The OA-X Experiment: A New Way Ahead for USAF Acquisition?

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/16/2017

2017-08-14 By Todd Miller

USAF leadership, international representatives and media gathered at Holloman AFB August 9, 2017 to focus on the USAF’s OA-X Experiment.

The event was organized under the auspices of the USAF Light Attack Experiment (OA-X) featuring the Sierra Nevada Corp./Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, Air Tractor Inc./L3 Platform Integration AT-802L Longsword, Textron Aviation’s AT-6 Wolverine and Scorpion Jet.

The composition of the group including U.S. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein, Air Combat Command Commander General Mike Holmes, Lt. General Arnold Bunch Asst. Secretary of the Air Force – Acquisition and many more.

Obviously, the USAF was underscoring the importance of this effort.

The message from Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson and Air Force Leaders who spoke was clear – the OA-X experiment is part of what the USAF hopes is a shift in USAF platform procurement and capability development philosophies.

In many respects, this message of change was the event.

As SecAF Wilson noted:

“Our adversaries are modernizing faster than we are and it is up to the USAF to drive innovation so that our adversaries are surprised by just how powerful we are and how ready we are for any fight, anytime, anywhere.

That means we have to think about things in new ways and identify new capabilities faster than we have done in the past.”

“This drive to innovation to find rapid and affordable solutions to the challenges that we face on the battlefield is really about two things; It’s about what we are looking at, and it’s about how we are developing those capabilities.

Innovation is in the DNA of the USAF, and sometimes and perhaps at some points in our history we have lost that, that DNA of being the ‘bicycle mechanics’ who are constantly tinkering and finding new things and getting after it in new ways.

We are trying to reinvigorate that in the Air Force in both what we are researching and how we are pursuing innovation.”

“With respect to the What, I expect over the next couple months we will begin a wide ranging review of USAF research priorities in basic and applied research [to identify] the big things we have to drive forward to create the Air Force of 2030.”

“It is also about How we are pursuing [innovation].

We are looking for new ways to do business.

New ways to get ideas from our lab bench to our flightline faster.

New ways to get capabilities that our Airman need today and can’t wait the 2-3 years for the normal acquisition process.

We’re breaking barriers, going outside the box.

We’re willing to try new things in new ways.”

Wilson provided the following examples, “We are moving forward with a National Space Defense Center so we can have real time situational awareness of the space battlefield. That system, like all Air Force systems going forward will be open architecture.”

To be unmistakably clear Wilson stated that [exquisite (exclusive) or stand alone systems] “…will not win a contract with the USAF. If it doesn’t integrate with the open architecture you might as well not bid. That is going to be the way we will do business.

We won’t have exquisite and exclusive systems.

We want to have plug and play systems so we can rapidly change out technologies to stay ahead of the adversary.”

SecAF Wilson noted a recent example of the Special Operations Command (SOC) doing things “outside the box” that yielded the desired results; “Our special operators often go into very difficult situations with dogs.

You can’t jump out of an airplane with a dog above 18,000 ft. because they don’t make oxygen masks for dogs.

So rather than go out with exact specifications and an RPA for an oxygen mask SOFWERX and SOC decided to hold a competition.

For a prize of $6,000 they got an oxygen mask for dogs!

And under the [relevant] Federal Act that qualifies as a competitive procurement.”

“We need to get after it in different ways.

The Light Attack Experiment that you will see today is one of those ‘outside the box’ ways of looking at things.

The $6,000,000 experiment was enabled by the US Congress in the 2016/2017 National Defense Authorization Acts and it gave rapid acquisition authority to the military to do things differently.

To his credit, Chief of Staff General Dave Goldfein decided to take advantage of this authority as it related to concepts for light attack.”

“In less than 5 months we have 4 aircraft on the ground for testing.

That is the kind of rapid evaluation that those provisions were intended to allow.

It is an experiment.

We are learning things.

We want to meet the demands of the permissive environments at lower costs.

We want to develop capabilities for contested environments and use this experiment to evaluate the military utility of these kinds of aircraft and the manufacturing feasibility of these aircraft.”

“The empirical data that we gather from this experiment will inform strategic decisions about where we need to go from here.

But I hope the broader message is clear to all.

It’s ok to experiment.

It’s okay to do things fast.

It’s okay to try stuff.

It’s okay to productively fail.

Because we learn things and then we move on very quickly to develop capabilities to defeat the enemy.”

Later in a follow-up interview SecAF Wilson unpacked the statement ‘productive failure;’ “One of the things we need to get back to as a service is “productive failure;” where we try something, learn from it, and it really was an experiment.

When we have the first experiment fail and learn from it – I am buying the cake.”

“We can’t just stand back, set out requirements do analyses of alternatives, spend five years figuring out exactly what we want, put out an RFP, throw it over the fence and take 10 years to develop the technology.

The adversary is innovating faster.

To prevail in 2020 and beyond we have to innovate, we have to engage industry and the private sector in helping us to maintain the edge.

It will be faster, it will be more dynamic.

We have some wonderful innovators in the USAF, we just need to liberate them.”

Quoting Lt. Gen Harris SecAF Wilson noted, ‘We are using the experiment to team with our industry partners with what is currently available to study the benefits to see if we can proceed to a combat demonstration.”

Wilson continued, “I hope this starts to change the way we do acquisition on projects and change the way in which we can understand capabilities and even think of new concepts and ways of bringing the fight to the enemy.”

As an future example of innovation and experimentation AFSec Wilson referenced Thunderdrone an upcoming competition involving “drone swarms” in conjunction with SOFWERX.

Later in the day, General Holmes noted the USAF sponsorship of the Drone Racing League as a related example of the Air Force commitment to embrace incoming technologies, people and capabilities.

Secretary Wilson concluded, “Let’s see what innovations Americans have and let’s start to adapt and bring them into the USAF to support our Airman.”

But to put this in perspective. I reflect on the early years of jet flight and the incredible activity that took place at Edwards AFB following WWII right through to the 1970s.

Granted the complexity of today’s weapons systems temper expectations that we will see anything like those decades again.

However, the leadership is clearly moving to renew and apply that spirit to the technology and capability opportunities available today.

Given success the US Air Force will remain the dynamic, powerful protectorate of the US and its global interests for the foreseen future.

Quotes have been edited for readability while maintaining integrity of meaning and intent.

The Second Line of Defense extends thanks and appreciation to Arlan Ponder and the entire Public Affairs team and personnel of 49th Wing Holloman AFB, as well as all the leaders of the USAF that granted time, availability and expertise to our group. You were all gracious and professional hosts.

NAWDC and Shaping a 21st Century Combat Force: The Perspective of Admiral “Hyfi” Harris

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/15/2017

2017-08-09 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

We first visited Fallon Naval Air Station in 2014 and produced a Special Report on the evolution of Naval Aviation anchored in part by that visit.

https://sldinfo.com/the-evolving-future-for-naval-aviation/

As the then head of the training center, Admiral Scott Conn, who will soon become head of N-98 or The Air Warfare Division of OPNAV, commented at the time:

Naval aviation is very interdependent on how we train aircrew and how we resource to those training requirements.

As competing readiness requirements pressurize the flight hour program, a bow wave is created by pushing training qualifications later on in one’s aviation career.

Naval aviation is looking at this issue hard, to ensure our future forward deployed leaders will have the requisite knowledge, skills and experience to in fact, lead.

 https://sldinfo.com/training-for-the-extended-battlespace-an-interview-with-rear-admiral-scott-conn-commander-naval-strike-and-air-warfare-center/

We have returned to Fallon this summer and found the training command in the process of promoting significant change associated with preparation for the evolution of high tempo or high intensity combat operations.

The name of the command has changed in part to reflect the significant shift in direction for training for naval air warfare or really becoming combat development training, rather than training for platform proficiency as a core focus.

The target goal is to shape an integrated distributed force able to dominate at all levels throughout the spectrum of warfare.

Several changes have been already been put in place to facilitate this effort, and more are on the way.

One challenge though is the training word.

This term tends to conjure up learning skill sets on a platform and getting proficient on that platform and the conflict envelope within which that platform will confront peer competitors. The image of TOPGUN comes to mind in which it is aircraft versus aircraft in face offs to drive enhanced proficiency.

TOPGUN is part of NAWDC; not the definer of it.

Although platform proficiency is crucial, it is simply a building block in weaving capabilities for the integrated high-end fight and to do so requires significant change, some of which we saw in the period from our last visit to the latest one.

We had a chance during our visit to meet several times with and to interview the current head of the training command, Admiral “Hyfi” Harris.

This Fall the Admiral will join the Nimitz in operations in the Middle East where strike ops are being conducted currently against ISIS.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/bio.asp?bioID=993

Since we last visited the training command, the name has changed and that change reflects a broadening of the focus to both infusing the Navy with an evolving aviation approach and integrating the air wing with the broader challenges occurring within the fleet.

It is about preparing for the integrated high-end fight and the Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center (NAWDC) captures that demand signal.

And with the arrival of software upgradeable aircraft, like Hawkeye and F-35, it will be increasingly important to put the evolving TTPs or Tactics Techniques and Procedures as part of the software code rewriting effort as well.

Prior to June 2015, NAWDC was known as Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) which was the consolidation of three commands into a single command structure on July 11, 1996. NSAWC was comprised of the Naval Strike Warfare Center (STRIKE “U”) based at NAS Fallon since 1984, and two schools from NAS Miramar, the Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) and the Carrier Airborne Early Warning Weapons School (TOPDOME).

NAWDC is the Navy’s center of excellence for air combat training and tactics development.  NAWDC trains naval aviation in advanced Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP) across assigned combat mission areas at the individual, unit, integrated and joint levels, ensuring alignment of the training continuum; to set and enforce combat proficiency standards; to develop, validate, standardize, publish and revise TTPs. 

In addition, NAWDC provides subject matter expertise support to strike group commanders, numbered fleet commanders, Navy component commanders and combatant commanders; to lead training and warfighting effectiveness assessments and identify and mitigate gaps across all platforms and staffs for assigned mission areas as the supported WDC; collaborate with other WDCs to ensure cross-platform integration and alignment. 

 https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw/installations/nas_fallon/about/nawdc.html

The Admiral emphasized the need to resource fully the training cycle by which he meant having the current operationally ready assets in the hands of the warfighters so that they could from the outset train effectively for deployment on the carrier.

He highlighted that there were two barriers, impeding the ability to get to an optimum training rhythm.

The first might be called readiness shortfalls.

“The Navy’s tiered readiness system, necessary in the current fiscal environment, has peaks and valleys in the training cycle.

“So you’ll come out of a maintenance phase and you’ll be at the low end of your training.

“We need to make sure that as soon as you go into the basic phase, you have every aircraft that you are authorized to have, and every aircraft has every system that it’s authorized.

“We want to be able to start the training right away, so that you can build reps and sets over time, versus the peak of coming here, getting reps and sets, and then slowing back down again.

“What we’ve found lately is that as squadrons are coming through, they’re about half a step, half a cycle behind.

“They’re not going into Basic Phase with their full kit.

“Therefore, when they go to their Advanced Readiness Program, they’re still getting up to speed.

“When they come to Fallon they’re still learning some of the things they should have learned in the Advanced Readiness Phase.

“And then when they go on to their Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX) and marry up with the ship and the strike group, they’re still learning things that they should have been hard-wiring in Fallon.

“And we’re having to pass those gaps, if you will, onto the next piece of the training track.

“Readiness should be thought of as investing, the more you can do earlier, and allow that training to compound, the better of you are in the long run, particularly for the high end fight.”

The second challenge is having the most advanced equipment being used in the fleet available to NAWDC.

“If I had my way, we would have E-2D here at Fallon.

“We would have the most current Super Hornet.

“We would have F-35 on the line.

“We already have Growler, and our Growlers are operating with the same systems as the latest coming off of the line.

“And they would have all the systems necessary for our schoolhouse instructors to be out there on the cutting edge of developing tactics.

“And currently we’re doing it piecemeal.

“We are playing pickup sticks when we need to shape a more capable operational force with our TTP development here at NAWDC.”

And the enhanced integrated training and development is at the heart of preparing the fleet for higher tempo operations.

We discussed this development in two ways.

First, NAWDC is working very closely with the surface warfare training community and the Air Force in shaping a more integrated combat training perspective which needs to become more significant in shaping development as well.

With regard to the surface warfare community, the Admiral emphasized the following:

“We have surface warfare officers here at NAWDC.

“We work closely with the Surface Warfare training community as well in shaping a more integrative and integrated approach as well.”

U.S. Air Force members from the 169th Fighter Wing and South Carolina Air National Guard are deployed to Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada Fallon to support Naval Carrier Air Wing One with pre-deployment fighter jet training, integrating the F-16’s suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) capabilities with U.S. Navy fighter pilots. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Tech. Sgt. Caycee Watson) September 2016

With regard to the USAF and integrative training, the Admiral focused on the Growler training with the USAF.

“Our HAVOC team works with the USAF Weapons School in the Weapon School Integration phase which runs about a month.

“If you want to think of it in the college realm, this is a 400-level class.

“And we’re seeing the Growler used differently by the Air Force than we would probably use it in the Navy.

“That cross-pollination has been extremely useful for both the services.”

Second, the F-35 is a very different type of combat aircraft and it would be good to see pairings of that aircraft with Advanced Hawkeye and the Growler to shape the evolution of information dominance operations, as a very clear outcome of working these advanced platforms together to deliver evolving combat capabilities.

“I would like to have advanced Hawkeyes, F-35s and Growlers all here so that we can work integrated TTPs to shape a more effective way ahead for the operational capability of the fleet.”

“I would like to get those type model series weapons and tactics instructors cross-pollinated even more, so that the classes and the courses are integrated more fully than they are now.

“We’ll have to find different ways to do that because of the Navy’s carrier cycle; we are not resourced to be able to do an air wing and do full Weapons and Tactics Instructor classes at the same time.

“We have to keep those separated. I’d like to move closer to the USAF model, but we don’t have that flexibility because of the carrier operational cycle.”

One way NAWDC will expand its work on integrated warfare is by being able to use new facilities being built right now that will integrate the platform simulators and allow for integrated training and operational thinking at NAWDC.

“We are building an integrated training facility.

“We’re going to have all of our simulators under one building, under one common security environment, so that we can do planning, briefing, execution, and debriefing all under the same security umbrella with the full team.

“The demand signal is that we all need to work together; and the new buildings are being built to meet that demand signal.”

These new facilities will allow for the growth of live virtual constructive training (LVC), although this LVC approach is in its infancy but will become more significant to combat development and training efforts over time.

Integrative and interactive training is a key element of shaping a more capable 21st century combat force.

One element leading to greater success in this effort is a more integrated air and surface warfare community.

As the Admiral put it: “The SWO boss, Admiral Rowden, has been pretty adamant about the benefits of their Warfighting Development Center, the Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center.

“SMWDC has been, in my mind, going full bore at developing three different kinds of warfare instructors, WTIs.

“They have an ASW/ASUW, so anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare officer.

“They have an IAMD officer and they have an expeditionary warfare officer.

“Admiral Rowden talks about distributed lethality and they are getting there rapidly.

Warfare tactics instructors (WTI), from left to right, Lt. Cmdr. Mike Dwan, Lt Doug Wilkins, Lt. Lisa Schmidt, Lt Joseph Lewis, Lt Scott Margolis, Lt. Andrew Blanco, Lt Weston Floyd, LT Justin Bolly, Lt. Serg Samardzic, Lt. Rebecca O’Brien, and Lt. Cmdr. Derek Rader pause for a group photo at Naval Air Station (NAS) Fallon, in Nevada. The 11 integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) WTIs participated in a pilot integrated air defense course (IADC) — a joint effort led by the Naval Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center (SMWDC) and Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center (NAWDC). IADC will activate in late 2016 and train carrier air wings, carrier strike groups, and air and missile defense commanders in a simulated training environment at NAS Fallon. Several IAMD WTIs will teach and train the inaugural course alongside their aviation counterparts from Navy Weapons Fighter School (TOPGUN).

“We are watching young lieutenants share with their bosses in a training environment, specifically during IADC (Integrated Air Defense Course).

“This is probably not the way we want AEGIS set up, or how we want the ship to be thinking in an automated mode.

“We may not previously have wanted to go to that next automated step, but we have to because this threat is going to force us into that logic..

And you’re seeing those COs, who were hesitant at first, say, “Now after that run in that event, I get it. I have to think differently.”

A second element is building out training ranges in a key area of operations, namely the Pacific.

“We do need to continue, to work beyond Nellis, beyond Yuma, beyond Fallon, we’ve got to start looking at what could we do in Alaska, how can we make Alaska and the events that we do in Northern Edge, more robust?

“What kind of systems, what kind of sensors, whether it’s TCTS or the ability to go back and replay an event up at Alaska.

“Or look at Guam as a graduate-level training area, what could we do in Guam when you’ve got all those assets that are there from both the Air Force and the Navy.

“How much more could you do in and around Guam?

“What could you do in Australia, with an ally who is very forward-leaning in technology and integrating with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force, and the way they are integrating their armed forces together?

“Where can you take advantage of those opportunities?

“All while understanding that as you do that, you are practicing or playing in somebody else’s backyard, and they are watching what you’re doing.

“How do you do that, where you can be watched?

“And what do you have to reserve for places where you’re less likely to be watched?

A third key element is working cross platform integration to shape a more effective approach to information dominance.

“How do I use the capabilities in the F-35 to enhance what I get out of that fourth-gen platform?

“And, in ways that you didn’t think you were going to do it before.

“Not just by being a bigger, better brother that’s going to take care of you on the playground.

FALLON, Nev. (Sept. 3, 2015) F-35C Lightning IIs, attached to the Grim Reapers of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101, and an F/A-18E/F Super Hornets attached to the Naval Aviation Warfighter Development Center (NAWDC) fly over Naval Air Station Fallon’s (NASF) Range Training Complex. VFA 101, based out of Eglin Air Force Base, is conducting an F-35C cross-country visit to NASF. The purpose is to begin integration of F-35C with the Fallon Range Training Complex and work with NAWDC to refine tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) of F-35C as it integrates into the carrier air wing. (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Cmdr. Darin Russell/Released)

“But how do I pass information, what information needs to be passed, and when does it need to be passed?

“When do I have to be that white knight on the charger coming in to rescue you, to get you back on a timeline, and when can I just sit back and play maybe quarterback or coach and just suggest, look here, look there, do this, don’t worry about that threat.

“And the integration of how do I use that system and the capabilities in the F-35 with those that are in the Growler, where are they complementary?

“Where are they different, and mutually supportive?

“In the times that we have had the E-2D out here, how can I work all of those things together?”

And the evolution of LVC will play an important part in the combat development training process.

“LVC affords you that environment where you can do the very high-end warfare in an environment where you are not going to be observed. And you can integrate with your surface counterparts; you can integrate with your Air Force counterparts.

“That linkage is going to be phenomenal. Because now we’ll be able to go from F-22s, Air Force F-35, anything else they want to throw in the mix, all the way to AEGIS Baseline 9. And some of those can be live and some can be virtual.

“And we can go execute. I think that’s exciting.

http://www.abdonline.com/news-analysis/defense/better-training-virtually/#.VGC_y1PF9OF

“When you can have a submarine launch a simulated TLAM that’s being tasked to them by a MOC somewhere else, that gets a real-time update from an actual F-35 flying on the range, that is seeing that the target that you thought was at point A has now moved to point B and you go back through the MOC to go through the firing unit to give that TLAM an updated target, that is powerful.”

Throughout the interview and in earlier conversations with the Admiral, the evolving man-machine relationship as a foundational element was discussed in several ways.

The CNO has highlighted the importance of enhancing the ability to leverage the man-machine relationships, notably with regard to preparing and executing high tempo and high intensity operations.

Nothing ever fully substitutes for time in the air. Consequently, the evolving ability to meld flight simulator training beyond the traditional emergency procedures or simulating mission flying is now being developed as a dynamic “man-machine” learning process.

The engagement process of content learning essentially is shaping how does a pilot and aircrews react to the speed-of-light dynamic flow of information in combat can be captured by both performance on the “range” and by the procedures followed in the cockpit.

Now those pilot and aircrew specific data points can be put into simulators, thus allowing real time repeat learning on how to be a better and better combat team.

The Admiral stressed it will be an exciting time as the new facilities come on line for both aircrews and commanders to specifically hone combat skills.

Clearly, the leveraging of the new platforms built around this relationship such as the F-35 and P-8 is important, as well as the capability to build out LVC and integrated simulation to train more effectively.

Above all, what the Navy is looking at are ways to shape new capabilities for learning and the ability to leverage machines to get better fidelity for learning.

The Admiral highlighted another aspect of this process when he discussed the need to enhance the ability to customize learning to repeat specific skill sets for warriors rather than having to repeat whole simulated courses.

“We are looking to improve simulated learning for targeted skillsets, and individualized learning over all. And one way you can do that is what they’re already seeing in the helicopter simulators, where the helicopter pilot is learning how to hover.

“And the simulator is assisting them as necessary to make the hovering more successful.

“As the pilot gets better, the learning software in the simulator backs out and allows the pilot to continue on their own.

“They get in the simulator the next day, the simulator knows who that person is, knows what they needed the day before, maybe backs that off a little bit to see if they’ve learned anything. And then brings it back up. So you have the simulator actually assisting with the learning.

“And they’re seeing that people are learning to do skills like hovering faster.”

The final subject we discussed is the close linkage between Fallon and the operational fleet in terms of developing TTPs on demand from the fleet as the fleet is engaged in operations.

One example was working TTPs for air combat strafing in Afghanistan as a carrier was about to engage in this task.

“ For example, we needed the ability in the mountains to do strafing at night because of the proximity of the threat and wanting to have a low threshold for civilian casualties met by using the gun on the Super Hornet and the Hornet.

“Very quickly NAWDC developed a methodology for night strafing, and it was developed, put right back out to the fleet, and executed within months.”

Another recent example was reviewing TTPs after the shootdown of a Syrian jet in the Middle East and working through the mission and sorting out any improvements in TTPs, which might need to be developed.

After an extensive review, none were deemed necessary to be made.

“The skillsets that we learned in the Advanced Readiness phase, and in Air Wing Fallon, and in COMPTUEX, were everything that we needed to be able to execute the mission we did in Syria.”

In short, NAWDC is a new type of combat training development command, which will be increasingly integrated with other warfighting development centers in building the warfighter for 21st century combat operations.

But it won’t happen without the right kind of investments, the right kind of shift in mindset and getting away from the platform centric mentality.

And its full impact will be seen when TTPs can be key drivers of development, software and shape modernization requirements going forward.

 

Appendix: The Structure of NAWDC

NAWDC’s individual mission requirements include:

N2:  The Information Warfare Directorate at NAWDC is responsible for ensuring command leadership and personnel are provided the full capabilities of the Information Warfare Community (IWC) to support combat readiness and training of Carrier Air Wings and Strike Groups.  The Directorate is comprised of four areas of focus: Air Wing Intelligence Training, the Maritime ISR (MISR) Cell, Targeting, and Command Information Services (CIS).  

The Air Wing Intelligence Training Division is responsible for training CVW Intelligence Officers and Enlisted Intelligence Specialists in strike support operations.  The MISR Cell is tasked with providing ISR integration into Carrier Air Wing training as well as qualifying MISR Package Commanders and Coordinators.  The Targeting Division trains and certifies all CVW Targeteer personnel and provides distributed reach-back support for deployed units worldwide regarding target development.  CIS provides cyber security and computer network operations for the entire NAWDC enterprise.

N3:  NAWDC Operations department (N3) is responsible for the coordination, planning, synchronization, and scheduling for the operations of the command, its assigned aircraft, and airspace and range systems within the Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC).

N4:  NAWDC’s Maintenance Department is the heart of training for all the NAWDC schoolhouses.  Maintenance’s focus is providing mission-ready fleet and adversary aircraft configured with required weapons and systems for all training evolutions.  We support day to day training missions with the F-16 Viper, F-18 Hornet and Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler, E-2C Hawkeye and the MH-60S Seahawk; conducting scheduled and un-scheduled maintenance on 39 individual aircraft.  These aircraft and weapon systems are the foundation for all other NAWDC Department’s training syllabi.

N5:  Responsible for training Naval aviation in advanced Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP) across assigned combat mission areas at the individual, unit, integrated and joint levels, ensuring alignment of the training continuum; to set and enforce combat proficiency standards; to develop, validate, standarize, publish and revise TTPs. 

Also provides subject matter expertise support to strike group commanders, numbered fleet commanders, Navy component commanders and combatant commanders; to lead training and warfighting effectiveness assessments and identify and mitigate gaps across all platforms and staffs for assigned mission areas as the supported WDC; and collaborates with other WDCs to ensure cross-platform intergration and alignment.

NAWDC’s Joint NAWDC’s Joint Close-Air Support (JCAS) Division continues to answer the needs of current theater operations with increased production of Joint Terminal Attack Controllers Course (JTACC).NAWDC’s Joint NAWDC’s Joint Close-Air Support (JCAS) Division continues to answer the needs of current theater operations with increased production of Joint Terminal Attack Controllers Course (JTACC).  NAWDC JCAS primarily trains Naval Special Warfare and Riverine Group personnel, but has this year also trained U.S. Army Special Operations, U.S. Marine Corps Air and Naval Gunfire Liaison Officers, international personnel, as well as U.S. Navy Fixed and Rotary Wing Forward-Air Controller (Airborne) personnel.  

NAWDC’s JCAS branch is the U.S. Navy’s designated representative to the Coalition JCAS Executive Steering Committee, and is a recognized authority on kinetic air support to information warfare (IW), tactical precision targeting, and digitally aided CAS.

N6:  Carrier Airborne Early Warning Weapons School (CAEWWS), also referred to as TOP DOME, is the E-2 weapon school and responsible for Airborne Tactical Command and Control advanced individual training via the Hawkeye Weapons and Tactics Instructors (HEWTIs) class.  CAEWWS is also responsible for development of community Tactics, Technique and Procedures and provides inputs to the acquisition process in the form of requirements and priorities for research and development (R&D), procurement, and training systems.  

CAEWWS works closely to support other Warfare Development Centers and Weapons Schools; such as the Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center’s Integrated Air Defense Course (IADC) and Integrated Air and Missile Defense WTI Integration Course (IWIC).  Other functions include support to advanced integrated fleet training by way of WTI augmentation to the N5/STRIKE Department for CVW integrated training detachments; also known as Air Wing Fallon Detachment and support of squadron activities.

N7:  In the early stages of the Vietnam War, the tactical performance of Navy fighter aircraft against seemingly technologically inferior adversaries, the North Vietnamese MiG-17, MiG-19, and MiG-21, fell far short of expectations and caused significant concern among national leadership.  

Based on an unacceptable ratio of combat losses, in 1967, ADM Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations, commissioned an in-depth examination of the process by which air-to-air missile systems were acquired and employed.  Among the multitude of findings within this report was the critical need for an advanced fighter weapons school, designed to train aircrew in all aspects of aerial combat including the capabilities and limitations of Navy aircraft and weapon systems, along with those of the expected threat.

In 1969, the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) was established to develop and implement a course of graduate-level instruction in aerial combat.  Today, TOPGUN continues to provide advanced tactics training for FA-18A-F aircrew in the Navy and Marine Corps through the execution of the Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor (SFTI) Course.  TOPGUN is the most demanding air combat syllabus found anywhere in the world.  The SFTI Course ultimately produces graduate-level strike fighter tacticians, adversary instructors, and Air Intercept Controllers (AIC) who go on to fill the critical assignment of Training Officer in fleet units.

N8:  Navy’s Rotary Wing Weapons School is composed of a staff of 25 pilots and aircrewmen who instruct the Seahawk Weapons and Tactics Instructor program; provide tactics instructors to fleet squadrons;  maintain and develop the Navy’s helicopter tactics doctrine via the SEAWOLF Manual; instruct the Navy’s Mountain Flying School; provide high-altitude, mountainous flight experience for sea-going squadrons; and provide academic, ground, flight, and opposing-forces instruction for visiting aircrew during Air Wing Fallon detachments.

N9:   The NAWDC Safety Department (N9) serves as the principle advisor to the Commander on all matters pertaining to safe command operations and is responsible for administering the following safety programs: aviation, ground, ergonomics, motor vehicles (personal, commercial), recreation, and on- and off-duty.  Our goal is to eliminate preventable mishaps while maximizing operational readiness.  We accomplish this by preserving lives, preventing injury, and protecting equipment and material.

N10:  The US Navy’s Airborne Electronic Attack Weapons School, call sign “HAVOC”, stood up in 2011 to execute the NAWDC mission as it pertains to Electronic Warfare and the EA-18G Growler.  HAVOC is comprised of highly qualified Growler Tactics Instructors, or GTIs, that form the “tactical engine” of the EA-18G community, developing the tactics that get the most out of EA-18G sensors and weapons.  HAVOC’s mission is also to train Growler Aircrew and Intelligence Officers on those tactics during the Growler Tactics Instructor Course.  

The Growler Tactics Instructor Course is a rigorous 12 week syllabus of academic, simulator, and live fly events that earn graduates the Growler Tactics Instructor designation – the highest level of EA-18G tactical qualification that is recognized across Naval Aviation.  The Growler brings the most advanced tactical Electronic Warfare capabilities to operational commanders creating a tactical advantage for friendly air, land, and maritime forces by delaying, degrading, denying, or deceiving enemy kill chains.

N20:  The Tomahawk Landing Attack Missile (TLAM) Department provides direct support to U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFFC) in the development and standardization of tactics, techniques and procedures for the employment of the Tomahawk weapon system.  In addition, TLAM provides training to the CVW, fleet, and joint commands on TLAM capabilities and strike integration

https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw/installations/nas_fallon/about/nawdc.html

Allied Pacific Exercises and Training: Shaping a Deterrence in Depth Strategy

 

 

Allies, Innovations and a Strategic Opportunity for the United States: Leverage and Learn

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2017-08-10  As the Pentagon reforms its acquisition approach, the ability to mobilize assets and to support them as was well as to accelerate modernization are clear priorities.

But missing from the discussion is the allied dimension in terms of accelerating US combat modernization.

The shift from slo mo to preparing for high tempo and high intensity operations is a major challenge for the US military and its allies.

It is about a culture shift, a procurement shift, an investment shift. But mobilization is even more important than modernization.

To get ready for the shift, inventory needs to become more robust, notably with regard to weapons.

In visiting US bases, a common theme in addition to readiness and training shortfalls, is the challenge of basic inventory shortfalls.

The Trump Administration has come to power promising to correct much of this.

But there simply is not enough time and money to do readiness and training plus ups, mobilization and rapid modernization.

Donald Trump as a businessman might take a look at how DoD could actually functions as an effective business in equipping the force and having highlighted the question of allies might be pleased to learn of significant allied investments in new combat systems which his own forces can use, thus saving money and enhancing capability at the same time.

One way to augment the force would be to do something which would seem to be at odds with the Make America Great notion.

As one of Danish analyst put it: “I have no problem with the idea of making America great again. For me, the question is how?”

By leveraging extant allied programs and capabilities which if adopted by the US forces would save money but even more importantly ramp up the operational capability of the US forces and their ability to work with allies in the shortest time possible.

By so doing, the US could target investments where possible in break through programs which allies are NOT investing in.

And at the heart of building a 21st century combat forces is the multi-mission software upgradeable platforms, such as Wedgetail, the F-35 or the P-8. And here the interactive relationship with allies is a key driver for change, but to really leverage it requires a significant change in perspective.

As the head of the USAF materiel command, General Ellen Pawlikowski, put it:

“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…

 http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/software-upgradeability-and-combat-dominance-general-ellen-pawlikowski-looks-at-the-challenge/

Allies are already doing this, in this case of the RAAF and the Royal Australian Navy. If one would go to sea with the new frigates and watch how code gets rewritten that would be a harbinger of things to come for the US if we follow the technology rather than 20th bureaucratic rules.

And even more challenging is for the US to follow the technology with regard to its own multi-mission software upgradeable systems which as the General noted can not be rapidly upgraded with the current approach to modernization.

And this will simply be unacceptable to allies operating such systems such as F-35 or the P-8. It is hard to imagine the Israeli Air Force simply accepting slo mo software development when the F-35 is becoming a centerpiece for the national survival.

Allies will drive change but why resist why not embrace it?

Rather than following the outdated USAF practices of having a very long logistical tail to any aircraft flown to an area of interest, why not simply leverage global F-35 bases.

Why not let “foreign F-35 maintainers” maintain US jets working with those maintainers who have been flown in by the USAF as well?

All that is required is to have an enterprise security clearance to maintain the common F-35, but this is hardly an act of God or even of bold imagination. It is act of responding to the strategic opportunities inherent in the new combat capabilities and the technology built into them.

High intensity warfare requires higher sortie generation rates of the kind inherhent in the F-35 global enterprise. But this will not happen if the USAF follows its legacy sustainment rules rather than opening the aperture to embrace common working arrangements with allies on “foreign” air bases.

And as the US looks to develop new capabilities, in many ways, a key way to accelerate modernization is embracing foreign capabilities.

Notably, with regard to the new frigate program which is an essential element for augmenting the surface fleet, will not happen for a very long time unless the obvious is done. Pick a foreign frigate design and build it in the United States.

And then search the global market for capabilities off the shelf which can be put onto that frigate in a fast acquisition approach.

For example, the Australians have developed a world-class radar which is software upgradeable and very agile and adaptability on their surface ships. It has been developed in Australia by a company, which has Northrop Grumman with significant minority ownership in the company.

It would hardly be difficult to transfer this technology to the United States and get it onboard the new frigate with a rapid technology insertion process.

In this new Special Report  we look at a number of areas in which core allies have created new capabilities, which compliment and can supplement US capabilities.

Please enter your name and email below and you will then be able to download the report directly.

Special Reports Request Form

 

 

 

 

HAVOC Works the Electronic Warfare Payload in the Digital Battlespace

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/14/2017
||

2017-08-10 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

During our recent visit to NAWDC, we had a chance to talk with the leadership of N-10 or HAVOC as it is known at NAWDC.

N10:  The US Navy’s Airborne Electronic Attack Weapons School, call sign “HAVOC”, stood up in 2011 to execute the NAWDC mission as it pertains to Electronic Warfare and the EA-18G Growler.  HAVOC is comprised of highly qualified Growler Tactics Instructors, or GTIs, that form the “tactical engine” of the EA-18G community, developing the tactics that get the most out of EA-18G sensors and weapons.  HAVOC’s mission is also to train Growler Aircrew and Intelligence Officers on those tactics during the Growler Tactics Instructor Course.  

The Growler Tactics Instructor Course is a rigorous 12 week syllabus of academic, simulator, and live fly events that earn graduates the Growler Tactics Instructor designation – the highest level of EA-18G tactical qualification that is recognized across Naval Aviation.  The Growler brings the most advanced tactical Electronic Warfare capabilities to operational commanders creating a tactical advantage for friendly air, land, and maritime forces by delaying, degrading, denying, or deceiving enemy kill chains.

It is clear that the HAVOC leadership looks at their work as providing key tools for the current fight, including embedding Naval aircrews with ground maneuver elements in our current wars.

However they are also significantly laying the foundation for the con-ops evolution of many the tactics and training for combat employment of high intensity non-kinetic payloads in the digital battlespace.

Significantly in building to the future, they are working their “tron magic” across the joint and coalition force.

During our visit we interviewed LT Scot “Chu-Hi” Chuda, LCDR Stephen “Choda” Skoda, LT Steven Sanchetta and LCDR “Sharkey” McCormick.

The team has significant electronic warfare experience starting with Prowler and has worked with Growler for some time as well.

The first point made by the team was that the Growler is mission dependent.

They emphasized that their role varied by mission but they were seeing an expanded role for the non-kinetic capability.

They are expanding beyond a classic Suppression of Enemy Air Defense or SEAD role to look at other ways to contribute to a broader mission set.

One should look at Growler as providing a non-kinetic payload within the evolving digital battlefield because the non-kinetic payload business is itself expanding as threat change and technology evolves.

“How we integrate will always depend on the different assets available and the different missions.”

The second point is that demand signal is going up with regard to the electronic magnetic spectrum threat.

“The electromagnetic spectrum is pervasive and everybody uses it and everybody tries to take advantage of it and we are the sole asset in the DOD that has that as our primary mission to affect the electromagnetic spectrum.”

The third is that they work a lot with the joint force.

For example, “we spend last third of our Growler Tactics Instructor (GTI) training course at the USAF Weapons School Integration (WSINT) course at Nellis. In fact, every Red Flag now has a Growler squadron participating.”

We asked about the current disposition of Growlers and we were told that there are more than 100 Growlers currently with 4 expeditionary squadrons to support the COCOMs.

The fourth point was about a ramping up of integration work for the high end fight.

HAVOC participates two times a year in the USAF Weapons School WSINT course.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1073726/weapons-school-officers-employ-total-force-training-during-libya-b-2-strike/

“The USAF brings all the platforms together. Everyone is an expert in their own platform when they start WSINT. But WSINT is about forcing integration into the mind set of participants. They provide a problem set where no single platform can do the job alone, they need to use other platforms to working together and need to synchronize to solve the problem and it’s something we don’t see anywhere else.”

There is a growing demand for electronic magnetic payloads in the digital battlespace is going up and the kind of integration being fostered will shape modernization as the combat fleet goes forward.

“Everybody is going to keep using electronics and advanced electromagnetic spectrum to their advantage in fighting and no one is going to forget about it.”

It has been a slow process of rolling out Growler capabilities and clearly there is a need looking forward to accelerate the modernization process to ensure dominance in this important warfighting area.

“We need to be pushing forward towards the next capability whether it be an aircraft or UAV or a system of systems bundled capability. As of right now we are 18 years into a 22-year upgrade project on current capabilities that looking forward to the future needs to happen more quickly to deal with this rapidly evolving warfighting area.”

We then addressed the need to modify how the USAF and the USN connect in order to more rapidly train and prepare for high tempo operations.

The team pointed out that it took three months to prepare for the joint training, as security and communication barriers made the process much harder than it would need to be to get the quick on the fly integration for the 21st century digital battlefield.

Put in blunt terms, the enterprise rules and security rules in place for today’s “Slo Mo” war clearly are not adequate to preparing for higher tempo ops where the force needs to integrate on the fly to deal with the contested battlespace.

The team next discussed the need to get better integration earlier in the process of introducing new equipment or modernized equipment into the force.

“It is not so much teaching the air crews how to use a particular piece of equipment; it is about learning how to integrate into the fight and to get best value from any upgrade or new piece of equipment. We need to focus more attention on that part of the equation.”

As an aside we saw the same technology and combat learning dynamic embedded in the US Navy P-8/Triton community at Navy Jax.

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

Finally, we discussed a topic which we also discussed with the Hawkeye instructors as well.

Working integration of the digital battlespace among Growler, F-35 and Hawkeye would enhance the TTPs which could be developed to more rapidly evolve capabilities in the digital battlespace.

“There are many of us around here who think that the concept of the E2D the F35 and the Growler integrating would accelerate our transition to where warfare is going with regard to the contested battlespace.

“There are many of us around here who think that would be an outstanding idea that we should really push for and should be a focus of testing and evaluation.

“But there will be people around as well who will say but how does that lead to me dropping bombs?”

Editor’s Note: The first slideshow shows a Dodge Intrepid and Growler on the runway at Fallon Naval Air Station.

The second slideshow shows the Growler at Red Flag 17-3.

The third slideshow shows Aussie Growlers at Hickham AFB.

The photos are credited to the US Navy.

Editor’s Note: For a strategic look at the way ahead on Tron Warfare, see the following Special Report:

 

https://sldinfo.com/shaping-a-21st-century-approach-to-tron-warfare-2/

 

Expanding the Reach of the Battlefleet: The Evolving Role of the Advanced Hawkeye

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2017-08-11 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

The new variant of the Hawkeye has come to the fleet.

The E-2D IOC’d with VAW-125 in 2014.

And aboard the USS Theodore Roosevel, they completed a CENTCOM deployment ISO OIR.

Then earlier this year, the E2-DE-2D as it is known arrived in Japan with a flourish to join into the defense of Japan and of the US fleet in Pacific operations.

According to a press release from the Commander of Naval Forces Japan and dated February 2, 2017:

IWAKUNI, Japan (NNS) — Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 125 arrived at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Iwakuni, Feb. 2.

The “Tigertails” of VAW-125 are relieving the “Liberty Bells” of VAW-115 as the early-warning squadron of the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 5, supporting the Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Carrier Strike Group.

“We are excited to join the forward-deployed naval forces at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in the amazing city of Iwakuni,” said Cmdr. Daniel Prochazka, VAW-125’s commanding officer. “I would like to thank the city for its hospitality and for warmly welcoming us to this incredible place. This is my second time in the forward-deployed naval forces. My fond memories make me personally very thrilled to be back.”

VAW-125’s arrival also brings enhanced capabilities to the region, as the squadron’s five E2-D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft provide substantial upgrades over the E-2C Hawkeye platform. VAW-125 is the U.S. Navy’s first operational fleet squadron to utilize the E-2D.

The Advanced Hawkeye Extends The Reach of the Fleet from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

“VAW-125 is the first and most experienced E-2D squadron in the U.S. Navy,” Prochazka said. “This aircraft has the most advanced airborne radar in the world, and the people who fix and fly it are the best in the U.S. Navy.”

Among the improvements in the E-2D are an all-new electronics suite, enhanced turboprop engines, modernized communications, and upgrade potential for mid-air refueling capabilities.

The U.S. Navy first took delivery of the E-2D July 2010, and began a phased replacement of the venerable E-2C aircraft which has served the fleet since 1973.

Prochazka added the forward deployment of VAW-125 to MCAS Iwakuni is in accordance with the U.S. Navy’s strategic vision for rebalance to the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, putting the most advanced and capable units forward in order to support the United States’ commitment to the defense of Japan and the security and stability of the region.

“I am proud to bring the E2-D Advanced Hawkeye to Japan and to help strengthen the alliance between our two great nations,” he said. “I am confident that our people and equipment will continue to build upon the vital relationship between our two countries.”

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98672

But this is just the beginning.

Although identified as a replacement for the “venerable E-2C aircraft” it is more than that.

It is a key element off reshaping how the Navy is working the digital battlespace and evolving its integration with other key assets will expand the reach and capability of the fleet to deal with evolving threats.

To do so will require pushing the training envelope as the new systems are integrated into a developing and evolving digital battlespace.

As a software upgradeable aircraft, the systems will interact with and evolve with other new assets such as the P-8 and Triton (external to the Carrier Air Wing) and with the F-35C (which will be organic to the CAG.)

We had a chance to discuss the way ahead for the training for the Advanced Hawkeye and its evolving roles as well for the fleet with three members of NAWDC’s N6 department, better known as the Carrier Airborne Early Warning Weapons School (CAEWWS).

According to the Navy:

The Carrier Airborne Early Warning Weapons School (CAEWWS) is the E-2 weapon school and responsible for Airborne Tactical Command and Control advanced individual training via the Hawkeye Weapons and Tactics Instructors (HEWTIs) class.  

CAEWWS is also responsible for development of community Tactics, Technique and Procedures and provides inputs to the acquisition process in the form of requirements and priorities for research and development (R&D), procurement, and training systems.  

CAEWWS works closely to support other warfare development centers and Weapons Schools; such as the Surface and Mine Warfare Development Center’s Integrated Air Defense Course (IADC) and Integrated Air and Missile Defense WTI Integration Course (IWIC). 

 Other functions include support to advanced integrated fleet training by way of WTI augmentation to the N5/STRIKE Department for CVW integrated training detachments; also known as Air Wing Fallon Detachment and support of squadron activities.

 https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw/installations/nas_fallon/about/nawdc.html

The interview also highlighted the evolving working relationship between the surface fleet with NAWDC which is a key feature of setting in motion ways to enhance combat integration within the training and development effort, given the central role which TPPs play in shaping combat capabilities to fight with the fleet you have and the one in the process of change.

The head of CAEWWS is Commander David Dees. Joining him in the interview were LT Cremean, the Maritime Employment subject matter expert and CAEWWS Training Officer and LT Andrew Blanco, who is one of the surface warfare liaison officers and an Integrated Air and Missile Defense WTI.

The mix of personnel reflects how the Navy is working to enhance current capabilities and to put in place the kind of cross-platform multi-dimension warfare domain thinking, which is essential for the evolving fleet.

We started by discussing the work flow of the five man crew onboard the Advanced Hawkeye which is different from Hawkeye in that the co-pilot has greater involvement in the execution of the mission data engagement flow.

“By adding a fourth crew member with the ability to utilize the full tactical system we expanded the ability to execute the mission by moving certain tasks to the cockpit.

“It brings new challenges in tactical crew coordination as the crew is no longer able to reach out and interact with that person next to them in the back of the aircraft.”

Inside the E-2, the pilots are not the mission commanders, for that role resides in the back of the aircraft with the Naval Flight Officers or NFOs.

“The co-pilot may also be dealing with the challenges of flying the aircraft and any aircraft issue that may come up, so he can experience task overload.

“This is why we are carefully developing the tactical contracts the co-pilot has, but with the full work station he does now fully participate in the tactical mission which gives us more capability to manage the crew workload.”

Currently, the Hawkeye is used to support the strike effort off of the carrier.

But as the battlespace is changing so will the Hawkeye role.

A key change is the ability to detect threats in a cluttered battlespace.

Here the training needs to focus on the challenge of target identification in a fluid battlespace.

The advanced Hawkeye has sensors appropriate to the task, but enhanced training efforts with regard to this key task is envisaged.

“Target identification is the hard part.”

The Hawkeye team is a key part of the acquisition engagement payload utility function for the fleet.

And associated with the evolving challenge of target acquisition is shaping an effective decision making cycle as well to deal with threats.

Hawkeye is clearly part of the decision making cycle but the overall evolution of executing this capability against evolving threats is a work in progress.

For example, the Advanced Hawkeye has capabilities which are part of air and cruise missile defense and working through the entire package of dealing with this threat is at the heart of the evolving training regime.

And the new emphasis on distributed lethality means that the role of forward operating assets such as advanced Hawkeye are seeing a reworking of the role of the crews onboard an asset like Hawkeye in the decision making loop.

We clearly saw this happening as well in the P-8-Triton community so that one can note that there is a broader shift of emphasis on mission command within the fleet to sort out how different assets will play which roles in the evolving battlespace.

Admiral Harris noted that the Admiral Swift, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, and his team were working hard on the rethink on decision-making authorities.

According to Admiral “Hyfi” Harris: “What authorities should reside where and when?

“They are driving towards mission command which is crucial to deal with evolving threats.”

The E-2D is a software upgradeable aircraft and is a key player in shaping the ISR/C2 capabilities operating from the carrier.

The F-35 coming to the carrier deck also has key radar capabilities, notably built by the same company, Northrop Grumman, and working integration will provide a key opportunity to enhance the capabilities of the CAG in supporting fleet operations.

Clearly, tools like Live Virtual Constructive training will become increasingly more important in training for the extended battlespace and there is a clear need to work integration with live assets today with US and Allied forces in order to lay down a solid foundation for something like LVC.

The team emphasized the need to have the advanced assets at NAWDC to allow for the kind of integrated training, which is clearly necessary.

They would like to see E-2Ds and F-35Cs physically at NAWDC to allow for the kind of hands on experience, which can build, integrated cross platform training essential for the development of the skill sets for dominance in the 21st century battlespace.

One could also add, that the need to build ground floor relationships between code writers and operators needs to include the TTP writers as well.

Hence, a different pattern is emerging whereby training is as much about combat development TTPs as it is about single platform proficiency.

“The problem is right now, we don’t have aircraft here to fully develop cross platform integration, because we don’t have enough time spent together to figure out the optimal direction to drive that kind of integration.”

With regard to a future Hawkeye, the team saw a clear benefit to making the next Hawkeye a jet.

It was not simply a question of range and speed, but ease of maintenance.

“The current plane is a great plane. If the follow-on platform was a jet aircraft tanking will be a lot easier. It will make maintenance a lot easier as well.”

Editor’s Note: It is often a media template to bring sunlight on US Defense corporations with a shading that somehow very decent people wake up every morning and try and figure out how to make mistakes.

But there is a corresponding upside to American engineering genius, which is the worldwide proliferation of American systems often in different platforms.

The very practical application of similar systems in U.S. and Allied fighting forces is very simple.

The famous concept of “Tec-Reps” technical representatives supported by industry is invaluable for advancing the state-of-the art in perfecting ever better technological performance.

The same in TTP development is also so true especially with the E-2D, F-35, USN Triton and RAAF Wedgetail combat systems all having a developmental commonality.

Northrop Grumman builds and supports the radars on a number of key platforms flown by the US Navy and the allies with whom the USN operates as well.

There is a commonality across the platforms as Northrop builds scalable digital radars and the new approach to radar technology lays a foundation for the kind of interactive integration crucial for cross domain high intensity warfare which is becoming a clear focus at NAWDC.

The video and slideshow photos are credited to the US navy. 

Largest Air Mobility Command Allied Power Projection Exercise: Mobility Guardian 2017

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/12/2017

2017-08-12 Mobility Guardian aims to enhance the U.S. and allied military’s global response force by integrating in complex, realistic mobility training with partner nations.

Mobility Guardian is Air Mobility Command’s premier exercise, providing an opportunity for the Mobility Air Forces to train with joint and international partners in airlift, air refueling, aeromedical evacuation and mobility support.

08.06.2017

Largest AMC Exercise: Mobility Guardian 2017 from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

Video by Staff Sgt. Jael Laborn 

19th Airlift Wing

U.S., International Partners Kick Off Mobility Guardian Exercise

By Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jodi Martinez375th Air Mobility Wing

JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash., Aug. 1, 2017 — Nearly 30 partner nations are participating alongside U.S. counterparts during Air Mobility Command‘s Mobility Guardian exercise, which kicked off across Washington state yesterday and concludes Aug. 12. 

The exercise aims to enhance the U.S. military’s global response force by integrating in complex, realistic mobility training with partner nations, AMC officials said.

Fully-integrated events during the exercise will allow for strategic interoperability in support of real-world operations, said Air Force Maj. Thomas Rich, joint task force director of operations for Mobility Guardian. 

“We’re pushing the tactical edge,” Rich said. “We’re putting aircraft from different nations close together in a tight airspace in a dynamic threat environment. There’s a little bit of inherent risk in that, but that’s what we want to do here so that everybody is ready when we do it for real.” 

More than 650 international military personnel and 3,000 U.S. military service members will focus on AMC’s four core competencies — airlift, air refueling, aeromedical evacuation and air mobility support — said Air Force Col. Clinton Zumbrunnen, the exercise’s international observer mission commander.

Zumbrunnen said he hopes Mobility Guardian, which is planned to be held biennially, will attract additional allies to attend and will encourage observers to return as participants in the future. 

Col. Jose Antonio Morales, training commander for the Brazilian air force’s 5th Wing, echoed this hope for his own country. “We are trying to arrange a lot of new exercises and interchanges between our countries,” he said. “We are all so proud to represent our country and our air force and participate in this very important exercise.” 

Exercise Events

Scheduled events include formations of aircraft from the United States, Brazil and Colombia and a joint forcible entry from an intelligence alliance composed of service members from the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. 

Capt. Patrick Rodrigue, a Canadian Forces Aeromedical Evacuation Unit flight nurse, offered his take. “It’s very important for us to get out there and actually practice our mission and get to practice our capacity as well as joint interoperability,” he said. 

Nations participating as observers also play a vital role by strengthening partnerships and becoming familiar with U.S. training, tactics, and procedures.

Zumbrunnen said observers will be paired with U.S. crew members to see as much of the air mobility process as safely and securely as possible. 

Mobility Guardian will focus on U.S. airmen to operate alongside international service members. Rich explained that this maximizes the efficiency of the entire Air Force and its interoperability during real-world contingencies.

Enhancing Power Projection

Zumbrunnen said the effort to enhance unrivaled power projection capabilities is not possible without the help of U.S. allies. “I have not deployed anywhere or gone anywhere in my duty as an airlift pilot where there was not an international presence,” he added. 

Mobility Guardian offers an avenue for testing the full spectrum of AMC’s capabilities, exercise officials said, and also incorporates opportunities to exchange mobility expertise with international counterparts to create worldwide impact.

The United States does not go to war without allies, so it’s important that Mobility Guardian develops power projection capability.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1263773/us-international-partners-kick-off-mobility-guardian-exercise/

The second half of Exercise Mobility Guardian began Aug. 6, 2017, and will focus on training aircrew on advanced tactical air operations. 

Following the successful execution of the joint forcible entry, ground forces established control over Moses Lake, which enabled the transition to sustainment operations. 

“Mobility Guardian has tested our ability to prepare and deliver the force,” said Gen. Carlton D. Everhart II, commander of the Air Mobility Command. “Now it will test our ability to sustain the force and, after the mission is over, ensure the joint force returns home.” 

The Army’s 62nd Medical Brigade enabled the first step in the sustainment phase, said Air Force Lt. Col. Jeremy Wagner, the Mobility Guardian director. The brigade executed humanitarian relief operations after the 82nd Airborne Division accomplished a joint forcible entry and seized the airfield at Moses Lake. From there, components of the 7th Infantry Division, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, took over the airfield and established their power projection. 

These movements enabled the 621st Contingency Response Wing to begin air base opening operations at Fairchild Air Force Base, Moses Lake, and Yakima, Washington. 

International teams working with ground forces will also provide force protection during the sustainment phase. The Number 2 Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment, one of the international teams, will provide airfield security for the 621st CRW. 

“They are force multipliers,” said Wagner. “They’ve been very involved and have shown how capable they are as our partners.” 

International teams will remain integrated during the 500-plus flights that were planned in support of Mobility Guardian, said Wagner. During the sustainment phase, aircraft will continue to deliver materials to support the ground forces’ humanitarian efforts, but the air operations are expected to become more difficult. 

“We’ve been airdropping an incredible amount of equipment to some of the displaced humanitarian relief operations” said Wagner. “Now it mostly focuses on getting advanced tactical training for our aircrews. When we’re done with that, we can start heading home.” 

This training includes air drops in difficult locations, opportunities to test practice threat systems that detect ground enemies, and C-130 Hercules wet-wing defueling, Wagner added. 

For Everhart, this advanced exercise is a testament of the abilities that U.S. and international service members provide the global response force. 

“Global reach is not a birthright for America; it requires hard work, preparation, investment, and training,” said Everhart . “Mobility Guardian offers our Airmen vital experience to excel in any environment, applying lessons learned from years of war to deliver a realistic and challenging training environment for not only the Air Force but our joint and international partners as well.”

By Tech. Sgt. Jodi Martinez, 375th Air Mobility Wing, 375th Air Mobility Wing

http://www.militaryspot.com/news/exercise-mobility-guardian-phase-2-begins

The North Koreans and Nuclear Weapons: Launching the Second Nuclear Age

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2017-08-09 By Danny Lam

The rapid development of North Korean ICBM capability exposed an apparent inconsistency with similar developments in other nuclear weapons powers.

Land based ICBMs, by their nature, are physically large missiles.Liquid fueled, they are difficult to transport whether empty or fueled. Solid fueled ICBMs are less problematic, but still require extensive maintenance if actively and routinely transported by road.

These problems have tended to restrict most ICBMs to either stationary land bases, or at sea where transportation by SSBNs is less stressful.

Mobile land based ICBMs, moved about on wheeled or tracked road transporter erector launchers or rail, expose missiles to many risks plus wear and tear.

To date, North Korea have demonstrated a variety of road mobile ICBM platforms that are mostly stored in bunkers. While it is well known that DPRK have extensive underground facilities, particularly for artillery, munitions, short or medium range missiles, none is known via open source intelligence to be dedicated ICBM missile silos like the US Minuteman silos. The PRC historically made extensive use of large underground bunkers with underground missile launch pads that are reloadable.

It is not known if North Korea is following this model.

Most of North Korea’s ICBM tests, to date, are either conducted on fixed above ground launch pads, or a mobile transporter erector launcher (TEL) / pad.

But how are they going to base them in the near future when their ICBM arsenal reaches initial operational capability?

The most plausible explanation is that DPRK is moving toward solely relying on mobile TELs for their liquid fueled ICBMs.   Liquid fueled ICBMs that are fueled on the launch pad require a large convoy of supporting trucks and many hours of preparation for launch.

This long lag time in the “open” enabled advanced detection of launch and at least in theory the possibility of pre-emptive strikes as a missile is fueled.

North Korea can, alternatively, master the delicate task of pre-fueling the missile horizontally prior to transport out of the storage bunker. That would shorten the time for launch to perhaps 30 minutes to an hour.

But that is still a significant window of vulnerability compared to the time required to launch a pre-fueled silo based missile, which can be launched in minutes or as quickly as the hatch can be opened.

If the choice is for a US style ICBM silo, it will likely to be large not only to accommodate the liquid fueled rocket, but potentially, large enough for “strap on” solid fueled boosters that may be required to lift an early generation thermonuclear warhead and missile packed with penetration aids and decoys from DPRK to anywhere in USA.

Construction of large ICBM silos can in theory be detected through several “national technical” means. While it cannot be ruled out that DPRK ICBM silo construction have escaped public notice, it is an open question whether they built them at all.

The PRC, who until the 21st century, had an “assured means of retaliation” posture that presumed their ICBMs in hardened silos will survive a first strike, and can be launched afterwards.

Though this may have changed to an offensive first strike posture at least for S/MRBMs aimed at near-abroad targets.

If the North Koreans have not invested in building hardened silos for their liquid fueled ICBMs, it can be a sign that they are expecting to field a mobile solid fueled ICBM shortly — and thus, sidestep the complexity of liquid fueled missiles.

Another explanation is that DPRK do not need or anticipate the requirement for survivability provided by basing liquid based ICBMs in hardened bunkers.

Or they feel that hardened silos (of the latest design) are not survivable anyways.

Not providing for survivability of an nuclear ICBM force is inconsistent with its use as a deterrent force.  

Basing missiles in the “open” was an expedient measure used by the Soviets in the 1960s which was abandoned as soon as they found something better. It is preferable to enhance readiness and survivability by storing missiles in bunkers, silos, or place them on submarines.

Deterrent forces, by their nature, are systems that sit unused for extended periods: decades until they are obsolete without ever being used.

Occasional samples are tested to ensure the stock is reliable if ever needed.   Thus, ICBMs on the US, Russian, Chinese, and Israeli models tend to be built to be long lasting, rugged, maintainable, and can be held at readiness for long periods with modest maintenance.

No expense is spared in making nuclear deterrent systems reliable and safe during their long periods of storage while ready to launch.

But are NORK ICBMs built this way?

Another line of reasoning is that DPRK intend to strike the first blow with their ICBMs — particularly using the liquid fueled versions that are most vulnerable once conflict broke out.   If this is the case, the ICBMs will have to be able to penetrate known defensive systems like the US ground based missile defense (GMD) systems.

That suggests that NORK may not be concerned by giving advance warning of the launches as the US and allies have not historically been willing to cross the line to pre-emptively destroy a “missile test” launch.

But what if the “test” involved volley firing of (e.g.) 10 ICBMs?

The US have not responded proactively to the PRC and DPRK volley launching multiple missiles in “tests”.   Thus, precedent favors no response if DPRK volley fired ICBMs in a “test”.

What if it is not a test?

The US will find out only when they see the trajectory heading across the Pacific.

What then?

Simultaneous firing of many ICBMs, mixed with IRBMs, will allow some of them to be used for blinding of sensors and destruction of key missile defense installations.   (e.g. Japanese and other Pacific radar sites). Before PACOM can determine if the launch is “hostile”, their sensors and communications will likely be blinded and / or disabled.

Decoys, dummy missiles and warheads can overwhelm the small number of ABM interceptors leading to a high probability that at least one thermonuclear warhead will detonate over CONUS.

US posture biased against “provocations”, rather than contribute to stability and preventing nuclear war, encourage DPRK to adopt a surprise massive first strike strategy aimed at a Pearl Harbor like knockout blow.

Do the ICBM basing plans of DPRK reveal an offensive nuclear first strike strategy being put into place?

If so, it leads to very different calculations as to DPRK intent and longer term goals.

DPRK may not be deterred.

Editor’s Note: If you wish to comment on this article, please see the following:

Where are the NORK ICBM Silos?

Editor’s Note: Earlier this year we published an article by Paul Bracken which focused on the emergence of the Second Nuclear Age as a key challenge facing the United States and the allies as the New Administration came to power.

2017-01-05 By Paul Bracken, Yale University

The most interesting thing about the second nuclear age is that it actually came about.

It wasn’t supposed to happen, at least according to most political science theory. What was supposed to happen after the cold war was a reinvigorated global nuclear nonproliferation regime, which along with U.S. leadership and muscular counter-proliferation policies, that would prevent a second nuclear age from developing.

Anti-nuclear norms — authoritative rules and principles — were expected to enforce this regime.

Nuclear weapons were thought by many to have little value even if you did get them.

What could you do with a nuclear weapon, after all? You could sit on it, in which case it would be a monstrously expensive symbol of folly.

Or, you could fire it, and become a glass parking lot from the certain retaliation.

But the second nuclear age did come about.

What significance does this have, and what can be said about the fact — in comparison to widely held expectation that a second nuclear age wouldn’t arise?

Here I highlight some answers to these questions.

Some definitions are in order. By the “second nuclear age” I mean the spread of nuclear arms for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the cold war (Bracken, The Second Nuclear Age, New York Times Books, 2012). In the 1990s there was a widely held belief that nuclear arms would join the cold war in the graveyard of history.   Nuclear weapons were analyzed in terms of nonproliferation theory, or if not that in terms of disarmament.

The argument was that there was a “twilight of the bomb,” to use a phrase widely embraced at the time. The bomb might last a few years, but its irrelevance to the security challenges of a post cold-war world would make it useful only in largely unimaginable situations. Say, a Russian surprise nuclear attack on U.S. cities. Possible, yes, but hardly conceivable.

This was a core belief in intellectual and academic circles, and in 2009 with President Barrack Obama’s Prague speech, it was brought into official U.S. policy and strategy.

But after the cold war the bomb spread, to India, Pakistan, then and North Korea. Israel’s nuclear arsenal virtually came out into the open, and Iran made a serious push to go nuclear. Others are trying to do so now, or at least hedging their bets with options to do it quickly should the need arise.

The international system is now composed of a constellation of major powers, most of which have nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia, China, India, Britain, and France qualify here. Indeed Japan is the only major power, which doesn’t have it. But Japan is linked into U.S. missile defense and protected by a U.S. security guarantee. In addition, there are three smaller powers, North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel, who also have the bomb.

What do these facts tell us about our initial proposition that a second nuclear age wasn’t supposed to happen?

Obviously, that a second nuclear age wasn’t averted.

More, it says that nuclear weapons have become a foundation for being a major power.

When was the last time anyone even argued that India should give up nuclear weapons and sign the NPT as a non-nuclear state?

This not only isn’t going to happen, it’s an argument that isn’t even made any longer. India couldn’t be an ally to the United States as an offset to China if it also wasn’t a nuclear power.

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-4-20-39-am

The program for avoiding a second nuclear age — an intensive nonproliferation regime, U.S. leadership, widely embraced anti-nuclear norms by most countries, was not unreasonable. As goals they made perfect sense, for the United States if not for others. I think most strategic analysts would support them as highly desirable, although this can get complicated.

The fact that we are in a second nuclear age shows important features of the emerging international order. Let me underscore that I am talking about international order here, and not winning wars.

So the first big insight is that this order is in fact a nuclear order.

It’s security is based, at bottom, on a threat to blow up large parts of the world, even if one chooses not to acknowledge this, either by talking platitudes or simply not thinking about it. Nuclear war may be unthinkable.

But it isn’t impossible. Because for all of the talk about how no one wants a nuclear war and how inconceivable it is, these weapons are always there.

No one is getting rid of them, not India, Britain, Israel, China, or the United States.

The international system is made up of sovereign states and within the country boundaries most can do pretty much what they please. Most countries have decided not to go nuclear. But some have, and they have found ways to do so in the face of daunting opposition and powerful allies who didn’t want them to do so.

China, Israel, and Pakistan — all have different strategic situations, but share a common feature, that powerful allies opposed their getting the bomb. The biggest determinant of whether a country gets the bomb isn’t major power opposition, norms against it, arms control, or international law like the NPT. It’s whether they want to get it or not.

If they do, they can probably find a way. Short of all out military strikes to destroy their nuclear capacity, or ground invasion and occupation, it’s hard to stop them. None of this is an argument against the NPT, efforts to institutionalize norms, or arms control.

They are simply unlikely to prove effective against a determined state seeking to get the bomb.

Another feature about the second nuclear age is that international order depends to a considerable degree on the structure of the system, rather than academic blueprints for how history should evolve in the future.

We are moving toward a multipolar order.

I don’t mean to invoke any academic theory here, but only to make the point that there are multiple decision-making centers in this system. Not one, and not two, but several.

So, the second nuclear age is a multipolar nuclear order, meaning that most major powers in it have nuclear weapons. This is, obviously, a unique development, since in the cold war only two major powers with the bomb really mattered.

That this is a nuclear order means that escalation and even the willingness to use conventional force is necessarily made in a nuclear context.

A third aspect that the realization of a second nuclear age has come about has to do with military technology. Major powers have lost their monopoly over advanced military technologies. It was in the late 1990s that this happened, as second and third-rate powers (Pakistan, North Korea) could get nuclear weapons.

Now, these countries not only have atomic weapons, they have other tools like drones, cyber arsenals, and mobile missiles. Nuclear weapons were once restricted to big wealthy states with an advanced technology base, major powers. They were the only ones with wealth, and the missiles and long-range bombers to deliver it. Technology was a force that worked against multi-polarity here.

No more. Today Pakistan flies drones, and North Korea is building a nuclear ICBM. Now, technology works toward accelerating multi-polarity, further weakening the monopoly major powers once held.

Finally, the second nuclear age isn’t only a structure.

Like all big structures it has processes and dynamics.

Given the overwhelming policy focus devoted to an alternative structure — of a nuclear-nonproliferation regime and its norms — the strategic dynamics of a second nuclear age have received little attention.

Consider that India is building a triad of nuclear forces, many with MIRV warheads. India will be able to destroy from ten to twenty Chinese cities. China and Russia are expanding their own strategic forces.   Japan is buying into U.S. missile defense, big time. Japan, as well has a U.S. nuclear guarantee. Taken together, with a now certain modernization of U.S. strategic forces, a new “pentapolar war system” is forming in Asia. This has to profoundly shape how China sees the world.

The dynamics of a second nuclear age will determine world order.

They are most unlikely to simply be a replay of cold war dynamics. It’s actually quite fantastic when you think about it.

New nuclear interactions played out on the vast geography of Asia, are most unlike the cold war dynamics of Europe.

The second nuclear age calls for a fresh look at the structures, dynamics, and processes of a world order that many did not want to see come about.

But there’s an old saying that applies here. “You have to play the hand you’re dealt, not the one you wish you were dealt.”

For our earlier Forum on the Second Nuclear Age, see the following:

How to prevail in the Second Nuclear Age?

Creating a Clean Sheet Light Attack/ISR Aircraft: The Emergence of the Scorpion

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/11/2017

2017-08-08 By Ed Timperlake and Robbin Laird

The USAF is looking to add a light attack aircraft to its inventory to deal with air support operations at the low intensity warfare end of the equation.

And they are conducting an experiment to determine a way ahead throughout the month of August with four aircraft from three manufacturers.

Participating in the USAF Light Attack Experiment as the service evaluates the potential purchase of a light attack aircraft under its OA-X initiative are two Textron aircraft —the Scorpion jet and the Beechcraft AT-6, the Brazilian Embraer/Sierra Nevada A-29 Super Tucano, and the AT-802L

Longsword offered by Air Tractor and L3. Scorpion are the only jets among a field of turboprop aircraft.

The fourth aircraft was a late entrant into the experiment.

The USAF described the experiment this way in a March 20, 2017 88th Air Base Wing Public Affairs article:

The Air Force released an industry invitation to participate today to evaluate the military utility of light attack platforms in future force structure.

The invitation is part of a broader Air Force effort to explore cost-effective attack platform options. The live-fly experiment is an element of the Light Attack Capabilities Experimentation Campaign run by the Air Force Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, will begin this week at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.

“This is an evolution of the close air support experimentation effort which we have now broadened to include a variety of counter-land missions typical of extended operations since Desert Storm,” said Lt. Gen. Arnie Bunch, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition’s military deputy.

Industry members are invited to participate with aircraft that may meet an Air Force need for a low-cost capability that is supportable and sustainable. This spring the Air Force will analyze data received from vendors seeking to participate in the experimentation campaign and will then invite selected offerors to participate in a live-fly capabilities assessment this summer.

The Air Force will host the live-fly experiment to assess the capabilities of these off-the-shelf attack aircraft. Industry participants will participate with suitable aircraft, which will be flown by Air Force personnel in scenarios designed to highlight aspects of various combat missions, such as close air support, armed reconnaissance, combat search and rescue, and strike control and reconnaissance.

The live-fly experiment also includes the employment of weapons commonly used by other fighter/attack aircraft to demonstrate the capabilities of light attack aircraft for traditional counter-land missions.

“After 25 years of continuous combat operations, our Air Force is in more demand than ever,” said Lt. Gen. Jerry Harris, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements. “Since we don’t expect deployment requirements to decrease, we have to look for innovative and affordable ways to meet capability demands in permissive environments while building and maintaining readiness to meet emerging threats in more contested environments.”

Scorpion jet multi-mission aircraft. Credit: Textron Aircraft

The live-fly experimentation will include a number of mission events including medium altitude basic day and night surface attack, precision munition surface attack, armed reconnaissance and close air support.

“This is an experiment, not a competition,” said Harris, emphasizing the event may not necessarily lead to any acquisition.

Experimentation and prototyping are envisioned as potential pathways to identify new operational concepts and candidate capabilities which can be rapidly and affordably fielded. The Air Force is interested in using agile solutions by leveraging rapid acquisition authorities where appropriate, to meet anticipated needs.

The results of the Light Attack Capabilities Experimentation Campaign will be used to inform requirements and criteria for future investment decisions.

http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1123613/af-invites-industry-for-light-attack-platform-experiment/

The advantages of a light attack aircraft were well put by Bill Buckey, former Deputy Commander of the NATO Airbase at Kandahar in 2009 and then vice-president for business development for Embraer North America when we did the interview in 2011:

It’s a different way of looking at the existing layer of air combat support. You’re offering the same capability but you’re driving down your cost of providing that capability.  In a COIN environment, one of the insurgent’s main goals is to drive up your cost of operating to an unacceptable level.  The cost of using fast jets is in this environment is simply unsustainable.

SLD:  Those costs per hour should be augmented as well, I would guess, by the cost of logistic support in an extreme environment?

Buckey:  What does that pound of fuel cost by the time it’s going through the boom into that F-16?  There’s a monstrous logistical tail to get fuel into Kandahar; the ships that get it to Karachi, the trucks that drive it up into Kandahar.  Then we eventually have to get some of it out to FOBs like Dwyer and Bastion.

SLD:  But your point is by driving down price point for the operation is a crucial strategic element.

Buckey:  Exactly. 

It was a concern of Gen. McChrystal and it’s clearly what Gen. Mattis was trying to address at JFCOM and now as CENTCOM. 

If you believe that a goal of an insurgency is to drive your cost of operating to an unacceptable level, we’re doing a great job of it over there right now given the logistical constraints and the aircraft we’re putting against the operational requirement. 

What we have to do is field the same capabilities in a platform that’s hundreds of dollars per flight hour instead of tens of thousands per flight hour.

https://sldinfo.com/re-visiting-the-concept-of-a-counter-insurgency-aircraft/

More recently, when Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson spoke at an Air Force Association event Aug. 1st she highlighted the need to learn how fast and cost-effectively the Air Force can get capabilities to the warfighter.

She emphasized the need to explore new ways of conducting business, including incorporating more input from industry and universities in the decision process, approaching innovation differently, eliminating bureaucracy and cultivating greater agility and flexibility through the use of open architecture systems.

“We need to get our ideas from the lab bench to the flightline fast,” she said.

http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1264411/secaf-talks-light-attack-experiment-innovation-at-afa-dinner/

Textron’s new build aircraft for the global marketplace was designed from the ground up to maximize useful payload by using the modular payload concept such as we have seen with the Blackjack UAS.

They are also leveraging existing air subsystems to ensure good global logistical reach and cost effectiveness.

Textron conducted its defense marketplace analysis and then launched the clean sheet Scorpion jet project, and then celebrated its first flight less than two years later.

We had a chance to discuss the emergence of the Scorpion jet with William Harris, the VP at Textron who is leading the Scorpion global sales effort.

Harris has been with Textron for more than twenty years and before that was an F-16 pilot in the USAF.

The process of putting the new build aircraft was done over a five-year period of looking at the global marketplace and thinking through the nature of a new entrant into that marketplace.

Once the market assessment was done, the process of putting the new aircraft together was quite rapid, namely 23 months.

“We looked to build an aircraft which could not only do close air support attack missions but could fit well into evolving ISR missions as well.

“We looked at our best practices from building other aircraft and applied these to the Scorpion project. We looked to build as well with the global logistics chain in mind. A good example is the engine we selected for Scorpion.

“There are thousands of Honeywell TFE-731 engines in the market, they’re easy to overhaul, they’re easily found and they are very well proven.”

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/engines/tfe731-turbofan-engine

We discussed the modular payload concept which is clearly a key element in the plane’s design and its attractiveness, given the dynamics of change in the payload market.

“We have three internal payload base that you can customize.

“We have the ability to change out sensors and weapons as the technology and market develops.

“We have six hard points on the wings and an open architecture stores management system.

“We have an L-3 Force X weapons computer that allows for rapid change as well.

“We are using already available systems, which guarantees performance and cost effectiveness.

“We’re not using necessarily new technology, particularly when it comes to the stores management system and the Widows Force X computer, because those systems are already being used on several aircraft and they already have software plug-ins that go into those particular computers that allow you to drop and easily change the aircraft configuration.

http://www.forcexinc.com

“We are not a fly by wire aircraft which keeps the cost down. Everything is more or less federated, particularly if you look at the avionics system.

“That is completely separate from the weapons computer or any imagery up on the HUD.

“It’s projected up on the HUD or through the helmet-mounted cueing system independent of what you see for your weapons displays.”

SLD: What kinds of countries or mission sets do you have in mind for the broader global market space?

Harris: “Because of the ability to adapt the airplane or change payloads of the airplane it is very versatile.

“It can do persistent ISR over land and urban environments.

“It has a very low noise signature, so whether it’s out on the battle field or in an urban environment, you’re not going to draw a lot of attention that you’re there.

“The other is a maritime capability with the airplane.

“We demonstrated the Scorpion with the Empire Test School in the UK a couple of years ago. We employed a Thales iMaster to test our ability to detect friendly from unfriendly ships in the maritime environment.

http://www.etps.qinetiq.com/Pages/default.aspx

“These combined capabilities make this a very attractive aircraft for a number of global customers and we are marketing the capability worldwide.”

SLD: How many airframes are you flying currently?

Harris:”Currently, there are four Scorpion jets operating in three locations worldwide by the summer of 2017.

“Four total, that’s for the first prototype, D-1, which is the one we had in Paris and in fact at RIAT.

“Then we’ve got P-1 and P-2 and P-3, which are the production-conforming aircraft.

“In fact, this summer Textron showcased the maturity, reliability, and robustness of its Scorpion jet fleet by simultaneously operating all four aircraft at three locations worldwide.

“The diverse cadre of Scorpion Jet technicians, maintainers, engineers, logisticians, support staff and test pilots displayed the prototype of the Scorpion — powered by twin Honeywell TFE731 engines — at the recent Paris air show and RIAT in the UK while also conducting operations with one of its three production aircraft at its base in Wichita and conducting its production aircraft weapons separation testing with the other two production jets along the NAVAIR Atlantic Test Ranges (ATR) near Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland.

“Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the team’s test efficiency enabled them to achieve 100 percent mission completion rate four days early, having launched 2.75″ Hydra-70 rockets, fired HMP-400 LCC gun pods, and dropped GBU-12 laser-guided bombs in five different configurations on five consecutive test days as it showcased the production Scorpion jet’s reliability, adaptability and versatility to the Naval test community at Pax River.”

PRODUCTCARD_DEF_SC_MSN_0617

Editor’s Note: According to Flight International, Saudi Arabia is a potential customer for the Scorpion.

Scott Donnelly, chief executive of parent company Textron, says Riyadh is one of a number of customers it is in talks with over the developmental aircraft.

The recent arms deal between the USA and Saudi Arabia includes $2 billion for “light close air support” aircraft. However, no details on the type or delivery dates have been disclosed.

Cautioning that its talks with Riyadh are at an “early” stage, Donnelly, speaking on a second-quarter results call, added: “There are certainly a number of things that we are looking at, but we think that now the performance envelope, the capability of what Scorpion can do makes it a very viable product for their requirements. But it’s still in its formative stages, I would say.”

Scorpion, along with the Beechcraft AT-6 and Embraer/Sierra Nevada A-29, will participate in a test campaign for the US Air Force in August as the service evaluates the potential purchase of a light attack aircraft under its OA-X initiative.

Although there is no programme of record for the requirement, Donnelly believes there is sufficient support from senior USAF leaders to merit the experimentation phase.

“I think the air force is being pragmatic about the fact that they need to execute the experimentation programme, understand what the capability is of the platforms that they are looking at and then take their next step, whatever that might be.”

Textron displayed a prototype of the Scorpion, powered by twin Honeywell TFE731 engines, at the recent Paris air show and Royal International Air Tattoo in the UK.

Donnelly says talks with prospective customers continue, but acknowledges that some will be waiting for the outcome of the OA-X effort.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saudi-arabia-considering-scorpion-deal-textron-chie-439516/