US Navy Works its Future Surface Combatant: The Unmanned Element

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on US Navy Works its Future Surface Combatant: The Unmanned Element
06/26/2018

According to an article published by USNI News written by Megan Eckstein and published on June 25, 2018, the USN plans to field unmanned vessels to supplement its future surface combatant.

The Navy’s Future Surface Combatant will likely include both an unmanned and an optionally unmanned surface vessel as part of a growing family of systems, as the Navy works through how manned/unmanned teaming can provide the biggest benefits at various phases of warfare.

Officials previously described the Future Surface Combatant program as having a large, small and unmanned variant – like a cruiser or destroyer, a Littoral Combat Ship or a frigate, and something akin to the Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vessel that the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is working on.

Increasingly, though, officials have begun talking about unmanned and optionally unmanned vessels as separate platforms.

Cmdr. Kyle Gantt, branch head for destroyers and future ships, said last week at the American Society of Naval Engineers’ annual Technology, Systems and Ships conference that several big-picture questions drove the separation of unmanned and optionally unmanned vessels.

First, if an unmanned system is weaponized, how does the Navy assure it maintains command and control in a contested and possibly communications-denied environment, to stay within the rules of engagement?

And what would the role of an unmanned vessel be in Phase 0 operations, where the Navy’s primary mission is presence – which requires people to be there?

“How do I employ these systems in a way that I get the sea control, the deterrent, the traditional Navy missions that I’m there to execute?” Gantt said, saying that optionally unmanned vessels appeared to be the solution. During Phase 0 presence missions, the vessels would be fully crewed and would have all the berthing, mess halls and other facilities to support a crew.

“The optionally unmanned part gets to, now I’m into Phase 2 and the conditions aren’t set in the environment to put manned platforms, but I have a mission that is worth the risk, worth the risk of the asset – I can remove the people and sail it and use that vessel in an unmanned capacity for lethal effects in a place where I would be unprepared to do that with a manned vessel. So that’s how we came to optionally unmanned. It plays very well in our wargames, having an armed system that can serve as an adjunct magazine to a manned (ship).”

Gantt said unmanned surface vessels may be more susceptible to being captured or boarded than an unmanned underwater vehicle or an unmanned aerial vehicle, and that vulnerability puts some limitations on what the Navy would want purely unmanned USVs to do – primarily relegating them to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions and counter-ISR missions that require the persistence of an unmanned vessel.

“What are you willing to put at risk?” Gantt said of the systems on an unmanned vessel.

“The aerial system, it’s moving pretty fast, it’s pretty hard to capture. The UUV is pretty hard to find. So you get a lot of benefit from those,” whereas the Navy will have to balance what systems it would want to field on strictly unmanned USVs.

For the complete article please see the following:

Navy to Field ‘Optionally Unmanned’ Vessels to Supplement Future Surface Combatant

The British Army Autonomous Warrior Experiment

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on The British Army Autonomous Warrior Experiment

The British Army has launched its Autonomous Warrior (Land) experiment at the RUSI Land Warfare conference.

According to an article published by the UK Ministry of Defence on June 20, 2018:

Autonomous Warrior, the 2018 Army Warfighting Experiment, will push the boundaries of technology and military capability in the land environment.

And one of the key areas it is set to test is the autonomous last mile resupply. The ‘last mile’, which represents the extremely dangerous final approach to the combat zone, is crucial to ensuring soldiers have the food, fuel and ammunition to keep them alive.

Autonomous Warrior will test a range of prototype unmanned aerial and ground cargo vehicles, which aim to reduce the danger to troops during combat.

The British Army is set to launch the four-week exercise on November 12, with a Battlegroup from 1 Armed Infantry brigade providing the exercising troops and taking responsibility of command and control.

British soldiers will test and evaluate the effectiveness of robotic and autonomous systems (RAS) on the battlefield.

These technological advances will play a key role in the Army’s Strike capability, ensuring our forces remain unmatched on the global stage.

Defence Minister Mark Lancaster said:

“Our Armed Forces continue to push the limits of innovative warfare to ensure that we stay ahead of any adversaries or threats faced on the battlefield.

“Autonomous Warrior sets an ambitious vision for Army operations in the 21st Century as we integrate drones, unmanned vehicles and personnel into a world-class force for decades to come.”

As well as demonstrating the vehicles during the last mile, Autonomous Warrior will also develop capabilities in surveillance which will greatly improve the effectiveness of long-range and precision targeting by service personnel.

The exercise is the result of a large collaboration between the British Army, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, US Army, MOD, Dstl and around 50 industry participants.
The new Chief of the General Staff, Gen Mark Carleton-Smith, who will give his first address in his new role at the conference, setting out the backdrop of a “darkening geo-political picture” as he calls for British forces to be “combat ready today and prepared for tomorrow”.

Giving the closing address, Gen Carleton-Smith will stress the need for British forces to work with their allies not just in the battlefield, but also in the virtual world. He will warn that “we live in exceptionally unstable times and that the world has never been more unpredictable”.

As he describes how “the nature of warfare is broadening beyond the traditional physical domains” he will add that 21st Century battlefield requires non-traditional skills, beyond those normally associated with careers in Army, to ensure British forces remain world leaders.

Gen Mark Carleton-Smith will say:

“We need a more proactive, threat-based approach to our capability planning, including placing some big bets on those technologies that we judge may offer exponential advantage because given the pace of the race, to fall behind today is to cede an almost unquantifiable advantage from which it might be impossible to recover.”

Autonomous Warrior will play an integral role within the £800 million Defence Innovation Fund, which supports ground-breaking ideas aimed at transforming both defence and British industry.

The land-based exercise follows on from the hugely successful ‘Unmanned Warrior’, which the Royal Navy demonstrated autonomous systems diving, swimming and flying together to engage in surveillance, intelligence-gathering and mine countermeasures.

 

The Coming of the F-35 to the UK: Working Through the Challenges

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on The Coming of the F-35 to the UK: Working Through the Challenges

By Robbin Laird

During my visit to RAF Marham in May 2018, I had a chance to visit once again and to meet with senior RAF and Royal Navy personnel responsible for the standup of F-35 capability on UK soil.

MoD is building new facilities to support the jet, and as the newly activated Dambusters squadron arrived on June 6, 2018 to RAF Marham, thus opening the F-35 era operating from British soil.

But the leadership team for the Lightning Force is not narrowly focused on this event, although clearly prioritizing it.

There focus is for the longer term, on how to support the new air system, how to leverage the air system as part of a multi-domain transformation of the UK forces and how to work with allies to get the best combat coalition advantage out of the aircraft as a coalition asset as well.

This is clearly a work in progress but one, which will shape the future of combat airpower in the UK for sure.

The government has announced a new combat air strategy, which is to look to the future of air combat power and the role of UK industry in that effort.

But no strategy will be effective without taking into account the impact of the F-35 on the evolution of air combat power itself.

Because the F-35 is first to operate from the Queen Elizabeth carriers, the joint experience of operating an RAF and Royal Navy asset off of a ship will be part of the transformation as well.

How will that joint experience and operating from a mobile airbase affect the thinking about the new air combat strategy?

How will it affect the way ahead for the UK forces more generally?

I had a chance to talk with the Deputy Commander of the Lightning Force, Captain Adam Clink, during my visit to RAF Marham and to discuss the challenges of shaping the way ahead for the Lightning Force both as a national force and as a coalition force.

The UK initially is buying the F-35B for its carrier operations.

As such, the RAF and the Royal Navy are working closely together in operating the aircraft and thinking through concepts of operations for the aircraft operating aboard the new carrier and how that air system will operate not only at sea but also with other air and multi-domain assets.

The advantage of starting with the F-35 as an aircraft operating from the sea base is that one has to think expeditionary from the outset and think multi-domain at the outset, and clearly the F-35 is a multi-domain asset and forcing function flying combat system pushing the C2 and information envelope.

One challenge, which the air system poses from the outset, is that of information sharing within the national and coalition force.

Captain Clink underscored that “we want to ensure that the F-35 is a force multiplier not a force inhibitor and to do that we need to work through how information is shared and decisions made based on that information.

“This is a work in progress and important for the coalition efforts for sure as well.”

As the RAF was upgrading its Typhoons and the RN and RAF were bringing the F-35 into the force, the two services were working closely together.

As they stand up the F-35Bs onboard the Queen Elizabeth, Captain Clink saw this is a strategic opportunity to shape multi-domain joint operational culture and thinking.

But he looked beyond the acquisition of the initial F-35Bs for carrier operations, and what comes next and how that would impact on the transition.

The UK will buy a new tranche of aircraft post 2020, and how would this acquisition affect Royal Navy and Royal Air joint perspectives?

The coming of the F-35B to the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy is far more than simply bringing a new combat aircraft to the force, but can drive some of the same kind of joint thinking and joint operational approaches which the Harrier brought in the past.

The difference now is that the F-35 is a very different combat aircraft and can drive significant multi-domain capabilities and innovations within the RAF and the Royal Navy as well.

The challenge will be to sort out how best to leverage its introduction and standup as the two services work jointly to support the Carrier and operations from RAF Marham.

There are allies who are also operating the F-35B of course.

Notably, the Marines have mobile basing in their DNA and as the USAF is rediscovering the importance of mobile basing the USAF is visiting the Marines and taking lessons from how best to support an F-35 expeditionary force.

The challenge was well articulated by the head of the 11th Air Force during a seminar in Canberra held by the Williams Foundation this past March:

“From the US Air Force standpoint, we are organized for efficiency, and in the high intensity conflict that we might find ourselves in, in the Pacific, that efficiency might be actually our Achilles heel, because it requires us to put massive amounts of equipment on a few bases.

“Those bases, as we most know, are within the weapons engagement zone of potential adversaries.

“So the United States Air Force, along with the Australian Air Force, has been working on a concept called, Agile Combat Employment, which seeks to disperse the force, and make it difficult for the enemy to know where are you at, when are you going to be there, and how long are you going to be there.

“We’re at the very preliminary stages of being able to do this but the organization is part of the problem for us, because we are very used to, over the last several decades, of being in very large bases, very large organizations, and we stove pipe the various career fields, and one commander is not in charge of the force that you need to disperse. We’re taking a look at this, of how we might reorganize, to be able to employ this concept in the Pacific, and other places.”

The USAF is not alone in dealing with this challenge and it is clear that bringing the F-35Bs first into the Royal Air Force and working with the USMC can drive a similar learning process with regard to mobile or expeditionary basing.

And it is clear that working the joint perspective with the Royal Navy is a significant strategic opportunity to shape a very different Royal Air Force approach as well to mobile basing in the period ahead as well.

The Italians are also operating F-35Bs and the RAF/RN are working with the Italians as well as they bring the F-35B capability to the Italian carrier as well.

Another key challenge facing the way ahead with a F-35 enabled force is working through the software upgrade challenges. When one visits the Typhoon squadrons, the different Tranches of the aircraft pose a management problem; different software variants of the F-35 will as well.

Captain Clink underscored the importance of ensuring as much software commonality among the deployed aircraft as possible as well as working to ensure that the software in the simulators was in advance of putting new software blocks onto the operational aircraft themselves.

This clearly is a work in progress, but one which will be crucial to leveraging the evolving capabilities of the new air system.

There is also the challenge of working through joint security rules for handling the facilities and the data generated by the aircraft.

This too is a work in progress as the US works with the partners to sort through more effective working relationships to ensure that the partners get full benefit from the program and the flexibility they clearly will need and can expect to obtain from operating the new air system.

There are cultural challenges as well.

Captain Clink noted that the RAF and Royal Navy have never operated a low observable aircraft before so there are learning challenges as well with regard to the sustainment and operations of an LO aircraft.

The UK faces as does the US a pilot shortage and that will affect the transition as well for there are not going to be surplus fifth generation operators around to influence the broader transformation as rapidly as one might hope for.

This clearly has been the case with the USAF as the ending of the F-22 program had the effect as well of creating a much smaller cadre of fifth generation operators and this has had a significant follow on impact on innovation with the USAF as a whole.

In short, the arrival of the Dambusters is a significant beginning; but just that a beginning.

But the coming of the F-35 is lever for change throughout the force and if the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy joint partnership is fully leveraged it can lead to significant innovation in 21st century multi-domain operational capabilities throughout the combat force.

The featured photo shows (from left) Captain Adam Clink, Air Commodore David Bradshaw and Group Captain Cab Townsend. Picture: Ian Burt

The Brits Work Sustainment for Their Combat Aircraft: Tornado as the Stepping Stone

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on The Brits Work Sustainment for Their Combat Aircraft: Tornado as the Stepping Stone
06/25/2018

By Robbin Laird

The UK MoD, the RAF and its industrial partners have been at the cutting edge in finding a path to enhanced combat aircraft availability through the evolution of its approach to performance based logistics.

It has been and is a journey, one which started with parts support, to systems support to where they are working now with the new Typhoon support contract, TyTAN.

The new approach now embraces a fleet support approach in terms of combat air availability, and given the key role, which the Brits are playing in F-35, their work in this field can certainly inform a way ahead for the global support approach for the F-35 as well.

But the harbinger of the new approach was born with the Tornado support contract.

When I discussed this approach with now Air Vice Marshall Harvey Smyth when he was the Lightning Force Commander, he underscored how important the Tornado support approach was to him as the Tornado force commander and how he clearly wanted lessons learned in that program applied to Typhoon and F-35 as well.

Air Commodore Smyth spoke at some length and passion about his experience as the Tornado Force Commander, where a 40+-year-old aircraft was able to be maintained throughout the very high tempo ops facing an aging force.

He argued that simply put: “We could not have had the operational performance of the aircraft without our exceptional contractual and joined-up working relationships with BAE Systems and Rolls Royce.”

The contracts deliver a product – an aircraft able to go to combat, and he would like to see the focus shift from payments to industry based on simple aircraft availability, to ones based on dispatch rate and mission achievement for combat aircraft.

Air Commodore Smyth also discussed the ROCET contract with Rolls Royce as an example of how to do sustainment leveraging using the right kind of industrial-service partnership.

“In the ROCET contract, a few years ago we contracted Rolls Royce to do our FOD management for us.

We were probably trashing upwards of 2 or 3 engines a year through a FOD.

We were doing everything we could from an air force point of view to be good managers of foreign object damage.

We incentivized Rolls Royce to take that on, and as the subject matter experts, they were, and are, fantastic at it.

In fact last year, we had zero engines rejected due to FOD, and that’s down to them applying proper analysis and procedures and recommendations with regards to how to drive down a FOD-engine repair rate.

All of a sudden it’s a win-win for everybody.

As a Force Commander, I get better operational capability out of my airplanes.

I also have engineers that aren’t changing engines, and are able to concentrate on other work.

Rolls Royce makes more money due to the contract incentivization, and I get much better operational performance.

Why wouldn’t this be a good thing?

More importantly, we do this effort together, as a Whole Force, so regardless of being Industry or Serviceman, we are all pulling together to deliver operational excellence.”

He clearly wishes to see the F-35 program build on this historical experience and not follow the USAF historic approach to sustainment with their F-15s at Lakenheath.

During my most recent trip to the United Kingdom in May 2018, I had a chance to visit RAF Marham and Coningsby and to discuss the Tornado support approach at Marham and the Typhoon approach at Coningsby.

At RAF Marham, I was able to sit down and talk with Sam Myatt, Head of Fleet Operations and General Manager from BAE Systems at RAF Marham. 

She is the General Manager for BAE Systems in charge of the ATTAC contract, or the Availability Transformation Tornado Aircraft Contract.

BAE Systems describes the contract as follows:

The contract, known as ATTAC (Availability Transformation: Tornado Aircraft Contract), includes on-aircraft maintenance of the GR4 fleet, spares support, technical support and training.

The approach builds on availability improvements and cost reductions achieved through earlier pilot programmes.

She has many years of experience – including 18 in the RAF — working on a variety of combat aircraft, including Tornado. She worked on the inception of the ATTAC contract from the RAF side then later joined BAE Systems to join the other side of the partnership.

During our time together, she provided a wide-ranging look at the evolution of the support approach for this aircraft, which has been in operation since 1979-1980.

She explained that the contract has been executed as a partnership among the RAF, BAE Systems, and MoD’s Defence Equipment and Support (DE & S) organization.

At the outset, a key challenge was to find a mechanism where the RAF could be clear about their expectations and DE&S and BAE Systems roles became clear.

It was especially important from the industry side to have metrics of performance against they would be held accountable and for which they would be paid as well.

The mechanism, which emerged, was the CASP or the Command Acquisition Support Plan.

According to Myatt: “Through this plan the RAF would project their anticipated requirements for the coming years in terms of how many aircraft the RAF thought they would need and how many flying hours they required to be available. “

“Prior to this, the RAF would do traditional maintenance planning.

“They would move from aircraft to aircraft until their maintenance hours were wrung out of them.

“It was a sequential maintenance process; not a fleet approach.

“It was single airframe driven.”

“With the contract, the RAF could step back and look at the mix of aircraft, reconnaissance or strike, they projected they would need in a 12-18 month time frame.

“And then could focus on ways to ensure availability of the right mix of aircraft for operations.”

“This also allowed DE&S to have a commitment from Air Command with regard to their anticipated needs.

“They then could contract with us in terms of how many aircraft were needed to fly a projected set of flying hours in a 12-month period.”

“So instead of having to burn through money to support operations, the team was able to focus on aircraft availability for the RAF to do what the UK government wanted it do.

“And we could collectively focus on the having the right capability of available aircraft.”

“It was a challenge to put such a planning process in place, rather than having money flow to the problem without regard, to thinking overall about how best to make aircraft available.”

Question: But how has the relationship between RAF maintainers and BAE maintainers worked out in practice?

Who does what and how does this make the RAF more effective?

She explained that the focus was upon working the system for maintenance at the home bases in the UK and the system for supporting expeditionary operations.

With the contract, the RAF could focus on support to the edge of the spear, namely supporting expeditionary operations.

BAE systems could focus the majority of its effort at maintenance at the home bases, but with a mix of RAF maintainers so that their skill levels for deep depot maintenance was at a good level as well.

“Because of the way the contract worked, if there was a deeper level engineering problem with a deployed aircraft, it could be sent back and we would swap that out with one we had ready back at the home base.”

“That meant that the engineers at forward only had the number of aircraft they required.

“There is no point in having a squadron with 15 aircraft if they only have manpower to engineer 10.”

“In the contract, we would be able to provide a replacement aircraft within 72 hours for any that had a deeper level of fault investigation or repair required for both UK based and deployed aircraft.”

“We would take that aircraft out of the forward fleet, bring it back to the maintenance hangar to get the repair done, and give the RAF another aircraft, so they could maintain the level of availability they required.”

“The goal has been to ensure that the RAF had the right aircraft at the right time and in the right place.”

Question: With industry building a significant reliability data base, the BAE engineers and maintainers can provide some significant learning baselines as well, one would assume. 

Is that correct?

Myatt: It is and let me give you an example.

“There is are many control panels in the cockpit.

“The RAF technician will do what he thinks is the right thing to do but perhaps the same problem comes up a couple of flights later.

“The technician will repair it the same way.

“But our engineers may well have identified  an alternative procedure to fix the problem at the forward or deployed base or even something we need to fix when we do deep maintenance.”

“And the reachback function into our industry is a key to availability from deployments to our home bases.”

“With targeted engineering information, we can increase the serviceability of a very old aircraft, and one that is mechanical, not digital, as the newer ones are.”

Because it is a mechanical aircraft, data needs to be put into the computer systems manually.

And they generate learning tools from that data to enhance the serviceability of the aircraft.

“We have developed with the RAF a system capture tool, whereby when the pilot returns to base and they have an issue, they will identify the conditions they noted at the time they had the problem.

“And we can use that data to analyze the problem.”

“Based on what we learn, we can then develop procedures for dealing with that problem when it happens in the future.

“But again, we are working on the issue of whether regular problems can be better solved by deeper level maintenance approaches to solve the problem.”

Question: Are you surprised at how successful the effort has been to generate significant availability rates for an older aircraft?

Myatt: Not really.

“The key was that from the beginning there was a real commitment from the MoD and the RAF to find a way to get enhanced availability for lower cost.

“It did not take too long for people to actually understand the benefits. ATTAC has been a hugely successful contract for us, BAE Systems and for the MoD.”

Question: The core shift is to find ways to do fleet management and obviously the ATTAC contract has been a key stage in the process. 

How  important is getting to a fleet management approach?

Myatt: Fleet management has taken time over the past 15 years to come to the fore.

“If you do it aircraft by aircraft with no sharing of information among partners as well, you will not have a fleet approach.

“For instance, air-forces around the world have flown Tornados in very different conditions to what we typically find in the UK.

“But by not having data shared across the global fleet, we end up with little to no engineering information generated through other user experiences.

“If there was data being shared across the global fleet, we could do a better job in reducing the number of engineering issues that might occur with UK Tornados meeting these different weather conditions.”

“If you’re flying the same aircraft you’re going to get the same issues.

“If you’ve got the same components in the aircraft, then you’re going to get the same faults such as sand ingress, and how that affects the air systems.

“If that data was there from day one, who knows how much money the UK could have saved on parts and engineering hours.”

“That will clearly be the case for F-35.

“There is an opportunity with a global support system, to do this from day one, and could improve performance and save money at the same time.”

Note: The RAF provided the following overview on the Tornado GR4 on the RAF website.

The Panavia Tornado GR.Mk 4 is the UK’s primary ground attack platform and also fulfils an important reconnaissance role.  The aircraft conducts attack missions against planned targets, armed reconnaissance against targets of opportunity and close air support (CAS) for ground forces, typically under the control of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC).

For attacks against pre-planned targets the Tornado GR4 usually employs GPS/laser-guided bombs from the Paveway family, or the Storm Shadow cruise missile, the latter fired from considerable stand-off ranges.  In the armed reconnaissance and CAS roles, Tornado normally carries a mix of Paveway IV and Dual-Mode Seeker Brimstone, combined with a Litening III targeting pod, and in addition to the internal 27mm gun.  This gives the crew an unparalleled array of options to engage targets with the most appropriate weapon, achieving the desired result with minimum, if any, collateral damage.

 CAPABILITY

 With its mix of weapons, the Tornado GR4 is capable of engaging all targets on the modern battlefield.  Paveway III and Storm Shadow afford the ability to strike bunkers and other hardened facilities, while Brimstone is effective against armoured vehicles, both static and on the move.  Dual-Mode Seeker Brimstone enables precision strike against targets with collateral-damage challenges; these can be moving at high speed and still successfully engaged.

Paveway IV offers huge tactical flexibility, with cockpit-programmable impact angle, impact direction and fuse delay offering precisely tailored strike on planned and unplanned targets.  The 27mm gun offers the ability to strike targets including light vehicles and personnel; it proved invaluable in Afghanistan for halting insurgent ambushes when crews strafed into tree lines.

During Operation Ellamy in 2011, Tornados flew from the UK to strike targets in Libya using Storm Shadow missiles, a round trip of more than 3,000nm, accomplished with essential support from Vickers VC10 and Lockheed TriStar tankers.  Some missions saw the Tornados launch their missiles and then turn for Gioia de Colle, Italy, where they joined other Tornados, and Typhoons, in a sustained campaign against Libyan government forces.

Through its unique weapons effects and the RAF’s air-to-air refuelling capability, Tornado provides the UK Government with a rapid and flexible crisis response tool.

TYPE HISTORY

Britain’s relationship with variable geometry (VG) wing design dates back to the 1950s when Sir Barnes Wallis, better known for developing the Upkeep ‘bouncing bomb’ used by 617 Sqn ‘The Dambusters’ in 1943, worked through several VG concepts.  Barnes and others recognised that with a VG aircraft’s wings swept forwards, or spread, it could use shorter runways and display greater manoeuvrability, before sweeping them back for maximum high-speed performance.  

From the 1940s into the early 1970s, VG wings were an excellent solution to difficult aerodynamic and operational challenges, although at a penalty of additional airframe weight compared to fixed wings.  The advent of more advanced aerodynamics, and especially of powerful, lightweight computing systems, enabled designers to extract similar performance without the weight and complications of VG.

Although no aircraft were built as a result of Wallis’s work, it inspired the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) P.45 VG fighter-bomber study and subsequent Anglo-French Variable Geometry (AFVG) attack/interceptor concepts, from which France soon withdrew, but the UK continued as UKVG.

Looking for an industrial partner, BAC approached West Germany’s MBB, which was on the verge of termination of the Advanced Vertical Strike (AVS) vertical take-off and landing aircraft on which it had worked with US companies.  It was already also contemplating a single-seat, single-engined lightweight fighter-bomber as the Neue Kampffluegzeug (NKF).  There was some commonality in intended role between UKVG and NKF, and the difficult process of international collaboration began.

The Luftwaffe’s primary requirement for NKF was to replace its Fiat G.91 and Lockheed F-104 Starfighter fleets and since Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands had similar F-104 issues, they joined with West Germany in January 1968 to propose an NKF-informed Multi-Role Aircraft for 1975 (MRA 75).  The UKVG had, meanwhile, been replaced by two concepts, one for a light combat aircraft and the other for a heavier, twin-engined design.

In concept the latter was close to MRA 75 and on July 25, 1968, Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, West Germany and the UK launched feasibility studies around the requirement.  Belgium and Canada soon fell by the wayside since they were primarily looking for an interceptor, but in December, BAC, Italy’s Fiat and MBB formed a joint industrial company to formally develop a new aircraft.

BAC and MBB had quite different VG designs in progress, the former focussing on a twin-engined aircraft powered by two new technology RB.199 turbofans, while the MBB concept relied on a single General Electric TF30 engine.  Compromise was eventually agreed and the layout for a new Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) described in a March 14, 1969 meeting.  The joint industrial company formed the previous December became Panavia on March 26 and BAC, MBB, Fiat and VFV-Fokker in the Netherlands began work.

Although a degree of compromise had been reached, Panavia was established to produce a single-seat Panavia 100, primarily for interception duties, and a two-seat Panavia 200, which satisfied the UK requirement for a long-range attack aircraft. Neither specification really suited the Dutch, who needed a multi-role interceptor/attack aircraft, rather than a pure interceptor or heavy, long-range striker and the Netherlands soon withdrew from the programme.  In November 1969, Fiat merged with Aerfer to form Aeritalia and it was therefore this new concern, along with BAC and MBB that continued MRCA development, the single-seat requirement fading away during 1970.

A new company was formed to develop the RB.199 turbofan, Fiat, MTU and Rolls-Royce creating Turbo-Union.  The resulting engine was extremely compact, enabling a relatively small airframe design, and incorporated afterburning for an unprecedented thrust increase of near 50%. 

With the Panavia 100 concept extinct, the MRCA authorised for prototyping in 1970 was a two-seat, multi-role aircraft with provision for a range of air-to-air missiles, but when the first prototype completed its maiden flight from Manching on August 14, 1974, it was optimised for air-to-ground work.  Nine prototypes and six pre-production aircraft were built, the last of the latter flying almost three years after production had been authorised on March 10, 1976.

Back in 1971, the RAF had, ironically, laid out its plans for a stretched interceptor variant of the MRCA, although the UK’s intention to pursue such a development dated back as far as 1969.  By the time the first of the pre-production aircraft flew on February 5, 1977, the MRCA had become Tornado, specifically Tornado Interdiction Strike (IDS), since the RAF interceptor had become the Tornado Air Defence Variant (ADV).  Featuring minor equipment variations compared to the West German and Italian IDS aircraft, the initial RAF Tornado variant was the GR.Mk 1, which first arrived with the Trinational Tornado Training Establishment (TTTE) at RAF Cottesmore on July 1, 1980.

The TTTE trained aircrew from all three Panavia nations, using relatively small numbers of dual-control aircraft that retained all the capability of their regular counterparts.  The RAF’s first frontline Tornado squadron exchanged Avro Vulcans for Tornados in 1982.  Re-forming at RAF Honington on June 1, No. IX (Bomber) Squadron has remained with the aircraft ever since.

Meanwhile, the Tornado ADV had flown for the first time on October 27, 1979, beginning a long and somewhat troubled test programme for what had become known as the Tornado F.Mk 2.  The aircraft’s radar caused most concern and the F2s delivered to 229 OCU from November 1984 carried ballast rather than the detection equipment.  They were never brought up to full ADV standard, represented by the Tornado F.Mk 3, which formally entered frontline service with 29 Sqn on April 1, 1987.

Over almost 25 years in service, the F.Mk 3 was dramatically upgraded, initially for the 1991 Gulf War, which also saw new systems and capabilities added to the GR.Mk 1.  The brief conflict saw the attack Tornado employed in the low-level airfield denial role for which it had been designed, before switching to medium-altitude laser-guided bombing, for which it had not.  

A handful of aircraft introduced the prototype Thermal Imaging Airborne Laser Designator (TIALD) pod into service before the fighting ended, marking the start of a precision attack capability that has become the Tornado’s hallmark. Since 1991 there has been little relief from combat operations, with Tornado GR.Mk 1 and F.Mk 3 active in policing and combat missions over the Balkans and Iraq, then back to Iraq in force for Operation Desert Fox in 1998 and Telic, the UK contribution to Operation Iraqi Freedom, in 2003.  The GR1 fought alongside the dramatically upgraded Tornado GR.Mk 4 in 2003, the latter bringing true precision capability to the jet and compatibility with the Storm Shadow cruise missile, which 617 Sqn debuted in service during the conflict.

As soon as the GR4 was released from combat over Iraq, it deployed for Operation Herrick, replacing the McDonnell Douglas/BAe Harrier in Afghanistan from 2009.  Less than two years later, Tornado Force was simultaneously deploying jets to Kandahar and Italy, for Operation Ellamy over Libya in 2011.  Employing Paveway IV and Brimstone in both operations, Tornado exercised precision, low-collateral damage weapons options that remain unique to the RAF.

It also employed the Reconnaissance Airborne Pod Tornado (RAPTOR) system and Litening III targeting pod on intelligence-gathering missions. The Tornado had pioneered digital imaging technologies in its GR.Mk 1A version from December 1986.  The variant performed exceptional Scud-hunting work during Granby and remained an important tactical reconnaissance asset.  Some GR1As were modified to GR.Mk 4A standard, but with the advent of RAPTOR, the reconnaissance capability has since been absorbed into the general Tornado GR4 fleet.

The Tornado also held a dedicated anti-shipping capability, embodied in the GR.Mk 1B in service with 12 (Bomber) Squadron from 1993 and 617 Sqn from 1994.  The aircraft was modified to fire the Sea Eagle missile, but the capability fell into abeyance when the GR.Mk 4 programme began.

Since Operation Ellamy, the Tornado Force has drawn down towards the type’s planned out of service date (OSD), now set for 2019.  The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review called for a reduction in frontline GR4 squadrons to two, but the need to maintain a constant deployment for Operation Shader saw a squadron re-formed and 12(B) Sqn was thus only very briefly disbanded, returning as a third unit.

The GR.Mk 4 has been subject to a constant series of minor upgrades, gradually enhancing its capability so that today’s Tornado is very far removed from the jet conceived to meet a multinational requirement during the 1960s.  

With Tornado’s OSD set, Project Centurion is transferring its capabilities, particularly Brimstone and Storm Shadow, to Typhoon.  Two new Typhoon squadrons and the incoming Lightning will take over and build upon the tactics and effects that will have been delivered by Tornado in almost four decades of service.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/tornado-gr41/

PANAVIA TORNADO GR.MK 4:

  • Powerplant: two Turbo-Union RB.199 Mk 103 turbofans each rated at 16,000lb st (71.50kN) with afterburning
  • Length: 56ft 6¼in (17.23m)
  • Height: 19ft 6¼in (5.95m)
  • Wingspan, spread: 45ft 7½in (13.91m)
  • Wingspan, swept: 28ft 1in (8.56m)
  • Wing area: 286.33sqft (26.60m2)
  • Maximum take-off weight around: 61,600lb (27,950kg)
  • Maximum speed: Mach 1.3
  • Armament: Paveway II, III and IV series GPS/laser-guided bombs, Brimstone air-to-ground missiles, Storm Shadow cruise missiles, ASRAAM for self defence, one internal 27mm Mauser cannon, plus 1,500-litre and/or 2,250-litre drop tanks, Litening III targeting pod, RAPTOR, Sky Shadow and BOZ countermeasures pods, up to a maximum disposable load of around 19,840lb (9,000kg)

We have published several articles on Tornado, including the following:

https://sldinfo.com/2017/07/weapons-in-the-tornado-typhoon-transition-shaping-a-way-ahead/

https://sldinfo.com/2017/03/the-tornado-transition-squadron-at-raf-lossiemouth-closes-shop/

https://sldinfo.com/2017/03/the-last-tornado-student/

https://sldinfo.com/2016/11/training-the-final-tornado-weapons-instructors-shaping-a-way-ahead/

https://sldinfo.com/2016/11/leveraging-the-legacy-of-the-tornado-the-perspective-of-wing-commander-paul-froome/

https://sldinfo.com/2016/07/visiting-the-tornado-transition-squadron-at-raf-lossiemouth-leveraging-the-past-and-preparing-the-future-for-the-raf/

https://sldinfo.com/2016/05/visiting-raf-lossiemouth-macroberts-reply-and-tornado-thunder/

The featured photo shows XV(R) Sqn tornado aircraft flying in formation for the last time, flying over RAF Lossiemouth and surrounding areas, Wg Cdr Froome OC of the squadron was flying the lead aircraft.  Credit: RAF, March 17, 2017.

The slideshow is of RAF Tornados operating at RAF Lossiemouth and are credited to the RAF.

Unmanned Air Systems at MAWTS-1: The Training and TPP Challenge

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Unmanned Air Systems at MAWTS-1: The Training and TPP Challenge
06/23/2018

By Robbin Laird

There is probably no single air platform more affected by the transition from the strategic shift from counter-insurgency to the high-end fight than unmanned aerial systems.

These systems have come to the fore during counter-insurgency operations and have provided significant persistent surveillance for the ground forces.

They have grown in significance in working targeting options for air and sea strike forces as well.

But such systems are not well placed to operate in the contested air space and counter-battery fires, which would characterize force-on-force conflict with a peer competitor. 

They suffer from several problems ranging from vulnerability to electronic warfare and jamming to becomes targeting drones rather than UAVs for combat aircraft, and the rapid growth in counter UAS systems associated with advancing technologies such as directed energy.

There is no easy way for the theoretical potential of remotes to be translated into combat reality until cyber security, counter EW, jamming, communications and an ability to operate against a variety of strike threats are attenuated.

There is no magic wand going to get from 2018 to the mythical ghost fleet any time soon.

During the recent WTI course, the Marines focused on generating a variety of contested operational threats, and jamming proved to be an effective means in attenuating the utility of their own UASs. 

It is also the case that the smaller UASs which are very useful to provide ISR and C2 support to the ground force are not very effective in the presence of an adversary with high speed ground maneuver capabilities as well.

While at MAWTS-1, I had a chance to talk with two Marine Corps officers involved in working with the evolution of UAS capabilities in the Marine Corps.

Both officers have significant backgrounds in rotorcraft as well as in operating UAS systems, in the USMC squadrons, which operate their unmanned systems.

Major Daniel “Postal” Weber and Major Donald “Grace” Kelly have worked with UAS systems for a number of years, and provided significant insights into the challenges of moving forward effectively with UAS capabilities.

One challenge facing the MAWTS-1 team is how to shape the TTPs for UASs. 

The challenge is that in the absence of a significant cohort of systems it is difficult to test, and to operate UASs enough to shape standardization norms for the fleet.

As the Marines look to operate in a contested objective area, what can the UAS bring to the party?

How does it fit in with an evolving MAGTF that is looking for extended reach fires integration?

How do they work with Ospreys, Ks, and F-35s?

The focus on MAGTF integration, and now what one might call extended reach MAGTF operations puts significant pressure on shaping what an effective UAS element would look like.

The con-ops are in progress; and so is the question of how best to fit UAS systems into that evolving concepts of operations.

The Marines clearly have adopted UASs into their operations, but the best fit is in the counter insurgency effort.

To shape an effective role in the contested environment, Majors Weber and Kelly underscored a number of aspects for a way ahead.

How best to leverage other service’s platforms and capabilities in the UAS area and leverage them for the USMC?

How best to leverage the Blackjack system to gain more operational experience with a class three UAS while they expand their thinking and reach into a class five UAS, which is being considered for future shipboard operations?

How best to build up a cadre of experienced personnel working with UAS systems and leverage that experience to shape a realistic way ahead?

How to handle the trade-offs between airframes and payloads?  In effect, the question of which payloads that could be carried by a UAS are most useful to the Marines as they evolve their con-ops is central.

And how to best carry those payloads on an effective unmanned aircraft then becomes the focus of attention, rather than focusing primarily on the unmanned aircraft itself?

As Lt. General (Retired) Trautman put the objective:

The current Deputy Commandant for Aviation (at the time Lt. General Davis) has been very prescient in laying out a requirement for a program called MUX (MAGTF Unmanned eXpeditionary UAS) which the current aviation plan says will be ready for initial operations in the 2025 time frame.

That platform, whatever it becomes, should have the capability to take off and land from the sea base, to take off and land from an expeditionary operating location ashore and deliver long range relatively high speed service to the fleet so that you can use that range and speed to your advantage.

It should also come in with adequate power and non-proprietary “hooks” so that future users can employ whatever payloads make the best sense for the force as it evolves.

This is a very exciting time for the development of unmanned systems in support of the amphibious task force and the Marine Corps.

https://sldinfo.com/2017/05/the-role-of-unmanned-aerial-systems-in-the-remaking-of-the-amphibious-task-force-the-perspective-of-lt-general-retired-trautman/

This target goal for a Marine Corps going into contested areas is a work in progress.

What Majors Weber and Kelly are suggesting is that to get to that goal will require building a cadre of operators engaged in the evolution of current capabilities to be able to leverage that experience and help shape the desired goal, which is a class five UAS able to operate off a ship and to contribute to an extended reach MAGTF.

Given that MAWTS-1 is working closely with VMX-1 in shaping a way ahead for the MAGTF as the new technologies such as G/ATOR and F-35 are leveraged to shape an extended fires capability, clearly VMX-1 and MAWTS-1 are key players in help work the challenge and the opportunity for a new class of UAS to work with the future MAGTF.

But it must be done with a close eye to the core challenges which UASs pose as well, such as survivability, payload useability, and vulnerability to electronic warfare threats.

The featured photo and the slideshow show U.S. Marines with Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron One preparing to launch a RQ-21 Blackjack UAS during Weapons and Tactics Instructors Course (WTI) 1-18 at Yuma, Ariz., on Oct. 13, 2017.

(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Rhita Daniel)

For a recent edition of defense.info which looked at unmanned systems, please see the following:

https://defense.info/highlight-of-the-week/unmanned-systems-usmc-usn-and-uscg/

 

 

The European Political Crisis: The Impact of Germany

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on The European Political Crisis: The Impact of Germany
06/22/2018

By Harald Malmgren

Next week the European Union will hold a key summit.

But that summit is being defined by and overshadowed by the political changes throughout key European states.

The crisis in Germany is especially central to the fate of the summit.

In late May and in the early days of June Chancellor Merkel had been preparing for the scheduled annual EU Summit. One of her highest priorities was to find consensus among EU members on the rules for treatment of refugees, especially those fleeing from Syria and its Middle East neighbors. A wave of populism focused on in alleged social and criminal disruptions imposed by Merkel’s open borders policy.

Shocking not only Germany, but virtually all capitals of the European Union, Merkel’s authority was challenged by a key member of her own political base, Interior Minister Horst Seehoffer.

Suddenly, she was at risk of a political clash from within her own political base that might require a vote of confidence. It is not evident how such a vote would go at this moment when many politicians are feeling growing pressures to alter Germany’s immigration policies. If “no confidence” would be the result, Merkel faced the possibility that she might be asked to step down, or pressure might build for a new election in which case she would not be chosen as the leader for the CDU into new elections.

Prior to the election Seehofer had been head of the CSU and political leader of Bavaria. After many weeks of negotiations between the SDP and Merkel, a “Grand Coalition’s own partnership of the CDU and CSU was agreed. In the subsequent bargaining over who was to be a Minister in the new cabinet, Seehofer pressed to be appointed Interior Minister. Seehofer was well aware that post gave authority over regulation of the nation’s borders, including management and enforcement of the nation’s borders and immigration laws.

Merkel’s personal political power had already taken a hit by a significant drop in seats won by her CDU in the elections. In the aftermath of decline of the CDU and rise of the ultra-nationalist AfD, CDU party members began to discuss the initiation of a process to choose a new party leader who might lead the CDU into the next German election.

Technically the next election was scheduled to be held in 2021. Given already evident rivalries within the CDU and CSU, and quietly growing voter support for different actions on immigration and a harder stance on basic German interests, an election might become necessary before 2021. The consensus appeared to be that Merkel should not lead the party into the next election. However, choosing a successor should be done with care. In effect, Chancellor Merkel now found herself with a limited “use by date”, with the exact date not yet agreed.

Formation of the new cabinet posed yet another shock for Merkel. The opposition SDP insisted that they would not join a coalition unless they could have the Ministry of Finance. Merkel’s ultimate political backstop, some might say the foundation of all of her political power, had been Wolfgang Schaueble throughout the EU and Euro Area crises for a decade.

At one time in the past, it had been expected that Schaueble would have been made Chancellor, but that path was broken by a CDU party funding scandal and an attempted assassination on him that resulted in lifetime damage to his physical mobility. Ultimately, whenever Merkel needed to collect vote in a Bundestag policy dispute, it was Schaueble who delivered her the necessary votes.

From the perspective of German politicians, Merkel’s loss of the Finance Ministry coupled with her loss of Schaueble’s political power in the cabinet further weakened her ability to submit Berlin politics to her will.

By late May this year, Seehofer calculated Merkel was politically vulnerable in her own CDU base, and her policies on immigration had become a divisive issue not only in Germany but throughout the EU. The CSU was becoming vulnerable unhappiness of Bavarian voters with Merkel’s defiant stance against any changes in policies regarding passage of refugees through Bavaria.

Thus, Seehofer chose to confront Merkel with a list of demands for changes in her immigration policies, including distinguishing treatment of immigrants who were first-time entrants to Germany from migrants who had already entered the EU through a different port of entry. This would require reestablishment of border posts. Agreements with neighboring countries about holding back some classes of immigrants nearby, such as in Turkey or the Balkans, should be reconsidered.

In effect, Seehofer was proposing changes in Schengen EU freedom of movement.

Merkel defiantly refused to yield to Seehofer’s demands. In response, Seehofer warned he would proceed in 2 weeks to introduce his own new regulations under the legal authority in his role as Interior Minister.

Merkel found herself in a trap that had been carefully laid. If she fired Seehofer odds were high the coalition would break down and new elections might be called. In that case, she would likely not be chosen to lead the CDU into competition, and effectively she would no longer be Chancellor.

If she yielded, that would demonstrate that her power had dramatically diminished, her influence inside Germany and with the rest of Europe would be seriously impaired. Seehofer is exploiting his anti-refugee stance in Bavaria to help revitalize the CSU, and try to limit voter exits from the CSU to the AfD, a party which is even more aggressively in favor of shutting down immigration.

In the EU’s past there have been times of deep divisions, but when such strong divisions occurred it was German political and diplomatic skill, supported by Germany’s strong financial position, that prevailed and set the basis for continuation of further EU integration. It was always widely recognized that only Germany had sufficient financial resources to prop up the EU or the Euro area in times of distress.

With German politics now becoming seriously fragmented and in some kind of process of reconfiguration, there is no single leader or handful of strong politicians in Berlin to devise and execute a common German stance on Europe.

It is not yet clear what will happen to the traditional parties, but it is quite possible that a there will be a convergence of political will around a more nationalistic stance, seeking what is best for Germany, with less concern for the troubles of Germany’s neighbors.

 

 

Shaping the UK Carrier Strike Group: The Perspective of Commodore Andrew Betton and Col. Phil Kelly

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Shaping the UK Carrier Strike Group: The Perspective of Commodore Andrew Betton and Col. Phil Kelly

By Robbin Laird

During my visit to Portsmouth, England and to RAF Marham in early May 2018, I visited senior Royal Navy and defense personnel involved in the standing up of the UK carrier strike capability.

After my morning briefings with the Royal Navy with regard to preparing the carrier for its role as the flagship of a maritime strike group, I had a chance to discuss the way ahead with the commander of the UK Carrier Strike Group, Commodore Andrew Betton and with Colonel Phil Kelly, Royal Marines, COMUKCSG Strike Commander.

The new UK carriers are coming at a time when there is a broader UK and allied defense transformation and a strategic shift from counter-insurgency to higher end operations.

The new UK carrier provides a mobile basing capability by being a flexible sea base which can complete UK land based air assets, and a flexible asset that can play a role in the Northern Flank or the Mediterranean on a regular deployment basis and over time be used for deployments further away from Europe as well.

Commodore Betton and Col. Kelly both underscored the flexible nature of the HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The UK is building out a 21stcentury version of a carrier strike group, one which can leverage the F-35 as a multi-domain combat system and to do both kinetic and non-kinetic strike based on these aircraft, as well combine them with helicopter assault assets to do an F-35 enabled assault, or if desired, shift to a more traditional heavy helicopter assault strike.

As Commodore Betton put it: “Our new carrier offers a really flexible, integrative capability.

“The carrier can play host and is intended absolutely to play host to a carrier air wing.

“At the same time, it can provide something very different inn terms of littoral combat operations, primarily using helicopters.”

They emphasized that the Royal Navy was building new escort ships as well as new submarines and the approach to building a maritime strike group meant that working through the operational launch of the carrier was also about its ability to integrated with and to lead a 21stcentury maritime strike group.

And the new maritime strike group was being built to work with allies but just as importantly to operate in the sovereign interest of the United Kingdom.

The F-35B onboard was a key enabler to the entire strike group functions.

Commodore Betton : “The airwing enables us to maneuver to deliver effects in the particular part of the battlespace which we are operating in.  You can have sea control without the airwing.

“Our air wing can enable us to be able to do that and have sufficient capability to influence the battlespace.

“You clearly do not simply want to be a self-sustaining force that doesn’t do anything to affect the battlespace decisively.

“The F-35 onboard will allow us to do that.”

Col. Kelly noted that with the threat to land air bases, it was important to have a sea base to operate from as well, either as an alternative or complement to land bases.

“The carriers will be the most protected air base which we will have. And we can move that base globally to affect the area of interest important to us.

“For example, with regard to Northern Europe, we could range up and down the coastlines in the area and hold at risk adversary forces.

“I think we can send a powerful message to any adversary.”

Commodore Betton added that the other advantage of the sea base is its ability to be effective on arrival.

“If you have to operate off of land, you have to have the local permission.  You have to move assets ashore.  You have to support assets ashore.  And you have to protect the land base.  The sea base has all of that built in.

“And there is nothing austere about our carriers in terms of operating aircraft.”

We focused on how the carrier becomes integrated with broader strike picture, for the point is not simply that the carrier itself launches F-35s or helicopters, but how the command post can manage the aircraft they launch with the distributed strike assets in the strike group, which could include land based air or land based forces as well.

Col. Kelly emphasized that their position was similar to the evolution of the USMC where “every platform can be a sensor or a shooter” in the battlespace.

The C2 onboard the carrier on in the air with the Crow’s nest or the F-35Bs can be part of a distributed CS system to ensure maximum effect from the strike and sensing capability of the task force and its related partners in the battlespace.

And innovations in the missile domain up to and including directed energy weapons have been anticipated in the support structure onboard the carrier. 

During my visit to the Scottish shipyard where Queen Elizabeth was built, I had a chance to look at the infrastructure onboard the ship to support weapons as well as was briefed on the significant power generation capabilities onboard the ship which clearly allow it to when appropriate technology is available to add directed energy weapons.

In addition, to the longer range weapons already in train and the ones which will be developed in the decade ahead, the British carriers are being built to be able to handle rolling landing which allow the F-35s to come back onto the ship with weapons which have not been used during the mission.

The second carrier, HMS Prince of Wales is the first of the two carriers to be fitted with this capability which will be further tested when it comes to the United States in a couple of years for its F-35 integration trials as well.

In short, the new carrier is being built with “growthability” in mind, in terms of what it can do organically, and what it can leverage and contribute to the maritime task force, and reach out into the battlespace to work effectively with other national or allied assets operating in the area of interest.

Note: The Brits have been working closely with the US and other allies as they prepare to bring their new carrier into operational life.

Beyond the question of various aspects of cooperation with the US Navy, the USMC and the Military Sealift Command (addressed in a separate piece), two exercises conducted with Commander Betton as the UK Carrier Strike Group Commander have taken place over the past year to prepare for future deployments.

The first was the Saxon Warrior exercise held last year.

In a Royal Navy article published July 27, 2017, the role of this exercise in the training for the new UK carrier was described.

One of the world’s largest aircraft carriers has today sailed into Portsmouth for a port visit before embarking Royal Naval personnel for a two-week exercise.

The USS George HW Bush and elements of her carrier strike group – the USS Philippine Sea, USS Donald Cook and Norwegian ship HNoMS Helge Insgstad are on the final leg of their deployment in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, the Global Coalition’s fight against ISIS.

The Nimitz-class carrier has UK personnel on board as part of the UK-US Long Lead Specialist Skills Programme which qualifies them in US carrier operations in preparation for the arrival of HMS Queen Elizabeth and the UK’s own carrier strike capability.

Also embarked is Commander UK Carrier Strike Group Commodore Andrew Betton and his team for Exercise Saxon Warrior 17 – a joint maritime exercise that will focus how the two nations work together during a number of challenging scenarios around the UK coastline.

“Exercise Saxon Warrior is a large, multinational joint exercise which involves fifteen warships from five different nations, submarines, over 100 aircraft and about 9,000 personnel,” said Cdre Betton.

“The UK contribution will be two Type 23 frigates supporting the US aircraft carrier, a Royal Navy submarine, the Carrier Strike Group UK battle staff, fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft operating from ashore, and then the central training staff who will based in Faslane in Scotland.”

The exercise, which begins once the group leaves Portsmouth, will also be key to ensuring UK personnel are fully equipped ahead of the arrival of the Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Over the next fortnight U.S. Naval personnel will train side-by-side with UK pilots, engineers and deck handlers to build combined maritime and aviation capability and capacity.

Colonel Phil Kelly, Royal Marines is the COMUKCSG Strike Commander. He said: “This exercise is a great demonstration of the UK’s relationship with the United States who are helping us in getting back our carrier strike capability and making a success of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier programme.”

The Type 23 frigates taking part in Ex Saxon Warrior will be Portsmouth-based HMS Iron Duke and HMS Westminster who will be joined by Royal Fleet Auxiliary fast fleet tanker Wave Ruler.

 The second was an exercise held earlier this year from Portsmouth.

An article published by the Royal Navy on January 29, 2018, describes the exercise:

Another milestone has been reached in the UK’s return to carrier strike operations.

Personnel from five Royal Navy ships took part in the latest validation exercise, learning how to work as part of a battlegroup with the nation’s new aircraft carriers.

The UK Carrier Strike Group exercise was run by the US Navy and involved the French, Danish and German navies.

As well as personnel from HMS Queen Elizabeth, members of the ships’ companies from Prince of Wales, Type 45 destroyer’s HMS Dragon and Diamond and Type 23 frigate HMS Montrose, also took part.

Destroyers and frigates will be escorts for both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales when they deploy.

The Multi-National Fleet Synthetic Training Group Command Exercise was run from the Maritime Composite Training System site at HMS Collingwood.

Those taking part in the exercise were visited by Rear Admiral Patrick Piercey, Director for Operations US Pacific Command.

“It was an excellent opportunity to review concepts of operations at different threat levels for CSG operations.

Key themes discussed focused on the need for range for the Carrier Air Wing and future operational environments,” said Colonel Philip Kelly RM, CSG Strike Warfare Commander.

“The Admiral had a very keen understanding of the challenges we both face and was impressed with UK CSG’s progress thus far. I think we the UKCSG will be a welcome addition to any allied force as we bring significant combat power.”

The Admiral also visited HMS Queen Elizabeth, touring the hangar and the ship’s Flyco, before stepping out onto the carrier’s four-acre flight deck.

Commander UKCSG Cdre Andrew Betton also briefed Admiral Piercey on the carrier regeneration programme and how the two Navies are working together.

“It’s a great opportunity to discuss the UK’s return to Carrier Strike operations and how we can build our close operational partnerships across the globe,” said Cdre Betton.

Following the exercise, Cdre Betton hosted Vice Admiral Tim Fraser, Chief of Joint Operations, visiting from Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood, aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Vice Admiral Fraser toured the aircraft carrier and met members of the Carrier Strike Group as he was updated on the development of carrier strike.

Last year the CSG brushed up their skills when they embarked in the USS George HW Bush for Exercise Saxon Warrior.

The build up of CSG has also seen experts from the US Navy and US Marine Corps help to train and mentor the COMUKCSG team, who have also worked closely with the RAF.

In the autumn of this year HMS Queen Elizabeth is set to deploy to the east coast of the USA for her first-of-class flying trials with the F-35B.

With regard to the new landing system, one source had this to say about that system and its potential impact:

The Royal Navy wants their F-35Bs to be able to the return to the ship with more gas and weapons than they normally could by landing vertically on the decks of their two new Queen Elizabeth classaircraft carriers. The aim is to accomplish this by making a slow-speed—57 knots indicated airspeed to be exact—rolling recovery down the ship’s landing and departure area, instead of a vertical landing. Officially this hybrid maneuver, which uses lift from the aircraft’s wings and thrust from its engine and lift fan, has been dubbed a “Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing,” or SRVL for short. 

 Another advantage of standardizing this recovery concept is that it will put less wear and tear on the F-35B’s costly lift fan and its associated subsystems and linkages—a move that could potentially save large sums of money over the aircraft’s operational life. It would also help alleviating thermal wear on the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales titanium injected deck coatings. 

The featured photo shows Vice Admiral Tim Fraser welcomed onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth with Commodore Andrew Betton as his host.

 

 

 

The Certainty of Uncertainty: Brazil and Its Fall Presidential Elections

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on The Certainty of Uncertainty: Brazil and Its Fall Presidential Elections

By Kenneth Maxwell

With the Presidential election in Brazil due this October the country remains profoundly split between uncompromising extremes.

And the political scene remains highly uncertain.

Hovering in the background is the figure of the ex-president of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula.

He is a former two-term president who is now in prison charged with corruption and money laundering.

But if he were, by some implausible miracle, to actually run for President again, some 30% of the population, according to the most recent public opinion polling by DataFolha, would still vote for him.

But Lula’s rejection rate is equally formidable, standing, according to the latest DataFolha poll, at 36%. While half the population love him.

Half the population hate him.

Lula undoubedly remains a hero to many, both within Brazil and internationally, even though he is a leader who presided over a massive corruption scandal, where the state petroleum company, Petrobras, became a piggy bank for an astounding array of national and international corruption scandals, involving many of Brazil’s major national and multinational construction companies, and which has permanently blighted the reputation of the Worker’s Party he founded (PT).

The dimensions of the Petrobras corruption scandals, and in particular those involving the Brazilian multinational construction company, Odebrecht,  have had large national and international consequences, not least in Mexico, where the tentacles of Brazilian corruption are still being covered up by the Mexican government where a presidential contest is also underway.

It is a fact that if Lula was to return to office, he would not be at all friendly to those who he claims targeted him for unjust punishment.

He would not be the “market friendly” to those who he believes have conspired against him.

The other great protagonist of the last 20 years in Brazilian politics, the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) is also in tatters.

The putative candidate of the PSDB, is Geraldo Alckmin, the former long term governor of São Paulo. He held the post for the longest period since the redemocratization of Brazil in the mid-1980s. (Alckmin was Sao Paulo’s governor between 2001 and 2003, and again between 2004 and 2006, and again between 2011 and 2014, and again between 2015 and 2018.)

He is also a former presidential candidate for the PSDB having been defeated by Lula in 2006.

But he has only 7% support according to the latest opinion surveys while his rejection rate stands at 27%. (He also spent a year sabbatical as a visitor at Harvard.)

The octogenarian, Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC), the grand old man of Brazilian politics, and one of the founders of the PSDB, and a former two-term PSDB “Sociologist-President” (for such he was anointed when he was awarded the million dollar John W. Kluge Prize “recognizing an impact on public life” by the Library of Congess in 2015), meanwhile fulminates on the sidelines, seeking plausible (or rather inplausible) would-be presidential candidates.

He writes in the Washington Post that Brazil risks becoming a Venezuela.

But his PSDB is also mired in potential and actual corruption scandals, which has already severely damaged the reputation of Aecio Neves, the former Governor of Minas Gerais, and current senator from Minas Gerais, who was the PSDB’s candidate in its last unsuccessful  presidential campaign against the PT’s Dilma Roussef.

FHC spent a period as a visiting professor at Brown University after he left office, among many US academic visiting appointments he has held over the years.

The party of “permanent” power within the Brazilian political constellation (it has been a part of every Brazilian government since the mid-1980’s), the party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement (PMDB), recently cosmetically rebranded as the Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB), has since the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, actually emerged from the shadows to hold the presidency of Brazil.

But Michel Temer, the current MDB head of state, is the most unpopular President in Brazilian history, with only 2% of popular support.

He is dead fish drowning in very polluted water. But unlike Jesus, neither Lula, nor Alckmin, nor Michel Temer, has much hope of resurrection.

The candidate most closely associated with the deeply unpopular Temer regime, former BankBoston head, and Michel Temer’s former Minister of Finance, Henrique Meirelles, has only 1% of the intended votes.

But those seeking a new saviour think they have found a “Tropical Trump” “in the person of the far-right Rio de Janeiro congressman, former army parachutist and army reservist, Jair Bolsonaro, who without Lula as a candidate, is running ahead in the latest opinion polls.

Jair Bolsonaro has extreme opinions on all matters.

He is an outspoken admirer of the torturers of the military regime.

When he voted for the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff he eulogized one the the most notorious torturers of the military regime. Dilma was of course a victim of torture.

Bolonario needless to say is hostile to gays and same sex marriage.

He is also courting the evangelical vote, and he is rapidly becoming the putative darling of the “markets.”

He is in any case already the favourite of the richest Brazilians.

The other candidate with popular support is Marina Silva, an environmentalist, and the inheritor of the mantel of Chico Mendes, the assassinated leader of the Amazon rubber workers. She is a women with a personal biography to match that of Lula.

Of humble origins she comes from the Amazonian state of Acre. She only learnt to read and write in her late ‘teens. She is an evangelical Christian (which is the fastest growing group in Brazil even though Marina is not thought to be sufficiently “overt” in her evangelical faith by many evangelicals, unlike Bolsonaro.)

Marina served as environmental minister in the first Lula government until she fell out with Lula over Dilma Russeff’s policies when Dilma was Lula’s minister of mines and energy.

Marina is also a previous presidential candidate.

The other potential candidate with tranction is Ciro Gomes, affiliated with the Democratic Labour Party (PDT). Ciro Gomes has previously been associated with six political parties. He is another perennial political figure who has long campaigned at home and abroad. (He has spent time as a visiting reseacher at the Harvard Law School).

Ciro Gomes is from the northeastern state of Ceara. He was a former mayor of Fortaleza, a former governor of Ceara, former minister of finance under  President Itamar Franco.

Like Michel Temer, Itamar Franco, was a vice-president who inherited the presidency of Brazil after an impeachment.

Under Itamar Franco, he implemented the “Real Plan” which ended Brazil’s chronic inflation.

He served as minister of national integration under Lula.

He could well receive the tacit support of Lula in the upcoming presidential elections.

Meanwhile Brazil faces a chronic on-going crisis of public security and the lingering consequences of severe economic recession.

It is also expereiencing creeping militarization of public institutions (the minister of defence is now held by a general for the first time since the position was created).

And the national mobilization of truck drivers has demonstrated they can strike and bring the country to a standstill, and force the capitulation of a weak and unpopular government to their demands.

With a totally discredited and weakened president in Brasilia hanging onto office by default, the political class in Brasilia is seen by many Brazilians as ever more isolated and ineffective.

It is a very dangerous cauldron for democracy in a critical election year.

The featured photo shows truckers protesting rising fuel costs blocking a major highway in Brazil in late May 2018, displaying a sign that urged the military to “help the nation.”CreditAndre Penner/Associated Press