Remembering the Battle of the Coral Sea: And Building Towards the Future (Updated with the Ceremony in New York)

05/10/2017

2017-05-06 Editor’s Note: Ed Timperlake published a story on April 29, 2017 in anticipation of the commemorative dinner to be held in New York City on May 5th, 2017 and that article is republished below.

But we wanted to update the context within which the article was written as the dinner commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea occurred on May 5, 2017.

At that dinner both the President and the Prime Minister spoke and made it very clear how each saw the importance of working with the other in dealing with 21st century challenges.

The Prime Minister both in his remarks in Australia and the United States remembering this historic event underscored how he saw the centrality of the relationship.

In New York he said: “And as we reflect on the Battle Coral Sea we are reminded of how the stability and prosperity of our region over so many decades has been secured and is secured today by the United States.

Prime Minister Turnbull at the 75th Commemorative Dinner remembering the 75th Anniversary of the Coral Sea, May 5, 2017. Getty Images: Brendan Smialowski.

“A commitment to the peace stability, the rule of law in our region renewed by President Trump for which we thank you sir.

“Each of our great nations defines its national identity, not by race or religion or ethnicity as so many others do, but by a commitment to shared political values, as timeless as they are inclusive – freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

“Shared values. A shared destiny.

“Fiercely competitive, we always want to win, but we know we are always more assured of winning when we are fighting together.”

(The PM’s remarks in both Australia and the US are reproduced at the end of this article).

And President Trump hammered home the centrality of the relationship in these words.

The ties between the US and Australia “were sealed with the blood of our fathers and grandfathers.”

“We forged iron bonds between our two countries.

“Few peoples in the world share ties in history, affection and culture like the Americans and the Australians – few, believe me.”

“With love for our two nations, with pride in our shared history and with faith in almighty God, we renew our old friendship and we pledge our lasting partnership in the search for prosperity and everlasting peace.

In his speech, the President went out of his way to praise the navy and contributions to the Navy of graduates from the Naval Academy.

He as well praised one particular veteran who died during the battle and was described by his Academy roommate as tough guy who followed his own path.

In the President’s words: “In other words, a New Yorker.”

He also noted that today US and Australian servicemen and women are fighting side by side against global threats like ISIS and underscored how important he saw that working relationship to the peace and stability of the two countries.

And one of the speakers was the well known actor John Travolta who delivered a simple and eloquent homage to the US-Australian relationship.

2017-04-29 By Ed Timperlake

Recently the Vice President visited Australia and opened the next phase of the long-unktanding relationship between Australia and the United States grounded in mutual meeting the tough global challenges of the 20th century and facing up to the ones of the day.

The past and the future are being brought together when President Trump will meet next week with the Australian Prime Minister and remember a very significant battle defending Australia against Japanese invasion and pushing the Japanese back from their forward assault on the Pacific.

Now we face a new Pacific threat, a North Korean leader who threatens the US and Australia with nuclear attack. He has not factored in that neither Australia or the United States having defeated the Empire of Japan is not about to roll over and give in to the demands of a nuclear gangster.

When one goes back and remembers the history of working together side-by-side or the very close working relationship between the US and Australian militaries (the Marines are currently in Darwin), the firmness of the resolve of these two democracies should not be doubted.

The hospitality and courage exemplified by Australian citizens in being a trusted ally of American forces is unyielding.

Remembering My Naval Academy “Supe”

As a Plebe at the US Naval Academy in 1965, a Navy Grad from the 19th Century, visited who served as an officer in the Great White Fleet.

He and the senior Officers running the Academy, all highly decorated WW II Officers, agreed that stopping in Australia for shore liberty was one of the most delightful and appreciated moments ever in their sea going career

Our Naval Academy “Supe” was Rear Admiral Draper Kauffman who argued that “Those who not create the future they want must endure the future they get”

Draper Kauffman was the father of Navy SEALs. And he embodied how working with allies and being a US servicemen blended over one into the other to shape a much more effective warfighter.

Admiral Kauffman was a living testimony to joint service in time of war.

Here is his bare bones history:

He was awarded two Navy Crosses for his wartime service which included participation in the invasions of SaipanTinianIwo Jima, and Okinawa. Draper Kauffman is well known as the US Navy’s Founding Frogman, Father of Navy Special Warfare’s UDT/SEAL.  However, less known but equally important is that he is also credited as a Founding Father of US Navy EOD.

His life is a tribute to service as a true American Hero, He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1933.  He was then denied commission as a “Regular” officer due to poor eyesight. But following his denied commission, Kauffman joined the United States Steamship Lines in an effort to assist, in what he felt, the inevitable war against Germany.

Then comes the work with the allies bit which bridged his way to the next phase of his career. On 10 May 1940 he volunteered as an ambulance driver for the French Army in a region of Alsace-Lorraine, just 10 miles from France’s “impenetrable” Maginot Line. On 22 June 1940, he was captured by the Germans with his ambulance co-drivers and became a WWII POW.  He was then repatriated several months later.  For his service in France he became a Holder of France’s Croix de Guerre.

Undaunted, in late 1940, he became a member of England’s Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve and volunteered for the Royal Navy Unexploded Bomb Department. In that role, in December 1941, he was one of the first to defuse a Japanese UXO.  For this he was awarded his first Navy Cross.

Then in 1942 Jan 04 LT Kauffman returns to Washington D.C. and established the US Navy Bomb Disposal School. In1942 Jan 23 the first U.S. Navy Bomb Disposal class convened at Washington Navy Yard

In 1944, Kauffman withdrew from the ranks of the US EOD School to begin what would be the predecessor of UDT/SEAL, Naval Combat Demolition Unit

As commander of UDT 5, he participated in the invasion of Saipan, and received a second Navy Cross for leading his team in a daylight reconnaissance of fortified enemy beaches under heavy fire, and on 10 July 1944, leading a night reconnaissance of heavily defended beaches at Tinian island.

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-coral-sea

http://www.gunplot.net/main/content/hmas-hobart-attacked-vietnam-1968

http://www.zeropointusa.com/admiral-draper-kauffman

Working Together

There are many other historical examples, but I will highlight two of them here.

First, we can point to the Battle of the Coral Sea, the 75th Anniversary of which will be honored by the President and the Prime Minister next week, for a key milestone in that relationship.

In May 1942 the first air-sea battle in history played out, The Battle of the Coral Sea. This battle was the first air-sea battle in history. It was an engagement in which the lead role was played by aircraft launched from ships at sea. The strategic battle resulted from Japanese efforts to make an amphibious landing at Port Moresby in southeast New Guinea and then eventually on to Australia.

Unknown to the Japanese, Allied code breakers had learned enough about enemy communications to discern Japanese plans in time for Allied fleets to assemble in the Coral Sea. Rear Admiral Frank J. Fletcher commanded American task forces, including two large aircraft carriers and other ships, and a British-led cruiser force mounted surface opposition. The Japanese used many more ships but divided them into a number of widely separated groups, one of which contained a light carrier. The Japanese covering force also contained two large carriers.

When the main forces traded air strikes, the Americans lost the carrier Lexington, Yorktown was also damaged and later lost the following month at the defining US Sea Service strategic victory The Miracle at Midway. The Japanese suffered damage to the carrier Shokaku. Without air cover, however, the Japanese invasion force turned back, leaving the strategic victory to the Allies. 

http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-coral-sea

This was the first air-sea battle in history but that is what the US and the allies face when dealing with contemporary threats and challenges.

And both countries are working hard on modernizing their forces and enhancing their ability to work together even in extreme situations.

The second is one lesson of the Vietnam War, namely the contribution of HMAS Hobart.

The combat firepower of the HMAS Hobart was significant as were many of the other contributions in the US Australian Joint force team.

But at a tragic moment there was a major breakdown in Intel and communications that rested with the American forces.

I was serving as a First Class Midshipman on the USS Great Sitkin, an ammo ship on the ‘Gun Line” off Vietnam in 1968, and we were present when HMAS Hobart took two Aim-7 Sparrow Missiles amidships.

HMAS Hobart, the first warship to carry the new Australian white ensign into action, came under fire nine times, fired 9204 rounds on 1050 targets and steamed 52,529 miles in her first deployment.

It was a nasty and un-necessary friendly fire incident because the two USAF F-4s thought they were shooting down “NVA helicopters.”

It turned out that Air America was running helos up and down the Vietnam coast without keeping the 7th Fleet informed.

But the deadly mistake did not stop the Royal Australian Navy from serving with great distinction.

The rest of the story as the first Assistant Secretary of Veterans affairs for Congressional and Public Affairs I had the honor of representing President Bush (41) and all Americans in Canberra for the dedication of the Australian Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

With a ‘Huey” UH-1 coming out of the mist, and the band playing Waltzing Matilda the dedication parade was led by family members of the fallen all carrying an Australian Flag. Australia was truly a nation that remembered their warrior’s ultimate sacrifice.

Facing 21st Century Threats

And now the two countries are facing 21st century Pacific threats.

Some threats are more immediate than others, but clearly there is an intensifying set of challenges in the Pacific underway and they are not going away anytime soon.

A new and lethal challenge is evident, with the rapid modernization of the PLA, a catch all for Peoples Liberation Army, Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and their 2nd Artillery Rocket forces.

The new Chinese Aircraft Carrier.

However small there is a probability this PLAAN Aircraft Carrier and with Air, surface and sub-surface combatants eventually will have the potential to follow the Imperial Japanese Navy Attack Plan.

But right now today, there is much greater danger in the Pacific. There is an immediate nasty strategic threat against Australia by the Dear Leader of North Korea. Diplomatically the Australian Defense Minister hit a pitch perfect note:

North Korea’s nuclear weapons program poses a “serious threat” to Australia unless the international community stops it, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has warned.

FOREIGN Minister Julie Bishop has spoken of the “grave” threat Australia faces from a nuclear-armed North Korea, as Australia hit back at the latest incendiary comments from the reclusive state.

After North Korea accused Australia of “blindly and zealously toeing the U.S .line” and threatened a nuclear strike on one of America’s closest allies in the Pacific region, Ms. Bishop said the country’s military ambitions could not continue to go unchecked.

Vice President Pence meets with Foreign Minister Bishop during a visit to Australia, April 2017,

And make no mistake about it, Australia is serious about modernizing its capabilities and punching above its weight. It is not just about adding new platforms to the force and enhancing the integration of the force (remember that fratricide caused the damage to the Hobart and its crew) and interoperability with Australia’s allies, it is about shaping cutting edge thinking about that force and its development.

The forward leaning thinking in the Australian Defence Force is about their embracing training tactics and technology to create perhaps the most modern fighting force in the world for their size.

America because of significant contributions to military R&D has the most cutting-edge weapons in the world, from platforms (Carriers, B-2) , munitions and C&C links.

America is the number one military force in the world.

But this does not mean America has an intellectual monopoly of visionary thinking.

The evolving consortium of 21st century military strategists transcends nationalities and makes the current alliance of military forces, country agnostic on understanding the trends of combat forces empowered with 21st Century technology and the ability to fight and win around the globe.

An adversary will cross these 21st century warriors at that nations or terror organization’s peril.

Providing Cutting Edge Intellectual Leadership

The Aussies are not just buying new equipment; they are rethinking how to integrated that force and make a more effective and lethal combat capability.

There are two recent publications that illustrate this rethinking effort.

The first is by the current chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett (“The Navy and The Nation; Australia’s Maritime Power in the 21st Century”) and the second is the publication of the new RAAF strategy (“Air Force Strategy 2017-2027” Royal Australian Air Force).

Australia’s Vice Admiral Tim Barrett has written a brilliant book about maritime power. It is what is known as a “good read” because it is written with great insights presented in easily understandable prose. He shows the reader why “The Navy and the Nation” is a sacred bond.

This passage is one of the most powerful ever written about the role of a Navy and the connection with their citizens:

“Most People think the Navy is something else.

“They know it exists, the may even have a rough idea of what it is for, but they don’t think it’s got much to do with them.

“They’re wrong.

“The Navy is a national enterprise in which everyone is involved and which everyone is involved and which delivers peace and security to everyone in the country.

“This enterprise is a two-way street, and must be a two-way street.

“Going one way, the Navy offers peace and security. Going the other, the people offer support and contribution. Only when the street is a properly mutual two-way exchange between the Navy and the citizens can this bargain, this contract, deliver what it needs to.”

https://www.amazon.com/Navy-Nation-Australias-Maritime-Century-ebook/dp/B01NA069QS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493413420&sr=8-1&keywords=tim+barrett+navy

The Royal Australian Air Force strategy is less personal than the Navy book.

It is a forceful statement of an achievable vision.

It builds on today’s headlines about the RAAF in combat to focus on how to build a fifth generation combat force.

The focus for the RAAF is upon shaping a 21st network of warriors and building trust with the other services.

The strategy underscored the following:

Air Force’s future success depends on being a valued and effective part of a much more joint ADF, and of ‘One Defence’ more broadly. For this reason, the strategy explains how Air Force will contribute to the larger Defence change journey.

This transparency is important for building and strengthening mutually beneficial relationships with Defence’s other Groups and Services, Government, industry partners and international allies.

The Air Force Strategy will place significant emphasis on people during its implementation. This is deliberate because our people are just as important to our warfighting effectiveness as are our technical capabilities.

Our success in developing our technical capabilities has not always been matched by how well we have developed our workforce. Air Force must place greater emphasis on ensuring our people are able to exploit the full potential of our future platforms and systems. This requirement will extend to our leaders becoming adept practitioners of operational art in the Information Age.

air-force-strategy-2017-2027

The end of USS Lexington during the Battle of the Coral Sea. Left; rocked by an internal explosion and right; destroyers in attendance before the carrier was sunk

And the new generation of warriors is growing up in close working relationship with their fellow warriors flying and maintaining theire F-35s, P-8s, Aegis systems, the Tritons and cross learning in shaping a way to defeat the forces which want to destroy the liberal democracies.

It is not just about buying similar platforms; it is about moving out with ways to shape more lethal, survivable and effective alliance combat forces.

In short, the bonding in combat between Australia and America, which was forged by the Australian and American heroes in their strategic victory during the Battle of the Coral Sea, is moving forward in the 21st century.

The best way to remember the contributions of the past is to build upon those bonds and recreate them in a new and dynamic situation facing both our countries.

The meeting next week is not just ceremonial symbolism – it is about shared risks, capabilities and responses to direct threats to our two countries.

Editor’s Note: On the Australian Navy’s web page there is a very interesting overview on the Battle of the Coral Sea which concludes with an interesting comment about working together:

The Royal Australian Navy’s overall contribution to the Battle of the Coral Sea may not have been as spectacular as that of the American carriers, but the work done by the coast watchers, intelligence staff, the cruisers and other support ships and personnel all contributed to the final result, not just at the Coral Sea but throughout the Pacific War.

Whilst Australians today may scoff at the fears of a Japanese invasion during 1942 the fact is that for many Australians during the 1940s that fear was real.                                      

Address at the 75th Anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea Commemorative Dinner

5th May 2017

PRIME MINISTER:

Thank you very much. Thank you.

And thank you Mr President and Mrs Trump for your warm family welcome to New York.  Lucy and I are honoured to be here. It is always wonderful to be back in this city and it is wonderful to meet your family, to be here with our son and our son-in-law, it has been a great evening and thank you so much.

And well done, congratulations – it is always good to win a vote in the Congress, or the Parliament as we call it.

And I’ve got to say, it is always reasonably satisfying to win a vote when people predict you’re not going to win it too. So keep at it. It is great. Well done Mr President.

There are so many distinguished guests here tonight – I want to thank you all so much for joining us and in such a great cause.

But there none more distinguished than the Veterans of the Battle of the Coral Sea. From the Royal Australian Navy Rear Admiral Andrew Robertson, Norm Tame, Gordon Johnson, Bill White, Derek Holyoake and from the US Navy John Hancock, Wendell Thrasher and Roger Spooner.

Gentlemen we salute you and we thank you. And I have to say you’re all in great shape. You’re all in great shape!

Earlier this week in Townsville we thanked and welcomed Cecil Wizwell, 93 years young, who served on the USS Lexington as a 17-year-old.

Now, 75 years ago the Japanese advance seemed unstoppable.

Their infamous surprise attack on Pearl Harbour had sunk or disabled much of the United States Pacific Fleet – with the notable exception of the carriers.

The impregnable fortress of Singapore had fallen.

The Royal Navy’s battle ship Prince of Wales and the battle cruiser Repulse had been sunk by Japanese bombers off the coast of Malaya. HMAS Perth and USS Houston had been sunk off Java as had the carrier USS Langley.

Most of Australia’s army was either fighting in the Middle East or were prisoners of the Japanese.

Darwin, as Andrew reminded us, had been bombed. Indonesia, then the Dutch East Indies was taken, as was the north coast of New Guinea and the great naval base of Rabaul.

And Japan’s next inexorable advance was to seize Port Moresby in New Guinea, from which it would isolate Australia, take us out of the war, to be invaded as and when it suited the convenience of the new masters of the Pacific.

And in so doing deprive the United States of the forward base from which to mount its counter attack.

These were dark days indeed.

But then, as so often today, it was signals intelligence that cut through the darkness. From Melbourne, American and Australian code breakers revealed the Japanese plans to the Pacific Commander Admiral Nimitz.

Nimitz sent two carrier task forces led by USS Lexington and the USS Yorktown into the Coral Sea. They were joined by another Task Force led by the Australian cruisers HMAS Australia, HMAS Hobart and the United States ship Chicago.

For the first time, Australian ships were under the overall command of the United States Commander, Rear Admiral Fletcher, and within Task Force 44 itself, Australian Rear Admiral John Crace commanded American ships.

Unity of purpose, unity of command, shared and collaborative signals intelligence – the Battle of the Coral Sea took to the water and the sky, the mateship that had fought and won the Battle of Hamel 99 years ago.

The victory in the Coral Sea was the first setback to the Japanese in the Pacific War, the Moresby invasion force was turned back and by sinking one and damaging two Japanese carriers, it laid the foundation for the decisive victory at Midway a month later.

Churchill called this time the ‘hinge of fate’ and he was so right. The ‘hinge of fate’ turned to victory for America, Australia and our allies.

But it had a high price. The aircraft carrier USS Lexington was lost, as was the destroyer USS Sims and the tanker USS Neosho – over 600 American and Australian sailors and airmen died to secure that victory.

Our nations’ freedom was secured by the bravery of the men on those ships and the pilots who flew through everything the enemy and the weather could throw in their way.

Now this evening, President Trump and I have discussed the bond our great nations forged in freedom’s cause – from the battlefield of Hamel nearly one hundred years ago to our forces fighting side-by-side in the Middle East at this very moment.

And as we reflect on the Battle Coral Sea we are reminded of how the stability and prosperity of our region over so many decades has been secured and is secured today by the United States. A commitment to the peace stability, the rule of law in our region renewed by President Trump for which we thank you sir.

Each of our great nations defines its national identity, not by race or religion or ethnicity as so many others do, but by a commitment to shared political values, as timeless as they are inclusive – freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Shared values. A shared destiny.

Fiercely competitive, we always want to win, but we know we are always more assured of winning when we are fighting together.

We are confident and we trust each other – that is why the United States is the largest foreign investor in Australia and the United States is our largest overseas investment destination.  And as we have heard from Anthony about to become even larger.

And this relationship is built on the work of millions of Australians and Americans – many of whom here with us tonight – creating thousands of jobs in the USA and in Australia.

Today together we condemn and resist North Korea’s reckless provocation. We fight together in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat and destroy the terrorists who threaten our way of life.

From the mud of Hamel to the waters of the Coral Sea to the sands of the Middle East today, Australians and Americans stand shoulder to shoulder defending our freedoms.

Recently, I travelled to Baghdad and Kabul to visit our troops and to commemorate Anzac Day.

I brought with me the gratitude of our nation.

And the certain knowledge that we best honour the service and sacrifice of generations past by supporting the servicemen and women, the veterans and their families of today.

I commend the board of the Australian American Association – Chairman Jennifer Nason and President John Berry – for their initiative in launching a new Veterans Fellowship Fund tonight and I thank you all for being so generous.

The proceeds from this evening’s dinner will enable a new generation of Australian and American veterans to be recognised for their service, and rewarded with the experience of earning a degree in either Australia or the United States.

We thank all those Australians and Americans who served— and remember the more than 600 who died—in the Battle of the Coral Sea.

And to all those who serve in the United States and Australian defence forces, we honour you, we thank you, you and your families – with your courage and your service, you keep us free.

Thank you.

Remarks by Prime Minister Turnbull on the Occasion of the 75th Anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea

01 May 2017

Townsville, Queensland

Your Excellencies; Premier, Air Chief Marshal Binskin, Chief of the Defence Force, Vice Admiral Barrett, Senator Brandis, Amanda Rishworth, shadow minister for Defence Personnel and Senator McDonald. Mrs Valerie Fowler, the US Consul General, and Chargé D’Affaires James Carouso, Minister Miyashita from the Japanese Embassy, Admiral Scott Smith, Commander of the US Pacific Fleet, Mayor Jenny Hill and Mr Williams, President of the Townsville and District Naval Association.

75 years ago the Japanese seemed unstoppable.

The pride of the US Navy had been sunk in a surprise attack at Pearl Harbour.

The great imperial garrison of Singapore had fallen – the worst defeat in British military history, as Churchill described it.

The Royal Navy’s battle ship Prince of Wales and the battle cruiser Repulse had been sunk by Japanese bombers.

As Admiral Barrett just reminded us, the Australian Navy had lost eight ships.

Most of Australia’s army was either fighting in the Middle East or prisoners of the Japanese.

Darwin was bombed. The Dutch East Indies was taken, as was the north coast of New Guinea and the naval base of Rabaul.

And Japan’s next inexorable advance was to seize Port Moresby, from which it would isolate Australia and take us out of the War to be invaded at the convenience of the new masters of the Pacific.

These were dark times indeed.

The Japanese plans were discovered by American and Australian code-breakers at the Fleet Radio Unit in Melbourne, coast watchers on the Solomons and surveillance flights from Queensland and Port Moresby.

Over four critical days in May 1942, the fate of our island continent hung in the balance.

Australians and Americans fighting side by side, just as they had for the first time 99 years ago at the Battle of Hamel.

Admiral Nimitz sent two carrier task forces led by the Lexington and the Yorktown into the Coral Sea. They were joined by a third task force 44 led by the cruisers HMAS Australia, HMAS Hobart and USS Chicago and commanded by the Australian Rear Admiral John Crace.

The Japanese were turned back, but not without a heavy price.

The mighty aircraft carrier USS Lexington was lost, as was the destroyer USS Sims and the tanker USS Neosho.

The US Navy’s commitment of two of its precious carriers into this battle, showed a total commitment to the defence of Australia.

And it showed a total unity of purpose. For the first time, Australian ships were under the overall command of the United States Commander, Rear Admiral Frank Fletcher, and within Task Force 44 itself an Australian Rear Admiral John Crace commanded American ships.

For the first time a naval battle was fought entirely from the air. Neither of the fleets saw each other or exchanged shell fire.

The Moresby invasion force was turned back in large part because of Admiral Fletcher’s decision to deploy Crace’s Task Force 44 to block the Jomard Passage and Crace was able and the Captain Farncomb of the Australia were able with superb seamanship and without air cover to dodge the Japanese bombs and torpedoes and avoid the fate of the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

By sinking the light carrier, the Shoho and damaging the two fleet carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku the Japanese navy was materially diminished in advance of the coming Battle of Midway, another aerial sea battle which saw the loss of four Japanese fleet carriers and irreversible damage to their naval forces only a few months later.

The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first setback to the Japanese in the Pacific War, it laid the foundation for the victory at Midway- it was a turning point in the war.

Our freedoms were secured by the bravery of the fighting men on those ships and the pilots who flew through everything the enemy and the weather could throw in their way.

We will never know the grim anxiety of the ships’ companies scanning the skies for incoming enemy bombers, but also hoping and praying to see their own pilots returning safely from raids and reconnaissance missions.

We will never know what it was like to be trapped above deck as enemy aircraft strafed the ship, or to be caught below deck as engines caught fire and explosions shut off escape from the flooding sea.

We will never know the courage of the pilots who spent the last of their fuel in battle, knowing they would never make it back to their ship.

We will never know the anguish of those sailors listening intently to radio communications who heard the heartfelt farewells from these brave men as they prepared to meet their death.

It is a great honour to welcome today the families of the USS Lexington’s crew who have travelled here to pay their respects. I reserve an especially warm welcome for 93 year-old Cecil Wiswell who proudly served on board the Lexington as a 17 year old, Seaman Second Class.

Today, the ashes of his friend and fellow Lexington crew member, Harry Frey and Harry’s wife will be scattered in the Coral Sea.

Today, Australia and the United States continue to work with our allies to address new security threats around the world.

Together, we are taking a strong message to North Korea that we will not tolerate reckless, dangerous threats to the peace and stability of our region, and we are united in our efforts to defeat the terrorists in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

We must be forever grateful to those who have put their lives on the line, and those who do so today, so that we might have a free and peaceful world.

I thanked our servicemen and women in the Middle East for their service only last week, serving like the ships’ companies of Australia and Hobartdid 75 years ago with our American allies in freedom’s cause.

It’s a message I repeat today as we pay tribute to the Australians and Americans who served and the more than 600 who died in the Battle of the Coral Sea.

To each of you, I offer the thanks of the grateful generations which came after you.

And to all men and women who have served in our defence forces—and who serve us today— and the families that support them – we thank you and we honour your courage, your service and your sacrifice.

Lest we forget.

The complete set of speeches and presentations at the dinner can be found below:

75th Anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

 

The Coming of Prime Minister May: Looking Back at the Thatcher Revolution

2017-05-10 There has been no more disruptive set of changes since the Thatcher revolution than the Brexit vote and the coming of Prime Minister May.

With the Brexit vote, the British public as set in a revolution of its own.

This vote led to the resignation of Prime Minister Cameron and the coming to power of Prime Minister May.

The PM has called a surprise election this month and by all indications will increase her majority.

She is also using the election to move the Conservative Party more to the Center which would give her more maneuvering room as she negotiates the Brexit agenda.

With the election of political novice Emmanuel Macron who is likely to face a National Assembly not of his making, and the coming German elections, PM May will face a fluid negotiating field.

This is in spite of the rigidity demonstrated by the European Commission, the very rigidity which led the British public to vote for Brexit.

Indeed, the performance of the current head of the Commission almost defines the image of the kind of bureaucratic dominance, which calls for significant European reform. Not only is English speaking waning in Europe, but Europe is growing economically more rapidly than the United States.

“Mr. Juncker went on to argue that the UK was preparing to leave the EU at a time when the bloc’s economic growth had reached twice the US level. “

And at that point — despite the success, despite the growth — our British friends decided to leave the EU, which is a tragedy,” he said.”

https://www.ft.com/content/5c6c5bba-318e-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

Well back in the real world, we are reminded of the challenge of political disruption and political reform.

That is clearly the case with Margaret Thatcher and her approach to changing the course of Britain.

We will see if Prime Minister May is as successful in meeting the challenge of changing course in today’s Britain.

In 2013 and earlier this month, Monica Morrill wrote reviews of books looking at the Thatcher years. These two reviews are being republished with the permission of the author.

Margaret Thatcher: The Authorized Biography From Grantham to the Falklands

By Charles Moore

Knopf, A Division of Random House, Borzoi Books, NY, NY 2013

Hardcover, 899 pages; US$35.00

ISBN: 978-0-307-95894-5

How would historians and biographers look upon the 20th century when two immovable ladies, a Queen and a Prime Minister, simultaneously governed the same nation during a period of uncertainty?

One would sensibly begin with Charles Moore’s biography about the British Prime Minister who came to be known as Margaret Thatcher. Mr. Moore’s first volume was released in May of this year, shortly after the death of the late Prime Minister.

Even when preparing for her eventual passing Margaret Thatcher was capable of choosing a writer who would follow through with a distinctive, yet independent task of telling her story.

Lady Thatcher chose well.

Mr. Moore’s first volume covers the first fifty-seven years of Margaret Thatcher’s life. From the beginning of the book, every detail crafts for the reader a prescient young girl, born Margaret Hilda Roberts, which carefully builds each anticipated leap in her life.

Mrs. Thatcher’s (then Miss Roberts) formative years can be the most deceiving because an average observer might simply view her as a grocer’s daughter who was raised in the strict form of the Methodist Church.

However, there is a constant tide of struggles and successes in the life of Miss Roberts.

Not one iota of opportunity is wasted as Mr. Moore points out that, “One of [her] best political gifts, born of a rather surprising lack of self-confidence and a female conscientiousness, was never to take anything for granted.”

Young Miss Roberts observes, learns and tests her upbringing in religion, education and politics in Grantham, England, a market town of about 25,000 people. Her father, Alfred Roberts, was active in business (grocer) and local politics.

As president of the Grantham Rotary Club in 1936, he shared his political views with an audience explaining why he shifted from the Liberal Party to the Conservative Party. In Mrs. Thatcher’s memoirs she elaborated further: as with many others her father was, “left behind by the Liberal Party’s acceptance of collectivism,” implying that the individual was subverted, anathema to the Roberts family philosophy.

From an early age, Miss Roberts observed election campaigns with keen interest and derived wisdom from participating in elections involving her father and other politicians, whom she admired. The Robertses were known and respected for their thrift, common sense and patriotism. Alfred Roberts was actively involved in war-related efforts and in addition to his committed tasks of owning a corner grocery store, carrying local political responsibilities, and serving as a lay preacher, he may not have fully grasped the impact all this ‘work’ had on his second daughter.

At age nine, her own schoolwork led her to win a prize. After being congratulated on her luck by the school head, Miss Roberts gave a rather precocious remark, “I wasn’t lucky. I deserved it.” Mr. Moore offered a fair analysis to the various versions of this family story, “To say anything else would be to cast doubt on the entire judging process.” Miss Roberts gave the head of the school her forthright opinion. What mattered were her convictions, and the honesty of the approach. This characteristic would shine through in her academic pursuits (science and law), her personal life, and particularly in her political career.

For instance, in 1979 about a month after Mrs. Thatcher became Prime Minister, Nigel Lawson explained in an interview that she was an atypical politician, “A key to understanding Mrs. Thatcher was that she actually said what she believed.”

The pre-politician Margaret Roberts later Margaret Thatcher, however, made it her goal to understand early on what it took to excel and therefore she sought guidance from able men and women (usually men). Early on in this quest for knowledge, it was cultivated at Kesteven and Grantham Girls’ School (KGGS), which revealed a competitive Miss Roberts.

As Prime Minister, she later recalled that she owed being at No. 10 Downing Street (the Prime Minister’s residence) to KGGS. Eventually Miss Roberts expanded her zest for learning and political involvement at Oxford University to study chemistry and became fully immersed in the Oxford University Conservative Association.

Despite her scientific degree, Miss Roberts longed to study law (as a barrister) – the opportunity was delayed – and a few years after Oxford she was eventually launched into her first political campaign for a parliamentary seat for Dartford in 1949. Dartford led to her meeting and eventually marrying Denis Thatcher, a union that would prove so essential to her life.

Mrs. Thatcher consecutively studied and came to admire in Grantham the laws of God, at Oxford University the laws of nature, in London the laws of man. These were the three pillars that guided her throughout her political career and steadied her path in economic doctrines.

Throughout these and many other experiences: coal disputes, inflation, education, Mr. Moore weaves Mrs. Thatcher’s encounters with relevant British and world political history. He lucidly demonstrates that the cerebral pivot of Margaret Thatcher, combined with her early quiet political determination, formed and shaped her into a formidable character. This often led people to underestimating her. Such miscalculations allowed her to learn from the failures of others and win the favor of her peers through her willingness to be politely combative. This was exemplified through Ted Heath’s leadership of the Conservative Party.

In fact, if Ted Heath had succeeded, perhaps a Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister would never have emerged.

Likewise, Mrs. Thatcher succeeded in nearly everything Mr. Heath did not. The diary entries of Airey Neave as a backbencher MP under Mr. Heath reveal the tantalizing behind the scenes details that prepare readers for the enormous challenges and successes of the Thatcher premiership.

Naturally, there was a delicate and sensitive side to Mrs. Thatcher, although it may have been punctuated with strong opinionated beliefs. Under Mr. Heath’s leadership in Shadow Ministerial positions, she frequently erred on the side of caution. From the 1960s until she became Conservative Party Leader she rarely confronted people in her own party.

Her charm and intelligence led her to be insightfully recognized as a ‘rising political star’ by the U.S. diplomat William J. Galloway when he remarked on her, “very strong will” and her “high standards of ethics and morals.” Mr. Galloway, the first secretary and political officer at the U.S. Embassy in London, arranged for Mrs. Thatcher’s first visit to the U.S. in 1967 through the State Department’s International Visitor Program, allowing prominent non-U.S. citizens an extended opportunity to learn more about the American culture. Mr. Moore shares some impressive details about her visit from sea-to-shining-sea, which were altogether positive, “She loved America, felt at ease there and wanted to go back.”

Her curiosity for economic solutions was reinvigorated after she visited the U.S., particularly on tax issues, a subject she practiced as a barrister. This eventually led to her joining a breakaway group from Mr. Heath to explore meaningful economic policies. Mrs. Thatcher developed a relationship with people at the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute of Economic Affairs, which continued even after she ended her premiership.

Interestingly, it was Denis Thatcher who first noticed and was won over by then Governor Ronald Reagan, when the latter spoke at the Institute of Directors in London in 1969.

In 1972, Mrs. Thatcher attended a group luncheon at No. 10 in Reagan’s honor, but it wasn’t until April 1975 that they had their first candid conversation.

Mr. Moore describes it as an enormous success, which would cement their relationship ahead of a more turbulent political climate from 1980-1982, which is described in chapter twenty of volume one. Reagan’s 1975

…meeting with Mrs. Thatcher, planned for forty-five minutes, went on for an hour and a half. ‘I was immediately won over by his charm, directness and sense of humour,’ Mrs. Thatcher later wrote. Reagan recalled: ‘It was evident from our first words that we were soul mates when it came to reducing government and expanding freedom.’ …They were not to see one another again or indeed speak until 1978, but their staffs stayed in touch…the seeds of future friendship had been sown.

In 1975, Mrs. Thatcher met with the British historian and poet, Robert Conquest, who was also an expert on the Soviet Union. Despite the decade of détente, Mrs. Thatcher asked Conquest “whether the Soviets had the long-term aim of getting rid of Western democracy – ‘The answer was yes’ – and whether the Soviet Union was, in the long term, viable – ‘The answer was no.’”

Conquest assisted her in drafting a speech she would give at the Chelsea Conservative Association in July 1975. Firmly established in her beliefs, Mrs. Thatcher pointed out the facts to her audience. Communists took over Cambodia and Vietnam and made more serious inroads into Portugal, and furthermore the Soviet Union showed no signs of disarming. But Mrs. Thatcher didn’t simply judge this from Soviet weaponry stocks, but by the internal suffering:

So when the Soviet leaders jail a writer, or a priest, or a doctor or a worker, for the crime of speaking freely, it is not only for humanitarian reasons that we should be concerned. For these acts reveal a regime that is afraid of truth and liberty; it dare not allow its people to enjoy the freedom we take for granted, and a nation that denies those freedoms to its own people will have few scruples in denying them to others.

It is possible that this speech and other subsequent pronouncements by Mrs. Thatcher provoked the Soviet Red Army’s newspaper Red Star to call her the ‘Iron Lady.’

An opportunity that did not go to waste, she claimed the name proudly in January 1976 and continued to use it against the Soviets even after their collapse, thanks in part to Mr. Conquest.

Mr. Conquest was not an ideological warrior but only interested in the truth.

Mrs. Thatcher was an ideological warrior for truth and freedom and intended to implement her beliefs as such.

This slight difference may have influenced Mrs. Thatcher’s decision in declining his request to become Ambassador to the UN, yet he continued to advise her on Soviet issues from the Hoover Institute in California.

They shared a professional and formal relationship publicly but underneath the press and diplomacy the relationship was very cordial. In the 1980s, Mr. Conquest, even to others, always addressed her as ‘Prime Minister.’

If one could summarize Margaret Thatcher in one phrase after reading the first volume, it would undoubtedly be “Mrs. Thatcher stood for truth and freedom.”

She shared this enthusiasm generously with her husband Denis who was her greatest support and friend; she introduced it carefully to their children; happily and bravely to those who genuinely wanted to partake of a freer Great Britain and beyond.

Most importantly for the readers of both biographical volumes, Mrs. Thatcher wanted her chosen biographer Charles Moore to have the liberty to share the details (truth) of her personal archives and his political historical analysis on her life.

Mrs. Thatcher’s notion of truth and freedom, and her fierce defense of it, is infused throughout volume one. For her, it was grounded in the ‘rule of law’: Mrs. Thatcher stood firm in the law of God and built the others upon this foundation (laws of nature, laws of man).

She viewed her nation as undergoing a spiritual crisis – the duty to God and ethics and the teachings had been cast aside. Mrs. Thatcher wanted to, “‘resuscitate a world we had lost’, and she ‘ransacked’ Christian thought for intellectual backing…‘What mattered fundamentally was Man’s relationship to God, and in the last resort this depended on the response of the individual soul to God’s Grace.’”

It was this foundation that would prepare her for the Falklands and subsequent political decisions in the 1980s.

The book is brimming with magnificent and amusing stories.

Mr. Moore brilliantly captures the depth of character of Mrs. Thatcher and one cannot help being transported into an era that now seems to only exist on paper but must live on in all who embrace the essential freedoms that Margaret Thatcher fought for and defended so vigorously.

The present author shall not give away the ending of volume one, yet when the readers reach the final chapter and page they will understand her opening question above.

Then one must briefly revel in the intermission and prepare, as there are still seven more years to unfold in Mrs. Thatcher’s premiership that readers eagerly anticipate from the biographer Charles Moore, in volume two.

http://sfppr.org/2013/12/passing-the-torch-of-truth-and-freedom/

Margaret Thatcher: At Her Zenith in London, Washington and Moscow

By Charles Moore

Alfred A. Knopf, Borzoi Books, Penguin Random House, London, England 2016

HC, 821 pages, $35.00

ISBN 978-0-307-95896-9

Сharles Moore once again vividly explores the widespread triumphs and struggles of Mrs. Thatcher running a national government, this time in the second volume of Margaret Thatcher’s authorized biography.

He maps it internally with her Cabinet and corresponding bureaucracies, while simultaneously covering the inevitable external battles in foreign relations, the media, and maintaining a global presence.

Precisely one month before the snap election called by the second ever lady Prime Minister Teresa May, it seems even more fitting to review Mr. Moore’s second volume. The subtitle cleverly captures the mood and years after the British victory of the Falkland War – “At Her Zenith: In London, Washington and Moscow” and most notably putting Washington before Moscow.

This second volume covers a much shorter time span than the first and includes the years 1982 to 1987, encompassing two of Margaret Thatcher’s crucial re-elections (1983 and 1987). It is replete from the preface to the last chapter revealing little-known details that chart an even fuller picture of well-known political stories that add tremendous meaning and depth.

Each of Mr. Moore’s two volumes that have been released thus far correct and exceed the detail that are in Mrs. Thatcher’s memoirs.

The author highlights that she “insisted” on not reading the manuscripts of the authoritative biography and added, “that it should not be published in her lifetime.” He quotes a number of Americans who were close to President Reagan, even Soviet correspondence, among other sources, to offer a fuller view of events.

Privately, Mrs. Thatcher was fully prepared to take on many of the political ideas and implement the philosophies when she commenced her Premiership, but publicly she waited patiently until after her 1983 re-election.

The timing was superb.

On the heels of the Falklands victory, she had the political capital necessary to proceed.

The far reaching impact that the Thatcher era brought about covered in volume two:

  • Visiting the Falklands after the war; meeting with Chancellor Helmut Kohl the month he was elected;
  • Achieving a record breaking re-election in 1983;
  • Investigating the communist infiltration amidst union struggles, the looming threats of miners’ strikes – “the political atmosphere was one of extreme unease,” recalls the author;
  • Negotiating the best “Agreement” for Hong Kong with Chinese leader Deng; “always kicking against the pricks of bureaucracy and inertia” she trusted a team led mainly by Nigel Lawson to pursue privatization of state-owned enterprises, reclaim “territory for freedom” and reinvigorate the economy;
  • The slight set-back with President Reagan on Grenada and then the incredible bond with him on national security and focusing on winning the defense argument;
  • The struggles with Ireland and the terrorist bombing in Brighton during the Conservative Party conference;
  • Discontent in the Middle East; helicopter manufacturing with Westland; and re-election in 1987, amidst other events.

Any one scenario was enough to bring down a normal human being.

Surrounding each challenging political affair, right or wrong, Mr. Moore highlights how Mrs. Thatcher created strength in uncertainty.

The most fascinating year covered in the second volume was 1984.

In December, she concluded it with the most impressively productive week, which is mentioned differently throughout the book about five times. Her first meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev at Chequers (before any in the West knew he would become President), where “the lunchtime conversation [between them both]…had been one of the most remarkable ever to have taken place across that dining table. It defied all diplomatic norms.”

The next day, the Prime Minister journeyed to Peking to sign the agreement she and her government had worked so tirelessly to ensure the liberties of the people of Hong Kong; a brief visit to Hong Kong to explain the agreement to the people. The whirlwind week ended in the U.S. with her great ally President Reagan for her first visit to Camp David – described by the author as one of the most astonishing single weeks “in modern political history.”

Stories revealed rather amusingly on at least two occasions, Mrs. Thatcher’s double standard combined with her uncompromising nature, whereby she did not want power leveraged against her but was unmovable when those with less power didn’t want her using it against them. Whether the Iron Lady stood loyally, obstinately, or both will be up to the reader.

Her early defense of the United Kingdom in fighting for the rebate from the European Community (now the European Union) was prophetic with the Brexit victory now in full view.

Her political skirmishes demonstrated how attached to the will of her people she really was, and endeared them to her further. In retrospect, she genuinely envisioned a Great Britain with serious long-term interests, and acted on them when there was the highest probability of success, regardless of their impact on her re-elections.

The private records during her Premiership reveal the soft humanity that she displayed underneath the hard shell of the Iron Lady. One can visualize at times how truly vulnerable she was.

Two instances really stand out in the book.

Her admiration of the British miners and their heroism was noteworthy as she worked behind the scenes writing personal letters to uplift the miners’ wives.

Secondly, her high regard for British Intelligence and especially the Soviet Union mole, Oleg Gordievsky, in the London Embassy who relayed details back to British Intelligence from the miners’ strikes to NATO’s ABLE ARCHER exercises. Mr. Gordievsky was eventually found out by the Soviets and later fiercely protected by Mrs. Thatcher and worked even after her Premiership to reunite him with his wife and children.

The energy with which Mrs. Thatcher approached a problem, the interconnected decisions and choices that needed to be made with varying cadence are astounding. Mrs. Thatcher, for example, took a chance on officially meeting Gorbachev before he eventually became President. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that Reagan advocated was accessorized by Mrs. Thatcher’s pro-active involvement and keen sense of the personalities involved.

Her judge of character and intuition were usually spot on.

The second volume closes with Mrs. Thatcher’s 1987 re-election and includes Tim Bell’s brilliant marketing with a campaign poster that had three major sections.

The first was in the largest font that read, “BRITAIN NOW HAS THE FEWEST STRIKES FOR 50 YEARS.”

The second line had smaller but underlined font and read, “The last Labour Government ended in The Winter of Discontent.”

The final line was smaller still but in capital letters and contained a phrase that is familiar after the 2016 Presidential elections:

BRITAIN IS GREAT AGAIN. DON’T LET LABOR WRECK IT.
VOTE CONSERVATIVE

One detail that stands out to the reader – that it is useful and recommended yet not entirely necessary to read volume one before reading volume two.

The author makes careful passing references to volume one and throughout other chapters in volume two.

Mr. Moore grappled with the narrative structure and confesses that, “The easiest way to convey the mêlée of events is to stick to a single, blended, chronological narrative of everything.”

Sometimes an incident, such as the bombing of US Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American personnel, is mentioned twice in the book, but the context is extrapolated to fit the chapter’s theme. The barracks bombing is mentioned in the chapter detailing the invasion of Grenada, and another referencing the discussions of foreign relations in the Middle East.

After all, this painstaking work is admired when one considers that when the third volume is eventually published it will have taken Mr. Moore twenty years to write the trilogy, longer than Mrs. Thatcher’s entire leadership of the Conservative Party.

Writing a book review could be reasonably compared to penning a review of a restaurant’s cuisine.

The reader can be informed and motivated by the description of the distinctive tastes.

But to truly understand the depth, to savor the meaning, the readers must try for themselves.

This is only the second of a generous three-course meal; hence the dessert is duly anticipated with eagerness.

Both the first and second volumes are highly recommended.

The author, Charles Moore, artistically weaves in the subtle but needed obvious humor and gravity, yet engrossing details that are imperative to grasping the Thatcher era.

It is a full-scale political account bursting with flavor.

http://sfppr.org/2017/05/the-iron-lady-in-action/

Monica Morrill is a Geographer focusing on government economics, regulation and policies.

She co-authored the book BETRAYED: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL’s Father.

Ms. Morrill is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis, of the conservative-online-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

Editor’s Note: And watching the head of the European Commission handle “run away” politicians like May and Trump would be amusing if it were not a said commentary on the state of European leadership.

In this video, the head of the Commission demonstrates his deep understanding of the United States after lecturing Trump on his “ignorance” of Europe.

Looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black to the SLD team.

 

A French Air Force Perspective on “Atlantic Trident 2017”

05/09/2017

2017-05-04 The first trilateral exercise involving fifth generation aircraft with Typhoons and Rafales was held in December 2015.

In a piece published on the French Air Force website on December 16, 2015, a brief overview of the exercise was provided.

According to General Creux: “the key challenge was to get our most modern aircraft to work together and to develop tactics together and the have strengthened their confidence in one another.”

After the briefing, General Creux met with French aviators in their work area and discussed the operation with them. 

“Our aviators learned a lot from the exercise and have had a very good experience.”

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/exercice-tei-rencontre-au-sommet-sur-la-base-de-langley

And In a separate discussion with a senior RAF pilot, the importance of working the skills for higher end combat was crucial and the involvement of the French Air Force very important.

“The eyes of the French Air Force was clearly opened with regard to the F-22 and fifth generation, and they themselves have much to contribute with their battle hardened combat capability and their latest generation aircraft.”

For this British combat pilot, the key for working the fifth generation with other aircraft was the ability of the former to provide for more survivability and lethality and with the legacy aircraft providing significant payloads to the fight.

https://sldinfo.com/french-participation-in-the-trilateral-exercise-updated-with-an-raf-discussion/

The trilateral experience has been continued and updated with the recently completed Atlantic Trident Exercise also held at Langley Air Force Base from April 12-28 2017.

This exercise was marked by the enhanced participation of fifth generation aircraft with F-35s from Eglin AFB engaged along with the F-22s, Typhoons and Rafales.

According to an article published on the French Air Force website, the exercise began with working through Basic Fighting Maneuvers (BFM) among the four aircraft before transitioning to the core function of the exercise, which was shaping new tactics shaped by 4th and 5th generation air integration.

According to General Éric Charpentier, the Director of the French force engaged in the exercise and the Commander of the Rafale force participating in the exercise: “

We are part of club of the most powerful fighter aircraft in the world. Because of their preparation and their operational experience, our airmen play a key role.”

Dassualt Rafale of the Armée de l’air – French Air Force rotates from during Exercise Atlantic Trident ’17. Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA. Credit: Todd Miller, Second Line of Defense

He emphasized that the Blue Force of F-22s, F-35s, Typhoons and Rafales forged new tactics and capabilities in defeating the Blue Force of an AWACS led large F-15 force with T-38s participating as well.

“To prepare for tomorrow’s threats, we are preparing for high intensity air operations.

“To do this we must achieve a maximum level of integration of aircraft of the 4th and 5th generations.

“We are working to combine the strengths of each aircraft and to make the best of its capabilities.”

The exercise “enhanced our knowledge of each other and provided the opportunity to develop new tactics.”

The FAF website noted: “the exercise was especially marked by the participation of F-35As from Eglin Air Base in Florida.

“After its IOC several months ago, the aircraft is seeing its capabilities grow.”

A sense of how the way ahead with 4th and 5th generation aircraft was provided by an RAF pilot who participated in Red Flag 17-1, which involved USAF, RAF and RAAF elements.

It is clear that the F-35 has already had a major impact on the thinking of operators and, in effect, Red Flag 17-1 saw the operators reshaping how the aircraft would work together in reshaping their operational rhythm in the combat space.

And as they did so, a way ahead in terms of Weaponization, C2 and related issues would be sorted out.

The F-35 has arrived and is reshaping concepts of operations as well as the operational restructuring of roles and mission responsibilities of other air combat assets.

With regard to the RAF, they are already shaping a new approach with regard to their Typhoons as they introduce F-35s into their force.

According to this pilot: “The Typhoon because of the performance of its defensive aids could operate in key areas to support F-35 operations along with the F-22.

“The specialized capabilities of the two aircraft in turn determined how they were used in the battlespace and the F-15 and Growlers were positioned appropriate to their missions and capabilities in the battlespace.

“A key question has been raised about how to handle C2 and weapons decisions across the battlespace.

“The Sentinel and the Wedgetail both operated to provide a quarterbacking role, but given the fidelity with which the F-35 can see the battlespace sorting out relationships among the various C2 element is part of shaping the way ahead.

“It was great to have guys sit back in the Wedgetail and able to process quite a lot of information and actually operating as mission commanders for dynamic targeting missions with a range of strike or jamming aircraft.”

“The Wedgetail both in terms of the systems and the operators was really first rate, indeed cutting edge. There is no way I would fly with an AWACS if I could fly with a Wedgetail.”

“A key challenge as we integrate various assets is how to ensure we know who can see what.

“As we introduce the F-35, the pilots have to adjust to the fact that their machines will see and convey data that they themselves are not looking at. And different airplanes will have different levels of SA in the battlespace. How to adjust the operation of the force to meet this challenge?”

Translations from the French by Second Line of Defense.

And photos in the two slideshows are credited to the FAF.

Editor’s Note: Also see the following piece by Todd Miller on Atlantic Trident 2017:

Reshaping Fighter Operations in the Air Combat Space: Atlantic Trident 2017

 

 

How to Fight with the Fleet You have Today and Prepare for the Fleet of the Future?: The Perspective of Vice Admiral Tim Barrett

05/08/2017

2017-05-02 By Robbin Laird

During my most recent trip to Australia, the focus was upon how to shape an integrated ADF moving forward.

During my interviews surrounding the Williams Foundation seminar on that theme, I have had the chance to talk to key decision makers in shaping a way ahead.

Last August, I had a chance to talk with the Chief of the Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett.

A key speaker at the Williams Foundation seminar on air-land integration was the Chief of the Australian Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett.

Barrett’s speech focused on the opportunities and challenges of the largest recapitalisation of the Australian Navy since World War II.

New submarines, destroyers and amphibious ships and associated fleet assets are being built in Australia to shape a new maritime capability for Australia.

But this force is being built in the time of significant innovation in the Pacific whereby new force concepts are being shaped, such as kill webs, distributed lethality, and fifth generation airpower.

Barrett made it very clear that what was crucial for the Navy was to design from the ground up any new ships to be core participants in the force transformation process underway.

https://sldinfo.com/vice-admiral-barrett-on-the-way-ahead-of-the-australian-navy-design-the-force-for-decisive-and-distributed-lethality/

We picked up where we left off from our August meeting.

Question: How do fight with the fleet you have and prepare at the same time for tomorrow’s fleet, especially when you have several new programs in the pipeline?

Vice Admiral Tim Barrett: You have to fight with the fleet you have now.

That is not an option; it is a necessity.

My focus to do that better and to lay the groundwork for the future fleet is to focus upon availability of assets.

Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, AO, CSC, RAN holds the floor, during the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) Conclave of Chiefs. Australia currently holds the Chairmanship of IONS. The regional forum was held during Sea Power 2015. *

How to we get our availability rates higher?

How do we get ships to sea more effectively and more often?

They are not going to make much difference sitting in drydocks.

One can provide for enhanced deterrence through enhanced availability.

Question: You certainly don’t win with Power Point slides, do you?

Vice Admiral Tim Barrett: You certainly don’t nor with a connected force in those slides, represented by lightening bolts but not realized in practice.

For example, we have a small submarine fleet of six submarines; they are not going deter anybody if they are not available and capable of going to see.

As we discussed last time, we have put a major effort in getting much greater availability from our Collins class submarines, and the ways we have done so will shape our approach, our expectations and our template for the operation of the new class of submarines.

We have seen a dramatic improvement in our Collins Class boats.

Question: In other words, by learning how to ramp up availability with today’s fleet you are preparing the template for future operations?

Vice Admiral Tim Barrett: That is clearly our approach going forward.

We should be building our sense of availability in the design right now, so that when the future frigates arrive in place, we have maximized availability, and through that deterrence given their contribution to a distributed lethal force capability.

And this clearly is a key challenge for the workforce to shape enhanced availability.

We are reworking our work force to do so today, but must prepare for the transition in the workforce to do so in the future, recognizing that tomorrow’s platforms will be different, and different skill sets required ensuring enhanced availability.

Government has committed to a future navy in terms of key new platforms.

I have that as a target goal so can work from here to there rather than simply fighting for the need to have a future fleet.

This certainty is crucial in allowing me to work the transition.

As we shape task force concepts for the current fleet, we are working connectors to make the fleet more effective in our task force approach.

As we work those connectors we are also anticipating how to build those into the design of the new fleet, rather than having to work the problem after we have acquired the platforms.

Question: And this is not simply about Navy, you focus is broader?

Vice Admiral Tim Barrett: It is; it is about working with industry; it is about working with the ADF; it is about working with government; in essence it is about the commitment of the nation.

We are a small force; smaller than the New South Wales Police Force.

We can not do this without a national commitment.

Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, AO, CSC, RAN, delivers the Ode of Remembrance at the Lone Pine commemorative service in Gallipoli.

Question: One aspect of change clearly is building 21st century defense structure.

I have just returned from the UK and witnessed their significant efforts at Lossiemouth, Waddington, Marham and at Lakenheath to have a new infrastructure built.

And certainly have seen that at RAAF Williamtown with the F-35 and at RAAF Edinburgh with the P-8/Triton.

How important in your view is building a new infrastructure to support a 21st century combat force?

Vice Admiral Tim Barrett: Crucial.

And that is in part what I am referring to as an industrial and national set of commitments to shaping a 21st century combat fleet.

We spoke last time about the Ship Zero concept.

This is how we are focusing upon shaping a 21st century support structure for the combat fleet.

I want the Systems Program Office, the Group that manages the ship, as well as the contracted services to work together on site.

I want the trainers there, as well, so that when we’re maintaining one part of the system at sea, it’s the same people in the same building maintaining those things that will allow us to make future decisions about obsolescence or training requirements, or to just manage today’s fleet.

I want these people sitting next to each other and learning together.

It’s a mindset.

It puts as much more effort into infrastructure design as it does into combat readiness, which is about numbers today.

You want to shape infrastructure that is all about availability of assets you need for mission success, and not just readiness in a numerical sense.

Getting the right infrastructure to generate fleet innovation on a sustained basis is what is crucial for mission success.

And when I speak of a continuous build process this is what I mean.

We will build new frigates in a new yard but it is not a fire and forget missile.

We need a sustained enterprise that will innovate through the life of those frigates operating in an integrated ADF force.

That is what I am looking for us to shape going forward.

Question: An example of your approach to the future is clearly the new submarine.

A French design house and an American combat systems company will be working together really for the first time.

And they are building a submarine which has never been built before.

 This provides an opportunity for you to shape a new support structure along the lines you have described going forward.

 How do you see this process?

Vice Admiral Tim Barrett: It is something new and allows us to shape the outcome we want in terms of an upgradeable sustainable submarine with high availability rates built in. We intend to see this built that way from the ground up.

It is not simply about acquiring a platform.

We will not be a recipient of someone else’s design and thought.

This will be something that we do, and we will work with those that have a capacity to deliver what we say we need.

I think the way you characterize the process makes sense.

The experiences we’ve had through Collins have taught us a lot.

With 12 of these future submarines in a theater anti-submarine role we think we can make an effective contribution to our defense and to working with core allies in the region, notably the US Navy.

Editor’s Note: Vice Admiral Barrett has published a new book this year entitled The Navy and the Nation and Ed Timperlake recently commented on this book as follows:

The Aussies are not just buying new equipment; they are rethinking how to integrated that force and make a more effective and lethal combat capability.

A recent publication by the Australian Chief of Navy illustrates the point.

Australia’s Vice Admiral Tim Barrett has written a brilliant book about maritime power.

It is what is known as a “good read” because it is written with great insights presented in easily understandable prose.

He shows the reader why “The Navy and the Nation” is a sacred bond.

This passage is one of the most powerful ever written about the role of a Navy and the connection with their citizens:

“Most People think the Navy is something else.

“They know it exists, the may even have a rough idea of what it is for, but they don’t think it’s got much to do with them.

“They’re wrong.

“The Navy is a national enterprise in which everyone is involved and which everyone is involved and which delivers peace and security to everyone in the country.

“This enterprise is a two-way street, and must be a two-way street.

“Going one way, the Navy offers peace and security. Going the other, the people offer support and contribution. Only when the street is a properly mutual two-way exchange between the Navy and the citizens can this bargain, this contract, deliver what it needs to.”

https://www.amazon.com/Navy-Nation-Australias-Maritime-Century-ebook/dp/B01NA069QS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493413420&sr=8-1&keywords=tim+barrett+navy

The slideshow above highlights the Collins class submarines and the photos are credited to the Australian Department of Defence.

The video below highlights the recent ceremony in Europe honoring those who fought at Gallipoli and the Chief of Navy delivered a powerful address at that ceremony,. 

An Update on the A400M: French-German Air Forces Shape a Common Training Effort

2017-05-08 The A400M as an operational baseline aircraft is being operated by several air forces.

According to Airbus Defence and Space there are now 42 A400Ms in service and the company currently has orders for 174 of the aircraft.

The two largest operators currently are the RAF, with 15 out of an ordered 22, and France, flying 11 out of 50 ordered.

The German Luftwaffe has eight A400Ms currently in service and has ordered 53 of the aircraft in total. Spain has taken delivery of one of an ordered 27, Turkey three of an ordered 10 and Malaysia has received the four it ordered. Belgium (seven) and Luxembourg (one) have yet to receive ordered A400Ms.

A key element of interoperability built into the aircraft is common parts and inherent potential for shaping common logistical approaches.

The British are working with Airbus and outsourcing their logistical support approach.

The A400M training centers. Credit: Airbus Defence and Space

According to an article by Andrew Chuter published earlier this year:

The British Royal Air Force’s A400M Atlas transport aircraft fleet is to be supported by Airbus Defence and Space in a £410 million ($504 million) deal announced Jan 5. 

The Defence Equipment and Support arm of Britain’s Ministry of Defence said in a statement that the contract will secure maintenance, upgrade and repair support of the planned 22-strong fleet of Airbus-built aircraft through 2026. 

The work will take place at the RAF’s air transport hub at Brize Norton where a £62 million hanger capable of housing three Atlas aircraft at one go is on schedule to be fully equipped in the next few months. 

The RAF fleet currently stands at 14 A400Ms following the delivery of two aircraft at the end of last year. 

The fleet is scheduled to reach 22 in 2019 and be the backbone of the RAF’s air-transport capability alongside smaller numbers of Boeing C-17 and Lockheed Martin C-130J aircraft. 

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/uk-air-force-picks-airbus-to-support-a400m-fleet-in-500-million-deal

In addition to the capability to shape common logistical approaches are common training approaches.

During a visit to Seville two years ago, there was a chance to talk with key Airbus personnel involved with the A400M who were shaping the standup and evolution of training for the aircraft.

At Seville, training is provided for the basics for operating the aircraft and to provide general training across various national air forces.

The French and the Germans are going to the next level and are focused on more advanced training.

At Bricy, the training is focused on operations, tactics and integration with the French Air Force.

A recent article published by the French Air Force highlights recent Franco-German common training at the Orleans base.

The article focuses on training at Orleans with the 61 Wing of the German Air Force. In March a delegation from the Wunstorf Air Base in Germany where the German A400Ms are based came to Orleans.

The visit provided an opportunity for a French instructor to provide final certification for a German pilot with regard to Type Rating certification.

“After a few sessions on the FFS, Simulator and on the aircraft, the commander of the CIET completed the flight test certification of the German pilot.”

The German Air Force is leveraging the technical expertise of the FAF with regard to A400M training.

The article also highlighted that German and French logisticians have started working together looking at comparing their ways of working in support of a mission.

“This is a first and fundamental setp toward interoperability between the two Air Forces with regard to mission support.”

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/cooperation-aerienne-franco-allemande-sur-la-base-aerienne-d-orleans

This is an implementation of an agreement signed in the Fall of 2013 whereby the French and German air forces agreed to joint training for the A400M.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsfrench-german-air-forces-team-up-for-a400m-training

The challenge for the A400M as an operational force is to keep those aspects of commonality, which enhance interoperability across a multi-national fleet of A400Ms, and to integrate those aircraft within the national doctrines, tactics and approaches of the individual national forces.

The Franco-German training effort is a solid contribution to that outcome.

The photos in the slideshow are credited to the French Air Force.

 

Designing an Integrated Force: Alignments and Challenges

2017-05-08 By Robbin Laird

The Williams Foundation has provided a crucial venue for thinking through the challenges of building a flexible, agile 21st century combat force grounded in a capability to fight and win in a high intensity combat setting.

The background is a real world effort by the Australian government to recapitalize their defenses forces via the acquisition of new platforms, leveraging legacy ones and shaping an integrated force going forward.

Integration is crucial not simply because Australian forces are relatively modest; but with new equipment coming on line, capabilities such as software upgradeability in key platforms and the digital revolution provide a unique opportunity to rethink integration.

Rather than pursuing after market integration or simply connecting stove piped service platforms after the fact with a bolt on network, how might integration be built from the ground up?

The approach being taken is not theological or an application of set of propositions or laws written down in a guidebook.

The approach is to work greater integrative processes within and among the services, and to highlight the need to pose hypotheses along the way concerning how greater integration is achievable where appropriate and ways to achieve more effective outcomes for the development of the force.

It is a quest which is being shaped by realigning organizations, and trying to build from the ground up among the junior officers a willingness to shape interconnectivity from the ground up.

It is about building a 21st century network of operators who are empowered to find force integration solutions, again where appropriate or service specific outcomes appropriate to the different warfighting domains.

Shaping a way to conduct the quest is very difficult; but the ADF is clearly been empowered to do so by Government.

Such a quest inevitably will fail and succeed along the way; but without setting this objective from the ground up, it will be difficult to change the operating concepts and the then the concepts of operations which can drive the transformation of the force.

The United States may have Joint Forces Quarterly; the ADF has a transformation process underway.

And for the United States, even when the Aussies are adopting out own platforms, they are doing so in a very different context in which force integration is set as a strategic goal, rather than the pursuit of service modernization.

In effect, the Aussies are providing the experimental model which can be quite relevant to others, including the United States.

In the mid 1990s when I worked at the Institute for Defense Analyses, one of the tasks on which I worked was for the Roles and Missions Commission. One of the key tasks, which the Congress had tasked the Commission to pursue, was to determine what the United States might learn from allies.

We worked hard on our white paper but when delivered to the Commission we were told by a very senior member of the Commission: “Good work; but why did you really examine the question? We are so much bigger than any of our allies, there is very little we could learn from them or apply to our own practices!”

Unfortunately, not much as changed in the attitude of many defense civilians, but many leaders in the US military do not share such views, notably with allies and the US adopting some of the same key platforms at the same time, like P-8, Triton, and the F-35, and some allies operating more advanced equipment than the US itself.

After the April 11, 2017 seminar I had a chance to discuss the challenges with Air Vice-Marshal Mel Hupfeld, Head Force Design in the Force Design Division in the Department of Defence as well as Brigadier Jason Blain, Director General Force Options and Plans, Force Design Division.

The office is a joint office and the time spent was really a discussion of what the office was doing and the challenge of shaping an effective way ahead.

Indeed, the discussion for that was what it was, very much highlighted the approach which is a work in progress rather than the forced application of a set of solutions to the complex evolving organism which a modern defense organization certainly is, and one such as the ADF which is very globally engaged and learning combat lessons on the fly.

BG Blain presented at the seminar and in his presentation highlighted the focus on the force design cycle, which the office has developed to map out ways to put in place an ongoing realignment of the force structure towards more joint solutions.

At the heart of the effort is a shift to a stream approach whereby functions become crucial frameworks for platform decisions, modernization decisions and future investment decisions moving forward.

Slide from presentation by BG Blain to Williams Foundation Seminar, April 11, 2017

Obviously this is a work in progress and perhaps always will be.

The challenge is to get in place a template which allows for greater capabilities to shape force integration but in an ongoing manner; more of an directive ongoing inquiry rather than a fixed point on the compass.

Slide from presentation by BG Blain to Williams Foundation Seminar, April 11, 2017

A key effort has been to align processes within the Department to maximize the possibility that a joint consideration is built into the acquisition, operational concepts and doctrinal development processes.

At the same, concrete outcomes need to be demonstrated to highlight that all of this work makes a difference in terms of the deployed force as well.

 

The Force Design office consists of approximately 180 personnel and consists of two interactive branches. On looks at evolving futures and then works from that analysis to the development of appropriate operating concepts.

The second looks at current operations and training and draws lessons learned which amounts to “harvest the best and leave the rest” moving forward.

And obviously, they tie in with other organizations, such as Defense Science and Technology, and the Defense Industry Policy Division.

A key partner is the Joint Capability Management and Integration Division in the same area of the Department of Defence.

Both Divisions work together for the Vice Chief of the Defence Force (VCDF), to provide support to his role as the Joint Force Authority to ensure an Integrated Force by Design. This organization shapes the architecture for integration and interoperability for the evolving force. They work on the integrating enablers for the force, including that of C4ISR Design.

“We look at force development options and assess gaps and opportunities as we move forward.

“We examine as well what capabilities are not longer most useful to us.

“Through VCDF, who also holds authority as the Chair of the Defence Investment Committee, we then make proposals to government concerning our judgment about investment decisions from a joint perspective.”

The other part of the Force Design office deals with defense preparedness and mobilization.

Air Vice-Marshal Mel Hupfeld (centre) chats with industry partners during the Industry Event held during the Avalon International Airshow 2017. Credit: Australian Department of Defence

This effort requires the office to consider the whole of the defense of Australia concept and approach.

What capabilities does Australia need for integrated territorial defense?

A number of themes were highlighted in the discussion with Air Marshal Hupfeld and BG Blain.

First, shaping a cross departmental narrative about the design of the integrated force as a guiding effort is an ongoing challenge and requirement in shaping decisions about the development of the operating force.

Second, ensuring that there is thrust forward is crucial. Concrete outcomes need to be defined and executed to ensure visible forward thrust which will in turn drive further change. How will we do rapidly in six months what the Department would normally take three to five years to do?

Third, the reshaping of operational concepts around the ongoing design of the integrated force is a key aspect of the ongoing challenge. And taking that down to the next level, namely, the concepts of operations, is crucial because a key foundation for success is empowering the younger generation of officers who are leading the force design in practice being down with the introduction of the new platforms.

“We have CONOPS for the current fight but we need to shape future CONOPS as the pull function for the design of the joint force.”

BG Blain during a panel session held at the Williams Foundation Seminar on Integrated Force Design, April 11, 2017.

Fourth, there need to be successful case studies along the way to create a demonstration effect for the Department and beyond.

In short, shaping a way ahead for the design of an integrate force is a work in progress.

But what is required is to extract modernization of the current force combined with new platforms and enablers to shape the ongoing capabilities of the ADF as an integrated force.

As John Blackburn put it in an interview after the seminar:

“Now where we’re at now is moving to the next stage, of applying a bit of thrust as one of the speakers said, getting on with building this integrated force and not just talking about it.

“We see elements of force integration in the United States, but the integration there is by each Service.

“There’s integrated force happening within Navy with NIFC-CA.

“The USAF is looking at their future, Aerospace 2030 concepts.

“We have to follow the ideas in the U.S. but take one step further.

“Because we’re small, we might be able to take the step straight to JIFC-Australia, Joint Integrated Fire Control for Australia.

“We want to learn from the U.S., follow it closely, but actually take a step which is hard for the U.S. to do because of its size, and that’s go truly integrated by design across the whole of the joint force.”

 

 

Reshaping the Australian Industrial-Government Working Relationship to Enable Integrated Force Design

05/07/2017

2017-05-05 By Robbin Laird

The Williams Foundation seminars on the crafting and empowering of an integrated force has focused largely on key elements for reshaping the force and enabling the capability to shape a more effective and integrated combat force.

This will simply not occur without a significant reworking of the partnership with industry and the capability to bringing outside players in shaping innovation inside the process of defining, designing and building the force over time.

The process requires a much greater degree of openness to the inclusion of industry in shaping capabilities.

In an article about Plan Jericho and the new approach towards industry, a way ahead was highlighted.

With the backing of RAAF leadership, the team decided to apply this new approach to the challenge of retrofitting the Hawk 127 Lead-in-fighter jet with the technology needed for it to operate under a new airspace management system in Australia. OneSKY requires all civilian and military aircraft to be fitted with an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) system that digitally shares their precise location. 

It will be significant investment in time and money to have ADS-B on all military aircraft. 

But the Hawk 127 posed a problem. “There’s very little real estate in which to put anything and the plane’s original manufacturer told us the solution was going to be very costly and take considerable time to develop,” Wing Commander Reid says. 

“So we partnered with BAE Australia and invited all the aerospace sector players – some 20-odd players, including the primes such as Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon as well as small Australian players such as Enigma Aviation – into the Design Innovation Research Center. There were over 40 people there from around the world, and we locked them in a room and said, ‘Let’s understand the complexities and then solve this problem.”

There was a lot of resistance initially as the DIRC team pushed the group outside their comfort zone of a traditional engineering approach, Professor Bucolo says.

“One of the really crucial things we did was we brought the stakeholders, the end users, into the room,” says Wing Commander Reid. “We had an air traffic controller who told us about what it’s like on a dark and stormy night, with zero visibility and a plane coming in with no ADS-B. 

“We had a pilot who had a near-miss incident of less than 50 feet. He told us what went through his mind at that particular time – including his three young children.

“We had the Chief Engineer talk to us about the complexities involved in trying to fit this capability into an aircraft with little or no room to fit anything.

“Suddenly all of these tough engineers started to empathise and become design thinkers – and the solutions they came up with were just incredible.”

On the last day of their week with the DIRC the group helped write the requirements for the Hawk 127 project – Wing Commander Reid says such early, comprehensive and open supplier involvement in the requirement definition phase of an acquisition is unheard of in Defence. The tender went out the following week, with 10 days to respond.

“We had 16 responses but, more importantly, four of the companies said they wouldn’t respond because it was not for them and that we had saved them over $2 million in bid costs,” he says.

On the face of it, this project was about building a ‘thing’ for an aircraft, he says. “But what I really care about is the shift in thinking that’s happening.”

The Hawk 127 was an example of design thinking applied to a specific problem, Professor Bucolo says, but design thinking is also being applied to big-picture strategy within the RAAF, showing the way for others.

Wing Commander Reid says defence forces around the world – like many businesses – realise that they can’t sustain an advantage for long, that ‘transient’ advantage is the new normal. 

“Our potential adversaries are moving at a pace that is unpredictable, with threats and capabilities increasing rapidly,” he says. 

“We develop a capability advantage, and it will last as long as we don’t deploy it. As soon as we deploy it the advantage will be gone – which means we have to have the next capability advantage ready to go, and the next one and the next one.

“To do that we need a system of systems, not just one thing. We need speed and capacity. And design thinking is going to be at the forefront of that.”

 https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/design-innovation-research-centre

The kind of partnership approach is crucial to any effort to effectively incorporate new technologies within an open ended approach to program or capability stream development envisaged within joint force design efforts for the ADF.

At the Williams Foundation seminar on Integrated Force Design, the kind of partnerships envisaged in shaping a new acquisition approach was described by Air Commodore Leon Phillips, Director General Aerosapce Maritime, Training and Surveillance, looked at ways to reshape the acquisition and sustainment of the integrated force to address some of the concerns raised by RADM Dalton.

In this presentation, Phillips contrasted the traditional project approach with what he referred to as a new engagement model to allow for more flexibility in development but ways to constrain cost and shape realistic outcomes.

Put bluntly, without organizational change it would not be possible to achieve effective ways to shape integrated design cost effectively and in light of the dynamics of software development.

To achieve a joint design outcome, it would be necessary to shape an engagement model in which industry was a full partner. It was crucial as well to feed learning back into requirements generation as well.

Budgeting changes were required as well.

“We don’t do enough funded work with industry to get a realistic assessment of the domain of the feasible nor with regard to how to price evolving options and capabilities. How do you price the evolution within the force of options and opportunities when you manage with fixed priced contracts? You don’t.”

He argued that the new engagement model would divide programs into three phases: a partnership, appraisal and executive phase within which different approaches would be combined to deliver a capability.

In the partnership phase, one establishes the steering group and the stakeholders to be involved in program definition. The focus is upon the vision or the wish list of the capability, which is the target of the effort.

In the appraisal phase, there are funded studies which allow education about what is realistic to achieve for the target funding and to shape choice and determine how to reduce risk.

In the execution phase, the core decisions have been taken and the target objectives defined and pursued. The execution phase adjusts the vision to realistic outcomes within the targeted budget. It is not about requirements it is about outcomes driven by the partnership as a procurement force.

The industrial presentations made during the seminar highlights various aspects of the challenge in shaping a new working relationship with industry.

Software Upgradeability: Ensuring Transient Combat Advantage

The core importance of shaping software approaches to provide for the kinds of transient advantage necessary to deal with a constantly evolving threat was discussed by Stephen Froelich, Director, Operational Command and Control, Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems.

In his presentation, Froelich highlighted the importance of open systems architecture, and agile development through software evolution to gain transient advantage. He argued for the importance of a business model that supports an open, agile and spiral development approach.

This requires the simultaneous management of current capability, hardware and fielded capability.

Steve Froelich, Lockheed Martin, RMS, making his presentation to the Williams Foundation Seminar on Integrated Force Design, April, 11, 2017.

Lockheed is involved in the new submarine program as the combat systems designer and clearly will be involved along with a number of companies teamed with it in providing Navy with the kind of transient advantage necessary for the maritime arm of the ADF.

When I interviewed Chief of Navy prior to the seminar we discussed the new submarine as a case study of the continuous shipbuilding approach which is essential not just to the Navy but to joint force enablement.

Question: One aspect of change clearly is building 21st century defense structure.

I have just returned from the UK and witnessed their significant efforts at Lossiemouth, Waddington, Marham and at Lakenheath to have a new infrastructure built.

And certainly have seen that at RAAF Williamtown with the F-35 and at RAAF Edinburgh with the P-8/Triton.

How important in your view is building a new infrastructure to support a 21st century combat force?

Vice Admiral Tim Barrett: Crucial.

And that is in part what I am referring to as an industrial and national set of commitments to shaping a 21st century combat fleet.

We spoke last time about the Ship Zero concept.

This is how we are focusing upon shaping a 21st century support structure for the combat fleet.

I want the Systems Program Office, the Group that manages the ship, as well as the contracted services to work together on site.

I want the trainers there, as well, so that when we’re maintaining one part of the system at sea, it’s the same people in the same building maintaining those things that will allow us to make future decisions about obsolescence or training requirements, or to just manage today’s fleet.

I want these people sitting next to each other and learning together.

It’s a mindset.

It puts as much more effort into infrastructure design as it does into combat readiness, which is about numbers today.

You want to shape infrastructure that is all about availability of assets you need for mission success, and not just readiness in a numerical sense.

Getting the right infrastructure to generate fleet innovation on a sustained basis is what is crucial for mission success.

And when I speak of a continuous build process this is what I mean.

We will build new frigates in a new yard but it is not a fire and forget missile.

We need a sustained enterprise that will innovate through the life of those frigates operating in an integrated ADF force.

That is what I am looking for us to shape going forward.

Question: An example of your approach to the future is clearly the new submarine.

A French design house and an American combat systems company will be working together really for the first time.

And they are building a submarine which has never been built before.

 This provides an opportunity for you to shape a new support structure along the lines you have described going forward.

 How do you see this process?

Vice Admiral Tim Barrett: It is something new and allows us to shape the outcome we want in terms of an upgradeable sustainable submarine with high availability rates built in. We intend to see this built that way from the ground up.

It is not simply about acquiring a platform.

We will not be a recipient of someone else’s design and thought.

This will be something that we do, and we will work with those that have a capacity to deliver what we say we need.

I think the way you characterize the process makes sense.

The experiences we’ve had through Collins have taught us a lot.

With 12 of these future submarines in a theater anti-submarine role we think we can make an effective contribution to our defense and to working with core allies in the region, notably the US Navy.

Working the Way Ahead: The Wedgetail Case Study

There were two other industrial presentations at the seminar as well.

The first was by Lt. General (Retired) Jeff Remington of Northrop Grumman and provided him with an opportunity to highlight the challenges to building the joint force seen from an American perspective.

He highlighted how the service specific architectures placed barriers in terms of shaping a more general approach to the integrated force.

Lt. General USAF (Ret.) Jeff Remington, Northrop Grumman, presenting to the Integrated Force Design Seminar held by the Williams Foundation on April 11, 2017.

And as the key enabler of several Australian systems, Wedgetail and Triton, clearly Northrop is a key player in shaping the way ahead for an evolving integrated force for Australian defense, and one which is interoperable with its closest allies as well.

The Wedgetail case illustrates the path of how the ADF actually got onto the path of working beyond a narrowly requirements dominated approach and taught the ADF and MoD more generally the importance of shaping a new approach.

Boeing is the prime contractor, but Northrop provides the key radar system around which Wedgetail is built.

The Chairman of the Williams Foundation, Air Chief Marshal Brown (Retired) described the learning curve whereby the RAAF got the new capabilities.

Question: As Chief you decided to push your new aircraft – Wedgetail and the KC-30A – out to the force rather than waiting for the long list of tests to be complete.

Why?

Air Marshal (Retired) Brown: Testers can only do so much. 

Once an aircraft is functional you need to get in the hand of the operators, pilots, crews and maintainers. They will determine what they think the real priorities for the evolution of the aircraft, rather than a test engineer or pilot.

And you get the benefit of a superior platform from day one. 

When I became Deputy Chief of Air Force, the Wedgetail was being slowed down by the Kabuki effort to arrange specification lines for the aircraft. There was much hand-wringing amongst the program staff as to how it didn’t meet the specifications that we had put out.

I said, “Let’s just give it to the operators.”

And the advantage of basically giving the aircraft to the operators was what the test community and the engineers thought were real limitations the operators did not. Sometimes it took the operators two days to figure a work around.

And the real advantage of the development was that they would prioritize what was really needed to be fixed from the operational point of view, not the testing point of view.

In other words, you can spend a lot of time trying to get back to the original specifications.

But when you actually give it to the operators they actually figure out what’s important or what isn’t important and then use the aircraft in real world operations.

And what this has meant is a new working relationship between operators and industry to deliver ongoing modernization of the platform.

This approach was highlighted during my visit to Williamtown last year with the Wedgetail squadron.

Question: It is clearly a system in progress with the capability to evolve into what the US CNO calls a key capability to operate in the electromagnetic battlespace, and to do so for the joint force.

Could you talk about the joint evolution?

Group Captain Bellingham: “Army and navy officers are part of the Wedgetail crew. . We are not just extension of what the air defense ground environment or the control reporting units do from the ground. We take our platform airborne and we do air battle space management.

“Recently, in the Army led Hamel exercise, we pushed the link piecutre down to the ground force headquarters. Their situational awareness became significant, compared to what they have had before.

“And since the Williams seminar on Air-Land integration, several senior Army officers have been to Williamtown to take onboard what we can do and potential evolution of the systems onboard the aircraft.

“We are seeing similar developments on the Navy side. A key example is working with the LHD. My opinion is that the Wedgetail will be critical to making all the bits of an amphibious task group come together. And not just that but as the P-8 joins the force, we can broaden the support to Navy as well. And the new air warfare destroyer will use its systems as well to pass the data around to everyone, and making sure everyone’s connected.

“The E-7 is a critical node in working force integration and making sure we’re all seeing the same thing at the same time, and not running into each other, and getting each other space. We’re not on a ten second scan. We are bringing the information to the war fighter or to whoever needs it right then.”

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

What advantages does that bring?

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

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

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

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

A New Industrial-Government Working Relationship: The Case of Team Complex Weapons in the UK

Finally, Andy Watson from MBDA missile systems focused on the evolving relationship between industry and government which has generated by the Team Complex Weapons approach of the British government.

According to MBDA:

Team Complex Weapons (Team CW) defines an approach to delivering the UK’s Complex Weapons (CW) requirements in an affordable manner.

This value for money proposition also ensures a viable industrial capacity. The PMA aims to transform the way in which CW business is conducted by MoD with its main supplier.

At the heart of this is a joint approach to the delivery of the required capability based on an open exchange of information and flexibility in the means of delivery.

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

Andy Watson, Managing Director MBDA Australia, presenting to the Williams Foundation Seminar on Integrated Force Design, April 11, 2017.

A recent example of the fruits of this approach was latest agreement reached between MBDA and the UK government. According to the British government:

Secretary of State, Sir Michael Fallon, has today (April 21, 2017) announced three new missile contracts worth a combined £539 million for state-of-the-art Meteor, Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) and Sea Viper missile systems at MBDA Stevenage.

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

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

Secretary of State, Sir Michael Fallon, said:

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

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

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

The Sea Viper missile defends ships against multiple threats, including missiles and fighter aircraft.

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

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

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

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

Dave Armstrong, Managing Director of MBDA UK, added:

“MBDA is delighted by the continued trust placed in us by the Ministry of Defence and the British military.

“The contracts announced today for Meteor, CAMM and Sea Viper will help protect all three UK Armed Services, providing them with new cutting-edge capabilities and ensuring their current systems remain relevant for the future.

“They will also help to secure hundreds of high-skilled people at MBDA UK and in the UK supply chain, maintaining the UK’s manufacturing base and providing us with a platform for exports.”

https://sldinfo.com/recent-developments-for-mbda-new-uk-investments-and-progress-with-integration-efforts-on-typhoon-and-f-35/

Shaping A Way Ahead

In short, reshaping Government’s approach to working with government and expanding the portfolio of partnering arrangements is essential to generating the intellectual capital, property rights, and innovations necessary to deliver a dynamic integrated combat force.

New approaches to shaping outcomes from the acquisition engagement process are crucial in order to empower successful partnering arrangements.

After the seminar, I had a chance to talk with Chris Jenkins, head of Thales Australia, and National President of the Australian Industry Group with regard to the challenge of reshaping the Government-Industry partnership.

Question: The Australian government has set in motion a significant modernization programs. What is the role and impact on industry?

Chris Jenkins: There are several aspects to that subject.

Australia is spending more on defense. At the same time as doing so, there have been clear changes within defense as an organization to shape new ways to implement that policy, following the First Principles Review and its recommendations.

There’s also been very clear policy around enhancing the impact of defense modernization on Australian industrial skill sets. There has been keen interest to enhance the level of engineering and technology and program management skills and to grow those skills over the long term, both within the Defence industry sector but also more broadly in Australian industry.

I’ve been really impressed that within a very short period of time there’s been buy-in from the defense service chiefs, and changes within the defense acquisition and sustainment organization to start to implement these policies and make them real.

Overall the most important impact, in my view, is the inclusion of industry as a Fundamental Input to Capability (FIC) for Defence. This drives a new, more integrated relationship with mutual responsibilities between Defence and industry.

This really gets to the heart of how industry can be engaged as a FIC. Finding more effective paths to deliver integrated capabilities within and across Defence platforms and systems is something that can only be done efficiently by close partnering between Defence and industry.

Question: I spent time with the head of Air Force this morning, Air Marshal Davies, and he is keen on shaping an integrated force. It is not just about platforms, but finding ways to deliver integrated capabilities.

What is the challenge and impact on industry of such an approach?

There are very clear actions being taken to support that by the service chiefs and by the people in the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group. You’re also seeing industry gaining confidence in the approach as the new paradigm. Industry is also starting to work more collaboratively together, forming the team sets that can deliver and evolve combined platform and system capability. Companies are starting to work together to share workload because of the complementarity of the skill sets that one company might have compared to another.

This slide was presented as part of Rear Admiral Tony Dalton, Head Joint Systems Division, Australian Ministry of Defence’s brief to the Williams Foundation Seminar on Integrated Force Design, April 11, 2017.

Industry is responding to the opportunity to engage in a collaborative set of partnerships between defense and industry and this is showing some good results in terms of greater delivery and sustainment capability.

Prior to these government initiatives, Australia has been one of the lower end performers on collaborative development. Reshaping this relationship is crucial to get the kind of success Australia wants through more efficient, more agile integrated capability delivery.

Question: Clearly, this means that even when platforms are bought abroad, there needs to be a working relationship where that platform evolves over time within an ADF context, not simply replicating whatever has been done to modernize the platform in the originator’s home market.

How will Australia do that?

Chris Jenkins: There’s a smart buyer approach in the market now, which is looking for the elements that will go onto the key platforms that are specifically focused on the Australian defense requirement.

Rather than buying a complete platform and system from overseas off the shelf, I think the realization is Australia does have some unique operational requirements, and so building into the procurement process a way of evaluating how best to bring those teams together that can deliver and sustain those requirements through the life of the vehicle, or the ship or whatever it might be, is being done more efficiently and effectively.

The customer is helping shape the market or the way the market responds to the requirements more effectively. I think that is a fundamental change.

How well projects deliver as a consequence of that overall change, time will tell, but I think all signs are actually quite positive.

The first principles review made strong recommendations, and it looks like that the actions that need to underpin those recommendations are being taken.

   

 

North Korea, the Second Nuclear Age and Nuclear Extortion: It is Not About Deterrence as “Usual”

05/06/2017

2017-05-01 By Danny Lam

The US Senate was briefed by Secretary Tillerson, and Mattis, and CJCS Gen. Joseph Dunford, and DNI Dan Coats in an hour long classified briefing last week.

Since then, the silence from Senators and their surrogates have been deafening. Aside from general comments and a few snipes, Senators appeared to have abstained from the normal rough and tumble rhetoric against the Trump Administration.

The briefing covered key issues as the magnitude of threat posed by DPRK developments; including the growth trajectory of DPRK nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities; past and present diplomatic efforts to denuclearize; and parameters for US and Allied policy.

Senators were told that key assumptions behind decades of past Administration policy such as the efficacy of tightening multilateral sanctions and negotiated settlements with DPRK have failed.

Moreover, after the rise of Kim Jong Un in 2013, economic reforms have successfully produced a noticeable and sharp rise in the standard of living and in parallel, a sharp acceleration in DPRK deployable WMD capabilities despite tightening sanctions.

The trajectory of DPRK WMD development documented by the UN: nuclear weapons and delivery vehicle development (land and sea based, liquid vs. solid fuel, etc.) is at a rate that is faster than any other previous regime in history.

For example, DPRK progressed from metal to wound filament missile frames — a major step to increasing throw weight and range, within years.

Much of these developments can be explained away by the post-cold war availability of ex Soviet talent “for hire”; elements of the Khan network; Iranians, Pakistanis, etc.; the proliferation of computational technologies that enable simulations to do in seconds work that formerly required tens of thousands of man hours by skilled engineers and technicians; and the open market availability of many dual use COTS components.

But to take advantage of these require a fertile ground of technical infrastructure, resources, a vision and organizational will(s) to achieve the goals.

In terms of technical goals, there is no doubt that DPRK is developing a WMD capability to strike any nation around the world from Korea.

Yet, we know very little about the perceptions of key players, their calculus of risk and reward, “red lines”, thought processes, and what they intend to (whether knowingly or not) achieve with such a military capability.

Nor do we understand the same issues from the point of view of other non DPRK players.

The Senate briefing by and large glossed over the motives of DPRK and key players like Kim Jong Un and concentrated on documentable facts.  

By doing so, it implicitly assumed that the behavior of DPRK and Kim Jong Un (absent the madman theory) can be understood and managed in terms of traditional arms control models that kept the world safe from nuclear war from 1945 onwards.

From the classical arms control perspective, DPRK is just the latest arrival into the non-NPT “unofficial” nuclear club: India, Israel, South Africa (deproliferated) & Pakistan. Every nuclear power, whether NPT P5 or not, have become cautious, conservative, and by and large, perceived their nuclear arsenal as “last resort”.

Why shouldn’t DPRK fall into this pattern after a time?

Hence the policy of strategic patience.

But what if there is a fundamentally different dynamic at work in the “Second Nuclear Age”?

Professor Paul Bracken observed that the first nuclear age was characterized by “icy rationality and cool logic” and a shared desire to avoid mutual destruction by two dominant nuclear powers. Lesser nuclear powers tended to view their arsenal as “insurance policies” that did more to stabilize the status quo between states as to stoke conflict.

However, the second nuclear age see the rise of nationalism, insecurities, rage, as factors.

But there is more.

Non-Western concepts of international relations that we once though have been banished have reappeared. Beijing China is in the process of establishing a set of relationships that bear striking resemblance to late Ming tributary states system.

The reappearance of behavior banished from the Western psyche, such as war or conflict for profit, have largely gone unnoticed in the foreign policy community dominated by western trained scholars and institutions.

The last time America paid tribute dates from the Barbary Wars in the 18th Century after the newly independent America lost British protection. It was such a humiliating experience to have to ransom American shipping and captives in 1794, Congress created the US Navy.

From that time onwards, the United States established a longstanding policy of refusing to pay tribute on principle and where necessary, use military power to defeat the extortionists.

Contrast this with the Northeast Asian institutional memory of war.  

Beijing China’s storytelling begins with the “Century of humiliation” that began with the Opium wars by Western powers. But what it neglects is in the interim period between the ending of the Opium war and the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894, the Ching recovered and built a modern navy around two German built pre-Dreadnoughts that was on paper the most powerful in Asia.

Japan, as the inferior naval power, was able to defeat the stronger Beiyang fleet.The economic consequence of this victory on Japan was largely forgotten.

Japan’s victory in the first Sino-Japanese war resulted in about 40m pounds sterling in indemnity paid by the Ching.   That amounted to roughly four times the budget of Imperial Japan and well exceeded their war expenditures.   It resulted in a major economic boom in Japan and facilitated financing their modernization — particularly in the building of a modern Navy and Army capable of challenging the west.

An indemnity of this size against the Chinese was not unusual or out of character in the tradition of European international relations.  Prussia demanded 5 billion francs from France after the 1871 armistice and occupied France until it was paid in 1873.

Next came World War I, a war that no one really wanted.

World War I ended with devastation on an industrial scale so much that the term “indemnity” became converted to “reparations” for all parties recognized any reasonable sum of indemnities can never be paid.   That signified the ending of profit as a legitimate motive for war in the European theater.   It was only much later, after World War II, that acknowledged that reparations too, can be so large and burdensome that it can lead to more war.

Hence, reparations paid by Germany, Japan and other belligerents are notable for their modest size.

The ending of profit as a motive for war (or for that matter, reasonable reparations for the victor) is an alien concept new to Asians.    

War is, and can be a profitable venture for the winner is deeply embedded in the psyche in the memories of statesmen in East Asia outside of Japan.

The pausing of the Korean war with an armistice with no clear loser and consequences for the North Koreans set the stage for a revival of these regional international relations norms. During the negotiations leading to the 1994 Agreed Framework DPRD demanded substantial economic incentives (e.g. two light water nuclear power plant built for them and $6 billion) as their price.

Separately, DPRK demanded $500m to halt their missile exports in 1998.

Subsequent negotiations for the “disablement” of three nuclear facilities in 2007 produced demands including US$400m in fuel oil (2 million tons) and aid.

Western trained diplomats by and large viewed these demands by DPRK as moves by a desperate regime starving off collapse in the years before Kim Jong Un.

But extortion was not seen as a modus operandi except by a few observers.

What if it is now that DPRK is in no immediate danger of collapse or famine?

Looking at the historical pattern in DPRK behavior from the 1990s, it is clear that the regime have just about broken every international norm including having their diplomats engaging in narcotics trafficking.   Proliferation of nuclear technology, WMDs, weapons, missiles, to virtually anyone with cash is their way.   And expected to be paid well, or bribed, (in equivalent to foregone revenues) to stop.

Would DPRK behave any differently with nuclear weapons, sensitive materials, or ICBMs?

Should we be asking about the consequences of DPRK acquiring a gene splicing based biowarfare capability?

North Korea’s pattern of behavior show that it is improbable that they will abandon their modus operandi and become “respectable” nuclear powers. Nuclear weapons is not just about an insurance policy for them.

It is about making money for the regime in quantity.

DPRK is doing too well with their nuclear and missile programs and it is almost certain that they will find ready customers worldwide willing to pay cash for their weapons and knowhow. Beyond this source of revenue, there is the question of whether East Asian states, including longtime US allies, will consider it expedient to simply pay off DPRK unless the US confront and defeat DPRK when negotiations fail unless the US act expeditiously to end this threat.

The challenge that DPRK and Kim Jong Un pose is not just about them.

It is a fundamental challenge to the system of international relations by a nuclear armed extortionist.

If DPRK succeeds, they will not be the last.

Nor will they just be nuclear armed.