Regaining US and Allied Strategic Advantage: Dr. Griffin Weighs In

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Regaining US and Allied Strategic Advantage: Dr. Griffin Weighs In
04/16/2018

By Robbin Laird

Recently, the new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Dr, Michael Griffin, provided an overview at Hudson Institute on how he sees the role of science and technology in regaining U.S. strategic advantage in an increasingly contested strategic environment.

In an earlier speech, he noted that cutting edge technology for U.S. forces does not always come with a US passport.

This would suggest that the is open to broadening the aperture on how the Department might deliver change by working more closely with allies, and certainly a number of partner programs are staring one in the face which can drive change, whether the Patriot, the P-8, the F-35, Triton, etc.

Indeed, as NASA Administrator, he worked closely with European and Asian allies on space development issues.

His presentation provides a very insightful look at how the global competition has shifted since he was head of NASA.

He sees a clear need to reset how the US addresses the challenge of gaining strategic advantage from science and technology.

But the applied side of how this has done has changed in recent years.

We founded the website in the wake of the firings of Secretary Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff, General T. Mosley, because bluntly, we believed that a focus on fighting the land wars would lead exactly to the situation which Dr. Griffin discussed.

Notably, Griffin starts by talking about the hypersonic challenge, one which we highlighted through interviews with Dr. Mark Lewis, again from the start of the website.

We would also note that Dr. Lewis worked closely with allies in this area when chief scientist of the USAF, in this case the Aussies, to shape a way ahead.

We could ask how the Department is addressing those kinds of working relationships as well in any reset envisaged by Dr. Griffin.

We welcome his warnings and his emphasis but would certainly caution him to not leap into the great unknown without embracing the change inherent in a number of key warfighting capabilities coming into view currently.

There is a clear opportunity to embrace change being driven by new systems coming into reality, but whose full impact will not be realized by continuing the calcified requirements processes which the Department shoves down the throats of industry and the warfighting community.

Triton, P-8, the F-35 and many others come to mind rather rapidly.

It is not about science and technology alone, or looking for great leaps ahead, it is about changing the business rules, which impede innovation, which can be driven by ALREADY being procured systems.

It is about changing the way when which DoD bureaucrats can get out of the way of combat driven innovation.

As Geoff Brown, former Chief of the Royal Australian Air Force observed about the United States Department of Defense and innovation:

According to Brown, “the systems are all there in the United States. The shoots are there for fundamental change. But the legacy approach is like a giant tree blocking out the sun for the shoots to grow.”

He pointed out that the notion that one would modernize AWACS is “simply amazing to me. With the fuel savings alone from replacing the AWACS fleet with Wedgetails a new fleet could be paid for in a few years. But that in the US system it is difficult to get a tradeoff from keeping the old legacy systems running and simply shutting them down; putting the new systems into the force; and leveraging them rapidly.

The new systems require new sustainment approaches.

“The F-35 provides a great opportunity for a very different sustainment system but with the Congressional mandated depots the opportunities for an innovative industrial-government partnership are severely constrained.”

As the Trump Administration looks to rebuild the force if the fundamental barriers are not addressed, “even 50-60 billion dollars more won’t correct the kinds of logistical shortfalls which the United States faces.

“I’m a little frightened for the future if the US forces keep going down the path they’re on at the moment.

And Brian Morra, a recently retired senior defense executive underscored as well the inherent opportunities within the US force, if DoD could better manage itself or reshape itself to align itself with the major strategic changes which its OWN new combat systems are introducing.

Given the steady progress being made by adversaries, reforming DoD’s acquisition process is no longer just a smart thing to do; it has become existentially vital.

The digital nature of new weapon systems like the F-35 makes multi-phased development and multi-modal budgeting feasible.

This approach bears some similarity to the spiral-development approaches used in the past.

However, a new approach will need to be qualitatively different than traditional spiral development.

The ability to upgrade new weapon systems primarily through software upgrades makes this new approach possible.

The new approach would have shorter upgrade cycles or modes, based on 3-5 year centers.

Budget planning will need to change since each new “mode” would blend acquisition and O&S monies. Each new mode would require a business case to support decisions to deploy funds.

This is a very different approach.

It would require different business rules and procedures than are currently employed by the DoD’s acquisition centers.

The obstacles to this kind of reform are not technical, although some will assert that technical issues are insurmountable. The real obstacles are DoD’s current business rules and acquisition policies and budgeting procedures.

The question is will we reform these procedures now, or will we only do so when we are confronted with a crisis?

The US aerospace and defense industry maintains proprietary control over its core capabilities.

This is a key challenge that DoD confronts that China (in the main) does not. In order to have affordable, multi-modal weapons system development, DoD will have to establish new business rules to enable proprietary sharing or compartmentation schemes that create the conditions for development across proprietary stove pipes.

The need is clear.

The DoD requires business rules appropriate for high-intensity acquisition to meet the rapidly evolving threats represented principally by China and Russia.

The growing importance of cyber and digitally-enabled systems means that DoD can no longer operate with industrial-age procurement and sustainment rules.

Fortunately, the transition to digital systems lend themselves to a new, multi-modal approach that will help the United States keep pace with evolving threats.

We welcome Dr. Griffin and his leadership in the Pentagon, and certainly hope that he can lead the way ahead in great leap technology and leveraged change.

Dr. Michael Griffin, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering

The USD(R&E) and the office s/he heads are charged with the development and oversight of DoD technology strategy for the DoD.

The post (or effectively the same post) has at various times had the titles Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)), or Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E).

The latter title has itself historically varied between the rank of Under Secretary and that of Assistant Secretary.

USD(R&E) is the principal staff advisor for research and engineering matters to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense.

In this capacity, USD(R&E) serves as the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for the Department of Defense charged with the development and oversight of DoD technology strategy in concert with the

Department’s current and future requirements.

The goal of USD(R&E) is to extend the capabilities of current war fighting systems, develop breakthrough capabilities, hedge against an uncertain future through a set of scientific and engineering options and counter strategic surprise. USD(R&E) also provides advice and assistance in developing policies for rapid technology transition.

From 1987 until February 1, 2018, ASD(R&E) was subordinate to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

On February 1, 2018, the research and engineering were split into an independent office, with the head position being elevated from an assistant secretary to an under secretary level.

The remaining acquisition office became the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (A&S).

The current under secretary is Michael D. Griffin, who took office on February 15, 2018, following nomination by President Donald Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Secretary_of_Defense_for_Research_and_Engineering

Earlier, Griffin was head of NASA under President George H. Bush.

The official biography for Griffin as indicated as follows:

Dr. Michael D. Griffin is the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. He is the Department’s Chief Technology Officer, and is responsible for the research, development, and prototyping activities across the DoD enterprise and is mandated with ensuring technological superiority for the Department of Defense. He oversees the activities of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Missile Defense Agency, the Strategic Capabilties Office, Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, the DoD Laboratory enterprise, and the Under Secretariate staff focused on developing advanced technology and capability for the U.S. military.

Mike was previously Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Schafer Corporation, a professional services provider in the national security sector. He has served as the King-McDonald Eminent Scholar and professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as the Administrator of NASA, and as the Space Department Head at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. He has also held numerous executive positions in industry, including President and Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel, CEO of Magellan Systems, and EVP/General Manager of Orbital ATK’s Space Systems Group. Griffin’s earlier career includes service as both Chief Engineer and Associate Administrator for Exploration at NASA, and as the Deputy for Technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. Prior to joining SDIO in an executive capacity, he played a key role in conceiving and directing several “first of a kind” space tests in support of strategic defense research, development, and flight-testing. These included the first space-to-space intercept of a ballistic missile in powered flight, the first broad-spectrum spaceborne reconnaissance of targets and decoys in midcourse flight, and the first space-to-ground reconnaissance of ballistic missiles during the boost phase. Mike also played a leading role in other space missions at the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Griffin has been an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, Johns Hopkins University and George Washington University, teaching spacecraft design, applied mathematics, guidance and navigation, compressible flow, computational fluid dynamics, spacecraft attitude control, estimation theory, astrodynamics, mechanics of materials, and introductory aerospace engineering. He is a registered professional engineer in California and Maryland, and the lead author of some two dozen technical papers and the textbook Space Vehicle Design.

He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the International Academy of Astronautics, an Honorary Fellow and former president of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, a Fellow of the American Astronautical Society, and a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. He is the recipient of numerous honors and awards, including the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal, the AIAA Space Systems Medal and Goddard Astronautics Award, the National Space Club’s Goddard Trophy, the Rotary National Award for Space Achievement, the Missile Defense Agency’s Ronald Reagan Award, and the Department of DoD Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest award which can be conferred on a non-government employee.

Griffin obtained his B.A. in Physics from the Johns Hopkins University, which he attended as the winner of a Maryland Senatorial Scholarship. He holds master’s degrees in aerospace science from Catholic University, electrical engineering from the University of Southern California, applied physics from Johns Hopkins, civil engineering from George Washington University, and business administration from Loyola University. He received his Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Maryland, and has been recognized with honorary doctoral degrees from Florida Southern College and the University of Notre Dame.

Mike is a 4000+ hour commercial pilot and flight instructor with instrument and multiengine ratings, and holds an Extra Class Amateur Radio license.

https://www.defense.gov/About/Biographies/Biography-View/Article/1489249/michael-d-griffin/

The photo above is an artist’s rendering of Lockheed Martin Skunk Work’s high speed strike weapons which was described as a “a hypersonic missile concept suitable for future bomber and fighter aircraft” Credit: Lockheed Martin

The Next Chapter in the Evolution of the KC-30A: An Interview with Air Commodore Bill Kourelakos, Commander Air Mobility Group

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on The Next Chapter in the Evolution of the KC-30A: An Interview with Air Commodore Bill Kourelakos, Commander Air Mobility Group

By Robbin Laird

During my visit with Murielle Delaporte to RAAF Base Richmond we had a chance to discuss with the new Air Mobility Group (AMG) Commander his perspectives on the way ahead.  We focused primarily upon the KC-30A as well as the introduction of the new C-27J into the RAAF.

A key point to underscore is that the RAAF, like the USMC, is focused on ramping up combat capability for the operational force, rather than being focused primarily on a process based approach which requires  a long list of process-driven requirements.

It is an attitude of get the new equipment into the hands of the warfighter and let them work the operational innovation.

Air Commodore “K-9” Kourelakos underscored that the RAAF relies on a risk-management approach as the warfighters work through the use and evolution of new equipment, in order to get it into the force as rapidly as feasible.

“We do a good job of teaching our airmen and airwomen to think about risk management. As they’re going through hiccups and dealing with problems, they are asking a key question: “Can we actually do this? And to do so, what kind of risk are we taking?”

“If they think it is something really serious, they’ll put the flag up and highlight their judgment that we should not go ahead with a specific action.

“Put in clear terms, there’s a process view of life, and there’s an impact or effects view of life, and we are focused on giving the war-fighter an effects view of life.”

We discussed with the Air Commodore his sense of how the Group has evolved over the years and what the next steps will be moving forward.

He has been involved with RAAF C-130 operations from the start in the Middle East, and emphasized that the RAAF brought C-130s to the Middle East and operated them locally and have done so for more than 15 years.

They worked with allies and jointly work to sustain the force.

With the coming of the C-17 and then the KC-30A things changed fundamentally as the capability flew into theater and out again as the operational schedule and rhythm dictated.

He noted that with the KC-30A they brought a multi-function aircraft into the mix, not a narrowly specialized tanker.

This has meant that they have worked through ways to work the C-17 and KC-30A in support packages for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in the Middle East and elsewhere.

“We put the KC-30A into theater in what some would say was an early timeline, but given our effects-based approach, we deployed the aircraft and sorted through the challenges and got significant combat effect from deploying the aircraft prior to achievement of its Final Operating Capability.”

He underscored that the operational experience in the Middle East for the tanker crews has been very significant in shaping the next chapters for the tanker within the ADF.

“They learned how to function effectively in a dynamic area of operations.”

So what are the next chapters in the tanker story, from the perspective of the Commander AMG?

First, what is next in the Middle East? 

“We have deployed a single tanker full-time for the past three years in the Middle East and we are shifting to a more periodic engagement and we shall work that operational challenge.

“The impact of continuing this engagement for a long time has yet to be seen or learned.”

Second, the boom operations for the tanker will go up dramatically in anticipation of the F-35 operating in Australia.

This means that they are ramping up their certifications and training with small receivers like the F-16 in order to prepare for extensive support to the Aussie F-35s.

This tanking will be done largely over Australian territory and working through support of the F-35 will be a major effort over the next three years as the fighter comes on line in Australia.

Third, the RAAF is rapidly expanding the number of types of aircraft for which the KC-30A has clearances. 

And this is seen by the RAAF as a key part of supporting allies in the region, notably PACAF.

“A key strategic objective of our alliance with the United States is our ability to be interoperable and with regard to tanking this means working the clearance process for tanking fighters and other aircraft.

“If you get into a high-end fight you need to leverage every advantage that you can in order to prevail.”

Fourth, a part of building out that combat advantage is the coming of the robotic boom to the KC-30A.  In part it is a safety enhancement, functioning much like an auto-pilot, but it is a work in progress to sort out how the robotic boom will actually operate and be used by the RAAF.

Incoming Commander Air Mobility Group, Air Commodore Bill Kourelakos, CSM addresses the parade.

But there is a clear combat advantage which will come with enhanced capability to fuel air assets more rapidly and safely.

“With a robotic boom, you are increasing your combat capability through enhanced efficiency.

“You can also achieve a reduction in maintenance as you work through ways to efficiently operate the the boom.

“What we are talking about is taking force projection to a new level.

“If you can have our fighters on station-longer and delivering combat effects, because you can tank them more rapidly, that will be a significant gain.”

“We are a small Air Force.

“If you look at the history of small air forces, they win or lose on the first day. You want to be ready for the first day.

We next discussed the C-27J and it should be noted that Air Commodore Kourelakos was the transition officer in charge of the C-27J effort.

He highlighted that he saw the C-27J as a very flexible aircraft able to land in Australia and in the periphery of Australia on a much wider range of airfields than even the C-130.

He told us that they have even practiced operating a C-27J on a highway.

The Special Forces have gotten the point of why this is a good capability for the ADF, but the RAAF is working the issue with the broader Australian Army.

They are engaged in the upcoming Hamel exercise and other events to familiarize the Army with its capabilities for operation on Australian territory or the periphery.

In our discussion later in the week with the Commander of  Combat Support Group, we focused on the need to provide for more flexible basing within Australia to deal with the kinds of strike threats being posed by adversaries in the region.

Clearly, the C-27J could be part of the ADF’s response to shaping more mobility in the air combat force.

In short, the new Air Mobility Commander is focused on leveraging the lessons learned from the Middle East engagement and shaping a way ahead for the next round of innovation, one driven by developments in the Australian strategic neighborhood.

The KC-30A, the RAAF and Coalition Operations

 

No. 35 Squadron C-27J Spartan taxies past a Japan Self Defence Force KC-767 as it arrives into Andersen Air Force Base, Guam to participate in Exercise Cope North 2018.
No. 35 Squadron C-27J Spartan arrives at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam to participate in Exercise Cope North 2018.
No. 35 Squadron C-27J Spartan arrives at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam to participate in Exercise Cope North 2018.
RAAF medical personnel conduct an Aeromedical Evacuation exercise on board a C-27J Spartan out of Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.
RAAF medical personnel conduct an Aeromedical Evacuation exercise on board a C-27J Spartan out of Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.
RAAF medical personnel conduct an Aeromedical Evacuation exercise on board a C-27J Spartan out of Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.
No. 35 Squadron C-27J Spartan is loaded by RAAF and USAF Air Load Teams prior to a mission at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.

Providing Support to An Expeditionary Air Force: The Key Role and Challenges for the RAAF’s Combat Support Group

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Providing Support to An Expeditionary Air Force: The Key Role and Challenges for the RAAF’s Combat Support Group
04/15/2018

By Robbin Laird

During our latest visit to Australia, we had a chance to talk with the Commander of the RAAF’s Combat Support Group, Air Commodore Ken Robinson at his office at RAAF Amberley. With a country of the size of the United States but only about 25 million people and a much smaller Air Force than does the United States, it is far to say that even operating domestically, the RAAF is an expeditionary air force.

This means that it has to work its own territorial support in ways that mesh effectively with support provided for out of area operations.

It means as well that effective logistical footprint and significant use of reserves is a key part of how Australia addresses air combat support. 25% of the RAAF’s rserve budget goes to CSG activities.

And given the engagement of allies coming to Australia to exercise with the ADF, consideration must be given to support for allies as well when they arrive and operate in the Australian continent.

A sense of the scope of the challenge domestically can be seen in the graphic below which identifies the basic locations of the CSG correlated with the basing situation in Australia:

The demand side of growing threats in the region, and engagement in the Middle East, and elsewhere, has put significant pressure on resources.

And threats like North Korea and others in the region, are leading to considerations for mobile basing and ways to support movement of assets in times of crisis to maximize survivability while ensuring effectiveness.

This later point is somewhat a return to the past as the Aussies used mobile basing when facing the Japanese threat to Australia in World War II.

What mobile basing might mean in today’s world is a work in progress, but one which will need to deserve more attention going forward.

The basic structure of the CSG encompasses three wings with notably distinct yet complementary mission objectives.

The 96thWing focuses on fixed airbases.  The National Support Base is comprised of 13 airbase squadrons and 15 aerodromes.  And the baseline capabilities provided by this wing are: airbase C2, base support coordination, fuel storage and delivery, fire fighting and rescue, catering, cargo and pax handling, ground transport and ground equipment maintenance.

The 95thWing provides support for expeditionary airbases and is comprised of nine squadrons. The Wing provides key expeditionary capabilities: force generation, training and standards, tactual communications, force protection, airbase activation, airfield recovery, airfield activation, airfield recovery, airfield engineering, explosive ordinance disposal, deployable kitchens and online contingency response.

The Health Support Wing provides the support crucial to life support throughout the RAAF.  The Wing has a number of capabilities, including various deployable capabilities, surgical teams, aeromedical evacuations, specialized health training and a key role for specialized reserves.

The personnel side of the Wings is a crucial part of providing effective support.

And here the Australian government has put in place a system to draw upon reserves whereby employers are incentivized to provide for flexibility for skilled personnel to serve. 

There are both punitive and positive measures to ensure the flexibility of personnel being able to work in the civil sector but to serve in the RAAF as well. This is especially crucial with regard to the Health Support Wing that draws extensively upon Australia’s leading health practitioners in the civil sector.

The RAAF works closely with the USAF as well both in terms of cross learning with the USAF’s Contingency Response Groups as well as the USAF sorting through the growing demand for supporting mobile basing in the Pacific, in terms of flexibly moving away from an over-reliance on fixed basing in the region in times of crisis.

But as the Air Commodore pointed out, the two Contingency Response Groups in the USAF can focus full time on contingency response whereas the RAAF has to include that capability within the overall force.

We discussed at some length the challenge of rethinking mobile basing in times of crisis, which is a work in progress.

“We are having to reacquaint ourselves with some tasks and challenges which we parked to the side a bit while we were in the Middle East for so long.

“We did not have to worry so much about mobile basing to counter the principal threats in that theatre. 

“The mindset is in transition now.”

This clearly is an Army and Air Force challenge.

“We are good at supporting maneuver with our tactical transport aircraft and Australia’s Army aviation capability, including the Tiger Reconnaissance Helicopter, but what we need to do is move to the next level of support to maneuver the most lethal part of our air power capability across a range of airfield options.”

Core capabilities such as providing fuel for air systems when operationalized for a mobile airbasing force on Australian territory are clearly different from supporting a fixed airbase.

For example, “expeditionary fuel capabilities is something that’s very much on the forefront of my mind. Lean and agile support packages to operate expeditionary airfields are also key, so that we can offer the best possible maneuver options to the aviators without tying down strategic airlift.”

The logistics side of enhanced support for Australian forces in Australia to deal with crisis contingencies is also a work in progress.

The Aussies rely on overseas support and training and that will continue in many ways, but there is a clear need to enhance domestic sustainability as well.

And that will encompass new ways to work with industry and to find ways to move personnel from the forces to industry and back again.

According to Air Commodore Robinson, the Air Force has introduced a type of service that allows for uniformed personnel to undertake industry placements.

This desire for closer engagement between Defense and industry is a work in progress, but clearly something, which the current Defense Minister is focused upon.

“When the Minister was visiting Amberley a couple of months ago, I was fortunate to brief her on how we are working closely with the local city council to set up a local defense industrial partnership between the base, the city council and defense industry.

“We can see the fit of such an initiative with government’s efforts to deepen the role of, and opportunities for, Australia’s Defense industry.”

Put simply and bluntly, “I have to make sure that our airbases in Australia can effectively function to satisfy an ever broadening range of operating concepts, whether from fixed or mobile airbases. And that will require both innovation and greater agility on the support side of the equation.”

Shaping Infrastructure for Resilience In Protecting the Liberal Democratic Nations: The Case of Energy

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Shaping Infrastructure for Resilience In Protecting the Liberal Democratic Nations: The Case of Energy

By Robbin Laird

It is clear that as the Russians and Chinese enhance their challenges to the liberal democracies, a key requirement for the liberal democracies will be an ability to mobilize under the threat of contested operations and to provide for resilient capabilities to defend the nation and ensure that the military forces can actually operate in times of crisis.

It does not appear that the liberal democracies are addressing this challenge with the seriousness and urgency that it deserves.

During the RAAF Airpower Conference 2018, Air Vice-Marshal (Retired) John Blackburn, a research fellow of the Williams Foundation, focused on a specific challenge facing Australia, namely energy security.

After his presentation, I had a chance to discuss Blackburn’s thinking and his sense of the approach necessary to shape a resilient energy structure for Australia.

In his view, energy security and national security are not separate domains but inextricably interconnected.

“There is an assumption that “business as usual” will provide for energy security in “peacetime.”   However, this ignores the reality that we already operate in a contested space and “business as usual” is not what it was a decade ago.  We are already in conflict with our competitors.

“Russia and China are reportedly doing a lot to infiltrate critical infrastructure systems. They’re effectively attacking western populations.  We need to rethink our assumption that there is “business as usual” in “peacetime” and that when conflict breaks out we will address the issue of “business not as usual.”

He argued that there was a broad transformation of economies, of infrastructure technologies, of the evolution of supply chains, and climate change impacts, all of which are cross-cutting and creating a new strategic environment for defense and national security.

For Blackburn, the scenarios being treated by the Australian government with regard to disruption of energy systems are really rooted in the past. “What happens if we have a security problem in the South China Sea through which more than 50% of Australia’s refined fuel passes?” The extant National Energy Security Assessment published in 2011 does not address such issues.

Rather than taking a classic market view of energy supply, there needs to be a national security template which would assume disruptions can well be rooted in conflict among adversaries and provision needs to be made now with that in mind.

“The Australian based oil industry maintained that we shouldn’t be using conflict scenarios to look at our energy security. This makes no sense for the world in which we live as opposed to the world we might wish to live in.”

For example, several of the owners of energy generation and supply are nationalized companies outside of Australia delivering energy to Australia. A foreign government owned firm is certainly not interested in addressing Australian national security interest.

“Industry focuses on reliability of supplies which is not all the same thing as security of supply. This leaves our military forces and our broader national security very vulnerable.

“For example, some of the contracts to Defense, for delivery of fuel to our northern bases, our most important bases in terms of defense, were issued under a clause called “best endeavors only.”

“In effect it is a situation in which industry can say: “We’ll try and get you the fuel there but if it doesn’t happen, sorry.”

“That’s the sort of contract we had in place when I did my fuel supply security studies.

“When reliability of supply fails in a commercial operation, it is costly and inconvenient. When security of supply fails for a force in conflict, it is fatal.”

Blackburn discussed the Defense White Paper and highlighted that the assumption clearly is that the market will provide energy throughout the needs cycle for defense.

But he contrasted this optimistic assumption with the results of a recent review, which the International Energy Agency did of Australia’s energy policies.

“And it is a stark contrast to what the government’s 2015 Energy White Paper and in effect it condemns our energy security policies generally.  In the absence of a realistic, security based, Energy Policy in Australia, it not a surprise that there’s also no Defense operational energy strategy or policy .”

The other thing the IEA has said is that we’re the only IEA country which is a net importer of oils that relies completely on commercial stock holdings to meet our obligations as an IEA member country, but we don’t mandate what the stock holdings should be.

As a result, Australia cannot meet its IEA member obligations; i.e. Australia is the only member country that doesn’t meet its stock holding obligations.

“The IEA Report also highlights that our oil stocks are at an all-time low. There are no strategic oil stocks and we don’t require the industry to maintain certain levels like the Europeans do.  This raises the fundamental question of whether business as usual can meet core Australian security and defense needs.

“What’s business as usual?

“Is it “business as usual” today where there are cyber-attacks on our energy systems, parts of our supply chains are being nationalized and the supply chains are changing rapidly.

“Is that the same “business as usual” as we had 10 or 15 years ago?

“No it’s not.

“It’s fundamentally changed in the last five to eight years.

“And we need a policy which not only recognizes the new strategic reality but builds our energy capabilities to meet our core needs for a national security point of view.”

The real hook in the IEA report though was this statement, which said, “It’s less clear how the country (Australia) would respond in the event of a serious oil supply disruption leading to market failure.” In other words the IEA says, “We don’t know/ can’t see what you’ve got planned, in cases of serious market disruption.”

“I can give the IEA an answer. There’s nothing planned. There is no plan B in this market. If it doesn’t work … bad luck.”

The market is not designed for security.

“We’re unique amongst developed countries in the world in that we do not address security of supply. And yet we’re at the end of a very long supply chain.

“We have a 95% dependency on the maritime trade for our imports compared to the world average, which is 65%.”

He argued for the need for a system wide design in Australia to address the energy security issue in a comprehensive manner.

Something similar to what the RAAF has done with Plan Jericho is needed for an all of government approach to energy security.

“What could happen if we took the Plan Jericho design thinking on a system level from the military and applied it to all the separate energy components in this country?”

He noted that the pieces of the energy equation are spread throughout the government and throughout the country. “What could we do to integrate all of this to improve its resilience, its security, the economics of doing it, and give us more flexibility in the system?”

For Blackburn, as new energy technologies are introduced the country needs to take a systems view. As an example, Blackburn cited the case of hydrogen as an emerging energy component which could support the development a system approach.

“What I have read is the possibility of the excess power generated by new technologies such as solar and wind, being stored and transformed through a medium such as hydrogen.

“The stored hydrogen could be used to generate electricity through gas turbines, to produce ammonia, to supplement methane gas networks, to power transport utilizing hydrogen fuels cells or for emerging export markets such as to Japan.

“If you take this approach, you have the choice of time and product depending on what, when and where you need it.    Use of new energy technologies under a systems design approach could provide key parts of a scalable, resilient, affordable and secure energy system for Australia.

“The market won’t come up with this design by itself; it needs Government leadership.   Defense could play a key role in prompting the Government to shift to a system wide design approach to ensure redundancy and security of supply based on its recent experience in trying to address the design of the integrated force.

“I argue a fifth gen force needs a fifth gen energy system. Whilst Defense’s use of energy is evolving, it needs to transform along with the wider national energy system. We must have an energy strategy to fuel an energy policy.

“Without one, we’re just running around like headless chooks (Australian for chickens).”

Photo Credit: Crew members of China’s South Sea Fleet taking part in a drill in the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea in May. Source: STR / AFP – Getty Images

HMAS Toowoomba Working Naval Cooperation in the APR

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on HMAS Toowoomba Working Naval Cooperation in the APR
04/12/2018

HMAS Toowoomba departed Fleet Base East for a three month deployment to South East Asia.

The helicopter frigate will participate in exercises with foreign navies and regional engagement including Malaysia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea and Singapore.

Credit Photos: Australian Department of Defence

March 25, 2018

HMS Sutherland's boarding party disembark HMAS Toowoomba on completion of a boarding exercise at sea. *** Local Caption *** HMAS Toowoomba departed Fleet Base East for a three month deployment to South East Asia. The helicopter frigate will participate in exercises with foreign navies and regional engagement including Malaysia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea and Singapore.
HMAS Toowoomba's boarding party return from HMS Sutherland (F81) via rigid hull inflatable boats on completion of a training exercise at sea. *** Local Caption *** HMAS Toowoomba departed Fleet Base East for a three month deployment to South East Asia. The helicopter frigate will participate in exercises with foreign navies and regional engagement including Malaysia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea and Singapore.
HMAS Toowoomba's MH-60R helicopter prepares to conduct a personnel transfer at sea, en-route to South East Asia. *** Local Caption *** HMAS Toowoomba departed Fleet Base East for a three month deployment to South East Asia. The helicopter frigate will participate in exercises with foreign navies and regional engagement including Malaysia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea and Singapore.
HMAS Toowoomba's MH-60R helicopter conducts a personnel transfer at sea while en-route to South East Asia. *** Local Caption *** HMAS Toowoomba departed Fleet Base East for a three month deployment to South East Asia. The helicopter frigate will participate in exercises with foreign navies and regional engagement including Malaysia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea and Singapore.

The RAAF’s Air Warfare Centre: Focused on Driving Integrated Force Innovations

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on The RAAF’s Air Warfare Centre: Focused on Driving Integrated Force Innovations

By Robbin Laird

During my most recent visit to Australia, I had a chance to discuss the way ahead for the newly established Air Warfare Centre with its dynamic director, Air Commodore Joe “Vinny” Iervasi.

The Air Warfare Centre was launched as part of the Plan Jericho initiative at the time when Air Marshal Geoff Brown was the air chief, and was forged, designed and shape to work 21st century force integration, not simply to train air warriors to fight in a legacy manner.

In part this was done in recognition that the F-35 is not a legacy fighter, but a “flying combat system” which can form the foundation for a kill web approach to warfare, in which the relationship among sensors and shooters changes and with that the need for a new C2 approach and learning new ways of doing things.

As Air Commodore Iervasi puts the challenge: “How do we learn what we have not done before?

“We can train and get better at legacy approaches, but how do we learn what we have not experienced before and how do we leverage our new platforms to transform and create an integrated force?”

His focus is upon a 2-6 year period ahead and how to prepare the force to execute new concepts of operations leveraging ongoing integration capabilities.

He even projected the notion that the best outcome for the Air Warfare Centre would be to be transformed in a decade into a Joint Warfare Centre.

He sees the RAAF with their new platforms, new thinking and evolving approaches as being in a good position to lead a transition, but one which is about forging a very different force from the legacy force.

One aspect of the difference is that the separate force elements train and prepare for joint exercises, but how do they know what is an evolving joint capability and how do you train for what you don’t know”

He advocated moving more training time into joint exercises and training rather than the relative high proportion of time spent on service or platform specific training.

The overall challenge facing the Air Warfare Centre is to shape a fifth generation force and how that force might come together in combat situations to prevail.

“The Air Warfare Centre is focused on the blending between bottom up initiative, top down direction, and to foment and facilitate the ideas, the concepts, the wherewithal, the tactics of actually knowing and shaping what an integrated force needs to do in the evolving combat environment we are facing.”

“Because we’re trying to integrate a force the way a force has never been integrated before, we’re going to have to do so in innovative ways. Innovation is going to be a byproduct of integration.

“It is going to be a byproduct of immersing ourselves in current and emergent technologies and sort out what they actually might mean operationally.

“In other words, it’s our drive to integration that’s actually going to necessitate an innovative approach.”

Throughout the interview, he was very clear on the importance of breaking out of legacy patterns and thinking and finding ways to train for the future fight with the force you are crafting.

“Our senior leadership, including myself, has never grown up in the combat environment which is now evolving rapidly. We need to unlearn as well as learn to shape an effective way ahead.”

How do you shape a future force structure based on where you need to go, rather than what you have inherited?

From this point of view, how do you leverage the simultaneous acquisition of the F-35 by Australia and its core allies to drive change in new ways rather than simply treating it as nice new toy?

Illustrative of his approach is setting up a working group to meet in Adelaide later this month to work on ways to work leveraging the F-35. Nellis, NAWDC, the RAF Air Warfare Centre as well as the Aussies will meet in Adelaide to discuss ways to think about fifth generation operations.

“Each of our warfare centers inherently has a particular strength.

“How do we leverage those strengths and come up with an approach where we can generate collectively initiatives to test and experiment and drive operational changes in the joint force?”

“How do we actually create an expanded multi-disciplined team and collaboration environment in Australia such that we are open to the opportunities that present themselves?

“Doing things better is the bottom line.

“When I talk about multi-disciplined teams, I am speaking broadly. I am not just focusing on the operators of our airfleets.

“It’s the engineers, scientists, industry, and academia coming together with operators to develop new concepts for emergent domains, specifically cyber and space.

“What we’re attempting to do in our air warfare center is create multi-disciplined teams physically co-located at our major bases Amberley, Williamtown, and Edinburgh, with each service’s main warfighting elements.”

“For example, Williamtown is close to Sydney where we’ve got Forces Command HQ for Army and Fleet Command HQ for Navy. Up in Brisbane, we have HQ 1 Division and HQ of the Amphibious Task Group in proximity to Growler, Super Hornet, Combat Support Group and a large portion of our air mobility fleet.”

“Our core integrators are our air warfare instructors and we see them in the role of driving operational integration initiatives within a 2-6 year time line of implementation.”

In effect, the Air Warfare Centre is generating various vignettes of the evolving operational environment and then testing capabilities, and new ways of using those capabilities, against that projected operational environment.

And by working within a 2-6 year time frame, they can be realistic, drive change and not get excessively metaphysical.

It is not about the world in 2030; it is about driving change for a fifth generation enabled force able to shape a more effective and integrated force in the near to mid-term.

And doing so, with close collaboration with the other services and the allies who are themselves rethinking their approach to combat operations.

Air Commodore Joe ‘Vinny’ Iervasi, AM

Commander Air Warfare Centre
Royal Australian Air Force

Air Commodore Joe Iervasi was born in Sydney. He joined the RAAF in 1985 and completed flying training in 1989. He has been flying the F/A-18 Hornet since 1991.

Air Commodore Iervasi served at No 3 Squadron as a junior pilot before proceeding on exchange to No 5 Squadron RAF flying the Tornado F3. During this tour he deployed on Operation Deny Flight enforcing the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina (1995). Upon return to Australia he served as a flight commander at both 77 Squadron and 75 Squadron.

In 2001 Air Commodore Iervasi completed the inaugural Australian Command and Staff College at Weston Creek and was subsequently posted to Capability Systems in Russell Offices. During this period he was responsible for the development and sponsorship of F/A-18, F-111 and Hawk major capital equipment projects, with the most notable being the Hornet Upgrade Project. In 2005 he returned to Williamtown as the Senior Operations Officer at 81 Wing and subsequently assumed command of No 3 Squadron in Dec 2005. He was promoted to Group Captain on 12 Jan 2009 and served as Chief of Staff Air Combat Group.

In 2010 Air Commodore Iervasi completed the Defence and Strategic Studies Course and was appointed as Officer Commanding No 81 Wing (F/A-18) in December of that year. In January 2013 Air Commodore Iervasi was posted as Chief of Staff to the Vice Chief of the Defence Force.

Following this posting Air Commodore Iervasi was promoted to his current rank of Air Commodore and deployed to the Middle East as the Director, US Central Command 609th Combined Air Operations Centre at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. He returned to Australia and was appointed Director General Air Command Operations (Headquarters Air Command) and Director General Air (Headquarters Joint Operations Command) where he commanded global air operations including Operation OKRA.  In December 2016 AIRCDRE Iervasi was appointed Commander Air Warfare Centre.

Air Commodore Iervasi has over 3000 hours flying fast jets and is an A Category Fighter Pilot. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Masters of Management in Defence Studies and a Graduate Diploma in Strategic Studies.

He has been awarded the Medal in the Order of Australia (2009), Australian Active Service Medal (Balkans and ICAT Clasps), Afghanistan Medal, Defence Long Service Medal with Third Clasp, and the Australian Defence Medal. He was appointed as a Member in the Order of Australia in 2016.

The Air Warfare Centre

The Air Warfare Centre was built on part by incorporating elements of the former Aerospace Operational Support Group or AOSG which comprised the Development and Test Wing and the Information Warfare Wing, and also had responsibility for the Woomera test range.

In its place the new AWC is structured into directorates, comprising Integrated Mission Support, Capability and Logistics, Test and Evaluation, Information Warfare, Air Force Ranges, and Tactics and Training.

“By working with the other force element groups, Army, Navy and defence industry, the AWC will allow Air Force to generate rapid, cogent and integrated capability solutions that are needed now and into the future,” Air Commander Australia Air Vice-Marshal Gavin Turnbull said at the opening of the Centre.

“It will identify innovative solutions and translate those into capability by driving integrated tactics and advanced warfare across Air Command.”

The establishment of an air warfare centre was heralded by then Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoff Brown in his launch of Plan Jericho in February 2015.

The subsequent Plan Jericho ‘Program of Work’ document noted that: “Air Force lacks the systemic ability to generate rapid, cogent and integrated combat capability solutions in response to current and future capability gaps and bottom-up innovation opportunities.”

In response it promises that: “an Air Warfare Centre … will become the centre of innovation and thinking for integrated operations.”

The Air Warfare Centre (AWC) exists to deliver timely and relevant advice to the warfighter in response to operational and tactical problems facing the products and services delivered by the Air Force. It is deliberately structured to draw on Subject Matter Experts from across all Air Force domains in formulating recommendations and seeking answers to operational and tactical warfighting challenges.

It will actively engage Joint, Allied, Australian Defence Organisation and Industry Stakeholders to deliver the best possible operational solution. Cross‐platform, multi-domain integration is at the heart of the AWC intent and culture. Where obvious solutions do not exist, the AWC will harness the broader workforce to deliver innovative alternatives.

It will provide highly specialised military facilities and services including innovative military aviation prototyping and solutions to enhance air warfighting capabilities in every sphere. It is critical to establishing the Royal Australian Air Force as a modern and fully integrated combat force that can deliver air and space power effects in the information age.

Why create an Air Warfare Centre?

The AWC was created at the direction of the Chief of Air Force to address opportunities to improve Air Force’s ability to maximise the operational effectiveness of fifth-generation, networked capabilities through improved integration across Defence and increased knowledge sharing with allied AWCs.

What is the Air Warfare Centre?

The AWC is a Force Element Group (FEG) within Air Command. The AWC was established on 11 January 2016 and will achieve Final Operational Capability in 2020.

AWC is comprised of the following:

Headquarters AWC

Headquarters AWC provides the staff functions that enable AWC operations headed up by Chief of Staff for core functions, and a Director of Capability Assurance, for technical governance, logistics and capability development.

Integrated Mission Support (IMS)

IMS is located at RAAF Edinburgh in South Australia. The IMS mission revolves around the key tenets of ‘Integration’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Information’. IMS drives Innovation across both the AWC and more broadly across Air Force through leadership, organisational change and the engagement of a diverse array of subject matter experts to rapidly solve complex Operational problems as part of ‘Integrated Project Teams’. The ‘Innovation Hub’, the ‘Jericho Dawn’ and the ‘Science and Technology’ programs focus on engagement with industry to develop and demonstrate innovative solutions to address capability gaps in the force‐in‐being.

The ‘Operations Analysis’ and ‘Knowledge Management’ sections ensure critical decisions across the organisation are underpinned by appropriate research and credible evidence and that the AWC product is available to the ‘right people at the right time’. Finally, IMS liaises with and provides information exchange on behalf of the AWC with allied peer organisations through our Liaison Officers.

Information Warfare Directorate (IWD)

IWD is located at RAAF Edinburgh in South Australia and centralises the Air Force’s tactical information warfare elements. It provides the wider RAAF with an integrated and tailorable information warfare operational capability drawn from the Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Information Operations fields. IWD enables the development and management of the RAAF’s Information Warfare capabilities.

Test and Evaluation Directorate (TED)

TED is located at RAAF Edinburgh in South Australia and delivers comprehensive, timely and integrated Test & Evaluation through a flight test squadron, aviation medicine and a unique engineering/manufacturing capability.

TED provides support and advice throughout a weapon system life‐cycle including preview testing (risk reduction to inform acquisition), developmental, acceptance and operational Test and Evaluation (T&E). It enables the warfighter through the provision of specialist medical advice, research and training and aeronautical information service.

Air Force Ranges Directorate (AFRD)

AFRD is located at RAAF Edinburgh in South Australia and improves the way Air Force conducts Live, Virtual and Constructive simulation with other elements of Defence and our coalition partners, in order to deliver more effective warfighters. AFRD enhances the way Air Force tests war material and trains the warfighter and standardises all range requirements to deliver a more realistic and practical testing environment.

Tactics and Training Directorate (TTD)

TTD is located at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales and is tasked with the development of multi‐discipline, high‐end integrated tactics and training across the Air Force through a combination of training, education and integrated exercises. TTD transforms the way we think about and teach air warfare. It also conducts operational analysis to inform integrated tactics analysis to better enhance warfighter effects.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/about-us/structure/air-command-headquarters/air-warfare-centre

Confronting the Challenge of Peer Competitors: Insights from Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space 2018 Exposition

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on Confronting the Challenge of Peer Competitors: Insights from Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space 2018 Exposition
04/11/2018

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

We have been working the challenge of the transition from the land wars to contested operations with peer competitors for several years.

Now it appears this is becoming a challenge more visible Inside the Bletway.

For example, the Navy League is holding its Sea-Air-Space exposition in Washington from April 9-1, 2018 and, it appears, that ways to operate in a contested environment is becoming recognized for the game changer it is.

According to the Navy League:  “The largest maritime exposition in the U.S.Sea-Air-Space is now the largest maritime exposition in the U.S. and continues as an invaluable extension of the Navy League’s mission of maritime policy education and sea service support.

“The Sea-Air-Space Exposition will continue to support the mission of the Navy League and lead the way as “THE” Exposition to attend each year to display the most current information and technology relevant to maritime policy.”

The event is well covered by the analytical press and we can harvest some findings from the coverage of the exposition with regard to the way ahead with meeting the core challenge, namely how do the US and the allies respond to the challenge of peer competitors and to the evolution of the maritime, now air-sea battle, going forward?

The evolving Allied perspective, one which we are heavily engaged in working on in the UK, the Nordics and Continental Europe, is how best to deal with the Russian challenge?

Russia is not the Soviet Union, and the new Russian air and sea strike and defense assets are being used to shape a strategy different from the Soviet Union, but a major challenge it clearly is.

A piece by John Grady published April 10, 2018 by USNI News highlights allied perspectives.

The optimism for peace at the end of the Cold War has proven to be a mistake as Russia used the lull in Western defense attention to occupy Crimea and aggressively support separatists in Ukraine and insert itself in the Syrian civil war, three chiefs of European navies agreed on Monday.

“We were very optimistic in 1989,” Vice Adm. Andreas Krause, Inspector of the German Navy, said on Monday at Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2018 exposition. “2014 came like a surprise.”

Meanwhile, the Chinese began paying more attention to affairs in and around the Mediterranean, including establishing its first overseas military base in the Horn of Africa

“It is a matter of fact that we need to take [Chinese presence] into account” in assessing the changed security environment. It also means improving our capability to deter possible future aggression, said Chief of Staff of the Spanish Navy Adm. Teodoro Lopez Calderon.

For Spain, it means building up its military-industrial strength to produce more capable submarines and frigates that can operate with NATO partners. It also means working with navies and coast guards in the West and North Africa to curtail human trafficking and other illegal activities. He estimated 70,000 illegal immigrants tried to reach Spain last year.

In Sweden, “we’re emphasizing our region,” the Baltic where Moscow is increasingly making its maritime presence felt at Cold War levels – in the air, on the surface and below. Rear Adm. Jens Nykvist, Sweden’s Chief of Navy, said.

“It is an increasing number of ships” of all flags – commercial and military, operating in the Baltic, and that has really changed Stockholm’s approach to security off its 1,700-mile coastline.

All three said these geopolitical changes have focused their nations’ attention on increasing defense spending and emphasizing modernization and replacement of aging systems. Calderon said that modernization spending was central to deterrence….

The US Navy is forging ahead with innovations with regard to the air components of their combat fleet operations.

One coming capability is the UAV tanker.

As Paul McLeary of Breaking Defense noted concerning the US Navy and its presentations at the opening of the conference:

One bright spot on the day was the progress seemingly being made on the Navy’s unmanned tanker drone program, the MQ-25 Stingray, with Lockheed Martin announcing that their entry into the competition will include the General Electric F404 turbofan engine (which powers the Super Hornet) and landing gear made by United Technologies Corp.

The company’s Skunk Works office unveiled a “flying wing” concept dubbed the Stingray that differs from the designs from competitors General Atomics and Boeing, who are working on wing-body aircraft.

Lockheed also raised some eyebrows on Monday in rolling out a video showing its MQ-25 launching two AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons. 

The Navy says its on track to choose a MQ-25 vendor this summer, and will award a contract for the four engineering and manufacturing development aircraft.

A significant addition to the fleet this year will be the Triton. 

We have highlighted the importance of the coming of Triton in various pieces on our website, but its coming to deployment this year will be an important contributor to shaping a more effective extended reach combat force.

This development was highlighted at the exposition.

As Paul McLeary of Breaking Defense noted:

The U.S. Navy is preparing to deploy a new generation of high-altitude drones to the Pacific this summer, sending two MQ-4C Tritons to Guam.

The coming deployment comes at a time of heightened military tensions with China, which is also busily shipping surveillance and electronic warfare equipment to several of it scontroversial outposts in the South China Sea.

The deployment of the 131-foot-wingspan drone will give the Navy new new set of eyes in the vast reaches of the western Pacific, intensifying the building race between Washington and Beijing to push more ships, aircraft, and radar systems into the region.

Late last month, a 40-ship Chinese flotilla, including its only native-built aircraft carrier,sailed into the South China Sea.

 The Northrop Grumman-made aircraft, a variant of the Air Force’s Global Hawk, will deploy initially with electro-optical sensors capable of tracking maritime targets from as high as 60,000 feet.

It will push that data back to ground stations at Naval Station Mayport, Fla., or Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Wash., or to nearby P-8A Poseidon submarine hunters.

“One of the main reasons that the Navy decided to fund Triton was to have that teaming arrangement, to be able to communicate back and forth between P-8s and the Triton aircraft,” Capt. Dan Mackin, the Navy’s Triton program manager, told reporters at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space Exposition.

The deployment will also allow the P-8s to focus more on the submarine hunting aspect of tis mission, leaving other ISR missions to the drones. 

 “You want to give the P-8 the ability to perform the anti-submarine warfare mission while tying to high-altitude ISR mission,” Mackin said.

“One of the things we’ll do is pass information back and forth between the two aircraft and the situational awareness of the fleet will be enhanced. Both aircraft have the ability to do chat, so both crews will be able to communicate back and  forth”

And Sam LaGrone added this to the announcement of the deployment of the first Triton’s to the Pacific:

Under the current concept of operations for the platform, four airframes will make up one 24-hour, seven-day orbit.

“One on the way out, one on station, one on the way back and one in maintenance,” Mackin said.

The first capability will combine a series of electro-optical sensors and radar to track maritime targets from as high as 60,000 feet over the ocean and compare tracks to automated identification systems on ships.

A Triton will relay the information back to one of two main operating bases in the U.S. – Naval Station Mayport, Fla., and Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Wash. – or to nearby P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine warfare aircraft….

 Part of the IOC process will include adding a top secret “multi-intelligence” function to Triton that will eventually replace the Navy’s Lockheed Martin EP-3E Aries II manned signals intelligence platforms. Congress mandated the Navy retire the EP-3E Aries II only after it had found a way to field a similar capability.

Eventually, the Triton program will consist of five four-aircraft orbits around the world. The operators will reside in the two main bases at Mayport and Whidbey Island.

“The system is made up of an aircraft and a main operating base where the warfighter starts taking that data over wideband SATCOM link you start assimilating that data, put that data together to understand the [maritime picture],” Mackin said.

The Navy will have five operating bases where the aircraft will be maintained, launched and recovered. The forward bases will be at Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy; an unspecified location in the Middle East; Naval Air Station Guam; Mayport; and Point Mugu.

With the coming of the Triton, which has highlighted in many ways the limitations of the cumbersome DoD requirements setting process, how might the Navy be addressing ways to get equipment into the hands of the warfighter more rapidly?

The new head of N-9, the Navy’s deputy chief of naval operations for warfare systems, Vice Admiral Bill Merz discussed a way ahead during the Exposition.

In an article by Megan Eckstein, the way ahead was described by the Vice Admiral.

“Capability is where we would really like to put most of our energy – that’s where we can turn the capability and make our fleet more lethal much more quickly than just building capacity. And then there’s the capacity piece, the 355-ship navy….”

Merz told USNI News on Monday that he is looking to invest in projects that will boost fleet “capability, which is a slightly higher priority for us than capacity.”

“We can turn those much more quickly than building a whole new ship and getting it fielded,” he told USNI News after his Monday panel talk.

“If you just add new ships, that’s just a linear improvement to what we’re already doing. If you can build ships and put this kind of capability on it, now you get a geometric improvement or maybe even an exponential improvement.”

To give the innovations some top-cover from Navy leadership – and also to provide some oversight – the Navy and Marine Corps are working through an Accelerated Acquisition Board of Directors that meets quarterly and votes on which projects to take a chance on. Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts chairs the board alongside either the chief of naval operations or the commandant of the Marine Corps, depending on whose project the board is considering.

Merz said during the symposium that, thanks to acquisition authorities Congress gave the military services, they can bypass testing requirements and jump to the front of the line for funding in some cases – but not just any program deserves this kind of treatment, he said, and the Navy and Marine Corps are trying to prove judicious in using these authorities.

The Accelerated Acquisition Board of Directors must ask itself, “can we develop this? Can we develop it quickly or accelerate it? And then, should we? Because there’s an opportunity cost every time we do this,” Merz said.

“Sometimes things frankly don’t need to be accelerated,” particularly if a system’s entry to the fleet is properly phased with the sundown of a legacy system, or if the threat it protects against remains consistent.

But because the programs that are approved by the AA BoD can be high-cost and high-stakes programs – such as the MQ-25A Stingray unmanned carrier-based tanker and the Large Diameter Unmanned Underwater Vehicle programs – the BoD provides top cover and a “bubble of protection … until you get through a demonstration and show this thing works,” Merz said.

He added that the BoD approval to move ahead also signals a “full commitment” to the program…..

And finally a bit of reality shock setting in.

If you are going to engage in operations in contested areas, getting logistical support is a key enabler of whether you can fight at all and certainly whether you can fight and win.

In this report by Ben Warner, the Navy and Marines are clearly focused on working through better ways to deal with this challenge.

Future Navy and Marine Corps war games and exercises will include delivering supplies and personnel to contested environments with the goal of gaining an understanding of how using logistics wins fights.

The services want to rehearse delivering equipment to a contested environment because future engagements are likely to include fighting to the fight, according to a panel of military logistics experts during a panel discussion at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2018 exposition.

“We must definitively exercise plans and not fairy-dust logistics like may have been done in the past,” said Patrick Kelleher from the Marine Corps logistics command.

Wargames and exercises in the past have often started with the assumption all required equipment and personnel were in place for the start of the practiced engagement, Kelleher said.

The problem with making this assumption is the military has no way to see what deficiencies exist or experiment with new technologies. Now, the process is much more deliberate, with the Navy and Marine Corps learning what takes place when assembling forces, said Rear Adm. Pete Stamatopoulos, the Navy’s director of logistics.

“For the first time we have what’s called an expeditionary logistics needs assessment team,” Stamatopoulos said.

This team concentrates on figuring out how to address delivering supplies to expeditionary operations. Part of the challenge is the Navy currently has 250 logistic systems and about 1,600 applications.

“Those systems developed over many, many decades are stove-piped,” Stamatopoulos said.

“We need to move them to a different operating environment. something that’s connected but can be disconnected in a contested environment…..”

The shift from the land wars to operating in multi-domain contested operations is a profound shift and will affect the performance and redesign of the combat force. 

We will have a forthcoming report from a Williams Foundation seminar which focuses directly on this challenge and how to shape a way ahead.

The Arrival of a Maritime-Domain Awareness Strike Capability: The Impact of the P-8/Triton Dyad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The KC-30A, the RAAF and Coalition Operations

Posted on | by Robbin Laird | Leave a Comment on The KC-30A, the RAAF and Coalition Operations

By Murielle Delaporte

Afghanistan and operations in the Middle East against jihadist terror groups mark the rebirth of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) as probably the most modern and innovative air force among US allies and partners.

The Aussies deployed a new force package during their most recent Middle East engagement, as C-17s, F/A-18As and F/A-18Fs operated with the E-7 Wedgetail Air Battle Management aircraft and the A330 MRTT tanker.

During a visit in March 2018 to RAAF Richmond near Sydney, I discussed the RAAF’s experience with the head of the Air Mobility Command of the RAAF, Air Commodore Bill “K9” Kourelakos….

For the Aussies, their experience in the Middle East with this new air combat package is also about “closing the triangle between NATO, the United States and Australia” in terms of interoperability.

Kourelakos says the RAAF has de facto become a key force knitting the coalition together by acquiring clearance to refuel more and more aircraft. Today the KC-30A can refuel the F-16, Tornado, F/A-18, E-7, KC-30, B-1 and the F-35A. And at the time of the interview it was acquiring certification for the P-8A. “With the coming of the F-35, we are expanding our work on small receiver operations with fighters”, he noted.

For the full story see the following:

Aussie Tankers Knit Coalition Forces Together