In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
According to Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, the Syrian government aborted a planned chemical strike following the administration’s threats at the beginning of the week to preempt or punish another attack.
The White House warning to the Syrian government that it would “pay a heavy price” came after the Pentagon detected preparations for chemical weapons use at the same Shayrat Airfield that the U.S. military attacked with dozens of cruise missiles in April, following its use in a Sarin gas that killed almost one hundred civilians.
Last month, U.S. forces shot down a Syrian Air Force fighter-bomber that was attacking U.S.-backed fighters near Raqqa as well as some Iranian drones threatening these forces.
These recent events give credence to the statements administration officials made in recent weeks describing their strategy and tactics to avert WMD use and proliferation.
Though the details await completion of several interagency reviews, the new approach essentially consists of ensuring nonproliferation through a combination of firmness and strength.
This January, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff launched a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the fourth in U.S. history. Its goal is “to ensure that the United States nuclear deterrent is modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st-century threats and reassure our allies.
The Trump administration is also conducting a Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Review “to identify ways of strengthening missile-defense capabilities, rebalancing homeland and theater defense priorities, and highlighting priority funding areas.”
Meanwhile, other reviews will analyze regional proliferation challenges and whether universal nuclear nonproliferation and global nuclear disarmament are realistic goals.
The main National Security Council official overseeing nuclear nonproliferation issues, Christopher Ford, formerly at Hudson Institute and now a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Counterproliferation, offered a revealing though understudied presentation on these issues at last month’s annual meeting of the Arms Control Association.
Explicitly seeking to dissipate misconceptions about the administration’s approach through misinterpretations of Trump’s various remarks and tweets, Ford explained that Trump opposes the spread of weapons of mass destruction, terming it “the single biggest problem” for international security. “So strong are his feelings about the unacceptability of WMD use against innocent civilians,” Ford observed, “that he went through the trouble of blowing up a Syrian airfield.”
However, Trump believes that a prerequisite for reducing proliferation incentives was to restore the strength and credibility of U.S. military threats that had eroded in recent years.
In Ford’s words, Trump holds that “the maintenance and wise application of U.S. strength and resolve is not inimical to international peace and security, but rather essential to it.”
For example, Trump believes that a resurgence in the perceived U.S. ability and will to employ military power would make China and North Korea think twice about making nuclear threats to U.S. allies like South Korea and Japan. Seoul and Tokyo would also have less incentive to pursue their own nuclear deterrents the more confident they were in U.S. military security guarantees.
“Characteristically,” Ford observed, “the president has made these points in ways that are perhaps more blunt and direct than it is usual to hear in traditional inside-the-beltway discourse. But at their core … these comments rest upon a good deal of common sense… and arguments that we have heard from nonproliferation experts for years.”
Specifically, “that the credibility and capabilities inherent in U.S. extended deterrence relationships are essential to assuring allies of the solidity of our alliance guarantees…. [and for] reducing proliferation incentives in regions of the world in which U.S. allies confront the specter of aggression by a rogue state or by a large neighbor with territorial ambitions.”
In his comments, Ford affirmed that the administration was also fighting nuclear proliferation with the traditional means: “including supporting international nonproliferation regimes, securing or eliminating vulnerable nuclear material worldwide, preventing the spread of dual use and other enabling technologies and capabilities, ensuring effective safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities, and interdicting proliferation shipments, and otherwise doing all they can to slow the development of threat programs.”
Ford also affirmed that the administration was striving to ensure U.S. and foreign compliance with the New START Treaty limitations and the Iranian nuclear deal, and did not see a need to resume testing nuclear weapons anytime soon, even as the White House was reviewing options for dealing with Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty, strategic arms control beyond New START, the possible need for new nuclear weapons, and how to keep Iran and North Korea from becoming nuclear weapons states.
In developing these options, Ford insisted that the administration was striving to ensure that the various interagency strategic reviews, including those dealing with Korea and Iran, were considering “a gazillion different options” by addressing a comprehensive range of political-military issues associated with the issue rather than narrow nuclear considerations alone.
Nonetheless, Ford did suggest that the Trump administration would not follow what it saw as the last Nuclear Posture Review’s “explicitly prioritize[ing] reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy over maintaining strategic deterrence and stability, over strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies, and over sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal.”
For example, Trump thought that the proliferation of nuclear weapons had proceeded too far to attain the strict preconditions to realize universal nuclear disarmament anytime soon.
In line with this logic, at an April session of the UN Disarmament Commission, the U.S. delegate criticized proposals to ban nuclear weapons immediately without verification as an “ill-conceived endeavour” that would harm the existing NPT regime “without securing the elimination of a single nuclear warhead or improving the security of any state” since the ban effort was proceeding without the support of the existing nuclear weapons states and ignore the concerns of many countries that rely on U.S. extended nuclear security guarantees.
Therefore, the immediate task was to discourage further horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation by other states through sustaining U.S. nuclear superiority over any potential adversary.
In Ford’s words, “it is precisely our willingness to engage in such competition if we are forced to that he hopes will persuade potential adversaries… that path is a losing game.”
According to the State Department, the U.S. experts engaged in the NPR were considering how to strengthen execution of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by addressing cases of NPT noncompliance or withdrawal, growing nuclear arsenals, the challenging international security environment, and how to allow peaceful nuclear energy development without facilitating nuclear weapons programs.
Furthermore, Ford said that Trump would not deny the United States the option of first using nuclear weapons to augment deterrence through “a degree of strategic ambiguity.” in strengthening the NPT and Iran nuclear deal, the administration considered it better to have no negotiated agreements than bad ones.
During my March 2017 visit to RAF Lossiemouth, I had a chance to talk with two Typhoon squadrons, namely II(AC) and 6 Squadron.
The squadrons have been busy in the past few months with various global engagements.
In the words, of the station commander at RAF Lossiemouth, Group Captain Paul Godfrey:
“In my entire time in the Royal Air Force, I’ve not seen a global deployment as we managed at the end of last year with our deployment to Malaysia, Japan and Korea.
Throughout the period we visited the United Arab Emirates, India, Malaysia, Japan, The Republic of Korea, Brunei and back through India, UAE and Greece which is about as global a deployment as you can get.”
A key aspect of being able to do this is clearly support forward.
And given that there are no Eurofighters operating by Asian air forces, engagement in the Pacific poses the challenge of organizing organic support and getting it right.
I had a chance to discuss this challenge with Squadron Leader Chris Harris from 6 Squadron.
He is in charge of the A4 element in the squadron, which is the air logistics engineering support element for the squadron.
The RAF unlike the USAF tends to bundle in a wider range of specialties into the logistics support element, including crew escape systems and support, the power support element for electrical and wiring systems, the power support elements (engine hydraulics, etc.) and the technicians who work the skin as well.
“We have just deployed to Red Flag and have the upgraded software associated with the latest variant of Typhoon, which is P1eb.
“We also operated our most advanced defensive aide systems on the aircraft as well at Red Flag.”
95642random1.05.0
The deployment to Red Flag was part of the cycle of readiness for the squadron, as it gets ready to deploy on global Operations.
As Red Flag is an air-to-air exercise, this deployment fit into that aspect of the readiness training in preparation for deployment.
Question: What was the challenge of supporting 6 squadron at Red Flag?
Squadron Leader Harris: “The P1eb variant is much easier to sustain on operations than earlier Typhoons.
“It is much more reliable.
“We deployed with a single Voyager in support and carried with us our Engineering Support System (ESS), which is how we maintain the aircraft.
“These are computers with a database, which interacts with the aircraft to provide data on aircraft performance and status issues.
“The challenge of course is to design a realistic projection of the parts which we will need during deployment.
“When we are designing our logistics support to take with us we have to really think about what we are going to take with us.”
Question: How do you use the ESS system to support the aircraft?
Squadron Leader Harris: “We do not download the data from the aircraft after every flight, because the aircraft can fly a few sorties before you need to plug it into the laptop to report on its performance.
“We check the maintenance data panel on the side before flying the aircraft and that will tell you whether you have any critical faults.
“We call the no go’s.
“When we do plug the aircraft into the laptop we get a lot more detailed information.
“Based on what we learn we might do more maintenance as required.”
91051random1.05.0
Squadron Leader Harris indicated that the shift from the earlier Typhoons to the latest provided a significant enhancement in terms of the maintainability of the aircraft, which obviously affects its ability to deploy away from home base as well.
He described one challenge, which involved the installation of the new defensive aid systems.
The new systems had been installed shortly before deploying to Red Flag.
Given the high performance of this system subsequently in Red Flag, this was a good addition, but placed a challenge on the table for the support element accompanying the aircraft for deployment.
“Obviously, one of the functions of the exercise as well was to test our ability to operate with a long supply chain and to enhance our ability to support expeditionary operations.
“And we now have a more experienced A4 group than before with several years of experience in supporting Typhoon on operations as well.”
For an earlier interview on the support system for Typhoon, see the following:
The Engineering Support System is an electronic record system – it provides configuration assurance and is in effect a maintenance log for the Typhoon Fleet.
The system collects essential data from the aircraft, which once downloaded helps with the aircraft’s maintenance and availability programme.
During my visit to RAF Lossiemouth in March 2017, I got an update on the evolving experience of the Typhoon as an expeditionary force.
My discussion with the Squadron Leader for II(AC) Squadron, Martin Pert, highlighted the evolving experience of II(AC) Squadron with the aircraft.
Most recently, RAF Typhoons have been involved in both Red and Green Flag in the United States as the air to air and air to ground capabilities of the aircraft are evolving and their contribution to airpower enhanced.
Again they brought the latest version of Typhoon the P1eb.
The evolution of Typhoon and the arrival of the P1eb aircraft is described by BAE Systems as follows:
Phase 1 Enhancements Further Work (P1Eb FW) is an evolution of the current Tranche 2 Typhoon aircraft in service with the UK. The P1Eb standard Typhoons entered service last year.
P1Eb FW is the first part of the UK’s Project CENTURION, the package of enhancements which aims to deliver a seamless transition of capability from Tornado to Typhoon by the end of 2018.
The upgrades will bring numerous new capabilities, including additional Human-Machine Interface technologies and additions to the aircraft’s Air to Surface targeting capability.
These latest upgrades has successfully undergone trial installation and Operational Evaluation with 41 (R) Squadron, the RAF’s Test and Evaluation Squadron (TES) at RAF Coningsby, is now underway.
Flt Lt Luke Gili-Ross, from the RAF’s 41 (R) Squadron (TES), said: “The integration of P1Eb Further Work is an important and necessary incremental step towards Phase 2 Enhancements (P2E) for the aircraft. On the surface, it appears to deliver quite small improvements, but for the operator they may be significant in terms of the aircraft’s continued effectiveness.”
Paul Ascroft, Technical Lead for Project CENTURION at BAE Systems, said: “The achievement of the deliver of P1EB Further Work capability is an important milestone. Working with 41 Squadron, we are now undergoing Operational Evaluation and this is progressing well. This work is providing lessons learnt for the forthcoming packages, while achieving the first step on the journey and setting the standard of how the RAF and industry can work effectively together.”
Following the achievement of these latest upgrades to the aircraft, the first tranche of enhancements as part of Project CENTURION will continue with the delivery of the Phase 2 Enhancement package, which provides additional Human-Machine Interface and availability improvements, along with the initial integration of the Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air to Air missile and the Storm Shadow stand-off Air to Surface weapon.
The next and final upgrades deliver the Phase 3 Enhancement package which includes the final integration of Storm Shadow and Meteor capabilities, as well as the introduction of the Brimstone 2 close air support Air to Surface capability.
Squadron Leader Martin Pert came to Typhoon from Harrier so ground attack is not a foreign concept to him.
During Green Flag, he flew with USAF F-15 pilots in providing ground support to UK and US JTACs in the exercise.
He highlighted what he saw as a cultural transformation for Typhoon pilots in moving from a world where the core role was air superiority to becoming proficient multi-role pilots, in which ground attack was a core mission.
“We are a multi-role platform.
“We have a lot of junior pilots here who have been focusing on the air-air environment, attributable to the nature of operations II(AC) Sqn has conducted over the last 18 months to 2 years.
“The junior pilots who have been on the squadron during that period are now expected to change into a multi-role mindset where they need to be focused not just on the counter-air but into air to surface operations as well.”
Green Flag which is an air to ground exercise obviously was an important experience in this transition.
“The exercise itself hasn’t changed since I went to a Green Flag in the Harrier.
“It’s still the same problems, it’s still the same tactical flow of dealing with understanding ground commanders’ intent, using every possible asset you have available to you both on the ground and in the air, to prioritize and task focus.
“So actually, there was nothing mind bending or novel that came out of the exercise.”
No. II (AC) Squadron at Green Flag. Credit: Photograph by Geoffrey Lee, Planefocus Ltd
And the exercise involves cross learning between the pilots and the JTACs with regard to what can realistically be delivered in the ground support role.
“I wouldn’t refer to it as a testing ground, but it’s a great proving ground for guys who’ve spent a lot of time in the synthetics and now doing it in the air combat environment.
“They are utilizing the kit that’s now new to them, and take it to the real world, and take it to the real guy who’s on the ground.”
The earlier Typhoons, Tranche 1 could drop only Paveway 2 which is a bunker busting type of capability.
Now the Typhoons carry Paveway IV and are being integrated with Storm Shadows and Brimstone as well so the arsenal for ground attack is evolving for Typhoon.
As Raytheon put it with regard to Paveway IV:
Raytheon UK is the design authority for Paveway™ IV bomb, which has all-weather strike capability and is deployable on Tornado GR4, Typhoon and the JSF.
The Paveway IV bomb is the latest generation guided weapon selected by the UK MOD for the Precision Guided Bomb program, and has been deployed since 2008 on all UK combat operations. The combat-proven dual-mode guidance, together with height-of-burst and penetrating capability in one weapon system, enables the decision of target engagement to be made right up to the point of release.
The Paveway IV bomb was successfully deployed with the RAF as part of Operations Herrick and Ellamy, achieving 98 percent accuracy. Raytheon UK-funded SPIRAL developments include moving target engagement capability, low-yield warhead variant, penetrator warhead development and range extension.
Part of the cultural change, which Pert discussed, was shifting from the two seat Tornado with a weapons officer onboard to operating weapons from a single seat aircraft.
“We’re expecting these junior pilots to be on their own, working to the same level of fidelity that they’ve had prior to that with a guy in the back who’s sitting in the weapons manger’s seat and directing fire.”
Dynamic tasking is an especially challenging task to learn as well, and exercises like Red and Green Flag are crucial to the learning curve.
“You’ve been airborne for five or six hours already, and now you’re expected to go somewhere completely different to the situation and area where you have been briefed to operate, and now you have to execute a different mission set than you were expecting to perform.”
We discussed the impact of the F-35 as well on the way ahead.
“I see the F-35 as the whip-cracker, whether it be rear or forward, driving Typhoons around to complete the task using best available assets.
“With the Typhoon effectively as his work horse with the F-35 as a kind of goal-keeper.”
And as the RAF blends F-35 with Typhoon, the question of how best weaponize the combat fleet will become a key priority for shaping the way ahead.
“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.”
Clearly, a major task facing the evolving combat force is dynamically tasking the weapons load from the air-naval force.
“We’re talking about pilot shortages or manning crises that we see on headlines every day.
“Who are the people that we really need to focus that training on?
“And how do you best use fliers at the moment?
“How do you best increase their corporate experience so that everyone’s knowledge is improved?
“I think we have to make decisions on who those people are going to be now.”
Editor’s Note: For our last interviews with II(AC) Squadron, see the following:
2017-06-29 During a visit to Norway earlier this year, the Norwegian Deputy Minister of Defense underscored the importance of allies building new missile capabilities for the F-35 as a coalition aircraft.
In the discussion with Mr. Øystein BØ, the State Secretary and Deputy Defense Minister at the Norwegian Ministry of Defense, the F-35 and the Norwegian JSM was discussed as follows:
An aspect of the F-35 program, which is not generally realized, is the importance of allied investments in capabilities, which can be used across the F-35 global enterprise.
In the Norwegian case, the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), which is considered a crucial asset in providing for maritime defense of Norway, is available to other NATO-allies flying the F-35 as well.
“This is a 21st century aspect of burden sharing as our investments in ‘our’ missile benefits all F-35 users of this missile across the globe, whether in Japan, Australia or in Europe.”
“It is not money that just goes directly into our armed forces, but it’s a lot of money that goes into developing capabilities that the alliance needs. It is about contributing to our joint security as well.”
In April 2017, the Australian Department of Defence signed on with Kongsberg to work on the JSM.
Kongsberg Defence Systems has entered into a contract with Defence for the integration of a new capability in the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) worth the equivalent of $23 million.
The unique, state-of-the-art radio frequency (RF) seeker sensor developed by BAE Systems Australia will enable the JSM to locate targets on the basis of their electronic signature, Kongsberg said in a statement.
This contract is a result of an agreement between Australia and Norway to cooperate on the further development of the JSM that was announced in February 2015.
“JSM is the fifth-generation long-range precision strike missile that will be integrated for internal carriage on the F-35,” Kongsberg stated. “Using a combination of advanced materials, ability to fly low, while following the terrain and using advanced passive seekers, the missile is extremely difficult to detect and stop, even for the most advanced countermeasures and defence systems.”
BAE Systems stated that the signing of the contract will enable Kongsberg to continue the integration and qualification of the passive RF sensor.
“The company will provide a low-cost, lightweight and highly sensitive electronic support measure receiver for incorporation on JSM, which will feature an additional land attack and littoral attack capability, as well as a two-way communications line for target adjustment and inflight termination,” BAE Systems stated.
“In its work with Kongsberg, BAE Systems has delivered a pre-production passive RF sensor for the JSM program, which was used to perform fit checks, system integration and support flight-testing in a development-standard missile.”
In support of the contract, BAE Systems will supply new sensors to Kongsberg for use in its qualification activities.
“This is a great example of niche technology being developed through government and industry collaboration that has the potential to provide long-term, sustainable exports for Australia,” said BAE Systems Australia chief executive Glynn Phillips.
The company stated that the technology was developed with the support of a Defence-funded program, and that it received a grant in 2013 to help commercialise the technology.
“We are very pleased that Australia joins the development of JSM by funding the integration of the RF seeker, and that we together can increase the JSM capabilities,” said Eirik Lie, president of Kongsberg Defence Systems.
Now Japan is moving forward in considering JSM for its own F-35s as a land attack and naval attack component for its air combat force.
According to a June 26, 2017 article published by Yomiuri Shimbun, the Japanese Government mulls equipping F-35s with air-to-surface missiles.
The government is considering equipping cutting-edge F-35 stealth fighters with air-to-surface missiles, which are capable of striking remote targets on land, and plans to deploy these fighters to the Air Self-Defense Force, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.
It will become the first introduction of such missiles for the Self-Defense Forces. The government hopes to allocate relevant expenses in the fiscal 2018 budget, according to sources close to the government. The main purpose of the introduction is to prepare for emergencies on remote Japanese islands, while some experts believe the government is also eyeing possession of the capability of attacking targets such as enemy bases for the purpose of defending the country.
According to the sources, F-35 fighter jets that will replace the ASDF’s F-4 fighter aircraft are employed by U.S. forces and others. The F-35 aircraft has an advanced stealth capability that makes the aircraft less visible on enemy radar. The ASDF plans to introduce a total of 42 units of the F-35 and gradually deploy them to the Misawa Air Base in Aomori Prefecture starting at the end of this fiscal year. The government is considering introducing some additional capabilities for the aircraft.
The most likely option the government is currently focusing on is the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) that is being developed mainly by Norway, which also participated in an international project to develop the F-35. The ASDF currently has no air-to-surface missile capabilities, but the JSM has both air-to-ship and air-to-surface capabilities, with an estimated range of about 300 kilometers.
The Defense Ministry is building up national defense systems to defend remote islands, such as the Nansei Islands. In addition to deploying new Osprey transport aircraft to the Ground Self-Defense Force, the ministry plans to create an amphibious rapid deployment brigade, similar to other nations’ marines.
As an air-to-surface missile has a long range, it is possible to effectively strike a target from safe airspace. For this to be possible, the ministry decided it was necessary to consider introducing the JSM to prepare for situations such as preventing foreign military vessels from approaching remote islands or the SDF launching an operation to regain control of an occupied island.
Meanwhile, if the F-35 aircraft with an advanced stealth capability is equipped with long-range air-to-surface missiles, it will effectively be possible to use the F-35 to attack bases in foreign countries.
The government has said that the Constitution allows Japan to possess the capability of striking enemy bases, but the nation does not actually possess the capability as its political decisions have been based on an exclusively defense-oriented policy.
If Japan introduces air-to-surface missiles, it could prompt opposition from neighboring countries. Therefore, the government is believed to be seeking the understanding of those countries by explaining that it does not intend to use the capability to attack enemy bases, but to defend remote islands.
However, with North Korea continuing its nuclear and missile development programs and repeatedly conducting provocative actions, there are growing calls for the government to possess the capability to strike enemy bases to improve Japan’s deterrence.
Amid such a situation, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has expressed on multiple occasions his intention to consider the issue. On June 20, the Liberal Democratic Party’s Research Commission on Security compiled an interim report on proposals for the next medium-term defense program for fiscal 2019-23, in which it called for the government to swiftly start discussions on possessing the capability to attack enemy bases.
Another year, another defence budget, and once again the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) is left short-changed and under-funded, as it has been for almost a quarter of a century, despite periods of high operational commitments and tempo.
That mismatch between funding and commitments has delayed replacement of old equipment (30+ year old infantry combat vehicles and trucks) and closing critical capability gaps (lack of maritime aircraft and airlift capacity). It has also undermined training and demoralised military personnel to the point where some of the best exit the Defence Force.
In parallel, the defence industry has shrunk from some 130 000 people to just 15 000, some of the brightest being hired by defence companies overseas. And it is losing ground in the international market for lack of new products, because the Defence Force lacks the funds to order new equipment into service or to fund research and development.
It is well past time for government to decide what sort of Defence Force it wants, and to fund it accordingly, or to scale down its ambitions to fit the Defence Force it is willing to fund. What we have today, is a Defence Force that cannot conduct the regional operations the government envisages (ACIRC, African Standby Force), but that is too large and expensive to be a border guard. Neither fish nor fowl. The Defence Force cannot go on like that; nor will it serve us well in a crisis if we do not refocus and correct the trend.
Similarly, we have what is potentially a very capable defence industry, but will lose it if there is no flow of local orders for new equipment to interest other armed forces. And with that we will lose its forex earnings and import replacement capacity, as well as the skills and technology spin-offs a defence industry provides. Not to mention its 15 000 jobs, and the secondary jobs that depend on them.
Both the Defence Force and the industry have been in deep trouble for some years, and we are now at a stage beyond just having to decide what we want; we must now also begin damage control lest we wind up with a Defence Force that is nothing more than sheltered employment, and only memories of a once-advanced industry.
The starting point must be to establish what our defence requirements are, and prioritise them. Then we can focus the damage control effort to ensure that the required military and industrial capabilities are not lost, and that the basis for later expansion is retained.
That does not mean simply dropping everything else: there is no sense in dropping something because we do not need it today, if there is a likelihood – or even a good chance – that we will need it the day after tomorrow. Defence capabilities take too long to develop to be so careless with them. The aim must be to retain balanced, general-purpose forces that can be refocused and expanded should the strategic situation so require – assuming funding allows.
What then is it that the Defence Force must or should be able to do, and in what priority order?
A logical progression of roles, and therefore of mission sets and capability requirements might be as set out below:
Priority 1: Border Protection: This would include the land border, the coastline and mainland exclusive economic zone, and our air space. It should also include the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around the Prince Edward and Marion islands.
Priority 2: Key Infrastructure Protection: This would include the actual ‘national key points’ such as airports, ports, rail junctions, power stations, dams, water treatment plants, telephone exchanges, plus more dispersed things like the national power grid and the rail traffic management system. It must also include protection of data networks providing the communications backbone and controlling key infrastructure.
Priority 3: Protection of External Vital Interests: This would include the Cahora Bassa hydro-electric power station and its transmission lines to South Africa, the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme and its canals, pipelines and tunnels to South Africa, and the Mozambique Channel, through which almost all of our imported oil is moved. Looking slightly further ahead, it would include Maputo port and the Mozambican and Namibian gas fields and the pipelines from there to South Africa. Yet further into the future it would have to include the Grand Inga hydro-electric scheme in the DRC and its transmission lines, and possibly power stations in Botswana built to supply South Africa.
Priority 4: Protection of National Interests: This is an area that will prove more difficult to define, but ‘national interests’ would clearly include a stable Southern African Development Community (SADC), securing the SADC against threats along its northern border, and safe maritime trade in southern African waters, and perhaps outside the immediate region.
Priority 5: Deterrence and Defence: This would include discouraging any military adventures not just against South Africa, but also in the immediate region, and discouraging interference with maritime trade. Where threats do eventuate, there must be the military capability to counter them effectively and efficiently. Threats could range from terrorism through spill-over from a guerrilla war in a neighbouring country, to a cross-border guerrilla threat or deliberate interference with maritime trade by a country, and finally to a conventional military threat. Most of them unlikely, but extremely damaging if they should occur.
Each of these roles will comprise several mission sets and require certain capabilities, some of which will overlap with those of other roles. Those defence capabilities, in turn, will generate defence industry capability requirements.
The key is for government to bring itself to taking a clear decision as to what role South Africa intends to play: continental, regional, local or isolationist? If the latter, an isolationist state that relies on others to protect its interests, or an isolationist power that ignores its region but will lash out to protect its interests? Only when government has finally taken that decision, will it become possible to develop rational national security and defence policies, defence and military strategies, a coherent force design and a supporting defence industry strategy.
Republished with permission of our partner defenceWeb
During my visit to RAF Lossiemouth in March 2017, I had a chance to talk with Wing Commander Billy Cooper, the boss of 6 Squadron. His father had served in 6 Squadron after World War II, so there is real passion and commitment to the squadron which filters through from the Wing Commander.
This years Red Flag (RF 16-1 17-1) saw the Aussies bring Wedgetail, the RAF bring their most advanced Typhoons, the USAF both their F-35s and F-22s along with F-15s and the US Navy flew their Growlers.
In effect, this massing of advanced airframes is setting in motion the restructuring of Western airpower and shaping templates for the way ahead.
It is clear that the F-35 has already had a major impact on the thinking of operators and, in effect, Red Flag 17-1 saw the operators evaluating how the aircraft would work together in reshaping their operational rhythm in the combat space.
And as they did so, a way ahead in terms of Weaponization, C2 and related issues would emerge .
The F-35 has arrived and is reshaping concepts of operations as well as influencing the operational restructuring of roles and mission responsibilities of other air combat assets.
This came through very clearly in the discussion with the Wing Commander.
The RAF is in an interesting place in the reshaping of airpower.
Notably, they are carrying out an upgrade program for their Typhoons in preparation for the arrival of the F-35s, and are adding longer range strike weapons, both in terms of air to air and air to ground.
They assume, correctly, that having longer range strike assets makes sense as simply operating aircraft like Super Hornets with short-range weapons makes little sense as the F-35 shapes the strike space for the combat fleet.
Prior to discussing Red Flag 17-1, we discussed the evolution of Typhoon as a complimentary aircraft to the F-35.
It takes time for a combat aircraft to become truly proficient and this clearly has been the case of Typhoon.
93747random1.05.0
As the Wing Commander put it: “We put Jaguar and other legacy pilots into Typhoon which was a radically different aircraft. It took time to adjust to its performance envelope and capabilities.
“We learned early on that the speed and height, which the Typhoon can operate, changes significantly how it does BVR operations butut it took a while to adjust.”
“We now are adjusting it once again with the subsuming of Tornado functions and complementary operations with the F-35.”
He also has been involved in the working relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is now a core partner in the Eurofighter program.
They have gained operational experience and are key investors in the modernization of the aircraft as well.
When we discussed Red Flag 17-1, without going into any details, which might seem too specific, he described was how the F-35s operated close to the most stringent targets and organized information for others in the battlespace.
The Typhoon because of the performance of its defensive aids could operate in key areas to support F-35 operations along with the F-22.
The specialized capabilities of the two aircraft in turn determined how they were used and the F-15 and Growlers were positioned appropriate to their missions and capabilities in the battlespace.
A key question has been raised about how to handle C2 and weapons decisions across the battlespace.
The Sentinel and the Wedgetail both operated to provide a quarterbacking role, but given the fidelity with which the F-35 can see the battlespace sorting out relationships among the various C2 element is part of shaping the way ahead.
93731fade1.05.0
“It was great to have guys sit back in the Wedgetail and able to process quite a lot of information and actually operating as mission commanders for dynamic targeting missions with a range of strike or jamming aircraft.”
“The Wedgetail both in terms of the systems and the operators was really first rate, indeed cutting edge.
“It is the next generation of C2 and a step beyond the capabilities of AWACS.”
A key challenge as we integrate various assets is how to ensure we know who can see what.
“As we introduce the F-35, the pilots have to adjust to the fact that their machines will see and convey data that they themselves are not looking at.
“And different airplanes will have different levels of SA in the battlespace.
“How to adjust the operation of the force to meet this challenge?”
And there are legacy and then legacy aircraft when it comes to the impact of the F-35.
“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.”
This is the second in an 8 part series on perspectives from RAF Lossiemouth.
The first slideshow highlights photos credited to the USAF; and the second to the RAF.
2017-06-28 Second Line of Defense has visited the Queen Elizabeth while it was being built in Scotland as well as various F-35B facilitates in the US and the UK preparing for the integration of the fifth generation aircraft with a new generation carrier.
Now for the first time, the new carrier has gone to sea.
According to an article published June 26, 2017 on the UK Ministry of Defence website, “the first QE Class aircraft carrier, set sail from Rosyth to commence first stage sea trials off the north-east of Scotland.”
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said:
“This is a historic moment for the UK as our new aircraft carrier takes to sea for the very first time. This floating fortress is by far the most powerful ship ever built in Britain that will enable us to tackle multiple and changing threats across the globe.
“HMS Queen Elizabeth is an enduring example of British imagination, ingenuity, invention that will help keep us safe for decades to come. She is built by the best, crewed by the best and will deliver for Britain.
“For the next fifty years she will deploy around the world, demonstrating British power and our commitment to confronting the emerging challenges from a dangerous world. The whole country can be proud of this national achievement.”
Three years after she was officially named by Her Majesty The Queen, the Nation’s future flagship will spend an initial period of around six weeks at sea to test the fundamentals of the ship. The sea trials will monitor speed, manoeuvrability, power and propulsion as well as undertaking weapons trials and additional tests on her levels of readiness.
Following this initial period, HMS Queen Elizabeth will return to Rosyth for further testing and maintenance before heading back to sea for a second stage which aims to test her Mission Systems. She will transit to her home port of Portsmouth Naval Base to be handed over to the Royal Navy later this year.
98328random1.05.0
Admiral Sir Philip Jones First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff said:
“This is a hugely significant moment for the Royal Navy, for all our Armed Forces and for our island nation. Once in service HMS Queen Elizabeth will be the largest aircraft carrier in the world outside the United States, and the first designed from the outset to operate a fifth generation aircraft.
“Already this ship represents the best of the UK’s industrial and engineering expertise, and once in service she will symbolise our military power and authority in the world for decades to come. There is still much work to do between now and then, but be in no doubt: a new era of British maritime power is about to begin.”
HMS Queen Elizabeth is the largest and most powerful warship ever constructed for the Royal Navy. The ship will operate with a crew of approximately 700, increasing to the full complement of 1,600 when aircraft are in operation. The Ship’s Company moved on board earlier this month. Working alongside industry colleagues, they have been familiarising themselves with the new ship and the high tech systems on board as well as undergoing training.
Jon Pearson, Ship Delivery Director HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH said:
“The QE Class programme demonstrates our pride and commitment to deliver these highly capable aircraft carriers to the Royal Navy.
“The departure of HMS Queen Elizabeth marks an exciting stage in the programme and is the first real opportunity to put the carrier’s outstanding capability to the test, demonstrating the best of British engineering and manufacturing.”
HMS Queen Elizabeth’s sister ship, HMS Prince of Wales is structurally complete and is currently in the outfitting phase of her programme. The Class will be the centrepiece of Britain’s maritime capability. Each aircraft carrier, coupled with the F-35B Lightning aircraft, will form an integral part of the UK’s Carrier Strike capability. The vessels will transform the UK’s ability to project power around the World, whether independently or working closely with our allies, on operations ranging from high intensity warfighting to providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief.
The aircraft carriers HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH and HMS PRINCE OF WALES are being delivered by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, a unique partnering relationship between BAE Systems, Thales UK, Babcock and the Ministry of Defence.
A national endeavour, at its peak the programme directly employed 10,000 people across six build yards. While manufacturing and commissioning is now solely focused in Rosyth, the skilled and diverse workforce is sourced from across the country.
The carriers will have a crew complement of c.700, increasing to c.1,600 when a full complement of 36 F-35B aircraft and four Crowsnest helicopters are embarked
The flight deck is 70 metres wide and 280 metres long – enough space for three football pitches
Each carrier keeps 45 days’ worth of food in its stores.
Each carrier is made up of 17 million parts
There are 364,000 metres of pipes inside each of the Ships
51 million hours have been spent designing and building the Queen Elizabeth Class.
The entire Ship’s Company can be served a meal within 90 minutes, 45 minutes when at action station
The QE Class aircraft carriers are the first Royal Navy vessels to have piped oxygen within the medical complex
Key efficiencies include:
Highly mechanised weapons handling system: At the push of a button pallets of munitions can be moved from the magazines deep in the weapons preparation area to the flight deck where they can be loaded onto aircraft.
Storage: The location and design of the storage facilities enable 20 people only half a day to replenish the ship’s stores.
Visual surveillance system: 220 cameras allow monitoring of engine and machinery spaces, external catwalk, aircraft hangars, ship entrances and access to classified areas.
Galley: Technologically advanced equipment and layout of the galley makes maintenance and service more efficient. The entire crew can be served meals in 90 minutes and 45 minute when at action stations.
The first of the two ships should sail for the first time later this month, or maybe next month — depending on the weather and the tides.
That was the word from Rear Adm. Keith Blount of the Royal Navy who came here for a visit of several hours, much of which he spent with the press.
Why did he spend so much time with the dreaded media at an air show?
Probably because the main combat power of the ship (aside from SAS, Royal Marines and anti-submarine helicopters) will derive from the 36 F-35Bs the QE class can carry into battle.
Among the QE class’ most intriguing characteristics will be its completely clear and uncluttered flight deck which will allow a large number of helicopters to be stationed ready for takeoff or a large number of F-35s.
Since the QE class was reportedly built from the start with an eye to putting Special Air Service and Royal Marines directly into harm’s way, supported by Merlin helicopters and F-35Bs, there’s an obvious logic to this deck.
And Blount told reporters the carriers would carry a Royal Marine Special Purpose Task Group of indeterminate size on every mission.
In addition, they will sail with the best Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) capabilities they can carry, given whatever other missions they’ve got, Blount told us. One of the more likely aircraft to be added to the ship to support these is some version of the V-22.
There have been persistent rumors that Britain wants to buy some, but nothing definitive has been said publicly.
And that’s why we’re talking about ships at the air show.
Computer Generated 3/4 Image of HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The QE Class aircraft carrier are biggest warships ever built for the Royal Navy – four acres of sovereign territory, deployable across the globe to serve the United Kingdom on operations for 50 years. HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will be the most advanced warships in the Royal Navy fleet.
The photos in the slideshow and the videos are credited to BAE Systems.
And in an article published two years ago, we wrote about the three Western new carrier programs.
Newport News, Pascagoula, Mississippi, and Rosyth Scotland.
In the famous opening lines of Charles Dickens Tale of Two Cities, he noted that “it was the best of times; it was the worst of times.”
So it is for aircraft carriers.
The critics of aircraft carriers focus on their vulnerability and the rise of capabilities such as the DF-21 Chinese “carrier killer” missiles; yet new carriers are emerging tailored for 21st century operations.
It is clear that the USN, the USMC, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy are all pursuing new carrier programmes designed to thrive, not just survive in 21st century operations.
Credit: Aircraft Carrier Alliance – Queen Elizabeth Class at sea (CGI)
I have had the rare opportunity to be aboard all three of the new carriers: the 52,000-ton USS America, which is the amphibious assault ship ever built; the 100,000-ton CVN-78 or the USS Gerald Ford, and the 65,000 ton HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The ships have several 21st century technologies in common: the construction of vastly improved command and control (C2) capabilities, working in sync with networked forces in a distributed operational environment.
The ships will have a 40 plus service life (although combat has its own logic), and will host significant transformation with regard to the combat assets carried aboard.
But each ship is built around significant airpower modernisation.
The USS America will host the Ospreys (including refueling Ospreys), F-35Bs, and the CH-53K (which can carry externally three times the load of the CH-53E); CVN-78 will see the new Hawkeye, the F-35C, and UCAS aboard her; and the HMS Queen Elizabeth is built around the F-35B as well as new airborne command capabilities.
And the Ford and the Queen Elizabeth have advanced electric power generation capabilities to take on board directed energy weapons as those capabilities evolve. Both ships have significant connectivity, with miles of fibre-optic cables, and reconfigurable C2 workstations to allow for operations against the ROMO (Range of Military Operations).
Aircraft Carriers are very good for a spectrum of operations, both in securing strategic interests through deterrence and war fighting capabilities but also for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
The three carriers mentioned have sufficient flexibility in this perspective.
They also ensure logistical integrity permitting operations from the sea without having to set up land bases.
Their air power allows them to leverage their strike capabilities for subsurface, surface, landbased and even aerial or space assets.
It was from a ship that the US shot down a satellite using a Raytheon missile. Each ship though is unique. But each one has the flexibility to adapt to the varied requirements as they arise.
USS America: Reinventing Amphibious Assault
The USS America is the largest amphibious ship ever built by the United States.
The ship has been built at the Huntington Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi and departed mid-July 2014 for its trip to its initial home port at San Diego, California and then was commissioned in San Francisco in mid-October 2014. It is now undergoing its final trials and preparing to enter the fleet.
The USMC is the only tilt rotor-enabled assault force in the world.
The USS America has been built to facilitate this capability and will be augmented as the F-35B is added to the Ospreys, and helicopters already operating from the ship. Later, unmanned aircraft will also become a regular operational element.
USS America seen pierside in Valparaiso, Chile, 8/26/14. Credit Photo: USS America
The Boeing-Bell Osprey has obviously been a game changer, where today, the basic three ship formation used by the Amphibious Ready Group-Marine Expeditionary Unit can “disaggregate” and operate over a three-ship distributed 1,000-mile operational area.
Having the communications and ISR to operate over a greater area, and to have sustainment for a disaggregated fleet is a major challenge facing the future of the USN-USMC team. The combination of Ospreys and F-35 B will be deadly for any foe.
A major change in the ship can be seen below the flight deck, and these changes are what allow the assault force enabled by new USMC aviation capabilities to operate at greater range and ops tempo. The ship has three synergistic decks, which work together to support flight deck operations.
Unlike a traditional large deck amphibious ship where maintenance has to be done topside, maintenance is done in a hangar deck below the flight deck. And below that deck is the intermediate area, where large workspaces exist to support operations with weapons, logistics and sustainment activities.
The ship can hold more than 20 F-35Bs. The Ospreys would be used to carry fuel and or weapons, so that the F-35B can move to the mission and operate in a distributed base. This is what the Marines refer to as shaping distributed STOVL ops for the F-35B within which a sea base is a key lily pad from which the plane could operate or move from.
Alternatively, the F-35B could operate for ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance). Understandably, all US assets area already networked through satellites.
The other new onboard asset is Sikorsky’s CH-53K, which will be backbone for an airborne amphibious strike force. It will be able to carry three times the load external to itself than can a CH-53E and has many operational improvements, such as a fly-by-wire system.
These elements constitute a true enabler for a 21st century amphibious assault force.
CVN-78: Redefining the Large-Deck Carrier
The coming of the USS Gerald R. Ford sets in motion a very different type of large-deck carrier. The hull form of the Ford is a tribute to the very successful Nimitz-class hull design. But that is where the comparisons end.
In effect, the new nuclear-powered carrier provides infrastructure for – significantly – the US Navy as well as its coalition forces.
It is designed to operate more effectively with an evolving air wing over its 50-year life span. The high increase in electric power generation, three times greater than Nimitz, is designed to allow the electronic systems associated with defense, attack and C2 to grow over time.
The carrier’s new launch and recovery systems (EMALS – Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and AAG- Advanced Arresting Gear), the weapons handling system and many other improvements are visible signs of new capabilities.
The onboard super computers manage everything from electric power to fire power, and give outstanding support to the crew. Laser weapons will be a reality on Gerald Ford.
The next generation in active sensor technology, with great bandwidth in the dual band radars, provides a solid foundation, not simply for the organic defence and strike capability of the carrier but for the entire battle fleet.
CVN-78 seen deckside undergoing construction, January 2015. Credit: Second Line of Defense
In a recent interview Captain John Meier, the designated skipper of CVN-78, highlighted a number of innovations, two of which are the new launch system and the second is the new weaponisation systems and pit stop approach to operating aircraft.
The first involves the shift from steam catapults to an electronic system or EMALS. “The EMALS system will allow us to provide for an ability to launch aircraft more smoothly and with less wear and tear on the airplanes and the pilots. Coupled with the new advanced arresting gear, we will be able to launch and recover a variety of types of aircraft, including future designs that haven’t been developed.”
As for directed energy systems, he observed: “You have a great capacity for diversity of weapons, and the advanced weapon elevators themselves are located on the ship to facilitate faster movement and loading of the weapons.
That’s the underlying principle of the advanced weapon elevators. They carry more weight and they go faster, twice the speed and twice the weight essentially of the legacy weapons elevators” bringing ordnance right near an aircraft for loading.
Combat jets will be loaded in “pit stops” aboard the deck and then launched from the EMALS system.
And with the coming of the F-35 C, the head of Naval Air Warfare, Rear Admiral Manazir noted in an interview done after the visit to the Ford:
“Reach not range is a key aspect of looking at the carrier air wing and its ability to work with joint and coalition forces.
This is clearly enhanced with the F-35.The carrier has a core ability to operate organically but its real impact comes from its synergy with the joint and coalition force, which will only go up as the global F-35 fleet emerges.
And this will get better with the coming of the USS Ford. What the Ford does is it optimises the things that we think are the most important.”
HMS Queen Elizabeth: Reinventing the Large Deck Carrier
The Brits invented carrier warfare; and in many ways with their new 65,000-ton carrier they are reinventing the large deck carrier and providing something of a hybrid between the USS America and CVN-78.
The flight deck is impressive and is about 90 per cent of the size of the Nimitz class and has a very wide deck.
When I stood at the end of the ski jump and looked down at the flight deck, its width was significant.
The ski jump aboard the flight deck of the HMS Queen Elizabeth. Credit Photo: Royal Navy
And I learned that the flight deck was built by Laird Shipbuilding (unfortunately no relation!).
This ship is designed to operate F-35Bs, which means that the RAF (Royal Air Force) and RN (Royal Navy) will drive every bit of innovation out of the aircraft to provide C2, ISR and strike capabilities.
There will be natural interoperability between the US and British forces, right from training to operations.
Walking the ship takes time, but several innovations one sees aboard the Ford can be found aboard the HMS Queen Elizabeth: significant energy generation, significant C2 capabilities, very large rooms for reconfigurable C2 suites for operations across the ROMO, as well as well designed work areas for the F-35B crews which will handle the operations and data generated by the F-35 to the fleet.
It is a ship designed to transform both the RAF and the RN for it will integrate significantly with the surface and subsurface fleet and the land-based air for the RAF.
To take an example, with RAF jets operating from Cyprus or in the Middle East, the HMS Queen Elizabeth can mesh its air assets with the land based assets and the command centre directing the air operations could be on the ship, on land at an operating base, or in the air, even in the new tankers.
Conclusion
Despite the critics, new carriers are being designed and built to work more effectively in an integrated operational space to provide both defence and offence to a joint and coalition force.
They are key elements of the distributed force, one which is forging a 21st century approach to offense-defense enterprise across the spectrum of military operations.
The author would like to thank Ed Timperlake for his contribution to the thinking underlying this article
The F-16 deal for India – if it goes through – has the potential to become a game changer for not just the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
Uninformed critics of the deal derided it as a deal for an obsolete light fighter that dates from the 1970s, though the Indian version will be a relatively advanced Block 70. Few analysts see the potential of this deal as a game changer beyond a few hardware upgrades.
Facing off against Indian F-16s will be PRC’s latest fighters like the J-31 stealth fighter, J-20s, Su 27/35s and Su-30s and Pakistan’s fleet of F-16s, FC-20s, and J-31s, the F-16 appear to be a rather dated design with severe limitations in range, payload, and stealthiness.
What critics overlook is the F-16 is the most widely sold platform in the history of 4G western aircraft with over 4,000 sold and over 3,000 in service: the world’s largest fleet of combat aircraft in service.
Competing options like the Gripen do not come close to the F-16’s installed base, upon which fixed costs of development are amortized.
This is critical in a world where software, with increasing returns to scale and network effects are the path to rapidly improve system performance.
The deal with India is unique in that it transfers manufacturing to India rather than just license production as in previous deals. India will take over the production of F-16s and be the principal supplier of parts, equipment and support not just for their own fleet, but potentially, for most if not all of the installed base and new customers of F-16s worldwide subject to a US veto.
India will more likely than not, acquire the ability to modify and upgrade the F-16s both for their own and other fleets.
UAEAF F-16F block 60 #3009 is buzzing by the lens at Aero India. The aircraft is used by Lockheed as demonstration aircraft for the Indian F-16IN tender for 126 multi-role aircraft. Note the ‘F-16IN’ markings on the tail base. [Photo by Rahul Devnath]
The F-16 platform is a very versatile platform that still have considerable upgrade potential. The GE F110-132 engine presently rated at 32,000lbs thrust is by no means obsolete and can potentially benefit from technology developed from the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine.
The additional power can be used either to increase aerodynamic performance or as exportable electricity for directed energy weapons or sophisticated radar and ECM systems. Conformal fuel tanks is an upgrade that have successfully extended the range of Israeli F-16s and readily added.
F-16 Block 70s can also be readily upgraded to become optionally manned aircraft.
But there is more to the deal besides taking over production of the most widely sold and presently in service fighter in the world.
The key to 5th Generation combat capability like the F-35 is not the ability of the platform.
Combat clouds, however, is not about any platform, but about integration of all platforms, space, air, land, sea, undersea, into a fabric of capabilities that detect, identify, and destroy with nodes of the network doing the job by efficiently and effectively using the network’s capabilities.
What each platform has on board is much less significant than systemic capabilities.
Having the resilient, high bandwidth and secure communication networks between many different pieces, devising the doctrine and concept of operations that enable networked resources to be deployed for effect while offsetting the inherent weakness of one’s own suite is a key part of a fifth generation enabled combat force.
And also, generating a more effective legacy combat force can be enabled by shaping effective combat clouds tying together the combat force.
A highly effective combat cloud can be built with older platforms like the F-16, or for that matter, European, Russian and Chinese gear.
How might an Indian F-16 without “stealth” but tightly integrated in a combat cloud defeat a PRC J-31 stealth fighter?
Detection of the J-31 might be accomplished by off-platform sensors (e.g. UAV or land based) that spot a J-31 from one of its less stealthy angles, and in turn, datalink the information to the F-16 node, who in turn, utilize a ground based or BVR missile or direct a UAV to shoot at a target the F-16 cannot see because of the J-31’s frontal aspect stealth.
The missile can in turn, be cued by other sensors en route until it acquires its own target.
Let’s expand this concept to India’s fighter fleet.
India operate the biggest fleet of Russian/Soviet fighters in the world, and is a major operator (one of the biggest after France) of French fighters. No one, presently, have the capability and motive to network these planes together into a combat cloud.
To do so, they have to have the combination of critical mass (units operating or on order), experience operating / supporting them, technological base, and incentive / motive to do so.
Chinese or Russians are not going to network US or European planes.
French will do US/European, but not Russian or Chinese gear.
US can integrate European (including French), but will not work on Russian or Chinese kit.
Countries that do operate or intend to buy large fleets of European, American and Russian aircraft like Saudi Arabia, UAE or Iran do not have the technical capability of India in software and communications, the familiarity and logistical support of having operated aircraft from Europe, Russia/USSR, and USA when the F-16 deal goes through.
Israel in theory have the technical capability, but not the critical mass or the motive to do so without an export customer. For Israeli arms makers, amortizing the cost over one customer (except India) is difficult when India can do much of the work themselves.
Beyond this is integration of aircraft, there is the problem of mating platforms into resources from space to air to sea and undersea. i.e. air defense systems, command and control networks, land or sea based SAMs and ECM resources, etc. which hardly anyone is interested in working with the hodgepodge of older gear that India has in abundance and is familiar with.
India is virtually alone in this opportunity to bring to market products and services for many smaller militaries with tight budgets.
There is not just a big base of F-16 customers to tap, but also many Air Forces operating poorly (or not) integrated platforms bought ad-hoc over the years. (e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, etc.) Many of these air forces are an ad hoc collection of Soviet/Russian, European, US, Chinese and other gear that are vertical silos and/or unintegrated. Few European or US arms suppliers can competitively price systems integration services for these small markets.
Beyond this are geopolitical implications of any Indian arms sales.
India is presently holding talks with Vietnam for sales of Brahmos anti-ship missiles that, if sold, will severely curb the PLAN’s ability to operate in the South China Sea. Sales of modernized F-16s, Brahmos and associated combat cloud integration of existing inventory of arms in southeast Asian states like Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines have the potential to make the South China Sea a contested air and sea space for the PRC.
Likewise, central Asian republics like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan that are presently Russian customers are potentially Indian opportunities for highly effective and moderately priced equipment.
Then there is the ultimate geopolitical trump card of Indian arms sales to Taiwan.
Doing so would immediately inflict substantial costs on the PRC’s longstanding policy of arming Pakistan and present land grab / salami slicing strategy against India. This option will have seismic impacts in Beijing and Shanghai; upend PRC’s Pakistan and Central Asia policy including their “One Belt One Road” scheme; and the PRC’s move into the Indian Ocean and the horn of Africa. PRC’s arms proliferation policy may suddenly become very expensive for Beijing.
The Trump Administration was briefed on Lockheed-Martin’s proposed F-16 deal with India. Post briefing, no objection was raised despite the apparent conflict with Administration policy to promote American manufacturing. Given what is at stake for the United States, it is not surprising that President Trump is on board.
The question is, will Indian negotiators see the potential of the deal.
India traditionally drives a hard bargain for technology transfers or demand expansive offsets that the US will unlikely concede such as state-of-the-art engine, AESA, and other technologies. Rather than drive a traditional Indian bargain on these items for the sake of tightly controlled and restricted licenses, by getting their foot in the door with the F-16IN program, India can indigenously develop many marketable add-ons, upgrades, and system integration that do not compete with offerings US firms.
The question is, will Indians see the opportunity in front of them.
Editor’s Note: One does not have to agree with everything which Lam has argued in this article but there clearly are three key takeaways which are very significant for India.
First, what are the benefits of having a manufacturing line for the most widely used 4th generation aircraft? How can one leverage a global user base and support or supply such a user base?
Second, how will the Indian armed forces connect their platforms? For the Indian Air Force this is absolutely critical given their propensity to buy a wide variety of platforms.
Third, given the experience Indians have in the software business, how can this be transferred to the defense business, notably in terms of shaping a combat cloud for the armed forces? How will India shape a connected combat force which can overmatch the Chinese forces?
Fourth, if India can build real competence on connecting its disparate air combat force, there clearly will be markets globally for such a competence and again if one is building an aircraft which is already the largest 4th generation deployed air combat aircraft, then that simply opens up significant market opportunities.
Computer Generated 3/4 Image of HMS Queen Elizabeth.
UAEAF F-16F block 60 #3009 is buzzing by the lens at Aero India. The aircraft is used by Lockheed as demonstration aircraft for the Indian F-16IN tender for 126 multi-role aircraft. Note the ‘F-16IN’ markings on the tail base. [Photo by Rahul Devnath]