Allies and Weapons: European Industry Provides Capabilities in Shaping a Way Ahead for Fifth-Generation Enabled Air Combat

08/08/2017

2017-07-28 By Robbin Laird

The coming of the F-35 provides a significant opportunity to leverage the investment efforts of core allies as is happening in the UK with 5th Gen weapons such as Meteor and SPEAR 3:

  • F-35 as a global enterprise – the 9-Nation MOU encourages US allies in the program to invest in core capabilities for the benefit of the JSF partnership – Meteor and SPEAR 3 are examples of this;
  • F-35 is the bedrock for high end warfare and 5th generation weapons such as Meteor/SPEAR 3 will help maximize coalition capabilities with direct benefit to the US services in the joint fight;
  • The integration of 5th Gen weapons such as Meteor onto 4th Gen platforms also enables the allies to better utilize their whole combat air force, not just their 5th Gen platforms.

For the US, this path opens up a number of options; one example is the potential interoperability of UK and USMC F-35Bs afloat where jets would be able to fly from each other’s decks with whichever weapons are to hand.  It could go a step further and open up a scenario where the US consider adopting these new weapons onto US F-35s, which share integrative commonality with allied F-35s.

The United States could thus leverage allied investments in the weaponization of the global F-35 in a significant way, but not if it follows a protectionist policy or continues to pursue the legacy of the most recent Administration’s legacy to often have competition for competitions sake rather than simply moving ahead with the off the shelf solution.

Allied weapons integration on the F-35 provides a range of off the shelf solution sets for the US forces, which should be leveraged.  The US can put its investment into additional weapons capabilities rather than simply investing in areas already covered by advanced weapons capabilities developed and deployed by allies.

The F-35 global enterprise provides a way ahead for more rapid development of weapons, by leveraging allied investments and capabilities whilst the US develops new capabilities in parallel, which can then be offered to the allied F-35 users as well.  A new business model has emerged precisely when a new Administration has arrived in Washington, which has underscored its desire for new business models.

Here one is staring them directly in the face.

There are several examples of the opportunities which represent low hanging fruit which can be leveraged.

For example, in the UK, MBDA and the three UK Armed Services have worked closely over the years, and most notably with the establishment of the Team Complex Weapons approach that has deepened their ability to work closely together.

This approach was described by MBDA as follows:

Team Complex Weapons (Team CW) defines an approach to delivering the UK’s Complex Weapons (CW) requirements in an affordable manner. This value for money proposition also ensures a viable industrial capacity.

The implementation of the Team Complex Weapon’s approach between Ministry of Defence (MoD) and MBDA is through the Portfolio Management Agreement (PMA), which has been independently evaluated as offering greater than £1Bn of benefit to MoD over their 10-year planning period.

The PMA aims to transform the way in which CW business is conducted by MoD with its main supplier. At the heart of this is a joint approach to the delivery of the required capability based on an open exchange of information and flexibility in the means of delivery.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/about-us/mission-strategy/team-complex-weapons/

This agreement has allowed the UK MoD to work with MBDA and other weapons suppliers to shape the evolution of capabilities in close cooperation with the operators to shape ongoing capabilities.  And such an approach is absolutely central to the emergence of the next wave of weapons, namely software upgradeable ones. The developer, manufacturer and the operator have to be in a close symbiotic relationship to craft the kind of software transient advantage necessary to deal with peer competitors.

As the head of the USAF Materiel Command has put it with regard to software enabled weapons systems:

“The teams are there for life.

 “I don’t mean that it’s one person, but we don’t think about putting a team together to do the development and then push them out the door.

 “That team stays with that system forever…

 “We need to make the user the operational user and acceptance authority.

https://sldinfo.com/software-upgradeability-and-combat-dominance-general-ellen-pawlikowski-looks-at-the-challenge/

The working relationships established under Team CW have facilitated the transition to the next phase of weapons development, namely software upgradeable weapons.  It has also allowed for the significant evolution of capabilities to support the land wars, notably with the transition from Brimstone to Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone.

One example is clearly the Meteor missile. It is an active radar guided beyond visual range air to air missile which offers a multi-shot capability against long range maneuvering targets.  It can do so in a heavy electronic countermeasures environment at extended ranges owing to its air-breathing propulsion system

The Meteor being fired by F-35B. Image credited to MBDA.

Longer range is crucial for a combat aircraft that has enhanced situational awareness with a significantly greater radar reach than the current AMRAAM, and the Meteor certainly is considerably more appropriate than the traditional AMRAAM for the F-35.

The new Meteor missile developed by MBDA is a representative of a new generation of air combat missiles for a wide gamut of new air systems. It can be fitted on the F-35, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and other 21st century aircraft.

It is a software upgradeable missile which pairs nicely with the arrival of a software upgradeable aircraft like the F-35.

Software upgradeability is a game changer for 21st century systems not well understood or highlighted by analysts. In the past, new products would be developed to replace older ones in a progressive but linear dynamic.

But now, one builds a core product with software upgradeability built in, and as operational experience is gained, the code is rewritten to shape new capabilities over time.  Eventually, one runs out of processor power and BUS performance and needs to consider a new product, but with software upgradeability, the time when one needs to do this is moved significantly forward in time.

It also allows more rapid response to evolving threats.  As threats evolve, re-programming the missiles can shape new capabilities, in this case the Meteor missile.  The current production missile is believed to be using well below the maximum processing power and bus capacity of the missile.  Significant upgradeability is built in from the beginning.

Although software upgradeability is not new with regard to weapon systems, the F-35 as software upgradeability is. Combining the launch of a software upgradeable aircraft with a missile designed from the ground up with upgradeability built in will allow the aircraft and the weapon to evolve together over time to deal with evolving threats and challenges.

And underlying the model and the code is a multinational team.  And this team is the core capability, which can drive weapons development over time.  MBDA has functioned as the prime and has worked with three aircraft manufacturers and radar manufacturers already and is working with additional players as the missile prepares to go onto the F-35.

What has been a challenge – working with six air forces – is an opportunity as well.  Each of the partners had different takes on the target set they wished the missile to serve.  This has meant that the range of targets and engagement envelopes were very wide ranging, from low-level cruise missiles and high flyers, to UAVs, to helos, etc.  The end result is a software upgradeable missile with a very wide-ranging initial capability to deal with a diversity of targets.

Another key aspect of the missile is it is designed from the beginning to be employed on and off-board. It can be fired by one aircraft against a target initially cued by another aircraft or system and then handed over for delivery to target by the original aircraft or the inflight data link can be used via another asset – air or ground based – to guide it to target.

It is understood the missile will be integrated into the Block 4 of F-35. When so done, the missile can provide a sweet spot of 4th and 5th generation weapons integration with its core networking capability. Because of the nature of software integration on the F-35, the Meteor missile, which will be integrated onto the F-35 due to European requirements, means that it is available to all the other global partners of the F-35 as well.

The RAF Typhoon Force is leveraging Meteor as a key asset to work integration with the F-35. 

The Typhoon is being modified to enhance its capability to receive targeting data from F-35s and with the longer range of the Meteor can operate as a weapons caddy for the F-35 in firing many types of weapons, and certainly provide a significant barrage of air to air strike missiles to support the forward operations of the F-35.

https://sldinfo.com/building-a-21st-century-weapon-the-case-of-the-meteor-missile/

Training is already underway for this transition and interviews with RAF pilots recently involved in Red Flag and Green Flag exercises in the United States highlighted the evolving RAF thinking.

Shaping a new weapons revolution where weapons are enabled throughout the attack and defense enterprise and not simply resident for organic platform operations is a key element of the way ahead. For example, the new software enabled Meteor missile can be fired by one aircraft and delivered to target by that aircraft or the inflight data link can be used via another asset – air or ground based – to guide it to target. METEOR firing from Gripen. Credit: SAAB

With regard to Red Flag 17-1, Wing Commander Billy Cooper, the 6th Squadron Typhoon commander had this to say about the way ahead:

“If you optimize the relationship between fourth and fifth-gen would want your 4th gen as far from harm as possible, especially given the low observable nature of the 5th gen platforms.

“In the air to air war you would therefore want to have the longest-range weapons you could on your 4th gen platforms.

“That is where Typhoon and Meteor comes in; I really do think it will be a game-changer in the 4th/5th Gen war.”

https://sldinfo.com/red-flag-2017-1-the-perspective-of-the-6-squadron-officer-commanding/

And the Squadron Leader for II(AC) squadron based on his recent experience at Green Flag argued that a robust weaponization approach was necessary to leverage the capabilities being shaped by the 5th generation enabled air combat force.

“Weaponization of the Typhoon has been fairly well defined over the last ten years.

“Everyone’s known what the integration periods are going to be for which weapons.

“One thing that we just have to keep re-assessing as that process goes on is that are these actually the right weapons for the task that the jet is going to be asked to deliver?

“Should we add weapons for SEAD missions for example, as the F-35 becomes the forward deployed task master for such missions, aided significantly by strike assets from Typhoon?

“We need to ensure that we are not hamstringing ourselves with the weaponization process.

“We need to open the aperture as we reshape the air combat fast jet force.”

And as this process evolves the integration to other non-air assets becomes crucial as well, whether it is integration with naval assets from a strike or ISR/C2 point of view.

“We’ve built new Type 45 destroyers and are building new CVF Aircraft carriers and Type 26 Destroyers.

“The information soak from F-35 has to be taken into account as those new assets come into service.

“Are we utilizing that information in its best available capacity?

“It is way beyond ownership of one or the other service; it is about having an integrated combat force.”

https://sldinfo.com/visiting-iiac-squadron-at-raf-lossiemouth-the-perspective-of-squadron-leader-martin-pert/

Maximizing effective use of U.S. and allied weapons investments is crucial to accelerate the transition from the land wars to enhanced air combat power for higher intensity and higher tempo operations.

And clearly Brimstone and Spear 3 are very relevant to current and evolving US needs. It is difficult to understand why the US would not adopt this weapon and include it in its own combat capability arsenal as a complement to its other weapons such as SDB 2.

During a recent visit to RAF Lossiemouth, this is what a weapons officer had to say about the RAF experience with Brimstone.

“We first put the weapon into use a decade ago and it has become a weapon of choice for the RAF and for our allies in tasking the RAF as well.

“It enhanced the capability of the Tornado and what it could do in areas like Afghanistan.

“It became a more precise weapon and you could target individual houses, cars, moving targets, or even people with the weapon.”

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

Not only is Brimstone available now for the US air combat fleet, and it can be suggested as well, that it is not simply fast jets which could use this capability but other airborne platforms as well (it is believed that the UK plans to integrate Brimstone on Protector and its AH-64 too) but the Spear 3 follow on weapon will be integrated onto F-35 and available for the US forces almost as an app.

According to MBDA in an article published in Air Power 2017:

The need for greater range and capability in the air-to-ground mission has been recognised for a number of years.  Most direct fire weapons have relatively short range and the array of glide bomb weapons are not providing adequate time to target, time on target and end-game performance capabilities – let alone the range – needed to defeat existing and emerging Ground Based Air Defence systems.

For this reason there is significant focus on developing systems that can defeat the increasing threats.

MBDA’s SPEAR air-to-ground precision strike weapon will meet this growing operational demand. Utilising and building on the best key technologies from the combat proven Brimstone weapon, SPEAR is being developed to meet the requirements for a multi-load out missile system for operation from fixed wing aircraft. Initially the weapon will be deployed on the UK’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy F-35 fleet.

Artist Rendition of F-35 Firing Spear 3 Missile. CreditL MBDA

For F-35, the weapon will be mounted on a launcher that will enable four munitions to be carried in each bay alongside another weapon such as Meteor. SPEAR is equipped with a multi-spectral seeker, linked with a multiple-effects warhead.

Where SPEAR differs from glide weapons is that MBDA has equipped SPEAR with a small turbojet motor, along with its sophisticated guidance system, wing kit and actuators. The turbojet is a key benefit, providing the warfighter with significant advantages when deploying the weapon.

The weaknesses of glide weapons are that they tend to be operated in near line of sight and any deviation / off bore sight launch reduces their range. Additionally, as glide bombs are unpowered, any adverse wind or weather conditions also dramatically reduce their range. Their lower speed, agility and range rapidly reduces the realistic engagement options for the pilot.

Time critical targets also become a challenge for glide weapons – they are simply too slow to meet the needs of the modern battlefield.  SPEAR’s range capability in any weather conditions is unmatched, as is its seeker accuracy and performance against moving targets.

SPEAR has already concluded extensive and successful subsystems and airframe proving demonstrations for the UK MoD customer.

For example in the Spring of 2016, a SPEAR missile was launched from a Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft deployed from the BAE Systems facility at Warton, UK. The aircraft was flown to the QinetiQ range at Aberporth where SPEAR was successfully deployed. SPEAR is carried upside down so at launch the missile must turn over, then deploy its wings, start the jet engine and then navigate a course to target. All these operations were successfully demonstrated during the trial.  

http://ow.ly/Xae730dzsbz

Spear 3 is a natural for the USMC concepts of operations and its closest partner, the UK, will have already done its integration. The new business model would suggest that the USMC and USN should seriously consider acquiring this weapon for the relevant mission sets.

Recently, Defence Minister Fallon suggested that the UK’s openness to acquiring US weapon systems needs to be reciprocated by the United States.  But the new F-35 business model goes beyond the simple question of classic protectionism or conducting costly but meaningless competition when an off the shelf allied solution is already in play.

Put bluntly, the F-35 business model rests on leveraging joint investments and capabilities.  For the United States not to follow the F-35 business model would suggest that the business rules followed by DoD simply are not capable of adjusting to the new 21st century realities of business.

And the Trump Administration can not really want to see such lack of innovation, an innovation generated by the new combat capability which the US has invested so much in itself.

And the UK investments and operational efforts to integrate UK weapons onto the RAF/RN F-35s is clear and significant.  The UK will integrate Paveway 4, Meteor, SPEAR 3 and ASRAAM to the ‘B’ variant aircraft and be operational with these weapons by c. 2023. It simply remains for the US to pursue the logic of the F-35 business model.

Editor’s Notes: Recent updates on the evolution of MBDA systems are provided below.

http://www.baesystems.com/en/article/successful-completion-of-first-live-firing-of-brimstone-missile#

The first live firing of MBDA’s Brimstone air-to-surface missile from a Eurofighter Typhoon has been successfully completed as part of ongoing development work to significantly upgrade the capability of the aircraft. The trial is part of work to integrate the Phase 3 Enhancement (P3E) package for Typhoon, which will also deliver further sensor and mission system upgrades.

The P3E package forms part of Project Centurion – the programme to ensure a smooth transition of Tornado GR4 capabilities on to Typhoon for the Royal Air Force.

The UK’s IPA (Instrumented Production Aircraft) 6 Typhoon conducted the firing with support from the UK Ministry of Defence, MBDA, QinetiQ, Eurofighter GmbH and the Eurofighter Partner Companies – Airbus and Leonardo. It was designed to test the separation of the low-collateral, high-precision Brimstone weapon when it is released.

In total, nine firings will take place to expand the launch and range capabilities.

The initial firing follows completion of a series of around 40 flight trials earlier this year, some of them conducted alongside pilots from the Royal Air Force’s 41(R) Squadron – the Test and Evaluation Squadron – in a Combined Test Team approach.

Volker Paltzo, CEO for Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH, said: “The successful completion of this trial is an important step towards integration of the weapon on to the aircraft. Brimstone will provide the Typhoon pilot with the ability to precisely attack fast-moving targets at range, further enhancing the aircraft’s already highly potent air-to-surface capabilities.”

Andy Flynn, BAE Systems Eurofighter Capability Delivery Director, added: “Through the dedicated work of our teams, and with support from our partners, we have been able to reach this milestone in a short space of time. We will now continue to work alongside the Royal Air Force and our partner companies in a joint approach to ensure we successfully deliver this package of enhancements into service.”

Andy Bradford, MBDA Director of Typhoon Integration, said: “This first firing is a major milestone for both the Brimstone and Typhoon programmes. Together Brimstone and Typhoon will provide the Royal Air Force and other Eurofighter nations with a world-beating strike capability to beyond 2040.”

The successful trial follows completion earlier this year of the flight trials programme for the MBDA Storm Shadow deep strike air-to-surface weapon and the MBDA Meteor ‘beyond visual range’ air-to-air missile. Operational testing and evaluation of those capabilities is currently ongoing with the Royal Air Force ahead of entry into service in 2018.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-announces-539-million-investment-in-new-missiles-systems

Secretary of State, Sir Michael Fallon, has today announced three new missile contracts worth a combined £539 million for state-of-the-art Meteor, Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) and Sea Viper missile systems at MBDA Stevenage.

The deal ensures our Armed Forces have the best equipment available to protect the new Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers and the extended fleet from current and future threats.

The half a billion-pound contracts will sustain over 130 jobs with MBDA in the UK, with missile modification and service support being carried out in Stevenage, Henlow, Bristol and Bolton.

Secretary of State, Sir Michael Fallon, said:

“This substantial investment in missile systems is vital in protecting our ships and planes from the most complex global threats as our Armed Forces keep the UK safe.

“Backed by our rising Defence budget, these contracts will sustain high skilled jobs across the UK and demonstrate that strong defence and a strong economy go hand in hand.”

As part of a £41 million contract, the Meteor air-to-air missiles will arm the UK’s F-35B Lightning II squadrons. It will provide the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy with a world-beating missile that can engage with targets moving at huge speed and at a very long range. The weapon will enter service on Typhoon with the RAF in 2018 and the F-35B from 2024, and will be used on a range of missions including protecting the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers.

Meanwhile, a £175 million in-service support contract for the anti-air Sea Viper weapon system will ensure that the Royal Navy’s Type 45 Destroyers can continue to provide unparalleled protection from air attack to the extended fleet. Under the contract, the missiles will be maintained, repaired and overhauled as and when required to ensure continued capability. The Sea Viper missile defends ships against multiple threats, including missiles and fighter aircraft.

The final contract is a £323 million deal to purchase the next batch of cutting-edge air defence missiles for the British Army and Royal Navy, offering increased capability at a lower cost. Designed and manufactured by MBDA UK at sites in Bolton, Stevenage and Henlow, the next-generation CAMM missile will provide the Armed Forces with missiles for use on sea and on land. CAMM has the capability to defend against anti-ship cruise missiles, aircraft and other highly sophisticated threats.

Signalling our continued investment in Type 26 programme, CAMM will provide the anti-air defence capability on the new Type 26 Frigates for the Royal Navy and will also form part of the Sea Ceptor weapon system on the Type 23 Frigate and will also enhance the British Army’s Ground Based Air Defence capability by replacing the in-service Rapier system.

Tony Douglas, Chief Executive Officer of Defence Equipment and Support, the MOD’s procurement organisation, said:

“Work on these cutting-edge missiles, which will help to protect the UK at home and abroad and secure jobs across the country, demonstrates the importance of Defence investment. That is why, working closely with our industry partners, we continue to drive innovation and value into everything we do; securing next generation equipment for our Armed Forces at the best possible value for the taxpayer.”

Dave Armstrong, Managing Director of MBDA UK, added:

“MBDA is delighted by the continued trust placed in us by the Ministry of Defence and the British military. The contracts announced today for Meteor, CAMM and Sea Viper will help protect all three UK Armed Services, providing them with new cutting-edge capabilities and ensuring their current systems remain relevant for the future. They will also help to secure hundreds of high-skilled people at MBDA UK and in the UK supply chain, maintaining the UK’s manufacturing base and providing us with a platform for exports.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-signs-184-million-contract-to-secure-air-to-air-missiles-for-the-f-35

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has awarded a contract worth around £184 million to ensure the UK’s new supersonic stealth combat aircraft will continue to be equipped with the latest air-to-air missile.

Designed and manufactured in the UK, ASRAAM is an advanced heat-seeking weapon which will give Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy F-35B Lightning II pilots, operating from land and the UK’s two new aircraft carriers, the ability to defeat current and future air adversaries.

The contract is just the latest demonstration of the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Armed Forces have the best possible equipment and aircraft equipped with ASRAAM will operate from land as well as from the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers, the biggest ships ever to be built for the Navy.

It will see MBDA manufacture an additional stockpile of an updated version of the weapon, allowing F-35 combat jets to use the missile beyond 2022. Work to integrate the new missile onto the UK’s F-35 fleet will be carried out under a separate contract.

Minister for Defence Procurement, Harriett Baldwin said:

“Wholly designed and built in the UK, this air-to-air missile on our F-35 aircraft will secure cutting-edge air power for the UK for years to come.

“This contract will sustain around 400 jobs across the country and is part of the MOD’s £178 billion Equipment Plan which is backed by a defence budget that will increase every year from now until the end of the decade.”

The award is part of an overarching agreement with MBDA which is sustaining around 200 jobs at the company’s sites in Bristol, Stevenage and Bolton, with a further 200 sustained across the supply chain. Work on ASRAAM will be carried out at MBDA’s new, £40 million state of the art manufacturing facility that is nearing completion in the Logistic North commercial development in Bolton.

MBDA’s investment in this new facility is a demonstration of the company’s commitment to maintaining highly skilled engineering jobs in the region as well as to providing the very best equipment required by the UK’s armed forces. The award of the contract to MBDA underlines the Government’s commitment to sustaining a cutting edge defence industry in the UK.

ASRAAM, which uses a sophisticated infra-red seeker, is designed to enable UK pilots to engage and defend themselves against other aircraft.

It is capable of engaging hostile air targets ranging in size from large multi-engined aircraft to small drones.

Chief Executive Officer at the MOD’s Defence Equipment and Support organisation, Tony Douglas said:

“ASRAAM will provide vital offensive and defensive options for UK F-35 pilots against a wide range of air-to-air threats.

“The project to update the weapon and integrate it with the F-35, the world’s most advanced combat aircraft, provides a clear example of the MOD and UK industry working effectively together to provide our UK Armed Forces with the best equipment possible.”

ASRAAM is currently in service with RAF Typhoon and Tornado aircraft and is being carried daily on missions over Iraq and Syria as part of the coalition fight against Daesh.

The updated missile variant being secured under this new contract is expected to enter service on RAF Typhoon aircraft from 2018 and on RAF and Royal Navy F-35 aircraft from 2022, when the current variant will be taken out of service.

With the biggest defence budget in Europe and the second biggest in NATO the Government is investing in new aircraft carriers, submarines, warships and patrol vessels.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/bruiser-loose-successful-first-firing-mbdas-sea-venom-anl/

MBDA’s Sea Venom / ANL anti-ship missile has successfully completed its first firing at the Île du Levant test range in France.

Conducted in June, the first firing is a major milestone for the Anglo-French missile; developed to deliver an enhanced capability and replace existing and legacy systems such as the UK-developed Sea Skua and the French-developed AS15TT anti-ship missiles.

The trial of the 100 kg-class missile was conducted from a Dauphin test bed helicopter owned by the DGA(Direction Générale de l’Armement – the French defence procurement agency).

Frank Bastart, head of the Sea Venom/ANL programme at MBDA, said: “The missile trial was a complete success, and is a proud moment for the company and all those involved in the project. When it enters service Sea Venom/ANL will provide a major increase in capability to the French and UK armed forces.”

Jointly ordered in 2014, the Sea Venom/ANL project has been developed 50/50 between the UK and France and has played a key part in the creation of shared centres of excellence on missile technologies in both countries – a move that will provide significant benefits to both nations.

Paul Goodwin, deputy head of the Sea Venom project, added: “Although a first firing this was in no way a cautious one. The system was pushed to the very edge of its range capability – a bold step showing our confidence in the design maturity and making success all the more sweet. The next step is to exercise the systems’ operator-in-the-loop capabilities.”

In UK service the missile is planned to be used from the AW159 Wildcat helicopter, while France will operate the missile from its new Hélicoptère Interarmées Léger (HIL). The missile has been designed for use from the widest range of platforms, with air carriage trials having been conducted to demonstrate compatibility of the missile on legacy Lynx helicopters.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-firing-boosts-asraam-sales-prospects-435233/

F-35 firing boosts ASRAAM sales prospects

Lockheed Martin F-35s have fired their first non-US-produced missiles in testing, with the activity providing a boost to MBDA’s sales efforts for the ASRAAM.

Announcing the development on 15 March, MBDA said flight trials and air-launched firings have taken place using test aircraft operating from Edwards AFB, California and NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

The short-range, infrared-guided ASRAAM is being integrated with the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B variant for the UK. “The effort is progressing to plan, and these integration activities will allow the initial operating capability of the aircraft” for the nation, MBDA says.

The European company hopes that other F-35 customers could opt to acquire its weapon, in preference to the Raytheon AIM-9X. Australia already uses the Mach 3-capable missile on its Boeing F/A-18A/B strike aircraft, and has previously expressed some interest in also using it with its Joint Strike Fighters.

“The fact that it is a real firing that has taken place is important, because that allows the other F-35A and B users to now have a choice,” says Dave Armstrong, MBDA’s executive group director for sales and business development.

Meanwhile, Armstrong says the company remains hopeful that the US military could acquire its Brimstone air-to-surface missile to provide some of its fast jet platforms with an “off-the-shelf” precision strike capability against moving targets, despite the business uncertainty raised by US President Donald Trump’s buy-American agenda.

“We know that the US military still aspires to have Brimstone on [Boeing] F-15 and F-18,” he says. “It’s a question of economics and programme management….”

Editor’s Note: For the Joint Strike Missile case, see the following:

Allies, Missiles and the F-35: The Case of the Joint Strike Missile

 

Australian Defense Industry Looks to the Future

07/31/2017

2017-07-31 In a recent article by Andrew Tillett published in The Financial Review, the growth in Australian defense industry associated with the launch of new Australian defense programs is examined.

Australia has had some success stories. Thales’ Bushmaster vehicle proved its worth in Afghanistan by protecting soldiers from blasts and was snapped up the British and Dutch armies.

And Canberra’s CEA Technologies, which make radar and communications systems, has achieved $260 million in foreign sales over the past five years.

For many local firms, the JSF project has been their entree into global supply chains. Australian companies have about $800 million in contracts as a downpayment.

Varley has been supplying the Australian Defence Force since the mid 1980s and in 2004 won its first contract to provide maintenance equipment for servicing the JSF, beating Italian, Turkish and US companies.

Varley’s defence and aerospace general manager Victor Ugarte said this initial contract had opened the door to more work with US giants Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

“If we are performing well to expectations, there is work to come,” he said.

Likewise, Quickstep’s supply of composite parts for the JSF, as well as the Hercules transport plane, has amounted to an endorsement within the defence sector.

“We’ve been able to use these programs to demonstrate production and quality capability, and that we are globally competitive,” chief executive Mark Burgess said.

Over the past four years, the Bankstown company has grown from 120 to 220 staff, and plans to add another 30 by 2020 as production hits its peak.

“We can’t afford to find out when we manufacture something we’ve got it wrong,” business development manager Chris Isaacs said.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/dollars-flow-into-defence-as-companies-seek-new-markets-20170727-gxkg4d#ixzz4oOB79Djk

An additional recent piece looking at the upward trajectory for Australian defense industry was published on July 25, 2017 in Manufacturers’ Monthly

Defence contractor Quickstep is anticipating further growth over the next three years as production of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) ramps up globally.

According to its latest quarterly report, the Sydney-based advanced composite manufacturer has more than doubled its production for the program during the past year.

The company supplies 21 JSF components to Northrop Grumman – a principle member of the Lockheed Martin-led project – including doors, panels, and skins.

“Quickstep’s long-term vision is to become a world leader in advanced composites manufacturing,” said Mark Burgess, Quickstep CEO. “The company is focused on expanding its business in the aerospace, defence, automotive and other high-growth sectors.”

An earlier piece in the same publication looked at the ripple effect from the F-35 program in Australia. 

Meanwhile, more than 50 Australian companies have directly shared in more than $800 million in production contracts since the Howard Government elected to make the F-35 Australia’s fighter jet of choice 15 years ago.

The ripple effect will, it is said, indirectly benefit hundreds more Australian companies up and down the supply chain, with net government spend set to jump to $2 billion by 2023. It has become apparent, however, that the flight-path towards truly understanding what Australia companies can offer the defence industry is still in its infancy.

Research carried out by Graeme Dunk, manager of the Australian Business Defence Industry, shows that around five per cent of government (prime) contracts, by value, go out to Australian SMEs – averaging out at roughly $43,000 per contract.

“This analysis is from data on Australian tender, so only shows prime contracts – not subcontracts – and refers to the combined vale of acquisition and sustainment contracts placed by Defence to Australian-owned companies,” Dunk explained.

Air Vice-Marshal Leigh Gordon heads up the JSF Division within the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG); the DoD’s military equipment purchasing arm.

“Governments globally are looking for their dollars to go further and deliver more for their domestic economies,” he told Manufacturers’ Monthly.

“This presents Australian industry with an opportunity to be innovative in driving down the cost of defence capability inputs.”

This means, with production volumes increasing and the F-35 GSS maturing, defence and industry will continue to work closely together to optimise Australian industry participation in the F-35 Progam.

“There are some challenges ahead, which means Australian industry will have to stay internationally competitive by improving efficiency; driving innovation, supporting skills development and maintaining quality,” Gordon continued.

To do this, Australian companies will specifically need to develop associated intellectual property in Australia to market worldwide and enhance their design, manufacturing and maintenance capabilities.

F-35 Fleet Passes 100,000 Flight Hour Mark

2017-07-31 The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft fleet recently exceeded 100,000 flight hours while the F-35 Integrated Test Force teams are completing the remaining requirements in the program’s System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase.  

“This 100K milestone marks a significant level of maturity for the program and the F-35 weapons system,” said Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President and F-35 Program General Manager Jeff Babione. “We are well positioned to complete air vehicle full 3F and mission systems software development by the end of 2017.”

The remaining development flight testing includes validating the final release of 3F software, F-35B ski jump testing, F-35B austere site operations, high-Mach Loads testing for both the F-35B and F-35C and completion of the remaining weapons delivery accuracy tests.

Major SDD fleet test milestones in recent months include:

Completed testing for the F-35A’s final envelope involving high risk ‘edge of the envelope’ maneuvers, stressing the aircraft to its limits in structural strength, vehicle systems performance, and aerodynamics while proving excellent handling qualities.

Completed all U.K. Weapon Delivery Accuracy tests for the AIM-132 ASRAAM and Paveway IV weapons, and completed 45 of 50 SDD Weapon Delivery Accuracy tests including multiple target and multiple shot engagements as well as internal gun and centerline external pod 25mm gun accuracy tests.

Performed multi-ship mission effectiveness tests, such as Offensive Counter-Air and Maritime Interdiction, demonstrating the performance of the F-35 System.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockheed-martin-f-35s-surpass-100000-flight-hours-system-development-and-de

Speaking of Software Code: The 2015 Ford GT Supercar Has More than an F-35

2017-07-31 We often hear about the complexity of code in the F-35, but what is not realized is that code is found in the evolving industrial landscape everywhere one looks.

‘According to a July 24, 2017 article by Aaron Brzozowski, the 2017 Ford GT Supercar contains more code than the F-35.

Here’s a neat stat: operation of the all-new, 2017 Ford GT supercar is powered by approximately 10 million lines of computer code – more code than the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet. That code instructs 25 onboard computers, which receive continuous data streams from 50 different sensors throughout the car, resulting in the generation of about 100 gigabytes of data each and every hour.

Ford says that’s equivalent to roughly 25,000 song downloads per hour.

“The Ford GT’s sophisticated computing systems work hand-in-hand with the vehicle’s core race car architecture to enhance performance, and also deliver greater versatility and flexibility,” says Ford Performance Global Director Dave Pericak. “By constantly monitoring inputs, vehicle loads and environment, and adjusting the car’s profile and responses to suit, the Ford GT remains as responsive and stable at 300 km/h as it is at 30 km/h.”

Combined, the Ford GT’s 25 onboard computers can analyze roughly a terabyte of data every hour. They control things like the supercar’s electronic stability control, its active suspension damping, active aerodynamics, and the 647-horsepower EcoBoost V6 lurking under the rear clamshell. They also do more pedestrian things, such as powering the GT’s automatic climate control and SYNC 3 infotainment.

It’s mind-blowing stats like these that make it easy to understand what makes the new Ford GT supercar so special, prompting Ford to limit its production to just 1,000 units. Other notable features include a carbon-fiber monocoque and body panels, industry-first Gorilla Glass windshield, and an integrated roll cage that can be modified to meet FIA racing safety requirements with a minimum of parts.

 

Shaping a Manned-Unmanned ISR/Strike Capability at Sea: The Case of the Fire Scout and the MH-60S

2017-07-23 By Robbin Laird

A key element of evolving naval power is the ability to integrate unmanned with manned assets aboard the sea base.

This is not only a work in progress, but a capability which will evolve over time with the technology, the operational experience and the ability to leverage the shift in culture which this integration brings to the fleet.

With the framing of the distributed lethality and kill web concepts, the US Navy and Marine Corps team are focused on distributing and dynamically integrating C2 with ISR with strike capabilities.

The very nature of distributed warfare means that the shift is from looking at a ship simply from the standpoint of what organically is on that ship, to how that ship contributes to the battle fleet by contributing assets to that fleet.

We have looked earlier at two key examples of how the US Navy and Marine Corps are working manned and unmanned integration.

The first is the shaping of a new maritime domain awareness strike enterprise built around synergy between the P-8 and the Triton.

With regard to Triton and P-8, the US Navy will operate them as a dyad. The USN is approaching the P-8/Triton combat partnership, which is the integration of manned, and unmanned systems, or what are now commonly called “remotes”.

The Navy looked at the USAF experience and intentionally decided to not build a Triton “remote” operational combat team that is stovepiped away from their P-8 Squadrons.

The MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system approaches the runway at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., after completing its inaugural cross-country flight from California. The Navy will conduct Triton flight tests at Patuxent River in preparation for an operational deployment in 2017. (U.S. Navy photo by Kelly Schindler/Released)

The teams at Navy Jax and Pax River are building a common Maritime Domain Awareness and Maritime Combat Culture and treats the platforms as partner applications of the evolving combat theory. The partnership is both technology synergistic and also aircrew moving between the Triton and P-8.

The P-8 pilot and mission crews, after deploying with the fleet globally can be assigned significant shore duty flying Tritons. The number of personnel to fly initially the Tritons is more than 500 navy personnel so this is hardly an unmanned aircraft. Hence, inside a technological family of systems there is also an interchangeable family of combat crews.

These new systems are all software upgradeable which sets in motion the opportunity and a need to shape new acquisition approaches to take advantage of software, which can evolve to deal with the threat environment as well.

Software upgradeability provides for a lifetime of combat learning to be reflected in the rewriting of the software code and continually modernizing existing combat systems, while adding new capabilities over the operational life of the aircraft.

Over time, fleet knowledge will allow the US Navy and its partners to understand how best to maintain and support the aircraft while operating the missions effectively in support of global operations.

https://sldinfo.com/the-arrival-of-a-maritime-domain-awareness-strike-capability-the-impact-of-the-p-8triton-dyad/

The second example is being played our right now at sea with the first deployment of the USS America.

The Marines have deployed the Blackjack UAV at sea and are working its integration with manned assets operating within the Amphibious Task Force.

The Blackjack is deployed from a San Antonio class LPD but it launches from that platform but contributes to the entire situational awareness of the task force.

https://sldinfo.com/the-next-phase-in-the-evolution-of-usmc-uas-capabilities-an-interview-with-colonel-barranco/

PACIFIC OCEAN – Marines complete final data updates before launching the RQ-21A Blackjack to support surveillance for a visit, board, search and seizure mission conducted by the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit Maritime Raid Force during Composite Training Unit Exercise, May 12, 2017. The RQ-21A Blackjack enhances and extends the lethal and nonlethal capability of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, fostering transformational advancements in battlespace command and situational awareness. The Marine and aircraft is with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 161 (REIN) attached to the 15th MEU. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Timothy Valero)

And a third example is the work the US Navy has done onboard the LCS with regard to integrating the Fire Scout UAV with the MH-60S manned system.

The entire approach is to shape an operational experience with the two systems working together and then to build forward from that experience.

Ideally, any future acquisition of new systems would build from this operational experience and inform the evolution of fleet capability.

Although the LCS is currently the only ship in the US Navy set up to support integrated Fire Scout/MH-60S operations, obviously this integration can be applied to current or future fleet assets, such as the new frigate.

And the integration effort, which is a work in progress, is part of the overall effort to distribute ISR, C2 and strike and to offboard sensors and strike elements.

Earlier this year, the dyad worked together for the Fire Scout to provide targeting data to an MH-60S to then launch a Hellfire missile.

In an article by Lieutenant Michael DiDonato HSC-23 Public Affairs published on May 15, 2017, this effort was described as follows:

SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND, Calif. (NNS) — The “Wildcards” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 23 made history this month, operating MQ-8B Fire Scout Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV) from Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) San Clemente Island utilizing a Mobile Mission Control Station (MMCS).

Teams of pilots, aircrewmen, maintenance personnel and civilian specialists functioned organically to complete integrated missions with various surface and air assets. 

The two-week operation culminated with the successful employment of the Fire Scout as the laser designating platform for an AGM-114N Hellfire missile, fired from an MH-60S Knighthawk attached to HSC-23 Detachment 2 on board America-class amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6).

Additionally, the team accomplished the first ever long-range transit of the Fire Scout by an operational squadron, executing a “control station handoff” while transiting between NALF San Clemente Island and Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) Pt. Mugu. This operation has paved the way for the future development of the Fire Scout program, functioning as a force multiplier for the larger naval surface community and the tactical application of integrated manned and unmanned platforms in Naval Aviation.

Personnel from HSC-23 began operations from NALF San Clemente Island on May 3. 

Prior to this detachment, Fire Scout operators conducted all flight training at NBVC Pt. Mugu, which is approximately 175 miles northwest of San Diego. Bringing the system to NALF San Clemente Island, which is located 80 miles west of San Diego, afforded many opportunities for integrated training with naval assets due to the multitude of ranges and support facilities around the island. The detachment planned and coordinated events despite an array of logistical hurdles, and established procedures for unmanned air vehicle operations within San Clemente Island airspace.

“A primary goal for this detachment was to showcase the capabilities of the MQ-8B,” said Lt. Cmdr. David Barnhill, officer-in-charge of the detachment. “San Clemente Island broadens the training opportunities for our Fire Scout team and gives us the ability to work with a multitude of assets not otherwise available.”

After completing unit-level training and confidence testing of the Fire Scout system within local and special use airspace during the first week, Fire Scout crewmembers flew range clearance missions and a successful Hellfire missile event in support of USS America Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) on May 10.

“The Hellfire shot was absolutely a highlight for this detachment. It proved that Fire Scout is a viable asset to an already potent team,” continued Barnhill. “But more than that, executing a successful in-flight transfer of the MQ-8B from one air vehicle operator to another over 70 miles away was the biggest milestone. It gives us enormous operational flexibility going forward to work with fleet elements on a regular basis.”

This detachment can be classified as a resounding success by bringing UAV operations to the fleet on a larger scale than ever before. The Fire Scout provides critical mission sets to enhance battlespace awareness as well as providing early warning detection and classification capability. HSC-23 is at the forefront of MQ-8B Fire Scout operations, driving the development and refinement of manned/unmanned tactics and providing a clear path for the future of Fire Scout operators.

HSC-23 “Wildcards” are a Coronado-based expeditionary squadron under Commander, Helicopter Sea Combat Wing Pacific. It is the first squadron to deploy a MH-60S and MQ-8B composite detachment aboard an Independence-class littoral combat ship.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=100454

I had a chance recently to sit down in the Pentagon with Navy officers involved with shaping the composite detachment and thinking through the way ahead in this dynamic and significant area of innovation for the fleet.

The interview was conducted with Lt. Commander Doug Kay, the Fire Scout Assistant Requirements Officer and previously was the air boss on the USS Fort Worth.

The second officer was Commander Ted Johnson, the Fire Scout Requirements Officer and former commander of an MH-60S Seahawk squadron.

And the final officer was Kyle Gantt, a Surface Warfare Officer who works on future ship requirements.

We had a wide-ranging conversation and during that conversation the officers made a number of key points.

First, as one officer put it: “I think one of the benefits of the manned-unmanned teaming concept is you can play to the strengths and weaknesses of each of the two.

“Right now, we’re deploying Fire Scout with MH-60S detachments onboard LCS. Sierra is somewhat sensor deprived.”

The dynamic decision-making is challenging to program into an unmanned platform so the pairing allows the two-man team in the MH-60S to use the data from the Fire Scout to inform their decisions.

“A Fire Scout has much greater persistence than a manned helicopter and allows it to do broad area maritime search with its payloads and to provide queuing for the manned platform.”

The C2 revolution is at the heart of distributed lethality and shaping kill webs.

And the concept of a composite deployment provides support for that revolution.

As one officer put it: “I think it’s all about using the payloads onboard the UAS and being able to efficiently get that information back to the right decision maker whether that right decision maker is in the cockpit of another helicopter, or that decision maker is on the ship.”

Second, the crewing is being shaped to support the manned-unmanned pairing.

Crew needs to be able to maintain, support and to operate two different systems and to do so within the confines of a small ship, the LCS.

This puts a premium on shaping crew skill sets which can synergistically support the composite detachment.

As one officer put it: “When aviators break the aircraft, they fix them, both the manned and the unmanned.

“All the operators, both the crewmen and the pilots are cross-trained to operate both types of aircraft. We have dual qualified operators.”

And the advantage of doing so provided a better understanding of what the dyad could deliver as an overall capability.

“What we have found is that you create a more cohesive team when the MQ-8 operators also know how to fly the 60, and the 60 operators know how to fly the MQ-8, and have changed those roles several times during the week.

“Basically, they then understand the limitations and abilities of each system and the synergy which can be achieved by operating together.”

In effect, what the Navy is creating is a common operational culture shaped by the two systems, rather than creating an unmanned operational ghetto.

Third, the actual operational experience of working a composite detachment will drive future operations and future operational requirements.

It is an iterative process.

Clearly, the US Navy is acting on the assumption that one needs to get the technology into the hands of the warfighter to drive innovation rather than building better briefing charts.

After all, power point slides only kill the audience, not the enemy.

Fourth, the operational experience of the dyad will be part of shaping the way ahead with ship design, and requirements as well.

As one officer put it: “As we look at what ships we need and how to use them in the future, this concept of manned-unmanned teaming both with organic systems as well as the use of national systems use is really critical to how we will use those ships, and how we’ll deliver those capabilities.”

In simple terms, it is about getting best value out of systems, which operate from the deck space.

As one officer put it: “Everything that goes on the ship has to buy its way on the ship through the capability that it delivers.”

In short, the composite detachment is viewed as a cutting edge capability which will be enhanced in the future.

“The future of aviation certainly offers the distributed fleet a suite of capabilities that are met between a pairing of manned and unmanned systems.

“What missions will go to the manned and unmanned, well that remains to be seen, but most definitely the future of aviation is going to be a pairing of both manned systems and unmanned systems.”

Editor’s Note: The slideshow highlights the composite detachment and the photos are credited to the US Navy. 

Enhancing African Maritime Security: The SAAB Approach

2017-07-31 By Guy Martin

Growing maritime threats off Africa’s coastline and new offshore oil and gas finds are driving the need for better maritime security while the drop in the oil price means securing oil and gas supplies is more important than ever as there is less margin for loss.

This is according to Hein van den Ende, Marketing Executive Sub-Saharan Africa at Saab, who told defenceWeb that West Africa’s oil and gas industry is facing a variety of threats, from piracy to sabotage and kidnapping for ransom, especially by militants looking for a share of oil revenues.

Van den Ende said threats are definitely growing in Africa, with more kidnappings in the early 2000s than now, but more attacks on infrastructure currently. Oil and gas facilities have been hit hard by the Niger Delta Avengers in recent time, for example. He said attackers are becoming more sophisticated and realise that sabotaging infrastructure makes a bigger difference than kidnapping. Attacks not only damage Nigeria’s economy through lost production but also cause pollution, which in turn affects fishermen.

According to Oceans Beyond Piracy, there were 95 attacks in West Africa’s Gulf of Guinea in 2016, up from 54 the previous year. Cargo theft, once the main focus of piracy in the region, has given way to an increase in kidnappings, with 96 crew members taken hostage in 2016 compared to 44 in 2015. Oceans Beyond Piracy estimated the total economic cost of maritime crime in West Africa at nearly $794 million.

Apart from militants and pirates, fishermen also interfere with the oil and gas industry by illegally fishing around platforms and getting their nets caught in them – fish are attracted to the platforms’ lights. Van den Ende said such facilities need to be monitored to prevent vessels sailing around them.

West Africa has a relatively shallow coastline, making oil and gas extraction relatively easy, but East African fields are deeper and farther out to sea – as a result the East coast oil and gas industry is far safer. However, off East Africa the biggest maritime threat is from pirates, which have become resurgent of late and launched a string of attacks against vessels off the Horn of Africa. In the first three months of 2017 armed pirates hijacked two vessels, both off the coast of Somalia, where no merchant ship had been hijacked since May 2012. Twenty-eight crew were taken hostage and released within a relatively short time.

The situation in South Africa is much better, with no great threat to the oil and gas industry, but the big challenge is securing the country’s ports. This is especially important in light of the blue economy component of Government’s Operation Phakisa, which is trying to leverage South Africa’s geographic position to become a vessel and oil and as maintenance and repair hub for Africa. Money has been invested in South Africa’s ports, including Saldanha, which requires harbour security and the tracking of vessel movement along the coast.

In April last year President Jacob Zuma said more than R17 billion had been unlocked in the national economy since the launch of the blue economy sector of Operation Phakisa in 2014 and 4 500 jobs created. R7 billion has been allocated to Transnet National Ports Authority to improve ports.

Unlocking the economic potential of South Africa’s ocean focuses on six priority potential growth areas. They are marine transport and manufacturing, offshore oil and gas exploration, aquaculture, marine protection services and ocean governance, small harbours development and coastal and marine tourism.

Unlocking such potential also requires security. According to defence analyst Helmoed Romer Heitman, the whole region, and not just South Africa, needs to be secure from a maritime perspective. “We need the region around us to be stable, secure and prosperous. The better off they are, the more they can buy from us and the fewer illegal immigrants we will have.”

Saab is offering technology to counter threats before they arrive at oil and gas facilities and equip African countries with technology to monitor their assets – both offshore and on land. One of the company’s most successful products is its TactiCall tactical communications solution that is being used in the North Sea. TactiCall is also used by the South African Navy. The system integrates a multitude of different frequency bands, networks and radio equipment into one central user interface solution that makes communication easy, secure and seamless.

Saab also has coastal monitoring solutions in China and India to monitor vessel movement around platforms. Such vessel traffic management systems (VTMS), like its MaritimeInsight, can include a command and control room on land, AIS beacons on platforms and radar and elctro-optical surveillance systems. Standalone detection systems like Saab’s R5 Supreme AIS Transponder System can detect vessels of all sizes from up to 30 km away, give crew sufficient time to identify any vessel approaching, and to call for assistance should they interpret an incoming vessel to be a threat.

“Our biggest strength as Saab is the fact that we can provide a complete solution,” van den Ende said, in a scalable package, including vessel tracking, communications, coastal radar, subsea remotely operated vehicles and other solutions like maritime surveillance aircraft (MSAs). Van den Ende said a maritime surveillance aircraft is the “holy grail” of solutions as it can monitor an entire coastline at a lower cost than ships.

Van den Ende pointed out that because the price of oil has dropped, any losses are more severe and security is actually becoming more of a focus since the oil price drop. He said Saab attended an oil and gas assembly in France and was approached by a number of companies looking for security solutions.

The oil and gas/energy sector is one of Saab’s focus areas as there is a lot of growth in this market, van den Ende said, noting that more sophisticated threats need more sophisticated solutions. “We want to be seen as your security partner in the oil and gas industry. I don’t think there’s any better partner than any partner who can manufacture Gripen fighter jets to submarines.”

Republished with the permission of our partner defenceWeb.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48662:technology-a-force-multiplier-for-african-maritime-security&catid=108:Maritime%20Security&Itemid=233

The Challenge of Setting in Motion US Foreign and Defense Policy Regime Change: The Perspective of Ron Maxwell

2017-07-31 In a piece published on July 31, 2017 by Ron Maxwell, the writer and director of the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, Copperhead looks at why the legacy dominates, and why new approaches remain in the wings.

How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trump’s Foreign Policy

Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in. Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out.

In 2015, as Trump’s rise in the polls raised alarms among establishment Republicans, notable proponents of the neoconservative foreign policy began hedging their bets. Ready to back anyone but Trump, they laid plans for a fallback position in case their favored candidates, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, failed to stop Trump’s populist insurgency. In public expressions and behind-the-scenes maneuvering, they supported Hillary Clinton over the rising Trump. These were die-hard globalists who had argued for every military intervention in the recent past (Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, Libya, Syria, Yemen), and they would become the vanguard of the Never Trump counterinsurgency.

Mitt Romney positioned himself as the standard bearer for the Never Trump forces. As the most recent Republican presidential candidate, he was expected to become an insurmountable obstacle to Trump’s hopes for the nomination with pronouncements such as the following: “Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I’m afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart….Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud.”

Romney then hatched a plan to block Trump’s path to the nomination: “Given the current delegate selection process, that means that I’d vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.”

Within hours of Trump’s emergence as the putative Republican nominee, the Never Trump cadres initiated numerous rearguard actions designed to elect Clinton, whom they correctly saw as the candidate who would implement their neocon foreign policy of regime change, nation-building, humanitarian intervention, meddling in foreign civil wars and domestic affairs, spreading democracy, confronting Russia, maintaining America’s state of perpetual covert and overt war, and requiring the continued presence of hundreds of thousands of troops in every corner of the globe costing billions of taxpayer dollars.  

Romney and his Never Trump network even initiated a last-ditch plan in the event the polls narrowed: throw Utah to an independent candidate. In a close election, they reasoned, neutralizing Utah’s electoral votes could foreclose an Electoral College majority, thus throwing the election into the U.S. House of Representatives. There, establishment loyalists of both parties might throw the victory to Clinton. 

It was not to be. Although many issues influenced the race, certainly one was the antipathy American citizens held for the pointless nonstop wars perpetrated by Beltway political elites. To cite just two indicators, among many: South Carolina primary voters selected Trump over Jeb Bush even after Trump’s over-the-top criticisms of his brother’s decision to go to war in Iraq. A recent study described in the Kansas City Star reveals that Clinton could have won the presidency  if the burden of war was lower in key states. The headline: “Higher war casualties in key swing states may have swung November’s presidential election away from Hillary Clinton.”  

Hardly anyone could miss Trump’s style in victory. If he could have had a Triumphal Arch constructed at government expense on the Washington Mall, he would have done so, along with his own version of Hadrian’s wall at the southern border. His ubiquitous post-campaign rallies are modern day equivalents of Caesars’ triumphal processions through the streets of Rome.

And it wasn’t surprising that the unlikely victor would summon the defeated Mitt Romney for what looked like rounds of public submission and humiliation. Romney was all too eager to oblige, proving once again that those who lust for power can be easily manipulated. 

But through all of that, in thought, word, and deed, the highly networked neocons demonstrated their fierce devotion to the globalist, internationalist, interventionist cause. No amount of failure, death, destruction, or proliferation of failed states in the wake of their implemented strategies compelled a rethinking of their goals or a modification of their utopian theories. 

While prominent neocon and establishment luminaries who derided Trump from the beginning couldn’t expect seats at the Trump table, their lesser known minions infiltrated key precincts of Trump’s transition teams. Their astute sponsors, the neocon bigwigs, knew the neophyte president could not know who was who in the political and policy firmament of Washington. Neocon cadres had had at least a quarter century to embed themselves into every nook and cranny of the federal bureaucracy—at State, Defense, national security agencies, congressional offices, think tanks, nongovernment organizations, and the national media.

Within weeks a pattern emerged in the new administration. Covert Never Trump Republicans were getting hired; proven and loyal Trump supporters were blocked. Of course, notorious neocon Never Trumpers who had signed public letters knew they couldn’t possibly enlist, so they resigned themselves to moving their protégés and acolytes into positions of influence and power. Occasionally they tried for direct access to appointments for themselves, but this was a heavier lift. Elliott Abrams was a case in point. 

Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: “Donald Trump should not be president….He doesn’t have the dignity and stature to be president.” The Washington Post greeted her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom, as “a repudiation of Trump’s America First worldview.” 

Thus it wasn’t surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate for State’s No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very top of the State Department’s hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush’s failed policies of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus. 

Not only was Abrams’ entire career a refutation of Trump’s America First foreign policy, but he had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however, he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: “This is a question of character.…He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln….his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy….Hillary would be better on foreign policy.…I’m not going to vote for Trump….”

But Abrams’ rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains) to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy. 

But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared to move. 

Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president’s policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don’t know any other world view or any other people. 

Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized the Beltway’s hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China’s military buildup and economic threat to America.

Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America’s military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and promote a carefully calibrated America First policy. 

But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of war and peace.

Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good standing of the neocon elite. He’s also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign, and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine. A passage: “My wife said, ‘never,’” said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long, pale hand. ….Even if you say you support him as the nominee,” Hook says, “you go down the list of his positions and you see you disagree on every one.” 

One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network. 

Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.

According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists, from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker, executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations, Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States. 

Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative, has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.

Then there’s Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a “Never Trumper” and has questioned the president’s mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it. 

Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration’s National Security Strategy. Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump’s national security strategy.

How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?  And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney’s entire foreign policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance. 

Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state, tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb. He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal arms strictly to “moderate rebels.” Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor an open ended, unresolved war.

Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she endorsed his presidential bid in 2011.

As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump’s America First policies. Some samples: 

“I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They’ve always been full of themselves. But that’s – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else.” 

“What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and its what we do.” 

“The United States …calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.” 

One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since 1776? 

Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism? Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with the President? 

On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that “Haley’s remarks…set the tone for Trump’s reversal from the less interventionist, ‘America First’ foreign policy he campaigned on.” Little wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump’s foreign policy team. “The current national security team is terrific,” she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the schoolmarm’s pat on the head: “He was engaging,” she said. “I found him on top of his brief….asking really good questions.” That’s a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he “doesn’t have the dignity and stature to be president.”

American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very raison d’etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige, power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in. Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.

This isn’t merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-romney-loyalists-hijacked-trumps-foreign-policy/

This article is republished with the permission of the author. 

Editor’s Note: The Maxwell article highlights a a key challenge to restructuring US foreign and defense policy, namely the continued dominance of the Washington high priesthood.

A key challenge to restructuring US foreign and defense policy is the Washington high priesthood.

President’s may come and go but the establishment remains and establishes the bounds of the permissible.

The only problem is that legacy US and defense policy is not viable in meeting the rapidly challenging world of this decade of the 21st century.

The reset of the strategic elite is crucial if the kinds of intellectual thought necessary to fuel a successful adaptation to the new realities of global competition.

As we wrote earlier this year:

The strategic certainties and alliances of the post Cold War world are all now facing severe challenges.

The certainties of the period of globalization are clearly contested on many fronts.

The causes of this crisis are multiple.

Some see the causes as originating in the imperial overreach of the United States in the Middle East. Others blame the imperial overreach of Europe to the borders of Russia. Some blame Russia and Putin for the seizure of the Crimea.

But these causes will be the subject for future historians.

What is clear now is that a new phase is beginning which requires clear headed analysis.

The tectonic plates are shifting and the United States needs to think carefully about the prospects and consequences of these profound changes between (and within) nations, and how best to respond to this new world order (or disorder).

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-next-phase-of-global-dynamics-shaping-a-new-strategic-map/

The coming of Trump to Washington could have ushered in this kind of rethink.

It has not happened so far, and, in part, it is the weight of the legacy Republican Party in this case projecting the verities of the past as proper policy.

But one can ask how legacies of nation building and stability operations are going to help the US to get ready for the kind of high tempo and high intensity threats on the doorsteps of the nation?

One can ask how the nation will be respond the last NORAD and Northcom’s Commanders plea to ramp up to deal with the threats from the 10 and 2 O’clock to the nation?

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/north-american-defense-and-the-evolving-strategic-environment-admiral-gortney-focuses-on-the-need-to-defend-north-america-at-the-ten-and-two-oclock-positions/

This is a notional rendering of the 10 and 2 O’Clock challenge. It is credited to Second Line of Defense and not in any way an official rendering by any agency of the US government. It is meant for illustration purposes only.

If one wants to comment on this article, please see the following:

The Challenge of Regime Change: Ron Maxwell Looks at Why Resetting US Foreign Policy is Stalled

Software Upgradeability and Combat Dominance: General Ellen Pawlikowski Looks at the Challenge

07/30/2017

2017-07-18 By Robbin Laird

I have focused in several interviews on the basic shift towards building software upgradeable platforms as the base line for shaping a 21st century air enabled combat force.

The strategic shift has been to develop and buy core multi-mission platforms and to modernize them through software upgrades.

Yet the US acquisition system and its business rules are not set up to manage this historical transition.

The result will be much slower modernization and needless combat deaths or combat failures as reactive enemies seek to exploit slo mo software modernization caused by bureaucratically determined requirements priorities.

Indeed a key capability necessary to stay ahead in the tron warfare world is much more rapid software upgrades.

The Aussies have referred to this as the challenge of software transient advantage and have highlighted the need to shape a 21st century acquisition system, which allows this to happen.

They are trying to make this happen in key programs like the Wedgetail.

In an interview with Group Captain Bellingham, the Officer Commanding 42 Wing, this process was discussed as follows:

Question: During the visit, we have been in the squadron building, the hangar and in the System Program Office collocated with the squadron.

What advantages does that bring?

Group Captain Bellingham: “It facilitates a close working relationship between the combat force and the system developers.

“We can share our combat experiences with the RAAF-industry team in the SPO and to shape a concrete way ahead in terms of development.

“The team is very proactive in working collaboratively to get to the outcome we’re looking for.”

A No.2 Squadron E-7A Wedgetail aircraft takes off from RAAF Base Williamtown.

Question: In the SPO facility, you have a Virtual Wedgetail, which is the currently configured Wedgetail systems but located on the ground.

How has that worked for you?

Group Captain Bellingham: “It is crucial for reaching out to the warfighting community. We have plugged into both Army and Navy officer training courses.

“We are using it to work closely with the Army and Navy getting ready for our Fall exercise with the LHD to shape a task force concept of the amphibious ships.

It provides a realistic way for Army and Navy officers to see what we contribute to their warfighting tasks.

“We need a crew in the Virtual Wedgetail to make it work because they have to have the right experience and background to provide that level of reality to the force which then the warfighters can experience what we can bring right now to the fight.

https://sldinfo.com/visiting-williamtown-airbase-the-wedgetail-in-evolution/

For transient software advantage to become the coin of the realm, the operators need to be working directly with the software code writers without the interference from hierarchically distant acquisition officials and “testers.”

Once the platform has been built and software enabled, then the users and the code writers need to be funded to provide capabilities, which the platform as a system can deliver.

Acquisition leadership then becomes strategically sorting through which capability should be enhanced on which platform within the evolving 21st century combat force.

The RAF officer in charge of the ISTAR force described this shift to strategic acquisition leadership as opposed to hierarchical assurance of slow mo software upgrades as follows:

“We have the iPhone 6 generation in the Force now, yesterday’s analogue approach to our business is no longer appropriate.

“With the aperture fully open, the individual platforms and capabilities become the apps that enable the integrated Force ‘iPhone’.

“Thinking of it in this way, will allow us to tap this new generation of warriors.”

Air Commodore Dean Andrew. Credit: RAF

He also seeks to build a sense of strategic purpose and community from bottom to top. 

He cited the example of when President Johnson met a janitor at the NASA space center in Houston and when asked what he was doing, the janitor replied: “I am helping put a man on the moon, Mr. President.”

“We are driving to a similar mindset in the ISTAR Force – everyone contributing regardless of where they work.”

He argued that this perspective was essential to mission success.

“The paradigm shift needs to be cultural and organizational if the ISTAR force with a large F to become a reality.

“We are going from a tradition where we have operated isolated force elements to one where an integrated force can deliver 24/7 support and we need to shape a Whole Force solution approach.”

Getting it right for ISTAR is critical to the success of the RAF’s contributions to operations and to the UK’s intelligence and understanding of the world.

The Air Commodore concluded:

“One cannot simply pause, and recapitalize the force in a vacuous power point exercise.

“It is about transformation ‘in contact’ and ensuring that we leverage maximum integrated capability from the new platforms coming to the RAF, while re-brigading the legacy systems as best we can and putting in place the foundations required for an adaptable, upgradeable and technology driven capital F force in the 2025 time frame and beyond.”

https://sldinfo.com/transforming-the-royal-air-forces-istar-force-a-discussion-with-air-commodore-dean-andrew/

Recently,General Ellen Pawlikowski, Commander of Air Force Materiel Command, provided a hard-hitting overview on how important she thought the need to break through on management of software upgradeability.

At a Mitchell Institute breakfast meeting on July 14, 2017, she focused on the barriers and need to shape a combat force, which was empowered by agile software development.

Her presentation focused on what she referred to as the cultural barriers to change but being even blunter the current acquisition approach guarantees that unnecessary review and control layers in the bureaucracy will slow software upgradeability.

One could easily ask how many acquisition officials could even read let alone write code, but the broader point is that the so-called oversight system needs to be radically changed.

The General was kinder and gentler than I am being here.

But she was certainly direct enough in her outstanding presentation on the challenge and how to meet it.

The acquisition system has been built around a 20th century systems engineering model, one which sets requirements and designs the way ahead in a manner in an iterative requirements process which is simply inappropriate for a software driven force.

“We are very much enamored with our systems engineering processes in the Department of Defense.

“We have processes that drive us to start with requirements and continue to work those requirements through rigorous testing.

“When I was on the job at SMC I learned that OCS had failed their preliminary design review.

“But preliminary design reviews don’t make any sense when you are doing software development.

“Agile Software development is all abut getting capability out there.

“The systems engineers approach drive you to a detailed requirements slow down.”

She highlighted that this cultural barrier, namely reliance on the historical systems engineering approach, needed to be removed.

“We have to change the way we think about requirements definition if we’re going to really adopt Agile Software Development.

“Maybe the answer isn’t this detailed requirements’ slow down.”

“By the way, once you put it in the hands of the operator maybe some of those requirements you had in the beginning, maybe they don’t make any sense anymore because the operator sees how they can actually use this and they change it.”

She went on to highlight what the Aussies are doing in Willliamtown with Wedgetail without mentioning them at all. 

“You need to put the coder and the user together…

“We have to empower at the right level, and that has to be at the level of the person that’s going to use the software, and we have to stop thinking about independent OT.”

She then went after the way sustainment is thought about for the software enterprise.

“The other thing that we have is this idea that software is developed and then sustained.

“What the heck does that mean?

“Software doesn’t break.

“You may find something that doesn’t work the way you thought it was, but it doesn’t break.

“You don’t bring it in for corrosion mitigation or overhaul on the engines.

“When you’re look at what we do in software sustainment a lot of it is continually improving the software.”

General Ellen Pawlikowski, Commander of Air Force Materiel Command, at the Mitchell Institute breakfast, July 14, 2017. Credit: SLD

She also argued that we need to change the approach to contracts and to the working relationship with industry.

“The teams are there for life.

“I don’t mean that it’s one person, but we don’t think about putting a team together to do the development and then push them out the door.

“That team stays with that system forever…

“We need to make the user the operational user and acceptance authority.

“Perhaps we need to shift to more use of time and materials contracts to support such teams.”

In effect, if the shift is to build the kill web rather than buy stovepiped systems the ability to manage software upgradeability in an agile manner is a crucial capability.

“Right now, the network is the tail on the dog.

“The weapons systems are the big ones that call all the shots.

“Just think about the challenges you’ve always had at getting new GPS capability on our platforms.

“We only do it 1/15th of the schedule for the hardware.

“That’s not going to work.

“How are we going to do this right?

“Some of it is cultural.

“Some of it we’re going to have to drive changes in DOD and Air Force policy.”