Social Turbulence and Promise Lost: The Case of Two Scholars of Brazilian History and the 1960s

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
02/16/2017

2017-02-15 By Kenneth Maxwell

To read today’s press you would think that the coming of Donald Trump is a shock beyond recognition.

Yet conflict and shocks in Washington are clearly nothing new.

We certainly lived through larger social upheavals before, notably the one’s of the 1960s.

It is clear that we are present at the creation of a new historical epoch; yet the pressures to pretend we are not are strong and reactive. Put simply, contestation of Washington is not new in the United States, nor did opponents of Donald Trump invent it.

During the Vietnam War the university campuses were in open revolt against the war and the compulsory draft for military service. Many of my generation were victims of the confrontations of that time of troubles.

Washington DC During the 1968 Riots.

Two friends in particular I remember very well had their lives changed and the biases of the left undercutting their careers.

Both were graduate students who worked as I did on 18th century Brazil: David Davidson of Yale University, and William Joel Simon of the City University of New York.   Both were New Yorkers. David was born in the borough of Brooklyn, and Bill Simon in the borough of Queens.

Bill Simon studied the scientific expeditions in the Portuguese overseas territories, or as they were called during the late 18th century, the “philosophic voyages.” He concentrated on the expeditions of Bahia born and university of Coimbra educated, Dr. Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira, to Amazon and Matto Grosso (1783-1792) and on the contemporaneous scientific expeditions in Angola by Joaquim Jose da Silva (1783-1808), and of Manuel Galvao da Silva in Mozambique (1783-1791).

Both were students of the new faculty of natural sciences at Coimbra University in Portugal established after the root and branch reform and modernization of the curriculum by the Marques de Pombal (1772).

Bill was drafted into the US army and sent to fight in Vietnam.

He wrote to me about his 18th century research from various jungle outposts. He completed his dissertation despite these obstacles.

It was a remarkable work. The more so since many of Rodrigues Ferreira’s prime specimens and manuscripts were stolen and shipped to Paris by Etienne Godfrey Saint-Hilliare during the French invasion of Portugal in 1808 at the time of the Napoleonic wars.

Later many of his illustrations and diaries were shipped to Brazil where they languished and were eventually only partially published. Rodriques Ferreira died in 1815, his health broken, and subject to the bitter jealousies of his fellow naturalists. And many his remaining specimens and illustrations in Portugal were destroyed during a fire at the Museu de Bocage in Lisbon in 1978

Bill Simon’s dissertation was published in English in Lisbon in 1983 by the centro de estudos de cartografia antiga, and it remains the best work on these remarkable explorations.

But on his return to the USA after military service he was never able to get an academic job, largely in my view, because of anti-military prejudice, against those who had been obliged (often against their will) by the military draft to serve in Vietnam.

He worked in the reinsurance business in New York City.  He died at far too young an age, probably I suspect, as a result of the health hazards to which many Vietnam veterans were unknowingly subjected.

David Davidson was a student of the historian Richard Morse. His father ran a nightclub in Miami. He was an unconventional student. He became a protégée of Sergio Buarque de Hollanda, the great Brazilian historian, who was then a visiting professor at Yale, and he became a close friend of Sergio’s family, staying with them in São Paulo, and accompanying Sergio during his research in the archives of Vila Boa de Goiás (today Goiás Velha)

I still have my correspondence with David Davidson from the time of his researches in the far west of Brazil and in the Amazon basin. He wrote to me from Goias, Manaus, and Belem. While in São Paulo, David stayed with Sergio.

In the preface to the second edition of his book “Monções,” (literally “monsoons”, a name taken from the Indian Ocean, but here referring to the seasonal riverborne routes into the Brazilian interior, used by the early explorers and traders), Sergio Buarque de Hollanda called David “his companion researcher during my last visit to Cuiabá, when, as we used to say, we were together in 1967,  on our admirable “entrada” (The term used for the early explorations of the interior.)

David and I had intended in fact to write a history of Pombaline Brazil together.I would cover the south and central Brazil. He would concentrate on the far west and the Amazon basin. His dissertation was on the “rivers and empire” during the Pombaline period.

It was never published. It is still the best-unpublished work on the 18th century Amazon.

But like Bill Simon, David Davidson, was also a victim of the Vietnam War.

He got his first job at Cornell University. Black students, inspired by the “black power movement” took over the Willard Straight Hall on the campus in April 1969 and armed themselves. It was at the height of the Vietnam War, and the violent confrontations of the civil rights movement.

A very dangerous standoff ensued. David helped mediate between the radical black students and the university administration, and helped defuse the confrontation. But this profoundly affected him. In 1973 he gave up his job and dropped out and became a follower of oriental philosophy.

I went up to Cornell to see him, but he had disappeared into the forest. I left a message for him marked out in stones by the roadside. The next day we met. But he was no longer interested in history. He had utterly abandoned his research. He also died far too young in 2010 of pancreatic cancer.

Bill Simon and David Davidson were scholars of a lost generation. Both were members, as Sergio Buarque de Holanda, wrote “of that curious band of enthusiasts who discover the lost world of the ancient dead”.

Both David and BIll could have gone on to make major contributions to Brazilian history.

But in their different ways both were victims of that turbulent epoch.

 

 

The Challenge of Shaping a 21st Century Integrated Force for the Extended Defense of Norway: The Perspective of Lt. General Rune Jakobsen

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2017-02-16 By Robbin Laird

In the Fall of 2015, then Major General Rune Jakobsen became Lt. General Jakobsen and the Commander of the Norwegian Joint Headquarters. According to the announcement at the time:

The new commander started his military career in July 1980 and has filled several key positions in the Norwegian Armed Forces.

He has been commanding officer for the Telemark Battalion, Chief of the Army Staff, National Contingent Commander in Afghanistan and Chief of Staff in the Norwegian Defence Staff.

The Norwegian Joint Headquarters is nothing new for Jakobsen. From 2010 to 2013, he served as Chief of Operations at the Headquarters.​

https://forsvaret.no/en/newsroom/news-stories/new-commander-at-the-headquarters

According to an article published on the Norwegian Ministry of Defence website, the Norwegian Joint Headquarters is the operational heart of the Norwegian Armed Forces.

It plans, conducts and leads the Armed Forces’ operations in times of peace, crisis and war.

The Norwegian Joint Headquarters (NJHQ) operates day and night, and has the overall command and control of all military activity in Norway. It also commands the Norwegian military personnel abroad. In Norway, it controls activities like the Coast Guard, the search and rescue service, military air traffic, and the Border Guard.

The Operations Room at the Joint Headquarters. Credit: Norwegian Ministry of Defence.

The Headquarters operates from its mountain complex outside the city of Bodø in Northern Norway. From its operation centre, experienced officers continuously monitor the activity in Norway’s vast land and sea territories.

This is possible thanks to our many sensors like radars, the Coast Guard and the maritime surveillance aircraft P-3 Orion. The Headquarters gathers all the information and makes a complete picture of the current situation. This picture is shared with other departments in the Armed Forces, and with NATO.

The NJHQ Chief is the Chief of Defence’s most important advisor in questions concerning military operations and activity. The current Chief is Lieutenant General Rune Jakobsen.​

NJHQ M​AIN TASKS:

  • Keep an eye with Norway’s vast sea and air territories, and have a current understanding of the overall situation.
  • Exercise sovereignty in Norway’s land, sea and air territories – and exercise national jurisdiction in these areas.
  • Be present, and be able to handle crisis of any kind.
  • Support civil society.
  • Plan and head military exercises.
  • Provide control and suppo​rt to Norwegian forces in international operations.

https://forsvaret.no/en/organisation/joint-headquarters

Lt. General Jakobsen spoke at the Norwegian Airpower Conference on 5th Gen and I had a chance to talk with him after the conference as well.

During his presentation, he underscored the crucial need to have a very credible and high threshold against any power that thought about attacking Norway.

Lt. General Jakobsen discussing the role of the F-35 in the evolution of Norwegian defense at the Norwegian Airpower Conference.

On the one hand, this meant better force integration of Norwegian forces, and within this effort F-35 integration with the total force was deemed a critical aspect of the way ahead.

On the other hand, shaping more capable and effective integration with allied forces operating in the North Atlantic was integral to shaping a very high threshold against any attack against Norway.

Reshaping C2 and working force integration at home and with allies are seen as key challenges facing the joint force.

According to Lt. General Jakobsen, Norway pursued a total defense concept during the Cold War, in terms of integrating defense with civil society, somewhat like Finland does today.

Norway is returning to such a concept but in 21st century terms, which means building out for new 21st century capabilities.

Lt. General Jakobsen discussing the way ahead with regard to force integration to provide for Norwegian defense at the Norwegian Airpower Conference.

“Together with Sweden during the Cold War, we were world champions in total defense concept, if you know that, I mean all governmental institutions linked together in not an organization but a network where all parts of society had a role in defense.

“We moved away from that after the Cold War.

“In the post Cold War period, we have focused on international operations much more than on national defense.

“Since 2014, we have re-shifted our focus to rebuild national defense capabilities.”

He then underscored the challenges in shaping the way ahead.

“We have a modern navy.

“We will have one of the most modern air forces in Europe when procurement projects have finished, but unfortunately we have put the land forces on hold.

“There is a study going on that will deliver a report in June what kind of land force we need in future. And I have great expectations too that that will fill in the missing pieces.

“We don’t think a conflict with Russia will occur on a bilateral basis between our two countries. If we will have a conflict in future it will be a spillover from tensions somewhere else in Europe.

“Of course, Russia relies heavily on the Kola Peninsula and is expanding its reach to defend the Peninsula and those poses challenges as well.”

He then spoke of the nature of the Russian-Norwegian relationship.

“The Norwegian relationship to Russia is different from the UK or especially the Baltic perspective.

“We have a common border that is more than 1,000-years-old, and it has never been contested. Lives have never been lost on Norwegian-Russian border except for in 1943 when the Nazis crossed it.

“Russia was the first country to acknowledge Norwegian sovereignty in 1905. Stalin pulled his generals out in 1945 when they wanted to stay in Norway, after liberating the northern part from the Nazis.

“And we see Russia behaving differently towards us than even towards Sweden or the Baltic States.

“We have, together over the years, developed cooperation about management of the fish stocks. We have common interests in the Barents Sea, and up to March 2014 there was decent cooperation on the exercise side, especially between the two navies.

“To date we see the Northern Fleet behaving professionally towards us. There are no border violations, no violations of Norwegian airspace. Their training activity is understandable given that they have modernized their armed forces.

“They have some pretty scary capabilities, and they have technological equality or parity with the West; that’s scary.

“But the intention to use it actively towards Norway, on a bilateral basis, we don’t see.

“But then again, we can’t be naïve. Modern Russia will protect her interests by every means and they will fill every power vacuum.

“Our national strategy towards Russia is to pursue both dialogue and deterrence hand in hand.”

Lt. General Jakobsen discussing the broad challenge facing extended Norwegian defense at the Norwegian Airpower Conference.

The Lt. General reinforced the point, which he made during his presentation to the conference about the central importance of having a high threshold for Norwegian defense and deterrence.

“We are creating the new national defense capabilities in order to create a threshold so that a violation of Norwegian territory will not be cost effective.

“And clearly we cannot do this alone, and hence our NATO membership and engagement with allies is crucial. And with the nuclear dimension, clearly the American relationship along with Britain and France is crucial as well.”

Commander of the Norwegian Joint Headquarters Lieutenant General Rune Jakobsen in conversation with foreign colleagues during exercise Cold Response 2016 – Photo courtesy of Torbjørn Kjosvold/Forsvaret

He then highlighted the importance of the cold weather exercises held on Norwegian soil with the US Army, the USMC and the UK forces.

“To see American forces every second year on the Cold Response exercise is important. It is important that Allied units are capable of operating under cold weather conditions.

“We have two Allied Training Centers as of today: one in Finnmark and one also down in Harstad, where especially UK and Dutch units are training every year. Special forces units from other countries are training in Finnmark.

“That is part of increasing the threshold to provide for winter training to be capable of operating in the Arctic, but training together is crucial.”

(See the briefing below, regarding allied training with Norwegian forces:

https://forsvaret.no/en/ForsvaretDocuments/Allied%20training%20in%20Norway.pdf).

We then closed by discussing the importance of allies working with similar platforms, in this case the F-35.

“When we fly the same platform, we have common solutions on maintenance, which makes the operating costs lower. That’s one good thing. But it also means we have to train together, and that gives us interoperability.

“And of course, a much more capable and integrated force from the ground up.”

 

Canada, National Defense and Article III of the NATO Treaty: Canada in Default?

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2017-02-16 By Danny Lam

Canadians have long enjoyed the security and comfort of belonging to NATO: a robust military alliance that won the cold war.   Today, Canada, a founding member of NATO, is in default of our treaty obligations under Article 3 of the NATO treaty.

Article 3 of the NATO treaty states:

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

Failure to meet our obligations under Article 3 calls into question any (or all) obligations NATO members have to Canada under Article 5.   This issue is coming to a head with the emergence of North Korea as a belligerent, unstable, and nuclear armed regime.

North Korea’s latest test of a solid fueled cold launched Pukguksong-2 ballistic missile demonstrate how far and fast the regime progressed from testing a nuclear device to fielding a credible nuclear arsenal.

While DPRK have not demonstrated conclusively their ICBM’s capability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the continental USA, this latest development adds a new twist to the problem.   Pukguksong-2 is a solid fueled missile mounted on a tracked transporter-erector-launcher (TEL), it is capable of being rapidly launched from anywhere in North Korea.   But there is more.

North Korea purchased 12 Foxtrot and Golf (Project 641 & 628) submarines from Russia as “scrap” in the 1990s.   It is plausible that parts and subsystems cannibalized from these vessels are being used to build a North Korean ballistic missile submarine.     When North Korea acquire a capability to launch ballistic missiles from a submarine, which they have been working on, it greatly complicates allied abilities to detect and counter missile launches.

Experts in the United States believe that North Korea’s ICBMs are either already capable of reaching CONUS with a nuclear warhead or will be able to reliably do so within as little as 5 years.   Within this timeframe, a submarine launched ballistic missile with sufficient range to reach CONUS is achievable.

The severity of the threat is demonstrated by Secretary Mattis publically warning North Korea of “effective and overwhelming” (Feb. 3) response to their use of nuclear weapons.

Contrast this with the Liberal regime of Canada who have not taken the North Korean nuclear ballistic missile threat seriously.   Anti-missile capability is not specified for the Canadian replacement fighter, the “One Class” surface combatants, nor is the exiting NORAD system tasked for ballistic missile defense.

Frank and candid comments about the North Korean nuclear threat by President Trump and Secretary Mattis to Canadians officials during the Trudeau-Trump visit failed to result in any noticeable change in the Liberal regime’s defense policy.   Notably, there has been no effort to update the Statement of Requirements (SOR) for major defense procurements after being clearly and publically warned by the US and allies about the North Korean threat.

Vice President Pence and Secretary Mattis reiterated at the NATO meeting in Brussels that the Trump Administration cannot be indifferent and sit idly by while allies free ride like Canada is doing on the US ballistic missile defense program.

Canada is not a participant in the US Ballistic Missile Defense Program and show no inclination to join.   Thus, Canada does not contribute to the present limited defense against NORK ballistic missiles that involved an extensive, layered system of sensors, sea and shore based interceptors from Japan to Alaska to CONUS.

While Canada do have modest anti-submarine resources on the west coast, it is nowhere near sufficient to credibly patrol the large expanse of ocean from which a North Korean submarine can launch nuclear ballistic missiles once they slip past the chokepoints guarded by allies.

The Arctic opening is a major strategic shift confronting Canada with a new set of defense and security challenges for the 21st century. Not meeting them leaves a serious gap for other NATO nations. Credit Image: Bigstock

This raises questions as to what obligations Canadian allies like South Korea, Japan, and the US have to defend Canada, either by intercepting ballistic missiles aimed at Canadian targets early on or by preventing NORK ballistic missile submarines from breaking out.

By not participating in the Ballistic Missile Defense Program in the face of a clear, indisputable, obvious threat from North Korea, Canada is in effect, presuming that allies will defend Canada.

Canadians are naïve as to how little capability there is for ballistic missile defense in South Korea (who is getting their first THAAD battery this year) and Japan.   Their capabilities must be reserved for the much more numerous threats from NORK short and medium range missiles and potentially, a Chinese nuclear first strike.     Defense of CONUS will not be a priority even if they are willing.

What about the US?   There is only a handful (fewer than 30) of land based anti-ballistic missiles in Alaska.   That doesn’t go far with a probability of kill of .5 requiring two interceptors per target if the attack used multiple missiles with decoys.

Finally, that leaves sea based ABMs launched from US Aegis destroyers or cruisers since Canada has none.   This option is possible only if the vessels are in the right place at the right time and have sufficient missiles available.   But with the potential for ballistic missile submarines prowling about, anti-submarine resources (both surface and air) will be stretched thin.

With a new set of threats facing Canada, solutions to defense loom large. And any investments need to build toward enhanced capabilities; not just check a platform box for the defence force..Credit Image: Bigstock

Canada, by not having Aegis capable vessels equipped for missile defense or having significant anti-submarine assets, is in effect counting on the US to stretch their minimal anti-missile resources to include Canada.

What obligates the US to do so when Canada is in violation of our treaty obligation to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” (Article 3)?

Canadians, and the Trudeau regime, need to recognize that Canada is in breach of our NATO treaty obligations, and as such, can expect no aid from allies under Article 5 until such a time as when Canada meets our obligations under Article 3.

Danny Lam is an independent analyst who lives in Calgary, Canada.

This article was first published by our partner Front Line Defence and is reprinted with their permission.

http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3896-Dr.%20Danny-Lam/6351-Canada%20violates%20NATO%20agreement

And if you wish to comment on this article you can do so either on Front Line Defence or on the Second Line of Defense Forum:

Canada and Article III of the NATO Treaty: The Importance of National Defense

 

 

F-35 at Red Flag: Renorming of Airpower in Process

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
02/15/2017

2017-02-11 We have focused on the impact of fifth generation aircraft for many years.

Our focus has been upon their impact on the renorming or rebasing of airpower or the transformation of combat approaches and the shaping of new concepts of operations.

https://sldinfo.com/flipbooks/Renorming%20Air%20Power/RenormingAirPower/

http://online.flipbuilder.com/lrty/wdem/

https://sldinfo.com/the-f-35-and-21st-century-defence-shaping-a-way-ahead/

For the Marines, we focused early on with regard to the impact of Osprey and then F35 as shaping what we called three-dimensional warriors.

We have also interviewed a number of players in 4th-5th generation integration and have discussed how the way ahead is shifted for both 4th and 5th generation aircraft in the reshaping of co-ops.

For us, it is has never been about the F-35 alone, but the impact of the F-35 global enterprise as a change agent in the reshaping of airpower.

https://sldinfo.com/three-dimensional-warriors-the-re-making-of-air-assault/

https://sldinfo.com/download-the-three-dimensional-warriors/

No better validation of the approach has been given than by the recent discussions at the Norwegian Airpower Conference held in Trondheim this week.  

Although the very title of the conference focused on the F-35, the conference really discussed the way ahead with the transformation of the Norwegian combat force to provide for better national defense.

The F-35 is clearly crucial to this effort, as much as a trigger for change as the bedrock for change.

Red Flags are clearly exercises where the integration of the F-35 in the transformation of airpower is a core effort.

The first Red Flag where an F-35 flew was last year as VMFA-121, the operational squadron now operating in Japan, participated.

According to a story published in July 2016 by the USMC, the arrival of the F-35B and its role in Red Flag was discussed.

Six F-35B Lightning IIs with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121 participated in Red Flag 16-3, making it the first time in history that the fifth generation fighter has taken part in the three-week long exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

Red Flag is a multiservice air-to-air combat training exercise including the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corps.

According to Lt. Col. J.T. Bardo, commanding officer of VMFA-121, this is the first exercise of this magnitude that the F-35 has participated in and serves as a valuable training opportunity for the squadron.

During the training, VMFA-121 conducted defensive and offensive counter air exercises, strategic attacks, targeting, and combat search and rescue training.

“We’re really working on showcasing our surface-to-air capabilities,” said Maj. Brendan Walsh, an F-35 pilot with VMFA-121. “The F-35 is integrating by doing various roles in air-to-air and air-to-ground training.”

The F-35 is equipped with an integrated sensor package more powerful than any fighter aircraft, also combining radar-evading stealth with speed and fighter agility.

“With the stealth capability, the biggest thing that this aircraft brings that the others do not is situational awareness,” said Walsh. “The sensor sweep capability that the F-35 brings to the fight, not only builds those pictures for me, but for the other platforms as well. We’re able to share our knowledge of the battle space with the rest of the participants in order to make everyone more effective.”

Red Flag 16-3 has roughly 3,500 service members involved for the entire exercise. The training scenarios require all the branches to come together, which is extremely common in real-life battle scenarios.

“These opportunities to operate in a joint environment with our partner services are rare,” said Bardo. “We’re excited to be here, to bring the F-35 to the exercise and capitalize on all its strengths and integrate with the other players out there.”

In the final photo, Lt. Col. J.T. Bardo, second from left, commanding officer of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121, answers questions about the F-35B Lightning II participating in exercise Red Flag 16-3 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., July 20.

According to one of the pilots involved in that exercise, this was his F-35 experience.

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.

https://sldinfo.com/the-moment-pilots-first-realized-the-f-35-was-something-extraordinary/

And Lt. Col. Bardo discussed the F-35B in Red Flag as follows:

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

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

https://sldinfo.com/the-green-knights-on-the-way-to-japan-a-discussion-with-lt-col-bardo-co-vmfa-121/

Now the F-35A has come to the first Red Flag in 2017.

Recent stories published by the USAF have highlighted several aspects of the F-35 engagement in Red Flag.

Among other items highlighted have been the very high kill to survival ration of the aircraft, the maintainability of the aircraft during the exercise, and the significant sortie generation rate, and the off-boarding of weapons strikes as the F-35 identified targets and aircraft with very good weapons loading like Typhoon were able to strike targets identified by F-35.

On Data Sharing and Off-Boarding

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. — The F-35A Lightning II can carry thousands of pounds of bombs, but its ability to gather and share information is just as deadly. 

Pilots from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings brought this fifth-generation technology to Red Flag 17-1 air combat exercise here.

The F-35 is designed to share what it sees with legacy aircraft, as well as other F-35s. A combination of stealth, electronic attack, information sharing, and other features make the platform an invaluable part of a modern air-strike package.

“Our strength with the F-35 has been finding the threats,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander. “We use our onboard system to geo-locate and get a picture of the target, day or night, through the weather. We pass that threat information to others while using our stealth capability. We can get a lot closer to the advanced threat than anyone else can get. That allows us to target them out and take out critical assets.”

During one scenario, the Airmen were given a general location by advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. The F-35s were tasked with finding a convoy carrying a “high-value target.” The F-35s advanced targeting capabilities were able to pinpoint the convoy’s location. They then communicated that to British Typhoon fighters who took out the target, said Lt. Col. Dave DeAngelis, F-35 pilot and commander of the 419th Operations Group, Detachment 1.

The F-35 uses the Link 16 secure architecture to communicate with fourth-generation aircraft in the Red Flag fight and combined with the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), which allows pilots to see the battlespace and share that data with other F-35 pilots.

“The thing that’s great about having Link 16 and MADL onboard and the sensor fusion is the amount of situational awareness the pilot has,” Watkins said. “I’m able to directly communicate with specific formations and I can see the whole war, and where all the other players are, from a God’s-eye view. That makes me a lot more effective because I know who to talk with and at what times, over the secure voice.”

While Link 16 connects fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, the F-35’s MADL system is key for their tactics and mission success. 

“MADL is an integral part of our day-to-day ops with the F-35,” Watkins said. “It’s the data link that we use to communicate just between F-35s. It’s a solid architecture and from my experience, it’s been very stable. The pilots rely on it for fighting, and at night we fly what we call sensor formations and we use MADL to keep our situational awareness from each other.” 

F-35 pilots report that the onboard fifth-generation technology is amazing and has been proven effective through the Red Flag exercise.

“The information that we get from our sensors provides a phenomenal picture of the battlespace,” said Maj. James Schmidt of the 34th Fighter Squadron. “When a 4-Ship of F-35As are sharing information, it increases the lethality of the entire force.”

“I could be pointed away from the target area and still have an accurate picture of what’s behind me,” he added. “It adds a sense of confidence that when I pitch back into the fight, I don’t need the extra time to build the picture again before bringing the fight to the enemy. We also provide what our aircraft sees to fourth-generation assets, allowing them to see things beyond what they would normally be able to.”

Flying began at Red Flag Jan. 23 and to date, Hill’s Airmen have generated 155 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30. They “turned around” and launched eight jets that afternoon. The Airmen will generate 16 to 18 sorties every day through Feb. 10.

Hill AFB will eventually be home to three operational F-35A fighter squadrons with a total of 78 aircraft by the end of 2019. The first operational F-35As arrived at Hill in October 2015 and reached initial operational capability in August 2016. The active duty 388th FW and Air Force Reserve 419th FW will fly and maintain the jet in a Total Force partnership, which capitalizes on the strength of both components.

http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1076048/interoperability-is-key-to-f-35a-combat-success

On Maintainability

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) — The debut of the F-35A Lightning II at Red Flag has afforded the pilots and maintainers of the aircraft a chance to be a part of the Air Force’s premier air-to-air combat training exercise. 

For Airmen involved with the F-35, Red Flag 17-1 provides a unique type of training that prepares them to be fully mission ready.

“It’s been great coming here and doing something that some of us haven’t necessarily done before,” said Senior Airman John Girtman, an F-35A avionics systems specialist assigned to the 388th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. “It gives us the ability to exercise our strength. Being able to work in an environment like Red Flag and seeing all of our training and hard work from back home come to fruition is extremely beneficial.”

A major part of the success so far of the F-35 aircrew can be contributed to the planning and training that went into getting prepared for Red Flag 17-1. 

“Before we came out to the exercise we sat down and came up with a game plan as to what we may encounter or any issues we might face and how we can overcome those challenges,” said Staff Sgt. Brandon Bailey, a 388th AMXS crew chief.

“Now that we are here, the challenges we face during Red Flag helps us see what kind of challenges we might be faced with in a deployed environment and how we can overcome those,” Bailey said. “The things we learn during this exercise will allow us to progress and get better.”

Red Flag exercises are fast-paced and provide aircrews the experience of multiple, intensive air combat sorties in the safety of a training environment. 

“Here at Red Flag there is a great sense of urgency,” said Airman 1st Class Anhre Bourgeois, a 388th AMXS F-35A weapons troop. “We are always on the go. If it ever came to a real world contingency I think it will be the same thing. Just constantly on the go to get the job done and the jets up in the air. Red Flag really prepares me for that.”

The F-35’s combined lethality and survivability make it the platform of choice for operations in a highly-contested threat environment. The F-35 will be the backbone of future joint and combined air operations, enabling critical interoperability.

“It’s an eye opening experience to be out here,” Bourgeois said. “It’s not every day that you get to work on an aircraft as smart as the F-35A. It’s definitely taught me a lot and I’m very humbled to be working on an aircraft like this.”

This is the first deployment to Red Flag for the F-35A and the first large movement since the Air Force declared the jet combat ready in August 2016.

Lt. Col. George Watkins, the 34th Fighter Squadron commander, said, “It is exciting to integrate the newest operational fighter squadron and the newly initial operational capability F-35A with all the other experienced warfighter including two of our partner nations. The professional aggressors are giving us great training, but enemy is no match for our integrated fourth- and fifth-generation Air Force.”

http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1065681/f-35a-maintenance-sparks-red-flag-17-1

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. — When it comes to the F-35A, much is made of the edge its fifth-generation technology gives pilots, but America’s newest fighter aircraft is also proving capable in the hands of maintainers.

Airmen from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings’ 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit deployed alongside the F-35A Lightning II to the Red Flag air combat exercise at Nellis AFB, Nevada, Jan. 20. Flying began Jan. 23.

Since the exercise kicked off, Hill’s Airmen have generated 155 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30. They “turned around” and launched eight jets that afternoon. The Airmen will generate 16 to 18 sorties every day through Feb. 10, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit.

Thus far, there have only been two non-effective sorties (when an aircraft takes off, but an issue prevents completion of the mission) — one generator failure and one landing gear problem. Even with those, the F-35A “mission-capable” rate is well above 90 percent, Ferguson said. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable. The aircraft and Airmen are performing so well that the wings have added more F-35A sorties to the schedule.

“Normally when you come to an exercise like Red Flag you have to temper expectations when scheduling sorties because the ops-tempo is so high and there’s so much activity. It’s pretty much guaranteed that you’ll run into maintenance issues,” Ferguson said. “That hasn’t been the case so far, and the issues we have had, we’ve been able to address quickly.”

Part of the success is due to the maintainer-friendly design of the jet, an improvement over fourth generation aircraft.

“The repair process is smoother with most issues we encounter than with other aircraft I’ve worked on. The jet’s systems specifically identify a break and we’re able to correct the issue and return the aircraft to service very quickly,” said Senior Master Sgt. Robert Soto, lead production superintendent for the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit, a career maintainer who has worked during several Red Flags.

On Thursday, one F-35A’s generator failed. If this were an older jet – like the F-16 – maintainers would have to break out a fault-isolation manual and go through a lengthy troubleshooting process. With the F-35A, the Autonomic Logistics Information System identified the exact part that caused the generator failure, and the Airmen could quickly perform the repair and return the aircraft to service.

“This jet is proving to be one of the most reliable combat aircraft I’ve ever seen,” said Master Sgt. Kyle Kutcher, a maintenance section chief with the 419th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron. Kutcher has maintained four different fighter aircraft and has attended seven Red Flags. “This jet makes it really easy for my maintainers because it’s designed to streamline maintenance procedures.”

Red Flag is providing maintainers an opportunity to “write the book” on F-35A combat maintenance. For the first time, Airmen are regenerating aircraft in a combat scenario. Jets land after a mission, are refueled, loaded with munitions, inspected for service, and prepped for flight – then head back to the fight.

“Since we’ve gone IOC, we’re combat capable. But day in and day out we’re working to increase our combat capability, and Red Flag is a great place to do that,” said Col. Michael Miles, 388th Maintenance Group commander. “We’re unlocking our aircraft’s full potential, flying more of them than ever, and doing it at combat pace.”

The maintainers are in a contested environment, too. During Red Flag, planners throw scenarios at the Airmen, denying them key capabilities. “You’ve lost aircraft systems, you’ve lost internet connectivity, or communications – now fix it.”

With a legacy platform, the responses to many of these potential problems are set in stone, or generate hours of troubleshooting, and have been for years, but for F-35A maintainers, they are learning and growing with each opportunity.

“At home, our young maintenance Airmen are practicing and learning every day. Here, we’re able to put that training into a realistic scenario and watch them succeed and learn how to overcome challenges,” Soto said. “This exercise is teaching us a lot and it’s great to see them come up with innovative solutions to problems we’ve never tested them with before.” Soto said.

http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1073019/f-35a-maintainers-proving-reliable-at-red-flag

On Transformation

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. — After eight days “at war” the F-35A Lightning II is proving to be an invaluable asset during Red Flag 17-01, the Air Force’s premier air combat exercise held at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

The F-35A is a fifth-generation, multi-role stealth fighter designed to gather, fuse, and distribute more information than any other fighter in history. 

Lt. Col. George Watkins, an F-35 pilot and 34th Fighter Squadron commander, said flying the F-35A in combat “feels like air dominance.”

“I’ve had four of my (F-35A) pilots come back from missions, guys who have flown the F-15 and F-16 at Red Flag for years, and tell me ‘This is amazing. I’ve never had this much situational awareness while I’m in the air. I know who’s who, I know who’s being threatened, and I know where I need to go next.’ You just don’t have all of that information at once in fourth-generation platform,” Watkins said. 

Pilots and maintainers from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings at Hill AFB, Utah, deployed the F-35A Lightning II here Jan. 20 and began flying in the exercise Jan. 23. 

Since the exercise began, Hill’s Airmen have generated 110 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30 and turned around and launched eight jets that afternoon. They have not lost a single sortie to a maintenance issue and have a 92 percent mission-capable rate, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable. 

Red Flag is designed to provide Airmen with realistic combat scenarios and increase survivability in real combat. The three-week exercise pits “Blue Air” (friendly) against “Red Air” (enemy) in an all-out air war featuring air-to-air, air-to-ground, search and rescue, and special forces elements. Planners say this is rigorous training for even proven weapons systems and a good test for the F-35A, still in the initial stages of operational capability. 

Flying alongside F-22 Raptors, as well as a variety of U.S. and coalition fourth-generation aircraft from Australia and the United Kingdom air forces, the capabilities of the F-35A are being put to the test with robust combat scenarios that focus on the jet’s core capabilities – air interdiction, suppression of enemy air defense. 

“The first day we were here, we flew defensive counter-air and we didn’t lose a single friendly aircraft,” Watkins said. “That’s unheard of.” 

Because of the aircraft’s increased capability, exercise planners have increased the complexity of the scenarios for the “Blue Air” players. 

“The number of adversaries has increased, their skill level has increased, the sophistication of the surface-to-air threat has increased,” Watkins said. 

Facing highly sophisticated surface-to-air threats is a challenge for fourth-generation aircraft. With the F-35A, pilots can gather and fuse data from a multitude of sources and use the jet’s advanced sensors to precisely pinpoint a threat. Then they can take it out with one 2,000 pound bomb. It would be impossible for a fourth-generation aircraft to survive such a mission, according to Lt. Col. Dave DeAngelis, F-35 pilot and commander of the 419th Operations Group, Detachment 1.

While the F-35As eliminate the advanced ground threats, F-22s are dominating air threats and the pair are clearing the way for fourth-generation assets to operate. 

“It is a step up and a look into the future for us,” said Royal Australian Air Force Group Captain Stuart Bellingham, Air Operations Center director at Red Flag. “It’s really exciting to work alongside the F-35A and the F-22 to understand how we best integrate that into a high end fight in the training scenarios that Red Flag provides.”

The first operational F-35As arrived at Hill AFB in October 2015. The base will eventually be home to three operational F-35 fighter squadrons with a total of 78 aircraft by the end of 2019. The active duty 388th FW and Air Force Reserve 419th FW will fly and maintain the Air Force’s newest fighter aircraft in a Total Force partnership, which capitalizes on the strength of both components.

http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1071238/f-35a-proving-its-worth-at-red-flag-combat-exercise

The first slideshow highlights the F-35Bs at Red Flag in 2016 and are credited to the USMC.

The second slideshow highlights the F-35As and their maintainers at Red Flag 2017-1 and are credited to the USAF.

The third slideshow highlights the RAAF at Red Flag 2017-1 and are credited to the RAAF.

Merlin’s in the Future of the Queen Elizabeth Carrier

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
02/14/2017

2017-02-14 The Merlin helicopters and their crowsnests will play an important role in the operation of the Queen Elizabeth carriers.

Recently, Minister for Defence Procurement Harriett Baldwin has visited Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose, home of the Royal Navy’s Merlin helicopters.

According to a story published by the UK Ministry of Defence:

The Minister visited some of the aircraft and met with personnel stationed at the base. RNAS Culdrose is the heart of the naval air fleet, where naval aviators train.

The base is an important part of the programme, which will deliver the two Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC) aircraft carriers, the largest warships ever built in the UK and from which the UK’s new F-35B Lightning II jets will fly.

After visiting the Merlin training facility, the Defence Minister saw the Dummy Flight Deck, designed to train QEC aircraft handlers among others, where she witnessed live training exercises. The skilled aircrew and engineers at the base specialise in anti-submarine warfare and Airborne Surveillance and Control.

Minister for Defence Procurement Harriett Baldwin, said:

“It was an honour to visit one of Europe’s largest helicopter bases and meet the men and women behind its success. The state-of-the art facilities are helping to test and safeguard our maritime aircraft capacity.”

The base provides 3,000 civilian and military jobs and is one of the biggest single-site employers in Cornwall, pumping £100m into the local economy every year, bringing welcome regional investment.

Many of the Merlins based at Culdrose will be fitted with the Crowsnest system, as announced recently in a £269 million deal.

The system will act as the eyes and ears for the Royal Navy’s ships, providing long range air, maritime and land detection and tracking capability.

Crowsnest is an important step in the ambitious carrier programme, which will be vital to protect the new vessels.

Minister for Defence Procurement Harriett Baldwin visiting Royal Naval Air Station (RNAS) Culdrose, home of the Royal Navy’s Maritime Merlin helicopters. Pictured left to right- Minister for Defence Procurement Harriett Baldwin, with Petty Officer (Aircraft Engineering Technician) Philp, at the Merlin Training Facility, RNAS Culdrose. Credit: UK Ministry of Defence

The Commanding Officer of RNAS Culdrose, Captain Danny Stembridge ADC said:

“It was a privilege to welcome the Defence Minister to Culdrose this week, and to discuss the vital role its people continue to play in the defence of our nation. She visits at a very important time for us; whilst we continue to deliver our primary roles of protecting the Nuclear Deterrent and supporting Counter Terrorism, we are also getting ready to defend the Royal Navy’s Carrier Task Groups.”

“HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Nation’s new flagship, will sail into Portsmouth Harbour this year and Naval Air Power will be at the forefront of this nation’s deployed capabilities. It is essential that we at RNAS Culdrose are ready to play our important role in this exciting new venture. Indeed, aircraft from 820 Naval Air Squadron, will be the very first to land on the flight deck of the new carrier.”

The Minister also visited A&P Group and World Fuels at Falmouth docks. A&P support and maintain the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s four Bay Class ships, one of which is currently stationed in The Gulf. Last year the ships conducted operations in the Caribbean and Mediterranean.

Minister for Defence Procurement Harriett Baldwin said:

“I am delighted to be in Falmouth, which has a vital ship repair capability, sustaining jobs and part of a UK-wide carrier effort.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-minister-visits-a-hub-for-queen-elizabeth-class-carrier-programme

2/3/17

UK and Italian Defense Cooperation

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2017-02-14 According to a recent story published by the UK Ministry of Defence, the UK Minister has visited Italy for discussions with his counterpart.

In meetings with his counterpart Roberta Pinotti, Sir Michael Fallon said Britain was a key ally of Italy and would not be stepping back from European defence and security commitments following the Brexit vote.

They reviewed their partnership within the NATO alliance in particular. After the UK has spearheaded NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force this year, Italy will take on the responsibility in 2018.

The UK and Italy are also working closely to tackle illegal mass migration. The Defence Secretary confirmed the UK is considering providing more training to Libya’s Coastguard as part of support to Operation Sophia, which focuses on tackling human smugglers and arms traffickers who endanger the lives of migrants seeking travel to Europe.

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said:

“In leading NATO’s high readiness force and tackling illegal migration in the Mediterranean, Britain stands together with Italy to tackle threats to our security.”

The Royal Navy has played a key role in training the Libyan Coastguard and we’re now looking at extending this training alongside Italy and other European partners.

A small team of specialist Royal Navy personnel successfully trained members of the Coastguard before Christmas in the southern Mediterranean. They were taught search and rescue techniques and how to sail alongside, board and inspect vessels.

Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon today met with his Italian counterpart Roberta Pinotti. Picture: Ministero della Difesa Italiana – Ufficio Pubblica Informazione.

The purpose of the training, led by the Italians, is to increase Libya’s ability to secure its own borders by increasing their Coastguard’s ability to disrupt people smuggling and illegal arms trafficking in and around Libya.

Elsewhere, the UK has also supported NATO counter migration efforts in the Aegean Sea, and HMS Mersey recently returned home following six months supporting this task, contributing to nearly twelve months of Royal Navy presence in the Aegean. She will now undertake maritime security operations around the UK, maintaining the integrity of home waters.

Sir Michael added:

“NATO is the cornerstone of our Defence, and the UK remains committed to European security, working with Italy and our European friends to tackle threats.”

The Defence Secretary and Defence Minister Pinotti also discussed the development of the UK – Italian Defence industrial relationship, and potential trade options in the future.

Sir Michael extended an invitation to host his Italian counterpart in the UK.

Sir Michael also recognised Italy’s contribution to peace operations around the world and domestically, including support to disaster relief operations after earthquakes and heavy snowfall.

HMS Echo continues to spearhead the UK’s role in Operation Sophia, and Royal Navy ships have rescued more than 15,000 of the 32,000 lives saved since operations in the Mediterranean began.

Echo has already rescued nearly 2,000 people and was involved in a rescue incident as recently as last week, when more than 500 migrants were saved.

Royal Navy vessels have destroyed more than 140 smuggler vessels, and in addition to Echo, several other ships have been involved: HMS Enterprise, HMS Bulwark, HMS Diamond, HMS Richmond and RFA Mounts Bay.

2/9/17

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-and-italy-stand-together-to-tackle-security-threats

Iraq, ISIS, and Shaping a Brighter Future

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
02/13/2017

2017-02-02 By Ed Timperlake and Robbin Laird

President Trump has made it clear that a key priority in national defense is the defeat of ISIS.

We have argued in an earlier piece that victory over ISIS can be conceived as follows:

“Cutting the Gordian knot of endless engagement is crucial; modernizing insertion forces that can strike at any concentrations of Daesh forces is crucial as well.

It is about dramatically stopping their influence and impact from a force which claims to be a state and reducing them to an impoverished band seeking refuge, and having nowhere to go on the globe where they are welcome.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/is-trump-information-warrior-key-to-defeating-daesh-isil/

Before President Trump’s national security team launches a full scale global assault against Daesh, we thought it important to engage with three very senior Iraqis, now American citizens, who could benchmark the situation left behind by the Obama Administration and it is challenging to say the least.

The situation is quite different when Donald Trump took office versus Obama.

Notably, the emergence of ISIS, the return of Russia to the Middle East, the reinforcement of the regime of Assad by a mixture of internal and external means, the expanded presence of Iran outside of its borders (with a nuclear agreement providing some top cover), Turkey’s President having survived a coup and de facto supporting ISIS, and the continued fragmentation of Iraq all create a very difficult situation within which to shape an effective way ahead. And the Israelis are facing a growing threat from an Iranian backed Hezbollah force.

A key change from the past President to the new one is that the new one is facing an Iranian-dominated Baghdad government as part of the equation as well and are fighting ISIS for internal religious as well as geopolitical reasons.

The head of the Iraqi Army is an Iranian.

Shaping a way ahead will clearly require a phased approach as well as shaping clarity with regard to the end game.

Endless engagement is not on for the U.S. and allied positions.

And coming to terms with the outpouring of refugees from the region has led to domestic stress in both the United States and in Europe.

There is little doubt that the German Chancellor’s decision on opening the European floodgates to refugees was a key input to the Brexit decision by the British voters.

Donald Trump has indicated that he is not satisfied with the current NATO structure.  He has indicated that he wants to ramp up and intensify the pressure on ISIS, is distrustful of Iran (the NSC Director Mike Flynn just put them on notice with their recent missile launch) and may well annul the agreement with Iran. And President Trump is unwavering in expressing strong support for Israel.

In this context, what can be done in Iraq?

In fundamental ways it could be the inflection point to future regional stability.

One of the great truths in developing insightful national security objectives is that there is one thing worse than no intelligence and that is bad intelligence.

Thankfully a Congressman who President Trump just appointed to be the Director of the CIA Mike Pompeo called out bad Iraq Intel as a significant failure in shaping effective policy.

“From the middle of 2014 to the middle of 2115, United States Central Command’s most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command’s intelligence products to downplay the threat from ISIS in Iraq.”

The quote comes from a New York Times article by Helene Cooper published on Aug 11 2016 article with the title “Military Officials Distorted ISIS Intelligence, Congressional Panel Says.”

To get some sense of what can be done in the presence of a deteriorating situation in Iraq without repeating the large U.S. and UK buildup which failed to turn Iraq into a stable power, we talked with three knowledgeable Iraqis who are now American citizens. Their lifetime courage is assumed, their judgment and insights well-earned and they most certainly put a strong “ground truth” marker down.

Joseph Kassab visiting Capital Hill.

The first was Joseph Kassab who has worked for many years on the issue of how best to protect Christians in the Arab World facing extinction at the hands of ISIS.

The second was General (Retired) Munthir Nalu. He served in the Iraqi Army until 1991 and since then has significant experience working with US forces operating in the region. He progressed through the ranks to become a four star general until his retirement.

The third was General David Barno (Retired) who was also worked extensively with US forces on counter-terrorism issues in the region.

We started first by a fact-finding discussion prior to turning to thinking through possible ways ahead.

The Iraq situation is difficult in many ways, but most notably, with regard to any outside power, which wishes to help, the key one is that the Iraqi government is more than a flawed instrument.

It is riddled with corruption, is increasingly under Iranian influence, and the Army is increasingly a Dawa Party instrument where ranks are purchased.

Generals Nalu and Barno as seen in the office of Joseph Kassab.

It is not an Iraqi national army in any real sense and certainly not a cohesive instrument to provide security for the Iraqi people writ large.

“We need the American stick to deal with the corruption problem. There was a strategic planning agreement between the US and Iraq which could be reactivated to deal with corruption. Without the support from the United States, there is no way to fix the Iraqi government as currently supported by the Iranians. American support needs to get more involved in the politics in Iraq to put it back in track.”

“Iraq can not be rebuilt with the current Iraqi government in charge. Iranian influence is simply too dominant.”

The Generals highlighted that increasingly the Iraqi Army has become a Dawa-party dominated force.

All three were also adamant that the Baghdad Government with the Iranian influence specifically encourages lying to American leaders.

This was stressed as a very significant fact in any ISIS fight in Iraq.

To be clear the Islamic Dawa Party is identified as follows by Wikipedia.

The Islamic Dawa Party, also known as the Islamic Call Party is a political party in Iraq.

Dawa and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council are two of the main parties in the religious-Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, which won a plurality of seats in both the provisional January 2005 Iraqi election and the longer-term December 2005 election.

The party is led by Nouri al-Maliki, who was Prime Minister of Iraq between 20 May 2006 and 8 September 2014.

The party backed the Iranian Revolution and also Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during the Iran–Iraq War and the group still receives financial support from Tehran despite ideological differences with the Islamic Republic.

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

In such a situation, it is clear that the former U.S. policy of backing Baghdad and training a national army is not one, which one would wish to try again.

With an Iranian backed Iraqi force fighting ISIS, there is clearly a major problem facing the U.S. and the allies in trying to both defeat ISIS and to build out a non-Iranian dominated Iraq.

“The Iranian backed forces are perceived by many Iraqis as having saved Baghdad from ISIS. The new Administration needs to show more support to the Iraqi people to counter the Iranian attempt at an Iraqi takeover.”

But realistically, what will the United States do given there is no appetite to return to Iraq and become yet again an occupation Army with the hope that Iraq will be transformed into a more democratic state?

If it is difficult to work with a cohesive partner dedicated to the territorial integrity of an Iraq, which can eradicate ISIS, what other options are possible?

We focused on the fight for MOSUL, where the forces fighting against ISIS are organized under different leaders with different approaches and interests.

ISIS graffiti is painted on walls and nurseries around the city brainwashing those living there and claiming the terror group will defeat its enemies
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4171124/Mosul-liberated-ISIS-legacy-remains.html#ixzz4XQf3KihF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

We discussed the possibility of focusing on U.S. and Allied efforts to organize the fight to retake MOSUL and to provide for provincial independence of the city and the surrounding region as well as Kurdistan as perhaps focal points to providing for areas from which to organize force to fight ISIS.

The priority needs to be placed on the fight against ISIS; the 101st Airborne earlier showed the way with regard to MOSUL, perhaps it is time to organize the indigenous forces for this particular battle.

“There are about four major forces fighting to take over MOSUL from ISIS. A key element of military operations is unity of command; this is simply not the case in the current MOSUL fight. There is a need a common commander in order to be successful.”

By shaping as common a force as possible, the strategic long-term goal of shaping a secular army to support the Iraqis could be supported as well.

If ISIS is decisively defeated in MOSUL, what might be its impact on the broader fight?

With success in liberating MOSUL, the broader Nineveh Plain will become very vulnerable to a fight between the Kurds and the arabs to control.

“Who will take control over the administration of the MOSUL, Nineveh Plain and the Kurdish areas?”

Perhaps shaping a more independent sector within the older Iraq is a key way ahead as a key building block to the defeat of Isis.

Let us be clear this is not a prelude to a return to a very large U.S. force in Iraq.

It is about security a safe city; the problem of the Baghdad government remains a difficult one. But liberating Mosul and working for its security and provincial independence a step could put forward in place.

President Trump greeting Joseph Kassab.

The Generals also suggested that they were prepared to work with the U.S. to set up a refugee support center in Iraq from which a broader effort could be scoped out and shaped as well.

This type of a indigenous refugee task force building safe area’s in Iraq can also encapsulate President Trump’s recognition that the deadly threats to Christians have been woefully overlooked until he became President.

Such a task force was put forth by all three Iraq experts, and they well earned the right to be part of such a process.

This type of a indigenous refugee task force building safe area’s in Iraq can also encapsulate President Trump’s recognition that the deadly threats to Christians have been woefully overlooked until he became President. Such a task force was put forth by all three Iraq experts, and they well earned the right to be part of such a process.

The more general point is that one needs to shape building blocks towards an effective outcome; progress will come in steps rather than jumping to a virtually impossible end state – namely an integrated Iraq governed by a responsible, non-corrupt Baghdad government.

We asked as well about perceptions of Russia and its role.

Their very strong point was that the Russian role was largely a positive one with regard to the fight against ISIS.

“We are hoping that there will be a good relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin for it will help to defeat ISIS. Russians have clearly attacked ISIS in the area. They are clearly against ISIS because of the role of the Chechens within Russia itself.”

But clearly Turkey is in play as well.

Donald Trump’s concern about NATO could come into play here as a tough love policy toward Turkey and its use of NATO to shield it from the under the table role in supporting ISIS.

“Turkey wants to shape a no fly zone on its border in part because this allows free movement of ISIS into and out of Turkey.

The Turkish government provides logistical support to ISIS. In effect, they provide a corridor for the movement of ISIS forces.”

This suggests that the use of sea bases and the use of U.S. airpower not based in Turkey.

Recently, Lt Gen Dave Deptula USAF (ret) underscored g the value of long rang USAF strike to deal with the ISIS movement in and out of Turkey which provides clearly a better option than a politically limited airpower force operating from Turkish airbases.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/long-range-strike-more-potent-more-survivable-cheaper/

If there was ever a good argument for the sea base and long rang strike mitigating USAF airpower being held hostage by Turkey , it is the fight against ISIS in Iraq and the evolving possibly of avoiding the need for bases and contiguous transit routes notably in and out of Turkey.

President Trump has raised questions about the future of NATO – clearly the current Turkish government’s support to ISIS is a key element challenging the validity of the current role of Turkey within the Alliance.

With the background of heightened tensions between Israel and the Iran/ Hezbollah forces, the projection of Iranian power in Syria and Iraq could face a double challenge – one from Israel and the other from Iraq with the use of sea bases as well as the establishment of a small number of sanctuaries from which pressure on Iranian-backed force could be generated as well.

We concluded by discussing the situation facing Christians in the area.

As Joseph Kassab underscored: “The Christians are clearly religious refugees who should get priority in any Administration consideration with regard to immigrant status. It is not a question of internecine war of Muslims versus Muslims; in the case of Christians it is about radical Islam following a policy of genocide. And President Trump has clearly indicated his support for the plight of Christians in the ISIS-generated genocide.”

Kassab then concluded by underscoring the concept of a phased approach makes a great deal of sense. He then identified the priorities in the following order: defeating ISIS; reducing significantly Iranian presence and influence in Iraq; reducing significantly the influence of Turkey in Iraq; align the Iraqi government and the Kurdistan Regional Government in the rebuilding of Iraq with Western efforts as well.

In short, the Trump Administration and the allies face a difficult road ahead.

But by reconfiguring the coalition to fight ISIS there are clearly new possibilities to ramp up the fight.

Biography of Joseph Kassab

He was born in Telkaif- Nineveh, Northern Iraq in 1952 to a Chaldean Catholic family. In 1975 earned his undergraduate degree with excellence from College of Science-University of Baghdad.

This qualified him for graduate studies program at College of Medicine-University of Baghdad to again become the first on his class and earn in 1979 Master of Science degree in Medical Microbiology and Immunology under the auspices of the Royal College of Medicine-UK .

Map on the wall of the office of Joseph Kassab showing Christian churches and settlements in Iraq.

He was then hired as assistant professor at the same college, but the regime in Iraq demanded that he joins the ruling party, when he refused he was threatened and his position was downgraded.

When the threats continued and the intimidations intensified he decided to flee Iraq and join in Rome, Italy his two brothers, a pharmacist and an engineer who earlier faced similar challenges to seek asylum. Later on in 1980 they were resettled in the U.S as refugees.

In the U.S, Joseph continued his education by acquiring Graduate Certificate (GC) in Community Education Leadership from Wayne State University, under the auspices of the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) in Washington D.C.

He also pursued an intensive curriculum in political science at Wayne State University.

While doing all of this he worked for 25 years as Bio-medical researcher and instructor at Wayne State University’s School of Medicine.

He is currently the Chief Science Officer of Nano-Engineering and Consulting Co.

From 2005-2012, he served as the Executive Director of the Chaldean Federation of America (CFA) (www.chaldeanfederation.org) where he has dealt with a number of issues affecting Iraqi Christians in Iraq. He started his advocacy, consultancy, and humanitarian work on the plight of the Christians of Iraq and the Middle East since his arrival in the United States in 1980.

Biography of General Nalu

General Nalu has 32 year’s experience managing people and resources in a military setting. He is a retired Chief ranking officer in the Iraqi Army. He has been a military advisor and interpreter with the US Army for nearly nine years. He was Deputy Program Manager for the Military Advisor Support Team (MAST). In this role, he was involved in the rebuilding of the Iraqi Army and the training of Iraqi Army Staff officers embed in the Military transition Teams working with Iraqi Army Division and Operation Commands HQ to develop the combat capabilities of the Iraqi Army.

Biography of General Barno

General Barno has worked extensively with the US Army in the rebuilding of the Iraqi Army. He has worked with the 486th Civil Affairs battalion, the 506th Regimental Combat Team, the 1st Brigade Combat Team and with the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

Col Robert “Juice” Newton USAF (ret), a fighter and test pilot, with significant  combat service in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was an important and insightful member of the conference call. He highlighted the possibility of leveraging the Mosul initiative to shape a building block towards shaping in effect a secular armed forces which could then gain trust of the Iraqi people.  That could be set as a long term goal, with the saving of Mosul and the expansion of stability into the Ninevah plain as a beginning step to that journey.

(For an article by Newton which we published in 2011 on the ballistic missile threat which unfortunately Iranian actions just recently highlighted the relevance of to evolving U.S. and allied policy, see the following:  http://www.sldforum.com/2011/09/building-stability-in-an-unstable-world/).

As the Trump Administration works through changes in U.S. immigration policy, one priority identified by the President is reversing the last Administration’s approach to Christian refugees.

As the President noted with regard to Christians in the region:

“They’ve been horribly treated. Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough to get into the United States?
“If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians.
And I thought it was very, very unfair.”

For earlier articles of interest, please see the following:

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/an-update-on-the-evolving-situation-in-iraq-an-interview-with-joseph-kassab-2/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/conducting-an-information-war-against-islamic-extremists

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/christians-in-the-middle-east-washington-conference-looks-at-minority-under-seige

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/isis-and-information-war-shaping-the-battlespace

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-iraq-dynamic-working-with-kurds-to-save-iraqi-christians/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/a-way-ahead-in-iraq-calibrating-a-response/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/president-obama-and-his-historic-opportunity-in-iraq

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/in-iraq-back-to-the-tribes/

Editor’s Note: The Turkish challenge underscores the importance of NOT operating aircraft from Turkish bases, highlights in turn the importance of longer range strike as well as sea bases.  We do not see these as mutually exclusive but reinforcing capabilities.

That was the approach we highlighted in our book on Pacific strategy.

For example: “Precision strike coming by air, ground, and sea forces would be the means to strike as many aim points as possible to create escalation dominance and to win the “air-sea battle.”

If this is the approach, then more traditional approaches will be prioritized and funded, such as the Carrier Battle Group, air expeditionary strike groups, and new systems like long-range bombers that can load up on capabilities to deliver large strike packages.

But what if the air-sea battle really is about shaping a presence force with significant reachback to support a different kind of force structure and set of objectives?

Then precision strike deployed on as many platforms as possible— old and new— is not the means to the end. Rather, a different set of ends could well drive the new approach.

The key focus becomes presence forces able to operate across the spectrum of security and military operations. These forces need to be effective, agile, and scalable, with both significant interoperability within the region and reachback to surge forces operating on the fringes of the Pacific.”

Laird, Robbin; Timperlake, Edward; Weitz, Richard (2013-10-28). Rebuilding American Military Power in the Pacific: A 21st-Century Strategy: A 21st-Century Strategy (Praeger Security International) (p. 126). ABC-CLIO. Kindle Edition.

 

 

 

The Transformation of Norwegian Defense: Germany, Norway and Submarine Acquisition

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
02/12/2017

2017-02-12 By Robbin Laird

Last week, I attended an airpower conference sponsored by the Norwegian Air Force and held in Trondheim, Norway.

The title of the conference was about the shaping of a fifth generation air force, but in reality the conference focused on multi-domain integration and defense transformation in the extended defense of Norway.

https://sldinfo.com/new-head-of-the-norwegian-air-force-in-a-period-of-significant-airpower-transition/

In effect, a new phase of NATO development is underway whereby anchor states in key geographical regions take Article III of the NATO treaty seriously and focus on national defense in an allied context.

If you don’t the ability of any other state to help you is limited.

For Norway, this means raising the bar on the defense of Norway by acquiring new platforms, fully integrating those platforms into a national C2 system, but doing so in a plug and play context whereby key allies can more easily interoperate with Norwegian defense and thereby providing simultaneously extended Norwegian defense and enhanced Northern tier defense for NATO.

The week before the conference, the Norwegian defense minister announced the decision to acquire four submarines from Germany as part of the transformation process.

The Minister is a very engaging person, who is a ball of energy and one suspects a pretty tough customer.

I would not let that elfin smile fool you!

The purchase of the German submarines is more than that.

What Norway is looking for is to be interoperable with allies who are operationally prepared to provide for defense of the Northern region.

This means that the manufacturers who sell new equipment to Norway need to understand that they are committed to effective sustainment of the force in Norway under a wide spectrum of conditions.

It is not just about selling a platform.

And for Germany, the Minister of Defense and the Chancellor need to understand that they are committing themselves de facto to active defense of the Northern region, including Baltic defense.

It is not simply about selling equipment; it is about active engagement and enhanced interoperability.

According to the Norwegian MoD, the decision involves a broad and long-term Navy-to-Navy cooperation encompassing submarines and other naval capabilities.

The cooperation will include training, exercises, spare parts, maintenance and lifetime management of the new submarines. The identical design of the six boats also would enable the swap of crews.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/norway-joins-forces-with-germany-to-procure-new-submarines

It is not just a market opportunity to save the German submarine maker from the end of the line which how it has generally been reported.

Illustration of German submarine published by Norwegian Ministry of Defence.

According to a press release published on February 3, 2017, the acquisition was announced by the Norwegian MoD.

After a comprehensive evaluation process, the Norwegian Government decided on Germany as strategic partner for new submarines.

The partnership is based on a German-Norwegian common purchase and lifetime management of identical, new submarines.

The decision involves a broad and long-term Navy-to-Navy cooperation encompassing submarines and other naval capabilities.

The cooperation will include a purchase of identical submarines and cooperation on training, exercises, spare parts, maintenance and lifetime management of the new submarines.

The submarines will be based on the 212-design already in service in Germany and Italy. The cooperation also includes cooperation between Norwegian and German industry.

Submarines are amongst the Norwegian Armed Forces’ most important capabilities and is of great significance for our ability to protect Norway’s maritime interests. It is important that we have found a strategic partner that we can build a broad and long lasting cooperation with.

This lays a good foundation for the long-term relations we need to maintain a credible submarine capability in the future.

Submarine cooperation with Germany will ensure that Norway gets the submarines we require, and at the same time contributing to Smart defence and more efficient defence material cooperation in NATO, says the Minister of Defence Ine Eriksen Søreide.

The Norwegian Ministry of Defence has practised equal treatment of the suppliers and their nations.

The same amount of time and effort has been spent towards France and Germany, and the activities towards both have been balanced. It has been clearly communicated on all levels that it is the totality of the offers that will be the determining factor.  

Both France and Germany offer excellent submarines that meet Norwegian needs, and both nations have been given good opportunities to come up with a total offer on new submarines and cooperation.

Norway will now enter into final negotiations with German authorities. When a government-to-government agreement is in place, a German-Norwegian negotiation towards the German submarine supplier thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (tkMS) will commence. tkMS is the largest producer of conventional submarines in Western Europe. The shipyard has long experience with building advanced submarines and a large production capability.

The plan is to sign a common contract for new submarines in 2019. This will enable delivery of new submarines from the mid-2020s to 2030. 

This timeline ensures a continuous Norwegian submarine capability as the Ula-class submarines reaches end of life and starts decommissioning.

– The submarines Norway and Germany will procure ensures a submarine service for the future. Norway has an evolutionary approach to new submarines, and will base the procurement on an existing submarine design.

This way we avoid an extensive development project with the risks and costs this would involve. In addition, together with Germany, we will get a larger scale in the production, says the Minister of Defence.

Norwegian Minister of Defense, Ine Eriksen Søreide. Credit: Second Line of Defense

Independent of this decision, the work to establish further cooperation with other nations continue in order to achieve even greater synergies and economies of scale. Norway has for several years worked closely towards the Netherlands and Poland to create a broad submarine cooperation. This work will continue.

Norwegian industry is world leading on some of the technology used in submarines, and the Norwegian Government will use the procurement as an opportunity for the Norwegian Defence industry.

The procurement of new submarines will be used actively towards international partners to further develop a competent and competitive Norwegian Defence industry.

The scope of the industrial cooperation with Germany is in line with the ambition of the Norwegian Parliament.

It will provide good opportunities for the Norwegian defence and security industry in the prioritised technological areas as stated in the white paper Meld. St. 9 (2015-2016) Nasjonal forsvarsindustriell strategi.

Facts:

Submarines are a strategic capability that contribute to the Norwegian Armed Forces deterrent effect, and NATO’s collective defence. The white paper on the future of the Norwegian Armed Forces, St. prp. 151 S (2015-2016), underlines the importance of submarines and their place in the future development of the Norwegian navy.

The Ministry of Defence has been working on different solutions for the future of the submarine service since 2007. Establishing a broad and long lasting international submarine cooperation with partners has been one of the goals in this work. 

The plans for the procurement of the new submarines are ready and the Government is planning to present the investment project on new submarines to Parliament in the spring of 2017.

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/germany-chosen-as-strategic-partner-for-new-submarines-to-norway/id2537621/

For other stories on the Norwegian decision, see the following:

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2017/02/norway-teams-germany-new-submarines

http://navaltoday.com/2017/02/03/german-tkms-will-build-norways-submarines/

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-norway-picks-germany-over-france-in-race-to-supply-submarines-2017-2?IR=T

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/norway-partners-with-germany-on-new-submarines

http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/norway-submarine-contract-to-germany/