Robbin Laird, Author at Second Line of Defense

Unmanned Warrior 2016: Shaping a Way Ahead in the Man-Machine Maritime Security and Combat Environment

Posted on October 14, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

10/14/2016

2016-10-12 Currently,the Unmanned Warrior exercise is being hosted by the Royal Navy and conducted in Wales and Scotland with coalition partners.

The exercise is focused upon robotic vehicles and their potential contributions in the battlespace.

According to the Royal Navy, Unmanned Warrior is a multinational event involving 40 research and development companies as well as the US Navy and the NATO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE). Part of the second stage of the Joint Warrior naval exercises, it includes Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV), and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV).

Commander Peter Pipkin, Royal Navt,Fleet Robotics Officer. Credit: Royal Navy

These vehicles and their sensors and software will be subjected to a number of challenges based on themes from a 2015 workshop. These will consist of Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW); Information, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR); Command and Control; Hydrographic and Geointelligence; and Mine Countermeasures (MCM).

“We have deliberately adopted a different approach to capability demonstration, in that the MOD is inviting participants to offer their thoughts on what future capability might look like and where technology can be exploited without any preconceptions,” says Fleet Robotics Officer Commander Pipkin.

The Royal Navy identifies the goal of the current exercise as follows: “to explore the feasibility of increasing the use of unmanned and autonomous systems in delivering maritime capability.”

Various systems are being tested and evaluated with regard to their potential contributions.

In part, the services are sorting out templates to provide to industry to help the UK and allied forces obtain equipment which can actually contribute to enhanced maritime security.

As Commander Peter Pipkin, Fleet Robotics Officer, put it: “What we are seeking to achieve is an event that re-shapes the market to provide new opportunities for everbody and capability transformation for the Navy.”

One news item focused on activity being conducted with regard to counter mine activity.

The Qinetiq base here is BUTEC, the British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre, set in a more intimate corner of the Scottish seascape than the wide open vistas of Benbecula.

Here there is a small complex of jetties and adjacent boat sheds with a supporting operations room and administration hub for the almost continuous series of underwater trials conducted here on behalf of the MoD.

For Unmanned Warrior this is the locale for two, arguably three – if you include Command and Control, of the five themes of investigation that the teams are demonstrating: Mine Hunting and Hydrographic surveys.

A lot of this is due to the commonality of the systems used, such as the Remus 100 and Remus 600 which scour the sea bed with their refined sonar beams and reproduce what is down there.

If you are looking for mines then the mines will show up on the scan, if you are trying to draw a chart then the sonar will give you the outline of contours and underwater obstacles ready to be digitised for the navigator.

There was a flurry of activity on the dockside as the teams in bright red immersion suits and high visibility life-jackets fussed around their support craft and rigid inflatable boats, fetching and carrying long torpedo shaped objects from the preparation rooms down onto the pontoons to ready their underwater robots for action.

And a mixture of accents told of US and Canadian teams bringing their systems into play too.

The majority of these are truly autonomous in that they are pre-programmed with a subsurface mission, launched and then left to get on with it.

They will track up and down recording seabed features and return to the surface when finished, operating perhaps for up to 8 hours at a stretch if needed An additional layer of autonomy is added if the the pick up craft is also unmanned, as some of them are.

Buzzing overhead was the Blue Bear BLACKSTART fixed wing UAV acting as a communications link to mission control in the Command and Control cabin, the sea areas being inspected being some way away.

This was in one of the three MAPLE integration centres, actually an ISO container full of computers, screens and anxious people, where the robots are told what to do.

Later came a cheer. A record!

The BAe Systems and SeeByte mission commanders had brought nine autonomous systems on line, responding to each other, flying, swimming and diving together, but hard at different tasks, looking for different things.

A choreographed ballet under the baton of the maestro.

The US Navy’s Office Science and Technology is participating fully in the exercise.

According to ONR, new knowledge will be generated in five key mission areas:

ONR at Unmanned Warrior

One example of a vehicle being put through its paces is the Maritime Counter Measures C2 platform.

“The MCM C2 combines air, surface and sub-surface unmanned assets for the first time to speed the operational pace and reduce the detect-to-engage timeline in naval mine warfare. It also enables military personnel to operate further away from high risk areas.

The system comprises an Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) deploying and operating a tethered rotary wing Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) that carries a radio and other sensors.

HOW IT WORKS:

The USV is deployed with the Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) from the Command Ship outside the mine threat area. When UUVs surface at intervals during the mission the UAV is able to communicate with the UUV to exchange data packets via the Radio link. These data packets are relayed back to the command ship to enable processing of the data before the UUV mission is complete.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT:

Current operations are restricted by the time taken to collect and then process data captured by the UUV. This delays follow-on missions to relocate and take action on any mine like contacts identified. Further, a manned vessel currently has to enter the threat area and remain in the vicinity to launch and recoverthe UUVs and communicate with them.”

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/~/media/Files/Fact-Sheets/UW16/UW16-US-Tech-MCM-C2.ashx

Another system being tested is the Airborne Computer Vision or ACV computer onboard an RPA.

“The ACV computer provides autonomous, persistent, and rapid analysis of maritime and land-based imagery. ACV computers can be hosted as payloads on multiple manned and UxS platforms, and with multiple models and types of imaging cameras. An open-architecture framework allows for the rapid integration of new sensors to the ACV computer, which in turn disseminates the critical information to fleet commanders.

In addition to vessels, the ACV computer can detect, classify, identify, and geo-locate buildings, bridges, vehicles, and people. A fully digital process eliminates common human errors and provides opportunities for fleet commanders to increase the speed of warfare.

The ACV technologies are being tested to support multiple missions of interest to the United States. These missions span from Combat Support Agency maritime chart production to squad-level littoral Reconnaissance Surveillance Target Acquisition (RS TA) operations. Multiple US partners have funded the development of the ACV technologies which are managed under the Office of Naval Research.

The Airborne Computer Vision (ACV) computer can be hosted onboard multiple Unmanned Systems (UxSs). Credit: ONR

WHAT IT IS:

The Airborne Computer Vision (ACV) computer can be hosted onboard multiple Unmanned Systems (UxSs). The ACV computer is capable of “mimicking” aspects of human-level analysis of imagery collected by UxSs. The ACV computer will autonomously detect, classify, identify and geo- locate maritime vessels at sea and in port. The Fleet is notified of any vessels of interest.

HOW IT WORKS:

Hosted on UxSs, the ACV computer autonomously searches images for vessels and classifies them by their size, 3-D shape, and colors. Next, pattern matching is used to compare detected vessels against a library for positive identification. In parallel, measurements are collected to accurately determine the position of the vessel. If a vessel meets pre-defined criteria, the Fleet is provided with an alert.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT:

ACV provides commanders at sea a means to autonomously identify vessels of interest , improving their decision capability. The ACV computer reduces the time to process/act on critical information.”

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/~/media/Files/Fact-Sheets/UW16/UW16-US-Tech-Airborne-Computer-Vision.ashx

Other fact sheets from the US Navy with regard to the exercise can be found here:

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/unmanned-warrior.aspx

Commissioning of the USS Zumwalt

Posted on October 14, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

2016-10-14 After months of anticipation, the US’s largest and most technologically sophisticated destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, is finally set to be officially commissioned into the US Navy.

395be57900000578-0-image-m-20_1476381369273

As the stealthy Zumwalt was headed to its commissioning ceremony in Baltimore with a crew of 147 officers and sailors, who were praised by their skipper, Captain James Kirk, for their preparation over the past three years to get the first-in-class warship ready for duty.

He admitted his name has caused much hilarity – saying ‘certainly I have been ribbed every now and then with someone saying, ‘You’re going where no man has gone before, on this class of ship.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3836918/Captain-Kirk-command-USS-Zumwalt-hi-tech-destroyer-arrives-Baltimore-commissioning-ceremony-Saturday.html

Commissioning of the USS Zumwalt from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MD, UNITED STATES

10/14/2016

Video by Daniel Zaborowski

According to a story by Kris Osborne, the Zumwalt deploys several new technologies.

Not only does the ship have a new electric drive system for propulsion as opposed to diesel or steam –but the ship is configured with sonar, sensors, electronics, computing technology and weapons systems which have not previously been engineered into a Navy destroyer or comparable ship, said Raytheon officials said.

The Zumwalt-class destroyers will have unprecedented mine-detecting sonar technologies for destroyer through utilization of what’s called an integrated undersea warfare system, or IUW; IUW is a dual-band sonar technology which uses both medium and high-frequency detection, Raytheon developers explained.

Medium sonar frequency is engineered to detect ships and submarines, whereas high-frequency sonar adds the ability to avoid sea-mines, they added.

It makes sense that the DDG 1000 would be engineered detect mines because the destroyer is, in part, being developed for land-attack missions, an activity likely to bring the vessel closer to shore than previous destroyers might be prepared to sail. The ship is engineered with a more shallow-draft to better enable it to operate in shallower waters than most deep-water ships.

The DDG 1000 is built with what’s called a total ship computing environment, meaning software and blade servers manage not just the weapons systems on the ship but also handle the radar and fire control software and various logistical items such as water, fuel, oil and power for the ship, Raytheon officials said.

The blade servers run seven million lines of code, officials explained.

The ship is engineered to fire Tomahawk missiles as well as torpedoes, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and a range of standard missiles such as the SM2, SM3 and SM6.

The ship also has a 155mm long range, precision-capable gun called the Advanced Gun System made by BAE Systems. The weapon can, among other things, fire a munition called the Long-Range Land Attack Projectile which can strike target at ranges out to 64 nautical miles.

Additionally, as a survivability enhancing measure, the total ship computing environment also ensures additional layers or redundancy to ensure that messages and information can be delivered across the ship in the event of attack, Raytheon officials said.

Many of the blade servers and other technical items are housed in structures called electronic modular enclosures, or EMEs. There are 16 EME’s built on each ship, each with more than 235 electronics cabinets. The structures are designed to safeguard much of the core electronics for the ship.

The ship’s integrated power system, which includes its electric propulsion, helps generate up to 58 megawatts of on-board electrical power, something seen as key to the future when it comes to ship technologies and the application of anticipated future weapons systems such as laser weapons and rail guns.

The ship is also built with a new kind of vertical launch tubes which are engineered into the hull near the perimeter of the ship. Called Peripheral Vertical Launch System, the tubes are integrated with the hull around the ship’s periphery in order to ensure that weapons can keep firing in the event of damage. Instead of having all of the launch tubes in succession or near one another, the DDG 1000 has spread them out in order to mitigate risk in the event attack, developers said.

In total, there are 80 launch tubes built into the hull of the DDG 1000; the Peripheral Vertical Launch System involves a collaborative effort between Raytheon and BAE Systems.

The DDG 1000 also has an AN/SPY-3 X-band multi-function radar which is described as volume-search capable, meaning it can detect threats at higher volumes than other comparable radar systems, Raytheon officials added. The volume search capability, which can be added through software upgrades, enables the radar to detect a wider range of missile flight profiles, he added. As the first Zumwalt-class destroyer gets ready for delivery to the Navy, construction of the second is already underway. The DDG 1001 is already more than 75-percent complete and fabrication of DDG 1002 is already underway, Navy officials said.

For the complete story please go to the following:

https://defensesystems.com/articles/2016/10/14/zumwalt.aspx?admgarea=DS

zumwalt

In future articles, we will address the question of how the Zumwalt provides new capabilities for the evolving kill web approach of the USMC-USN team.

For an earlier article published on Second Line of Defense with regard to the Zumwalt, see the following:

Pacific Strategy XI: The Role of the Surface Fleet

The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems Look at the Way Ahead: Rear Admiral Manazir on Shaping Kill Webs

Posted on October 13, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

10/13/2016

2016-10-05 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

We have interviewed Rear Admiral Manazir before when he was Director, Air Warfare, but this is our first interview with him after he has become Director, Warfare Systems (N9).

Manazir currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems (OPNAV N9) on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations.

In this capacity, he is responsible for the integration of manpower, training, sustainment, modernization and procurement of the Navy’s warfare systems.

Rear Admiral Manazir at the closing session of the Williams Seminar on air-sea integration. August 10, 2016

Rear Admiral Manazir recently returned from Australia where he was the lead speaker in the Williams Foundation Seminar on new approaches to air-sea integration.

It is clear that the US Navy’s focus on shaping a distributed lethality fleet is shared by core allies.

Rear Admiral Manazir highlighted the kill web approach as a way to shape more effective integration of forces and convergence of efforts.

The kill chain is a linear concept which is about connecting assets to deliver fire power; the kill web is about distributed operations and the ability of force packages or task forces to deliver force dominance in an area of interest.

It is about building integration from the ground up so that forces can work seamlessly together through multiple networks, rather than relying on a single point of failure large network.

https://sldinfo.com/rear-admiral-manazir-in-australia-allied-convergence-on-the-kill-web/

In this interview, the OPNAV N9 discussed how he sees the way ahead, including the inclusion of directed energy weapons within the fleet.

Question: The new Chief of Staff of the USAF, General Goldfein, seems to be focused on issues in ways that the CNO is as well.

For example, General Goldfein focused on the moral imperative of training for the high end fight.

He has highlighted the importance of innovation in C2, including distributed C2.

How do you view the USAF and USN overlap?

Rear Admiral Manazir: The question that drives my response to the challenge is how do we achieve distributed effects across all domains in the battlespace?

We are working closely with General Goldfein through various Service interaction groups; most effectively at the highly classified level.

We talk about issues that are common to our Services on a regular basis.

The core commonality between the two is that both are expeditionary services.

When we get into the battle area, Air Force assets can strike, reset, and strike again.

Naval forces operating in the maritime domain provide persistence.

If you combine Air Force and Naval combat capabilities you have a winning combination.

If you architect the joint force together, you achieve a great effect.

It is clear that C2 (command and control) is changing and along with it the CAOC (Combined Air and Space Operations Center).

The hierarchical CAOC is an artifact of nearly 16 years of ground war where we had complete air superiority; however, as we build the kill web, we need to be able to make decisions much more rapidly.

As such, C2 is ubiquitous across the kill web.

Where is information being processed?

Where is knowledge being gained?

Where is the human in the loop?

Where can core C2 decisions best be made and what will they look like in the fluid battlespace?

The key task is to create decision superiority.

But what is the best way to achieve that in the fluid battlespace we will continue to operate in?

What equipment and what systems allow me to ensure decision superiority?

We are creating a force for distributed fleet operations.

When we say distributed, we mean a fleet that is widely separated geographically capable of extended reach.

Importantly, if we have a network that shares vast amounts of information and creates decision superiority in various places, but then gets severed, we still need to be able to fight independently without those networks.

This requires significant and persistent training with new technologies but also informs us about the types of technologies we need to develop and acquire in the future.

Additionally, we need to have mission orders in place so that our fleet can operate effectively even when networks are disrupted during combat; able to operate in a modular-force approach with decisions being made at the right level of operations for combat success.

Question: When you were in Australia, you highlighted that the Australians and British, who were participating with you in the Williams Foundation Conference, were on the same page with regard to the way ahead.

How important is that for the US Navy and Marine Corps team?

Rear Admiral Manazir: Crucial.

In effect, when we can operate together in this new environment and work from the same page, we can support core allies or allies can support us in the battlespace.

We can function as each other’s wingman.

We are moving from a platform-centric mindset to a capability-centric mindset.

160113-N-AT895-242 PATUXENT RIVER Md. (Jan. 13, 2016) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. John Richardson sits in the cockpit of an F-35C Lightning II carrier variant joint strike fighter at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. Richardson also held an all-hands call, toured facilities and viewed aircraft and systems including the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Nathan Laird/Released)

For instance, when we talk about the F-35 we are focused not simply on the platform but how that F-35 empowers and fits into the distributed networks or kill webs.

It is the outcome and effect we are focused on.

If we’re going to fight next to each other, the force (as an evolving distributed capability) has to understand how to employ their weapons systems, including how to best leverage the F-35, rather than just relying on the pilot that is flying the F-35 understanding what it can do.

Question: There clearly is a challenge between the force and technology moving into a distributed direction and historical legacies of slow moving hierarchical decision making.

How would you describe this challenge?

Rear Admiral Manazir: The rules of engagement (ROE) need to keep up with the technology.

An F-35 is going to have electronic means that can affect somebody a long way away.

We didn’t have those electronic means before, and so the ROE should be able to allow us to employ weapons based on the technology that we have.

To keep up with technology is a key point, but it goes all the way back to when the bad guys are successful snipping parts of the network, you need to have mission orders that are effective and I am confident we are training with that in mind.

Question: Recently, you made a speech on directed energy and discussed the way ahead for the US Navy in this very promising area.

What is your perspective?

Rear Admiral Manazir: Any vehicle which can be a source of space, weight, power and cooling, with enough capability to generate and hold the power needed to employ directed energy weapons can be a useful platform for directed energy in the future fight.

More generally, directed energy weapons are part of our overall transformation in the weapons enterprise. Directed energy weapons are fifth generation weapons. Directed energy weapons, coupled with other new types of weapons, are critical to empowering a distributed force.

We need directed energy weapons as adjuncts to our current kinetic weapon systems in order to turn the cost curve our way. For example, we shoot down cruise missiles that cost a couple hundred thousand dollars with $3 million defensive missiles.

Our weapons are very effective, but we shoot a $3 million round every time we use them.

We are working to build synergy among electronic attack, directed energy and kinetic weapons to shape an interactive and integrated capability for the distributed force.

We are moving towards funding a directed energy plan which would enable us to move towards implementing interim directed energy laser capability between now and 2020.

The Afloat Forward Staging Base (Interim) USS Ponce (ASB(I) 15) conducts an operational demonstration of the Office of Naval Research (ONR)-sponsored Laser Weapon System (LaWS) while deployed to the Arabian Gulf. (U.S. Navy photo by John F. Williams/Released)

There’s a 30-kilowatt laser on USS PONCE right now.

It’s in the Arabian Gulf and it works.

It works very well.

As you know, lasers can be used for communications. They can be used for ISR.

They can obviously be used for non-kinetic effects.

In order to have the higher-end kinetic effect, you have to have the space for the weight of the laser itself, the power for it, and then the cooling-wherever the source.

Obviously, with a ship in the water, you have an unlimited source of cooling water.

Then, in order to have a very, very deep magazine for a laser shot, you either have to have a constant source of fairly high electrical power, or you have to have a very large battery.

We are not waiting until we have what many see as the ultimate goal, a one megawatt laser weapon; we would like to build capability incrementally.

Over time we will be able to field higher and higher power laser weapons.

It is about putting it into the fleet and evolving the capability; it is not about waiting until we have the optimal weapon.

We need not just the weapon, but the training and the tactics shaped by the fleet to provide inputs to how best to integrate the capability into the force.

Question: If we return to the non-platform centric point, this applies to directed energy weapons as well. As you add the tool you adjust the entire fleet to evolving operational capabilities.

How do you view directed energy weapons in this sense?

Rear Admiral Manazir: Directed energy weapons are only a part of this new way of thinking.

The key is continually evolving combinations of capabilities that enhance the defensive and offensive power of the platforms that you put into the kill web.

We are very focused on the evolving man-machine relationship, and the ability of manned and unmanned systems, as well as kinetic and non-kinetic systems, to deliver a broader spectrum of capability to the force.

We are aiming to use the machine for the OO (Observe-Orient) part of the OODA (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) Loop and optimize our human capabilities to do the DA (decide-act).

Fighter pilots have always been “thinking aviators” but we are adjusting what we expect from them as they become key nodes and crucial enablers in the kill web.

Becoming a Top Gun pilot in this world will be quite different than in the legacy one.

Question: We have written about software upgradeability as a key element for shaping the way ahead for 21^st century air systems, such as in the Wedgetail, the P-8, Triton and the F-35.

How do you view the importance of such an approach?

Rear Admiral Manazir: Common software upgradeability is an essential element, especially to be able to alter the web or portions of the web at the speed of technology to be able to outmatch our adversaries in an evolving threat environment.

We are working to shape such a cross-cutting capability throughout the fleet so that we can have interactive modernization, even machine learning and cognitive processes which can be done rapidly and cost effectively.

This can only be done through a software-defined process.

We need to have open systems architecture; truly open systems, where there is middleware that enables the creation of multiple apps to provide innovative responses to evolving threats.

The MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system approaches the runway at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., after completing its inaugural cross-country flight from California. The Navy will conduct Triton flight tests at Patuxent River in preparation for an operational deployment in 2017. (U.S. Navy photo by Kelly Schindler/Released) — The MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system approaches the runway at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., after completing its inaugural cross-country flight from California. (U.S. Navy photo by Kelly Schindler/Released)

We are learning as we go: Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) is a system of systems approach, which is a huge engineering challenge. Here you have to connect different proprietary systems retroactively.

They were all created under different sets of standards, based on separately developed requirements, with data rights in each commercial company, and so you have to engineer the network that connects these nodes; in this case the NIFC-CA web.

Our goal as we build warfighting systems, is to partner with OPNAV N2N6 (Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare) to build a systems of services approach, which is an app-based approach.

Vice Admiral Jan Tighe and her team are focused on shaping an open architecture standard into our systems; the government defines the standard, and owns the standard, and hands the standard to the firms who then create the systems.

It is crucial to create systems which are built to be “integrateable” from the ground up; and to allow for applications which can be developed for one platform which can then be migrated to another one, as appropriate.

We are moving in that direction.

Russia Pluses Up Infrastructure in Syria

Posted on October 10, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

10/10/2016

2016-10-10 Russia has used its naval supply fleet to provide support to its Syrian intervention forces, notably for the Russian Air Force.

The operation has demonstrated the important synergy between air power and naval support systems for their exercise of airp0wer.

As a result, the Russians have decided to upgrade their port facilities in Syria to support operations.

Russia's nuclear-powered missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky navy sailors at Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus. © Grigoriy Sisoev / Sputnik — Russia’s nuclear-powered missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky navy sailors at Syria’s Mediterranean port of Tartus. © Grigoriy Sisoev / Sputnik

According to Russia Today, General Nikolay Pankov, Deputy Defense Minister for Communication, recently noted that:

“We are going to have a permanent Navy base in Tartus.”

“It will have not only docking facilities, but also a command and control system, an air defense system. A naval base needs to be able to defend itself and all its infrastructure,” he said. “Of course it would have anti-submarine defense capabilities.”

The Tartus facility has been in place since 1977. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was used to resupply and repair Russian warships deployed to missions in the Mediterranean Sea, but did not serve as a permanent base for any of them.

Last week Russia confirmed delivery of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Tartus to protect the port facility and mooring warships from potential airstrikes and missile attacks.

The German Taurus Missile Returns to a South African Test Range?

Posted on October 4, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

10/04/2016

2016-10-04 By defenceWeb

Denel’s Overberg Test Range (OTR) could be the site selected by the German Air Force to test its Taurus air-to-ground missile.

This emerged from a Denel post Africa Aerospace and Defence (AAD) summary of activities during last month’s exhibition at AFB Waterkloof.

A Denel statement said that a number of foreign delegations including the Luftwaffe were hosted by Denel during AAD, which ran from September 14 to 18. The German delegation was headed by Lieutenant General Joachim Wundrak, Commander Air Operations.

“He discussed plans to use OTR in Southern Cape for testing of its Taurus air-to-ground missile in 2017,” the statement said.

OTR is a versatile missile and aircraft test range specialising in performance evaluation and verification services on in-flight systems.

It provides support for qualifying airborne systems, as well as validating the operational effectiveness of military systems for South African military industrial users, international defence forces and the armaments sector.

Germany in the past made extensive use of the range, taking out a contract to test the Taurus air-launched cruise missile in 1999.

Between then and 2014, the Taurus was tested at the OTR eight times.

The German Navy began using the range from 2000. At the moment Germany is a very large and enthusiastic customer, in the form of the German Air Force and Navy and defence companies. For instance Diehl has used the Range to test its IRIS-T surface-to-air missile.

In the 2015/16 financial year the OTR saw flight tests on sophisticated missile, rocket, bomb and guided munitions systems as well as evaluation and measurement of aircraft performance and avionics systems. OTR was also used for trajectory measurement of bombs and unguided munitions, anti-tank tests, helicopter-based and electronic warfare (EW) tests.

luftwaffe_tornado_overberg_400x300

OTR listed five key highlights and achievements for the period under review. These included conducting test campaigns for European and South East Asian clients, including a naval exercise and testing of air defence weapons as well as rocket firings for a new client.

In its post-AAD roundup, Zwelakhe Ntshepe, the Acting GCEO of Denel, said there was significant interest in the company’s products and systems from foreign delegations.

“Exports already contribute 58% of Denel’s total annual revenue of more than R8-billion,” said Ntshepe. “Although we remain the primary partner of the South African defence and security forces we are also targeting more international partnerships and export opportunities in key regions such as South East Asia, the Middle East and the rest of the African continent.

One of the highlights of AAD 2016 was the signing of an agreement between Denel and Poly Technologies, China’s top state-owned defence supplier, to collaborate in the maritime sector.

This will cover areas such as ship repairs, shipbuilding, naval systems and marine services.

One of Denel’s fastest-growing business units, Denel Integrated Systems and Maritime joined forces with the CSIR to develop and market local technology that can detect illegal fishing in South Africa’s coastal waters and the unauthorised dumping of waste oil into the ocean.

Ntshepe said there is considerable interest in both local and international defence circles in the Africa Truck that was unveiled by Denel Vehicle Systems during AAD 2016.

Denel Dynamics is developing the Cheetah C-RAM missile that can counter rockets, artillery and mortars.

When the Cheetah is integrated with the Oerlikon Skyshield developed by Rheinmetall Air Defence it offers a quickly deployable system that can be used in homeland defence and by expeditionary forces, Denel said.

Denel has also collaborated with Saab, to integrate the locally developed Umkhonto surface-to-air-missile with the Swedish group’s Giraffe radar.

Reprinted with permission of our partner defence Web.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45409:denel-otr-in-the-luftwaffes-sights&catid=7:Industry&Itemid=116

The Next Phase in the A330MRTT Evolution: Shaping a New Global Standard

Posted on October 4, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

2016-10-04 According to a press release dated October 3, 2016, Airbus Defence and Space announced that the first new standard A330MRTT has taken its maiden flight.

Airbus Defence and Space has successfully completed the maiden flight of the first new standard A330 MRTT Multi Role Tanker Transport.

This model incorporates a number of enhancements introduced on the basic A330 as well as upgraded military systems as part of Airbus and Airbus Defence and Space’s continuous product improvement programme.

The three-hour flight took place on 30 September and the crew reported that the aircraft performed in line with expectations.

The new standard A330 MRTT features structural modifications, aerodynamic improvements giving a fuel-burn reduction of up to 1%, upgraded avionics computers and enhanced military systems.

First delivery is due in 2018.

A total of 51 A330 MRTTs have been ordered by 10 nations of which 28 have been delivered.

During the Trade Media Event held in Munich Germany last June, a senior Airbus and Defence official discussed the changes associated with the evolution of the 330 commercial aircraft systems as well as the military systems onboard the A330MRTT.

A330 Upgrades

The tanker is in the hands of several operational air forces, and as such is becoming an established global fleet.

The user groups are key drivers for further change in the program, and the correlation with the A330 means that innovations driven from the commercial sector can be applied as well to the military derivative, the A330 tanker.

The global nature of the fleet and its operations means that shared experiences are being generated and shared by the users.

The certification leader – the Royal Australian Air Force – in facts has de facto certified a number of aircraft for other users.

The brief by Amador was different from past presentations to the media at the annual Trade Media Briefing (this was the 7th) in that is was really not a company business development presentation but an overview on the operational experience of the Air Forces using the aircraft and its implications for the further development of the aircraft.

In other words, rather than comparing the aircraft to others in the marketplace, it was an overview on the operational experience of the global fleet, which is a measure of the progress of the program itself.

Currently, there are 27 A330MRTT in services with more than 85,000 flight hours, which include 40,000 in the past year.

The Aussie experience was highlighted in which one RAAF tanker has been deployed to the Middle East since September 2014 with 631 sorties flown which is a monthly average of 30 plus and more than 5000 flight hours with a monthly average of 250.

Saudi Arabia has recently completed a flight test campaign to certify their AWACs as well as their legacy tanker, the KE-3.

Amador then focused on the further evolution of the tanker or what he called it as “more than a tanker.”

Progress is occurring on the automatic refueling system, the addition of wideband sitcom, avionics upgrades and enhance self-protection options.

He highlighted that the user groups were key shapers of the way ahead in terms of demand and shared experiences.

He then focused on how the evolution of the A330 itself was shaping new performance capabilities for the tanker variant, notably in terms of structural modifications, aerodynamic improvements with reduced fuel consumption and avionics computer evolutions.

In short, the Airbus tanker is part of the US and allied operational force and as the Marines told the Aussies in the Middle East, it is the tanker of choice.

https://sldinfo.com/the-a330-mrtt-the-flagship-of-a-21st-century-approach-for-airbus-defence-and-space/

A330 MRTT Briefing, June 2016 from ICSA, LLC

An Update on Global Piracy, 2016

Posted on October 4, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

2016-10-04 By defenceWeb

Incidences of Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea and Horn of Africa have been decreasing but waters off West Africa remain dangerous and criminal gangs in East Africa are still a lingering threat, according to a new report.

These were some of the conclusions from a recent Oceans Beyond Piracy (OBP) meeting that convened 35 maritime experts to discuss the current state of maritime piracy off the east and west coasts of Africa in the runup to the upcoming African Union Maritime Summit in Lomé, Togo, later this month.

The OBP working group meeting noted that the upturn in kidnapping for ransom incidents in the Gulf of Guinea in the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016 appears to have been reduced through a combination of increased patrols by the Nigerian Navy, increased use of contracted security and a refocus of attacks away from piracy at sea and more towards inland infrastructure.

“While the waters in the Gulf of Guinea remain dangerous, regional nations are increasingly able to respond to piracy attacks through operational coordination across the zones developed through the Yaoundé process.

Recent examples of these successes include the Nigerian Navy’s armed response to pirate attacks on the MT Maximus in February and the Vectus Osprey in August of this year.

International actors are supporting the regional states by coordinating Maritime Situational Awareness for merchant vessels through the Maritime Domain Awareness for Trade – Gulf of Guinea (MDAT – GoG) framework,” Oceans Beyond Piracy said.

Regarding the rule of law, Oceans Beyond Piracy said there is considerable frustration that regional justice systems are still not able or willing to hold pirates accountable.

“As evidenced off the Horn of Africa, the commitment to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate pirates was essential in building trust between the shipping industry and regional states as well as sending a signal of regional resolve to address the issue based on the rule of law.”

For the Horn of Africa region, Oceans Beyond Piracy said it has recorded a decline in international counter-piracy spending from $7 Billion in 2010 down to $1.3 Billion in 2015, noting that an effective deterrence has been maintained due to more cost-effective counter-piracy measures and the overall decline in pirate activity.

“However, participants agreed that piracy gangs are still organized and retain the capability and intent to attack international shipping. These criminal networks are currently focused on other criminal activity, but are watching to see if conditions at sea become favourable again for piracy attacks.”

In spite of emerging maritime crises elsewhere, Oceans Beyond Piracy said international forces remain committed to support countries in the Horn of Africa/Western Indian Ocean region to deal with piracy.

“It is hoped that support for operational issues can be increasingly provided by regional partners and so-called ‘independent deployers.’ It was also stressed that capacity building plans for regional forces are still many years from effectively suppressing piracy on their own.”

The international fight against piracy has seen the apprehension, prosecution, conviction and incarceration of more than 1 000 pirates. Nevertheless, Oceans Beyond Piracy has urged shipping organisations not to become complacent and to sustain deterrence.

“As commercial shipping patterns return to pre-crisis norms, there is concern that a growing number of vulnerable vessels are not following recommended procedures such as transiting through the Internationally Recognized Transit Corridor in the Gulf of Aden.

There are also clear indications that the use of armed guards is decreasing in all areas of the High Risk Area (HRA). These developments may risk creating opportunities for pirates to reassert piracy business models,” OBP said.

“Shipping organizations still implore their members to remain vigilant and follow BMP4 recommendations while the HRA remains in effect.”

Reprinted with the permission of our partner defenceWeb.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45408:piracy-on-the-decrease-but-threat-still-there-report&catid=108:Maritime%20Security&Itemid=233

For a report on the Power of Networks in Maritime Security by the OBP, see the following:

http://oefresearch.org/publications/power-networks-maritime-security-what-fight-against-piracy-can-teach-us-about-irregular

Key Findings:

In network structures, low formal and political barriers to entry and immediate and obvious added value for participation facilitate engagement. Participants need to see immediate reasons to join the network, and low barriers to entry and exit encourage institutions to decide to participate because there is less risk of long-term commitment.

Incorporating all relevant stakeholders facilitates problem-solving. Maritime challenges involve stakeholders from states, businesses, and civil society. Bringing them all to the table allows for a more coordinated response across multiple actors.

Formal governance systems should be developed enough for effective coordination but loose enough to avoid hierarchy. Network institutions need bureaucratic structures to allow for effective work, but these can’t cross into formal hierarchy without damaging the utility of the network.

Based on lessons from counterpiracy, new systems for addressing irregular migration should be set up in ways that are non-binding and minimally formal, inclusive of all stakeholders, with relatively frequent meeting and loose organizational structures including a rotating chair and a system of technical working groups.

The Next Administration and China Policy: Why Reinforce the Dominance of Beijing in China?

Posted on October 2, 2016 | by Robbin Laird

10/02/2016

2016-10-02 By Danny Lam

Ever since Marco Polo, China experts command a field of expertise that required extensive study of a tonal language and memorization of a complex set of characters. These are sizable barriers that for centuries, fostered the establishment of and then institutionalization of a priesthood of experts that were able to act as the “link” between the Chinese civilization and the west.

Jesuits under Father Matteo Ricci made breakthroughs including learning the language, publishing the first Portuguese-Chinese dictionary, and ultimately, became the first foreigner to attend the Ming Court.

The skill that Father Ricci demonstrated in mathematics, astronomy, and language that earned him a place in the Ming Court also was instrumental in his efforts to Sinify Christianity that facilitated its adoption by Chinese.

It also made Father Ricci enemies of Dominicans and Franciscans that felt he went too far.

The basic outline of this story was more or less repeated right up to the present day by “China experts”.

China of the 21st Century is recovering its diversity reminiscent of the 17th Century before the Chings crumbled.. Credit Image: Bigstock

US Foreign policy in general, and foreign relations with China, is tightly controlled by a small cadre of experts who largely share a common perspective, outlook, and assumptions. While most China (or area experts) has linguistic skills, experts like Dr Henry Kissinger that was instrumental in the “re-opening” of China have earned themselves a place with the modern equivalent of the Imperial Court.

When Newt Gringrich stepped out of line upon becoming Speaker of the House in 1995, no less than Dr Henry Kissinger, who was in Beijing at the time, telephoned Mr Gringrich to lecture him on China policy. Newt backed down very quickly.

The power of the priesthood and their grip on US Foreign policy was revealed.

Priesthoods have power because they are recognized experts that have been proven over time. It is instructive to look at the core assumptions of the priesthood in eras past, and how their consensus have led them astray, and how might similar assumptions may be leading the present “China experts” astray.

A core premise and assumption of the “China Experts” is that government in China is very much like the Western model. A central authority that exercise power no differently in Washington and Beijing. Regimes may come and go, it may divide (via secession in the Western model), or unite (e.g. Federate like the US or via expansion of Empire), and continuity of government or institutions is a strongly held value.

Derived from these core assumptions are the importance of dealing with the Emperor of China, which in the modern era, translated into the leaders of the Chinese Republics. The edicts of the Emperor or Head of Government in China are presumed to have the same full faith and credit as that of a US Federal Law enacted by Congress and signed by the President.

Few China experts challenged this basic consensus except for the late MIT Professor Lucian W. Pye.

Professor Lucian W. Pye in Asian Power and Politics observed that power in the western sense is but one manifestation of power. He argued that there are actually a variety of expressions of power in Asia.

The Chinese, according to Professor Pye, conceive power comes from above from the persona of the top leader. Contrast this with western notions that legitimacy flow from below (the people) to the sovereign.

All other powers outside of the Chinese state official hierarchy is in a state of semi-illegitimacy except for loyalty to family and clan. The Emperor is a benevolent Chinese father who have to care for all their children (provinces) treating each child equally with none favored. No challenge to the central authority is tolerated.

The central authority acquires their legitimacy in the past from access to the supernatural (because the Emperor is responsible for the “rites”), and in modern times, by access to the ideological orthodoxy of Marxism-Leninism-Mao TseTung-Deng XiaoPing thought and promoting economic growth post-Deng.

Professor Pye’s work based on a lifetime of fieldwork in Asia was so jarring and unsettling to the China Experts that his works were largely ignored.

The convergence of Chinese authority’s preference for being seen as the omni competent, omnipotent authority with western “China experts” produced an interesting monoculture that fed on itself.

Historically, the small handful of “China experts” are easily taken captive, first by the Imperial Chinese Court, and now the modern Chinese Republics with privileges, be it access to top leaders, money, prestige, liquor, women, research for academics, etc.

Conversely, the western “China experts” find it easy to lose their sense of objectivity and increasingly blur the line between objective analysis or scholarly research and propagandizing for their Chinese friends in high places.

“China experts” that stepped out of line of their handlers from China find their access and privileges cut, and a lifetime investment in understanding China destroyed.

Just how far can the perspective of “China Experts” diverge from reality?

Few today remember how enthralled Americans were with the Christian Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Sek, who was a weak leader that struggled to establish authority for his “Republic of China” (ROC) that was repeatedly defeated by the Japanese, and then, in turn, defeated by the “bandits”.

The “China Experts” of that era systematically failed to recognize, accurately report and anticipate the consequences of the US supporting a nearly failed state (ROC) and its lack of legitimacy even as it’s crumbling edifice collapsed.

Nor recognized and attempting to head off the strategic consequences of the communist victory – the consequences of which we are dealing with today.

Had the failure by “China Experts” with the ROC been a one off event, it would teach no lessons.

But virtually the identical story was played out in the 19^th Century when the Ching Dynasty established by the ethnic Manchu faced a major rebellion from southern China: The Taiping Rebellion was the largest and most dangerous of a series of rebellions that shook the foundations of the Manchu Empire that cost a half million combatant casualties and perhaps 20 million or more civilian deaths.

A conflict comparable in scale to World War I in Europe.

The impact of Western Intervention in the Taiping Rebellion in favor of the Manchu Empire can be debated, but it is established fact that Western Powers did intervene in favor of the Ching Empire, when western interests would have been better served by sitting it out, or, perhaps, intervening in favor of the insurgency.

In the 21^st Century, the grip of the “China Experts” have been substantially loosened by the large numbers of non-Chinese that have become proficient in at least one of the Chinese languages.

In parallel with large scale migration of Chinese abroad, there are now large Chinese linguistic communities abroad that in the age of the internet, enable the monopoly power of “China Experts” to be diluted.

“China Experts” are no longer the sole access to expert knowledge via their contacts in Beijing.

The explosion of development of the coastal Chinese economies and their engagement and integration into the global economy that turned a formerly insular regime for much of the 20^th Century into a cosmopolitan, wealthy, and diverse community.

With this explosion of wealth and personal freedom, inevitable differences in language, culture, caused by “A civilization trying to fit within the confines of a nation-state” (Pye) becomes amplified and brought to the fore.

China of the 21^st Century is recovering its diversity reminiscent of the 17^th Century before the Chings crumbled.

Despite the growing importance of local authorities in China, “China experts” have been slow to catch on.

Conflicts with China are still primarily seen as issues to be dealt with between Washington and Beijing, with little consideration of the dynamics and local politics in the local areas concerned.

Few “China Experts” are conversant in anything else but the “official language” of puotunghua, depriving them of the ability to claim privileged access at the local level where the so called puotunghua is not the lingua fraca.

US policy makers have little visibility as to the thought process, opportunities and constraints faced by local authorities in Southern China, or South East China, or Western China and how these might factor into Official Beijing’s decision making process.

Few “China Experts” or policy makers ask the question as to just how much usable power do Beijing have over, e.g. Guangdong Region on the South China Sea issue?

Or how much clout does Beijing has over Liaoning Province on the North Korean problem.

Yet, these are the questions that must be asked by the incoming Administration in order to formulate a new foreign policy toward this vast civilization that slowly, but surely, are facing centripetal forces.

Donald J. Trump, as an experienced businessman who had done deals with Chinese, intuitively cued into the importance of asking the question as to the power and credibility of the counter parties.

Will Secretary Clinton do likewise?

Or rely on the judgment of the cherished “China Experts” in the Government and Think Tanks?

Rather than simply reinforce the power of Beijing by pretending they are analogous to Moscow as it was in the Soviet Union, it is time to focus on regional dynamics, and the reduction of the power of the authoritarian regime sitting in today’s version of the Imperial City.

Danny Lam is an independent analyst based in Calgary.