Maj. Adam Schubert, a C-17 Pilot with 437th Airlift Wing, 15th Airlift Squadron shares what to expect from the C-17 demonstration at the 2019 MCAS Beaufort Air Show, 17 April, 2019.
The Beaufort Air Show is one of the premiere community relations events put on by the air station to reinforce the partnership with the surrounding community. (Official USMC video by Corporal Debra S. Sainer/Released.
April 17, 2019
By Marcus Hellyer
Yesterday (April 29, 2019) from the election campaign trail in Western Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison made some naval shipbuilding announcements relating to the Royal Australian Navy’s mine-clearing and hydrographic capabilities.
Speaking from the Henderson shipyard south of Perth, he announced that more ships would be built in … Henderson.
After the recent twisted history of our future submarine project, the media and public might be forgiven for suspecting that this is a vote-grabbing exercise in pork-barrelling.
So let’s unpack what’s new here, what’s already in the works and, more importantly, what’s actually a good idea.
First, there is nothing new in the plan to build a hydrographic vessel at Henderson.
The Department of Defence has the responsibility of providing hydrographic services for the nation, although it has not necessarily always met the nation’s demand for such services. The 2016 defence white paper (page 93) and its supporting integrated investment program(page 88) said that Defence would replace its current hydrographic capability with a combination of military and commercial elements from the early 2020s.
Essentially it would outsource the routine national support tasks to better meet public demand, and keep the specialised military functions in house.
The 2017 naval shipbuilding plan (pages 38–39) elaborated on this, stating that a vessel for ‘strategic’ military hydrography would be built as part of the continuous minor war vessel program (which is centred on Henderson in Western Australia) and be delivered in the mid-2020s.
The prime minister’s statement that construction of that vessel would commence in the early 2020s is completely consistent with that plan.
So it’s not new.
And it’s actually a good idea.
The commercial surveying sector can do the routine tasks more cost-effectively, so it is better for Defence to focus on the difficult and dangerous hydrographic missions such as supporting submarine or amphibious operations in unfriendly waters.
Making sure Defence retains sufficient critical mass in skilled personnel will be the challenge here, not building the ship.
The developments in the mine countermeasure space, however, are actually new, and, more importantly, they’re also a good thing—but that’s got little to do with shipbuilding jobs.
Defence currently operates four manned minehunters (down from six after two were retired early as a cost saving). These vessels perform mine clearance the traditional way—by going into the minefield.
That means they are specialised vessels made of fibreglass so they don’t set off mines and are designed to be extremely shock-proof in case they do.
It’s still dangerous.
They’re also slow, and they’re designed to clear domestic ports rather than deploy with rapidly moving naval or amphibious task forces.
Like many militaries, the ADF has been experimenting with unmanned, more-or-less autonomous systems for mine hunting, so that humans can sit outside the minefield and send drones in to do the dull, dirty and dangerous work.
These systems can potentially be operated from any ‘vessel of opportunity’, so we wouldn’t need specialised minehunters anymore.
They could be operated from an amphibious vessel, or an offshore patrol vessel, for instance, that was part of the deployed task force.
In fact, back in the 2009 white paper (page 73), this was meant to be the future concept. Defence would build a one-size-fits-all minor war vessel that would do maritime patrol and border protection tasks as well as host mine clearance and even hydrographic teams when necessary.
However, the autonomous technology didn’t seem to be maturing quickly, so Defence went back to the safe path of upgrading the minehunters and extending their lives out to the early 2030s, so they wouldn’t be replaced until then.
But the complexity of the vessels made the upgrade very expensive—$1–2 billion, according to the integrated investment program (page 90).
But the technology then matured faster than expected.
What exactly was the capability shortfall in unmanned autonomous systems?
What could humans do that they couldn’t?
And did it warrant sending humans into the minefield?
The answer essentially came down to trust. Autonomous systems could do the job (or increasingly more of it, at least).
And for many tasks that required routine and repetition, they could do it better.
But we still didn’t trust them.
Ultimately, we want a human to assure us that that stretch of water is clear of mines before we sail through.
But Defence, through continuous experimentation with unmanned systems in exercises such as Autonomous Warrior, has developed familiarity with the technology—and, rather than contempt, familiarity builds trust.
Just think of your own reliance now on your mobile phone for navigation.
So, in the mine clearance space at least, autonomous systems have now cleared the trust bar.
The details of the new strategy and the project to deliver it (SEA 1905, according to the prime minister) aren’t public, highlighting again the need for an updated public integrated investment plan.
From the capability perspective, the two new ‘mine warfare support vessels’ to be built at Henderson aren’t the most important part of the system. What they will look like is a little irrelevant (probably something a lot like the offshore patrol vessels just starting construction).
The key point is that instead of spending $1–2 billion on extending the life of an outdated concept, Defence is embracing the new, retiring the old minehunters and adopting a solution based on autonomous systems.
For this, it should be commended.
The question is, how far is Defence willing to go down the path of autonomous systems?
And when?
In contrast to its mine-clearance capability, in surface combatants and submarines it is doubling down on exquisitely capable, yet exquisitely expensive, manned vessels that consume its capital budget but won’t deliver anything for more than a decade, potentially into a world swarming with autonomous systems and weapons designed to destroy those high-value platforms.
When will Defence trust autonomous systems enough to move away from manned platforms in those areas, or at least adopt autonomous systems that complement and protect those traditional platforms?
It will be interesting to see how its experiment in the mine warfare space shapes its appetite to innovate and embrace risk in other areas of warfare.
Marcus Hellyer is ASPI’s senior analyst for defence economics and capability. Image courtesy of the Department of Defence.
This article was published by ASPI on April 29, 2019.
The featured photo shows the Bluebottle Unmanned Surface Vessel operates in Jervis Bay during Autonomous Warrior 2018.
Autonomous Warrior 2018 was a major demonstration designed to examine the potential of robotic, autonomous and uninhabited systems, in support of Defence operations in coastal environments.
It combined an exhibition, trials and exercising in-service systems.
The dynamic industry exhibition provided an opportunity for industry to showcase its latest technology and capabilities, the Autonomy Strategic Challenge (also known as “The Wizard of Aus”) featured a set of multi-national scientific trials, whilst Navy and Army exercised their in-service autonomous and unmanned assets.
Held under the auspices of the Five Eyes’ The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP), Autonomous Warrior 2018 was led by Defence Science and Technology (DST) and supported by the Royal Australian Navy. It was held betwen the 5th – 23rd November, 2018 at HMAS Creswell and surrounding Defence-controlled areas in Jervis Bay, Australian Capital Territory.
In an article by Andrew Greene, defense correspondent for Australia’s ABC news, the author leveraged Pierre Tran’s article published on Second Line of Defense to discuss the French-Australian working relationship around which a new submarine is to be designed, built and launched.
The story was published on April 26, 2019, and was entitled: “Cultural Clashes Dividing French, Australian Officials Working on $50 billion attack class submarine Program.”
Clearly attenuating the cultural differences and shaping effective working relationships is a work in progress.
We will write more on this challenge in the coming months, for it is at the heart of a strategic opportunity both for Australia and the French.
Ensuring that the strategic opportunity is fully realized is the challenge.
According to Greene’s article:
The ABC has been told of numerous frustrations between French and Australian officials working on the contract
One official said Australians needed to understand the sanctity of the lunch break — not just a sandwich snatched at the screen
The French Naval Group is developing “intercultural courses” for French staff being posted to Australia
In 2016, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull announced French company Naval Group, then known as DCNS, had been awarded the lucrative contract, beating rival bids from Germany’s TKMS and the Japanese Government.
Since that time the ABC has been told of numerous difficulties and frustrations between French and Australian officials, although a long-awaited strategic partnering agreementwas finally signed earlier this year.
In a series of candid interviews with the defence industry publication SLDInfo.com, Naval Group officials have now offered insights into the problems the French company is facing in dealing with Australia.
The author concluded his article as follows:
Earlier this month, the ABC revealed Australians working on the future submarine program in France were sending their children to a $53,000-a-year British boarding school at taxpayers’ expense, because local classes are not taught in English.
The first of the new French-designed submarines are not due to be in service until the mid-2030s.
The Chief of Navy has signalled Australia’s entire fleet of ageing Collins Class submarines might need upgradingbefore the French-built replacements are read
By defenceWeb/Reuters
Denel’s plan to stop manufacturing components for the Airbus A400M Atlas airlifter will save the company R250 million as part of the state owned entity’s turnaround strategy.
In a presentation dated 29 March, Denel said a “managed exit with Airbus” could bring it an annualised benefit of R250 million.
Denel Aeronautics aims to wind down A400M component production over the next six to 18 months. Exiting the A400M agreement was first announced in March, but the timeframe and financial impact were not mentioned.
A spokesman for Airbus said: “The agreement to withdraw the A400M work packages is a mutual one. Airbus and Denel are discussing how best to proceed.”
Danie du Toit, Denel Group Chief Executive, said last month in view of Denel’s ongoing strategic review of its operations, the two companies agreed continued manufacturing of aircraft parts by Denel is no longer sustainable in its current form. “Denel and Airbus continue to collaborate in other areas and intend to build, expand and strengthen their strategic industrial partnership,” Denel said.
Renegotiating the A400M contract is part of Denel’s turnaround strategy to reposition the company and return it to profitability – Denel made a R1.7 billion loss in the 2017/18 financial year. Under its new strategy, the company plans to exit non-core areas of activity, divest from non-viable core business areas and focus on viable core business activities that will led to long-term sustainability; reposition the core viable business areas to leverage capital and market access; and focuss on export opportunities through strategic equity partnerships and joint ventures.
There are currently 75 A400Ms operational with various air forces around the world and all contain South African manufactured components. It is not yet clear which company will take over production of the components made by Denel for the 99 other A400Ms still on order.
The A400M programme was launched in response to needs expressed by seven European nations (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom) for a new military airlifter. Two years later Malaysia joined this group and the first flight of an A400M took place on 11 December 2009. The total Airbus A400M order book is 174 with 75 delivered and in service.
A year after the A400M was launched, South Africa announced its participation in the airlifter programme. This would see the country acquire eight A400Ms to replace its ageing C-130BZs at a reported cost of R6.5 billion. The order was placed in April 2005 with deliveries originally scheduled between 2006 and 2012.
Delays and other programme problems saw the maiden flight delayed by almost a year and an escalation in the cost of the aircraft destined for the SA Air Force (SAAF) to a reported R47 billion. This led to Cabinet cancelling the acquisition. Defence and Military Veterans Minister at the time, Lindiwe Sisulu, is reported as saying South Africa “terminated the contract with Airbus but we’ve not terminated our quest to ensure we have the necessary (airlift) capabilities”. At the same time she told the Joint Standing Committee on Defence the acquisition of strategic military air transport was a “priority”.
The offset component of the acquisition agreement was not affected by the withdrawal decision and Denel Aerostructures (as it was then known), based at the state-owned defence and technology conglomerate’s campus east of Or Tambo International Airport, continued its contracts for A400M work packages.
To date this has seen South African produced components in every one of the 75 so far in service as well as up to aircraft number 100, currently on the final assembly line.
Over the time it has been part of the A400M programme, Denel Aerostructures has been responsible for producing wing-to-fuselage fairings, top shells, vertical tail plane ribs, swords and spars, cargo deck floor ISO locks and central guide vertical restraint systems.
According to Denel’s latest annual report the Airbus contract was historically loss-making and Denel could not meet its major A400M deliverables due to liquidity challenges. One example is the delivery of 14, as against 22 contracted, wing-to-fuselage fairings in the 2017/18 financial year. Contractual commitments on the ribs, spars and swords and cargo holding system work packages were also not met.
This article was first published by defenceWeb on April 25, 2019.
The featured photo shows an Airbus A400M during the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford, July 2016. Credit: RAAF
By Brian Morra
The time has come to create a separate armed service for space.
The urgent nature of the threat to our commercial, civil, and military space enterprise means that it is time to create a service that organizes, trains, and equips a military service to integrate space power.
The Space Force’s mission will be to protect the US, its allies, and its interests from attack in, attack from, and attack through space.
Why now?
A United States Space Force is needed now to create a military space doctrine and a professional cadre of space personnel for the 21stCentury.
Here’s the key point: under the current approach to military space, the Department of Defense has failed to deliver the doctrine and personnel cadre commensurate with the threat.
Military space capability is Balkanized across the Air Force, Army, Navy, NASA, and the NRO.
The Air Force, as the principal military space service, has failed to develop a 21stCentury space warfighting doctrine and has neglected the development of a first-class corps of career space officers.
The Air Force officer corps remains dominated by career fighter pilots who do not give appropriate priority to the development of space doctrine, systems, and career personnel. It has had decades to prove it is up to this task and it has failed.
Given the rapid development of adversary space capacity, the United States cannot afford to wait additional decades for the Air Force to get serious about space.
Many argue that it is premature to contemplate a unified Space Force, or that a new Unified Space Command can serve the same purpose.
While I agree that a joint Space Command is needed, it isn’t enough.
Unified commands do not write doctrine.
That is a service responsibility and in the absence of a separate Space Force, military space doctrine has languished and is failing to drive the debate about the future role of the United States in space.
By comparison, the nascent US Army Air Corps was a prime mover of doctrine, tactics, and procedures during the interwar period of the 1920s and 1930s. It forced the debate about the future of the United States as a global air power.
No such debate has arisen from the current DoD configuration for space and it won’t come from a Unified Space Command.
It will only come with the establishment of a separate service that has clear authority for establishing a war fighting doctrine and a war fighting ethos.
Unified commands also have limited acquisition authority, if they have any at all. Integrating development and acquisition authorities is one of the prime arguments in favor of a separate Space Force.
We must bring together the operational and technical capabilities of the military services, the NRO, and NASA.
For example, hypersonics is a crucial 21stCentury technology area and much of the leading work is taking place in NASA.
That work should be moved a new Space Development Agency (SDA). The Air Force Space and Missile Development Center should fall under the SDA. All of the NRO should be moved to the Space Force.
The new force must have unity of command and clear up confusion over who is responsible for space – in both the uniformed and civilian chains of command. The new service’s civilian and uniformed leaders must be equipped with impeccable space and leadership credentials and with political savvy and intellectual depth and flexibility.
Further, it is essential that the new leadership team has consistent top cover from the White House, SECDEF, and OMB.
Given the certainty that threats to the global space “commons” will continue to worsen, it is time to define a space power doctrine and strategy that will enable the development of US military capability in space beyond the support services it furnishes today.
Establishing a Space Force as a separate service will catalyze the Department of Defense to take decisive action.
Anything short of the establishment of a separate service risks a continuation of an unacceptable status quo that will fail to address the severity of the threat faced by the US and its allies.
Since World War Two, the United States and its partners in NATO and elsewhere have secured a general, global peace.
Despite that success we are falling behind in securing space.
There now exists a unique opportunity to restructure the national space enterprise to enable the United States to begin to improve security in space.
There is a unique opportunity to define space power doctrine and strategy designed to prevent conflict and to employ military power in space across the spectrum of conflict should deterrence fail.
Space Force Morra v4 04-29-19For an alternative view on the formation of a separate Space Command, see the following:
In these photos credited to the USMC, the variety of aerial displays is highlighted.
According to a story published on Military.Com on April 30, 2019 and written by Oriana Pawlyk, the F-35B performance was highlighted:
The Marine Corps’ F-35B stealth fighter performed 12 different maneuvers over the weekend during the Beaufort Air Show in South Carolina.
Audiences were able to see the short-takeoff-vertical-landing variant engage in moves such as the pedal turn, in which the F-35 banks and climbs high, eventually simulating a somersault-like maneuver.
The show, which also featured the Navy’s Blue Angels demonstration team among other aircraft, marked the first full demonstration for the Marine Corps’ variant, according to manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp.’s official F-35 Lightning II Twitter account, which posted the aerial display Monday.
The featured photo which shows future Marine Corps Aviators is credited to Second Line of Defense.
U.S. Marine Capt. Frank Zastoupil, F-35B Lighting II pilot with Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, speaks about the capabilities of the F-35B Lighting II and its participation in the 2019 Air Show aboard Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort. March 01, 2019.
MCAS Beaufort holds airshows to promote the Marine Corps and Navy recruiting efforts, to demonstrate the full force and capabilities of our military and to show appreciation to all members of the surrounding communities who support the men and women who serve this nation and are stationed at the Air Station and in the Tri-Command area.
(Marine Corps video by Sgt. René Lucerobonilla.
March 1, 2019
“China’s defence ministry said on Thursday that France ‘illegally enter[ed] Chinese waters’ after the Chinese navy warned a French warship to leave the Taiwan Strait earlier this month.
“China has lodged an official protest at the ‘rare move’ by the French Navy, which has reaffirmed its commitment to ‘freedom of navigation under maritime law’.
“Following the Chinese statement, two US Navy destroyers passed through the Taiwan Strait on Sunday”
The above note was published by ASPI on April 30, 2019.
Editor’s Note: We have long advocated for a major build up of USCG National Security Cutters, a program which languished under the Obama Administration.
One might note that the US Navy has discovered the importance of these cutters in dealing with the Chinese gray zone conflicts for sure, but one could only wish that their had been a build of NSC hulls rather than the much more limited littoral combat system.
A U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyer and a Coast Guard National Security Cutter completed a transit of the Taiwan strait early Monday (March 25, 2019), the fifth such transit in six months. The move was immediately decried by Chinese officials.
USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) and U.S. Coast Guard cutter USCGC Bertholf (WSML-750)
completed transiting the roughly 110-mile wide body of water separating mainland China from Taiwan early Monday, according to media accounts and first reported by The Japan Times.
“[The ships] conducted a routine Taiwan Strait transit March 24-25 (local time) in accordance with international law,” Cmdr. Clay Doss, a U.S. 7th Fleet spokesman, said in an email to USNI News. “The ships’ transit through the Taiwan Strait demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.”
https://news.usni.org/2019/03/25/42133
There are only eight of these ships constructed to date which makes very little sense when one could build ice-hardened variants as well for a more global reach set of missions.