15th MEU Readies for Deployment with the USS America ARG (Part One)

03/17/2017

2017-03-17 By Todd Miller

Recently Todd Miller of the Second Line of Defense joined the 15th MEU for one of their mission work-ups, specifically “Realistic Urban Training” (RUT). Part II of this series will focus entirely on the RUT.

Covert missions by U.S. Navy SEALs or U.S. Army Delta Force receive significant publicity.

Just the mention of “SEAL Team Six” rings the bell of high respect.

However, there is a US military force of exceptional substance and capability deployed at the forefront of global flashpoints that gets little notoriety.

At any given moment 2 Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) numbering around 2200 personnel are mobile and forward deployed around the globe as a crisis response force. The U.S. Navy provides the transportation via the Amphibious Ready Group (ARG).

Though the MEU is the smallest Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF), the units include lethal ground combat, aviation, logistics and command elements.

Second Line of Defense was invited to witness the 15th MEUs (one of 7 MEUs) live fire RUT exercise at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms, CA. Supported by artillery and helicopter assets, the assault force of 100+ Infantryman packed a tremendous punch.

The exercise will be detailed in Part II of this series.

Historically, MEUs realize prominence when responding to humanitarian disasters (such as the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004) as a force that evacuates Americans from a country that descends into chaos, or perhaps as part of a broader, multi service combat campaign.

That may all be about to change.

In the Pacific, the North Korean ballistic missile threat and China’s militarization of the South China Sea may lead to a crisis that calls upon the broad capability of the forward deployed MEU. On the other side of the globe the Iranian situation, Syria, the war on terror (a global issue) all present the strong possibility of a “MEU mobilizing crisis.”

Given the Secretary of Defense, James Mattis formerly served in the Marines, he is well acquainted with the capability the MEU/ARG brings to any region.

President Trump has minced no words about his response to any number of these issues.

During a Foreign Policy speech (while campaigning to become the Republican nominee in April 2016) President Trump stated “I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative.

But if America fights, it must fight to win.”

The capability of the MEU/ARG, combined with its proximity to areas of crisis, position it as the force of choice to initiate, support and or achieve directed objectives.

The combined MEU/ARG is fully capable of a wide variety of missions including (but not limited to);

  • Amphibious assault
  • Amphibious raid
  • Maritime interception Operations (MIO)/Visit, board, search, and seizure (VBSS)
  • Advance force operations
  • Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)
  • Humanitarian assistance (HA)
  • Stability operations
  • Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel (TRAP)
  • Joint and combined operations
  • Aviation operations from expeditionary shore-based sites
  • Theater security cooperation activities
  • Airfield/port seizure

While not specifically called out, the mission sets clearly have application to the war on terror. The MEU is all about mobility, speed and impact, and utilizes a Rapid Response Planning Process (R2P2) to respond to a crisis in as little as 6 hours.

This summer, the 15th MEU will deploy with the USS America (LHA-6) ARG.

The USS San Diego (LPD-22) and USS Pearl Harbor (LSD- 52) are also part of the ARG. This is the maiden deployment for the USS America, a new LHA class ship designed specifically to facilitate airborne amphibious assaults.

This first deployment plans use of the AV-8B Harrier II as the combat aircraft, future deployments of the MEU/ARG will begin to utilize the F-35B.

Once the F-35B becomes part of the MEU/ARG, their capability will increase significantly.

The F-35B will identify and destroy high value threats (SAMS), engage in Electronic Attack (EA), Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and provide command and control (C2).

The F-35Bs stealth and sensors will allow it to operate in contested airspace, significantly broadening the footprint of a MEU.

When seen in combination with the MV-22 Osprey the Marines will be able to operate in contested space up to 450 miles from the ARG, and get there in under 2 hours.

This kind of capability, distributed assault in contested space is a game changer for the MEU/ARG.

Whereas Special Forces and Navy SEALs are by nature engaged in covert activity (get in, achieve mission, get out), the MEU has the size and capability to mount a significant military operation. They are equipped with state of the art weapons systems and extensively trained to their mission sets.

These Marines are fully prepared and capable to enter contested space by force and achieve their assigned objectives.

Their impressive capability aside, one cannot overlook the reality that these Marines are America’s sons and daughters. They serve out of love for their country, and the desire to give back. They represent the United States of America as the providers of sustenance after humanitarian disaster, as law and order on the high seas, or as the last act of diplomacy – military force. America has entrusted them with the Nation’s most significance needs, and they do America proud.

The Marines are professionals in their craft, from Infantryman to fighter pilot.

While the MEU is deployed on the seas, they participate in exercises with allies and continue to maintain readiness for whatever the hour brings.

The mere presence of the MEU/ARG offshore sends a strong deterrent to any nation inclined to act out of place. Deterrent is the best outcome, to avoid combat all together.

Yes, the MEU/ARG may not get the notoriety they rightly deserve.

However, one would be unwise to let that lack of awareness be cause to overlook their presence.

Based on what I witnessed at the RUT from a small portion of the 15th MEU, if they are called upon to act, I’d not want to be the nail…

The Second Line of Defense expresses its gratitude to; 1st Lt Francheska Soto, Outreach Officer & Sgt Paris Capers, Mass Communication Specialist, I Marine Expeditionary Force (1st MEF); 1st Lt. Maida Zheng, Public Affairs Officer, 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit; the entire 15th MEU; and the trainers and support team at the MCAGCC.

Learn more about the MEU/ARG

Follow the 15th MEUs workup on Facebook

Editor’s Note: We highlighted in an article published November 15, 2016, the strategic opportunity for President Trump in rebuilding the amphibious fleet.

This would allow for more rapid evolution in shaping a force able to deliver distributed lethality and operate as a kill web which the US Navy has underscored as its strategic direction. 

Donald Trump as candidate has often raised the issue of changing the approach to fighting ISIS.

“I want to be unpredictable.

I don’t want to tell ISIS what I’m going to do to knock the hell out of them.”

“I think we have to be unpredictable,” Trump told CBS News’ John Dickerson in January.

“Our enemies know what we are going to do, whether it is battle, whether it is war, whether it is finance. You have to be somewhat unpredictable.”

On the one hand, he wants to hit Isis much harder.

The approach suggested by the retired Lt. General Deptula, to have a real air campaign against ISIS is certainly a way which force against the adversary could be ramped up and calibrated.

We need to begin with an aggressive air campaign — where airpower is applied like a thunderstorm, not a drizzle; 24/7 constant over-watch, with force used against every move of IS forces and personnel. 

We’ve done this before — Desert Storm where the opening 24 hours witnessed over 2.500 aircraft missions focused on a simultaneous attack across the breadth and depth of the entire country of Iraq—an attack from which Saddam Hussein’s forces never recovered. 

IS won’t require that level of effort.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/how-to-defeat-isil-its-all-about-the-strategy/

On the other hand, it is not airpower versus boots on the ground.  It is about changing the nature of the ground forces used and how air-ground integration to kill the enemy is conducted.

It is not about putting bases on the ground that ISIS can strike as they can.

The recent attack on Bagram reminds us of the inevitable problem of the land base in contested territory.

Four Americans were killed in an apparent suicide bomb attack early Saturday at Bagram Airfield, the largest US base in Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary Ash Carter said.

Two of those killed were service members, and two were contractors, he said, adding he was “deeply saddened” by the news.

The explosion also wounded 16 other US service members and one Polish soldier participating in the NATO mission, Carter said in a statement.

The Taliban claimed responsibility in a tweet praising the “strong attack” on Bagram Airfield.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/asia/afghanistan-bagram-blast/index.html

This kill and tweet approach of our terrorist opponents becomes a lot more difficult if you can not find the Americans until they descend upon you with intent to kill.

Forces can be moved around the point of attack to enhance unpredictability while reducing the vulnerability of needed ground forces by relying on insertion forces, leveraging the sea base.

Exercising an Insertion Force from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

As Ed Timperlake and myself wrote in 2014, the new capabilities which the amphibious task forces coupled with large deck carriers provides a variable attack force which can insert ground forces against areas of interest and then withdraw back to the sea base.

ISIS is a rapidly moving target and needs a response that is not measured in the months and years of a return of the US Army to Iraq to re-start training an Iraqi Army which the Obama Administration has already clearly recognized as part of the problem not the solution. The total collapse of the Iraq Army after a decade of US investment is a testimony to failure, regardless of who is at fault in US planning and execution of Iraq Nation Building.

 For defenders of COIN, it would have to be explained why time and continued effort would overcome what are clearly deeply rooted fissures within the political texture of Iraq: namely the Sunni-Shite cleavage, the role of Iran and the use of the military by Prime Minister Malki for his own political purposes?

In effect, Maliki has used his Shia-dominated military in ways similar to how Saddam Hussein used his Sunni-dominated military, namely to prop himself up in power and to shape domestic political outcomes to his benefit. Simply changing the name of the leader is not likely to change power realities.

And when the ISIS were able to aggregate forces, the absence of an air enabled ground force, demonstrated a fundamental fact often forgotten: it is not about airpower versus boots on the ground….

 If the ISIS forces loses their maneuver ability and their crew-served weapons and armored vehicles, especially tanks, to seize terrain and key choke points, they will be forced back into the cities or be forced hide in small units in the countryside.

If US forces can see them outside of cities they can kill them. City fights should be left to what is remaining of the Iraq Army.

ISIS was well on the way to fielding an Army when the US finally engaged.

Focusing upon what is needed to pulverize military capabilities of ISIS to move rapidly and lethally, can buy some strategic maneuver space to sort out what kind of aid the Kurds might really need to protect their augmented territory within a fragmenting Iraq.

Because the US has the option of leveraging our seabase in conjunction with whatever force capabilities might be shaped to support the Kurds, the US is NOT forced to have agreements with a collapsing regime to influence events. The sea-based force can function as the foundation for a force able to operate without the need for specific territorial agreements on basing with fractious factions of Baghdad.

And when they depart, they do not have to leave their equipment behind which can become later seized by hostile forces and used against the United States and its allies.

https://sldinfo.com/prevailing-in-21st-century-conflicts-leveraging-insertion-forces/

As Ed Timperlake highlighted in an article published in 2010, operating from sea bases can allow you both to do power projection and to withdraw when the mission is accomplished.  It is about setting objectives and then implementing them with flexible sea base insertion forces.

And such a force allows alignment with evolving strategic objectives.

Bottom line:  what can go in from the Sea with a Navy/Marine AF team can also be withdrawn. Allies to whom we owe a debt can be evacuated or protected from the sea.

These possibilities remain important for our current global commitments and operations.  And with the 21st century con-ops provided by the MV-22, the Harrier and then the F-35B, the Marines can engage in providing capabilities for such situations.

Off the shores of San Diego right now a new powerful capability is being worked which can augment the insertion force and give it a whole new punch, pack and ability to insert and withdraw force.

The USS America with F-35Bs and Ospreys can provide for force insertion and provide the kind of unpredictability in approach but success in operations, which President-elect Trump has highlighted as a key part of the tool box to defeat ISIS.

The USS America is the largest amphibious ship ever built by the United States.

The ship has been built at the Huntington Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi and departed mid-July 2014 for its trip to its initial home part at San Diego, California and then was commissioned in San Francisco in mid-October 2014. It is now undergoing its final trials and preparing to enter the fleet.

The USMC is the only tiltrotar-enabled assault force in the world.

The USS America has been built to facilitate this capability and will be augmented as the F-35B is added to the Ospreys, and helicopters already operating from the ship and as unmanned vehicles become a regular operational element as well.

The Osprey has obviously been a game changer, where today, the basic three ship formation used by the Amphibious Ready Group-Marine Expeditionary Unit can “disaggregate” and operate over a three-ship distributed 1,000-mile operational area. Having the communications and ISR to operate over a greater area, and to have sustainment for a disaggregated fleet is a major challenge facing the future of the USN-USMC team.

With the coming of the F-35B to the USS America, the tiltrotar-enabled force adds significant capability. This can work a couple of different ways.

The ship can hold more than 20 F-35Bs, but more likely when F-35Bs are being featured would have a 16 F-35B flying with 4 Osprey combinations. The Ospreys would be used to carry fuel and or weapons, so that the F-35B can move to the mission and operate in a distributed base. This is what the Marines refer to as shaping distributed STOVL ops for the F-35B within which a sea base is a key lily pad from which the plane could operate or could move from.

The F-35B aboard the USS America with a ship optimized for ground force insertion support. This training is going on right now off of San Diego. Credit: USN
The F-35B aboard the USS America with a ship optimized for ground force insertion support.
This training is going on right now off of San Diego. Credit: USN

Alternatively, the F-35B could operate as the ISR, C2 and strike asset to work with the rest of the assault force. The beauty of the F-35B for the Marines is that it allows them to operate off of an amphibious ship with a plane which can do C2 or provide forward leaning ISR.

In other words, the F-35 working with an Osprey-enabled insertion force operating off of the USS American could well re-define the meaning of Close Air Support (CAS). 

https://sldinfo.com/the-uss-america-cvn-78-and-hms-queen-elizabeth-crafting-capabilities-for-21st-century-operations/

We  highlighted an opportunity not taken by the Obama Administration when it came to the possibility of saving the Christians from ISIS.

The USMC can easily setup a TEMPORARY FOB for 22nd MEU with their MV-22s somewhere in Kurdistan to conduct missions into Iraq proper to rescue Christians and eliminate any ISIS fanatics in the way in the process and then leave.

 USS Bush CBG could provide a real combat punch when ISIS mass their forces-or SOCOM/CIA identifies isolated groups.

The French in Mali underscored the point that it was not about COIN; it was about eliminating concentrated forces of the adversary, purusing as possible and then leaving.

This is not about long term occupation and training; this is about the only tiltrotar enabled assault force coming to the aid of the Kurds and Christians, setting up a forward operating base that can influence events in the Nineveh plain, helping move threatened minorities to Kurdish protection, working with those SOF in country, and returning aboard ship.

The U.S. has insertion forces able to engage and withdraw, rather than setting up long-term facilities and providing advisers as targets.

https://sldinfo.com/revisiting-iraq-the-kurds-provide-an-option/

Put bluntly, the new President has means to change how the battle is fought which need not repeat the mistakes of the last decade of land wars.

Insertion forces are a key tool set and with the changes in how amphibious task forces operate and with the coming of a whole new capability associated with the USS America, the sea base is adding to its capability for the insertion of force into a vector of assault, destroy and withdraw.

Changing the nature of the force being used against ISIS and reshaping the operational compass against a mobile force which likes to pop up across the region can meet its match – there is no place you can hide that we can not come and find you and kill you.

The new President clearly has the intent; and with some creative rethinking and combat innovation has the means.

 

Royal Australian Navy Brings HMAS Sirius Back On-Line: Reinforcing Replenishment Capabilities

03/13/2017

2017-03-13  According to an article published on the Australian Navy website on March 13, 2017 and written by Lt. Todd Fitzgerald, the Australian fleet has brought HMAS Sirius back on line.

The Royal Australian Navy’s replenishment capability is operating at capacity once again with HMAS Sirius back in the brine after four months of maintenance at Captain Cook Graving Dock, Garden Island.

The fleet tanker cut an impressive figure against the city skyline as she sailed out of Sydney Harbour and into the Pacific Ocean for sea trials recently.

She will return to Sydney briefly to take on bulk fuel at Gore Cove before commencing her transit home to Rockingham, Western Australia. It will be the first time a Navy tanker has ‘bunkered’ fuel at Gore Cove since HMAS Westralia did so in 1993.

HMAS Sirius passes the Sydney Opera House to commence her journey back to her homeport in Western Australia.

The crew of 73 are looking forward to the upcoming increase in pace. 

“We are excited about getting Sirius back to sea to do our job”, said Ship’s Warrant Officer Dale Young.

“When their ship is high and dry, sailors tend to feel a little high and dry as well, and that is how we have all been feeling about our beloved ship the past four months.

“It has been a trying time but extremely well handled by all onboard. Our repairs have been completed and we are keen to get back to work for Australia.”

Readying a ship and crew to return to sea safely requires hard work and detailed planning.

In the weeks leading up to their departure, the crew of Sirius had honed their fire, flood and toxic hazard procedures and conducted numerous ‘fast cruises’, which are carried out alongside and simulate a number of emergency situations which may occur at sea.

The ‘fast cruise’ is designed to test a ship’s organisation, watch bill proving and management of elementary safety incidents, such as a man over board, while safely tied up alongside.

“They are a great way to test being at sea without actually being at sea,” Warrant Officer Young said.


Sirius also tested its replenishment at sea rigs – which allow her to refuel and replenish other warships at sea while underway – and conducted a basin trial alongside to test the ship’s machinery.

Her readiness will be tested over the next three weeks at sea by a series of ship-run exercises, known as a shakedown, followed by a period of Sea Training Group covered training.

Sea Training Group is Navy’s in-house training and assessment team.

“Despite the hard work ahead of us we can definitely see the light at the end of the tunnel,” Warrant Officer Young said.

“We will spend a few weeks shaking off the cobwebs during the shakedown off the east coast before heading to Melbourne for a port visit. Then the bit everyone has been waiting for, heading west. By the time we return home it will have been six months we have been away from our family and friends in Western Australia.”

The Royal Australian Navy’s afloat support capability is provided by the replenishment ships Sirius and HMAS Success.

Sirius can carry more than 34 million litres of fuel, including more than 5 million litres of aviation fuel for use by helicopters embarked in ships at sea.

She can replenish ships at sea by day and night, and is capable of replenishing two ships at a time.

A contract was signed with Spanish shipbuilding company Navantia last year to build Australia’s two replacement replenishment ships, with the first to be delivered by 2019.

The South Korean THAAD Deployment Moves Ahead (Updated)

03/12/2017

2017-03-07 We have written earlier about the coming of THAAD to South Korea.

The Chinese hostile reaction to the deployment tells us more about Chinese intentions with regard to their use of nuclear weapons, than it does about any legitimate diplomatic concerns, which they might have.

As Danny Lam has put it:

Rather than being threatened by a handful of THAAD interceptors, Beijing’s plans for a nuclear missile attack on Japan would be frustrated by far more numerous Patriot and Aegis interceptors.  

If they are given sufficient warning to be deployed.

It is well known that PRC have substantial inventories of medium and short range ballistic missiles.

A nuclear ballistic missile first strike offers the opportunity to destroy the conventional arms capability of US and allies in the region in a lighting first strike.

If the PRC actually have thousands of warheads as opposed to 250 alleged by a number of arms control advocates, a nuclear first strike aimed at allied military installations makes sense.

The PRC’s nuclear arsenal is not subject to any arms control agreements, or any credible verification.

Perhaps Beijing is not as toothless or benign as they want the world to believe.

https://sldinfo.com/deciphering-prcs-stance-on-thaad-in-south-korea-a-chinese-first-strike-policy-in-asia/

Richard Weitz last year noted that the acquisition of THAAD by South Korea is a first step in what needs to become an integrated defensive capability for the US and its allies in the region.

The decision is welcome but needs to be followed by additional measures to network the ROK, Japan, and the U.S. regional ballistic missile defenses (BMD).

https://sldinfo.com/south-koreas-thaad-decision-needs-follow-on-steps/

And Ed Timperlake has argued that expanding the Army’s role in missile defense is much more significant than adding infantry as part of the warfighting and deterrent posture towards North Korea.

https://sldinfo.com/the-evolution-of-strategy-for-south-korean-defense-shaping-the-us-army-role-in-the-second-nuclear-age/

https://sldinfo.com/shaping-a-21st-century-korean-defense-strategy-key-questions-to-address/

Now the South Koreans are moving ahead with their THAAD deployment.

February 27, 2017, the board of South Korea’s Lotte Group approved a land swap agreement with the South Korean military to provide land for the deployment of the United States’ THAAD missile defense system.

The agreement was later signed formally on Tuesday and could allow THAAD to be deployed as early as July of this year.

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched from a THAAD battery located on Wake Island, during Flight Test Operational (FTO)-02 Event 2a, conducted Nov. 1, 2015. During the test, the THAAD system successfully intercepted two air-launched ballistic missile targets.

Now the THAAD system is coming to South Korea.

The first elements of the THAAD system have arrived in South Korea as of March 6, 2017, and the arrival is seen in the video and slideshow below.

THAAD to South Korea. from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

This has happened in the wake of the most recent North Korean missile launches, which the North Korean leader claims he personally supervised.

According to The Japan Times, the Japanese government considers these latest launches to be increasingly threatening to Japan.

During Monday’s Upper House Budget Committee session, Abe condemned the provocation as “utterly intolerable” and noted the North’s accelerating technological advancements.

“(The test-firing) clearly shows that North Korea is now a new level of threat,” Abe said.

The prime minister also said that “Japan will continue to coordinate closely with the United States, South Korea and other countries to strongly urge North Korea to exercise restraint…..”

The U.S.-made THAAD system is due to be deployed to South Korea later this year. Japan is also reportedly considering bringing in the system.

Monday’s launch also came as the Trump administration is reportedly considering a harder-line approach to the North’s provocations. Trump’s national security deputies have reviewed in recent meetings a range of options to counter the North’s missile threat, The New York Times reported Sunday. Options include direct missile strikes on its launch sites and the possibility of reintroducing nuclear weapons to the South, The Times said.

Those options will soon be presented to Trump and his top national security aides, the report said, quoting U.S. administration officials.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/06/national/tokyo-says-north-korea-fired-three-four-missiles-came-japans-eez/?utm_source=Daily+News+Updates&utm_campaign=f7a27951ea-Thursday_email_updates07_03_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c5a6080d40-f7a27951ea-332756961#.WL6T7hiZMQ8

According to a story by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, the importance of the THAAD deployment was highlighted.

With the North Korean ballistic missile threat and the assumption of it being nuclear-capable upon the Korean Peninsula, the United States and the ROK are deploying the most current missile defense systems available and modernizing current capabilities on the Peninsula to defeat this threat and its evolution of complexity, maneuverability, as well as early release of munitions in lofted, depressed and ballistic trajectories.

The overt thrust to improvement of the combined cooperative U.S.-ROK missile defense system is the United States THAAD deployment on the Peninsula, which was finalized yesterday (link to article from Reuters) in a land transfer deal to enable the basing of the THAAD system in the Seongju region.

A woman walks in front of a TV screen at Seoul Train Station showing a news program reporting on North Korea’s firing of four missiles March 2017. AP

In an official statement released yesterday by the Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis after speaking with the Republic of Korea (ROK) Minister of National Defense Han Min-Koo:

“Secretary Mattis welcomed the official land transfer in Seongju county of Gyeongsangbuk-do from the Lotte Group to the Republic of Korea government. This land transfer will support the alliance’s decision to station Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), a defensive weapons system, in the ROK as soon as feasible. This is a critical measure to defend the ROK people and alliance forces against North Korean missile threats.”

THAAD, is the only single interceptor system in the world today that provides both upper tier in space and lower tier in high altitude of the atmosphere, metal on metal kinetic energy engagement to destroy and defeat incoming complex, multiple reentry vehicles carrying weapons of mass destruction.

Due to its early intercept capability in space for Korea and a layered defense to leverage the natural discrimination of reentry into the atmosphere from space that provides another additional layer of defense for Korea, the THAAD system can defend most if not all of the Republic of Korea and its population of 50 million.

THAAD provides a capability and system that Korea will have by the end of this year in full operation to protect its population from North Korean nuclear ballistic missiles for the first time.

In addition to the THAAD deployment on the Korean Peninsula this year, is the introduction of a new, tested and proven U.S. interceptor capability called the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) that will be first operationally deployed within the current two U.S. Patriot battalions in Korea.

The MSE began development in 2003 specifically to counter and defeat the future evolving complex maneuvering ballistic missile threats above the engagement altitude that current PAC-3 interceptors operate at today, and below THAAD engagement battlespace.

The MSE is the world’s most capable endo-atmospheric interceptor with hit-to-kill kinetic energy engagement, a two pulse motor that couples tremendous speed and maneuverability; both allowing the intercept of evolving complex threats inside the atmosphere.

The MSE, with its new patriot launcher the M903, holds 12 interceptors and significantly expands the area defended by current Patriot systems in Korea.

This expansion occurs because PAC-3 MSE’s higher-altitude engagement capability, allowing MSE interceptors to fly within the upgraded Post Deployment Build 8 Patriot Radar ranges.

The MSE interceptor is unique in that it has both C- and X-band capable links built in due to its history as the interceptor for MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System), that it has capability to target from both Patriot C-band radars and THAAD X-band radars.

The MSE, in addition to added defense to the current Patriot deployments in Korea, would have inherent capability to target using THAAD radar in Korea that would provide tremendous added capability in range over the Patriot radar, not only to defend the THAAD using current Patriot deployment sites, but to fully exhaust and leverage the MSE full range, providing more shot opportunities and a much-needed layer of coverage to fill the existing gap.

Existing today and below the incoming THAAD system capability and the new MSE are the current Patriot missile defense systems of both ROK and the United States, each with two battalions, are dispersed, deployed and fully operational around the Peninsula that defend and defeat in lower altitudes of engagement.

Because of lower altitude engagement, their defended area is drastically less than the THAAD, and less than the MSE as they can defend key airports and high priority city blocks. With only four Patriot Battalions of capability between the United States and South Korea, the majority of the country has been unable to be physically defended with these systems from North Korea ballistic missiles until this upcoming year.

Beyond the THAAD and MSE, Patriot modernization has not been done in 20 years.

Fully modernizing this current Patriot capability for both countries and adding an additional layer of the interceptor capability to fill the gap of battlespace to intercept between the THAAD and the Patriot, provides more layers, more confidence and more capability to negate and defeat the evolving complex missile threat of North Korea.

Innovation of U.S. Army leadership on the Korean Peninsula has driven Patriot modernization, which requires replacement of major equipment, going from out dated 1970s analog to current modern digital systems; baseline configuration for the future IBCS and 360 radars implementation, significant hardware and software upgrades, as well as increasing the Patriot radar capability to manage the new MSE interceptor.

Patriot modernization will take place this year on the Korean Peninsula while maintaining air and missile defense operations, rather than modernizing in the United States and removing an entire Army Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Battalion from the global rotation, which is already overcommitted. The Patriot modernization depot on Suwon Air Base, Korea is the first in refitting and modernizing Patriot battery units in theater worldwide as demonstrated from the two deployed operational U.S. ADA Battalions in Korea.

The challenging overload and overmatch of the evolving complexity of the North Korean ballistic missile threat as continued to be demonstrated by the test on February 12th, has to be countered, neutralized and defeated by the United States, the Republic of Korea and Japan for the security and safety of these three allies.

Having the wisdom of leadership of excellence to integrate and apply current missile defense capabilities is a game changer for deterring the calculus of North Korea, providing active defense to the populations of the region, and sending strong strategic message of collaboration between South Korea and the United States.

 http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/alert/in-defense-of-korea/

Editor’s Note: We were among the first to focus on THAAD in the Pacific and did so through an interview with the THAAD Commander on Guam in 2014 which we reproduce below,

2014-01-02 The emergence of the second nuclear age is one of the core challenges facing the US and allied forces in this decade of the 21st century.

Successfully navigating these challenges is not a given, and shaping an effective response is a work in progress.

During 2014, our Second Line of Defense Forum will focus initially on the challenge of the Second Nuclear Age and our guest editor will by Paul Bracken, the author of a book with the same name.

The core point is rather simply put: the rules that applied to the first nuclear age do not necessarily apply to the second. 

The new nuclear powers are acquiring nuclear weapons or on paths to obtain them as part of a re-shaping of global dynamics within the 21st century and to re-shape global power balances.

Rather than relegating nuclear weapons to the dust bin of history, the new nuclear powers are seeking to make them center pieces of their global aspirations and ability to position themselves within their regions and beyond.

In his presentation to the Air Force Association Pacific Forum, the PACAF Commander, General Hawk Carlisle, highlighted the contribution made by the US Army in moving a THAAD Battery to Guam in record time.

Instead of a 6 week deployment cycle, the battalion was moved and operational in two weeks time!

We had a chance to follow up on Carlisle’s introduction of the subject with an phone interview with Task Force Talon Commander, LTC Cochrane, the THADD Task Force commander who is currently based on Guam. Cochrane has been in the US Army for 26 years, six and half years as an enlisted air defense solider and the remainder of the time as an air defense officer.  He has spent the majority of his career in divisional units, doing short range air defense.

According to LTC Cochrane: The task force itself is comprised of about 205 soldiers.

There are several different elements to the task force.

The first, of course, is the THAAD battery. This is Alpha 4, THAAD battery out of Fort Bliss, Texas.

Additionally, I have a security element that is out of the 472nd MP Company, out of Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

I also have a couple of different communications elements from units based out of Hawaii and, I do have a captain here from 1-1 ADA in Okinawa.

So, we really are pulling the best from multiple different units to accomplish this mission because we are in a deployment status here on the island of Guam.

SLD: What is your mission?

Lt. Col. Cochrane: The mission here is to defend the island of Guam against the North Korean tactical ballistic missile threats. If the strategic deterrent should fail, our task is to intercept North Korean ballistic missiles. We are here to defend the entire island of Guam.

SLD: General Carlisle highlighted the rapidity of your deployment and considered this a key part of the deterrent structure.  Could you discuss the approach?

Lt. Col. Cochrane: This was the first ever deployment of THAAD. 

We had a planning timeline of about six weeks to get to any place in the world and to set up and be operational.

We looked at that planning cycle and said: “You know we can do better than that.”

With a real mission on the table, the intensity picked up. We cut the deployment time by 2/3s and pulled in the elements from different locations into an integrated and coordinated force with the Air Force and with Joint Region Marianas (JRM). We were successful because the Air Force, the Navy and the Army pulled together as a joint force.

http://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/jrm.html

We initially moved what we call a minimum engagement package by air to Anderson Air Force base.  It came in a very rapid timeline on a relatively small number of aircraft (C-17s and C-5s) and allowed us to establish our basic operation and to achieve our initial capability to defend the island.  The remainder of the equipment came by sea.

A clear theme in the discussion was how the workings of the joint force or what General Carlisle referred to as cross-domain synergy was a key element to shaping capabilities for the second nuclear age.

Lt. Col. Cochrane: Missile defense is more than just one platform or system.  It is a classic case of what you call no platform fights alone.  It is a system of systems.

We combine Aegis, with THAAD with short-range defense systems, etc.

For example, at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, the 94th AAMDC and the 613 AOC coordinate air and missile defense fot the Pacific Theater. The Navy and the Air Force all come together and conduct that coordination in terms of how we protect and coordinate our defense so that we are maximizing our capabilities.

It is not just a single system standing alone or operating independently.

It is the inter-dependence and the inter-operability of all these systems to all three of the branches that are actively engaged in missile and air defense.

In my unit, we are looking aggressively at how to cross link with Aegis, for example.

I have been extremely fortunate that Brigadier General Garland, who is the commander of the 36th Wing here has emphasized: “Welcome to Guam. What do you need?”

He has put his wing and their resources at our disposal to execute our mission so when we first came in, we were welcomed with open arms by our Air Force brethren and we are now part of their family.

We interact with the  wing commander and the wing vice-commander routinely, several times a week, talking about these missile defense issues.

Additionally, we are integrated into Wing exercises to practice coordinated actions before, during and after TBM engagements.

And we clearly do not want the Aegis and the THAAD firing against the same inbounds just because then we are wasting ammunition on two very capable missiles when they can be used elsewhere.

This is where the jointness of this whole process must come into play.

As we get to this “purple force” concept where all of us are working under a joint task force or a joint commander, it becomes extremely important that we actually do that cross coordination.

I believe that missile defense is only going to become more important as we continue to rebalance to the Pacific strategy that has been directed on us.

I think you are going to end up seeing more and more emphasis on the continued growth of our cooperative joint-ness between the Navy (Aegis ships), the Air Force (Defensive Counter Air) and the Army (Air and Missile Defense).

SLD: In fact, your entire effort is part of what we have referred to as the Second Nuclear Age.

Lt. Col. Cochrane: It is clear that our operational capabilities are important in and of themselves and as part of strategic messaging to North Korea and to our allies and friends.

We tell them, “We are capable. You threaten this island specifically, we are going to defend this island,” and by doing so we are not only sending a strategic message only to North Korea but also to other friends and allies in the area and any potential adversaries.  

Editor’s Note: Perhaps the Iron Dome might be added to the defense mix in South Korea. 

https://sldinfo.com/israels-iron-dome-an-initial-assessment/

Burden Sharing in NATO: Innovations in Shaping a Way Ahead

2017-03-12 As NATO nations rework their defense strategies to deal with evolving threats, clearly the question is investment in relevant capabilities.

This means that although a % criterion for investment is certainly part of the equation, it is not the only criterion.

For NATO nations clearly it is the effective contribution to that nations own defense and to doing so in such a way that interoperability with other nations is enhanced both for the self defense of the nation and enhancements in overall coalition capabilities for defending against 21st century threats.

Thus, Article III investments become especially important going forward for the alliance.

Article III of the NATO treaty reads: “In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”

In an interview last month with the Norwegian Deputy Minister of Defense in his Oslo office, Mr. Øystein BØ, emphasized the article’s importance:

“Article III is the obligation to have a strong national defense and to be able to be a net contributor to security.

There is no free ride in NATO, we’ve all got to do our part to be able to defend each other.”

It is also about relevant and effective burden sharing, namely finding ways to enhance the capability of NATO nations to operate in the extended battlespace and to share data in enhanced distributed operations with evolving C2 innovations.

The point is that there can plainly be bad investments or investments not relevant to 21st century defense, and these criteria apply to all of the NATO nations, including the United States.

There can be clearly new ways to shape burden sharing which can provide for more effective ways to augment relevant defense capabilities.

One example has been the European Transport Command, which is finding ways to share capabilities across the lift and tanking fleet to provide for enhanced support to member states.

https://sldinfo.com/the-european-air-transport-command-supports-red-flag-2017/

Another example might be the North Atlantic NATO members finding a way to add Triton capabilities to their force.

Two of these states are buying the P-8, namely the UK and Norway, but perhaps Canada, Norway and the UK could buy a small fleet of Triton platforms to complement their Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and to share the data and to find ways as well to shape innovative C2 methods.

Another example is provided by a recent exercise conducted in Arctic waters.

According to an article published by the Norwegian Ministry of Defence on February 26, 2017, this example is detailed.

During Exercise Northern Sun 17 the NATO Submarine Rescue System has been tested in Arctic waters for the first time.

This is also the first time we have flown the equipment between Prestwick and Bogen, says Commander Ian Duncan, project manager for the submarine rescue system.

350 tonnes of material has been transported from its location in Faslane, Scotland by road to Prestwick airport and flown to Evenes with the help of 7 C-17, 2 Antonov 124 and 2 A300M aircrafts. From here it was fitted to the Norwegian coast guard vessel KV Sortland, from where the equipment is being operated during the exercise.

We have two sets of rescue systems.

One of them is an intervention system that includes a Remotely Operated Vehicle.  This can survey the submarine and use its arms to cut through ropes and other items blocking the submarine hatches.

The other part of the rescue system include a submarine rescue vehicle that is attached to the submarine through the escape hatch so that the survivors can climb on board as well as a set of hyperbaric chambers for treating the rescuees if needed, says Duncan.

Can Save 150 Persons

NATO Submarine Rescue System has the capacity to rescue up to 150 personnel from a disabled submarine 600 meters under the surface.

During the exercise the participating Norwegian submarine will dive down to about 100-150 meters below the surface.

During the exercise we are testing the submarine rescue vehicle system and the hyperbaric pressure system.

Divers and medical teams from Norway, France and the UK are participating.

The goal is to demonstrate that the system works in Arctic waters.

For the personnel on the Norwegian coast guard ship it is common to operate in Arctic waters, but the personnel operating the rescue system and the equipment itself are not used to the low temperatures, Duncan says.

Every year two exercises are carried out in each of the three countries to test out the procedures.

Ensures Safety

The submarine rescue exercise Northern Sun is a very important arena for training to ensure the safety of the Norwegian submarine crews. Under normal circumstances where we have submarines present in Northern Norway, it is natural that the rescue system is tested in the same area and under the same circumstances in which the submarines operates, says Christian Berg-Jensen, who is working with submarine operations at the Norwegian Joint Headquarters.

Our expectations for the exercise are that we get to train the rescue personnel, test the vessels and train the organisation and the concept in new surroundings and conditions, making sure that operating the rescue system under winter conditions in Northern Norway becomes the least possible challenge the day it really matters, says Berg-Jensen.

Owned by Three Nations

The NATO Submarine Rescue System is owned by Norway, France and Great Britain.

The three countries share the costs and manage the system together.

It is the only submarine system in the world owned by many nations.

The rescue capacities can be scrambled on a short notice anywhere in the world. 

Within 72 hours the first person is to be rescued from the disabled submarine. 

40 divers and 24 medical personnel from all the three countries work with the rescue system.

While other submarine rescue systems can only be used on one specific ship, the NATO Submarine Rescue System can be attached to a large number of vessels.

Having a credible rescue concept for perished submarines is vital for both the Norwegian Armed Forces as a whole and the personnel serving on the boat.

NATO Submarine Rescue System is a very important capability for our ability to ensure the safety of the crews on Norwegian submarines in that it provides a significantly improved chance of survival if an accident should occur, says Berg-Jensen.

https://forsvaret.no/en/newsroom/news-stories/northern-sun

 

The European Air Transport Command Supports Red Flag 2017

2017-03-12 There are many ways to burden share within NATO.

An especially good one is to enhance operational support through joint investments and joint support commands.

This is clearly the case with the European Air Transport Command.

The European Air Transport Command (EATC) is the command centre that exercises the operational control of the majority of the aerial refueling capabilities and military transport fleets of a consortium of seven Western European countries.

As of January 2015, the combined fleet under the authority of the EATC represents 75% of the European air transport capacity.[1] Located at Eindhoven Airbase in the Netherlands, the command also bears a limited responsibility for exercises, aircrew training and the harmonisation of relevant national air transport regulations.

The command was established in 2010 with a view to provide a more efficient management of the participating nations’ assets and resources in this field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Air_Transport_Command

According to a story on the EATC website, recently the EATC supported Spanish Eurofighters on their way to Red Flag 2017 and transport assets supported them to Nellis AFB as well.

On 18 February 2017, eight Spanish Eurofighters (EFA2000) took off from Morón (Spain) to Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in order to participate in the US multinational training RED FLAG 2017.

On the way to the US, they were air-to-air refuelled over the Atlantic sea by two Italian KC-767A tankers, providing about 360.000 pounds of fuel to the eight fighters.

Moreover, a French A400M and three Spanish C130 assets transported personnel and cargo to Nellis Air Force Base.

RED FLAG 2017 will end on 11 March 2017 and at the end of the training, the Italian tankers will again escort the Eurofighters refuelling them for their return to Spain.

Payment by Spain to Italy and France will be done through the ATARES (Air Transport & Air-to-air Refuelling and other Exchange of Services) arrangement.

This arrangement facilitates mutual support through the exchange of services without any monetary exchange. ATARES is the main currency used among the EATC member nations to support each other.

The pivot point of this excellent multinational cooperation lies with EATC: EATC commanded and controlled the Italian, French and Spanish air transport and air-to-air refuelling assets on behalf of Spain, thus enabling an effective interaction between all partners and executing a successfully coordinated mission.

And this is exactly what EATC stands for: effective pooling and sharing between its member nations. Spain expressed the need for air-to-air refuelling and additional air transport assets.

Sharing the complete EATC multinational fleet among the seven member nations, the needed air-to-air refuelling and transport capabilities were pooled together and put at the Spanish disposal.

EATC facilitated the cooperation by choosing the asset which fitted the requirements of the Spanish mission best and by running the mission on behalf of Spain.

Another example of successful and efficient pooling and sharing of air transport assets among EATC member nations.

http://eatc-mil.com/45/Articles/News%20&%20Press%20updates/398/Spanish+Eurofighters+Get+Air-to-Air+Refuelled+by+Italian+Tankers+over+the+Atlantic+Ocean

 

 

The Growth in Chinese Defense Spending: 3/4 of All Asian Defense Spending

03/11/2017

2017-03-06 By Richard Weitz

According to the China Ministry of Finance, the declared defense budget of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) now exceeds one trillion yuan, up from last year’s figure of 950 billion yuan.

The declared sum of 1.044 trillion yuan amounts to some $151 billion on international currency markets.

Chinese Minister of Defense Graphic: Credit: Global Times

Some foreign calculations, such as those by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), assess that China’s actual yearly defense spending—calculated by including defense costs excluded by the PRC figure–might exceed $200 billion.

According to SIPRI, which estimates the actual budget as more than 150 percent of the official one,

China devoted 1.9 percent of its gross domestic product on the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in 2015.

Fu Ying, spokeswoman for the National People’s Congress, who released the figure at a news conference immediately before this year’s opening session of the annual meeting of the Congress, said that China’s military spending would amount to about 1.3 percent of GDP, the same percentage as declared for the past few years.

However, PRC officials indicated they were prepared to raise this figure as needed. “We advocate dialogue for peaceful resolutions, while at the same time, we need to possess the ability to defend our sovereignty and interests,” Fu said. “The strengthening of Chinese capabilities benefits the preservation of peace and security in this region, and not the opposite.”

PRC naval expert Ni Lexiong pointedly recalled that, “You have seen how the Chinese were willing to starve to build an atomic bomb. We do not worry about poverty when we think a larger military is necessary.”

Some Chinese media commentary called for a higher figure already due to expectations, probably correct, that the Trump presidency will present a more serious threat to Beijing’s regional security goals than the departing administration.

The budget released at the opening NPC session did not offer a formal figure, stating only that, “We will support efforts to deepen the reform of national defense and the armed forces, with the aim of building a solid defense and strong armed forces that are commensurate with China’s international standing and are suited to our national security and development interests,” but the Finance Ministry released a figure after Western reporters complained about the lack of transparency.

The figure had been included in the parliamentary reports in previous years.

In his address to parliament, Premier Li said that, despite slowing Chinese economic growth, he insisted that China would “strengthen maritime and air defense as well as border controls and ensure the important operations related to countering terrorism, safeguarding stability, international peacekeeping and providing escorts on the high seas are well organized….”We will boost military training and preparedness, so as to ensure that the sovereignty, security, and development interests are resolutely and effectively safeguarded.”

This figure amounted to some 7 percent over that for 2016, a slightly higher percentage than the growth of the Chinese economy of 6.5 percent, as announced by Premier Li Keqiang in his speech before the Congress.

This sum is slightly lower than the 7.6 percent increase announced last year, and substantially lower than the double-digit increases the PRC government stated occurred from 2010 and 2015.

Nonetheless, the official Chinese defense budget figure excludes spending on foreign (Russian) weapons, state funding for certain military construction and infrastructure, government subsidized research and development, military pensions, and the costs of China’s growing nuclear forces.

Furthermore, the PRC government does not count the costs of China’s paramilitary forces, such as the Chinese Coast Guard. Beijing is cleverly relying on these sub-conventional tools to advance its territorial claims in the East and South China Seas without directly challenging the powerful Japanese and U.S. militaries through overt acts of military aggression.

Putting the increase in perspective, whereas in 1990, the PRC’s defense spending amounted to less than one quarter of the total military spending in East Asia, that figure is now almost three-quarters of the Asian-Pacific region’s aggregate total.

The government’s limited defense transparency compared to Western countries like Japan and the United States (the PRC figure, for instance, does not even identify broad spending totals for the army, navy, or air force); difficulties in establishing purchasing power parity with Western currencies due to China’s semi-command (competitively constrained and limited market) economy;

And separating expenditures on China’s civilian versus military cyber, space, and other dual-use activities presents added complications.

A new constraint on Western understanding of PRC intentions has been the reduced level of Sino-American military engagements in recent months.

The Wall Street Journal observed that the latest budget plus-up “continues a robust modernization program that over the past quarter-century has transformed the Chinese military into a formidable regional power and burgeoning global one, with outlays going to build naval, air force and other capabilities that allow Beijing to project power far from the Chinese mainland.”

Residents hold posters showing late Communist Party leader Mao Zedong during a protest in Jilin, China, on Sunday calling for a boycott of South Korean goods due to the planned deployment in that nation of a U.S. missile-defense system. | AFP-JIJI

The PLA has been using the budget plus-ups to replace outdated Soviet-era weapons with modern systems, which enable the PLA to project power at longer distances with more impact.

This buildup includes new Army, Navy, and Air Forces capabilities as well as a variety of missiles, cyber weapons, and outer space and electronic warfare systems. In 2016 alone, for instance, the PLA Navy was able to launch 22 new warships, amounting to a total displacement of about 150,000 tonnes.

According to IHS Jane’s, China’s defense spending will reach about $233 billion in 2020, and five years later the PLA budget would exceed that of all other Asian countries combined.

In its latest annual edition of the The Military Balance, the International Institute for Strategic Studies recently assessed that China’s military is fast approaching “near parity” with Western militaries in important capabilities. Bonnie Glaser, the director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, projects that China’s aggregate budget will exceed that of the United States by 2040.

Even now, though the government has ceased announcing double-digit increases in its budget in 2016, important military reforms have been strengthening the PLA’s immediate operational military capabilities.

These include personnel cuts, new organizations, and additional reforms also promote objectives designed to strengthen the military’s combat effectiveness.

For example, the government has been reducing the number of active-duty troops, creating new structures (Strategic Rocket Forces, a Strategic Support Force, and a separate PLA Army general command headquarters), and strengthening civilian party control through a streamlined command-and-control bodies under a reorganized Central Military Commission (CMC) for both the Military Services as force providers and an operational path for the enhanced joint theater commands that no longer are dominated by the ground forces.

Editor’s Note: While significantly increasing defense spending and pushing out into the South China sea, the Beijing government tries intimidation of South Korea via the “protest” and trade boycott route.

Even though THAAD has nothing to do with China, unless China has a first strike nuclear policy, the Beijing clique is sponsoring “protests” against South Korea’s legitimate defense decision.

Dozens of people holding posters showing late Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong protested in northeastern Jilin province on Sunday, calling for a boycott of South Korean goods as part of a backlash against the country’s Lotte Group.

The retail giant has faced growing opposition in China since signing a deal last Tuesday to provide land for a U.S. missile-defense system.

The plan to install the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system was prompted by threats from North Korea, but Beijing fears the move will undermine its own military capabilities.

“No to THAAD! Boycott Korean goods!” chanted the protesters.

“Patriotism starts with me! Long live the Communist Party!”

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/05/asia-pacific/chinese-protest-south-koreas-lotte-group-land-deal-thaad-missile-defense-system/?utm_source=Daily+News+Updates&utm_campaign=e361a25c93-Monday_email_updates06_03_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c5a6080d40-e361a25c93-332756961#.WL1i-xiZPUI

Any US response needs to focus on shaping a 21st century defense capability, rather than recapitalizing yesterday’s force.

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/rebuilding-american-military-power-in-the-pacific-a-21st-century-strategy/

The Arrival of HMS Forth in the Royal Navy

03/09/2017

2017-03-09 BAE Systems is building a new class of Offshore Patrol Vessels for the Royal Navy.

The offshore patrol vessel is intended to carry out a range of economic exclusion zone management tasks such as maritime security, border control, routine patrols, anti-smuggling, counter-terrorism, counter-piracy, and fishery protection, as well as effective disaster relief. It can also be used for the protection of natural resources.

On the occasion of the naming of the first Royal Navy’s first offshore patrol vessel, an article on the UK Ministry of Defence’s website discuss the new OPVs.

The 90-metre warship, which will be tasked with vital counter-terrorism, anti-smuggling and maritime defence duties, was named HMS Forth in honour of the famous Scottish river in a ceremony at the BAE Systems Scotstoun shipyard.

The ship will soon depart on sea trials before entering service with the Royal Navy in 2018. She is the first of a fleet of five new Batch 2 River-class OPVs being built on the Clyde which are all expected to be in service by 2021.

The work to build HMS Forth and her sister ships is sustaining around 800 Scottish jobs, as well as the critical skills required to build the Type 26 Global Combat Ships, construction of which will begin at the Govan shipyard in the summer, subject to final contract negotiations.

HMS Forth was named by the Lady Sponsor Rachel Johnstone-Burt who, in tribute to Scottish shipbuilding and in keeping with Naval tradition, broke a bottle of whisky on the bow.

Minister for Defence Procurement, Harriett Baldwin, said:

“As part of a sustained programme delivering world-class ships and submarines, HMS Forth’s naming is a vitally important part of the Government’s ten-year £178 billion plan to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment they need.

“From counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, to securing the UK’s borders on patrols closer to home, the Royal Navy’s new Offshore Patrol Vessels will help protect our interests around the world.”

HMS Forth, the fifth Royal Navy vessel to bear the name over the past two centuries, is affiliated with the city of Stirling, maintaining a connection which began when the people of the city adopted a previous ship with the name Forth during the Second World War.

It is an advanced vessel equipped with a 30mm cannon and flight deck capable of accommodating a Merlin helicopter, and manned by a crew of 58 sailors. Displacing around 2,000 tonnes, she has a maximum speed of around 24 knots and can sail 5,500 nautical miles without having to resupply.

First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Philip Jones, said:

“With the naming of HMS Forth, the Royal Navy looks forward to another impending arrival in our future Fleet. In a few short years, these five Offshore Patrol Vessels will be busy protecting the security of UK waters and those of our overseas territories.

“They are arriving in service alongside a new generation of attack submarines and Fleet tankers, and will be followed shortly by new frigates and other auxiliaries; all of this capability will coalesce around the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. Together, they form a truly balanced Fleet, able to provide security at sea, promote international partnership, deter aggression and, when required, fight and win.”

The MOD has invested £648 million in the OPV programme,bandits delivery is one of the key commitments laid out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015.

Chief of Materiel (Fleet) for the MOD’s Defence Equipment and Support organisation, Vice Admiral Simon Lister, said:

“HMS Forth, part of the updated River class of Offshore Patrol Vessels, is one of the most advanced ships of its type and will provide the Royal Navy with the means to undertake vital operations safely and effectively.

The naming is a significant milestone in the life of HMS Forth and in the wider Offshore Patrol Vessel programme, which is well on track to deliver all five of the new ships by the end of 2019.”

The Royal Navy currently operates four Batch 1 Offshore Patrol Vessels, one based in the Falkland Islands and three at HMNB Portsmouth, operating globally on tasks ranging from counter-narcotics operations to Atlantic patrols.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navys-first-new-offshore-patrol-vessel-formally-named

The Royal Navy will get a useful ship which is being produced at a time where a gap in shipbuilding in UK industry is emerging.

According to Naval Today:

The agreement with BAE Systems provides work for the company between the completion of the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers and the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, securing the vital skills needed to build the UK’s future warships.

The Defence Secretary is also announcing today that more than £100 million will be invested in Her Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth, which will be home to both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

The money will expand the dockyard to ensure it is ready for the arrival of the Royal Navy’s biggest ever warships as well as the Type 45 destroyers which are based in Portsmouth.

Under the Terms of Business Agreement signed with BAE Systems in 2009 the MoD would have been liable to pay for any periods when no shipbuilding was taking place at UK yards.

Building Offshore Patrol Vessels means not only are staff at BAE Systems able to continue to work and maintain their skills, but the Royal Navy benefits from three new ships and the taxpayer gets much better value for money.

The cost of building the ships is funded from money that would have been used to pay for idle capacity, finance redundancies and meet the cost of industrial restructuring.

http://navaltoday.com/2013/11/06/uk-new-opvs-for-royal-navy/

 

After Mosul: How to Save Iraq?

03/08/2017

2017-03-03 By Amatzia Baram and Lazar Aleksandrov*

The military operation to liberate Mosul is very slow and costly in blood and treasure but victory is certain.

What next?

Important political and religious circles in Baghdad and Najaf are aware that, even more than keeping Iran and Turkey out, resolving the domestic Sunni-Shi’i-Kurdish conflicts is the crucial guarantee for Iraq’s survival.

Without European, Gulf Arab and UN but, in the first place American support, though, Iraq will fail to meet these two formidable challenges.

The result of disintegration will be dire for Iraq, the Middle East and the West.

Iraqi forces enter Mosul. Credit: CNN, January 21, 2017.

In Iraq ISIS feeds on Iraqi-Sunni frustration.

A second failure of the Iraqi state will be worse that the first. ISIS is a desert power.

As it did once already in 2010-2014, like a Phoenix an ISIS 2.0 will rise again from its ashes. If past strategy is a guide, ISIS is already planting sleeper cells along the Euphrates.

There is no telling which shape will such ISIS resurrection in Iraq and Syria assume and how long it will take it to regroup, but the car-bombs exploding almost every day in Baghdad and Diyala and continued recruitment may serve as indications.

Whatever its shape it will pour new fuel on the blaze of radical Islam and create a new wave of terror and despairing refugees.

This is the time, therefore, to set in train an effective civil and diplomatic American, Arab and European engagement.

The need for urgent post-conflict reconciliation in the diverse and neuralgic area of Mosul and Kirkuk is more acute than in any other part of Iraq. In this article we can only relate to the main trends within the Arab Shi’i and Sunni communities.

The June 2014 fall of Mosul into the hands of ISIS was the result of Baghdad’s policy of anti-Sunni marginalization and violence. This fact is reflected in ISIS personnel. Most of the rank and file ISIS in Iraq (as different from ISIS-Syria) are Iraqis. Many commanders had served in Saddam’s army. “Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi” is the product of Saddam’s Islamized education system from the late 1980s. ISIS is assisted by independent Iraqi groups like the JRTN (the Naqshbandis) and the Islamic Army.

They all represent a profound Iraqi structural crisis.

Without a beginning of national reconciliation this crisis will persist.

Modest efforts at reconciliation on the local level have already begun in Huweija (Kirkuk province) with tribal shaykhs, provincial officials and American (USIP) involvement. This is an important beginning.

The government of Iraq (GOI) needs to get involved now on the national level. It must relate to Sunni expectations for legislative, social and economic reforms as time is running against them.

There are indications that, in the face of an Iranian objection, the most influential cleric in Shi’i Iraq Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and his senior colleagues in Najaf are supportive of such reforms because they believe that otherwise Iraq will collapse.

First, the GOI must return to the program proclaimed by Prime Minister Haydar al Abbadi in late 2014. This program, designed to help restore Sunni-Shi’i trust and based on a set of UN recommendations, includes three laws. One was to establish a locally-recruited National Guard, deployed at each Sunni province. Another proposed an amendment of the Justice and Accountability (“de-Baathification”) law, and a third one introduced amnesty legislation.

By now only the latter was passed, in itself a good omen. All these laws were presented by PM Abbadi in 2014 but rejected by Parliament mainly due to Iranian objection.

They must be passed. On November, 26 last Iraq’s Parliament voted to recognize the controversial Shi’i-majority Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) as a semi-autonomous part of the country’s armed forces.

This scared the Sunnis.

Paradoxically, this law can serve Sunni-Shi’i reconciliation if used to create also the Sunni National Gard and impose effective government supervision on both.

 Next: Mosul is the heart of Sunni Iraq and lies at the centre of a region with numerous religious and ethnic groups.

It has the potential of becoming a symbol of national unity.

Its liberation will result with massive destruction. Many will be left homeless in the winter. The experience of previously-liberated Iraqi cities is depressing.

Even if Baghdad is committed to bring the internally-displaced back from the cold, due to low oil prices it will need the support of the international community.

Here American persuasion has a very good chance to convince the Arab Gulf states to make a contribution.

They too are interested in an Iraq free of Iranian domination.

Last but not least, presently central Sunni and Shi’i figures are conducting low-key discussions designed to create a centralized, yet truly inclusive political system.

This deserves encouragement but it has less than 50% chance to succeed.

If they fail, to achieve reconciliation Baghdad will need to consider the Sunni (constitutional) demand for an autonomous status.

In 2012-2013 PM Maliki killed it. Baghdad should be able to agree at least to some de-centralization.

Such metamorphosis will require strong American and international support under a UN umbrella.

The new American administration could have a central role to play in supporting reconciliation.

A stable, independent and peaceful Iraq is an Arab, American and European interest.

*Dr. Amatzia Baram is a professor of Middle East History at the University of Haifa

He has published four books and some 70 articles in professional magazines. In December 2010 Professor Baram and two colleagues published a book titled Iraq between Occupations: Perspectives from 1920 to the Present (edited by Palgrave MacMillan).

In 2014 Professor Baram completed his latest book: Saddam Husayn and Islam 1968-2003: Baathi Iraq from Secularism to Faith.”

Lazar Aleksandrov (a pseudonym) is a diplomat, working in the Middle East.