Shaping an Integrated at Sea Force: The Case of the New Build Australian Off-Shore Patrol Vessels

05/12/2019

By Robbin Laird

Two broad findings can be drawn from my five years of visiting Australia and working with the Australian Defence Force.

The first is that they are very focused on building out as integrated a force as they are capable of doing, and that means not only leveraging an advanced asset like the F-35 but shaping common combat systems throughout the force. This is why they refer to their effort as building a fifth-generation force; it is not just about interoperability but about building out an integrated force across the spectrum of crisis management and warfare.

The second is that they are keen to enhance their ability to build a more sustainable force, which in shipbuilding terms means to put in place what they refer to as “continuous shipbuilding.”

What this means is working ways to have an ongoing ship build, modernization and sustainment process.

The new Offshore Patrol Vessel illustrates very well the new approach.

First, of all the OPV is part of an overall crisis management approach. During my last visit to Australia, I had time to meet with the head of the Maritime Border Command, Rear Admiral Lee Goddard.  And as he talked me through the map of Northern Australian waters and the challenges facing his command, it was clear that the command’s capability had to be integrated with the overall ADF.

The new OPVs are to be operated both by his command and the Royal Australian Navy, and will share common combat systems, integratable with the RAAF and the RAN, and the OPV program itself is seen as a launch point for a key part of Australian shipbuilding, namely, the patrol vessel global market.

In 2017, the Australian Navy announced the selection of the design for an initial program of 12 OPVs to replace the 13 active Armidale class patrol boats. These ships will be owned and maintained by the Royal Australian Navy, although a certain number will be assigned to the Maritime Border Command. And additional ships could be procured to meet other capability needs, such as the MCM or mine counter-measure mission.

According to an article by Stephen W. Miller:

Lürssen’s design is based on its OPV80 which is also in service with the Brunei Navy.

The design is noteworthy for its spacious layout for additional equipment, with the stern ramp RHIB launch and recovery system, and large helicopter flight deck. The vessel will have a displacement of around 1700 tonnes and a length of 80 meters. Their speed is around 20 knots while they have greater range and endurance than the current Armidale Class Patrol Boats they are replacing.

The vessel will have a 40mm Bofors gun and modular mission packs including unmanned aerial systems. It has a crew of 40 but can accommodate up to 60. The vessels will utilize a modular mission payload system similar to that used by the Danish Navy and the United States Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships.

Mission equipment will be fit into 20-foot containers and placed onto the ship as needed for assigned tasks.

A MoD spokesperson suggested that “The new OPVs will operate alongside Australian Border Force vessels, other Australian Defence Force units and its regional partners.”

But at the heart of the program is its common combat systems and C2 systems which will allow the ship to be part of an integrated “kill web force” which will allow it to become a scalable presence asset by reaching back to Australian or allied connected combat assets.

As one analyst put it: “To compare the ACPBs to the OPVs is somewhat like comparing a Cessna to an F-35 in regards technology and system performance. In a nutshell, each OPVs will act as a coherent ‘Node” within a wider shared picture compilation and information dissemination environment.

“Not only will the OPV offer greatly improved sea-keeping and endurance over the ACPBs, but it will also be able to actively contribute with other ADF and Allied force elements within a Joint Force combat environment.

“In additional to nominal Boarder Protection Patrol functions (Patrol/Deterrence/VBSS etc.), the increased Electromagnetic environmental awareness and data connectivity intrinsic to the OPV will enable it to either act as a forward deployed sensor (with wider Common Data Link connectivity to both Tactical and Strategic assets), or as a mothership for its own ‘Constellation” of Unmanned Systems (UAVs/UUVs/USVs), or as an interactive communications relay node in Denied, Degraded, Intermittent, Low-bandwidth (DDIL) SATCOM environments.

“Succinctly, the new OPVs will be better able to actively contribute to and assure a wider Battle Group information environment that do the present tranche of Australian Navy Frigates and Destroyers.”

When at the last Williams Foundation Seminar held on April 11, 2019, I had a chance to discuss the OPV approach with the recently retired head of the Australian Navy, Vice Admiral (Retired) Tim Barrett.

Barrett highlighted how the OPV fitted into the larger shipbuilding picture and evolution of the integrated air-maritime force.

“It is clearly not just about the platform, or buying a replacement platform. With the contract, we are kick starting an entire industry in Australia. We will be training those who will build the launch platforms, but those individuals will be part of a continuous build process and will be part of the design, modernization and sustainment process.  It is part of establishing a sovereign industrial capability.”

But it is not just that.

It is about putting in place a key approach to ensure commonality across the fleet with regard combat and C2 systems, and a commonality that reaches deep into allied fleets as well.

“We are building the ship around a mothership concept, which means that its ability to link and work with not just systems operating from the OPV but within the ADF more broadly is a critical one. With this platform as with our other new ships, we have separated the decisions on making the hulls from the decisions about the onboard systems.  The latter is really the key part of ensuring we have an integrated not interoperable force.”

He drove home the point about viewing these assets as nodes within the kill web.

“We have to start treating these platforms as nodes, which can both leverage other ADF or allied capabilities, and contribute as well to the capabilities of a seamlessly stood up task force.”

The mother ship concept is at the heart of what a kill web OPV can do. It is anticipated that both UAVs and UUVs could be operated from the ship.  That data will go to the ship but can be distributed into the operational space.  And given that it is data, how that is managed, handled and distributed will be determined not just by technological capabilities, but also with regard to the evolution of processing technologies and decision making algorithms.

Put in other terms, the OPV can host capabilities, which are reaching deep into the future, but capability of delivering capabilities for today’s operating force.

It was very clear from my discussions with Rear Admiral Goddard, that given the geographical expanse, which the ADF and the Maritime Border Command has to deal with, only an integrated force can combine presence with scalability to get the kind of result Australia will need for its sovereign borders policy. And in his view the new OPVs will be an important contributor to his command and to the integrated force.

It can not be overemphasized the priority on the integrated aspect; the Aussies are clearly rejecting what is often seen in the United States as Balkanized logistical support and tower of Babylon C2 and combat systems approaches.

They seek to gain a strategic advantage from being a smaller more agile force operating in a dangerous and busy neighborhood.

See also the following:

https://defense.info/interview-of-the-week/vice-admiral-retired-tim-barrett-shaping-a-way-ahead-for-the-royal-australian-navy/

The Australian Elections and Australian Shipbuilding

The Venezuelan Crisis: The Humanitarian Engagement

05/10/2019

By Ed Timperlake

As the Guaidó forces on the streets of Venezuela were losing the tactical battle, a strategic defeat was rapidly approaching, that is until the president made an historic phone call to President Putin.  That call accomplished a most important objective: President Trump personally built new strategic maneuvering space, and President Putin agreed:

“He (Putin) is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela other than he’d like to see something positive happen for Venezuela,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “And I feel the same way.”

There are two important takeaways from this current Moscow Times article, which is a public stalking horse for President Putin:

Putin Is Ready to Give Up Venezuela for the Right Price

Sergei Lavrov and Mike Pompeo will soon meet in Helsinki to discuss Venezuela’s future.

But, as common in his personal interactions with Putin, Trump quickly lost the initiative, allowing the discussion on Venezuela to drift towards the softer subject of humanitarian aid.

Moscow is ready to sell its stake in Maduro, but it is still unclear whether Washington is ready to offer the right price.

Taking the latter point first, it is simply the Russian version of “The Art of the Deal” in the opening round of “what can we get.”

However, the first point about President Trump losing the initiative with the “softer subject of humanitarian aid” actually means that President Trump has won the terms of the engagement.

It is simple: both President Trump and President Putin know that Juan Guaidó is the current president of Venezuela because his legitimacy  was not in question during the phone call.

The proof of that reality is that President Putin allowed this quote in his hometown paper to appear in print:

Putin expressed Russia’s displeasure with U.S interference in Venezuela while convincing Trump that he “was not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela”.

In “diplo-speak,” that means that Maduro’s days are numbered simply because both the U.S. and Russia have agreed that humanitarian aid is approved.

Focusing on humanitarian aid is actually the key point for a nation literally starving with arguably the richest oil reserves in the world.  

The Maduro administration bungled the great wealth of Venezuela while also disarming the population.

It actually took President Trump to not only build strategic maneuvering space, but also keep the focus on solving the human suffering side of the engagement, and this is now the publicly agreed upon (by Putin!) agenda of the way ahead.

But the need to focus on the humanitarian disaster which Venezuela has become is in and of itself crucial.

We recently received photos from Venezuela which bring home the reality of this disaster.

In these photos, elderly Venezuelans are seen leaving Venezuela to return to their natives countries from where they left over 50 years ago when Venezuela offered a better life.

Now, they are returning to their natives countries, fleeing leaving behind deteriorating economic conditions, lack of food and medical care, electricity and water  and physical insecurity.

A version of this article was first published on May 7, 2019 by American Thinker.

Also see the following pieces by Ed Timperlake regarding Venezuela:

https://defense.info/featured-story/2019/05/president-juan-guiedo-is-a-man-of-courage-the-perspective-of-the-government-of-spain/

Reconsidering Venezuelan Options: Focused US Efforts

 

 

The F-35 and the Warlords: A Look Back and a Look Ahead

We recently visited the Warlords at Beaufort MCAS.

We had a chance to meet with the CO of the squadron and to watch flight demos at this year’s airshow hosted by Beaufort MCAS.

This gave us a chance to reflect back at the more than a decade of dealing with the Warlords as they have brought the F-35 to life as a combat capability.

We have had the opportunity earlier to observe the standup of the Osprey Nation and its contributions in launching what one Marine leader called a “tsunami of change.”

Clearly, the F-35 has continued that tsunami and we will be observing and shaping a broader strategic narrative of the next key USMC air system generating signifiant change, namely the CH-53K.

In this report, we have begun with the most recent visit and then went back to the exit interview with the “godfather” of the F-35B, namely, Col. “Turbo” Tomassetti.

We visited “Turbo” many times at Eglin AFB as the F-35 was first being stood up.

We included the final interview which we did with him, namely his exit interview from Eglin in 2013.

We then navigate through a decade of interviews which highlight the evolution of the Warlords standing up and operating the new aircraft.

The Warloards and the F-35

For an ebook version of the report, see the following

The featured photo shows Capt. Frank Zastoupil with Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 (VMFAT-501) flying the F-35B Lightning II during the 2019 Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort Air Show, April 27.

MCAS Beaufort hosts the air show in order to bring the community together and demonstrate U.S. Marine Corps Aviation Combat Element and Marine Air-Ground Task Force capabilities. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Brittney Vella)

Shaping Direct European Defense Capabilities: Exercise Formidable Shield 2019

The return of the Russians to a position of directly threatening Europe is not a return to the Cold War.

Not only is Russia, not the Soviet Union with the Warsaw Pact, but the threat being posed is considerably different.

Analysts have focused on the hybrid threat whereby Russia uses a variety of means to pressure European states.

The 2014 seizure of Crimea started a significant process of change in how key European states looked at the willingness of Russia to reverse the post-Cold War order.

Even though there are constitutional crises in Britain and in the European Union, the reach of modern European institutions remains significant and impacts on Russian thinking.

Putin certainly has played his nuclear card to ramp up from time to time diplomatic pressure on key European states as well.

And the Russian nuclear modernization process has put in play an expanded threat of the potential use of low yield nuclear weapons early in any significant conflict on the continent as well.

But rather than being on the inner-German border, the Russians face Poland and an independent Eastern Europe as challenges as well.

Here Putin is working relationships among some East European states to work to undermine the EU and NATO as these institutions remain bulwarks to Russian intervention.

The Russian Army is not a new version of the very large Soviet Army organized along lines postured for invasion of a more traditional European sort.

This poses the question for the United States with regard to what kind of force posture makes the most sense to support Europe in its direct defense role?

With Germany without a series defense force, and with the questionable defense infrastructure situation facing the Germany of today, the role of the US Army played in the time of the Cold War in Germany makes little sense.

It would make more sense to strengthen the air-maritime forces which the US provides for European defense, and significantly alter the role envisaged for any US Army role.

Clearly, a primary mission for the US Army is to enhance significantly its ADA or missile defense roles, as well as providing Special Forces and infantry support to these missions.

And linking in a comprehensive manner, land based ADA with sea-based defenses are clearly a key contributor to a 21st century approach to direct defense in Europe.

A current exercise highlights the way ahead.

“Formidable Shield shows how Allies are working together to protect NATO forces and populations from the real threat of ballistic missiles”, said NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu.

“This is one of the world’s most sophisticated and complex air and missile defence exercises and a great example of how Allies are continuing to adapt to meet current and future security challenges.”

According to a U.S. 6th Fleet Public Affairs release on May 7, 2019:

Exercise Formidable Shield 2019, a live-fire integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) exercise conducted by Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO on behalf of U.S. 6th Fleet, started May 7, 2019 at the U.K. Ministry of Defense’s Hebrides Range in the vicinity of the Western Isles of Scotland.

The purpose of Formidable Shield is to improve allied interoperability in a live-fire integrated air and missile (IAMD) environment, using NATO command and control reporting structures.

Nine nations – including Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States – are contributing 13 ships, more than 10 aircraft, and approximately 3,300 personnel to the exercise. Belgium and Germany will support the exercise with staff officers embarked with Task Group IAMD.

“Exercise Formidable Shield demonstrates the United States and our allied maritime partners high end war fighting capability in integrated air and missile defense. This significant investment of resources, time, and personnel ensures we are ready to deploy and operate anywhere, anytime, to defend the alliance and deter aggression,” said Vice Adm. Lisa M. Franchetti, Commander, U.S. 6th Fleet and Commander, Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO. “These maritime operations provide a tremendous opportunity to enhance our interoperability and test our capabilities as we collectively work to maintain a safe, secure, and prosperous European region.”

Participating nations will practice, demonstrate, and assess their ability to share common tactical pictures, share situational awareness, conduct NATO-level mission planning and engagement coordination, and exercise force-level, pre-planned responses with capabilities and limitations.

“Exercise Formidable Shield 2019 will once again help us refine our air and missile defense capabilities with our partners and allies by training together and demonstrating our ability to ensure the cooperative security and collective defense of the NATO Alliance,” said Capt. Shanti Sethi, commander, Task Group IAMD for Formidable Shield, and commander, U.S. 6th Fleet’s Task Force 64.

U.S. ships participating include the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Carney (DDG 64) and USS Roosevelt (DDG 80) and the Lewis and Clark-class dry cargo ship, USNS Medgar Evers (T-AKE 13).

“The Roosevelt crew is so excited about participating in Exercise Formidable Shield 2019,” said the ship’s Commanding Officer, Cmdr. Matthew Molmer. “It will allow us to showcase the training we’ve had to date and work closely with our NATO partners.”

Formidable Shield is scheduled to conclude May 19, 2019.  This exercise is planned to be a recurring, biennial event, which is designed to assure allies, deter adversaries, and demonstrate our commitment to collective defense of the alliance.

Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO, based in Lisbon, Portugal, is a rapidly deployable, maritime headquarters that provides scalable command and control across the full spectrum of warfare areas.

U.S. 6th Fleet, headquartered in Naples, Italy, conducts the full spectrum of joint and naval operations, often in concert with joint, allied and interagency partners, to advance U.S. national interests and security and stability in Europe and Africa.

A NATO press release dated May 8, 2019, added:

The exercise will see Allied ships detecting, tracking and defending against an array of anti-ship and ballistic missiles using NATO command and control procedures. Drills will include sharing real time tactical information, conducting joint mission planning, and engagement coordination.

Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States will participate by sending ships and aircraft. Belgium and Germany will support the exercise with staff officers.

A total of 13 ships, 10 aircraft, and about 3,300 personnel are involved. Maritime patrol aircraft and NATO AWACS surveillance aircraft will provide aerial over-watch and ensure that the airspace is clear. Formidable Shield will cover a huge area in the North Atlantic – from more than 1,000 km west of the Scottish Hebrides, and from the south of Ireland to the southern end of Iceland.

The exercise follows NATO’s decision in 2010 to step up the defence of European Allies from ballistic missile threats. NATO missile defence links Allied sensors and weapons together in a single system. Major components of NATO missile defence currently include U.S. Navy destroyers fitted with the ‘Aegis’ missile defence system based in Rota, Spain; and a U.S.-operated land-based system in Romania known as Aegis Ashore. Other major components include an early warning radar in Turkey. NATO’s air command in Ramstein, Germany is the responsible command.

See the following:

the-us-and-european-direct-defense-what-role-for-the-us-army

Poles Enhance Integrated Defense: Laying Foundation for Enhanced Allied Crisis Support

Poland, Article III and Missile Defense: Shaping a Way Ahead in Alliance Capabilities

Missile Defense, Innovation and Multi-Domain Warfare

 

 

Software Upgradeability and the F-35 Global Enterprise: The Australian Case

05/08/2019

In article published by Australian Defence and Business Review on their January-February 2019 issue, Andrew McLaughlin provided a look at how to think about the F-35 and its modernization process.

The original title: “Building Data: Inside the RAAF’s F-35 Mission Data Programming Capability”

So, the first F-35s are here, the validation and verification (V&V) process is underway, training of RAAF pilots and maintenance staff is accelerating in the US and at home, the sustainment system is spinning up, and the classic Hornets will soon be starting to retire.

But this is where any commonality with the introduction of previous air combat generations ends. For the F-35, rather than undergoing perhaps two or three upgrades during its service life, avionics and sensor technology hardware refreshes will be introduced every few years, and software data load (SDL) and other software updates will be uploaded as often as every few months for the duration of its projected 30+ year service life.

Another key difference for the F-35 is the huge amount of information required to be included in the mission data files (MDF) in order to maintain a technological and tactical edge over potential rivals. This data includes but is not restricted to sensor performance, fusion upgrades, operational techniques, and electronic threat library refinements. It is this data which is the key to the F-35s ability to perform effective and accurate Combat Identification (CID).

And it is this last piece of the puzzle which is arguably one of the most difficult and sensitive, not only due to the security aspects, but also from a sovereign capability viewpoint.

One of the key elements of the F-35’s very low observability (VLO) characteristics is its organic ability to control the electronic spectrum around it when operating in or near hostile airspace.

Most of the recorded operations by low observable aircraft since the 1991 Gulf War have been supported by dedicated electronic warfare support aircraft. From the F-117’s debut over Baghdad, to F-117 and B-2 operations over the Balkans and Afghanistan, to the F-22’s recent participation in strikes over Syria, EA-6B Prowler, EC-130 Compass Call or EA-18G Growler EW/EA systems have been allocated key support roles for these missions.

Even earlier, during the Vietnam War and later the Cold War, the seemingly untouchable Mach 3+ Lockheed A-12 Oxcart and USAF SR-71A Blackbird missions over North Vietnam and along the borders of the Soviet Union and other points of interest were supported by US Navy EC-121, EA-3 and EA-6A/B, USAF EB-66 and RC-135, and other EW aircraft.

All of these support aircraft added an extra layer of electronic protection over the already low observable shaping, mission profiles and organic EW capabilities of these stealthy strike, fighter and ISR aircraft, further assuring mission success. They also harvested unfriendly electronic data for later analysis and incorporation into electronic warfare threat libraries for future operations.

But just as western air combat aircraft and electronic warfare systems are increasing in sophistication and capability, so are the threats they will inevitably face. And apart from the technological leaps, one of the biggest advances in electronic warfare in the last couple of decades has been the integration of national intelligence agencies with airpower.

No longer are airpower assets and their signals (SIGINT), communications (COMINT) and electronic intelligence (ELINT) restricted to military use only, they are now part of a much wider intelligence enterprise.

The all-digital F-35 is so much more capable of providing intelligence to this enterprise than previous analogue systems. The aircraft’s ability to fuse data from its sensors, not just for the presentation to the pilot but so it can better discriminate the huge amount of data from other electronic ‘noise’ in today’s battlespace, is a key capability provided by the aircraft’s sophisticated Northrop Grumman AN/ASQ-242 communications, navigation and identification (CNI) system which is integrated with its BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239 EW suite.

The integration of the ASQ-239 with the F-35’s CNI is a key capability discriminator of 5th generation aircraft, when compared to the ‘federated’ EW systems used on 3rd and 4th generation aircraft which require complex interfaces to present isolated information on existing cockpit displays, and lack any real integration with other aircraft sensors. As a result, the capability to ‘fuse’ information in 5th generation aircraft significantly reduces the processing burden on the pilot, giving them more time to fight the fight.

BAE Systems says the ASQ-239 protects the F-35 from current and emerging surface and airborne threats through fully integrated radar warning, targeting support, and self-protection. It says it provides a 360-degree field of view of the battlespace that provides the pilot with maximum situational awareness, helping to identify, geo-locate, monitor, analyse, and rapidly respond to threats.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35.com website claims the aircraft has an EW capability “many multiples that of any legacy fighter,” adding that, “The F-35’s survivability, electronic attack, electronic protection, situational awareness, advanced targeting and unprecedented combat ID will make the entire air wing better.”

But an EW system is only as good as the data library from which it draws its information. While the ASQ-239 may be able to provide information on threats to the pilot faster than previous systems, the old adage of ‘rubbish in – rubbish out’ remains as pertinent today as it was with older analogue systems.

To this end, dedicated data reprogramming laboratories have been established by the US, partner nations, and FMS customers to generate mission data files that will ensure the F-35 EW system’s data library is not only of sufficient fidelity for its advanced systems, but that it remains tactically relevant for the F-35’s life of type.

There are several reprogramming labs (RL) for the F-35 for which the various partner nations and FMS operators are patrons, and these are generally aligned with levels of capability or access. The US maintains its own RL at Eglin AFB in Florida, and an FMS customer lab has been established at Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) Pt Mugu, Ventura County north of Los Angeles.

Australia has teamed with two other non-US ‘five-eyes’ JSF program partners to establish the Australia Canada UK Reprogramming Lab (ACURL). The three nations share common geo-political and strategic interests, and are generally subject to similar US export and security requirements. And while Canada has paused its F-35 acquisition pending a competitive evaluation of other air combat capabilities, it remains an ACURL partner for the time being.

“There’s a number of different laboratories being established,” Australia’s JSF Program Manager, AVM Leigh Gordon told ADBR. “There’s one for the Norwegians and the Italians (the NIRL), there’s the US complex (USRL), and there’s the ACURL. There’s also a lab at Point Mugu that looks after FMS customers and other partners who haven’t built or contributed to their own sovereign reprogramming laboratories.”

The ACURL hardware was initially established at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth factory in Texas, but is in the final stages of being moved to a purpose-designed 2,300 sqm facility adjacent to the USRL at Eglin AFB in Florida and which comes under the USAF’s 53rd Electronic Warfare Group (EWG).

“The ACURL has two meanings – one is the building and the name on the building. But it’s also the capability,” JSF Division Project Director Support Systems, GPCAPT Guy Adams told us.

“The reprogramming capability consists of hardware and software tools to build the MDFs, and additional hardware and software to test the performance of the MDFs once they’re produced,” GPCAPT Adams said. “It also includes the people – that capability will consist of up to about 115 people by the time we get to IOC (initial operational capability) which includes Australian plus Royal Air Force and Royal Navy personnel as well. It also includes US partner support complex personnel and a number of US contractor personnel.”

The hardware component of the ACURL consists of radio frequency stimulators and simulators, as well as actual aircraft hardware that can inject threats to test how mission data files will respond using hardware-in-the-loop testing procedures. While no date has publicly been set for IOC, it is planned to be later this year.

“The ACURL is an absolute joint arrangement between us and the UK – we are tied at the hip to the UK,” explained GPCAPT Adams. “The ACURL is jointly managed and operated by Australia and the UK, with operators of both nations joined in dedicated reprogramming teams,” he added. “We really appreciate the experience the UK brings to the table from their reprogramming background.”

The mission data files generated by ACURL will be far more sophisticated than those used by 3rd and 4th generation combat aircraft.

“I won’t go too far into that, but with respect to the complexity associated with reprogramming this aircraft, compared to the EW library you would see in a classic Hornet or even a Super Hornet there are substantially more components to the JSF,” GPCAPT Adams explained.

“For the 5th generation, data is the king and shared awareness is the force multiplier,” he added. “In the mission data file space, it’s all about recognising that the real capability in the F-35 is the complex sensors and the way in which that information is integrated and passed not only to the pilot, but to other platforms as required.”

Much like the myriad of ingredients a chef needs to source to be prepared, cooked and presented for a menu in a Michelin star restaurant, the raw data for ACURL comes from a wide variety of sources. “They come from multiple sources, given the multiple parts of data that we need to program this aircraft,” said AVM Gordon.

“They come out of a number of intel shops, depending on whether it’s EW-related data or any of the other boxes that needed to be filled. But they generally come out of the intel shops both here in Australia, and from the five-eyes community.”

Fortunately for all F-35 operators, it hasn’t been necessary to start with an empty pantry for the Michelin star ACURL. Data that has been gleaned over decades for previous generations of air combat capabilities such as the classic and Super Hornet, can also be integrated with the F-35’s EW library. “The legacy data can be used and what we’re finding is it’s effective, it works,” AVM Gordon said. “But the F-35 would like more detail, so to speak.”

And it is the ACURL that provides that higher level of detail. In the past the ADF’s Joint Electronic Warfare Operational Support Unit (JEWOSU) – which is now part of the Edinburgh-based Air Warfare Centre – has been tasked with developing EW data files for the ADF, and this will continue.

“From an organisational perspective, the Australian people that work at ACURL will also belong to the Air Warfare Centre,” explained GPCAPT Adams. “So, ACURL does for F-35 what JEWOSU does for the remainder of the ADF platforms, but they work for the same organisation.”

“Whilst outside of the JSF Program of Record, one of the other aspects of the mission data capability that we’ve been working on is the Ghosthawk tool set,” said AVM Gordon. “Ghosthawk is a tool to allow us to better manage intelligence data, and helps us get it into the right format in a way that it can feed into things like ACURL. However, Ghosthawk is intended to be entirely platform agnostic with an ability to support a wide range of ADF platforms as well as the JSF.

“It’s not just having the data, it’s got to be in the right spot in the data base in the right order to be able to be sucked up by the next step in the system,” he added. “JEWOSU already has a database, and Ghosthawk will replace that with a far more ‘5th gen’ paradigm. The current database is very ‘mandraulic’, and limited in the data types it supports.

“Ghosthawk will provide the ability to store digital models of various threats and responses. The level of specificity that this whole system allows us to bring to the game, makes that data absolutely critical when it comes to joint warfighting with coalition partners.”

The installation of the ACURL hardware in the loop test facility at Eglin AFB is due to be completed at time of writing, after which the lab will be integrated and tested, and the ACURL staff will commence their training on the new systems. Following that, a verification and validation program will be conducted to ensure the ACURL can meet the operational rate of effort requirement of the UK and Australia. IOC is scheduled for the second half of 2019.

The five-eyes arrangement and Australia and the UK’s agility provides an opportunity for the ACURL to contribute better ways of managing and presenting mission data files to the wider JSF enterprise.

“That’s a good point, and that’s one of the areas where we’re already contributing,” GPCAPT Adams said. “We are obviously learning a lot from the USRL and the people that are there. But we’re also feeding back into that system. We have a couple of subject matter experts who are probably leading edge in terms of how to reprogram a JSF, and we’re using those individuals to provide training courses or to work with the USRL in what we’re calling the Mission Data Partnership at Eglin.”

In closing, AVM Gordon says the work being done by his team and those at ACURL will feed back into the wider air force as part of its transformation.

“Through using tool sets like Ghosthawk and having it fed through central organisations like JEWOSU, allows us to be able share the intelligence and appropriately update what would be the equivalent of mission data files as required by those platforms,” he explained. “One of the priorities for JSF Division and the integrated project team here is about helping air force lead that transformation, and I think this is clearly a Jericho activity.

“We’re starting to understand what it means to truly be relied on and driven by and monopolising the data that’s available through that 5th generation transformation,” he added. “And we need to be helping air force to educate the rest of the ADF about, ‘what does it mean to be in that sort of game?’ ACURL is just a really great example of what does it mean to be 5th generation.”

And just like the aircraft itself, the ACURL will never truly achieve a full operational capability (FOC) under which a solid line can be drawn, as the capability will continue to evolve throughout the system’s life of type.

“ACURL is one of the elements of the F-35 capability that needs to be kept in step with the capability as it grows,” AVM Gordon said. “We talked about the lab that’s being delivered in IOC in the second half of this year, but the ACURL will be on a journey, and will need to be upgraded as the aircraft gets modified and evolves as well.

“When Guy talked about us providing input to requirements for how to operate and upgrade the ACURL itself, it’s true,” he said. “We are already starting to look about and say, ‘what are the logical upgrade points for the ACURL, what are going to be the requirements for those?’”

“Indeed, some of the requirements that we’re developing that are good for the ACURL, are similarly good for other reprogramming labs. But the efficiency and the timeliness and the turnaround of the product is one of those things we want to get better at, so it’s a continuous improvement type activity.”

Even though Australia is ultimately responsible for its portion of the ACURL to ensure it stays in lockstep with the capability, AVM Gordon sees this as a collaborative opportunity.

“We ultimately own it and are responsible for it, but we want to do it in an integrated way with the upgrade of the capability through the co-operative program,” he said in closing. “We will make sure the appropriate requirements get generated and then are met through the upgrade process.

“When the co-operative program generates JSF upgrades to the aircraft, we expect them to consider what needs to happen to the RLs as well. That will drive and guide us in the hardware and software requirements we need to make for those RLs, and when we need to make provisions for that as part of our plan.”

Standup of New QRA Squadron at RAF Lossiemouth

05/07/2019

During a visit to RAF Lossiemouth in June 2016, Second Line of Defense visits the Quick Reaction Alert team based there.

We focused on the question of the nature of the pyramid necessary to launch QRA ready aircraft.

https://sldinfo.com/royal-air-force-operations-and-evolving-concepts-of-operations-shaping-a-triple-transition/

When I visited RAF Lossiemouth in June 2016, I had a chance to visit the QRA based at Lossiemouth which is in addition to the one at RAF Coningsby

Visiting the QRA area demonstrated the 24/7 quality of the operation.

There was the red button to generate the movement of pilots and personnel to launch the aircraft very rapidly.

Map published by the Daily Mail on 2/19/15 showing Typhoon intercepts of Russian aircraft in 2014 and 2015 up to that point.
Map published by the Daily Mail on 2/19/15 showing Typhoon intercepts of Russian aircraft in 2014 and 2015 up to that point.

There are ops areas and offices, crew rooms, a dining area and kitchen to serve the staff, bedrooms for the rotational crew and a gym to remain ready.

But the question of what the pyramid looks like beyond this is simply having two pilots ready 24/7 with 2 support staff and eight engineers for each week in support as well.

1(F) Squadron, II (AC) Sqn. and 6 Sqn. provide the aircraft, pilots and engineers for the 24/7 operation. The Air Traffic Control Center is manned 24/7 to enable aircraft to launch at any time. The Ground Support System or GSS provides support to the Typhoons with mission data and computer systems used by the aircraft.

And chefs and catering staff are on station to cook and serve meals for duty personnel, three meals a day, 365 days a year.

To put it bluntly: to be 24/7 ready is a significant demand signal for the Typhoon fleet, and one which can be overlooked in terms of the number of aircraft which are required to remain ready for operational launch, 24/7 and 365 days a year.

According to the QRA North team, the Typhoon has performed its role well, but it requires maintainers, pilots and operations personnel to pay close attention to the rotation of aircraft into the demand side of QRA.

And when the RAF deploys to the Baltics, in effect, the UK is supporting three QRA efforts.

The pyramid is demanding; the photos of the planes on strip alert simply masks the significant level of effort to ensure that they are on strip alert.

This demand side is one which can be easily overlooked by everyone, except those providing the capability and the intruders into UK airspace.

Now the RAF has stood up a new QRA at Lossiemouth.

The personnel and aircraft of IX(B) Squadron will be at the heart of the UK’s Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) Force, ready to take off within minutes of an alert being triggered.

The Squadron was officially stood up at a ceremonial parade and flypast at RAF Lossiemouth on May 2, 2019, but has been operational since 1 April. The standing up of the new Squadron coincides with RAF Lossiemouth marking its 80th anniversary.

Some of the Squadron’s aircraft will be painted in distinctive markings to identify them as training ‘adversaries’, in their role as ‘aggressors’. In this role, they will provide a sterner training test to RAF and NATO fast-jet pilots, as they will play the role of opposing aircraft which match their speed and manoeuvrability while using the latest real-world dogfighting and air combat tactics against them.

Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier said:

“I’m delighted to be back at RAF Lossiemouth today, one day after the station celebrated its 80th Anniversary. RAF Lossiemouth has and will continue to play a key role in the Defence of the United Kingdom, being ready to intercept potential airborne threats 24/7 and in addition shortly becoming home to our nine new submarine hunting P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft. These will work with our Typhoon force to patrol far out into the Atlantic protecting the UK’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent and two new aircraft carriers.

“Today’s transition of IX Sqn from Tornado to Typhoon is one important part of the expansion of RAF Lossiemouth which will see the number of service personnel here increase to some 2,300, supported by a further 1,800 MOD civilian and contractor staff.

“I am proud to see our Combat Air capabilities continue to grow, a necessity as they will undoubtedly continue to be in exceptionally high demand on operations, here in the UK and across the world”.

Quick Reaction Alert involves the entire UK Air Defence system on standby at immediate readiness, 24/7, 365 days a year, with aircraft from RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby protecting northern and southern UK airspace respectively. In recent months, Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth have been scrambled four times as long-range Russian bombers approached UK airspace.

Personnel and Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth conducted a NATO Air Policing mission role in Romania in 2018, where they scrambled eight times in response to 20 Russian aircraft as part of assurance measures for eastern allies. Later this year, RAF Lossiemouth aircraft will deploy to Iceland to conduct a further NATO Air Policing mission, while other aircraft from the UK Typhoon force deploy to Estonia on a similar task.

The Typhoon has exceptional performance that makes it capable of intercepting aircraft from the smallest light aircraft to the largest of airliners.  The supersonic fighter has the ability of reaching all corners of the UK’s airspace within minutes of getting airborne.

The featured photo shows

Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier, and RAF personnel at a ceremony to mark a fourth Quick Reaction Alert Squadron based out of RAF Lossiemouth. Crown Copyright.

For a look at QRAs operating in Europe, see the following:

QRA

 

 

Fighting Hyper Sonic Cruise Missiles at the Speed of Light: The Role of 21st Century Dambusters

By Ed Timperlake

Operation Chastise was the brilliant merging of weapon research and engineering with the undaunted courage of Royal Air Force Number 617 Squadron, forevermore known as the Dambusters.

In order to attack the industrial might of Germany the RAF and a brilliant scientist worked together to develop a unique payload utility weapon  the “bouncing bomb.”

The engineering genius that provided a unique payload to an RAF Squadron attacking the heart of Germany with undaunted courage was Bernard Wallis;

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis CBE FRS RDI FRAeS (26 September 1887 – 30 October 1979), was an English scientist, engineer and inventor.

“He is best known for inventing the bouncing bomb used by the Royal Air Force in Operation Chastise (the “Dambusters” raid) to attack the dams of the Ruhr Valley during World War II.

After the outbreak of the Second World War in Europe in 1939, Wallis saw a need for strategic bombing to destroy the enemy’s ability to wage war and he wrote a paper entitled “A Note on a Method of Attacking the Axis Powers”.

As often with the case of visionary leaders and inventors, institutional skepticism and inertia has to be overcome. That occurred with Barnes Wallis’s ideas but he refused to give up and the payload bouncing bomb “upkeep” was invented and tested over and over until it worked.

Fast forward to a 21stCentury design engineering team that is now advocating for an accelerated audition to the American way of war a Payload Utility function (PU)  which is  a crash program for Directed Energy laser payloads.

Wartime pressure accelerated  the right payload, a bouncing bomb, in the hands of warfighters to achieve remarkable results and is now history is repeating itself with new payloads to mitigate enemy threats.

The threat of both Russia and China rapidly testing Hypersonic Cruise Missiles and soon adding them to their fighting forces is upon us, right now today, not in the year 2030.

President Putin is brilliant as an Information Warrior and to use two complementary cliché’s in one sentence; he is continuing to punch above his weight while playing a weak hand very well.

UK F-35 Dambuster’s Squadron Patch

He has recently threatened a direct attack against the United States with nuclear weapons if we do not comply with his strategic approach to Europe and the West.

The Russian PR machine has kicked in and we have a recent you tube visit from a St. Petersburg choir highlighting a historical tune threatening such an event.

Notably, President Putin focused on the employment of nuclear tipped hypersonic cruise missiles launched from his navy’s submarines off of the East Coast of the United States.1

In effect, what Putin did was to sound “General Quarters” for a combat proven warfighting Navy to go on high alert.

The United States has now joined allies like Denmark which have been threatened by the Russians with the potential use of nuclear weapons against as part of normal coercive diplomacy.

Meanwhile, the leader of the Peoples republic of China is also strutting on the world stage in a very military provocative way with their high speed cruise missile programs.

The United States, Russia, and China are all rushing to field hypersonic weapons.

Hypersonic weapons travel much faster than traditional weapons: While many long range land attack missiles travels at subsonic speeds and attempt to fly below radar, hypersonic weapons would attempt to beat enemy defenses with pure speed.

This not only gives the enemy much less time to react but is also too fast for modern air defenses to shoot down–for now anyway.

Many, if not all modern air defense systems simply can’t intercept a missile traveling at Mach 5+.

There is a saying on the modern battlefield, that if you emit the wrong way you die.

I would like to add to that warning, that if an incoming weapon is an “air breather” it can be acquired and targeted in a Kill Web solution with current and near term payloads in development by the United States and its allies.

It is a shame that the UnderSecretary for Research and Engineering the Honorable Mike Griffin doesn’t understand the above point.

This research paper began at the 2019 Directed Energy Summit.

I asked the UnderSecretary of Defense the Honorable Mike Griffin at that conference: If war breaks out tomorrow how can we stop the HSCM threat?

He immediately went to his perceived hardest problem an ICBM hypersonic maneuver multi warhead threat to frame an answer.

However, when I asked him specifically to address an air-breathing HSCM, he framed his answer in similar fashion to the ICBM threat that because of the HSCM speed it was to hard a war fighting problem.

He mentioned AARAM and Aegis against slower moving cruise missiles, but not adequate for HSCM speeds.

Note in this Breaking Defense reporting, his merging of two threat issues into one “to hard” problem:

So how do we shoot down hypersonic missiles before we develop such directed energy weapons and sensors?

We don’t, Griffin said bluntly: We have to kill them on the launch pad.

“If war breaks out tomorrow, we’re probably not going to kill hypersonic boost glide missiles,” Griffin said.

“Existing air and missile defense systems are “very effective “are very effective against a threat moving slowly enough to give us time to acquire track, target, and deploy a shooter,” he said, but hypersonics just move too fast for current defenses to intercept.

Thankfully, visionary American military combat leaders are not waiting for the Honorable Mike Griffin’s potential elegant space solution.

Those commanders facing imminent threats are intellectually working inside the evolving technology of Combat Clouds, Kill Webs, and Sensor/Shooter platforms with a goal of no platform fighting alone where platforms can all be networked to fight at the speed of light.

The promise of advances in Artificial Intelligence are also beginning to be added to this evolving American way of war.

It is actually conceptually very simple: US and Allied fighting forces both tactically and strategically at all levels are striving to network the payload utility function of selecting the best warhead that can be either kinetic and/or” tron” as the combat situation commences.

Transmitting target acquisition and then target engagement information to distributed redundant secure combat platforms over great distance  can make the speed of Hyper Sonic Cruise Missiles (HSCM)a solvable problem.

If appropriate DOD R&E focus is supported conceptually to pull together existing technology and weapons systems then a threat mitigation way ahead is ready now and not waiting for a possible space solution in  2030.

Just like the need for accelerated development of weapon technology in WWII, the time is now to recognize that American scientists and engineers who refused to give up when faced with a potential career ending moment in the development of laser weapons simply refused to stop their research.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates killed all research on an Airborne Laser weapon and he based it on his cost calculations. Remember this is the same guy that spent $52 billion on 22,000 MRAPs left rusting in the Middle East or in storage with engines removed. Ultimately broken up on 25 September 2014.

Secretary of Defense Gates summarized fundamental concerns with the practicality of the program concept:

“I don’t know anybody at the Department of Defense, Mr. Tiahrt, who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed. ..And if you were to operationalize this you would be looking at 10 to 20 747s, at a billion and a half dollars apiece, and $100 million a year to operate. And there’s nobody in uniform that I know who believes that this is a workable concept.”[19]

The Air Force did not request further funds for the Airborne Laser for 2010; Air Force Chief of Staff Schwartz has said that the system “does not reflect something that is operationally viable.”

Gates had ensured no opposition by firing Secretary Wynne and COS of the USAF General “Buzz” Mosley. This is the same Secretary of Defense who killed the “cold war” airplane, known as the F-22.

But some USAF Officers and their scientific and engineering partners did not stop; In fact, the did just the opposite — they created Directed Energy Summit

Recently, the fifth annual 2019 Directed Energy Summit was held.

It was co-sponsored by Booz Allen and theCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA).

Discussion at the DES focused on “the urgent need to acquire directed energy weapons to help counter significant existing and emerging threats.”

It must be recognized that “Fighting At the Speed of Light” means networking information flowing at the speed of light throughout Kill Webs that operate a payload utility function.

The ability to acquire and designate threats while engaging the best payload for a successful outcome is the payload utility function.

Payloads can be kinetic and “tron” depending on the need.

It is fortuitous that lasers go hot at the speed of light but they are still just subsumed in a “light speed’ engagement.

For example, if it means the survival of a Carrier Strike Group I doubt any fighting Admiral would not hesitate to employ a low yield Nuc kinetic warhead to stop incoming hypersonic threats.

Laser research and the need for rapid fielding of a new “tron” weapon in our inventory just came out of the 5thDE Summit.

Like the legend of The Phoenix, our warriors, scientists and engineers never gave up and their time is now.

At the DES, Henry “Trey” Obering III, an Executive Vice President and Directed Energy Lead at Booz Allen Hamilton and the former director of the Missile Defense Agency, argued for a 10-point plan to accelerate the effort for directed energy weapons.

  1. The Defense Department must scale up laser power and improve beam quality development. The pace of maturing these capabilities is not technology-limited – it is funding-limited. Therefore, we should increase directed energy funding to between $2 billion to $3 billion per year.
  2. We should also take further action to reduce the size, power, weight, and cost requirements of these weapons. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, for example, should establish and fund a separate program toward that end – and to focus broadly on improving laser weapon lethality. MDA laser programs should be fully funded to increase laser power levels for high-altitude and space-based applications.
  3. We must provide warfighters with tactical decision aids to ensure they know how and when to use these weapons. This will go far toward instilling confidence in our warfighters that these weapons will be effective in combat against multiple threats.
  4. While a tremendous amount of work has been done, we should also conduct further research to improve our understanding of laser lethality and reliability across an increasing range of weather and atmospheric conditions. This research should also focus on minimizing any collateral damage.
  5. We need to accelerate our acquisition of these capabilities. DoD takes more than 16 years, on the average, to bring new technologies from statement of need to deployment. But there are several examples of this timeline being dramatically shortened, such as the Navy’s Rapid Prototyping Experimentation and Demonstration program for mission-critical capabilities and the use of specialized acquisition authorities by the MDA. DoD should use such accelerated processes for directed energy development and deployment.
  6. DoD must signal a long-term commitment to lasers, so the industrial base will know there will be a market for its products in the coming years. In doing so, DoD should prepare, and encourage, the industrial base to support the rising need for first-, second-, and third-tier suppliers.
  7. DoD should fully fund existing tests at sea, on land, and in the air – and there are many. Navy projects, such as the Laser Weapons System aboard the USS Ponce, have already shown that lasers can shoot down drones and collect surveillance data at long range. Other higher-powered Navy lasers, such as the HELIOS system, are in development and will be on a surface combatant next year. Meanwhile, the Army has tested a 5-kilowatt laser mounted on a Stryker combat vehicle and aims to field-test a 50-kW Stryker-mounted laser in 2021, with a goal of fielding it by 2023. Plus, the Air Force’s SHiELD project is developing 50-kW air-based lasers to produce a fighter-compatible weapon for use by 2021.
  8. All parties involved in laser deployment should talk to each other. DoD needs to better articulate its requirements for deployable lasers. But also, the industrial base must interface better with DoD and its leadership to increase understanding of innovative laser weapon capabilities.
  9. We must also prioritize warfighter training. There is currently no established laser weapon training pipeline, and that’s because lasers have no formal programs of record. Once these are set up, training must follow. To assist in establishing such programs, we should encourage wargames and operational analysis to investigate and better articulate the battlefield benefits of lasers.
  • DoD should adapt command-and-control functions to address rapidly evolving threats, such as hypersonics, to reduce the engagement times of defensive systems. Very short engagement timelines will likely necessitate the incorporation of artificial intelligence capabilities to help the U.S. leverage the speed-of-light engagement that directed energy weapons offer.

These are the steps we can take to bring laser prototype systems to our warfighters.

Our brave men and women confront dangerous threats across all physical domains – land, air, sea, and space – and need nothing less than the world’s most promising new capabilities to protect our national security.

Our adversaries are not waiting to develop directed energy weapons.

Neither should we.

The US defense industry is ready now and into the future as a key R&E focus on fighting at the speed of light and it all began to come together over ten years ago with the creation of the F-35 global enterprise as the driver for 21st Century change, including industrial base changes .

And it should be noted that this generation’s Dambusters are key stakeholders and innovators in the F-35 global enterprise, and will operate off the world’s newest aircraft carrier.

These modern day Dambusters are joined at the hip with the US Navy and USMC, as they have initially trained at MCAS Beaufort, and both the Marines and the Navy are working closely with the stand up of the new UK carrier capability as well.

The learning curve to improve sensors, system capability and weapons carried quickly compared to building another airframe may be a new American way of industrial surging.

The American arsenal of democracy may be shifting from an industrial production line to a clean room and a computer lab as key shapers of competitive advantage.

The F-35B in the Perspective of Aviation History

For a report by Ed Timperlake, which takes a kill web approach to the defeat and attack mission against adversary forces using HSCM which highlights a key role for the F-35 in the overall effort, see the following:

Kill Web and HSCMs