The Challenge of Designing an Integrated 21st Century Combat Force: Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn (Retired) Looks at the Way Ahead

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/21/2017

2017-04-19 By Robbin Laird

On April 11, 2017, the Williams Foundation held its latest seminar examining the emergence of a fifth generation force in Australia.

This seminar was different in that the impact of the new platforms on air, sea and land transformation was already discussed in detail in earlier seminars.

This seminar then proceeded with the question of how one would build by design more integration into such a force, rather than doing so after the fact.

As noted in an earlier piece regarding the seminar:

The Williams Foundation has been a thought leader in bringing together the key players in the Australian military as well as allies to shape a way ahead for the integrated force.

 Now the Foundation is hosting a conference on April 11, 2017 in Canberra which will explicitly address the key challenge of how to develop such an integrated force with a key case study being the way ahead to build an integrated missile defense capability built into the force.

https://sldinfo.com/building-a-21st-century-integrated-high-end-force-the-aussies-work-a-way-ahead/

After the seminar, I had a chance to sit down with John Blackburn and to discuss the challenges and way ahead in designing an integrated force rather than cobbling together platforms into a force, which is, integrated piece meal after the fact.

Question: The seminar looked at a very tough issue.

US services are individually looking at service integration, rather than force integration.

The seminar explored how one might design in joint force integration.

Could you describe the approach used in the seminar, which might will anticipate how this would be done in practice?

Air Vice-Marshal (Retired) John Blackburn at the Williams Foundation seminar April 11, 2017

Blackburn: The hypotheses were put together as a set of questions to give a focus for the discussion, and each of the presenters were asked to do two things.

“One was to talk about their particular area and how it’s going to be a part of integrated force, but secondly, just test the hypotheses, or propose other ones if they thought they were better.

“If we can agree a simple list of hypotheses, then we’ve got a really good starting point upon which to design the force.

“If we can’t, we end up having an argument right down in the technical detail levels.

“That was the intent.

“The other different thing about this seminar was that I was able to meet with the three service representatives and the joint staff together to discuss what we were trying to achieve, what the hypotheses were, what the question sets were, and so the presentations you saw from the three services and from the VCDF here, were not people just coming into a seminar and giving their separate views.

“They actually set down as a team and discussed it, to make sure the way they were looking at the problem and what they were going to present was coordinated, and to some degree integrated.

“This normally doesn’t happen at seminars.

“People get invited, and they all come up with a set of PowerPoint slides that usually their staff has produced for them, and they all give the standard story.

“That didn’t happen in this case.”

Question: For sure, what you usually get is what Piaget referred to as parallel play?

Blackburn: That is right and we wanted here was serious consideration of how we might actually design an integrated joint force to get the full combat effects which force modernization could deliver.

“In this case, we chose one stars to make the presentations.

“Why did we do that?

“You can see clearly that our Service Chiefs have a very strong future focus. However, when you get Service Chiefs, or very senior officers, making presentations, everyone sits there and listens, but the folks who have to design the future force and lead the teams that are doing it are the one stars and the colonels, the O-6s.

“What we were trying to provide for the 240 people in that room was a conversation at peer level. In other words, it’s peer-to-peer interaction that we were after, to help them exchange ideas.

“It also is a really good way to set up networks, because not too many people are going to go ring up the Chief of the Service after a seminar and say, “hey, I want to ask you about your question.” It’s not that hard to ring up one of the one stars who had a conversation and say, “I heard what you said; however, …”

“There were some pretty important messages that came out from those one stars that showed they were thinking deeply about the issue and talking to each other about it.

“That’s the way to get an integrated force.”

Question: When we’re talking about a 21st-century integrated force and why that’s important, a lot of people’s minds go back to the network-centric warfare days, and that’s not what we’re talking about.

You clearly are not talking about connecting platforms after the fact and calling that integration.

How do you see the difference?

Blackburn: Let me go back to the difference between the two. I was head of strategic policy at the time we worked with Admiral Cebrowski after he launched the NCW discussion. He told us “NCW is an idea which we are just getting out there. If 40% of what I’m saying ever comes true, that’ll be a fantastic result, because it’s an idea.

“The reality is, we’re never going to be totally network-connected. It’s not going to happen. It’s like saying you’re going to have unlimited bandwidth and everybody can actually connect without the adversary disrupting those networks. You’ve got to start with the idea. You’ve got to get people talking about it and to get the language out there into the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor’s Note: AVM (Retired) Blackburn led a study on Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) to explore the boundaries of how design from the outset of integration for the force might proceed.

According to a piece on the Williams Foundation website:

The Williams Foundation conducted an Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) study between Sep16 and Feb17 to explore the challenges of building Australia’s IAMD capability and the implications for the Department of Defence’s integrated force design function.

The study was focussed at the Program level of capability.

The study incorporated a visit to the US for a month to explore the IAMD challenge with United States Defense Forces and Agencies, think tanks and Industry. The initial study findings were then explored in Australia in three Defence and Industry workshops on 31 Jan17 and 1 Feb 17, using a Chatham House model of unattributed discussions.

Many of the statements made in this report are not referenced as they are derived from these Chatham House discussions and associated meetings.

IAMD is a highly complex issue; comments made in this report should not be construed in any way as being critical of the IAMD approach of the Department of Defence. This report cannot account for the full complexity of the integrated force design process that is being addressed within Defence; however, it may offer some value in providing suggestions based on the study findings.

This study would not have been possible without the support and assistance of several areas within the Australian Department of Defence, the US Defense Department, Industry and think tanks. The Williams Foundation deeply appreciates the support of the IAMD Study major sponsors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Thanks are also due to Jacobs in funding the services of Dr. Gary Waters who provided valuable support in the research for the study and in the production of the workshop notes.

This report represents the views of AVM Blackburn (Retd), the IAMD Study lead. This study report is intentionally high level and brief; in the author’s experience, long and detailed reports are rarely read by senior decision makers. 

The study can be downloaded here:

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/resources/Pictures/WF_IAMD_ReportFinal.pdf

or here:

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/WF_IAMD_ReportFinal.pdf

 

 

 

 

Preparing for the Operation of the Lightning Force: Infrastructure, Operations and the Way Ahead at RAF Marham

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/20/2017

2017-04-13 By Robbin Laird

During my visit to the United Kingdom in March 2017, I had a chance to visit RAF Marham.

My host for the visit was Captain Nick Walker of the Royal Navy and we had the opportunity to view the various buildings in progress on the base as well as to receive a briefing from Commander John Butcher, the Chief of Staff at the Lightning Force Headquarters, and the commander of the first F-35B squadron to operate in the United Kingdom, which arrives next year.

Captain Nick Walker, Royal Navy, presenting at the Williams Foundation Seminar on Air Sea Integration, Canberra, August 10, 2016

I also received a briefing and had a chance to discuss the standup of the infrastructure with the impressive team supporting the establishment of the F-35B at Marham.

There is a staff of 17 at the Lightning Force headquarters supporting the operational standup with nine specifically focused on the infrastructure aspects.

They are busy simply in order to have the base ready next year to receive their first contingent of F-35Bs from their current base, which is in the United States.

The base will have a fully operational, training and support capability.

Training, maintenance and various centers are being stood up.

At the heart of the effort will be the National Operations Center in which logistics and operations are collocated and the U.S. will have personnel in this center as well.

According to Wing Commander Butcher: “Within the National Operating Center, you essentially have two main functions. There’s what we’re calling the Logistics Operating Center, and the Lightning Force Headquarters.

The 21st Century Dambusters Squadron. Credit: Daily Express

“The two of those together create the National Operating Center. Within the Logistics Operating Center, or the LOC, you have some very key elements of the Lightning project team that are currently based out of Abbeywood.

“The people who are doing the engineering supervision, the acquisition of the facilities, acquisition of the parts, the management of the supply chain, many of these will move to Marham and will sit alongside key industry partners.

“We have as well the Lightning Force Headquarters built within that same facility. Now if you plug in the USAF into that as well, which is our plan right now, then you have a very joint UK F-35 outlook with regard to the entire enterprise.”

There are multiple synergies involved with the F-35 and the standup of the Marham Air Base.

The first is the synergy from America to the United Kingdom and back again.

The UK has operators at Pax River, Edwards, Eglin and Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station.

17 Squadron at Edwards is a Test and Evaluation squadron and because the F-35 is a software upgradeable aircraft, tests will be a fact of life as the capabilities of the aircraft evolve over time, and the Brits are well placed at Edwards to be participants in this process. It should also be noted that the Dutch are on the ground floor with the Brits in this process as well as the Aussies.

The UK and the USMC are fully pooled at Beaufort with Marines flying British planes and vice versa. While there the Brits use the US Navy logistics system to support the F-35B whereas at Edwards they use the British system, so are learning how to work within both systems.

The Eglin engagement with the Canadians and Australians involved is with the reprogramming lab. “In effect, this is the apps center for the evolution of the software,” according to Commander Butcher.

According to Wing Commander Bucher, the build up at Beaufort will continue until mid-2018 when personnel will gradually transfer to Edwards or other facilities in the United States or come back to the UK.

“We will peak out at about 200 persons at Beaufort. We will bring 9 of our jets back next summer and five more later in the year.”

All of these bases are key elements in the UK element of the F-35 global enterprise.

The planes coming from Beaufort will provide the standup for the first RAF squadron. 617 squadron will be stood up next year as the Brits move from Beaufort to Marham.

The second synergy is between the standup among bases and lessons learned.

Marham is being stood up and generating operational lessons learned back to the United States, both in terms of the U.S.’s standup of its own bases abroad and at home, and, notably in terms of shaping a new operational dynamic for RAF Lakenheath.

The USAF F-35s at Lakenheath can become integrated into the operational, training and support elements in the UK as well, shaping a new approach for the USAF as well.

As Wing Commander Butcher underscored the possibilities:

“We want to take forwards everything that we’ve done in the pooling and implementation agreement in the United States, and try and see how we can transpose that into a UK model.

The Dambusters Squadron, 1943.

“We’re looking to have jets taking off, F-35A’s taking off at Lakenheath. Well, what if they have an issue and they need to land in Marham. Rather than take the time to move people, spares etc from Lakenheath up to here, what’s to say that we couldn’t conceptually have some maintainers from 617 Squadron repair the jet, sign off, send it flying again.

“Lakenheath is going to be busy base with the closure of Mildenhall. Increased efficiencies working with us would make sense.

“Could we potentially have F-35As operating out of Marham on a daily basis?

“How do we organize hot pit operations on each other’s base?

“One can easily see how that could buy you a lot of combat flexibility, in terms of how you might do maintenance operations.”

The Dambusters Squadron, 2017. Credit: Daily Express

Commander Butcher noted that in the working group with Lakenheath, a 06-level maintainer is embedded in the UK Lightning Force Headquarters.

“He’s come in to do the interim scoping for how we might integrate the USAF into the Lightning Force headquarters facility, in particular the National Operating Center.”

Embedded in this synergy is a close working relationship with the USMC as well which can be seen at Beaufort or on the LHAs preparing for F-35B operations.

There is also a close working relationship between the new carrier community in the UK and with the US Navy as many UK officers have trained and operated aboard US carriers learning the US approach to the use of carriers, and shaping their thinking as well with regard to shaping their own approach to carrier operations with the F-35B.

The third synergy is between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

The UK is standing up a Lightning Force, not a RAF or Royal Navy force. The first two squadrons are being established on a 58/42 basis between RAF and RN pilots.

The first squadron, which will start the move from Beaufort in mid-2018 with full IOC by the end of 2018, will be badged as an RAF squadron and headed by an RAF officer (Wing Commander Butcher) who will be then relieved when the time comes by a RN officer.

And for the next two years, the squadron will work on integration with the Queen Elizabeth class carriers.

Credit: Aircraft Carrier Alliance – Queen Elizabeth Class at sea (CGI)

According to Wing Commander Butcher: “We are focused on the defense product, not the service one when it comes to the Lightning Force. It is important to do our business as a Lightning Force.”

The second front line F35B squadron, 809 Squadron, will establish at Marham and badged as a Royal Navy squadron with a RN officer in charge who could then relieved when the time comes by an RAF officer.

The fourth synergy is building the base while the three Tornado squadrons are operationally involved and on a busy schedule supporting RAF operations worldwide, notably in the Middle East.

This means that Tornado infrastructure not only needs to be maintained but not leveraged in any way until those squadrons leave Marham.

This means that the next Marham base Commander Group Captain Townsend will be charged with standing up the base for F-35Bs, the squadron arriving in two parts, and keeping the key strike function of Tornado operational until the very end.

It can be disruptive but the ops tempo of the base is the key determinant of the effort; not simply erecting new buildings for a new aircraft.

The fifth synergy is between the base and the new Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers.

The new carriers are coming on line concurrently with the base becoming operational and sea trials and preparing for the integration of the F-35 with the new carriers.

And this base will provide a key element of shaping the outreach from the UK into Northern Europe as well as Norway, Denmark and the Dutch Air Forces come on line with their F-35s as well.

From Presentation by Captain Walker, Royal Navy, at the Williams Foundation seminar on Air-Sea Integration, August 2016

In other words, standing up the base at Marham is part of a significant strategic effort by the UK and at the heart of shaping 21t century approaches to deterrence.

When joined with what is happening from Lossie, to Iceland to Norway with P-8s, the upgrades to Typhoon, which will make it a core complement to the F-35B fleet and the reshaping of the ISTAR fleet at RAF Waddington, major changes are coming to the UK air and naval forces.

The rebuilding program itself is extensive.

Virtually all of the runways need to be repaved. And the modifications of the hangers would be so significant for the F-35, that it was preferable to tear down buildings and build new ones to house the new force.

As the head of the Project Anvil project put it: “This is one of the few projects I’ve been involved with where we have actually demolished buildings, cleared the site, and built new buildings rather than simply refurbishing old ones.”

The team implementing Project Anvil as it is called underscored that the schedule is demanding to get it done in time the arrival of the jets and the standup of the squadron. The focus of the effort currently is on what is called the FOA, namely, Freedom of Action enablers for the squadron – the runway, the maintenance and finishing center, the Integrated Training Center and the National Operating Center.

And the second phase of Project Anvil can only start after the Tornados leave Marham and preparations for the second squadron can put in place.

The team has worked hard to ensure that the capability can be delivered on time.

One example was working with the planning authorities in the region for the upgrades of the power grid necessary to support the F-35s. By providing information on very timely basis, the planning authorities were obtained and the project kept on schedule.

And all of this is being generated in a time of profound political change within NATO and in terms of the threats being faced by NATO. Clearly, an effective standup of capabilities at Marham and their integration into a broader defense effort is crucial for the defense of the United Kingdom and for its core NATO allies.

Captain Nick Walker provided a good overview on the challenges and the opportunities inherent in setting up a new joint base at Marham with the coming of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers.

“I think there is fantastic opportunity with the restructuring of MARHAM to create a truly world-class F35 facility.  The investment in the infrastructure, particularly the National Operating Centre and maintenance facilities, will place MARHAM right at the fore of F35 operations and make it the hub in Northern Europe.  Only Italy, with its Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility at Cameri will come close to what MARHAM can offer.”

Computer Generated Image of the outside of one of the facilities which is being built at RAF Marham, Norfolk, as part of a programme of works to prepare the station for the arrival of the F-35 Lightning II fleet in 2018.

“And the fact that we are building it from new rather than modifying existing buildings really does present great opportunities to make the structure both future proof but more importantly design it from the outset to support multi-national F35 operations.”

“On the carrier angle, we have a similar opportunity.  The UK is buying F35Bs, which are designed to operate from ships as well as land bases.  The UK has determined to regenerate a carrier strike capability at the core of its power projection capabilities, and therefore we have purposely opted for an embarkable F35 variant.

“The carrier was then designed specifically to support F35B operations – the ‘aviation flow’ around the aviation, Carrier Strike Group and Intelligence planning and maintenance spaces has been very carefully thought through to ensure the best possible service and most efficient flow for the embarked squadrons.”

“Given that the design is now fixed and the nature of carrier construction means there is little scope for future alteration, we should take the opportunity to design the infrastructure at RAF MARHAM to emulate as far as possible the embarked flow and processes.”

“The F35B squadrons will spend a good proportion of their time embarked, and making the transition from ashore to afloat as seamless as possible just makes sense.  The ‘shock’ of embarking is therefore reduced, processes are familiar rather than alien and the whole experience of taking squadrons to sea will be more efficient, safer and easier to manage.”

“It helps to make flying to and from the carrier as natural as flying at the Main Operating Base – the embarked elements become second nature because the ashore processes resemble them as closely as possible.”

“I accept that you cannot replicate a carrier at a land base, but given the MARHAM infrastructure is being designed from new, it makes perfect sense to build in as much commonality as you can.”

Computer Generated Image of the Maintenance and Finish Facility which is being built at RAF Marham, Norfolk, as part of a programme of works to prepare the station for the arrival of the F-35 Lightning II fleet in 2018.

“A good example is the process of storing, collecting and returning the pilots’ helmets.  This is done at a particular point in the pre-flight flow on-board, so it makes sense to have it at the same point in the flow ashore – the process is therefore the same both embarked and ashore.”

“The Lightning Force has looked at the helmet process on-board and will incorporate a similar process at MARHAM.  Small things, but they do make a difference and keep the F35B Force aware of, and familiar with, their embarked processes as far as possible while ashore – it makes the return to sea smoother, familiar and safer.”

In short, the rebuild at Marham is at the heart of the modernization or indeed transformation of UK forces and a significant impact as well on allied thinking, including the United States.

 

 

Asian Security at a Strategic Turning Point: Dr. Babbage’s Perspective on the Impact of the Current North Korean Crisis

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2017-04-13 By Robbin Laird

During my current visit to Australia, I had a chance to discuss with one of Australia’s leading strategists, current strategic dynamics in the region.

Given the priority upon North Korean developments, we focused largely upon this aspect of regional dynamics.

After all, it is the most near term game changing challenge.

Dr. Ross Babbage is the Chief Executive Officer of the Strategic Forum, a Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a former senior official in the Australian Department of Defence.

Question: President Trump when he was campaigning raised some significant issues about the changing nuclear dynamics, and thought that allies might wish to have access to nuclear weapons given those dynamics.

What is your sense of those dynamics, and how allies in the Pacific might respond?

Dr. Babbage: There is a high number of nuclear weapons in the region with Russia, China, the United States and North Korea as nuclear actors.

We have significantly underestimated the numbers and the importance that China places on nuclear weapons. And our track record on getting assessments of the nuclear arsenals of dictatorial regimes is not very good, all one has to look back at how much we underestimated the Soviet arsenal at the height of the Cold War.

When the Soviet archives opened up we discovered that even the DIA estimates, on the high end, were too low.

I think the Trump Administration is correct in asserting that we are at fork in the road with regard to the North Korean situation.

You can’t really push the North Korean threat off any longer and anyone who says we can solve this with diplomacy, well what do you think we’ve been trying to do for the last 40 years? It hasn’t worked and it’s not going to work.

An undated picture provided by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on 09 March 2016 shows North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (C), talking with scientists and technicians involved in research of nuclear weapons, at an undisclosed location, North Korea.  NYTCREDIT: Kcna / Handout/European Pressphoto Agency

North Korea poses significant and tough problems for the Western allies.

The Obama Administration simply put off doing anything substantive about it and pursued a policy of hope. This is not strategy but wishful thinking.

But what do we do?

The US clearly has a range of options for dealing with North Korea given the size and composition of the DPRK’s arsenal.

But what about the potential risks from North Korean retaliatory measures for Western Pacific allies?

And what is the future of the Pacific allies’ dependence on US extended deterrence?

Question: In effect, you have a de Gaulle moment for the allies in the Pacific in facing North Korea, and perhaps China and Russia as well.

What are the options going forward?

Dr. Babbage: It is about the calculation of the allies on whether or not the US would use nuclear weapons in the direct defense of allies like Japan, South Korea or Australia.

It is about a risk calculus.

If we are focused on shaping a credible military strategy, deterrence should be reinforced.

But the legacy of the past 8 years has been benign neglect with regard to the nuclear aspect of allied defense policy and many other aspects of the US position in the region, including military readiness.

The key player in dealing with the DPRK is likely to be China.

China has in the past done things to place severe pressure on Pyongyang like shut down fuel supplies and threaten the North Korean power grid.

The leadership in Beijing is at a turning point: either they show up and demonstrate a key role in nuclear program closure and/or regime change or they risk facing a US-led military action against North Korea which will create broader threats and dangers for Beijing.

What Trump did with his Syrian missile strike in the midst of dinner with Xi Jinping underscored that the days of China sitting on the sidelines and benefiting from provocations from Pyongyang without having to do anything are over.

What will China do?

I suspect that it will dissemble, propose token measures and seek to further divide opinion in the West. It will try to buy time with Washington.

All of this is happening in the context of some very serious problems that have essentially been inherited from the Obama administration, not least in terms of what’s been allowed to happen in the South China and East China Seas.

In my view the importance and strategic implications of what’s been happening in the South China Sea have been under-estimated by most of the Western allies.

The size of the area which the Chinese have effectively seized and now control is roughly the same size as Western Europe from the eastern border of Poland through the English Channel. It’s a huge area.

And this area is of great strategic importance as the second most travelled shipping route in the world, aside from its salient strategic location. US and allied policy in this region during the last decade has been a dismal failure – effectively a strategic capitulation.

Especially during the second Obama administration, Beijing realized Obama wasn’t going to do anything of substance about almost any strategic issue in the Western Pacific and it exploited this weakness in Washington and other allied capitals very energetically and successfully.

Trump clearly is working to change the mindset dramatically.

Perhaps the Syrian operation is a key marker to that end.

But the Western Pacific allies may take different positions on Pyongyang’s nuclear provocations.

I believe it would very hard for Japan to become a nuclear weapon power given the historical legacies and culture.

The domestic political constraints are very powerful.

The only thing that would probably drive them to change their mind would be if they saw the United States simply walking away from the Alliance and from their commitments to Japan.

Another Obama legacy is clearly that the US military readiness situation is currently poor.

An alarmingly lage proportion of American aircraft and ships are currently inoperable because of maintenance backlogs. Will the Chinese assume that this may constrain what the US does?

A third problem for Washington and other allied administrations is that very little work has yet been done to prepare allied publics for the serious security crises that we may face in the Western Pacific in coming years.

But in any case, the Chinese leadership is at a key turning point – either they work with the US to change the trajectory of the regime in North Korea or they will likely face a direct confrontation with the United States.

This will in turn be a major turning point in the strategic situation in the Pacific.

Whatever the outcome of taking on of the North Korean regime, this will have significant consequences for Australia and the way Canberra moves forward on defense and foreign affairs.

Australia may well face the need to reconsider many aspects of its security planning, including the scale and pace of its current program of defence investments.

Canberra may also be forced to review its long-standing approach to nuclear issues and its heavy reliance on US extended deterrence , not something that would be easy to do politically.

Most Australians have not yet realized that they, too are approaching a fork in the road.

And as you know Trump is not the most popular US president in recent history, but the cascading set of serious security challenges and potential crises in the Western Pacific certainly reminds one of the impact which changes in US policy can have on Australian defense and security.

There is much work to be done and for the complacent to stand aside.

Biography of Dr. Ross Babbage

Ross Babbage is the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Strategic Forum.

He is also a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) in Washington, D.C. and Managing Director of Strategy International (ACT) Pty Ltd.  In addition, Ross is Founder of the Kokoda Foundation and a Founding Governor of the Institute for Regional Security, a member of Accenture’s Advisory Board and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Menzies Research Centre.

Dr Babbage served for 16 years in the Australian Public Service holding several senior positions, including Head of Strategic Analysis in the Office of National Assessments and leading the branches in the Department of Defence responsible for ANZUS and global strategic policy and then Force Development.

During the 1990s he held senior executive positions with ADI Pty Ltd, that was then Australia’s largest defence manufacturing and services organisation. In 2003 and 2004 he served as Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University.

Dr Babbage was a special advisor to the Minister for Defence during the preparation of the 2009 Australian defence white paper. He was also served on the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London for a maximum six year term. He was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2011.

https://strategicforum.com.au/about-us/

For a recent publication by Dr. Babbage focusing on Chinese developments and options for the Trump Administration, see the following:

http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/countering-chinas-adventurism-in-the-south-china-sea-strategy-options-for-t

What should the U.S. and its close allies do about China’s strategic expansion into the South China Sea?

Beijing now has overwhelming military, coast guard and maritime militia forces in this theatre and it has seized numerous reefs and dredged up new islands in operations that that the U.N.’s Permanent Court of Arbitration has determined are illegal. Major military installations are being built in several locations.

Three of these new islands, towards the middle of the South China Sea, will soon be capable of housing regiments of fighter-bomber aircraft and also of supporting sustained operations of significant numbers of ships. The rapidly changing strategic balance in Southeast Asia and the Western allies’ flat-footed response is encouraging several regional states to re-evaluate their long-standing security relationships.

This report argues that it is time for the U.S. and its close allies to clarify their goals in this theatre and develop a coherent strategy to counter China’s expansionist operations. It describes a surprisingly broad range of strategy and operational options that are potentially available for the Trump administration to pressure Beijing to moderate its behaviour, retrace some of its steps and deter the Chinese leadership from embarking on new, potentially more dangerous adventures.

http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/countering-chinas-adventurism-in-the-south-china-sea-strategy-options-for-t/publication

Building Tanker 2.0: The Aussie Perspective

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/19/2017

2017-04-11 By Robbin Laird

During my latest visit to Australia, I had a chance to discuss the way ahead for the KC-30A with the two senior operators involved with the program and its evolving capability.

We met at Amberley Airbase where the KC-30As and C-17s are based. Air Commodore Richard Lennon is the head of the Air Mobility Group and with Group Captain Adam Williams, the officer commanding 86th Wing as well as the CO of the 33rd Squadron (KC-30A).

Last year, I published an interview with the head of the tanker program at Airbus.

And in that piece underscored that having digested the operational fundamentals with the tanker, the tanker program was now moving on to the next phase, which I have called Tanker 2.0.

The baseline tanker is fully functional; now what other capabilities can be added to it as it moves beyond being a gas station in the sky?

Also, since I was last here, the Ministry of Defence has signed a new partnership to shape the way ahead for Tanker 2.0.

This agreement was announced at this year’s Avalon Airshow.

In an article published on March 18, 2017, we highlighted the new partnership agreement.

The Aussies have also signed an agreement with Airbus Defence and Space to partner in shaping what one might call Tanker 2.0, or the smart tanker.

The tanker is a mature military product operated globally and now Australia is laying the foundation for the next transition, to shape new innovations through automation and linkages to shape the smart tanker.

According to a press release by Airbus Defence and Space:

Melbourne, 2 March 2016: The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Airbus today signed a research agreement to further develop the RAAF KC-30A’s capabilities.

The agreement strengthens the industrial partnership between Airbus and Australia’s defence force, and will help to define the evolution of the KC-30A fleet as it reaches operational maturity and expand its capabilities.

This will result in the KC-30A’s core transport and refuelling capabilities supporting the RAAF’s transformation into a fully integrated force, capable of tackling complex contemporary defence and security challenges.

The agreement’s first milestone is the joint development of the automatic air-to-air refuelling (A3R) concept, which represents a major step forward in in-flight refuelling.

Automating boom refuelling contacts reduces potential risk by minimising operator workload, and increases operational efficiency by cutting the time for each contact. The system requires no additional equipment in the receiver aircraft.

Initial approach and tracking of the receiver is performed manually from the A330 MRTT’s console. Once the image processing system acquires the receiver and the receptacle position, the operator can use the system aid allowing the boom to automatically follow the receptacle. Final extension of the boom’s telescopic beam is manually performed by its operator to make and maintain contact.

Fernando Alonso, Head of Military Aircraft at Airbus Defence and Space said: “The KC-30A offers tremendous combat potential at the heart of the integrated Air Force of the Future, including using the platform as a Communication Node, to maximise air power delivery.”

Air Marshal Leo Davies, Chief of Air Force, RAAF, highlighted the value of ongoing defence and industry collaboration.

“We are delighted to contribute to the research and development of A3R with Airbus to automate the process for boom refuelling without the need for control by our on-board air refuelling operator”, said Air Marshal Davies.

The Royal Australian Air Force and Airbus have successfully performed proximity trials, with physical contacts planned for the near future.

The interview started with Group Captain Williams providing an update since our last meeting at Amberley in August 2016.

“We have been performing very well with our KC-30As globally.

“In the Middle East, using only one tanker on rotation, we just passed our 75th million pound level in delivery of fuel to the combat force in that operational area.

“What does it mean?

“It means that we’ve got some significant experience with this airplane now.”

He added that the clearance process has continued with the F-16s have been added to the planes which KC-30A has been cleared to support.

“When US F-16s were in the theater we tanked them. We have a thriving boom business in the area.”

He added that the experience with the F-16s is a good way to get ready for their support to F-35s.

“They are tanking Japanese based USAF F-16s as well and are getting ready to do so for the Singapore Air Force as well.”

As the KC-30A goes through a steady stream of certifications, the USAF personnel involved in certification at Edwards have now gotten used to how best to certify the software boom system used by the KC-30A.

This meant that the recent B-1 certification program happened quite rapidly as the familiarity with the KC-30A has increased within the USAF.

KC-30A and B-1 during certification testing at Edwards AFB. Credit Photo: USAF

“We conducted a short certification campaign of 12 flights to get the job done.”

The Aussies are participating in the Coalition Air Refueling Initiative (CARI) as well.

This is a USAF-run program of standardization of tanker operations.

And because the KC-30A is part of a global fleet of Airbus 330MRTT tankers, Aussie certifications are also certifications for other nation’s 330MRTT tankers as well.

This standardization process for tanking is crucial to shape a global coalition capability to support allied tankers worldwide, notably as the combat air force is designed to move to needs rather than to simply be based always at the point of need.

Working with the KC-30A was a first for the USAF for they had not worked with a software driven boom before.

“They went through a lot of test points and a lot of analysis to understand both how the KC-30 worked and how the software boom interacted with the receiver behind it.”

Because the USAF is now familiar with the KC-30A and the workings of its software-driven boom, the certification process for other aircraft can be shortened considerably.

Air Commodore Lennon added: “The test community has done a fantastic job at really narrowing down the requirements for a software driven boom, and when we make software changes to the boom we don’t want to be retesting every single aircraft again.

“We want to be able to assess those changes against the baseline that we already have and get on with it.”

The software enabled boom poses challenges as well to managing the way ahead for coalition air forces, given the need for managing the intellectual property of the builders of the two aircraft which will have software enabled booms, Airbus on operational tankers now and soon Boeing with its KC-46A.

As Air Commodore Lennon put it: “Every tanker needs to be capable of tanking every receiver. That is the goal.”

“We do not want to have IP differences get in the way of that requirement.

“We need to shape a good level of data sharing without compromising the IP of the two companies.

“Software driven booms designed by dissimilar companies will respond differently to diverse operational situations and we need to narrow this difference for operational stability.

“We need as operators to set standards so different manufacturers can design their booms to respond in a predictable, pre-determined manner.

“Designers might shape different approaches via their software, so long as they deliver that common result.

“Legacy booms are mechanical and the operator drove the boom in accordance with standard procedures.

“The boom operator positions the boom to a common point in accordance with common procedures.

“We want to make sure that the software can achieve the same outcome.

“This is especially important where new booms have software driven functions such as automatic disconnect.

“It is important for the receiver to know what the boom will do next.”

We then discussed the progress in the automatic boom being worked with Airbus.

According to Air Commodore Lennon: “The best way to think about the new boom capability is that it is an automatic boom similar to how autopilot works in the cockpit. The automatic pilot simplifies the pilot load, but the pilot is still there and can override the autopilot in case of need.

There will always be an operator monitoring what’s going on with the boom, deciding what the boom should do, and when it should do it, but now he can let the boom do all the work of positioning and marrying up with the receiver.”

The KC-30A is a refuelable aircraft so with a fatigue reducing automatic boom, the crew can stay airborne for longer to generate additional operational impact and enhanced sortie generation effects.

Air Commodore Lennon saw other potential impacts on operations as well from having an automatic boom.

“If it can anticipate and react to movements of the receiver aircraft faster than the boom operator can, then you end up with faster contacts. You also potentially end up with more consistent contacts when the turbulence level increases, in cloud or when night falls.”

We then discussed the partnership with Airbus through which the RAAF is working the new capabilities for the now fully operational KC-30A baseline aircraft or Tanker 1.0.

Air Commodore Lennon felt that “the agreement signed at Avalon represents a significant maturing of the relationship with Airbus.

“It was interesting that we declared final operating capability for KC-30A at Avalon and then within five minutes we were signing a cooperative agreement to take the capabilities of the tanker to the next level.”

Both Lennon and Williams saw the maturation of the relationship with Airbus as critical when moving towards Tanker 2.0.

“I think they’ve definitely turned a corner in terms of maturity. They are not just trying to sell airplanes anymore but operating as a global fleet steward.

“They are offering us a menu of choices for how we might modify the aircraft going forward, rather than selling us a single solution.”

We then returned to a topic which I had discussed with the Group Captain last August, namely the advantages of the pairing of the C-17 with the KC-30A.

The Aussies given the vast areas they cover use their tanker as a fully loaded fuel asset and given its significant fuel load maximises the number of receivers that can be deployed over long distances.

This means though that they want to fly with a C-17 to carry the kit, people and support equipment that is displaced by fuel on the KC-30.

Hence the importance of the pairing.

According to Williams there are two clear recent examples of how this works.

“We brought F-35s and Growlers to the Avalon air show and we did so by supporting them with a KC-30A and C-17 pairing. For long range operations, the pairing works very well for us.”

In contrast, for operations within Australia the tanker can be used not only to fuel but to lift personnel and cargo as well in many operational settings.

Editor’s Note: in December 6, 2016 story published by the USAF 88th Wing, the CARI validation process with the KC-30A and the B-1 was described.

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio – Officials in the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center’s Tanker Directorate, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base recently announced the successful completion of refueling tests between the Australian Air Force’s KC-30 and the U.S. Air Force’s B-1B as part of the Coalition Aerial Refueling Initiative (CARI).

From Oct. 25 – Nov. 9 the coalition team executed seven sorties totaling 27.4 flight test hours, encompassing 185 contacts and offloading a total of 275,150 pounds of fuel. The testing was completed two weeks ahead of schedule.

“CARI is significant because it fosters international cooperation by leveraging the combined assets of our coalition partners,” said John Slye, director of engineering for the Tanker Directorate.

“This is not just a U.S. Air Force mission, but a global mission because of the reliance on aerial refueling as a force extender, force enabler, and force multiplier.

“The results of CARI offer a significant return on investment; providing aircraft refueling services and increasing tanker availability while improving the interoperability of the United States and its coalition partners.”

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1021512/coalition-aerial-refueling-initiative-successful/

The slideshow highlights the KC-30A at the recent Avalon airshow and the signing of the cooperative agreement between the RAAF and Airbus Defence and Space and is credited to the Australian Ministry of Defence.

For the interview with Airbus Defence and Space regarding Tanker 2.0, see the following:

Tanker 2.0: The A330 MRTT Evolving as a Global Fleet

 

Shaping a 21st Century Australian Defense: Major General (Retired) Jim Molan Looks at the Challenges

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2017-04-16 By Robbin Laird

During my current visit to Australia, I had a chance to meet with Major General (Retired) Jim Molan.

He is a frequent commentator in the press and on the media generally defense issues and given the significant dynamics of change in Asia and the coming of Trump to the presidency, provided some thoughts on the challenges facing Australia and building out an appropriate defense capability.

We started our discussion by discussing his recent trip to Israel and the meetings, which the analysis group of which he is a part had with senior Israeli officials.

Major General (Retired) Jim Molan

Major General (Retired) Molan: The Israelis face a number of difficult threats, and threats, which we need to pay attention to in Australia, as some of the capabilities being displayed by the Hezbollah, are globally transferable. The Hezbollah have access to thousands of missiles, many provided by Iran.

A key threat to Israel then is the potential use of these missiles not just against Israeli territory but the shipping into and out of Israel. Israel is a very export dependent country as many of us are.

And the threat to attack civilian shipping and then freeze the sea trade is real. For these are civilian ships which move because there is a commercial insurance trade; and that trade stops when ships are sunk or attacked in areas of high threat. And in turn traffic is stopped.

Hezbollah sank a commercial ship at relatively long range in Israeli waters in 2006, and not one ship visited Israel for a month. And this is one of the things they’re worried about.

The ability of terrorists or states to hit commercial shipping is one which should be of high concern to the liberal democracies.

Question: And given our dependence collectively on foreign merchant marines this is doubly so. Your thoughts?

Major General (Retired) Molan: That is a good point.

If we don’t think more broadly about the security of seaborne commerce we are collectively facing a very serious challenge indeed. What good is keeping sea lines of communications open if no ships come?

The Israelis focused on how the state of Lebanon has become a launching point for Hezbollah and they underscored that they were not simply going to sit back and wait to see a full scale attack from Hezbollah.

They were not going to accept the notion that Lebanon is a sanctuary from which Hezbollah could operate. The government of Lebanon had to understand that they were a possible subject of a preemptive strike if needed.

As we were told: “We have the option of acting preemptively. But we’ve got to be provoked to act preemptively”.

And if they do, then their view is that they will see no difference between Hezbollah and Lebanon, and they will ensure that any supporting infrastructure from the Lebanese community that goes to Hezbollah will be destroyed. It would take ten years to replace that, if the Israelis are provoked, act preemptively, and do what they’re very good at doing.

And we do not want to see a similar strategy show up in our region threatening Australia’s sea lanes of communication as well.

Question: Trump is clearly not the most popular American president in recent memory in Australia. But the inability of the US and the allies to stop North Korea is clearly putting in place a more realistic sense of what needs to be done.

How do you see this?

Major General (Retired) Molan: One reason Trump is not popular is that he has spoken the truth about American capabilities.

The US is no longer a hegemonic superpower; the rise of China can not simply be met by the United States. We, the allies of the US, need to do more, much more in our own defense.

The best allies are strong allies.

We Australians have shaped a very good template for 21st century defense; the service chiefs and the Minister have done a good job.

I have never seen a better defence policy in Australia since the first in 1976, nor have I seen the Australian Defence Force as good as it is today.

But the demands from the strategic environment in which we operate are so very much higher and unpredictable than anything really since 1945.

But we are still significantly underfunded to get that template in place with enough capability to make a real impact on the Chinese or other challengers in the region.

In the past we have spent as little as we possibly can spend on defense, because we expect the US to do the heavy lifting.

We’ve been a long way away from any significant conflict in the post-War world, we’ve never had to mobilize seriously, or even expand seriously.

That has now changed.

Question: How has the situation changes for Australia and how would you identify the way ahead for Australian defense policy?

The threats are in Asia and on our doorstep.

We need a policy and resourcing that recognizes that we are facing not wars of choice but threats close to home, including real nuclear ones, real wars of necessity.

We now find the US as a much less relatively powerful country, a point which Trump has realistically underscored.

We Australians need a policy, which recognizes this and builds more of our capabilities and alliance capabilities in the region, not just with the United States.

If we were a logical nation we would say, “the strategic environment has significantly changed, therefore Australia can no longer be the dependent ally , it must be a self-sufficient ally.”

The Australian National Flag flies high on Anderson Air Base during Exercise Cope North.  Held from 15th February to 3rd March 2017 at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, an Air Task Group from the RAAF involving F/A-18A Hornet, E-7A Wedgetail, C-130J Hercules aircraft as well as combat support and medical elements have deployed for the Exercise. CN17 involves over 2000 personnel and approximately 100 aircraft and aims to increase the combat readiness and interoperability of the USAF, JASDF and RAAF. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence

And that makes us a much better ally in the big challenges that are to come down the road.

We’re always a good ally because we provide relatively high quality small forces to whatever is going on, therefore you’ve got a good flag and you’ve got some forces on the ground. And that’s how we paid our dues.

The situation has changed dramatically, but it hasn’t affected our defense policy one iota in terms of resources or sense of urgency.

It then is a question of focus as well.

Where do we put our emphasis?

Clearly part of this focus needs to be building out our capabilities with our regional allies.

It is as well shaping the forces necessary to make a difference.

One way to do this is to focus on the Chinese push out in the South China Sea and recognize it for what it is.

We need to work with Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia on our own version of anti-access area denial to the Chinese pushing out into our common area of interest. We need to get serious about proactive capabilities, which can enforce sea denial to the Chinese.

Any South China sea conflict will occur through the Indonesian archipelago, that’s where the things will start to happen first. The first thing that anyone will want to do is close off the energy flows that go to China.

And the way to do that is to close those straits, and the way to do that is to either put mines in them, clever mines in them, or put clever submarines in them.

Working with our allies we can certainly do this; but it will take focus and resources, something that is required now because of the objective situation of the United States and the proximity of the threat to us.

It is no longer a show the flag at distant shores drill; it is preparing for the real defense of Australia in a world where the United States is not a hegemonic power.

We need to get serious in terms of funding and commitment and act on a sense of reality.

Editor’s Note: The following biography of Jim Molan was taken from Wikipedia:

Major General Andrew James “Jim” Molan AO, DSC (born 11 April 1950) is a former senior officer in the Australian Army.

During his career he was Commanding Officer of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Commander of the Army’s mechanised 1st Brigade, Commander of the 1st Division and its Deployable Joint Force Headquarters, and the Commander of the Australian Defence College.

In April 2004, he deployed for a year to Iraq to serve as the Chief of Operations for the new Headquarters Multinational Force in Iraq. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross by the Australian Government, and the Legion of Merit by the United States Government. In August 2008 Molan released his first book, Running the War in Iraq.

Following his retirement from the army, Molan was appointed by the Abbott Government as a special envoy for Operation Sovereign Borders and was subsequently credited with being an architect of the coalition’s Stop the Boats Australian border protection and asylum-seeker policies.

In 2016 Molan was endorsed by the Liberal Party as a candidate for the Senate representing New South Wales at the 2016 federal election.

In August 2008 Molan released his first book, Running the War in Iraq. The book concentrated on his experience as Chief of Operations in Iraq during 2004–05, and contained some criticism about Australia’s capacity to engage in military conflict.

In an August 2008 speech, Molan stated that: “Our military competence was far worse than even we thought before East Timor, and people may not realise that the military performance bar has been raised by the nature of current conflict, as illustrated in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Writing in a February 2009 article, Molan called for a doubling of the Australian military presence in Afghanistan, from about 1,100 troops to 2,000.

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

Editor’s Note: In a recently published edited book, Molan discussed the current situation facing Australia and concluded the following:

Therefore the profound shift in the threat environment means that the traditional role of the ADF, to provide small forces for wars of choice distant from Australia, now needs to be supplemented by serious preparations for the conduct of high end joint warfighting in defence of the nation…

As a nation with the fifth highest per capita income, the twelfth highest GDP and the fifty-fourth highest population of about 200 countries in the world, the only thing that Australia needs to defend itself, even against extreme threats, is resolve and time.

The more resolve we develop now, the less time we will need in the future, and the greater our ability to deter conflict or to win if deterrence fails.

http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=401#.WPKRzlKB2gS

And for a 2016 radio interview which discussed the global refugee crisis, see the following:

Are we at an impasse in terms of Australia’s refugee policy?

Retired Major General Jim Molan, former federal government advisor and envoy for Operation Sovereign Borders, says Australia’s current refugee policy is heading in the right direction.

He’s part of a panel discussion at Manning Clarke House on Tuesday night: https://manningclark.org.au/category/events/

Duration: 8min 11sec

Broadcast: Mon 10 Oct 2016, 9:00am

Published: Mon 10 Oct 2016, 10:58am

 

US to Approve Super Tucano Sale to Nigeria

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/16/2017

2017-04-16 According to our partner defenceWeb, the US government will approve the sale of Super Tucano to Nigeria.

US lawmakers are expected to approve the sale of Super Tucano light attack and trainer aircraft to Nigeria in the coming weeks.

Former President Barack Obama’s administration originally agreed on the sale, but delayed it after incidents including the Nigerian Air Force’s bombing of a refugee camp in January that killed 90 to 170 civilians.

“We’ve been told that the administration is going to go forward with that transaction,” a congressional aide is reported by Reuters as saying.

Notification has not been sent to the US Congress yet but is, according to Associated Press sources, due in the coming weeks. Up to 12 Embraer Super Tucanos will be acquired, if Congress approves the deal, worth around $600 million.

Although the Super Tucano is manufactured by Brazil’s Embraer, there is a separate production line in Jacksonville, Florida.

This was established in conjunction with Sierra Nevada Corporation as part of a deal to sell the type to Afghanistan.

A senior Nigerian military official said on Monday that the sale would go ahead, Reuters reports. “Yes, I can confirm to you that the US has agreed to sell some fighter jets (sic) to us to support in the ongoing insurgency war,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“The ongoing negotiation is not only in the supply of fighter jets but also assistance in training, surveillance and military intelligence,” the official added.

The US congressional source said rights concerns remain, despite support for the sale from some lawmakers. There are also questions about whether Nigeria will be able to pay the full $600 million for the aircraft, equipment, training and support.

U.S. officials said Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari raised frustration with delays in the sale in a phone call with Trump in February.

In February this year the Nigerian Air Force said the Brazilian government had approved the sale of three second hand Super Tucano aircraft to Nigeria.

“The acquisition of this aircraft by the Nigerian Air Force (NAF) is expected to boost its operational capabilities in tackling insurgence and militancy in the country,” the NAF said in a statement on 8 February, after announcing the approval of the sale of three ‘serviceable’ ‘pre-owned’ Super Tucanos.

The NAF added that the Brazilian government had authorized its Air Force to transfer the aircraft to Embraer Defence and Security, for onward delivering to the NAF.

Nigeria has a strong requirement for an aircraft like the Super Tucano as it battles the domestic Boko Haram insurgency and also deploys combat aircraft to foreign countries on peacekeeping operations.

The Super Tucano can be used for training, surveillance or attack. It can be armed with two wing-mounted machine guns and can carry up to 1 550 kg of weapons.

Embraer has recorded a number of orders for its Super Tucano from African countries, which see it as a low cost light attack aircraft that can also be used as a trainer. On the continent, the Super Tucano has been ordered by Angola, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mali, Ghana and Senegal.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47454:us-to-approve-super-tucano-sale-to-nigeria&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107

 

 

Shaping Cultural and Generational Change in the RAAF: The Perspective of Air Combat Group Commander Roberton

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2017-04-10 By Robbin Laird

During my visit to Amberley Airbase on April 3, 2017, I had a chance to discuss the work of the Air Warfare Center and of new training programs in the Air Combat Group to shape a more effective fighting force.

I have talked with Air Commodore Roberton in many places in Australia and he is clearly a force of energy on the move.

If he fights in an air battle like he operates on the ground, the adversary better be on his toes!

The last interview I did with him was in his office in Williamtown and focused the airpower transition which the RAAF is undergoing as it adds an impressive range of new platforms and capabilities.

The transition for Roberton is about shaping airpower for integrated operations in the information age; it is not about staying in the 20th century world of disaggregated air from maritime from ground forces.

It is about shaping an integrated force driven by the new fifth generation approach.

And for the RAAF, this approach is crucial because unlike the USAF or the USN, the RAAF does not have a large force of specialized aircraft to operate in an evolving approach to integration; the RAAF with the Navy and the Army need to lead a process of force structure integration shaped by a key driver like the F-35.

https://sldinfo.com/shaping-the-airpower-transition-the-perspective-of-zed-roberton-commander-air-combat-group-raaf/

In this interview which was conducted at Amberley Airbase where the Super Hornet/Growler wing is located, we focused on how he saw that transition proceeding as the new Air Warfare Centre had been established and was positioning itself to be a key element in shaping the transition.

He emphasized that the focus was upon shaping an integrated air warfare perspective, moving beyond a platform specific context.

He thought it was proceeding well for two reasons.

“We are taking a kill web approach and working to integrate the non-kinetic into the force.

“We have to shape a cultural revolution.

“We need to get away from being comfortable with knowing what contribution my platform can make to the fight in very narrow terms.

“With the evolving concepts of operations, we don’t really care where the weapon comes from; we don’t really care how the information is passed.

“We need to have a framework where that’s devolved to the lowest effective level and we achieve it as a team.

“That’s kinetic and non-kinetic effects. That’s with regard to all different sorts of platforms.

“The faster you take a concept and a platform and weapons system and focus on its impact or effect at the tactical level, then the smart young women and men in our force will find a way to innovate in a way that we’ve never seen before.”

“That is really what we are after at the Air Warfare Centre.”

Indeed, according to Roberton, “we don’t want narrowly focused tactical operators.

“We want warfighters that can problem solve.  That is why at the air warfare centre we give them problems they can’t solve.

“They’re wicked problems which require finding the best way to manage the problem going forward rather than tactically solving it in a narrow sense.”

As I had met earlier at the base with the Wing Commander who commands the Super Hornet/Growler squadrons, we naturally discussed the coming of Growler into the force from the warfighting rather than platform specific perspective.

Roberton argued “we bought Growler less because we wanted an electronic warfare platform than we wanted to get into a mindset and working relationship with the US which would translate into other platforms as well.

“We need to learn and expand into the broad non-kinetic warfighting area and acquiring Growler is a means to that end; it is not about simply operating an EW platform.

“It is about shaping a network of operators who can be informed by, and inform others in the ADF, how to broaden our non-kinetic warfighting skill sets.”

It is about generational and cultural change.

“By the mid-2020s we want to have leadership across the ADF that does not think in or stay in their tactical stove pipes.

“They need to think kill web as a foundational approach to everything they do.

“This is the only way a small country like ours can deal with the defense and security problems we face.

“We can not afford stove pipes.”

Finally, we discussed the innovative approach that the Air Combat Group is taking to enhance the ability to train pilots more effectively so that the proficiency levels remain high but that more pilots are graduated than previously.

How do you reduce the attrition rate in the training programs without reducing standards?

Or how to ramp up the pass rate of pilots to get better value out of the significant investments put into the pilot training programs?

At the end of this article, I have included two press releases issued in late 2016 by Air Combat Group which explain more fully the “re-role program for fast jet pilots.”

“We are simply not getting enough pilots through the training program, and we have looked hard at how we have done the training and have found that we can shift the training program to do a much better job of pilot training and retention.

“We have historically had a very rigid set of performance standards but by building a performance based system drawing upon principles of sports coaching we are graduating more qualified pilots than before.”

Pilot training is very expensive and traditionally the RAAF would take about 20% of the graduates of basic pilot training on to a track to be trained as fast jet pilots.

And traditionally, they would pass 50 to 60% of those pilots into fast jets.

“Now with a combination of initiatives we graduated 43 fast jet pilots out of 48 for around a 90% pass rate.  Again, this is without loss in the quality level, but by having a more realistic and effective training program.”

The RAAF has adopted a new approach, addressing physical, mental and cultural changes as the key means to get these results.

“Innovative training is about taking more of a coaching approach to the task.  It is also about giving our trainees the mental and emotional tools to cope with the stress and the challenges to a better job of self-improvement as well.”

He argued that the sports business has provided a number of tools which the RAAF has adopted for fast jet pilot training, including a physical endurance training approach to handling G tolerance.

“It’s a change in mindset of our instructors as well. Some of our instructors now are involved far more in a coaching role, as opposed to just straight instruction.

“They are looking at helping pilots go though the process with far less of a ‘testing mindset’ as their primary focus of attention. if you take the testing mindset out, people learn at different rates and you can accommodate that basic reality of teaching and learning.”

And this approach is paying off in operations.

Roberton noted that they are seeing enhanced pilot performance in operations like OKRA in the Middle East. “We have pilots who would have functioned as wing men, now taking a lead role because of improvements in their confidence levels and performance.”

In short, Air Commodore Roberton is keen to foster cultural change throughout the force, whether at the air warfare centre or in the training process.

Editor’s Note: Below are the December 2016 press releases about changes in the pilot training program.

Air Combat Group develops improved training methodology and new approaches to re-role program for fast jet pilots

Air Combat Group has developed and implemented new strategies aimed at improving both the quality and quantity of successful fighter jet graduates over the past two years. Air Commodore Steve Roberton said ACG was now looking to transfer those successes onto the long-standing re-role program.

“We are always on the lookout for new fighter pilots and have transferred a number of training support initiatives to 2FTS graduate and re-role fast jet trainee programs for 2017.

“We want women and men flying the next generation fighter jets such as F/A-18F Super Hornets, F/A-18G Growler and F-35A Joint Strike Fighter,’’ AIRCDRE Roberton said. ” There is nothing elite about our aircrew. They are simply focused young Australians who benefit from world-class training and cultural support. It is far more achievable than many young people think.”

The implementation of a structured and more thorough selection process for re-role candidates will be introduced to improve selection methodology, manage candidate preparations and enable individual trainee risk assessment and management,” he said.

This process will be supported by the delivery of Performance Enhancement Program (PEP) mentoring / coaching and a tailored preparation and induction program for re-role candidates prior to commencing their Introductory Fighter Course (IFC) at 79SQN.

“While still in their infancy, graduation numbers have been at historic highs with initiatives such as the PEP, fast jet trainee performance coaching/mentoring and 78WG Physical Conditioning and Injury Management Program (PCIMP).

“ACG has undergone a cultural change in the way we train fast jet pilots – even down to the language used in our training manuals,’’ AIRCDRE Roberton said.

“The current re-role paper based application process will be supplemented by a one week Fighter Jet Selection course to be held biennially at RAAF Base Williamtown,’’ he said.

“78WG will also develop a re-role preparatory course to be conducted at 79SQN utilising the new LIFCAP Simulator and basic skills assessment, PEP assessment of key mental skills, exposure to daily squadron working environments and visits/exposure to OCU and Op Squadrons.

“This will aim to familiarise successful re-role candidates with Pearce local area procedures, as well as refresh single pilot basics to a common level.

“The scheduling of preparatory training at 79SQN will remove the reliance on external agencies to ‘prepare’ trainees and therefore avoid the inconsistencies seen at present,’’ he said.

“The course will include some back seat Hawk flying for familiarisation purposes. The preparatory course will be unassessed and can be tailored to the perceived training risks of the re-role candidate (for example, single pilot IF or formation basics dependant on trainee background).

AIRCDRE Roberton said ACG intended to promote its changed processes, and would seek to raise awareness of these programs wherever possible throughout the recruitment and training continuum within Defence.

Proud fast jet pilots graduate to fly F/A 18A/B Hornets

Royal Australian Air Force Base Willliamtown has graduated eight proud young fighter pilots to fly the F/A 18A/B Hornet aircraft.

Commander of Air Combat Group Air Commodore Steve Roberton said Australia’s new fighter pilots, including two exchange pilots, had worked extremely hard over the past six months and should be proud of their achievements.

“This achievement is even more pronounced as 2OCU are about to graduate their third FA18A/B OPCON without loss of a trainee through failure.

“Air Combat Group has put into place a training approach that uses concepts around ‘performance’ or ‘sports psychology’ to enhance fighter aircrew training.

“This approach encourages fast jet aircrew trainees and instructors to learn about, and develop an understanding of the key mental skills for success in fighter aviation.

“The program also utilises select flying instructors as Performance Coaches in order for them to assist trainees to develop their mental skills during lead in fighter training and operational conversion courses.

“We also utilise professional psychologist support and supervision as a proactive measure to improve both trainee and instructional performance.

“Although it is early stages in the new program which was introduced mid-way through 2015, it appears to have reaped rewards already.

“The Commanding Officer of 2OCU throughout this time, Wing Commander Adrian Maso should be signalled out for his role in leading this cultural reform and the ‘hat trick’ of successful training outcomes in the FA18A/B Operational Conversion Course,’’ AIRCDRE Roberton said.

“The trainee pilots and instructors should be justifiably proud of their achievements,’’ AIRCDRE Roberton said.

Officer Commanding Number 81 Wing Group Captain Tim Alsop also congratulated WGCDR Maso’s approach to adopting a new training culture over his command.

“These graduating fight pilots will be put to the test when they join our operational Squadrons over the next few years.

“Australia’s new fighter pilots have an exciting future ahead.

“They have the opportunity to fly F/A 18 A/B Hornets, and F/A 18F Super Hornets – but also in the near future F/A 18G Hornets (Growlers) which arrive in Australia next year.

“The F35-A Joint Strike Fighter is also expected to arrive in Australia in late 2018, and these young pilots can expect to fly the fifth generation technology.

Editor’s Note: The slideshow above credited to the RAF shows the RAAF working with Malaysia and the RAF in an exercise last year.

The RAF described Bersama Lima 2016 and the RAAF participation as follows:

Air Commodore Steven P. Roberton, DSC, AM visited 1(F) Sqn while taking part in Ex Bersama Lima 16.

Image Shows: Air Commodore Roberton being shown around a Typhoon by members of 1(F) Sqn.

Air Commodore Steven P. Roberton is Commander of Air Combat Group (ACG), responsible for force generation and command of Australia’s air combat operations.

ACG comprises three wings encompassing Hawk Lead-In Fighter training and maintenance training; F/A-18A/B ‘Classic Hornet’ operations; and F/A-18F ‘Super Hornet’ operations; and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers and Combat Controllers.

8 Typhoon Aircraft from RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland are taking part in Exercise Bersama Lima 16 and will be based out of RMAF Butterworth in Malaysia during their stay.

Ex Bersama Lima 16 is an annual Five Powers Defence Arrangement(FPDA) Maritime/Air Field Training Exercise and Joint Post Exercise conducted to enhance the operability and mutual co-operation among the FPDA nations.

The exercise is sponsored on a rotational basis between the armed forces of Malaysia and Republic of Singapore and will take place between the period of 4-21 October 2016.

For the earlier interview, see the following:

Shaping the Airpower Transition: The Perspective of “Zed” Roberton, Commander Air Combat Group (RAAF)

Group Captain Braz and the Coming of the Growler to the Australian Defence Force

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
04/14/2017

2017-04-07 By Robbin Laird

During my visit to Amberley Airbase in Australia, I had a chance to talk with the 82nd Wing Commander, Group Captain Braz on April 3, 2017.

The Wing had been reorganized to include both Super Hornets and Growlers as the RAAF prepares for the fifth generation air combat transition.

Group Captain Braz has been in the RAAF for thirty years; originally he was an F-111 operator and then transitioned to Super Hornet, which was the RAAF selection of the aircraft to transition from the legacy aircraft (F-111) to the fifth generation aircraft (F-35).

He was one of the pioneers in that transition (the first commander of 1 Squadron when the Super Hornet came into the force) and now is part of the next one (as the F-35 comes into the force). In addition to many other postings and duties, he served as the Growler transition team leader in the RAAF headquarters for two years as well.

Question: Let us start with the challenge of transition. The Super Hornet was an important stimulus to change in the RAAF going from the F-111 to the Super Hornet, going from the mechanical to the initial digital age.

How disruptive was that transition?

Group Captain Braz: The Super Hornet was acquired to reduce risk with regard to our air combat transition.

We were operating the F-111, and we were the sole orphan operator of the F-111, an aging airframe with declining relevance. We knew the F-35, the new generation was coming but with uncertain timelines. And we had an aging classic Hornet fleet, which was starting to show more signs of its age.

Group Captain Glen Braz, OC of the 82nd Wing.

We realized that there was an opportunity to acquire a bridging fighter, the Super Hornet. And by acquiring this aircraft we began to address the security challenges associated with a data rich aircraft and to change our security culture and engage in the new operational concepts that the Super Hornet enabled.

It had capabilities that we’d never had to deal with before or think about before. While they’re not F-35s, they do generate inputs into rethinking about how to deal with the coming of the F-35.

The Super Hornet gave us that intellectual kick to think more broadly, and to adapt how we do things, and to not be wedded to historic approaches with regard to operating concepts.

Question: How many Growlers are coming to Australia?

Group Captain Braz: We’ve got four in Australia right now. By the end of the week, we should have seven, and we’ll have all of them here by June. We will have 12 in all.

Question: The Growler is coming when much is in flux with the RAAF with the significant impact of tanker and Wedgetail, and the coming of the F-35 as well P-8 to the force.

How does the coming of the Growler intersect with the broader changes for the RAAF?

Group Captain Braz: From an ADF force-wide point of view, there is a huge amount of change. That’s both a threat and an opportunity.

We’ve come to understand that we have to fight in the new information realm, and Growler allows you to do that more effectively.

Further, it changes how we are thinking about how we employ the existing capabilities with the new capabilities.

We’re reshaping our technical and operational thinking to harness and to capture what Growler can offer in the operational space.

It’s an opportunity while there is so much change to think wholesale about what we’re doing and how we do it, and to integrate it from that very ground floor level with those new capabilities that air force is bringing to enable the joint fight and to support the joint fight.

Question: In effect, you are shaping a community of tron warriors who operate specific platforms, but who will shape a broader community of users beyond the platform specific uses.

How do you view this shift?

Group Captain Braz: That is a good way to look at the process of change.

We are looking at ways to get the operators of specific platforms to cross-learn from each other, particularly as we add Growler, evolve Wedgetail, add P-8 and add F-35.

We’re also exporting our Growler experts into the wider joint environment, such as to our new Air Warfare Centre.

We used to have a very fighter-centric fighter combat instructor course.

Now this is changing under the influence of standing up the Air Warfare Centre and the Air Warfare Instructor Course.

Now we are focused on force integration.

We’ve integrated as best we could this year with the course that’s running right now, including wherever possible the Growler folks who have been in country on and off this year already.

Two EA-18G Growler aircraft arrive at Avalon for the 2017 Australian International Airshow. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence

We’re tying in those other communities, the E-7, the ground-based air surveillance teams, the P-8 teams, the air mobility and tankers, because we see opportunity to shape a broader set of perspectives.

We are aiming to get the right integration mindset amongst the communities, which would enable us to take the team into new, and creative, innovative ways of operating.

We seek to bring technology more quickly on and off platforms. And we are doing so to find new ways to interact and to share information, and to create the web of options that will give us redundancy and resilience in our decision-making process.

Question: In effect, you are focusing on a 21st network of operators, rather than simply focusing on optimizing information flows.

And in that regard getting a small operator community onboard the Growler and then proliferating them in the crafting and evolution of a tron warfare community is what Growler for Australia is all about?

Group Captain Braz: That is a good way to look what we are about. We need to get the experience which Growler can deliver and share the knowledge.

The difficult thing with Growler is that it delivers non-kinetic effects, and sometimes they’re difficult to measure. We’re used to being able to deliver effects through other systems where the outcome is tangible and measurable.

For a Growler, if you’re attacking a threat system or the people operating that threat system, then often it’s difficult to truly assess how much you’re affecting that system.

You can do trials and tests in certain scenarios, but it’s never quite the same, and so you get a level of confidence about what immediate effect you can achieve, but it’s the secondary and tertiary effects that we’re often looking for that are sometimes harder to measure.

The difficult challenge will become knowing how degraded the network is and how reliable the information is at any given point.

If you create enough uncertainty in the operators, then you can achieve an effect even if it’s not degraded.

Question: Who are your initial customers in the ADF for the Growler produce?

Group Captain Braz: Clearly, the Joint Operations community, and special operations are key clients of interest. We are making sure that the Air Operations Center and the Joint Ops Command framework have appropriate access to Growler expertise.

Another joint customer is our Deployable Joint Force Headquarters, which is conveniently located here in Brisbane.

Question: Clearly, the Australian Army modernization approach is built around small engagement packages, which can have significant effect. Does not a Growler capability fight right into their mental furniture?

Group Captain Braz: It does. We know that a small force over a wide geographical area like Australia, we do need to be maximized in our lethality and our personal security, including force protection.

We need to make sure that we can have that relative advantage over our adversaries.

Growler gives us that opportunity to shape that role, not always being able to protect ourselves entirely from that attack from the potential adversary, but certainly to inflict similar pain upon them, and retain the relative advantage in decision superiority that gives our small force what it needs.

Question: What can be missed is how important cross learning is among the professional military working together as allies. I like to argue that if you want to make America great again, accelerate learning with allies.

This certainly applies to your area of work.

How would you describe your work as an Air Force officer with the US Navy?

Group Captain Braz: We couldn’t have done this without a huge commitment from the U.S. Navy. There’s simply no other way to describe that.

They have wanted us to be on this journey, and they have supported us wholeheartedly throughout it, both on what we do with the Growler training and the operational experience, the exchanges we’ve established, and how we prepare the team.

That’s furthered by exchange opportunities. We have U.S. Navy Growler aircrew joining us here, but we’ve also used folks connected to intelligence organizations and data management organizations and used U.S. Navy expertise in those areas to bring us along and further on the journey.

It’s no accident that when the Growler officially arrived in Australia at Avalon International Air Show a month or so ago, one of the four humans to step out of those two aircraft was a U.S. Navy aviator.

That was very deliberate, because we wanted both to recognize the amazing support we have had so far from the US Navy and the fact that we’re in this together.

It’s a partnership for the long term with cross learning on all sides.

Editor’s Note: The first slideshow highlights the arrival of the Growler at the 2017 Avalon Airshow and is credited to the Australian Ministry of Defence.

The second slideshow is based on photos made during the Second Line of Defense visit to Amberley on April 3, 2017.

For a look at the players in shaping the Australian-U.S. Growler/EW partnership, see the following:

“Ameri-Straya”: The Story of the People Behind the U.S.-Australian Partnership In Electronic Warfare

Aligning EW methodologies is an incredible asset to both Australia and the U.S. Aligning tactical know-how and EW methodology is critical to our shared interests, and it was imperative that Australia gain this knowledge. EW is unlike kinetic air-to-ground payloads that simply require target coordinates, or an air-to-air missile that needs an appropriate target.

It requires our sensors to call the signals the exact same thing, employ the exact same waveforms/payloads, and deliver at the exact same time with exact positioning. If we do not put the “right” payloads on the “right” target, we undo each other’s effects, degrade blue systems (called electromagnetic interference – EMI), or completely miss the target.

Simply put, having the same equipment is not enough. Mission effectiveness requires that we think alike, train alike, and speak the same EW language.

To achieve total alignment and close the “corporate knowledge gap,” the U.S. and RAAF established a personnel exchange program (PEP), to embed RAAF pilots and aircrew in operational U.S. Navy Expeditionary EA-18G squadrons.

In July of 2013, only three months after signing the FMS for twelve EA-18Gs, we ambitiously planned to start training aircrew in October of 2013 at the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS), with RAAF aircrew serving two year stints in deployable units by early 2014. This aggressive timeline represented the hardest path to traverse in our fledgling EW partnership.

Integrating RAAF aircrew into the FRS and then into operational VAQ units meant moving mountains. Mountains made from decades of cultural biases resisting the precise things we were trying to accomplish.

This meant assembling a team and working through painstaking details, dubbed “stubby pencil work” by one of the most vital and experienced active duty EW experts leading our team.

This is what I refer to as shaping a network of 21st century combat warriors who will take the technology into new directions and drive the code writing for the software upgradeable systems in ways to maximize combat effectiveness against a reactive enemy.

If one really wants to build out effective 21st century high intensity warfighting U.S. forces, it will be rooted in part on engaging with, learning from and learning with core allies.

Indeed as Todd Miller has noted: “What we are focused upon is a new way to look at what is often called burden sharing.

“Really it is about shaping a global deterrent with allies that “Pay to Play.”

“As we shape a 21st century deterent force, the whole can be exponentially bigger than the sum of the parts.”

And it is clear that the F-35 global enterprise and the P-8 partnership among the US, Australia, the UK and Norway are clearly new ways to shape how to build an effetive global deterrent force.

There are other examples as well in which the Australians are involved, notably the KC-30A global fleet of advanced tankers.

It is about shaping a new way to look at user groups from beyond simply supporting a single platform to positioning oneself to leverage that experience to participate in a broader effort to shape an integrated combat force able to engage in high intensity operations.

From that perspective, the RAAF is introducing the Growler into the RAAF as part of its learning process on shaping broader non-kinetic effects.

They have as well and organized their residual Super Hornets and Growlers into the same Wing based at Amberley Airbase, 82nd Wing.

But it is clear that with Wedgetail already in the force and P-8s and F-35s on their way, Growler will be part of a broader community of warfighters shaping a way ahead in Tron Warfare on more broadly on shaping the evolving con-ops for non- kinetic effects.