with the intent for direct combat against opposing Iranian forces.
As we have learned only too well in Afghanistan and Iraq, ground-force doctrine leads to occupations and long wars of dubious strategic value. It is instructive to recall that the combination of airpower and a small number of special operations forces accomplished the critical initial U.S. security objectives in Afghanistan in less than three months.
By the end of 2001, we had removed the Taliban from power, helped establish a successor government that was friendly to the U.S. and her allies, and eliminated the Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
Those objectives were accomplished so quickly that the planning for the deployment of large numbers of U.S. ground forces had not yet been completed. This was due to an element of the default U.S. military playbook, known as “phased operations.”
That approach presumes large numbers of ground forces in “phase three” or the “dominating activities” phase, are required to succeed in any conflict.
Such assumptions run counter to the premise of actual joint doctrine—the use of the right force, at the right place, at the right time, to achieve the desired effects.
Why did we then pour hundreds of thousands of ground forces into Afghanistan over the next decade plus, after the vital U.S. security objectives were realized?
The answer illustrates the importance of clearly defining U.S. security objectives, and then acting rapidly and effectively with precisely the force necessary to achieve them. Neutering Al Qaeda and eliminating Afghanistan as Al Qaeda’s sanctuary were critical U.S. security objectives.
Attempting to turn Afghanistan into a modern Jeffersonian democracy was not. Critics may insist that early 2002 was too soon to recognize that Al Qaeda in Afghanistan had been neutered, but when we shifted from a strategy of counterterrorism to one of counterinsurgency we shifted from a set of strategic objectives that were vital to the U.S. to a set of objectives that were not.
The main objective regarding Iran is to change its aggressive behavior to achieve a measure of order in the region, and to dissuade its regime from acquiring nuclear weapons.
At some point toward that end, the option of military force application may be required.
Avoiding the mistake of introducing U.S. ground forces as a primary force element will be imperative to any success.
Those military options holding the greatest applicability with respect to achieving our objectives in Iran are airpower and offensive cyber operations; the latter is already being applied.
We need to isolate Iran, not let Iran isolate the U.S.
The response by President Trump to the unprovoked aggression by the Iranian regime this past week put the geopolitical advantage with the United States.
Time is on our side.
It must be used wisely to garner support of nations to contain Iran while remaining prepared to compel Iran to renounce its nuclear weapon aspirations using both continued economic sanctions, and if necessary, smart military options relying on air and sea power.
Finally, and perhaps most important, we must realize that the Iranian leadership views the world through a prism of their fanatical theological-based dogma. Iranian Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is dogmatic to an extreme and cares less about his own people than his own authoritarian well-being.
He may not be compelled by any action others would impose on him to comply with the norms of peaceful international behavior. To Khamenei, compromise is seen as a sign of submission and weakness.
Contrary to the norms of western culture, moral and ethical codes, he will do whatever it takes to remain in power.
Those who crafted the JCPOA may have realized that and designed that deal to buy time to achieve a “natural” or internal politically driven regime change during the course of the period of the agreement. Khamenei may not be interested in any more deals.
Accordingly, one of the options the current administration should have in its set of courses of action is one that encourages the Iranian people to oust their tyrannical leadership and replace them with Iranian leaders that seek a productive relationship inside the community of nations—and a degree of concern for the wellbeing of their own population at least equal to that of themselves.
This article was first published by Forbes on June 25, 2019 and is reprinted with permission of the author.
By Max Blenkin
Israel is a nation under constant threat, and has developed very advanced defensive capabilities including an air and missile defence (IAMD) system and that could be of relevance to Australia.
At the lowest level is Iron Dome, a mobile Counter Rocket and Mortar (C-RAM) system, the development of which was headed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems in cooperation with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), and declared operational in 2011.
Iron Dome was designed to detect, track and intercept short-range artillery rockets, mortars and also UAVs launched by insurgents in Gaza, and by Hizbollah in Lebanon at Israeli communities. Israel claims a combat success rate of 90 per cent or better in shooting down more than 2,000 rockets judged as posing an actual threat.
As long as Israel has existed, rockets and mortars have been fired from neighbouring nations. But in the 1991 Gulf War, Scud missiles were fired at Israeli cities from Iraq. The US deployed Patriot missile batteries to Israel to protect Israeli citizens but also to help prevent Israel being provoked into attacking Iraq, which would surely have split the delicate US-led coalition.
Since then Israel has worked closely with the US to develop multi-layered air and missile defences able to protect against everything from the persistent rocket and mortar attacks to long-range rockets, which could carry nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.
While Israel’s IAMD system is in part what Australia aspires to emulate, it was designed for a very different threat environment. But while many countries possess IAMD systems of various descriptions, none completely match what Australia aspires to create. Consequently, the solution will be uniquely Australian.
Israel is a small nation with land borders and mostly unfriendly neighbours, and remains under constant threat. Consequently Israel maintains 24-hour, 360 degrees radar and sensor coverage, with forces available to respond at very short notice.
Israel may be unique in the magnitude of the threats it faces, but missile technology is proliferating and may one day pose a more immediate threat to the Australian mainland. Additionally, any deployed force will face a likely greater threat of rocket and mortar attack, as did the Australian taskforce in Afghanistan, a threat for which it was initially not well prepared.
As much as Australia might like complete sensor coverage of borders and surrounding oceans, that’s probably not possible nor desirable. The areas of greatest interest lie to the north and west, which is where JORN gazes now.
Certainly Israeli companies are interested, and ADBR talked to representatives of Rafael and IAI at February’s Avalon Airshow. “It is purely an American project at the moment,” said Yacov Bortman, director of marketing for IAI’s Elta Systems. “In the study phase RAND, the research company approached only the four American companies, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
“So that’s it, those are the primes,” Bortman said. “So anything we can contribute to this project, should be selected by the primes from us. Everybody talks to everybody. It’s not specifically one or the other.”
He noted that Australian radars made by CEA would be part of the project, but that IAI could contribute to AIR 6500 in many areas. It produces a range of radars in different bands with different capabilities, and it also has considerable expertise in ballistic missile defence (BMD).
“We expect that ballistic missile defence could be one of the things the country will need,” said Bortman. “In this area we have experience since the ‘80s. We started our ballistic missile defence project in the ‘80s and so far the Israeli solution includes four layers.
“The lowest layer is the Iron Dome. Then you have the David’s Sling in the second layer, and then we have the Arrow project up to Arrow 3 which covers the outer space capability. Elta, which represents about quarter of the business of IAI, is the supplier of sensors in all the layers.”
Elta’s director of marketing for its SIGINT (signals intelligence) and communications division, Guy Alon said Israel’s air situation pictures was generated by radar in different bands.
However, in event of a major conflict an adversary will seek to knock out radar systems. There are numerous weapons designed to home on radar emissions and even loiter over a battlefield waiting for a radar to switch on.
Mr Alon said there was an increasing need to add a passive sensor layer using signals intelligence sensors to complement active sensors.
“It is a new concept which is taking more and more grip in the air defence world,” he said. “We hear more and more about it and we provide solutions in this area. It is electronic intelligence. It means passively intercepting signals of the emitters, usually airborne radars of the other side, being able to passively geo-locate them because we only receive, we do not transmit, and classify the different types of radars.
“This is another layer of information for air defence, on top of the radar information. This is another capability we promote. Basically it gives your air situation picture capability the ability to operate in more of a silent mode.”
Mr Alon said Australia now had to figure out how to proceed ion this project. “I would imagine that eventually they will take some kind of a phased approach,” he said. “We believe we can contribute. We believe we have the technical and operational knowledge to contribute in such a project. Obviously, there are some other considerations for the Australian government, but we are here to try and help.”
A node of the new integrated air and missile defence system will be the new Raytheon/KONGSBERG Enhanced NASAMS short-range ground-based air defence (SRGBAD) system being acquired under project LAND 19 Phase 7B.
NASAMS features Raytheon’s AMRAAM, a missile which is also in RAAF service and is regarded as highly effective, but expensive.
Just how expensive isn’t easy to say but the most recent Australian FMS acquisition of AMRAAM announced last month was for 108 of the latest AIM-120C-7 variants for US$240.5 million. That deal also included a range of spares and instrumentation but suggests a missile unit price well in excess of A$1 million.
Rafael says it could complement AMRAAM with its very effective Iron Dome Tamir interceptors which cost around a tenth of the cost of an AMRAAM round.
Joseph Horowitz, deputy general manager for Rafael air and missile defence systems division said the LAND 19 request for proposal sought a counter rocket and mortar (C-RAM) capability, which NASAMS didn’t include, although the KONGSBERG air defence console does have a C-RAM interface.
“What we are doing is offering to do what we are doing in the US, that is to integrate our interceptors to the customer’s own system which, in the Australian case would be as a part of the NASAMS systems,” Horowitz said.
“With the NASAMS battery you have a CEA radar, KONGSBERG command and control and four AMRAAM launchers with 24 missiles. What we are offering is to add another two launchers from Iron dome with an additional 20 missiles ready to fire.”
Mr Horowitz said NASAMS could calculate the best solution for a particular threat. Tamir was very effective for dealing with shorter-range airborne threats, including aircraft and helicopters out to 15km. That would also give NASAMS a CRAM capability, plus an ability to target unmanned systems.
That reduced cost is achieved through a number of innovations. The missile body is aluminium rather than a composite. Control surface actuators are electro-mechanical rather than pneumatic, and feature a unique low-cost RF Software-defined radio (SDR) seeker.
Since most of the cost of a missile is in its seeker, Tamir has passive guidance with inflight updates and an active seeker which only switches on for terminal guidance to the target.
Picking Tamir would involve integrating this missile into the NASAMS, but Rafael says that’s no problem as it’s what they are already doing in conjunction with Raytheon for NASAMS for the US military. The US Army recently announced it is buying two Iron Dome systems to provide an advanced CRAM capability as well as an ability to counter UAS, cruise missiles and aircraft to protect deployed forces.
Rafael said when integrated into NASAMS, Tamir used the NASAMS launcher and radar without modifications. Minor modification are needed in the missiles, and two additional undefined components are required for the NASAMS Fire Direction Control.
Should Australia decide to go with Tamir as a component of NASAMS, the missiles and other components would be built in Australia through Varley Rafael Australia (VRA), the joint venture with Newcastle-based firm Varley. “The most important thing is to bring in the technology that allows VRA to support the Australian Defence Force,” Mr Horowitz said.
This feature article appeared in the March-April 2019 issue of ADBR.
The RAAF recently announced their continuation of the cross-servicing agreement between USAF C-17s and Aussies C-17s.
According to a recent article published by the RAAF:
The United States and Australia have agreed to a cross-servicing arrangement for the repair and maintenance of C-17A Globemasters.
The establishment of an Aircraft Repair and Maintenance Service – Implementing Arrangement (ARMS-IA) will further increase interoperability between both nation’s C-17A workforces.
This can range from contingency maintenance when C-17As are away from home base on a task, through to exercises or operations when C-17A workforces are deployed together.
Brigadier General (BRIG GEN) Steve Bleymaier, United States Air Force (USAF) Air Mobility Command Director of Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection, said partnerships such as this were vital for air mobility.
“Mobility airmen are always ready to deliver strength and hope anywhere in the world at any time,” BRIG GEN Bleymaier said.
“We are most successful when we work with valued partners like our Australian counterparts.
Air Vice-Marshal (AVM) Steve Roberton, Air Commander Australia, said the arrangement would provide much-needed flexibility for the USAF and RAAF.
“Our C-17A workforce regularly shares a tarmac with American C-17As, whether we are on exercise together at home, or deployed across the globe,” AVM Roberton said.
“Whilst a USAF C-17A is no different from a RAAF C-17A, our air forces have different maintenance workforce structures, which is what makes an arrangement like this essential.
“By making it easier to help one another, this arrangement provides flexibility and mission assuredness for USAF and RAAF C-17A missions.”
The signing of this arrangement follows C-17A maintenance integration activities conducted in 2017 under the Enhanced Air Cooperation (EAC) program.
This involved USAF C-17A technicians conducting maintenance activities with their RAAF counterparts.
In the Asia Pacific, RAAF and USAF C-17A crews have supported relief operations in the Philippines and Japan, as well as worked together on Exercises Mobility Guardian and Talisman Sabre.
Both nation’s C-17As are essential to supporting deployed operations, including those in the Middle East.
“This arrangement focuses on the C-17A workforce, but will ultimately benefit the organisations deployed across the globe who rely on a C-17A to sustain them,” AVM Roberton said.
“In the Asia-Pacific, it makes sense for us to capitalise on our existing close relationship, pool resources when possible, and increase our C-17A capability even further.
“I look forward to similar EAC cooperation and ARMS arrangements being conducted for other aircraft common to Australia and the United States.”
In 2018, C-130J Hercules aircraft maintenance interoperability activities were conducted as part of EAC, and an implementing arrangement for cross servicing for C-130J is underway.
Future maintenance integration activities are projected for the P-8A Poseidon aircraft and F-35A Joint Strike Fighter.
We have focused on the importance of this global sustainment approach for some time, and have argued that its expansion to programs like F-35 and P-8 is a critical part of being able to prevail in the context of the global shift from the Middle Eastern land wars to full spectrum crisis management.
For example, earlier this year, we published this article, which reached back to interviews conducted in the Pacific a few years ago as well:
As new aircraft enter the combat fleet, there is a clear opportunity to shape new approaches to sustainment for global operations.
This is especially true if the aircraft in question is bought and operated by allies as well as US forces.’
The core promise of the F-35 global enterprise rests on this strategic opportunity.
Fortunately, we have already seen the emergence of the approach with legacy systems, which can be built on as the new software-upgradeable aircraft enter the force.
A good case in point is the C-17.
Allies are not just customers but participants in innovation.
A case in point are the Aussies and their operation of the C-17.
A recent article published on the Australian Ministry of Defence website published on January 26, 2019 provides a look at a case where an Aussie innovated to the benefit not just of Australia but to the entire C-17 operating fleet.
Soon after posting into No. 36 Squadron, Corporal Kelvin Green noticed a problem with the C-17A Globemaster’s paint.
“I look at every aircraft in detail – I can spot a repair and can tell if paint is not going to last,” he said.
Corporal Green noticed paint was delaminating about three months after returning from a full repaint in the United States, instead of lasting five to seven years.
When he realised this was causing an increasing workload, Corporal Green wrote a defect report including how to rectify the problem.
Boeing sent a team of scientists and engineers to inspect the aircraft and test Corporal Green’s theories.
“It turns out I was correct,” he said.
“They took their findings back and made significant changes.”
No. 86 Wing sent Corporal Green to the United States to inspect the first Royal Australian Air Force C-17A painted after the changes.
“It was great to see my report on display for all Boeing’s aircraft surface finishers to see,” he said.
For his intervention, Corporal Green received a Conspicuous Service Medal in this year’s Australia Day Honours List.
Corporal Green said support and recognition from his chain of command made this possible.
“It’s always a battle convincing people that paint should be a priority as it does affect the aircraft life,” he said.
Corporal Green’s paint knowledge resulted in improved availability and reduced costs over the life of all C-17As.
The citation said his “extraordinary” vigilance and professionalism had a positive impact on the C-17A fleet worldwide.
“To actually receive it is unbelievable; it has still not quite sunk in,” Corporal Green said.
“For my mustering, such a small mustering; it’s an absolute honour.”
Because the C-17 is supported by a global sustainment contract, cross-learning is facilitated as well.
In this video insert from an interview conducted at PACAF at Hickam AFB on February 24, 2014, Jim Silva, Deputy Director, Logistics (A4D), discusses the parts sharing arrangement between the US and the Aussies with regard to the C-17.
Boeing_C-17-GSP_ProgExc2011
The RAAF has recently participated in the US Exercise Shaken Fury
According to an Australian Department of Defence story published on June 18, 2019:
A LIFT from a RAAF C-17A Globemaster has allowed an Australian urban search-and-rescue (USAR) task force to exercise with international peers in the United States.
Departing from RAAF Base Amberley, the contingent of 60 personnel flew to Indiana for Exercise Shaken Fury from June 2-9.
Air Movements personnel from Number 23 Squadron loaded 14 tonnes of specialist equipment on the C-17A along with the Australian USAR task force.
The successful move highlighted the efforts made by Defence and Australian USAR teams in the past decade to ensure they can be deployed at short notice.
RAAF C-17A and C-130J crews have previously deployed Australian USAR teams for disaster relief operations in Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand and Vanuatu.
Coordinated by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, the scenario for Exercise Shaken Fury centred on a 7.7 magnitude earthquake hitting Tennessee.
Deputy Commissioner of Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) Mark Roche said sending USAR teams to overseas exercises ensured Australia could maintain best practice.
“This exercise was an opportunity for all involved to foster inter-agency cooperation, share information on operational procedures, research, equipment and training,” Mr Roche said.
“It was also an excellent opportunity for our personnel to showcase their knowledge, skills and abilities and learn from established and respected USAR teams.”
The USAR task force included members of the Departments of Home Affairs, Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Fire and Rescue NSW and QFES.
Much like how the RAAF trains with other air forces, Exercise Shaken Fury was an opportunity for the USAR task force to build relationships, knowledge and skills to draw on at future disaster relief events.
“The exercise has helped strengthen our national and state response during disasters and improved our ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from major incidents,” Mr Roche said.
“It is the continued maintenance of these capabilities that afford QFES significant international recognition and respect as a USAR team.”
Squadron Leader Ben Barber said the deployment for Exercise Shaken Fury signified how far the relationship between Defence and USAR teams had developed.
Having previously worked as an Air Movements Officer at RAAF Base Richmond, he is now posted as the Movements Flight Commander at RAAF Base Amberley.
“Both sides have come a long way since our interactions in 2011, when Air Force deployed USAR teams following earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan,” Squadron Leader Barber said.
“In slow time, we’ve brought USAR teams to Air Movements Sections at Richmond and Amberley to go through what equipment is safe to fly, and plan how it is palletised to ensure minimal delays.”
Australia maintains two internationally-accredited USAR capabilities in Queensland and NSW.
“We keep caches of USAR equipment at Richmond and Amberley so it can be loaded quickly,” Squadron Leader Barber said.
One of the main things the USAR teams learned about was payload and weight management, including equipment that requires fuel or batteries to operate in a disaster area.
USAR teams had previously been accustomed to deploying via road transport, bringing fewer restrictions on the carriage of dangerous goods or heavy cargo.
“If USAR teams have specialist equipment, or were buying new equipment, they needed to ensure it was either free from dangerous goods, or could be easily prepared for transport on a C-17A or C-130J,” Squadron Leader Barber said.
The teams often need to be largely self-sufficient when deploying, which brings issues of weight management of their cargo, especially if they’re bringing water.
“When deploying on a truck, a pallet of water might not be an issue, but when you’re travelling on an aircraft that weight can impact the remaining payload and aircraft range,” Squadron Leader Barber said.
The featured photo shows Royal Australian Air Force loadmaster Corporal Georgia Harper, of No. 36 Squadron, loading search-and-rescue equipment on to a C-17A Globemaster before it departs RAAF Base Amberley to participate in Exercise Shaken Fury in the United States.
One of the points about flying unmanned aircraft is that you have a wider range of opportunities to respond to a shoot down.
If it is a manned asset, you have to respond to recover the downed pilot or mission crew and to do so with significant impact.
With an unmanned asset, you are not constrained in a similar manner.
And the recent shoot down by the Iranians of a Global Hawk is clearly a case in point.
President Trump decided to not go in with guns blazing to retaliate for the shoot down, but has the option to prepare for a measured response.
That is a core advantage which an unmanned asset provides for leaders.
Indeed, if one needed a reminder that UAVs operate most effectively when an adversary is not shooting them down, then this video is a good reminder.
According US Central Command:
“A U.S. Navy RQ-4 was flying over the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz on a surveillance mission in international airspace in the vicinity of recent IRGC maritime attacks when it was shot down by an IRGC surface to air missile fired from a location in the vicinity of Goruk, Iran.
This was an unprovoked attack on a U.S. surveillance asset that had not violated Iranian airspace at any time during its mission.
This attack is an attempt to disrupt our ability to monitor the area following recent threats to international shipping and free flow of
commerce.
Iranian reports that this aircraft was shot down over Iran are categorically false.
The aircraft was over the Strait of Hormuz and fell into international waters.
At the time of the intercept, the RQ-4 was operating at high-altitude approximately 34 kilometers from the nearest point of land on the Iranian
coast.
This dangerous and escalatory attack was irresponsible and occurred in the vicinity of established air corridors between Dubai, UAE, and Muscat Oman,
possibly endangering innocent civilians.”
TAMPA, FL, UNITED STATES
06.20.2019
Video by Thomas Gagnier
U.S. Central Command Public Affairs
And Andrew McLaughlin of Australian Defence Business Review added these comments to clarify the reporting:
The US Central Command (CENTCOM) has confirmed earlier reports that Iran has shot down a US Navy Northrop Grumman RQ-4A Block 10 Global Hawk unmanned maritime ISR air vehicle that was flying in international airspace off the Iranian coast.
CENTCOM spokesman Capt. Bill Urban said in a June 20 statement that “A US Navy Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (or BAMS-D) ISR aircraft was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile system while operating in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz at approximately 11.35pm GMT on June 19, 2019.”
Iran initially said it had shot down a Global Hawk in the Straits of Hormuz region after it penetrated Iranian airspace, and subsequent multiple social media reports – some claiming US DoD conformation – said it was an MQ-4C Triton had been shot down.
The larger and more advanced MQ-4C Triton is believed to have only recently achieved an early operational capability (EOC) with the US Navy, with two air vehicles due to be based on the Pacific island of Guam sometime this northern summer….
The initial reports of the aircraft being an MQ-4C Triton were fed by Associated Press and other agencies quoting an unnamed Pentagon source, and was initially supported by flight tracking data of the aircraft ferrying to Al Dhafra AB in the UAE from its home base of NAS Patuxent River on June 15 using the ‘Triton2’ callsign.
The US has previously deployed USAF RQ-4A/B and EQ-4B, and US Navy RQ-4A Global Hawks to the region, and the US Navy’s RQ-4A is a modified early-build USAF Block 10 RQ-4A which features a maritime radar modes, maritime automatic identification system (AIS), and enhanced communications.
The BAMS-D aircraft have been deployed in the region almost continuously since 2009 as part of the US Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance-Development (BAMS-D) program to develop its concepts of operation for the larger Triton.
1st Combat Aviation Brigade from Fort Riley, Kansas displays the AH-64E Apache helicopter at the Paris Air Show 2019.
1st Lt. Ryan Johnson, a platoon leader, discusses the importance of sharing American aviation technology with our European partners and allies.
FRANCE
06.17.2019
Video by Spc. Christopher Brecht
Regional Media Center (RMC) Europe & AFN Europe