Robbin Laird, Author at Second Line of Defense

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

Posted on August 12, 2017 | by Robbin Laird

08/12/2017

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

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

08.06.2017

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

Video by Staff Sgt. Jael Laborn

19th Airlift Wing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exercise Events

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

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

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

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

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

Enhancing Power Projection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on August 12, 2017 | by Robbin Laird

2017-08-09 By Danny Lam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But are NORK ICBMs built this way?

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

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

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

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

What if it is not a test?

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

What then?

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

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

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

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

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

DPRK may not be deterred.

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

Where are the NORK ICBM Silos?

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

2017-01-05 By Paul Bracken, Yale University

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the second nuclear age did come about.

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

Here I highlight some answers to these questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are moving toward a multipolar order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like all big structures it has processes and dynamics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to prevail in the Second Nuclear Age?

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

Posted on August 11, 2017 | by Robbin Laird

08/11/2017

2017-08-08 By Ed Timperlake and Robbin Laird

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

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

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

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

The fourth aircraft was a late entrant into the experiment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scorpion jet multi-mission aircraft. Credit: Textron Aircraft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buckey: Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.forcexinc.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The other is a maritime capability with the airplane.

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

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

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

SLD: How many airframes are you flying currently?

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRODUCTCARD_DEF_SC_MSN_0617

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remembering Dunkirk But Hopefully Not Repeating It

Posted on August 10, 2017 | by Robbin Laird

08/10/2017

2017-07-30 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

The new Dunkirk movie is one of the best war movies in years.

It does what film does best; put one into the shoes of the persons involved rather than providing a platform for lecturing the audience on the moral values of the director.

With Dunkirk, one gets the experience of being a British soldier, sailor and air man in the midst of one of the greatest military defeats of all time.

And one gets a sense that without the British public showing up in small boats there would have not been much left of the British Army after the Dunkirk debacle.

The French press has seen a great deal of criticism of the movie for not highlighting the key role, which the French played (along with the British infantry one might note) in providing the corridor through which the Dunkirk escape could occur.

http://theconversation.com/what-happened-to-the-french-army-after-dunkirk-80854

This story is a key one and perhaps another film can tell the story; yet the British can certainly be excused for pulling their troops out first although several thousand French troops made it to Britain.

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-British-abandon-France-by-withdrawing-in-Dunkirk

https://www.amazon.com/Dunkirk-Behind-Longden-23-Apr-2009-Paperback/dp/B011T80U9M/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1501445414&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=dunkirk+british+army+left+behind

Yet is should also be noted that a substantial number of the French troops which escaped to Britain then returned back to France to live under Vichy France which certainly highlights the point of why you prioritize your own people who have no place to go but home and to defend it from the Germans.

But the way to remember Dunkirk is to ensure that we do not need to repeat it.

As the illiberal states prepare for higher intensity operations, our slow pace in being able to shift from engaging in Slo Mo war to preparing for higher intensity operations can put us exactly in this position.

We looked at this challenge in a piece published earlier on Second Line of Defense.

2016-02-14 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

The F-35 working with robotic elements and with new weapons can empower a distributed operations approach.

This approach is being tested out at various centers of innovation within the U.S. military and will be synergistic with allied partners.

Traditional assets, such as the large deck amphibious ship or th large-deck carrier, will be rethought as the new approach and new capabilities are introduced into the force.

Continuing to invest in past approaches and capabilities makes little sense.

And ultimately, the fifth-generation aircraft and associated systems can drive significant cultural change.

But there is nothing inevitable here.

The United States is at a crucial turning point.

German Panzers punch through the Ardennes Forest then turn northward.

In a stringent budgetary environment and with a demand to shape a post-Afghan military, the crucial requirement is to invest in the future not the past.

But it is not just about airframes or stuffing as much as you can in legacy aircraft.

The new aircraft represent a sea change with significant savings in terms of fleet costs and overall capability at the same time.

The sustainability of the new aircraft is in a world significantly different from legacy aircraft.

Digital maintenance is part of the revolution in sustainability. The sustainability revolution enables a significant increase in the sortie generation rates for the new combat aircraft.

And in addition to this core capability, there is a significant transition in combat approaches facilitated by the new aircraft.

The aircraft can shape disruptive change by enabling distributed operations.

The shift is from linear to simultaneous operations; it is a shift from fighters needing reachback to large aircraft command and control and ISR platforms to 360-degree dominance by deployed decision makers operating not in a network but a honeycomb.

These lessons have been recently highlighted in the Trilateral Exercise held at Langley AFB in December 2015.

If this exercise was held 12 years ago, not only would the planes have been different but so would the AWACS role. The AWACS would have worked with the fighters to sort out combat space and lanes of operation in a hub spoke manner.

With the F-22 and the coming F-35, horizontal communication among the air combat force is facilitated so that the planes at the point of attack can provide a much more dynamic targeting capability against the adversary with push back to AWACS as important as directed air operations from the AWACS.

As General Hawk Carlisle put it:

“The exercise was not about shaping a lowest common denominator coalition force but one able to fight more effectively at the higher end as a dominant air combat force.

The pilots learning to work together to execute evolving capabilities are crucial to mission success in contested air space.”

Modernization of assets, enhanced capabilities to work together and shaping innovative concepts of operations were seen as key tools for the U.S. and the allies to operate in the expanded battlespace in order to prevail…..

And as the RAF highlighted:

“Whoever can gather, process and exploit the most information in the quickest time will win the information war and ultimately the fight.

With fifth generation aircraft being able to instantly share data with their fourth generation cousins, the Typhoon can become and an even more effective and capable jet fighter.”

Fifth-generation aircraft both generate disruptive change and live off of disruptive change.

An F-22 flying with a Typhoon and a Rafael at the Trilateral Exercise at Langley AFB, December 2015. Credit Photo: USAF

Taking a fleet approach, rather than simply focusing on the platforms themselves, highlights their potential for disruptive change.

Properly connected or interoperable with one another, the new aircraft can work together to operate like a marauding motorcycle gang in an adversary’s battlespace.

Rather than operating as a linear force, the marauding motorcycle gang creates chaos within the OODA loop of the adversary. In fact, the F-35 is really about shifting from the OODA loop with the machine-man interface doing much of the OO and focusing attention on the DA.

By having an onboard combat systems enterprise able to respond in real time to the impacts that the aircraft are creating in the battlespace, they can respond to the fractual consequences of the battle itself.

Rather than going in with a preset battle plan, the new aircraft can work together to disrupt, destroy, and defeat adversary forces within the battlespace. It is about on-the-fly (literally) combat system processing power that enables the pilots to act like members of a marauding motorcycle gang.

The fifth-generation aircraft enable the pilots to become key decision makers within the battlespace and, if properly interconnected, shape a distributed operations approach to battle management and execution.

They are key elements of C4ISR D, which is deployed decision making rather than data collection sent back to decision makers for less timely actions. C5ISR D is the core capability that 21st-century military forces need for strategic advantage.

F-22 Raptors from the 94th Fighter Squadron, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., and F-35A Lightning IIs from the 58th Fighter Squadron, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., fly in formation after completing an integration training mission over the Eglin Training Range, Fla., Nov. 5, 2014. It was the first operational integration training mission for the Air Force’s fifth generation aircraft. The F-35s and F-22s flew offensive counter air, defensive counter air and interdiction missions together, employing tactics to maximize their fifth-generation capabilities. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Shane A. Cuomo)

For the United States to have an effective military role in the new setting of regional networking, a key requirement will be effective and assured combined command, control, and communications, linked by advanced computing capabilities to global, regional, and local intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance assets (C5ISR).

The services will need to ensure that there is broad synergy among U.S. global forces fully exploiting new military technologies and the more modest capabilities of regional allies and partners.

Indeed, C5ISR is evolving to become C5ISR D, whereby the purpose of C5ISR is to shape effective combined and joint decision-making. The USMC clearly understands and embraces the disruptive capabilities of the fifth-generation aircraft. For the USMC, TAC Air does not simply play a close air support role in any traditional sense.

It is an enabler for distributed operations when such operations are essential to either conventional strike or counterinsurgency warfare.

USMC aviation has allowed the USMC ground forces to operate with greater confidence in deploying within the civilian population in Iraq. Aviation’s roles in both non-kinetic and kinetic operations have allowed the USMC to avoid operating within “green zones” so as to facilitate greater civilian-military relations.

Aviation has also provided an integrated asset working with the ground forces in joint counter-IED operations. And quite obviously, battlefields of the future will require the USMC to operate upon many axes of attack simultaneously. Such an operation is simply impossible without a USMC aviation element.

For the USMC thinks ground in the air and the forces on the ground can rely 24/ 7 on USMC aviation forces to be with them in the ground fight.

As Lt. Col. “Chip” Berke, the F-22, F-35, F-16 and F-18 Marine Corps former squadron commander, put it in a presentation on airpower at the Copenhagen Airpower conference last year:

As a JTAC the key requirement is that the airplane show up.

The A-10 pilots are amazing; the plane will not always able to show up in the environment in which we operate; the F-35 will.

That is the difference for a Marine on the ground.

The F-35 will be a “first-generation flying combat system” that will enable air-ground communication and ISR exchanges unprecedented in military history. The pilot will be a full member of the ground team; the ground commanders will have ears and eyes able to operate in a wide swath of three-dimensional space.

But if other airpower leaders simply mimic the operations of older aircraft with the fifth-generation aircraft, the promise of the new air operations will not be realized.

As Robert Evans, a specialist on C2, formerly a senior USAF officer and now with Northrop Grumman put it about the dynamics of change:

If warfighters were to apply the same C2 approach used for traditional airpower to the F-35 they would really be missing the point of what the F-35 fleet can bring to the future fight.

In the future, they might task the F-35 fleet to operate in the battlespace and affect targets that they believe are important to support the commander’s strategy, but while those advanced fighters are out there, they can collaborate with other forces in the battlespace to support broader objectives.

The F-35 pilot could be given much broader authorities and wields much greater capabilities, so the tasks could be less specific and more broadly defined by mission type orders, based on the commander’s intent. He will have the ability to influence the battlespace not just within his specific package, but working with others in the battlespace against broader objectives.

Collaboration is greatly enhanced, and mutual support is driven to entirely new heights.

The F-35 pilot in the future becomes in some ways, an air battle manager who is really participating in a much more advanced offense, if you will, than did the aircrews of the legacy generation.

And going back to my comment about the convergence of planning and execution, and a warfighter’s ability to see and sense in the battlespace … that’s only relevant if you take advantage of it, and the F-35 certainly allows warfighters to take advantage of it.

You don’t want to have a fifth-generation Air Force, shackled by a third-generation system of command and control.

The result would be that the United states and its allies will repeat the failures of the French facing the Germans in World War II where they had superior tanks with outmoded tactics and command structures, and with the predictable results.

The new aircraft simply do not function in the way the old do.

Indeed, one lesson of Dunkirk needs to be remembered when shaping an innovative military strategy for the decade ahead 21st century: new capabilities without new concepts of operations will lead to strategic failure.

A military force is truly blessed if the combat leaders at all levels in the chain of command have the proper weapons and also the wisdom to employ them against a reactive enemy. History of combat often shows that their not understanding or exploiting that advantage can offset one army’s engagement-winning weapons.

It is true that weaker forces through brilliant leadership can vanquish the more technology-capable and stronger army. Of course, as Napoleon said, he also wanted a general who was lucky, and all combat leaders know how the great unknown of luck can also determine the outcome.

And to add to the mix is another great thinker, Damon Runyon, who once quipped, “The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”

Possibly the best tank of the 1940 campaign, the S-35 had a top speed of 25mph and boasted a 47mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 2,200 feet per second. These tanks along with the excellent Hotchkiss H39s equipped the three light mechanized divisions or DLMs. These divisions were only formed starting in 1939 and were poorly prepared for the German invasion, which succeeded with inferior tanks.

By all static order-of-battle accounting, the Miracle at Dunkirk should have never been necessary, because the British and French had a number of key elements that could have allowed them to win, including superior tanks to the attacking Germans and rough parity in the air.

But the French and British were defeated; the British Expeditionary Force was evacuated and lived to fight another day on to the eventual V-E Day. So betting on the French and the British was the wrong chip to play on the table of the battlefield.

The Germans Blitzkrieg generals down to the lower ranks were all “making their own luck” by exploiting the French and British approaches with the weapons they had.

The fall of France may have some interesting lessons on CONOPS and decision making against a reactive enemy.

And those lessons argue for shaping a transition from legacy air CONOPS to new distributed air operations CONOPS leveraging the F-22 and F-35.

The Germans were a quicker and smarter force that defeated the French and the British. Words echoing from history tell us that story and also can now bring an interesting lesson learned to the current debate on what is becoming known as “distributed air operations.”

The shift from “legacy” air operations to distributed air operations is a significant operational and cultural shift. Characterizing the shift from fourth- to fifth-generation aircraft really does not capture the nature of the shift. The legacy aircraft operate in a strike formation, which is linear and runs from Wild Weasels back to the AWACS.

The F-22 and F-35 are part of distributed operational systems in which the decision makers are distributed and a honeycomb structure is created around which ISR, C2, strike, and decision-making can be distributed.

A new style of collaborative operations is shaped but takes away the ability of an adversary to simply eliminate assets like the AWACs and blind the fleet. Distributed operations is the cultural shift associated with the fifth-generation aircraft and investments in new weapons, remotely piloted aircraft, and the crafting of simultaneous rather than sequential operations.

Unfortunately, the debate about fifth-generation aircraft continues as if these are simply aircraft, not nodes driving significant cultural changes in operational capabilities.

In a fascinating book by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore on the courageous men in the British army who fought the Germans to allow the escape from Dunkirk, some of these lessons were highlighted. [ref] Hugh Sebag-Montefiore, Dunkirk: Fight to the Last Man (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).[/ref]

In writing the book, the author provided significant insight into how the British and French lost to the Germans in the European forests and battlefields.

Comments taken from diaries of the survivors provide significant insight into lessons learned by not engaging in the cultural revolution that one’s new technology provides.

The British and French had new equipment, which, if properly used and embedded into appropriate concepts of operations, might well have led to a different outcome at the beginning of the war.

And the first lesson here is simply to develop advanced equipment is not even half the job.

First and foremost: “The campaign showed that politicians must never, even in peacetime, deprive their armed forces of the equipment they need. Complacently assuming that the equipment can be manufactured once war is declared is demonstrably unwise.” [ref]Ibid. xiv[/ref]

A second lesson learned is that if you do not adapt your command structure to the technology, you will lose.

A theme that the author developed was that although the French had tanks, World War I generals who simply were not able to adapt to the tactics of armored warfare commanded them.

These difficulties were aggravated a hundred times by the style of French leadership.

The soldier who should have had most influence on the way in which the first counterattack was mounted was X Corps’ commander General Grandsard, who had direct control over the divisions in the Sedan sector.

He was a Corps’ commander General Grandsard, who had direct control over the divisions in the Sedan sector.

He was a general of the old school, who had not understood that French strategy must change in line with Guderian’s (the German general in charge of the attack) new mobile tactics. [ref]Ibid, 100.[/ref]

General Heiz Guderian was a military theorist and innovative General of the German Army. Germany's panzer forces were raised and fought according to his writings. — General Heiz Guderian was a military theorist and innovative General of the German Army. Germany’s panzer forces were raised and fought according to his writings.

The author when discussing command style introduced a really key term very relevant to the shift from sequential to simultaneous air operations:

“The need to refer back to Guderian was, however, limited by the entrepreneurial culture he fostered:

German officers were expected to make up their own minds on how to achieve the objectives Guderian set and how to act in a crisis.” [ref]Ibid, 101.[/ref]

A third lesson was the importance of getting inside the enemy’s OODA loop.

The French command structure was too slow to use information and to act on that information on a timely manner.

The German commanders were allowed significantly greater freedom of action and could act in minutes, whereas the French operated in terms of hours:

“The rapid German response to the threat posed by the counter-attack only serves to underline the slowness of the French . . .

In other words, the Germans began their own counter-attack within 10 minutes of identifying their target, whereas it had taken the French more than 12 hours to launch their troops into the attack.” [ref]Ibid. 105.[/ref]

A clear advantage of the new aircraft is their technical capability to get inside the enemy’s OODA loop; but without change in how command structure works, no clear advantage can be realized.

A fourth lesson is the challenge of the enemy exploiting your weaknesses for which he has trained to exploit.

The German tankers confronting superior armor in the advanced French tanks were able to exploit weakness in those tanks because of intelligence about the weaknesses and training to exploit those weaknesses.

From the diary of a German survivor with regard to meeting the superior French tanks:

The tanks’ silhouettes were getting larger, and I was scared. Never before had I seen such huge tanks. . . .

My company commander gave clear instructions over the radio describing which targets to aim at, and the enemy tanks were just 200 meters away before he gave the order to fire.

As if they had been hit be lightening, three of the enemy tanks halted, their hatches opened and their crews jump out. But some of the other tanks continued towards us, while some turned. . . .

Presenting their broadsides to us. On the . . . side of the tank there was an oil radiator behind some armor.

At this spot, even our (smaller Panzer 2) tanks’ 20mm guns could penetrate the amour, and the French tanks went up in flames immediately after they were hit there. It was then that our good training made such a difference. [ref]Ibid. 101-102[/ref]

The Chinese study of the classic U.S. air battle and the perceived value of targeting USAF or USN large battle management systems such as AWACS reminds one of the need to get rid of the AWACS as a lead element in any offensive operations and sequential air battle and to move to distributed capabilities in simultaneous operations.

A fifth lesson is to develop logistical systems that allow one to exploit advantages of new technology.

The superior French tanks were refueled by trucks and dependent upon truck-provided fuel.

The Germans parked a “farm” of fuel containers to which the tanks came for refueling and could thus keep up the speed of the attack:

They (the key French tanks) could not even be expected in their first assembly area at Le Chesne, fifteen miles southwest of Sedan, until 6 am. It would then take around six hours to fill them with petrol, another two to move the five miles to their positions to the Mont Dieu forest, and two more hours to refuel them again. . . .

In contrast, the Germans overcame their refueling difficulties by transporting petrol to the front in cans. Once the cans were in the vicinity of the panzer divisions, all the tanks nearby could be refueled simultaneously on any terrain.

Blitzkrieg as made use of by Germany had significant psychological, or as some writers call, “terror” elements, such as the ‘Jericho Trompete’, a noise-making siren on the Junkers Ju-87 dive-bomber to influence the spirits of opponent forces.

The French, on the other hand, had the petrol brought to the front in lorries, which, not being tracked, could not be used over rough ground. Even when the French armor was refueled on a road, the vehicles’ petrol tanks had to be filled up consecutively rather than simultaneously which took much longer than the German method. [ref]Ibid. 109-120[/ref]

Keeping the old tanker approach in place while you add the new aircraft undercuts the ability of those aircraft to operate in a distributed approach.

By moving the tanker line back significantly, one can refuel almost like the German “fuel farm” and not expect the tankers like the French trucks to come to them.

Even the difference between simultaneous versus sequential attacks was underscored as crucial to the success of the Germans and the negative impact on French morale.

As one French officer commented, “Simultaneous attacks would have been very difficult for us. But attacking in waves in this manner means they lose their courage after seeing their burning comrades.” [ref]Ibid.107[/ref]

In short, the core lesson to learn is to buy appropriate numbers of new equipment and to adapt the operational culture, including the logistics systems, to allow the blue team to exploit their advantages.

German tanks refuel in the field to enable rapid operations.

Unless one wants outcomes such as the French and British experienced in the forests of Europe against the Germans, it is crucial to accelerate the shift to a new culture and capability built around distributed operations.

The old system of sequential air operations built around legacy aircraft, AWACS, and multiple assets needs to be replaced in a timely manner by a well-resourced distributed operations enterprise.

The current Deputy Commandant of Aviation, Lt. General Davis, when CG of 2nd MAW underscored how important he saw the F-35 as a tool in the hands of what he called the I-Pad generation pilots of a USMC shaping a new C2 approach:

I think it is going to be a fantastic blending of not only perspectives but also attitudes.

And what I really look forward to is not the old guys like me, but the very young guys who will fly this fantastic new capability.

The older generation may have a harder time unleashing the power and potential of the new gear – the new capabilities. We might say “why don’t you do it this way” when that approach might be exactly the wrong thing to do from a capabilities standpoint.

My sense is the young guys will blend. We’ve already picked the first Prowler pilot to go be an F35 guy.

He’s going to do great and he’s going to add perspective and attitude to the tribe down at Eglin getting ready to fly the jet that’s going to make a big impact on the F35 community.

I think it’s going to be the new generation, the newbies that are in the training command right now that are getting ready to go fly the F35, who are going to unleash the capabilities of this jet.

They will say, “Hey, this is what the system will give me. Don’t cap me; don’t box me.

This is what this thing can do, this is how we can best employ the machine, its agility its sensors to support the guy on the ground, our MEU Commanders and our Combatant Commanders and this is what we should do with it to make it effective.

The Marines at Red Flag 17-3: The F-35B Returns to Red Flag

Posted on August 9, 2017 | by Robbin Laird

08/09/2017

2017-07-29: Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 211 “Wake Island Avengers,” 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, participate in Red Flag 17-3 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., July 10 to 28.

Red Flag 17-3 is a realistic combat training exercise involving the U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps and this iteration is the first to have both the Air Force’s F-35A Lightning II and the Marine Corps’ F-35B Lightning II, which is capable of short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL).

Looking at Red Flag 17-3 from a Marine Corps Point of View from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

The Marines have had operational F-35s longer than the USAF and with their deployment to Japan are providing a significant input into the way ahead with a fifth generation enabled combat force.

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, NV, UNITED STATES

07.12.2017

Video by Sgt. Lillian Stephens

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar / 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing

Editor’s Note: Earlier, we discussed the first appearance of the F-35B at Red Flag with the skipper of the Green Knights prior to his departure for Japan.

2017-01-02 By Ed Timperlake and Robbin Laird

We last visited VMF-121 prior it being declared IOC with the F-35B.

That visit was in the Summer of 2014 and we spent time the then XO of the Squadron, Major Summa, now Lt. Col. Summa and the CO of the Beaufort Squadron of F-35s, namely the Warlords of Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, which we have also visited.

https://sldinfo.com/visiting-the-f-35-squadron-at-yuma-air-station-the-executive-officer-of-vmf121-provides-an-update/

https://sldinfo.com/visiting-mcas-beaufort-air-station-f-35b-and-renorming-airpower/

During our most recent visit to MCAS Yuma we had a chance to visit both of the IOC F-35B squadrons in Marine Aircraft Group-13.

Ed Timperlake with Lt. Col. Bardo after our interview with him at Yuma.

We also visited with MAWTS-1 and VMX-1, who have just returned from DT-III testing onboard the USS America.

The first F-35B IOC squadron in the world, VMF-121, the Green Knights, are in the processing of transitioning to their deployment in Japan.

Equipment and personnel are already on the way to Japan and the squadron will fly out this winter across the Northern Pacific to operate from Japan.

The deployment comes at a crucial time, given ongoing developments in the Pacific, and the opportunity to be combat operational with F-22s in Pacific Defense.

The F-35B will continue with this new generation of a V/STOL aircraft to work its flexibility with regard to ships and landing bases, which do not necessarily have to be regular airfields.

The flexibility which the B provides is an inherent advantage in the Pacific, with its rich tapestry of islands from which to operate to have the unique “F/A/E -35B” integrate into the emerging Kill Webs as expressed by Rear Admiral Manzer.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/rear-adm-manazir-speaks-on-allied-force-transformation-a2ad/

We had a chance to talk with Lt. Col. Bardo, the CO of the squadron, who is taking the squadron to Japan but will soon thereafter transition from the squadron.

But Bardo has been with the squadron during its IOC and work up with the Marine Corps for its deployment to Japan.

He and his squadron are performing key historical tasks as the cutting edge operational F-35 squadron in the world.

This is an unusual situation for the Marines to find themselves in terms of combat air, but the flexibility of a combat information dominance aircraft fits right in with the evolving concepts of operations of the Marines.

Lt. Col. Bardo underscored the importance of Close Air Support for Marines and the role which the F-35 can play in significantly expanding the scope and nature of close air support.

“CAS is considered doctrinally a function which operates only in a permissive air environment.

We can expand CAS to deal with a much wider range of situations than when we would simply operate in a permissive air environment.

And we can provide greater assurance to Marines as they deploy on the ground that we can deal with a much wider array of pop-up threats than we could do with legacy aircraft.”

Lt. Col. Bardo described the path to get to where the squadron was right now as it prepared for its Japanese deployment.

The period since declaring IOC has been a busy and challenging one as the squadron pushed out the boundaries of the operational capabilities of the aircraft and worked with MAGTF to integrate the airplane into the CAS role as well as working with the USAF on the air to air missions as well.

It has been a busy period for Bardo and his squadron but certainly historic as well.

Throughout the squadron has found the core capabilities of the aircraft to be a solid foundation for shaping the way ahead.

As Lt. Col Bardo described the F-35:

“For the pilot, the ability to shift among missions without having to think sequentially about doing so is really a key strength of the aircraft.

The airplane can think CAS and air-to-air at the same time and the pilot can then mix and match as the mission demands rather than having to think through the sequence of going from one mission set to the next.”

In broad terms, Lt. Col. Bardo described the progress of the squadron going from its time at 29 Palms working CAS, to working closely with MAWTS-1 on shaping the tactics for the use of the aircraft in support of the MAGTF, to its participation in Red Flag this summer as the F-35 component of the air operations being exercised at Red Flag.

In total, these experiences have been crucial in preparing the squadron for its deployment to Japan.

With regard to 29 Palms, the support to the ground combat element was the focus of attention in Steel Knight 2016, which included operating from Red Beach, an austere combat training facility where the presence of FOD or ground debris is a challenge.

https://sldinfo.com/vmfa-121-at-red-beach/

https://sldinfo.com/steel-knight-16-a-step-for-vmfa-121-on-the-way-to-japan-in-2017/

“At the exercise we could show Marines that the F-35 is a core asset for expanding the operational environment in which the MAGTF could operate and how we can support the GCE.

We built trust in the infantry in what this revolutionary STOVL asset can bring to the force and to enhance their lethality and survivability as well.”

With MAWTS-1, the squadron has worked closely on shaping the tactics and training for the new aircraft.

The MAWTS-1 F-35 instructors have come from VMF-121, and the synergy has been crucial to shaping the way ahead for VMF-121 as it faces its deployment to Japan.

Then this summer, the squadron sent planes to Red Flag and flew in a US-only exercise with the full panoply of USN and USAF aircraft, excluding the F-15s.

There the USMC flew its jets and were part of reshaping of air to air operations associated with the F-35.

Lt. Col. Bardo noted that there were many F-16 National Guard pilots who were there, some of which had flown with the F-22 but had not flown with the F-35.

They soon learned that you did not want to be an adversary but to leverage what the F-35 brought the fight…..

VMFA-121 Brings F-35B to Red Flag 16-3 For First Time

Editor’s Note: The first slideshow shows the Marines at the current Ref Flag; the other two show them at last year’s Red Flag and the photos are credited to the USMC.

Leverage Allied Investments and Combat Learning Experience in Modernizing the U.S. Military

Posted on August 9, 2017 | by Robbin Laird

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

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

The shift from slo mo to preparing for high tempo and high intensity operations is a major challenge for the US military and its allies. It is about a culture shift, a procurement shift, an investment shift. But mobilization is even more important than modernization.

To get ready for the shift, inventory needs to become more robust, notably with regard to weapons. In visiting US bases, a common theme in addition to readiness and training shortfalls, is the challenge of basic inventory shortfalls.

The Trump Administration has come to power promising to correct much of this. But there simply is not enough time and money to do readiness and training plus ups, mobilization and rapid modernization.

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

One way to augment the force would be to do something which would seem to be at odds with the Make America Great notion. As one of my Danish friends put it well: “I have no problem with the idea of making America great again. For me, the question is how?”

One way to do so would be leverage extant allied programs and capabilities which if adopted by the US forces would save money but even more importantly ramp up the operational capability of the US forces and their ability to work with allies in the shortest time possible. By so doing, the US could target investments where possible in break through programs which allies are NOT investing in.

In this Special Report, we focus on this dynamic.

The Canadian Role in ASW: An Interview with Lt. General Michael Hood

Posted on August 9, 2017 | by Robbin Laird

2017-07-29 By Robbin Laird

During visits to the UK and Norway earlier this year and to Denmark in the recent past, the concern and commitment to reworking defense capabilities in the North Atlantic was evident. The concern is rooted in the return of Russian power projection efforts and capabilities in the wake of actions in Crimea and elsewhere.

At the Norwegian Airpower Conference earlier this year, the emphasis was on rebuilding capabilities and enhancing core competencies.

Notably, concern was highlighted with regard to Russian actions and capabilities located in the Kola Peninsula or the bastion strategy of the Russians.

The head of the Norwegian Navy highlighted the importance of the new air platforms, and the new submarines and the need to effectively integrate the data provided by those platforms as well as crafting and evolving the C2 necessary to leverage an integrated air-sea force.

The Rear Admiral underscored that flying the same assets as the US Navy, the USAF and the RAF and the Royal Navy would provide enhanced capabilities within the North Atlantic.

The Rear Admiral noted that the Norwegians have never stopped flying their MPAs, in this case their P-3s, over their areas of interest in the North.

They did not send their P-3s to the Middle East, nor did they retire their MPAs as did the UK.

“We have kept this competence not only alive but focused on the key areas of interest to us in the region.”

The P-3s have been “critical to understand the underwater domain for our forces. We are buying the P-8 because of its capability and the priority to focus upon this capability.

https://sldinfo.com/the-norwegian-navy-and-shaping-air-sea-integration-for-norwegian-defense/

The British had let their ASW assets be retired but are now preparing to fly the P-8s from RAF Lossiemouth but in the interim period kept their skill sets alive while flying RAF ASW personnel onboard other allied ASW platforms.

The Joint Warrior exercises were especially important in this regard.

According to one senior RAF officer involved in the ASW effort: “We have continuously sent officers to work with our allies abroad to keep their skills current as well.

“We are well replaced to the new challenges.

“The training we have given our ex-MPA guys in flying and operations with our allies is crucial.

“This will allow us to slot in people very quickly as the P-8 becomes operational.”

“But it is a clear challenge.”

https://sldinfo.com/keeping-skill-sets-alive-while-waiting-for-a-replacement-aircraft-from-nimrod-to-p-8/

One of those core allies who have provided a key asset to fly on to keep those ASW skill sets alive has been the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Recently, I had a chance to talk with Lt. General Michael Hood, head of the RCAF about the Canadian ASW efforts and their approach to the way ahead as core allies rework their assets and their approach to dealing with the ASW challenges in the North Atlantic and the High North.

Lt. General Michael Hood assumed command of the Royal Canadian Air Force in 2015.

With regard to the RAF, this is what Lt. General Hood highlighted: “We have been flying two members of the RAF crews on our ASW aircraft in the interim between the sunset of Nimrod and the sunrise of the P-8.

“We have also filled the gap left by the sun setting of Nimrod with our own ASW assets. We have done so by operating from either RAF Lossiemouth or Keflavik to help manage the GIUK gap.

“Out of all of the NATO ASW platforms in there, the most effective one has been our CP-140.

“I am exceptionally proud of our ASW capability and when I couple it with the new advanced capability on our upgraded frigates, I see us a backbone of NATO’s ASW capability.”

The current ASW capabilities of Canada are built around an upgraded CP-140 with the acquisition of a new CH-148 Cyclone ASW helicopter and the modernization of the Canadian frigates integrated into the ASW coalition operations.

Over the decade ahead as the maritime domain awareness and strike enterprise is reworked with the coming of the P-8 and the Triton (among other assets) Canada will add an unmanned capability, continue upgrading the CP-140 and work closely with the allies in reshaping the maritime domain awareness and strike networks.

And added to that as well will be new satellite sensor and communications systems as well.

CP-140 Aurora. Credit: RCAF

This will allow the RCAF to leverage developments in the next decade to determine what needs to be put on their replacement manned air platform and to determine which air platform that would be.

Lt. General Hood provided an overview of how he saw the current Canadian capabilities and the way ahead.

“The government’s new defense policy lays out a twenty-year funding line that recapitalizes our air force.

“The eventual replacement of the CP-140 is funded in that defense policy but this is not a near term need.

“We have better capability from an ASW perspective in the CP-140 than comes off the line presently in the P-8.

“We have just gone through a Block III upgrade that has completely modernized the ASW capability as well as adding an overland ISR piece.

“We have replaced the wings on many major empennage points and the goal is to get our CP-140 out to about 2032 when we’re going to replace it with another platform.”

He noted that next year, the CP-140s will receive a Block IV upgrade which will include new infrared counter measures, a tactical data link 16 to complement link 11 and full motion video, imagery, email, chat, and VOIP.

The General noted that the new defense policy has authorized adding a UAs capability for the ASW effort as well.

“In the next three years, we’ll be under contract for a medium altitude UAS system that is going to have both domestic and coastal abilities as well as expeditionary strike capabilities.

“We participate in NATO AGS as well.

“We’ve got a number of people and have funded significantly NATO AGS in a Triton-like capability.”

And now that the RCAF has been given the space mission, the General discussed as well the satellite side of the equation with regard to ASW and the High North as well.

The new RADARSAT constellation will provide enhanced sensor coverage and Canada plans to launch a polar constellation satellite system to provide for High North communication needs.

“That is actually going to finally allow us to see operate UASs up above 70 degrees north.”

We discussed throughout the interview the evolving maritime domain awareness network and the reshaping of its capabilities as new sensors, platforms and C2 systems come on line.

“What will the network be able to deliver?

“As we add new UAS capabilities with manned capabilities how do we reshape what is on each platform?”

Canada’s CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopters are now well into test and evaluation. Crews are reportedly impressed with their anti-submarine and above-water warfare suites. MCpl Jennifer Kusche Photo

And it is from this context that the head of the RCAF sees the question of a replacement aircraft for the CP-140.

“What do we need to put onto the new manned platform from the standpoint of the evolution of the network.

“Canadian industry has played a key role in shaping capabilities onboard the CP-140 and I would see that role continuing on our replacement manned aircraft.

“It’s less about the platform, but the brains of that platform.”

And we extended that discussion to more general set of challenges facing NORAD as well.

Lt. General Hood highlighted the importance of the working relationship within NORAD and relevant US commands as part of the overall effort to reshape the systems which can deliver defense to North America.

“I’ve just had staff talks with General Dave Goldfein and General Jay Raymond from US Space Command and I can tell you that certainly on the space side, we are the critical partner of your country in sharing that burden in space and making sure that we’re ready for the future.”

When we interviewed the former head of Northcom/Norad Admiral Gortney he highlighted the growing threats to the 10 and 2 O’Clock as he put it.

But the challenge for us is to shape what we in the US Navy call the NIFC-CA or Naval Integrated Fire Control—Counter Air battle network solution for North American defense.

Put in simple terms, we need to shape a more integrated air and maritime force that can operate to defend the maritime and air approaches to North America as well as North America itself.

We can look at the evolving threat as a ten o’clock and a two o’clock fight, because they originate from the ten and two.

And the ten o’clock fight is primarily right now an aviation fight.

They’re moving capability there, but it’s nothing like what they have at the two o’clock fight.

The two o’clock fight is more of a maritime fight.

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

And Admiral Gortney highlighted the importance of Canada in this effort.

For 58 years, we have had a bi-national command, NORAD.

“The current government faces a set of tough problems, not the least of which due to past governments not addressing re-capitalization.

Clearly, what they need to do is to recapitalize their air and maritime force, and preferably one that can work together from the ground up as an integrated force.

I think NORAD needs to become a multi-domain command, and their forces could flow into that command and out of that command as a key enabler.

Editor’s Note: The photos and video are credited to the Royal Canadian Air Force.

North American Defense and the Evolving Strategic Environment: Admiral Gortney Focuses on the Need to Defend North America at the Ten and Two O’clock Positions

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

Posted on August 8, 2017 | by Robbin Laird

08/08/2017

2017-07-28 By Robbin Laird

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here one is staring them directly in the face.

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

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

This approach was described by MBDA as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The teams are there for life.

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

“That team stays with that system forever…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://ow.ly/Xae730dzsbz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secretary of State, Sir Michael Fallon, said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Armstrong, Managing Director of MBDA UK, added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minister for Defence Procurement, Harriett Baldwin said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F-35 firing boosts ASRAAM sales prospects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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