The RAAF Airpower Conference 2018: The Way Ahead for Airpower in a Disrupted World

03/20/2018

By Robbin Laird

When I attended the 2016 RAAF Airpower Conference, the main focus was upon the newly released White Paper and related documents announcing the government’s ways ahead on defense modernization.

The Conference highlighted key elements for the modernization of the Australian Defence Force and the importance of shaping as integrated a force going forward as possible.

Indeed, the Williams Foundation seminars since that time have highlighted various aspects of integration, air-sea integration, air-land integration and the challenge of designing an integrated force.

This year’s RAAF airpower conference and indeed the Williams Foundation seminars are moving from that foundation to focusing on dealing effectively with the challenges of the evolving strategic environment.

How best to shape effective approaches, technologies and modernization strategies for the decade or more ahead?

The RAAF Airpower Conference is entitled “Air Power in a Disruptive World”and is providing an overview on how the RAAF and ADF leadership are looking at the challenges as well as various specialist presentations of technologies which may well drive significant change in the period ahead.

I will focus primarily on the policy side of the way ahead and how key speakers looked on Day 1 of the Conference at the broader parameters of change and shaping a way ahead.

But for non-Australians it is important to highlight the quite rapid path the RAAF has taken to modernization.

A decade ago the force was defined by its Hornets and C-130s and the range and effects which such a force could achieve.

Then the Super Hornets, Wedgetail, the KC-30A, and the C-17 were procured and the force went from being a territorial or regional force to one able t project globally.

The coming of age of this capability really was the Middle East Operation, called by the Australians Operation Okra.

Here a significant airpower package has been deployed from Australia to the Middle East and the skill sets developed to support an advanced air battle management system, an advanced tanker and a data rich combat aircraft, the Super Hornet.

With the coming of the F-35 and the Growler, the RAAF is about to take its next steps into the tron warfare domain and shaping a broader fifth generation warfare approach informing and empowered by transformation of the ground and maritime forces as well.

It is the coming of this force which is emerging into the changing world of the period ahead which is the backdrop to the discussions at both the RAAF and Williams Foundation Conferences.

Our interviews last week and this week with the RAAF and the Navy will highlight several aspects of the dynamics of change within the force itself.

But the RAAF conference provided a good look at the perceived dynamics of change in the broader global environment and within the ongoing technological revolution reshaping the demand side of both the use and development of modern airpower and the ADF more generally.

The conference was opened by Air Marshal Leo Davies, Chief of the RAAF.

He highlighted the growth in the breadth and depth of the challenges facing airpower as well as the growth in demands to operate in the gray zone.

Among the key dynamics he highlighted were the following: the dispersal of global influence and the diversity of power centers; the shift in the center of global power from the North Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific region, the elevated strategic impact of China and North Korea; the shifts in US national strategy from focusing primarily on counter-terrorism to great power challenges.

These dynamics were leading to the need to invest in higher end military capabilities and to seek innovative solutions to ensure that the liberal democracies had credible deterrent capabilities.

He underscored the core significance for the RAAF of evolving the skill sets to deal with these challenges which he characterized as shaping skill sets which could move beyond a narrow definition of mission performance to deal with the distributed battlespace and its more strategic demand set.

The Australian Defense Minister then followed with an overview of how she saw the evolving global situation and its impact on the ADF.

She noted at the outset that although it was only two years since she addressed the 2016 airpower conference, it seemed almost an age ago compared to the world of 2018.

The changes in Europe, the United States, and Asia have created significant pull in the strategic environment and shifting demand sets as well.

She underscored the core shift in how Air Forces receive and use information and with the coming of both Growler and F-35 this would be accelerated as well.

She underscored the important role which Australia played in the region and growing expectations of partners in the region for that role to remain central as well.

She reinforced the core message from Air Marshal Davies concerning the need to shape a 21st century workforce in Australia to support the ADF as well going forward, given the pace and scope of technological change in the commercial and defense domains.

Other key ADF speakers throughout the day added key points to the challenge agenda facing the ADF in the period ahead.

Chief of Navy, Admiral Tim Barrett, highlighted the significance of the digital transition for navy both in terms of what it means to shape an integrated digital force as well as building out a new shipbuilding capability built around a digital design and manufacturing process.

The key role of software upgradeable systems and digital manufacturing has been a theme for some time for Second Line of Defense, but there is still a broader lack of understanding in the defense community of how significant this shift is for force development and generation.

This clearly is not the case for Chief of Navy who underscored that the standing up the workforce and infrastructure to build the new navy platforms was designed not simply to build a new ship, but to be crafted in such a way that the “frigate or destroyer after next was already being shaped in the design and manufacturing process.”

Major General Toohey, Head of Land Capability, provided an Army perspective which focused on what she called the “post digital army,” although she was really focusing on how the digital transition was shaping a new approach to the man-machine relationship in which technology could extend the reach and impact of the combat elements in the ground maneuver force.

Vice Air Marshal Warren McDonald underscored the importance of building more effective security into a digitally enabled force.

His focus was less on new technologies to provide for enhanced protection, than upon the organization becoming more aware of how to avoid leaving seams within the organization through which adversaries could penetrate and influence the ADF decision making.

He highlighted a key element of the transition from the land wars to higher tempo operations in terms of the ADF and other allied forces getting too complacent about the environment in which digital tools have been used in the Middle East as the forces shift to dealing with cyber armed adversaries conducing information war on a regular basis.

He highlighted the strategic significance of resilience and building out resilient organizations to deal with new threat environment associated with IW.

The Chief of Joint Operations, Vice Admiral David Johnston, highlighted how he saw the impact of the evolving environment on the ADF and what he thought was the key to being successful in this environment moving forward.

As he put it, he had a five-year perspective as the Joint Force Commander, but frankly that makes a great deal of sense in terms of what the ADF is introducing in the next five years and how one then builds from that shift to the next round of innovations.

His perspective is very reminiscent of the ACC Commander whose own focus is quite similar.

He underscored that the geographical spread and diversity of threats has grown and the speed of response has been elevated as an operational requirement.

And the ADF is doing this in a very visible world characterized by the spread of social media and the proliferation of information war.

He also seconded McDonald’s remarks as well: “We have gotten used to operate in a non-contested EW environment, and those habits are a threat to our force going forward.”

The ADF faced the challenge of task diversity when deploying a force, but the new platforms, and the focus on acquiring multi-mission platforms provides an advantage.

Indeed, integrated force design and performance is a increasingly key discriminator going forward.

A broader geo political perspective was provided during the conference, led off by the keynote address by Bilahari Kausikan Ambassador at Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore.

This was a remarkable address given its breadth and pungent insights on the region, on the United States, on China and on the ASEAN countries.

He drove home the point that there is too much binary thinking in addressing the region, notably with regard to the US-Chinese competition. Developments and competition in the region is rarely zero sum; it is really a multiple-sum competition.

He started by addressing the significant analytical failures in the media and in the broader analytical community to grasp the reality of the Trump Administration.

Although his style leaves something to be desired, when one looks at the realities, the Administration has moved beyond failures of the Bush and Obama Administration to address some fundamental aspects of change globally.

He was concerned that the strategic achievements of the Administration militarily could be undercut by the Administration’s trade policy perspective, but at the end of the day there was significant continuity and the US was not going away.

He then focused on China and the consolidation of power by the Chinese leaders.

He saw the Chinese as trying to work an economic transition which will be difficult and the leadership will be focused on domestic challenges in the period ahead.

The leadership clearly would like to keep the current global system in place as they have more to gain than to lose from the current state of affairs but this is not at all clear will be the outcome.

Clearly, China would like to see its new status globally to be recognized and to shape a new china centric order with all roads leading to Beijing.

He saw the ASEAN states as seeking ways to leverage Chinese economic growth but at the same time protecting their autonomy.  A challenge but a necessity as well for the smaller states in the region.

He predicated that the period ahead would see significant great power competition and uncertainty but felt that although the Chinese are pursuing the path of persuading others that their rise was inevitable and the decline of the US equally inevitable, US allies in the region would work with the US to deflect such an outcome.

Another geopolitical presentation which focused on Australia was that of John Blackburn. 

His focus was on energy security and the absence of a policy in Australia looking at global realities that make security of energy in Australia a question mark, not a reality.

Obviously, military conflict in the region would lead to disruption of energy supplies, and disruption of energy would significantly impact Australian society and military operations.

Blackburn argued that not only should a comprehensive energy security policy be put in place but he argued for a “fifth generation” approach.

What he means by that is shaping an integrated approach which looks not simply at sources of fuel supply but how to integrated ways to supply demand with ways to reshaped demand in a crisis as well.

The first day was concluded by Peter Jennings, the Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, who provided an overview on ways to reform the Australian policy system to better prepare Australian for meeting the challenges ahead.

He focused on ways the Australian system could build in better strategic decision making, ranging from changes in the terms of government, to Senate electoral reform to holding periodic cabinet meetings to address longer term strategy.

In short, the RAAF has undergone and is undergoing significant modernization.

But rather than sitting on their successes or focusing on the next platform, the RAAF is generating a broader look at the evolving strategic environment for the ADF and seeking to understand how that environment might drive the next round of modernization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Creating Continuous Improvement Capabilities: A Core 21st Century Strategic Advantage for the US and Allied Militaries

By Robbin Laird

The US has introduced a new generation of combat aircraft.

These aircraft are different from legacy aircraft notably, in that they are designed, crafted and built differently – they are software upgradeable, data rich military aircraft for 21st century forces.

The challenge is to build out the working relationship with industry and to rework military organizations to leverage the opportunities built into the digital rich aircraft.

Leveraging the data generated by a fleet of commonly configured software upgradeable aircraft is a weapon system, which can provide a significant advantage when dealing with peer competitors.

But it will not happen simply by buying an F-35, or a CH-53K.

Much more is required – nothing less than shaping the focus of maintainers, reshaping how the military manages data, and how it works with industry.

During my visit to the Sikorsky Customer Service Center, I addressed this challenge as follows:

As new digital military aircraft systems come into operations, can the military benefit as has the commercial customer from leveraging data to enhance aircraft performance and availability?

 The digital systems in modern aircraft provide for the possibility of continuous improvement. 

 The challenge for the military is to align their organizations with the potential to tap into the aircraft systems THEY ARE ALREADY BUYING. 

 https://sldinfo.com/the-sikorsky-approach-to-global-fleet-management-and-support-lessons-learned-for-evolving-military-programs/

One of the key persons who briefed me on the functions of the Center as well as its applicability to military platforms was Ping Liu, Chief Data Scientist and Sr., Manager Advanced Analytics, Sikorsky Aircraft.

Sikorsky Customer Care Center, Trumbull, Connecticut. Photo Credited to Sikorsky.

Given her role in the Center and the insights, which she contributed during my visit, I wanted to follow up with a separate interview with her.

I did so on February 8, 2018 by phone during my stay in Paris, France prior to going to Helsinki.

We started by discussing the role of her team in the Customer Support Center.

“The Fleet Management Room is where my team develops & deploys predictive analytics for the aircrafts in the commercial fleet.

“We want to predict which aircraft is going to be down, and what component we need to stock up to ensure we have the right parts at the right place and right time.

“It is clearly a spiral learning experience.

“When we stood up the Center in 2015, my team was able to apply the latest technologies and capabilities, stand up the fleet monitoring and program performance dashboards so that we can increase the situational awareness across the enterprise.

“Once people understand what’s happening in the fleet, we then identify and integrate some of the best ideas across enterprise, to increase the ability to leverage action-driven information.”

Question: Gaining a fleet knowledge is crucial to the entire effort to understand how to get enhanced aircraft availability.  How do you do this?

Ping Liu: We are shaping predicative understanding of both the fleet and the individual aircraft.

“The fleet is composed of the individual aircraft with individual components.

“But being able to drill-down to the required level and to shape operational insights and convert those insights into actionable decisions is what we are focused upon.”

Question: What about the impact of differently configured aircraft on your ability to understand fleet behavior?

Ping Liu: The S-92 green aircraft has to be configured very differently for different missions. Configuration management is key.

“While we are focused on the fleet performance, we’re also very much focused on understanding regional operator mission differences, so we can actually drive aircraft-specific actions.

“We call it “prescriptive analytics.”

“We need to predict what the fleet is going to do from cost and availability perspective, but also to be prescriptive with regard to each individual aircraft in terms of what they have to do in order to increase performance for that particular aircraft.”

Question: You have regional support centers, and presumably understand the variations in regional operations are a key part of predictive analytics to manage the fleet regionally?

Ping Liu: It is.

“The helicopters flying the North Sea demonstrate different requirements than those flying in the Gulf of Mexico.

“When you are looking at asset deployment especially materiel stocking strategy you have to have a regional focus to be fully effective.

“For example, if  I don’t recognize individual configuration differences, I might be overstocking air conditioning components at North Sea where it’s mostly needed in regions with warmer climate, or overstocking search & rescue hoists that are only applicable to a portion of the fleet in a particular region.

“Understanding regional, operator, A/C level differences are key to manage cost & availability effectively.”

Question: By developing the models, you are obviously opening the door to culling the latest innovations in artificial intelligence and other analytical technologies as well, I would assume?

Ping Liu: That is correct.

“We are using a number of very sophisticated machine learning capabilities to do our job.

“We are consistently assessing the latest AI and machine learning capabilities to increase the development speed and accuracy of our predictive models, so that we understand what the data can tell us.”

Question: When Sikorsky first offered the S-92, it was a platform. 

Now you are providing a capability, driven by data empowerment. 

Is that a fair characterization?

Ping Liu: It is.

“As more and more data are generated from commercial platforms, we recognize that data needs to be looked at really as a product feature.

“How do we extract value out of this product feature and actually help our customers to improve readiness and cost?

“I think the difference between commercial and military, is on commercial platforms we have more or less easier access to data, invariably, compared to military applications.

“I think commercial operators are incentivized and motivated as they are profit driven, more so than military operations.

“Because of that, anything that can help them to reduce their costs, increase uptime, and they’re usually supportive. And we do a better job therefore delivering value to commercial operators.”

Sikorsky Customer Care Center, Stamford, Connecticut. Photo Credited to Sikorsky.

Question: Let us turn now to the military and how they might reap the advantages of working big data to get enhanced value from their new data rich aircraft.  How best to do this in your view?

Ping Liu: With the K we have an opportunity working with the US Navy and Marine Corps to shape a new way ahead.

“To achieve that we clearly need to have a collaborative data strategy to achieve a breakthrough that the services clearly want and deserve.

“However, this cannot be an after-thought or just an after market strategy.

“It has to be built in from the beginning.

“We have 750+ flight hours so far on the 53K aircrafts. How do we use our early experiences to build up K-specific analytics product and services so that the customer has a much better experience comparing to a legacy system?”

Question: Often when I am talking to military users, they highlight the security challenge but I think what is too often overlooked is that on the commercial side, security is a very high priority from the get go. 

How do you see the challenge?

Ping Liu: It does not matter whether it’s commercial or military.

“We always abide by the most stringent security requirements to protect the fidelity and security of our customers’ data.”

Question: What do you see as barriers for the military to be able to use data as a weapon system, in effect?

Ping Liu: It’s a two part answer, one is data collection, and the other is data quality management.

“For example, on the data collection part the workflow of the maintainers is not necessarily enabling them to handle data in a manner that would allow us to have the kind data that would enable analytics to empower the combat force.

“The Marines are really busy. And if the data collection is too cumbersome, they don’t tend to do it or do it well.

“The Navy can invest in technology and tools to make the data collection a little bit easier.

“For example, when Marines remove a gearbox, they don’t necessarily take pictures of the failed component itself today.

“Also, the database logging the malfunctions is a traditional database with many potentially confusing malfunction codes.

“This may create problems to the Marines while they are trying to describe what has failed.

“In many cases, either they pick a code they remembered but not necessarily the right one, or existing malfunction codes do not describe what they are seeing precisely, so they end up putting additional descriptions/failure symptoms in the comments.

“And the Navy today, lacks the tools to process unstructured data effectively and efficiently, whereas Sikorsky has tremendous capabilities developed over the last few years to do so.

“I think expanding the usage of unstructured data, using text and images to improve fidelity of the data, is something that Navy can do and significantly enhance the ability to gather critical data to improve maintenance efficiencies and increase aircraft availability.

“As to data quality, the data quality management is not necessarily a part of the enterprise work flow.

“But if you truly treat data as a product, the need of quality assurance is therefore a no-brainer.

“There are tremendous opportunities existing in data collection and data quality control which can be shaped to provide for data management which can be a force enabler and multiplier.”

Question: So it is important to think of effective data management, collection and processing and capability as really a strategic asset?

Ping Liu: And if you do so, then you recognize the effort as a priority to ensure that we have a more effective combat force.

“We need to treat data as a product within the military as we do in the commercial world.

“That mind-shift has yet to happen in the military.

“For them to really capitalize on analytics, they have to start to treat data collection, data quality, data management, as a strategic enabling initiative. You need to think about this almost on the same level as lasers, as rockets

“Data needs to be treated as a strategic asset in which downstream analytics are targeted, prescriptive and action-driven to enable enhance force effectiveness.”

In other words, what I would conclude after visiting Sikorsky in both West Palm and Connecticut and watching the standup of the Osprey from the beginning that the K provides an opportunity to not go down the Osprey path of multiple configurations and stove piped data management.

The Marines revolutionized combat by introducing the Osprey, but the configuration management and maintainability side of the equation were not its strong points.

With the coming of the CH-53K there is a strategic opportunity for the Navy-Marine Corps to reshape how they handle data and make it and use it just like any other enabling weapon system.

But again, this will not happen by simply by buying a data rich software upgradeable aircraft.

It requires organizational change and new skill sets built into the force, as well as effective working relationships with industry as well.

Editor’s Note: Also, see the following:

The Sikorsky Approach to Global Fleet Management and Support: Lessons Learned for Evolving Military Programs

The RAAF At Red Flag 2018

03/19/2018

Prior to its deployment to Nellis, the RAAF issued this article on its participation on RF 2018-1.From 29 January–16 February 2018 around 340 Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel will deploy to Nevada to train in the world’s most complex air combat environment during Exercise Red Flag 18-1.

The RAAF personnel will support and participate in missions during the premier air combat exercise alongside counterparts from the United States and the United Kingdom, reconstructing a modern and complex battlespace.

Four EA-18G Growler’s, an AP-3C Orion, and a E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft will also participate in Red Flag, along with a Control and Reporting Centre from 41 Wing to support airborne personnel and aircraft.

During the exercise, participants will practice planning and executing day- and night-time missions, using large numbers of aircraft and ground systems, coordinated to overcome a considerable simulated adversary.

This includes a range of air power roles for RAAF personnel, from Air Superiority and Strike; and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance to Electronic Warfare – providing a comprehensive training environment for aircrew, maintenance and support personnel alike.

Established in 1980 by the US Air Force, Exercise Red Flag provides personnel with an opportunity to experience a complex, modern and dynamic combat landscape.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/news-and-events/events/exercises/red-flag

During its time at Red Flag, one of the RAAF Growlers had a two engine failure as the plane was preparing for take off.

A January 28, 2018, Australian Aviation piece focused on the incident.

An apparent engine failure has seen an RAAF EA-18G Growler catch fire after an aborted takeoff from Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada on Saturday morning US time.

“Defence can confirm an incident involving an EA-18G Growler at Nellis Air Force Base during Exercise Red Flag.

 Royal Australian Air Force personnel are safe and no serious injuries have been sustained,” a Department of Defence statement released shortly before midday on Sunday (Australian time) confirmed.

 “Defence is currently working with the United States Air Force to investigate and will provide an update with further details once known.”

 The Growler’s crew, comprising a pilot and an electronic warfare officer, were able to exit the jet on the ground without ejecting…..

 Australia has taken delivery of 12 EA-18G Growlers, with the RAAF the only operator outside the US Navy to have the advanced electronic warfare platform in service.

The first aircraft were accepted into RAAF service in 2016 and all 12 jets were delivered to RAAF Base Amberley in mid-2017.

This is the RAAF Growler’s first Red Flag appearance.

 http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/01/raaf-growler-catches-fire-after-nellis-afb-takeoff-incident/

The photos in the slideshow are credited to the RAAF and include RAAF as well as allied aircraft involved in RF 2018-1.

 

Australian Army to Procure New CRVs

Project LAND 400 Phase 2 will acquire 225 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles (CRV) to replace the Australian Light Armoured Vehicle (ASLAV).

The Phase 2 fleet will include seven variants. On 28 July 2016, Defence announced that BAE Systems Australia and Rheinmetall had been shortlisted to participate in the Risk Mitigation Activity, which is the second stage of the tender evaluation process.

Rheinmetall has offered the Boxer Multi Role Armoured Vehicle integrated with the Rheinmetall Lance turret.

Australian Department of Defence

March 14, 2018

New Vehicles for Australian Army from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

In an article by Matt Young, published on news.com.au about the selection of the new combat vehicle, a number of details were highlighted.

THE Australian Army is set for a massive overhaul of fighting vehicles in a “discrete” $200 billion reequipment megaproject to inject more power into Australia’s ageing fleet of armed forces — and this is only the beginning.

Australia’s top political military figures have announced the largest purchase in the history of the Australian Army which Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said was based on “lethality and survivability”.

The Turnbull Government plans to use the new Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV), known as “The Boxer”, to replace the Army’s current crop of substandard products, the Australian Light Armoured Vehicle, or ASLAV for short.

“We’ve put them in the heat, we’ve put them in the cold, we’ve put them in the wet, we’ve put them in the dry, we’ve shot at them, we’ve tried to blow them up,” Defence Minister Marise Payne said.

The move follows the Army being left forced to use substandard products in combat, threatening the lives of Australian soldiers by using older products not suited to modern day warfare, a security expert has told news.com.au.

“This is a large step up in terms of size and capability from the vehicle they are replacing,” Marcus Hellyer, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said.

“You could technically say that defence has undercapitalised its armoured vehicle fleet for decades.

“The Army got to the point where they couldn’t take ASLAVs any more to Afghanistan because they couldn’t withstand the blast of an improvised explosive device (IED).

“The kinds of vehicles that the Army currently has, the ASLAV, and M113, are just not capable of surviving on a modern battlefield, they can’t survive even in lower threat environments such as Afghanistan.

“We had ASLAVs blown up in Afghanistan and soldiers killed to the point where Army chose not to deploy any more. It didn’t even deploy its M113s to Afghanistan at all.

“The M113 is really a vehicle with a 1950s pedigree, and we still have M113s in the Army today that went to Vietnam. They are a much older technology.

“The Boxer will provide protection against those IEDs as well as rocket propelled grenades.”

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/australian-army-set-for-a-massive-overhaul-of-fighting-vehicles-in-discrete-reequipment-megaproject/news-story/0a1c062a4f23ad87e87236938b575667

 

Exercise Ocean Explorer 2018: An Update on the Australian Navy

03/18/2018

The Second Line of Defense team has been in Australia for the past two weeks conducting interviews and will provide highlights from the Airpower Conference being held this week in Canberra as well as updates and a final report for the Williams Foundation Conference on the shift from the land wars to high intensity warfare.

And later today, we will have a chance to meet with the Chief of the Royal Australian Navy and provide an update from his perspective on the way ahead.

Currently, the Australian Navy is conducting Exercise Ocean Explorer 2018.

According to the Australian Department of Defence:

Two submarines, 12 ships and embarked aircraft are taking part in one of the largest fleet concentration activities, Exercise OCEAN EXPLORER 2018. OCEAN EXPLORER will be carried out over a three-week period off the east coast of Australia, including the Bass Straight, Jervis Bay, Maitland Bay and adjacent sea and air spaces.

Exercuse Ocean Explorer from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

The exercise – designed to develop maritime warfare skills including the operation of sea control task groups – will feature anti-air and anti-submarine warfare, maritime strike and interdiction, maritime advance force operations and command and control.

Australian Department of Defence

March 15, 2018

Last Fall at the Australian Seapower Conference held in October, the Chief of the Royal Australian Navy laid out his thinking about the future of the Navy going forward.

3 October 2017

Chief of Navy Address at Sea Power Conference 2017, Sydney – Service Chief Session

Welcome all to Navy’s Seapower Conference 2017.

For some of you it is welcome back, for others this is a first opportunity to attend this biennial gathering. To friends old and new, some of whom have come from far away to be with us, I welcome your participation in this international naval and maritime forum.

I warmly welcome my international counterparts and their representatives. We operate in partnership with our friends and allies in this region and I look forward to hearing from all of the speakers who can provide insight drawn from their national experiences.

I welcome members of the academic community, those from trade and industry, and those who will be reporting and recording what we say here over the coming days. Your presence ensures that we who are in uniform are not just talking to ourselves, rather, we are engaging with the whole spectrum of maritime knowledge, opinion and wisdom.

I extend a welcome to my fellow service chief, Air Marshal Leo Davies, Chief of Joint Operations, Vice Admiral David Johnston and the Chief of Army’s representative, Head of Land Capability, Major General Kathryn Toohey.

The fact that we have all three services and Joint Operations Command represented in this opening session is a reminder that the Navy is an integrated part of the Australian Defence Force and we are increasingly operationally interdependent.

For those of us in uniform, this conference is also a rare opportunity to stop and reflect upon our profession.

Over the next few days we can learn from national and international experts and from our peers, and remind ourselves of the context and rationale for the sea services in which we serve.

So…In this opening session I would like to provide context for the future discussions. In doing so, I need to explain where the RAN is going and what progress has been made in keeping with the Australian governments intent.

When I spoke at the last Sea Power Conference in 2015, Navy was on the cusp of a strategic rebuilding and expansion that with the initial announcement of the government’s commitment to a national, continuous shipbuilding strategy.

Since then there has been clarity about how the Navy is to be rebuilt and expanded and much has been achieved. In early 2016 the Australian Government released a Defence White Paper and this year it followed with a companion Naval Shipbuilding Plan.

These documents outline the government’s vision for Australia’s future naval capability.

As important, they also give fidelity to the shipbuilding and ship sustainment industry by providing a commitment to a permanent naval shipbuilding industry through three distinct lines of investment.

These are:

(1) the investment in the rolling acquisition of new submarines, continuous build of future frigates and minor naval vessels;

(2) the investment in modern shipyard infrastructure, across the two construction shipyards in South Australia and Western Australia; and

(3) the investment in naval shipbuilding workforce growth and skilling initiatives; together with new generation technology and innovation hubs.

As a consequence of these decisions, the government announced that Naval Group will be our international partner to design the 12 Future Submarines. Already, we have formal government to government agreements in place; a functioning design centre has been built in Cherbourg (by Australian trades-people with Australian materials) and the Australian project team is in filling rapidly there.

Meanwhile, the construction site in Osbourne is being secured and yard design is in progress. The project is meeting its milestones.

Concurrently, Navy’s two new tankers have been selected and work will soon commence on their construction – the first ship is expected to be delivered in 2019 and the second in 2020.

Much work has been done on progressing the acquisition of 12 new Offshore Patrol Vessels.

These vessels will provide us with an advanced capability to undertake constabulary missions and be the primary ADF asset for maritime patrol and response duties.

Tender evaluation is complete and a decision expected from Government later this year. Construction of the first two vessels will begin in 2018.

We have also made significant progress on the acquisition of nine Future Frigates. These frigates will be able to conduct a range of missions, with a particular focus on anti-submarine warfare and will incorporate the Australian-developed CEA Phased-Array Radar. We are on schedule to commence construction in 2020.

All of the Seahawk Romeo Helicopters have entered service and are undertaking operations, deployed in ships in the region and beyond.

Both LHDs HMA Ships Adelaide and Canberra have been commissioned and are already proving their utility and versatility with participation in major exercises and deployments this year.

And just last week we commissioned HMAS Hobart – one of the most sophisticated warships ever to be operated by the RAN. She is Aegis fitted, the first in her class with two more to follow and the first destroyer for the RAN since HMAS Brisbane was decommissioned 16 years ago.

The delivery of such new capability has allowed the RAN to revert to its practice of complex Task Group operations. This practice offers strategic utility to government by delivering the agility and responsiveness that is at the heart of our approach to maritime warfare and enables more effects to be achieved against an ever‐growing set of threat scenarios.

This year the Australian Defence Force has successfully completed Talisman Sabre 2017 – it provided us with invaluable task group operational experience and improved our training, readiness and interoperability. It also provided us the opportunity to test and prove the readiness of the LHD HMAS Canberra.

And as we speak the other LHD, HMAS Adelaide is currently leading the Indo-Pacific Endeavour 2017 Task Group deployed into the South East Asia region.

This deployment will demonstrate the ADF’s Humanitarian and Disaster Relief regional response capability as well as further supporting security and stability in Australia’s near region through bilateral and multilateral engagement, training and capacity building.

Whilst this is not the first such deployment by the RAN in South East Asia it will be the largest coordinated Task Group operation since the early 1980s. And these deployments will become a regular part of the ADFs ongoing commitment to regional security.

Indeed, it is important to note that beyond a commitment to new capability, the Defence White Paper also foreshadows a significant increase in investment in regional engagement – with plans to contribute to maritime security in several ways.

Firstly, with programs like the Pacific Maritime Surveillance Program which will deliver up to 21 patrol boats with long term sustainment to our South West Pacific neighbours to improve maritime awareness in that region.

And secondly, with increased funds for Defence cooperation in the vast array of maritime security fora and exercises that exist to provide stability within the region through the deliberate and disciplined approach to problem solving and by reducing the chance of miscalculation.

But the generation and deployment of self-supporting and sustainable maritime task groups capable of accomplishing the full spectrum of maritime security operations calls for more than just an equipment list.

There are fundamental attributes that a credible fleet needs to demonstrate to allow this to occur.

Over the last few years the Navy has taken great steps forward in the regulated management of seaworthiness within the Fleet. This follows a similar path to the improvement in airworthiness of the aviation force.

We are better managing and sustaining our platforms, infrastructure, communications and information systems, intelligence, and other mission and support systems for our current capabilities. That’s not to say we have it all right but the lessons learned are being applied to the projects that will introduce the future fleet.

We are working to have an integrated, diverse, resilient and deployable workforce that has the skills and competencies to deliver Navy’s warfighting effects.

We are also improving our culture to ensure that it supports an agile, resilient and innovative Navy that actively seeks ways to better deliver our warfighting effects.

As a result, we are participating more regularly in multinational exercises and through expanding our cultural understanding and language capabilities, to understand how we can make more effective and meaningful contributions during those exercises.

This progress gives me great confidence that we are on track to achieve the long term objectives that we have set ourselves to ensure that Navy is seen as a fighting system which is part of a joint warfighting organisation and as a national enterprise.

As you can see we are building a capable, lethal and agile Navy able to fulfil the tasks required of it now and into the future.

A Navy that has the ability to deliver targeted and decisive lethality if government so requires.

A Navy that has the ability to take decisions quickly, to manoeuvre naval force with speed and flexibility, and to enhance survivability by ensuring that our warfighters are able to adapt doctrine and tactics to meet the needs of the moment.

A Navy that can adapt to the ever-changing strategic environment.

Even since the last Sea Power Conference in 2015 there have been unpredictable shifts in our strategic environment.

The unprecedented missile and nuclear weapons testing conducted by North Korea, the impact of the South China Sea Arbitration and the increased possibly for miscalculations which could result in armed confrontations at sea.

The shifting of old alliances; the rapid rise in global terrorist networks in South East Asia; changes in migration patterns; the increased activities of international criminal syndicates whether it be from co-ordinated illegal fishing enterprises to smuggling illegal migrants.

These are just a few.

And so we seek a Navy that has the ability to maintain our sovereignty, defend our territorial integrity, and protect our national interests wherever they may be threatened – regionally and indeed globally from the Middle East across the Indian Ocean, through the South China Sea, and in the Pacific.

And because we know that no country can truly expect to act alone to solve the dynamic maritime challenges which are faced in our region, we seek to build a Navy that can work with and support our neighbours, friends and allies.

It is working with our neighbours to maintain and advance the internationally-recognised, rules-based global order that has been so conducive to ensuring maritime stability, and open and reliable maritime trade in our region.

We all have a vested interest in regional peace and stability, unimpeded trade, and freedom of navigation and overflight in our region.

Sea Power Conference 2017 affords us the opportunity to reflect on the work that has been done over the past two years: to consider if our current thinking about what the Navy of the future needs to be is accurate; and to develop the ideas and concepts that inform our future thinking and planning all while meeting the current and future challenges of the dynamic regional environment in which we operate.

 

Green Knights and USS Wasp on Patrol

03/11/2018

EAST CHINA SEA

03.05.2018

Video by Petty Officer 3rd Class Levingston M Lewis
Commander, Amphibious Force 7th Fleet

An F-35B lands on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) as part of a routine patrol in the Indo-Pacific region.

Pilots with the “Green Knights” of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121), assigned under the Okinawa-based 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, are scheduled to conduct a series of qualification flights on Wasp over a multi-day period.

The Wasp Expeditionary Strike Group is conducting a regional patrol meant to strengthen regional alliances, provide rapid-response capabilities and advance the Up-Gunned ESG concept.

And in a story written by Ben Werner and published by USNI News on March 8, 2018, the perspective of Commandant Neller regarding the new amphibious capability was highlighted.

The head of the Marine Corps said introducing the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter to American’s amphibious forces is key to the service’s future fights from the sea.

Commandant Gen. Robert Neller said the Marine F-35B variant will prove invaluable as the service shifts away from the ground-based conflicts in Iraq and land-locked Afghanistan back to its traditional role as a sea fighting force.

The fighter’s extended range and data collection capabilities can provide targeting information from far beyond the current range of amphibious warships and give Marines better eyes on the battlefield.

“We have to be able to survive, as part of sea control, sea denial,” Neller said.

“We’re a part of the fleet, we’re always going to need protection, but it will be good if we can protect ourselves.”

Neller was speaking Thursday at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 2018 Expeditionary Warfare Division annual meeting. His comments capped a week of testimony Neller and members of Marine Corps leadership team made on Capitol Hill.

On Monday, the first F-35 fighters deployed aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp(LHD-1). The patrol is the first step to a future of not just supporting Marines ashore, but also more fully integrating into operations at sea, Neller said.

Speaking of the current F-35 deployment on Wasp, and hinting at the aircraft’s potential, Neller said, “A lot of people are watching, a lot of people are paying attention to this.”

The reason Neller considers this deployment historic is because the F-35 has the potential to answer a key strategic and persistent question sea forces always face.

“What is the amphibious ready group going to do to see beyond the horizon?” Neller asked. “How are we going to see them and not let them see us?”

The full capabilities of the F-35 working with warships have not yet been developed. But when linked, the F-35 has the potential to send targeting data and other intelligence to ships far off in the distance. Neller suggested industry members in the NDIA audience could possibly provide solutions to improve aviation platform communications….

For example, in an internal research and development test Lockheed Martin used the sensors from an F-35 to prove the fighter could provide targeting information to a ship-launched Raytheon Standard Missile 6.

https://news.usni.org/2018/03/08/marine-corps-commandant-confident-f-35-capabilities

 

 

Belgium Joins the A330 MRTT Consortium: Building Out a Global Fleet of Advanced Tankers

03/02/2018

2018-03-02 By Robbin Laird

According to an Airbus Defence and Space press release dated March 1, 2018, Belgium’s decision to acquire the A300MRTT has highlighted.

Madrid, 1 March 2018 – Airbus Defence and Space has received a firm order for an Airbus A330 MRTT Multi Role Tanker Transport from Europe’s organisation for the management of cooperative armament programmes – OCCAR – on behalf of NATO Support & Procurement Agency (NSPA).

The order follows the announcement on 14 February of Belgium’s official accession to the European/NATO Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet (MMF) programme, which already consists of Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway and Germany.

An amendment to the original MMF contract adds the aircraft to the seven previously ordered for the MMF programme. The contract also includes three additional options to enable other nations to join the programme and provides for two years of initial support.

The programme is funded by the five nations who will have the exclusive right to operate these NATO–owned aircraft in a pooling arrangement. The aircraft will be configured for in-flight refuelling, the transport of passengers and cargo, and medical evacuation flights.

Airbus Defence and Space will deliver the eight aircraft from its tanker conversion line at Getafe near Madrid between 2020 and 2024.

The European Defence Agency (EDA) initiated the MMF programme in 2012. OCCAR manages the MMF acquisition phase as Contract Executing Agent on behalf of NSPA. Following the acquisition phase, NSPA will be responsible for the complete life-cycle management of the fleet.

Head of Sales and Marketing Bernhard Brenner said: “The selection of the A330 MRTT for MMF, along with the earlier similar decisions by the United Kingdom and France, will ensure that Europe has the world’s most operationally capable tanker fleet for many years to come. We encourage other European nations to contribute to MMF in order to maximise the operating and financial advantages of a large fleet based on a common type.”

They are acquiring the tanker/lifter at a time when progress is being made to shape a common configuration aircraft which will allow Airbus and the user group to drive innovation in common and to share costs and experiences in the ongoing modernization of the aircraft.

This is what we have called Tanker 2.0, a process which Australia, which was the launch customer of the A330MRTT has been a key driver of change.

We introduced this concept during visits to the RAAF in Australia over the past two years.

2017-05-09 During an interview at the Amberley Air Base last month with Air Commodore Lennon and the 86th Wing Commander, Group Captain Adam Williams, we discussed the evolution of the KC-30A into Tanker 2.0.

One aspect of that evolution was the coming of the robotic boom.

According to Air Commodore Lennon: “The best way to think about the new boom capability is that it is an automatic boom similar to how autopilot works in the cockpit. The automatic pilot simplifies the pilot load, but the pilot is still there and can override the autopilot in case of need.

“There will always be an operator monitoring what’s going on with the boom, deciding what the boom should do, and when it should do it, but now he can let the boom do all the work of positioning and marrying up with the receiver.”

The KC-30A is a refuelable aircraft so with a fatigue reducing automatic boom, the crew can stay airborne for longer to generate additional operational impact and enhanced sortie generation effects.

Testing the Robotic Boom for the A330 MRTT from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

Air Commodore Lennon saw other potential impacts on operations as well from having an automatic boom.

“If it can anticipate and react to movements of the receiver aircraft faster than the boom operator can, then you end up with faster contacts.

You also potentially end up with more consistent contacts when the turbulence level increases, in cloud or when night falls.”

A press release from Airbus Military on May 9, 2017 focused on a recent successful test of this new capability.

Madrid, 9 May 2017 – Airbus Defence and Space has successfully demonstrated automatic air-to-air refuelling (AAR) contacts with a fighter aircraft from a tanker’s refuelling boom – the first time in the world that this has been done.

Airbus’ A310 MRTT company development aircraft performed six automatic contacts with a F-16 of the Portuguese Air Force in a demonstration of a technique which the company believes holds great promise for enhancing in-service AAR operations.

The system requires no additional equipment on the receiver and is intended to reduce boom operator workload, improve safety, and optimise the rate of AAR in operational conditions to maximise combat efficiency.

It could be introduced on the current production A330 MRTT as soon as 2019.

Initial approach and tracking of the receiver is performed by the tanker’s Air Refuelling Operator (ARO) as usual.

“Innovative passive techniques such as image processing are then used to determine the receiver’s refuelling receptacle position and when the automated system is activated, a fully automated flight control system directs the boom towards the receiver’s receptacle.

“The telescopic beam inside the boom can be controlled in a range of ways including: manually by the ARO; a relative distance-keeping mode; or full auto-mode to perform the contact.

In the 21 March flight off the Portuguese coast, the tanker performed the scheduled six contacts, at flight conditions of 270KT and 25,000ft over a 1hr 15min test period. Both crews reported a faultless operation.

David Piatti, Airbus Test ARO, or “boomer”, on the tanker, said: “The most important thing was that the system could track the receptacle. It was very satisfying because it worked perfectly and we could perform the contacts with the automation switched on as planned. It will certainly reduce workload, especially in degraded weather conditions.”

The F-16 pilot, known by his callsign “Prime”, said: “The test mission was pretty uneventful and accomplished with no unexpected issues – which is a good sign. From the moment that the boomer accepted the contact the boom was immediately in the correct spot. For the contact itself, it was very precise and expeditious. You can notice the difference – the less that you feel in the cockpit then the more precise you know the tracking is.”

Miguel Gasco, Head of Airbus Defence and Space’s Incubator Laboratory which coordinated the development, said: “This represents a fundamental advance in boom AAR operations, with the promise of increasing the rate of contacts, notably reducing operator workload, and enhancing safety. The automated boom operation is an important pillar of our Smart MRTT development that is already underway.”

The imaging technology underlying the Automatic AAR technique was originally used by Airbus’ Space division to develop solutions for refuelling satellites in space or for space debris removal and was further developed and applied by Airbus Defence and Space’s Incubator Laboratory for the tanking application.

Tanker 2.0: Adding the Robotic Boom

Building Tanker 2.0: The Aussie Perspective

Tanker 2.0: The A330 MRTT Evolving as a Global Fleet

Reimagining Energy for Modern Combat Platforms

02/22/2018

2018-02-16 By Danny Lam

Firepower, Mobility and Protection are universal concepts that applies to any combat platform on land, at sea, underwater in air or space.

Efficiency and effectiveness, however, are difficult concepts. General Deptula’s combat cloud concept was based on a look at cost per desired effect which often yields very different values from economic costs.

A different perspective on cost per desired effect is to look at energy expended per desired effect.

The industrial age brought us specialized machines that made propulsion, firepower, protection and sensors unique specialties that each developed into a different field or discipline, with their own architectures, conventions, technological trajectories and way of thinking. i.e. Gunners and ship engineers are different groups, each with their own silos.

Danny Lam

The architecture of firepower evolved from the earliest catapults to cannons to missiles or torpedoes “in water”.

The goal of each of these systems is to deliver a unit of energy at a distance to cause disruption or destruction.   Kinetic effects is the term of art.

Protection evolved from two directions. Passive protection in the form of armor that utilized a material that deflected / dissipated incoming kinetic energy.   Or active protection in either kinetically or “mission killing” an incoming projectile or weapon or delivery platform.

Emission detection of energy and other signatures, and the use of energy to generate detectable signals is another application of energy for situation awareness systems.

Mobility, in turn, is a function of energy conversion that enable a platform to maneuver.

The common factor in these tasks is that it is all about creation, conversion, and transformation of energy.

During the industrial age, each of the specialized functions required its own unique means to do so.

Artillery utilize stored chemical energy in propellant to transport a projectile loaded with an explosive that released its energy in a way to cause damage.   Armor have to be carried around whose purpose is to dissipate incoming energy.

Mobility in turn, relied on a specialized power plant that produced power transmitted through a dedicated drive train (often mechanically linked) that propelled the platform.

Reduction of each and every of these functions to its essential function described as energy enable a radical rethink of the purpose of a combat platform.

A modern tank firing a depleted uranium round essentially expends its kinetic energy (generated chemically) for transportation to the target, conversion to kinetic to defeat the protective armor of the target, and then utilities the small amount of energy remaining to damage the fragile internal components of the target.

A very small portion of the total energy released stored in the chemical propellant end up doing the work of destroying the target by causing spalling or post penetration destruction of fragile internal components — particularly the crew.

The same exercise applied to carrier borne aircraft engaging in air-to-air combat yields a depressing story of enormous energy consumed to transport aircraft, get it into position to engage enemy fighters, and then to dispatch a handful of Air-to-Air missiles to detonate a proximity warhead nearby that perhaps transfers less than one tenth of 1% of its energy to the target to destroy it.

Capt. Michael W. Byrnes writing in the Air & Space Power Journal noted that a single armor piercing incendiary round accurately fired by an unmanned platform that actually struck a vulnerable part of a manned fighter like the first compressor stage of the engine is enough to destroy it.

His work illustrates how far energy efficiency can conceivably be improved based on existing technologies better deployed.

Yet, the architecture of current systems, rather than prioritize improvement in accuracy and “first shot, first kill”, still predominantly relies on industrial age concepts of massed firepower.   The ultimate expression of this thinking is to fit a 20mm autocannon on the F-35 fighter.    Properly deployed, it is hard to conceive of too many instances when a cannon can be useful without serious risks (e.g. from ground fire).

Massive energy wastage is the defining characteristic of our current combat systems.  

Before the era of precision munitions, raids by thousands of bombers was required for a handful of bombs to find their target.

Precision munitions so improved on productivity that quite often, two munitions with a Pk .9 did the job that formerly required a massive strike package dropping tons of ordinance.

Is there room for a similar quantum jump in improvement in energy efficiency from new, as opposed to existing technologies as Captain Byrnes suggest?

Directed energy weapons that deliver their energy at the speed of light to target offer a quantum jump in efficiency similar from dumb to precision munitions.   DE weapons often have the attribute that it can be dialed up and down as required: (i.e. radiation to produce a mission kill by blinding sensors or disrupting electronics, or kill with energy).

Scaling energy required to task is an attribute not practical for most chemical propellant powered kinetic weapons.

A related application of directed energy is Electronic Warfare that soft or mission kill hostile systems.

In terms of energy efficiency, these are revolutionary compared to weapons that depend on traditional kinetic weapons.

The sheer efficiency of DE suggest that the transition from conventional kinetic energy weapons to DE will move quickly, inhibited primarily by bureaucratic and organizational inertia common to all militaries.

In industry, where there is a market drive, industrial applications of lasers have exploded and far exceed the military space.

Indeed, many military lasers are but adapted commercial rather than special purpose military only lasers of the Star Wars era.

Soft kills are now viewed as just as valid and important as kinetic kills.

The advent of DE weapons reopen the question of whether the dominant mobility energy conversion architecture is ideal.  

Since power plants will have to be able to both generate large amounts of excess (or exportable) energy, and also to store it for rapid dispatch to “surge” needs for DE systems, it raises a question of how best to store and convert energy aboard future combat platforms.

The dominant design for most naval vessels and land vehicles is for a powerpack (typically an internal combustion engine or gas turbine) to be directly coupled to the energy converter system (i.e. transmission) to the propeller / thruster or drivetrain.

Likewise, aircraft are optimized to generate power to “fly” with exportable power as a very distant second thought.

Optimization for large exportable power generation, the provision of space for energy storage and support for DE will obsolete most existing land, air and naval platforms.

If exportable energy is to be stored as electricity (i.e. super capacitors) as opposed to kinetic energy (i.e. flywheel), then it suggest that going “all electric” like the Zumwalt Class Destroyer rather than directly providing power for mobility via a drivetrain may be a far more effective solution.

Commercial cruise ships have recognized the advantage being able to dynamically reallocating energy; balancing mobility and hotel loads “on the fly”.   Cruise ships typically use typically use diesel, or gas turbine generators powering electric propulsors rather than a mechanically coupled drivetrain.

On land, a hybrid electric Wheeled Armored Fighting Vehicle that is powered by electric motors at each wheel have the advantage of a much more robust drivetrain that is more survivable if (e.g. one wheel) is destroyed by a mine. A tracked vehicle that encounter a mine and lose a track inevitably becomes a mobility and often mission kill even if the crew is unharmed.

Aviation will require considerable rethink and new architectures if priority is expressed not in payload of conventional weapons, but exportable energy generated and stored for DE systems.

A less obvious benefit of storing energy in liquid fuels (e.g. diesel) is that it is less volatile and dangerous compared to any chemical explosive or propellant.   That in turn simplifies safety and reduce the need for protection of munition stores and supply.

The biggest bonus from going “all electric” is energy can be dynamically allocated to weapons, defense, communications or ECM or mobility far more seamlessly than existing dedicated architectures.

The overwhelming advantage enjoyed by specialist energy systems (e.g. missiles and cannon) against solutions that manage generic “energy” from a central pool is diminishing with the advent of directed energy weapons for both defense and offense, and the coming increase in energy requirements for ECM or future systems like rail guns.

Reframing the objective of many weapons systems as enabling a tiny fraction of the energy expended to be delivered “to target” in sufficient quantity and quality to either disrupt or disable an enemy opens the way to thinking about how weapons systems can be more energy efficient.   Or, more efficient in terms of expenditure of energy (and other resources) for “desired effect”.

It is time for a fundamental rethink of energy systems across all combat systems architectures.

The present architectures may be as outdated as infantry equipped with bolt action rifles in 1914.

Editor’s Note: We are very saddened to report the sudden and recent death of our colleague Danny Lam.

We will miss his creative writing and thinking and his contributions to the world.

We will be publishing a homage shortly to the late Danny Lam,