2017: A Year of Upheaval?

12/29/2016

2016-12-29 By Robbin Laird

As we end 2016 and look forward to 2017, it is difficult not to believe that we face a year of upheaval.

Several dynamics in play at the same time and these dynamics will interact with one another to generate profound change in the world as we know it.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we had a period up to 9/11 where the world was characterized by the increasingly power of the United States and Europe while China emerged as a global economic power.  The Islamic-Western conflict was already there but with the 9/11 crises it emerged full blown.

As we end 2016 and look forward to 2017, it is difficult not to believe that we face a year of upheaval. Several dynamics in play at the same time and these dynamics will interact with one another to generate profound change in the world as we know it.
As we end 2016 and look forward to 2017, it is difficult not to believe that we face a year of upheaval. Several dynamics in play at the same time and these dynamics will interact with one another to generate profound change in the world as we know it.

And then the two decades of the war on terrorism entered the Western agenda, with the strikes in Afghanistan and the ill fatted invasion of Iraq.  As the Middle East began to resemble the 12th century landscape of the crusades (a period which generated even more intra-Muslim conflict than that between Christians and Muslims), the ability to manage the geopolitical landscape became secondary to the struggle against various brands of Jihad, something not reducible to geopolitics.

The new phase of global development sees the continuing influence of the conflict with the Jihadists for sure, but with the inevitable collapse of the “deal” with Iran, the Israelis and key Arab states are very likely to confront the Iran leadership directly.

How violent the confrontation will be is anybody’s guess, but the challenge for the outside powers is direct: who is supporting whom and for what purpose?

The anti-terrorism paradigm and the flawed from the start policy of putting Western forces into the Middle East to reform societies that do not share Western values is over.

It has FAILED and both the military which has been sent on these missions and the citizens that support them recognize this, although many American strategists somehow think this will go on.

Certainly, Europe and the United States will accelerate their efforts at energy independence from the Middle East which poses significant challenges as well for the Middle Eastern and Russian oil producers.

What Western policies will be crafted to deal with the Iran conflict and with other Muslims and the Israelis?

And how best to define one’s interests in the Middle East when you are not largely dependent on energy imports from the Middle East?

Also changing are the global macro-economics as industry is starting to come back from Asia to the West, and both the Chinese and Russian leaders face significant economic challenges.

Their response to failure to meet these challenges are that they very likely to use military means to gain domestic support in the face of declining economic performances at home.

Europe is in fundamental change.

With the Brexit negotiations to start this year and with a new French Preisident for certain and a new German Chancellor probably, the Prime Minister of the UK will look to those two leaders for shaping what form Brexit actually takes.

At the heart of the change certainly will be the end of the free flows of people which was never part of the Treaty of Rome in any case.

Domestic security will return with a vengence with states having to demonstrate to one another that the proteciton of the lives of their citizens matters more than excessive protection of individual privacy rights.

Europe could divide on this issue and as it does, Britain could work with those states serious about domestic security and be part of a new European coalition.

The Euro will not survive in its current form, and how growth will be generated will be a serious issue in the period ahead.

It is into this world where Mr. Trump is becoming President of the United States.

His election should provide cautionl to those over confident in their predictive abilities.

One book which I just read is Imperium by Robert Harris which is the first of a trilogy which I now will have to acquire and read all of the volumes.

It is a book from the perspective of Cicero’s (slave) secretary and tells the story of Rome in the period of the late Republic and early Empire, in other words, the time where the public life of Rome’s most famous lawyer and orator unfolded.

There are many good comments throughout the book but this seems especially relevant now:

“You can always spot a fool, for he is the man who will tell you he knows who is going to win an election.

But an election is a living thing you might almost say, the most vigorously alive thing there is — with thousands upon thousands of brains and limbs and eyes and thoughts and desires and it will wriggle and turn and run off in directions no one ever predicted, sometimes for the joy of proving the wiseacres wrong.”

Trump is more of an independent than a Republican and has come to power promising significant change.

But then again so did President Obama (Remember Change You Can Believe In?)

But Trump certainly is different in that he ran against the leadership of the party whose nominee he eventually became.

It is somewhat akin to the Progressive era in the late 19th century where both parties where in meltdown over corruption and other issues and the election of President Theodore Roosevelt opened a new era.

In this sense, Trump is somewhat akin to his New York predecessor, although TR was known for his famous statement about speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

TR came to power by accident and in a period of Western ascendancy and self-confidence and relative calm.

Trump is not coming to power in such a period of history.  

And although to date his discourse about defense seems to revolve around cost, he will quickly find that capability and skill will matter more and are in short supply.

After a long period of fighting land wars against locals and jihadists expeditionaries, neither the U.S. military nor diplomatic elite are well prepared for the decade ahead.

This is one in which armed conflict with peer competitors has already started and skill in maneuver warfare and diplomacy will be learned or not.

Contemporary history is learned on the fly; it is not about inherited skills; it is about shaping skills appropriate to one’s age and with an old one ending a new one opening we shall see if we are up to the challenge.

 

Rethinking Defense Acquisition

12/22/2016

2016-12-22 By Robert Newton

The election has delivered an accomplished businessman, untainted by the favors and funding of classic politics, who is soon to enter office with a mandate for change.

His declared commitment is to make “America Great Again” and, while our country has many dimensions, the US military is foundational to the Nation’s security and world stability.

The need for a dominant US military is not lost on President-elect Trump.

Throughout the campaign he has made clear, bold statements on rebuilding and recapitalizing the US military.

Soon, as the Commander-in-Chief, he will be uniquely responsible for leading and doing just that.

The question is, how?

The typical solution would be to throw more money at the defense beast and wait till the lumber bureaucracy pushes out greatness?

However, the country sits under $20 trillion dollars of debt that alone is a threat to National security and time has a value all to itself when considering world threats.

The challenge is huge!

The mission to rebuild and reinvigorate a dominant US military may appear daunting, take decades to accomplish, and cost trillions.

It won’t.

Rather, it takes faith in US (individually and as a Nation) and once common sense.

Our potential for greatness has been with us all along, beginning with the unbounded creativity of freedom-loving people.

In virtually all other aspects of our lives, we have leveraged choice and competition to get the highest value and best products and services.

There are acquisition and management principles that should be revisited and swiftly imposed upon the Pentagon.

Beginning with new leadership the excuse that defense is a unique market not bound by true capitalism principles must be squashed in favor of the basic American business principles and the dynamics of the “deals.”

Both current and future deals require: talented people at the helm, a bold drive to product excellence with tolerance for failure, and sustained competitive leverage.

The deals must also have a cycle time that is shorter than current/potential enemies and complementary to the personnel’s attention span and rotational cycle.

For example a 20-year development cycle is not only a nominal career length; it exceeds the attention span of the developer, the customer, the investor, the administration, and the technology.

Without a cycle phased to the participants there is little learning, development, or true success.

The keys steps to success encompass bold strong new leadership, clarification of the customer relationship across the department, reorientation for simplicity and accountability, swift execution of the new Commander-In-Chief’s vision, and continued critical assessments of programs.

Most important is momentum of action.

Acquisition programs demand proportional judgment to the value and importance of the programs.

Over decades, the burdensome processes, politics, and stability factors have driven programs into ever-larger scales. Even simple products readily available in the commercial market devolve into mega status, like the Army’s new Modular Handgun program for up to a half-million units.

These programs invite micro-management and in fact depend on it as a justification for their bloated existence.

While ideal for cronyism, these mega programs violate common sense.

Inside the Pentagon effective change and results require new leadership direct actions to include:

  • Aggressively reduce program sizes and scope. For existing programs, investigate ways to break apart or breakout vertical and/or overly-broad programs. For new programs, structure them into the smallest feasible modules or component systems/services.
  • Adjust the programs into milestones with timely cycles of 2-years or less that provide clear, tangible and measurable progress or products. Today’s approach would plan the Apollo program to go straight to the moon. Fact is, the incremental steps starting with Gemini, Apollo 1’s mishap, and the Apollo 8 moon orbital, was fundamental to its success, and put men on the moon in 8-years. Their incremental progress also kept us all mesmerized and part of the journey. On the other hand, the F-22 took 20-years to field and the Air Force lost Congress along the way.
  • Define program leverage on suppliers and options for continuous improvement, while subjectively assessing excellence. Classic cost-schedule-performance metrics are good, but mask the human elements of judgment, creativity, and swift results. All too often the Pentagon program manager’s leverage is only more money/time and less performance. This paradigm must change.
  • Actively mentor and grow program leaders knowledgeable in the mission, then empower them to deliver and hold them accountable. Emphasize leadership and not just management to a plan. Reward early, under-budget, and better performance (people from outside the Pentagon would think this is common sense, unfortunately it is not).
  • Accept organized chaos and imperfection, but demand excellence first from the government as the buyer and also from the contractors/suppliers. The world is chaotic so while programs require structure, they must also be agile. The role of the government and defense market should be reassessed and, if necessary, changed to aggressively eliminate cronyism and mercantile dynamics.
  • Reinvigorate competition across the board: within a program, across programs, and inter-service. Smaller programs have a natural advantage of not putting companies and markets at risk over a single decision. Companies can live to fight for the next competition, government program personnel can learn from more than a single program, COCOMs have options, and personnel are reinvigorated by the action.
  • Ensure value/cost is always a factor. Yes, value is a judgment, but it is routine in civil markets and resides in Americans’ everyday lives, why not with defense programs and among their customers? For Defense Acquisition COCOMs and the war fighters will certainly have opinions at all levels.

Large lumbering bureaucracies and mature institutions by definition resist change.

To be great, Defense must instead be agile.

Fortunately, Defense is the most direct market affected by the Executive branch. Defense has also been a leader for the nation’s markets so what better way to break away from crony capitalism and get the US back to being a vibrant, creative, and great global powerhouse.

The bottom lines bring us back to the prefaced question of how to rebuild US Defense Greatness.

The answer comes down to the art of the deal.

The preceding lists and story all return to leadership who demands bold results and winning deals: Deals to get the best out of industry, Deals that motivate and reward excellence, Win-Win Deals that aren’t permanent or trap us into a monopoly supplier, Deals that are consumable or as small as possible, Deals that provide timely results for learning and nimbleness… and in the end, Deals that dominate!

Colonel (USAF ret) Robert Newton is a former Pentagon acquisition officer and fighter pilot.

The Modernization of Indian Airpower: The Multi Role Combat Aircraft Competition Reopens

2016-12-16 by Gulshan Rai Luthra

New Delhi/Paris.

The Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) competition for the Indian skies is beginning again, this time for a much larger number than the 2007 figure of 189 MMRCAs asked by the Indian Air Force (IAF).

This time, there is also an additional requirement of some 60 twin-engine shipboard fighters by the Indian Navy, which wants them delivered in about five years as of now.

IAF has been losing two squadrons of Soviet-vintage MiG series aircraft every year, and although the numbers are being made up to an extent by the HAL-produced Su-30 MKIs, the depletion process is continuing and an urgent decision is needed to acquire around 400 aircraft, mostly through indigenous manufacture but as fast as possible.

Notably, in 2007, the minimum requirement was put at 126 plus 63 options (189) but their acquisition process under the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition was scrapped in 2015 over price differences with the French Dassault whose Rafale was selected in 2012.

The Government then opted for a small number of 36 aircraft, or two squadrons, last year under a direct Government-to-Government deal with France for nearly Euro 8 billion inclusive of about Euro 2.5 billion for India-specific modifications and weapons as part of the package.

This photo was shot in early morning of January 13, 2013 and show four Rafales which took off from the air base at Saint Dizier with the aim of striking the training camps, infrastructure and logistics support of the rear bases of terrorist groups. Credit: French Ministry of Defense
This photo was shot in early morning of January 13, 2013 and show four Rafales which took off from the air base at Saint Dizier with the aim of striking the training camps, infrastructure and logistics support of the rear bases of terrorist groups. Credit: French Ministry of Defense

The first batch of Rafale twin-engine fighters should arrive in India in 2019.

It is nearly 10 years since the MMRCA tender was floated, and understandably, many more of the older 1970s generation of Soviet origin aircraft have meanwhile faded away.

Keeping in mind mind that the acquisition process takes some five to seven years, the depletion in numbers has to factor IAF’s likely squadron strength till 2022 at least, by when new combat jets should hopefully arrive in some level of comforting strength.

Air Marshal VK Jimmy Bhatia (Retd), former Commander-in-Chief of the Western Air Command (WAC) and Air Marshal Ashok Goel (Retd), former Director General Inspection, say the Government should work towards numbers and timelines.

Twenty IAF squadrons will need about 400 aircraft, and that is literally the need of the hour.

An IAF fighter squadron, or Unit Establishment, generally has 18 aircraft for combat missions, and at least three more are require for Maintenance Reserve and Strike off Wastage (MRSOW).

It has to be kept in mind that except for the Su-30 MKIs, IAF has not acquired any combat aircraft after the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 in the 1980s. IAF should have though nearly 300 Su-30 MKI air dominance fighters.

An IAF proposal to upgrade some 100 1970s-generation Jaguars with more powerful Honeywell engines and better avionics to extend their lives by 10 to 15 years is also pending for rather long in the Ministry of Defence.

IAF’s operational strength of combat jets is around 700 aircraft, including the older MiG-27, MiG-29 and Jaguar aircraft. About 50 Mirage 2000 fighters are also 25 to 30 year old but now under upgrade at HAL in Bangalore with technical assistance from the French Dassault, Safran and Thales. That helps to an extent.

Both the IAF and Navy are looking for 4.5generation capabilities, that is what was stipulated for MRCA, and plus in newer technologies, to keep up with the developments after 2007.

The overall requirement is huge, and that is why, the Government is rightly looking for Make in India collaborations and Transfer of Technologies (ToT).

WHO IS IN THE FRAY?

The Ministry of Defence has already sought single engine capabilities from the US Lockheed Martin and Swedish Saab, and both have offered to manufacture their respective aircraft, the updated F-16 Block 70 and Gripen NG, in India in collaboration with private or public sectors.

Boeing has already offered to build the advanced version of its twin-engine F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet in India for the IAF.

Norway's Air Force F-16 fighters (R) and Italy's Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon fighters participated in Arctic Challenge Exercise 2015. (/ Ints Kalnins) / Reuters).
Norway’s Air Force F-16 fighters (R) and Italy’s Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon fighters participated in Arctic Challenge Exercise 2015. (/ Ints Kalnins) / Reuters).

Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha had told India Strategic that all these three companies had made unsolicited offers under make in India program.

The French Dassault and even European consortium’s Eurofighter could make similar offers and the Government could possibly consider them.

All the five manufacturers took part in the aborted MMRCA competition, although Dassault’s Rafale was selected in the final run against Eurofighter.

Air Chief Marshal Raha also said that IAF was retaining the technology options as in the MRCA program, and any new acquisitions had to be MRCA-plus in terms of engine power, EW systems and multi-role capabilities

Authoritative French sources told this writer recently in Paris that Dassault, with French Government support, was going to send a proposal to India for Rafale’s production under Make in India.

No details were given but a source said “we are aware” of both the IAF and Navy requirements, pointing out that Rafale was designed from the beginning as a naval fighter and accordingly should be acceptable to both the forces.

It may be noted that it is difficult to transition from an air force version to a heavier, and strengthened, naval version for a fighter, but easier in technology in the reverse.

A Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter fires a flare while banking away from a RAAF KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft over the skies over Iraq. *** Local Caption *** A Royal Australian Air Force KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft enables Air Force to conduct air-to-air refuelling of Australian F/A-18A Hornets and other coalition aircraft over Iraq. Air-to-air refuelling is essential for ensuring Coalition aircraft can remain on-station for as long as possible to conduct or support close air support and precision strike operations in support of Iraqi Security Forces. The Air Task Group, part of Australia’s Operation OKRA, comprises six F/A-18 Hornet strike aircraft, a KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport and an E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft. They participate in air operations in Iraq and Syria as part of the international coalition formed to disrupt and degrade the Daesh threat.
A Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter fires a flare while banking away from a RAAF KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft over the skies over Iraq. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence

The same is also true for the Boeing F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet, which is also a contender for both the IAF and Navy requirements.

In a recent interaction, Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba, told India Strategic that the Navy was looking for shipboard fighters within a span of five to six years.

He did not give the numbers but mentioned that at present only the Boeing F/A-18 and Rafale were available for this role.

He expected a decision by the Government in this regard very soon.

The Indian Navy is expecting its 40,000-tonne indigenous aircraft carrier IAC-1 in the next couple of years.

It would be capable of operating both the MiG-29Ks, of which the Navy has 45 aircraft, as well as western flying machines from its 14-degree ski jump.

SINGLE OR TWIN ENGINES THEN?

The Navy apparently needs twin engine aircraft, and if they are to be made in India, then some commonality with IAF is required.

On the other hand, single engine jets should be cheaper by 25 per cent and if the aircraft are needed in large numbers, then the overall price would matter a lot.

The Ministry of Defence has a tough choice, but one hopes for early decisions.

Hopefully within December as the country celebrates the 4th of this month as the Indian Navy Day.

Republished with permission of our partner India Strategic.

http://www.indiastrategic.in/2016/12/15/mrca-dogfight-for-indian-skies-begins-again/

Russia, the Elections and the Cyber Threat: Really Focusing on the Challenge of Cyber Defense

12/18/2016

2016-12-13 The Congress, pundits and others are focusing on Russia and cyber and the recent Presidential election.

Before one rushes to ascribe real impact from this variable, it should be noted that Hillary Rodham Clinton lost in 2016 the same way she lost in 2008.

To quote Newsweek from 2008:

While Hillary turned out to be a much stronger candidate as time went on, one thing never changed: the sense that the Clintons felt they were owed the nomination. 

By repeatedly moving the goal posts on party rules, sideswiping Obama at every turn, whining about rampant sexism on the basis of two or three anecdotes, and claiming that the Florida primary resembled the 2000 fiasco and a rigged Zimbabwe election, Clinton continued to reinforce the impression that she considered the title hers no matter what.

If the Congress wishes to focus on cyber threats to democracy, that is fine.

But just focus on the real issue: the need to shape comprehensive cyber defense.

In this piece by Secretary Michael W. Wynne, a way ahead which the Congress could focus upon is the focus of attention.

Cyber Security: Really Protecting Democracy

By Michael W. Wynne, 21st Secretary of the US Air Force

Summary: The CIA recently summarily accused Russia of hacking into the Democrat and Republican E-mails in an attempt, as they describe it, to bias the election.

The root of this issue is a total lack of protection that our leaders and technologists have offered users of every stripe on the internet.

This is unconscionable as a technology nation when we know with certainty that vulnerability is a choice, not a given.

What calamity will we wait for before we opt for a simple, permanent, cyber defense called analog?

Where are the innovators to stop the madness of trying to band-aid solutions, or re-discovering that hacking has occurred.

This problem has been known and understood since 1934, and the solution has literally grown up technically next door.

Because of Moore’s Law, both digital and analog devices have grown smaller yet more powerful.

We’ve tried digital; now let’s choose analog.

Background:

The pursuit of precise information regards Hackers as a art form, akin to looking for complex brush strokes to detect forgeries.

This latest allegation is curious, as it plays into an expectation.

That said, it is at heart an admission of a failure that started way back when Turing Computing was first designed and implemented.

Academicians knew at once that the Mathematics were imperfect.

They provided copious proofs about the flaws that would allow mischief into the fundamental Turing Machines.

Yet, this flaw was allowed to flourish, like an electronic disease, that really was able to multiply as flawed computing devices became interconnected, and multiply again as domains became interconnected; and now again as the Internet Of Things proliferates.

Also we have ample evidence of mischief, with early calls for cross border law enforcement; and our major computer makers working with Interpol to round up hackers.

State players as well began to employ hackers magnifying the myth of a null solution set, see ‘Hack the Army’ as the latest waste of capital.

We know very well that the best Hackers don’t fess up; they lay in wait for the order.

Current State:

The current state is denial.

As society wallows in the deceit that a software patch can save the Turing Computing Machines that underlay the present internet, we find even senior security officials such as the Chair and Co-Chair of the Intelligence Committee espousing the thought that protection is simply unavailable.

Get real!

Our technologists deny that they are capable of inserting a fix, while essentially destroying $18 Billion a year in capital knowing it is a fruitless pursuit to fix a hardware problem with software.

Corporate Boards are leery of liability, and thus either in denial or becoming part of the herd of software patch payers.

But society is slowly becoming aware that this is a scam, that they are riding an unending strife curve; and the alarms are beginning to sound as if the end of life as we know it is nigh again.

It is finally seeping into engineering and into systems design that those that have stayed with Analog are immune to this Internet, distant and malicious, threat.

Whether aircraft safety systems, or in some of the most carefully protected areas; suddenly what is old is new again.

Meanwhile, our Society awaits Armageddon, lamenting the lack of BIG IDEAS while one sits like the elephant in the room, let’s save ourselves from Cyber with Analog.

This means being protected using frozen (e.g.; non reprogrammable) complex analog circuitry mimicking and replacing currently installed Turing Computing Based internet appliances.

The National Institute of Standards has essentially declared out loud the futility of the many solutions it has encountered, citing the patience of the Advanced Persistent Threat in many papers.

It as well stipulates that many penetrants never realize for many months or years that a penetration has occurred, until it becomes advantageous for the agent to disclose the information or act maliciously on command.

At best, a separate patch unwittingly discovers the loss of data.

Many times the victim has no idea there was an issue.

Academics have known since 1934 that Turing computers were and remain inherently vulnerable to hacking as Godel and Keene Mathematically proved, and confidently expressed that proof in the years following.

The times were different; and computers were just aborning, and abandoning a rule of circuit design to firmly comprehend the relationship of every input to every output seemed acceptable when operating in isolation.

This is a marked departure than “crowd sourcing” corrections to flawed software, which by its very nature invites malicious activity, while waving the flag of cooperation and collaboration.

When it comes to National Security or to Public Infrastructure, this is flawed policy and needs to change dramatically.

Even the internet of things (IoT), now popular, requires re-evaluation when public safety in the form of vehicle control, or Grid, or Pipe, or Dam, is at risk.

Looking Forward:

We are increasingly desperate for leadership in Cyber Defense.

One who will say, ‘Enough is Enough” and refuse to accept designs that are inherently insecure.

We lean on our President, and President-Elect Trump has highlighted the need for Cyber Defense. he is aware of the suffering, and upset that there is whining but not solutions.

What then do we need, we need a academic or government research agency thought leader to certify the protective capability that the complex frozen analog appliance offers.

To be able to testify, if you will, that using frozen (e.g.; non reprogrammable) complex analog circuitry mimicking and replacing currently installed internet appliances satisfies the pent up desire for a corrective action against hacking.

In other words, we need designed in Cyber Security, not a software patch.

There will be upcoming congressional hearings into the latest allegations but if only narrowly focused will fail the historical challenge.

Political maneuvering and grandstanding is not a policy.

Addressing a fundamental redirection of systems for built in by design cyber defense is.

Let’s hope they demand action in the form of a commitment to stop the madness, and endorse the mathematically correct response, complex analog circuitry that has the capability to protect our democracy, our infrastructure, our intellectual property, and our ability to communicate freely.

Ask, why don’t our executive branch leaders demand that security be designed into systems?

Why don’t industrial leaders be held liable to loss of the future value through intellectual property loss, such that they demand an available solution?

Since it is now becoming known that vulnerability is a choice, not the standard, lets get on with the fix.

What calamity will we wait for before we opt for a simple, permanent, cyber defense called Analog.

Editor’s Note: Wynne’s appeal for the Congress to focus on the underlying challenge rather than shuffling political musical chairs highlights a strategic opportunity or failure point for the Congress.

A hearing that just focuses on the Russians will simply highlight the CIA and its institutional shortfalls versus the FBI which simply does not believe the CIA allegations, in large part because of the nature of cyber threats and how they are executed.

The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week.

A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats.

The CIA believes Russia “quite” clearly intended to send Trump to the White House. The claim is a bold one, and concerned Democrats and some Republicans who are worried about Trump’s desire to mend relations with an increasingly aggressive Russia. The CIA report was “direct, bald and unqualified,” one of the officials at the meeting told The Washington Post Saturday.

The FBI official was much less convinced of the claims, providing “fuzzy” and “ambiguous” remarks.

For a look at the nature of cyber threats and the challenges which they pose by state actors, see the following:

afa-110401-timperlake

For the past quarter century, we’ve tried digital; now let’s choose analog.

A Two-Time Loser: Putting Hillary Rodham Clinton in Perspective

 

From Counter-Piracy to Piracy: The Strategic Direction of the Chinese Navy

2016-12-18 By Ed Timperlake and Robbin Laird

The Chinese Navy has come out into the big world as a counter-piracy force.

For example, the PLAN has been part of the anti-piracy operations off of the waters of Somalia.

And in 2014, the PLAN did an exercise with the US Navy with regard to counter-piracy.

In a rare bilateral exercise, the U.S. and China conducted anti-piracy training off the pirate-prone Gulf of Aden, the Navy said in a Thursday statement.

The Chinese Navy has a dual capable force -- it can do counter piracy or piracy dependent on the requirement.
The Chinese Navy has a dual capable force — it can do counter piracy or piracy dependent on the requirement.

The guided missile destroyer USS Sterett (DDG-104) joined at least two of People’s Liberation Army Navy ships for the exercises that included visit, board, search, and seizure (VBSS) exercises, communication exchanges and “various other aspects of naval operations,” read the statement from U.S. 5th Fleet.

“Approximately 700 personnel from the U.S. and China navies will participate in the exercise, and it gives Sterett sailors the opportunity to engage in a shared mission with other surface platforms,” read the statement.

A Pentagon spokesman said the exercises included live fire drills, according to a report in Stars and Stripes.

“The exercise allows us to address our common regional and global interest,” said Capt. Doug Stuffle, commander, U.S. Navy Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 1.

“It helps both nations pursue a healthy, stable, reliable and continuous bilateral relationship.”

Last year, the U.S. Navy and the PLAN conducted a first round of anti-piracy exercises between USS Mason (DDG-87) and the Luhu-class destroyer Harbin and oiler Weishanhu.

Those exercises included VBSS training, live fire drills and a rare helicopter landings.

In September, China’s anti piracy force has also conducted similar drills with the Iranian Navy.

Even the US Army has joined in the counter-terrorism effort with the PRC.

Closing ceremonies for the 10th Disaster Management Exchange, or DME, were held in Haikou on Hainan Island, China, Jan. 18.

The 2015 DME is a U.S.-China humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exchange, which included an expert academic discussion, or EAD, a tabletop exchange, or TTE and a practical field exchange, or PFE. The DME is among the most substantive of U.S. military engagement activities with China.

“This long established exchange underscores the commitment of the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China to a comprehensive and strong military-to-military relationship in order to address security cooperation and humanitarian and disaster relief challenges across the region,” said Maj. Gen. Edward Dorman, commanding general of 8th Theater Sustainment Command.

Sponsored by U.S. Army Pacific and hosted by China’s People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, the DME 2015 included participants from the Hawaii Army National Guard, the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Air Force and the State Department.

Apparently, the skills learned in this “strengthened military-to military relations” are really paying off.

Among other things, the PLAN, has honed their skills in becoming pirates on their own.

Pentagon press operations director Navy Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters that a Chinese Navy Dalang-III class submarine rescue vessel launched a small boat and retrieved the UUV as the oceanographic survey ship USNS Bowditch was attempting to retrieve it and a second UUV in the South China Sea.

The incident occurred in international waters about 50 nautical miles northwest of Subic Bay Naval Air Station in the Philippines, Davis told reporters.

Calling for International Law Compliance

“The UUV is a sovereign immune vessel of the United States. We call upon China to return our UUV immediately and to comply with all of its obligations under international law,” Cook said.

Bridge-to-bridge communications took place between the Bowditch and Chinese ships, but demands to have the UUV returned were ignored, Davis said.

“The USNS Bowditch and the UUV — an unclassified ‘ocean glider’ system used around the world to gather military oceanographic data such as salinity, water temperature, and sound speed — were conducting routine operations in accordance with international law,” Cook said.

This UUV was onboard a Military Sealift Command ship which is manned by civil mariners.

This a clear act of piracy and needs to be dealt with as such, and the Chinese thrown out of any future counter-piracy operations until they stop conducting piracy.

Hopefully, this will lead to a U.S. rethink about how to man MSC ships and to deal with any pirates or adversaries who think they have a free ride to simply stop by and take what they want from MSC ships.

But this is not simply an act of piracy, but an act embedded in the overall strategy of the PRC leadership – engage in and defeat the United States in Information War.

Simply getting the drone back is not really the issue –- nailing the PLAN is and identifying it for what it is – a force engaged in operations across the Range of Military Operations or ROMO including acts of piracy.

The low end of the ROMO spectrum for the USN-USMC team is humanitarian assistance; for the PLAN it is piracy.

Giving the PRC a path to in their terms “a smooth resolution” already cedes to the PRC an IW victory.

The PLAN needs to be called out for what it is, a Navy learning from their kindred spirits the Barbary and now Somali pirates,

They deserve little professional respect from any navy operating from the civilized world.

We may have to go back in history to learn from our ancestors on how to deal with pirates.

untitled

untitled-copy

 

 

A400M Common Sustainment: A Step Forward

12/17/2016

2016-12-17 The A400M is a new fleet asset for a number of Air Forces.

Keeping the aircraft with a common baseline configuration will be crucial to providing for the kind of common sustainment options which can provide for global fleet operational capabilities.

A step in this direction was reached by the recent signing by France, the UK and Spain of a global support service contract.

According to an Airbus Defence and Space press release dated December 7, 2016:

Airbus Defence and Space has signed a long-term Global Support Service contract for the A400M new generation airlifter with the UK, France and Spain.

The new agreement, effective 1 December, runs as a first step for two years and follows previously signed contracts which provided support for France and UK in their early years of operation of the A400M. It additionally forms the basis of support for Spain which accepted its first aircraft on 1 December.

MSN 24, the 7th RAF A400M. Credit: Airbus Defence and Space
MSN 24, the 7th RAF A400M. Credit: Airbus Defence and Space

This first phase of the agreement paves the way for any other OCCAR nation to join later and benefit from this package as well as additional new services currently under development.

Head of Military Aircraft Services Stephan Miegel said: “The contracts that were put in place to see the A400M into initial service have worked well, but this next stage will provide a sophisticated and highly integrated support service that will further free operators to focus on their mission, knowing that they can rely on robust support for the years ahead. We would encourage other A400M operators to take advantage of these arrangements which we are convinced have the potential to let them operate the aircraft to its maximum capability.”

Under the new arrangement, the three nations will benefit from a spares pool, technical and engineering support, maintenance and flight operations services.

Customer nations will see numerous benefits from the sharing of these resources and assets in a common central services operation including substantial cost savings, increased efficiency of service, and greater flexibility to meet their specific operational requirements.

The contract was awarded by the UK’s Defence Equipment & Support Agency (DE&S), the French Direction générale de l’armement (DGA) and Spain’s Direccion General de Armamento y Material (DGAM) through the OCCAR international programme management organization.

During a visit to the Bricy air base, the squadron leadership provided insights with regard to the French approach to the A400M and the squadron leader highlighted the importance in his view of the inherent upgradeability of the aircraft associated with its software systems as well as the promise of digital maintenance for shaping a new approach to fleet management.

In that interview, Lt. Col. Paillard highlighted the importance of keeping the aircraft common among the A400M users to get the maximum impact from the aircraft operating as a fleet.

“We do not want to end up like the Transall which was a common French and German aircraft but at the end became completely different aircraft.”

https://sldinfo.com/visiting-the-first-a400m-squadron-at-bricy-shaping-a-way-ahead/

https://sldinfo.com/visiting-the-a400m-in-seville-and-in-orleans/

A key potential for leveraging commonality is derived from the digital nature of the aircraft.

The sensors onboard the aircraft and the various software upgradeable systems provide an inherent potential for the A400M to provide for inherent upgradeability and serviceability across the fleet.

Put in other terms, the digital nature of the aircraft is part of every A400M which enters the combat fleet and can provide a significant advantage over legacy aircraft.

The A400M as a Digital Aircraft: Crafting a 21st Century Baseline

Trump’s Indian Opportunity

In an increasingly competitive global arms market, India has become a key partner of choice for the West and Russia. (Credit: Bigstock)

2016-12-11 By Richard Weitz

President-elect Donald Trump’s decision to appoint South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley as his future UN Ambassador underscores that the incoming administration, which begins on January 20, understands the importance of developing stronger Indian-U.S. ties.

The bilateral national security relationship is critical for realizing both countries’ core defense objectives.

Showing how Trump can set aside political differences for the national interest, Haley initially supported Marco Rubio’s candidacy for the presidency, then that of Ted Cruz, before backing Trump.

If confirmed by the Senate, Haley would become the most prominent Trump political appointee representing the more than three million Indian-Americans in the United States. The Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans represents the largest House caucus focused on a single foreign country.

President elect Trump is appointing new faces who are not simply camp followers. A case in point is the South Carolina governor to the post of US UN Ambassador.
President elect Trump is appointing new faces who are not simply camp followers. A case in point is the South Carolina governor to the post of US UN Ambassador.

Haley could also help Trump deepen relations with India.

When Trump spoke at the Republican Hindu Coalition in mid-October for a charity concert in New Jersey, he praised the Hindu faith, India as a nation, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s strong leadership.

Then and elsewhere, he described India as a vital ally in the fight against Islamist terrorism.

The personal relationship between the two presidents go off to a good start.

Modi was part of the select group of leaders to speak on the phone with Trump the day after his election. The Prime Minister also tweeted to Trump, “We appreciate the friendship you have articulated towards India during your campaign.”

The two men have similarities in their political background—both are outsiders who challenge conventional views by pushing for free-market policies at home and nationalist policies abroad in the face of generally unenthusiastic foreign-policy establishments.

U.S. defense leaders have come to see India as a key U.S. partner.

Leon Panetta called India a “linchpin” of U.S. policy in Asia; Chuck Hagel termed India a security provider “from the Indian Ocean to the greater Pacific”; and Ashton Carter has said that “the U.S.-India relationship is destined to be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century.”

Indian-U.S. defense exchanges have been expanding substantially in number and kind, making the United States the main foreign military exercise partner of the Indian Armed Forces. In particular, the two militaries have participated in frequent bilateral and multilateral exercises during the past decade, with special emphasis on naval cooperation.

The Trump team has opportunities to broaden and deepen the Indian-U.S. defense relationship.

In addition to the single-service drills that they regularly undertake, the United States and India can expand their bilateral military training to include rehearsing large multi-service combined exercises.

In addition, the number of army exercises should increase since India’s army receives more than half of the country’s defense budget while its navy, which has been the Pentagon’s most active exercise partner, receives a much smaller percentage.

On a multinational plane, increasing cooperation with Japan and other third partners—for instance, by following the advice of Admiral Harry Harris, U.S. Pacific Command chief, who called for a revival of the Bush-era “quad” between India, Japan, Australia and the United States—would expand the impact of the Indian-U.S. security partnership.

India may play a key role in regional security assistance as the incoming Trump administration seeks to transition defense and security burdens local partners. For example, the United States should encourage India to provide more extensive assistance to the Afghan and Central Asian security forces. Trilateral Russia-U.S.-Indian security opportunities may emerge in Eurasia if U.S. relations with Moscow improve.

Indian-U.S. counterterrorism cooperation can be strengthened by furthering intelligence sharing, reviving their stalled homeland security dialogue, deepening nuclear and biological security cooperation, encompassing a wider range of narcotics trafficking issues, and signing the planned cybersecurity framework agreement.

India should heed the Trump administration’s likely demand that India join the U.S.-led “Global Coalition against Daesh,” which now includes 68 members.

The Trump administration can better overcome Indian resistance to this step by encouraging India to provide non-combat intelligence, economic, and humanitarian assistance.

In future negotiations with India, the Trump administration may be torn between continuing previous administrations’ policies of developing a strategic partnership to share common security burdens and adopting a more short-term transactional economic focus.

The former approach will be more difficult to achieve, it but should be the objective of the new administration regarding India.

In an increasingly competitive global arms market, India has become a key partner of choice for the West and Russia. (Credit: Bigstock)
In an increasingly competitive global arms market, India has become a key partner of choice for the West and Russia. (Credit: Bigstock)

In fact, the latter strategy might work better with Pakistan, where generous past U.S. assistance has failed to attain much U.S. influence over Pakistani policies. Indians might enjoy seeing Trump set aside diplomatic niceties to more explicitly attack Pakistani ties to Islamist terrorism.

By strengthening India’s counterterrorism, homeland defense, and nuclear security capabilities, moreover, the United States can reduce the risks that Pakistani-backed terrorist attacks could escalate into a major Indian-Pakistani military conflict.

In this regard, Trump should continue the recent practice of de-hyphenating India and Pakistan, making aid to Pakistan more conditional and reducing both U.S. security and developmental assistance. While Pakistan is a U.S. regional partner, India is a strategic partner throughout Asia, and increasingly globally.

Meanwhile, India should raise its ceiling on foreign defense investment and relax some offset requirements. For instance, the Indian government should specify when 100% FDI is permissible.

India should also strengthen the barriers against the unauthorized transfer of U.S. military technology to third parties like Iran. These changes will help meet the Trump administration’s goal of boosting U.S. exports and developing more balanced international economic relations without compromising on U.S. security goals.

Enhancing Indian-U.S. security ties along these lines should balance the tensions that might arise during Trump’s presidency over immigration (India has a large Muslim minority), climate change (Indians had expected to receive foreign funds and technology to curtail their carbon emissions), and the possible de-emphasis of democracy promotion and Afghanistan.

While potentially a point of friction with the Indian government, it remains to be seen how the new administration would curtail the outsourcing of labor to India.

Although Trump criticized outsourcing in his book, Time to Get Tough, and said during the campaign that he would give corporations incentives to bring outsourced jobs back to the United States, Trump has spared India by mostly faulting China for predatory economic behavior. Indians will benefit if Trump’s tough approach leads China to treat its economic partners better.

Also see the following:

Trump’s Indian Opportunity

 

The Moment Pilots First Realized the F-35 was Something Extraordinary

12/16/2016

2016-12-06 By Todd Miller

Statistics, Milestones, Capabilities, Flight characteristics, Test protocols, Cost, Software blocks. It is easy to get lost in the complexity of the F-35 program.

The combined F-35 fleet now has over 75,000 flight hours, yet for many there remains a lack of understanding.  Much of this can be expected given many of the F-35s capabilities are classified.

This is compounded by the reality that many do not grasp the war the F-35 was designed to deter – or fight. 

Aerial warfare of the 21st century is not anticipated to consist of within visual range (WVR) dogfights, but rather the prevailing aircraft will dispatch its adversary without even being detected.  21st Century Warfare is defined by new terms; “Information Dominance,” “Full Spectrum Dominance,” “Distributed Lethality,” “The Kill Cloud/Kill Web.”

This warfare has about as much in common with wars of the past as your 1970’s land line has to your smartphone. 

It is in this battlespace that the F-35 is designed to fight and to do so with a distinctly unfair advantage.

The Extended Battlespace

To understand the significance and value of the F-35, and whether “it works” or not, cut through the complexity and noise.  Simplify.  Put aside the politicians, the ideologues, the self-proclaimed experts and listen to the voice of the pilots.

The pilots will take the aircraft into combat, their own lives in the balance as they penetrate contested space and are likely to be outnumbered by adversary aircraft.   

Second Line of Defense and a handful of journalists recently had the opportunity to visit with four such pilots during a “Proof of Concept” demonstration on the USS America, November 19, 2016.

The four pilots are some of the most experienced F-35B pilots in the United States Marine Corps (USMC);

  • George “Sack” Rowell, Commanding Officer (CO) of VMX-1 (Marine Operational Test & Evaluation Squadron). Prior to the F-35, Rowell spent appx. 3000 hours over 18 years of flying the F/A-18 Hornet.  Previously the CO of VMFA(AW)-533
  • Col. Chad “Mo” Vaughn, CO of VMFA-211. Prior to the F-35, Vaughn spent a couple 1000 hrs over 13 years in the F/A-18A-D Hornet, as well as time in the F-16A-B Fighting Falcon/Viper and F/A-18 Super Hornet at NAS Fallon.
  • Col. Rich “BC” Rusnok, slated to become the CO of VMFA-121 in March 2017. Prior to the F-35, Price spent appx. 7 years flying the AV-8B Harrier II with additional time in the F/A-18 Hornet.
  • Col. John “Guts” Price, slated CO for VFMA-122 (2018). Prior to the F-35, Price spent appx. 1200 hrs and 10 years flying the AV-8B Harrier II, and has about 400 hrs in the F-35 over the past 3 years.

The comments have been edited for readability with best efforts made to maintain context and integrity of intent.

As you look at the F-35s combat capabilities, what two things really mark it as either a superior or inferior weapon compared to what you have previously flown?

Mo: The closer you get to the airplane, the more positive you are about it. 

The airplane provides awareness of what is going on around you. All around you.  It is second to none. 

I tell people this all the time. 

I cannot tell you how awesome the sensor suite is, combined with the survivability of the airplane.

It’s not just that it is a stealth airplane, it is everything rolled into one.  

It makes it unlike any other plane anywhere in the world right now.

BC:  Stealth works.  Low observability is not a fallacy.  

You see it in the airplane and realize what a powerful capability it is.  

None of the airplanes we flew prior had that capability. 

To echo what Mo said, the situational awareness (SA), the fusion piece of it stands out. 

In Gen 4 aircraft the pilot is the fusion engine, what’s in between your ears is what’s making that fusion happen. 

To some degree that’s still true, the human is a major part of this weapons system.

However, the aid that the fusion system gives a pilot to make high level decisions, coupled with situational awareness well beyond what was had before –  that’s what makes it a game changer.

Guts:  Situational awareness and the freedom of maneuver that stealth brings.  The workload required to have that unprecedented SA is greatly reduced over previous platforms. 

I’m getting all this information, I have freedom to maneuver, and I work significantly less than I did in a previous platform to have that level of information.  

That frees up my processor to be able to fight the battle vs. each individual part that I used to have to put together.  

The workload is reduced in all aspects of flight, and that enables me to focus on the fight at hand.

Mo:  The aircraft allows me to be a tactician, rather than worry about physically manipulating sensors to get information I need. 

I have a good picture that I can execute tactically.

It is almost like a chess game.

I can make sure the moves I make in the cockpit are the best moves not just for me, but for everybody out there.

Can you talk a little about the AEGIS Integration?

BC:  The synergistic effects of other platforms, especially powerful platforms like the AEGIS combat system not only makes us that much more effective, they have phenomenal SA, phenomenal power and a phenomenal weapons suite.  

Sometimes we may not be in the right position, or be the best shooter – but now we can work synergistically with AEGIS and figure out that big picture. 

Then we can share all that onboard information to other platforms that may or may not have the same capabilities.  The integration makes us that much more effective. 

We came in with Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Industry, Big Navy to perform a demonstration in September out of White Sands, NM.  The F-35 performed an engagement with that combat system through a gateway that allowed us to talk via Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) to the AEGIS combat system and engage the target. 

We talked electronically to the AEGIS combat system, like a remote sensor, and AEGIS engaged the airborne target successfully.  

And when I say engaged successfully, it was a metal on metal engagement from a significant range.  I’d say more than a tactically significant range.  It was a very, very impressive shot. 

That was not something we did here at sea, [it was done in September] that was a developmental test, a proof of concept, but it gives us an idea of what we can do to plug the F-35 into the bigger picture.

Can you talk about the interface for that kind of targeting?

BC:  It is super simple.  

It is targeting the way we target any of our own weapons and it is passed off. 

There is really no difference, it is just a battle management issue as to who is going to engage.

Can you describe what the F-35 allows you to do from a tactical perspective that the 4th Gen platforms could not do?

Mo;  The sensors on the airplane are our center of gravity.  Our ability to know what’s going on around us in the battlespace and then push that to everybody we are working with.  

Not just air to air (A2A), but air to ground (A2G) as well.  Add our ability to operate in areas that we have never been able to before such as contested environments.  

Physically flying the airplane is extremely easy, that’s the beauty of it, so you just focus on the tactical employment.

It makes you much more lethal.

Is it fair to say that your missions can become more dynamic than with Gen 4 platforms, such as loiter, gather information, be more flexible as a pilot with your mission?

Mo:  The F-16 and F/A-18 are extremely capable platforms and they do the swing role /multi role mission very well. 

However, they are going to struggle vs Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) or IADS, and in those cases they will be on a dedicated mission.  We do have a lot more flexibility to flip flop missions, and we do it a lot in training.  We will escort a package on a strike mission and then we will break off do some A2G, or suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD), perhaps some Combat Air Patrol (CAP) or dynamic targeting in the target area – then we’ll rejoin the package and come out with everybody.

Especially along with the F-22, we’ll open the door, wait while everyone else comes in and completes their mission, then come out with the package and close the door behind us.  

We do some different things. 

As Marines we are on call for a number of different missions, close air support (CAS) etc. that we could not have done in one airplane.

The Marines are writing the CAS Manual for the F-35.  How are you finding the F-35 in that role compared to what you have now?

Price:  In the CAS role it is performing well.  Being a new aircraft there are some capabilities we’d like to continue working on, but the basic execution of CAS is “On Time, On Target.”  

The jet is more than capable to execute that.  

The unique capability it brings is executing CAS in the presence of a wide range of threats (something I could not do with previous platform).

Can you give me an example?

Traditionally (Gen 4) if we are executing CAS and a medium range surface to air missile (SAM) pops up on the battlefield, we are done with CAS. 

We immediately transition into a SEAD, destruction of enemy air defense (DEAD), or reactive SEAD mindset. With the F-35, we may continue to execute CAS because of freedom of maneuver (stealth) and the SA I have about the threat, its location and its nature.

I may advise the forward air controller (FAC) that a threat has appeared, but it won’t impact mission execution.  If the situation gets more threatening, I have the organic capability to go deal with the threat and then roll right back into CAS.  Previously I would have to call in another platform, potentially call in our Prowlers or call in other combined arms to take care of the threat. 

The F-35 enables a wide array of CAS execution in a wide array of environments, so from the low-end threat spectrum to the high-end threat spectrum I am capable of executing any of those missions.

Mo: We have greater all weather capability. 

The synthetic aperture radar (SAR) maps give the capability to see through weather and deploy ordinance through the weather from a significant stand-off distance (or in proximity). 

The ability to employ ordinance through the weather with high quality targeting is impressive. 

I know every guy up here and myself included, we take a lot of pride in the fact of our CAS. 

There’s been much said about the airplane in the CAS role, some good, some bad, but to us it’s important that a lot of that goes back to the man/woman in the cockpit and the fact that it says Marines on the back of the airplane. 

It means the guys in need of CAS are going to get a level of support consistent with what they’ve had out of the Hornets, Harriers and all the airplanes we’ve flown before. 

We all take pride in that. 

We’re going to give you a lot more capabilities, but it is the fact that we are Marines, and Marines is written on the aircraft –  that makes it very important to us up there.

Thinking about the electronic warfare (EW) suite and its ability to detect waveforms and come up with countermeasures.  

How do you interface with that as a pilot, is it something you make decisions about, or is automatic?

Mo:  Without getting into the technical details it is very, very simple for us. 

The way the jet is set up, we make a move to execute electronic attack and the jet will take care of it.

On a personal level as pilots, coming from other platforms and stepping into the F-35, do you have an “aha” moment that you can share?

Guts:  My first “aha” moment was a seemingly simple thing. 

I was executing a familiarization flight near MCAS Yuma.  I was coming back to the airfield and I basically just turned the jet and pointed its nose at Yuma. 

Immediately the jet is providing me the information of all the traffic that is out there in the airspace.  

When I talk to approach for the first time they are telling me about the traffic that is out there that I already know about and I see it. 

I can tell who everybody is that he is talking about and the jet also saw traffic that ATC hadn’t seen yet and I asked about it.  And I thought, “holy cow,” here I am coming back to the field from a simple familiarity mission and my jet is telling me everything about the operational environment I am about to go into.  

In this case, something very simple, the traffic pattern coming back there, but I didn’t have to do anything to have that level of SA. 

I can start making decisions about what altitude I wanted to go to, if I wanted to turn left or right, speed up or slow down. 

There’s somebody coming up next to me, I want to get in front of them – or whatever. 

It is a very simple example, but I thought WOW this is amazing that I see everything and can do that.

The other was the first time I vertically recovered the airplane.  The flight control law that the airplane has is unbelievable and I always tell the anecdote.  Flying AV-8B Harrier IIs, I only had one specific aircraft I felt like I could kind of go easy on the controls and it would sit there and hover. 

I love the Harrier, love flying that aircraft, but there was work involved to bring it back for a vertical landing.  The very first time I hovered an F-35B I thought, I am the problem here, and I am just going to let the jet do what it wants to do.  

The F-35 was hovering better than I could ever hover a Harrier without doing a thing.  That’s back to that workload comment I said earlier.  I am performing a vertical landing, and I have the time to look around and see what is taking place on the pad and around me. It is a testament to the jet.

BC:  I was conducting a strike mission and Red Air was coming at me.  In a 4th Gen fighter you must do a whole lot of interpretation.  You see things in azimuth, and you see things in elevation.  In the F-35 you just see the Gods eye view of the whole world.  It’s very much like you are watching the briefing in real time. 

I am coming in to perform the simulated weapons release, and Red Air is coming the other direction. 

I have enough situational awareness to assess whether Red Air is going to be a factor to me by the time I release the weapon.  I can make the decision, I’m going to go to the target, I’m going to release this weapon.  

At the same time I pre-target the threat, and as soon as I release the A2G weapon, I can flip a switch with my thumb and shoot the Red Air.  

This is difficult to do in a 4th Gen fighter, because there is so much manipulation of systems in the cockpit. 

All while paying attention to the basic mechanics of flying the airplane and interpreting threat warnings that are often very vague, or only directional. 

In the F-35 I know where the threats are, what they are and I can thread the needle.  I can tell that the adversary is out in front of me and I can make a very, very smart decision about whether to continue or get out of there.  All that, and I can very easily switch between mission sets.

Mo: I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s.  

We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out.  

All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died.  I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well. 

Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there.

A second moment was just this past Thursday.  I spent a fair amount of my life as a tail hook guy – [landing F/A-18s on US Navy Supercarriers] on long carrier deployments. 

The last 18 seconds of a Carrier landing are intense. The last 18 seconds of making a vertical landing on this much smaller USMC Assault Carrier – is a lot more relaxed. 

The F-35C is doing some great stuff.  Making a vertical landing [my first this week] on the moving ship, that is much smaller than anything I’ve landed on at sea – with less stress, was pretty awesome.

Sack:  It was my first flight at Edwards AFB Jan ’16.  I got in the airplane and started it up.  I was still on the deck and there were apparently other F-35s airborne – I believe USAF, I was not aware.  I was a single ship, just supposed to go out and get familiar flying the aircraft. 

As the displays came alive there were track files and the SA as to what everyone else was doing in the airspace, and I was still on the ground.  I mean, I hadn’t even gotten my take-off clearance yet. 

I didn’t even know where it was coming from.  It was coming from another F-35.  The jet had started all the systems for me and the SA was there.  That was a very eye opening moment for me.

The second one, took place when I came back from that flight.  In a Hornet you would pull into the line and had a very methodical way in which you have to shut off the airplane and the systems otherwise you could damage something. 

So you have to follow a sequence, it is very methodical about which electronic system you shut off.  In the F-35 you come back, you do a couple things then you just shut the engine off, and it does everything else for you.  Sounds simple, even silly – but it is a quantum shift.

The voice of the pilots is clear.

The F-35 is a platform with the ultimate level of sophistication, made simple.  

And therein lay the beauty of the F-35, and just why it will be so deadly: it’s simple.

Second Line of Defense thanks USMC pilots; Col. George “Sack” Rowell, Lt. Col. Chad “Mo” Vaughn, Lt. Col. Rich “BC” Rusnok, and Lt. Col.  John “Guts” Price; Captain Joseph R. Olson, Commanding Officer of the USS America and entire crew; Sylvia Pierson, Brandi Schiff, JSF/JPO PA; Capt. Sarah Burns and 1st Lt. Maida Zheng, USMC PAOs;  MV-22B pilots/crew and personnel of VMX-1.

The photos in the slideshow are credited to Todd Miller.

Squadron Fighter Pilots: The Unstoppable Force of Innovation for 5th Generation Enabled Concepts of Operations