Pitch Black 2016: The Perspective of Air Marshal Davies

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/18/2016

2016-08-11 By Robbin Laird

Exercise Pitch Black 2016 is a three-week multi-national large force employment exercise, which is being conducted from RAAF Base Darwin and RAAF Base Tindal from 29 July to 19 August 2016.

Pitch Black 2016 is a high end combat exercise in which the RAAF air crews learn to work together and with partner nations in shaping a successful outcome.

This will be especially demanding in the years ahead as the new aircraft are either multi-mission or multi-tasking aircraft designed to support multi-dimension operations, rather than classic air-to-air or air-to-ground operations.

This means that there is a significant expansion of the aperture with which pilots will have to operate in contributing to joint operations in the extended battlespace. 

Pitch Black 2016 is, according to the Australian Department of Defence, the Royal Australian Air Force’s largest and most complex exercise in 2016.

“This year’s exercise features up to 2500 personnel and 115 aircraft from participating nations including Australia, Canada, France (New Caledonia), Germany, Indonesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and the United States.

“Exercise Pitch Black aims to further develop offensive counter air; air-land integration; and intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, as well as foster international co-operation with partner forces.”

I had a chance to discuss Pitch Black 2016 with Air Marshal Leo Davies at the tail end of the Williams Seminar on Air-Sea integration.

Davies had just returned from engagement in the exercise and argued that in his view there were four key takeaways.

The first was that sophistication matters.

“If you shape a complex exercise, with realistic challenges, allies want to come and contribute appropriate capabilities.

This allows the entire exercise to take on a more realistic tone and enhances the training function.”

The second was that the Republic of Singapore Air Force brought their I-Hawk to enhance the threat presentation for the training of blue force.

This meant that the flexible and mobile air defense system could play the role of presenting a varied threat to the ground attack missions of blue.

“The I-Hawk is providing an important contribution to complicating the threat scenario for the blue forces which enhances the realism of the exercise and the value of the training.”

The third was the opportunity to insert air mobility and ground forces into the exercise, in terms of SOF as well as airlift dropping maneuver equipment to support SOF and then to use SOF to achieve objectives important to the blue force effort to degrade red air capabilities.

The fourth was that airspace matters.

It is a growing need with a shrinking availability around the world for airspace big enough to permit a modern air exercise.

“We are working on shaping interactive air packages to operate in the extended battlespace.

The sizes of our ranges which may only be matched by Alaska, allow us to work with our allies to conduct more realistic and effective tactics and strategies going forward.”

Clearly, the Aussie ranges are part of the training infrastructure for an RAAF and allied defense in depth strategy or if one would like to call it that a blue side Anti-Access and Area Denial strategy.

Indeed, Major General McLachlan, head of Australian Army Modernization, actually put that concept in play at the Williams Foundation seminar on air-sea integration, where he discussed and analyzed the evolving role of the Aussie Army in the defense of Australia through what the US Army would call Air Defense Artillery (ADA) or shaping the lower tier to a missile defense system engaged with the power projection forces.

Exercise regimes are crucial lifeblood for forging real national and allied capabilities and effective and innovative approaches to move forward.

Exercises provide the opportunity to test out and enhance logistical and support approaches as well as to shape convergent con-ops where appropriate.

As Admiral Nimitz confronted the last century’s challenges he concluded a core lesson for this century’s Pacific warriors:

“Having confronted the Imperial Japanese Navy’s skill, energy, persistence, and courage, Nimitz identified the key to victory: ‘training, TRAINING and M-O-R-E  T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G.’ as quoted in Neptunes’s Inferno, The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal (James D. Hornfischer).”

The US and its core allies are shaping new capabilities to deal with the various threats and challenges in the Pacific in the time of the Asian century.

Flexibility in operations and agility in inserting force with a proper calibration of effect will be enhanced as new systems come on line in the years ahead.

But these systems will have the proper effect only in the hands of skilled warriors.

Pacific Exercises and Training Ranges

https://sldinfo.com/allied-pacific-exercises-and-training-shaping-a-deterrence-in-depth-strategy/

And clearly over time these ranges will be more effectively connected together to train for operations in the extended battlespace and the physical ranges will be augmented for virtual capabilities inserted into the training to provide the reach of the forces training together to prevail in an extended battlespace.

As Rear Admiral Manazir, then head of N-98 and now of N-9, put it in our interview last year:

According to Rear Admiral Manazir: “LVCT will enable us to train in a more robust environment than we are on our current ranges that are geographically constrained, and currently do not have the full high end threat replicated.

“LVCT will allow us to train to the full capabilities of our platforms across a variety of security environments and do so without exposing our training process to an interested adversary.”

Or as the then head of Fallon, Admiral Conn put it:

I think it important to emphasize that adversary A2AD capabilities pose a serious threat not only to Navy, but to our entire Joint ability to fight and win.

Again, I think of A2AD as the proliferation of precision for potential adversaries and how this proliferation of precision effects joint forces ability to maneuver where we need to be and when we need to be there.

For me, it is about expanding the battlespace and training with regard to how to do this.

Training for an expanded battlespace means that the extensive ranges at Fallon are not enough to train to prevail in the evolving battlespace.

This is why the Navy is spearheading a broad effort to expand the envelope of training to combine live training with what is called Live Virtual Constructive training.

What is entailed is folding in red and blue assets to shaping an evolving strike integration training process.

As Captain McLaughlin, then STRIKE CO at Fallon  explained:

The current Fallon ranges – although large – are too small to train against an advanced threat, which can shoot longer than the ranges. 

We need to train to a 21st Century Plus type of threat with very long-range missiles in the mix. 

It is not about succeeding; it is about how are we going to do this with highest probability of success.

We are rolling in Live Virtual Constructive Training to provide the extenders for our operators to work in that threat environment and to reach out to other assets – Navy and joint – which can allow us to fight in an expanded battlespace.

But it is clear that the physical ranges are the key foundation to build out such capabilities.

And the Aussie range and Pitch Black are clearly foundational elements in moving forward.

For more information on Singapore’s I-Hawk missiles, see the following:

https://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/air_force/assets/weapon_systems/I-Hawk.html

For an earlier pieces on Pitch Black 2016, see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/raaf-exercise-pitch-black-2016-preparing-for-the-high-end-fight

https://sldinfo.com/kc-30a-working-in-pitch-black-2016/

https://sldinfo.com/kc-30a-refuels-usaf-f-16s-during-pitch-black-2016/

The Pitch Black photos in the both slide shows are credited to the Australian Ministry of Defence.

The second slideshow shows Canadians participating in Pitch Black as well as an RAAF C-17 also pictured. A Canadian C-130 is involved in the refueling of allied aircraft as seen in the slideshow.

Brexit: Considerations Going Forward

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/15/2016

2016-08-07 By Harald Malmgren

Although the British government, the Bank of England, the IMF and a variety of US and European think tanks had warned an extremely bad, even catastrophic downturn of the UK would ensue if British voters decided in favor of exit from the European Union.

The June 23 majority vote in favor of exit stunned politicians and prognosticators, but markets adapted after a few days of turmoil.

The Pound Sterling took a hit, but then seemed to find a new trading range relative to the Euro, dollar, and other key currencies. The Bank of England cut its base interest rate and introduced new monetary stimulus to cushion the UK economy during what looks likely to be a multi-year process of consensus building and detailed negotiations with the European Commission.

Unelected bureaucrats in the EU Commission are eager to begin “hard” negotiations with the UK at the earliest possible time. Under the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union there is a provision for possible exit by a sovereign member of the EU.

This provision is known as Article 50, and it explicitly delegates to the EU Commission authority to conduct negotiations with an exiting member state. Article 50 sets out a two-year time frame for such negotiations, but it also provides for indefinite extensions on the basis of mutual agreement.

Among European Union capitals many national leaders want the European Council, made up of member state leaders, to undertake political discussions with the UK that will help guide the EU Commission’s negotiations on specific issues like customs practices, tariff provisions, application of EU standards, etc.

It should not be surprising that the EU Commission wants to press ahead with negotiations, which it will itself conduct.

Most of the Commission participants want to ensure strict adherence to the elaborate body of EU Commission regulations that they themselves laboriously drafted over decades.

The UK government will take time to work out its basic objectives in the development of some kind of UK-EU economic, commercial and juridical accord.

In parallel, political pressures are building within many of the EU member states for curbing the authority and aggressive bureaucratic interventionism of the Brussels Commission. The European Council leaders now must now address growing localism and nationalism which threaten to disrupt the European Union as a whole.

Most politically explosive is the issue of how leaders of Continental Europe will deal with the tsunami of refugees from Syria and peoples of nations surrounding Syria, together with refugees flooding from North Africa and beyond.

Treatment of refugees and openness of border are now becoming core political issues within each of the EU member states.

German Chancellor Merkel’s rigid stance on keeping the EU as an open society ready to assist refugees in need is incurring strong resistance inside several of the EU member nations and even within Germany itself.

Costs of handling refugees are only a small part of the political controversies.

Of growing concern is the rising wave of crimes and violent behavior of many of the refugees, and fear that among the refugees are many terrorists preparing for continuing waves of destruction and deaths in diverse locations in many parts of Western Europe.

National elections are coming next year in France and Germany, as well as in several other member states. A swing to the right in several capitals could be encouraged if no amicable consensus can be reached on treatment of refugees, including limits on their numbers, and ability to punish and expel terrorists and other troublemakers.

UK voters in favor of exit had similar concerns about unlimited refugee flows, so the European Council will have no choice but to weave talks with the UK into talks with the rest of the EU on treatment of refugees. In this process, it is doubtful Merkel’s hard line will prevail next year. Either she will be forced to step down or she will modify her position on freedom of access for refugees.

During the remainder of this year and in the months leading to French and German elections next year much rethinking about the future of the EU will take place.

Discussions with the UK will inevitably be entangled with deliberations on how the rest of the EU is managed. Several of the EU members are now seeking to slow the process of centralization of EU governance and restore greater “subsidiarity” or localization of laws and policies affecting daily life.

A push for “more Europe and less Brussels” will likely be an unfolding theme.

In this context, it is unlikely that Article 50 will be invoked by the UK and the Commission before the middle of next year.

Invocation might even be delayed until after the French and German elections.

Much to be discussed, much to be adapted in the governance of the EU in 2017 and subsequent years.

Editor’s Note: It should be remembered that what tore apart the United States in the 19th century was a very emotive issue around which all Americans had politically charged views, namely the extension of slavery to the new states.

Slavery in the South was largely accepted in the North; but its extension to the new territories and new states was not.

The twining of current migration from the Middle East with a real threat of terrorism is a similarly politically charged view.

The making of regulations and laws by Brussels bureaucrats behind closed doors may soon generate an implosion of the long quest for a stronger Union of the many existing democracies.

Only the European political leaders can address these fundamental issues of how the Union is to be governed and how it will interact with its neighbors and the rest of the world.

The gradual emergence of an unelected shadow government in the form of the Brussels Commission no longer seems a viable alternative path to greater political and social integration.

A new concept of Union is also critically needed to deal with “external” challenges associated with the Middle East, Ukraine and other nations lying between Western Europe and Russia, and more remote potential disruptions to world order that may be posed for European well being in the future.

Emergence of a different, improved model of the European Union is inevitable.

How the UK fits in, not only as an economy, but as a world security power needs to be addressed long before specific commercial, financial, and juridical issues of interest to the Commission can appropriately be addressed..

Congress Widens the U.S. Debate on Missile Defense

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2016-08-15 By Richard Weitz

Congress is making progress finalizing this year’s draft FY2017 National Missile Defense Act (NDAA).

As The Washington Post recently noted, one likely revision we will see from previous years will be a change in congressional guidance on U.S. ballistic missile defenses (BMD); specifically, the Senate and the House look set to remove the word “limited” in their description of the goal for such defenses.

The House version goes the furthest in calling for “robust (multi-)layered” protection from missile attacks on U.S. territory. It would change the wording that has continued for more than a decade from the following:

“It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).”

to the following wording:

“It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible a robust layered National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).”

 Furthermore, the draft House language for “Sec. 1665. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY,” would read:

(a) Policy. — It is the policy of the United States to maintain and improve a robust layered missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States, allies, deployed forces, and capabilities against the developing and increasingly complex ballistic missile threat with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriations of funds for missile defense

Opponents of the move argue that it will alarm Russia, China and other countries and unleash a spending spree on half-backed BMD technologies and concepts.

However, the proposed language change is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the already poor relations with Moscow and Beijing and could allow for a more comprehensive discussion of U.S. options for BMD planning and more importantly procurement, testing and R&D.

Russia and China already suspect that the U.S. would like to build a missile defense shield that would protect the United States and its allies from their nuclear-armed missiles.

Meanwhile, some NATO allies and some in Japan and South Korea would welcome signs that the United States would try to protect them from a wider range of possible threats.

It is unlikely that the proposed change in congressional language will prompt major BMD spending or program initiatives for the next few years.

Neither Clinton nor Trump seem like strong partisans of missile defense and would probably push for other priorities as president until they saw greater evidence that a major spending increase would yield major benefits for American security.

Nonetheless, the linguistic shift could help encourage a broader discussion of important missile defense issues.

For starters, the current technology of launching unarmed interceptor missiles at incoming warheads or missiles, while constantly improving and already useful for defending against short- and intermediate-range attacks, is fundamentally constrained in the kinds of national threats to the U.S. homeland that it can address—at best a few incoming ICBMs with modest decoys and other penetration aides.

If we stick with this technology, then any capacity will indeed be limited even as the threat environment is becoming more complex, complicated, and contentious.

Lt. Gen. (ret.) Trey Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) from 2004 to 2008, has observed that “technological breakthroughs are needed “to overcome things like advance countermeasures, maneuvering warheads, hypersonic vehicles and much more.”

Hopefully, new technologies could also reduce cost as well as boost effectiveness.

The current cost-curve clearly favors the attacker since it is more expensive to intercept an incoming missile than to launch one. At a recent talk, Major General Francis Mahon (USA, ret.), remarked that,

“The pursuit of the multi-missile launcher also offers a solution to the UAS [unmanned aerial system] and the cruise missile.

There may be other near-term low cost options if we really take our hats off and start thinking here about multi-mission systems vis single mission systems.

Are there ways to leverage other programs for a more cost efficient and effective interceptor?

What about the Navy’s Standard missile family?

Is there some way for the Army to integrate those into our systems?

Will IBCS allow us to integrate a family of interceptors under one unit’s command?

A key element forging an effective aerospace combat cloud is the ability to combine defensive and offensive capabilities into an attack and defense enterprise. THAAD working with Aegis and with “Aegis as the wingmen” or the F-35 fleet is an important building block.THAAD being fired as part of exercise. Credit: Lockheed Martin
A key element forging an effective 21st century system of defense is the ability to combine defensive and offensive capabilities into an attack and defense enterprise. THAAD working with Aegis and with “Aegis as the wingmen” or the F-35 fleet is an important building block.THAAD being fired as part of exercise. Credit: Lockheed Martin

Can left of launch and non-kinetic options lighten the load?

The capability challenge may be easier to solve if we really start to think a little bit out of the box, assuming we write realistic requirements, accept good enough versus outstanding performance, and have the fiscal resources and the fortitude to see a program through development and fielding.”

Making substantial progress in national missile defense will require some combination of better integration of BMD and preemptive strike capabilities with new types of missile defense technologies.

Some experts believe that we have already made much progress in the fundamental scientific and technologies issues and could soon field effective directed energy, space-based, or other novel BMD systems.

While others disagree, it seems prudent to accept the recommendation in the House draft defense policy bill to at least consider more options in planning:

 “Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the act, the director of the Missile Defense Agency … shall commence planning for the concept definition, design, research, development, engineering evaluation, and test of a space-based ballistic missile intercept and defeat layer to the ballistic missile defense system,”

As a planning exercise, such a review, along with a consideration of other BMD options for what the United States might achieve and at what financial cost, would help U.S. decision makers better weigh the costs and benefits (militarily, diplomatically, and fiscal) of this option.

The review should also address the issue of relieving the MDA of some lower priority requirements to allow it to focus more on researching and developing better missile defenses.

Second, there needs to be a fuller discussion of how to integrate defenses against long-range systems with protections against battlefield and cruise missiles and air defenses.

Safeguarding the United States from a full-scale Russian or Chinese nuclear attack seems impossible from a technological and resource point of view, but being able to counter some of their battlefield options in Europe and Asia remains possible and operationally and diplomatically valuable.

The United States would have to overcome these A2AD systems to defend allies attacked by these countries.

For diplomatic reasons, it may be better to keep most U.S. BMD assets for even expeditionary warfare based in the United States, but they would need opportunities for forward deployment on exercises.

The Russian and Chinese regional missile threats are growing in quantity and quality and clearly a part of their A2AD strategy.

We could consider more robust responses if we recognize the unlikelihood of assuring current Russian and Chinese military leaders that we do not ever plan to target their deterrent.

We also need to address future Iranian and especially North Korean capabilities.

Fighting with the Force You Have Now While Preparing for an Airpower Transition: The Perspective of General “Hawk” Carlisle, Air Combat Command

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/14/2016

2016-08-02 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

General “Hawk” Carlisle has been at the center of operations as well as the airpower transition for some time. As the PACAF commander, he helped shaped the evolution of what is becoming an offensive-defensive enterprise in which combat air and missile defense systems will become more tightly integrated.

As the ACC Commander, he has overseen global combat operations for the US Air Force, and has seen the acceleration of an airpower transition. During his watch, several new combat assets have come to play in Middle East operations, namely the more visible and central role of the F-22, the new variant of the Typhoon (which the RAF calls, the Operation Shader variant of the aircraft and is being optimized for the delivery of  ground support weapons) and the Aussies have brought their Wedgetail and KC-30A tanker as well.

At the RIAT airshow, Carlisle discussed the coming of the F-35 to the force as the aircraft was omnipresent at RIAT and Farnbourgh.

He told reporters that F-35A IOC was on track for this year and he anticipated that the F-35 would see combat within the next 24 months.

Indeed, operational F-35Bs are now participating in Red Flag 16-3.

This is a US-only Red Flag and is testing the kind of multi-domain operational capabilities being deployed now and augmented with the airpower transition.

For the ACC Commander, the future is now but at the same time, he needs to weave new assets into an ongoing transformation process.

Question: A number of new aircraft have entered the fight in the Middle East and the F-22 has taken a prominent multi-tasking role, how would you assess the performance and change?

General Carlisle: Each of the new assets – the F-22, the Typhoon, the Wedgetail and the KC-30A – have performed well. They have proven once again that if you get new assets into the hands of the young men and women in the force that amazing things can happen.

The platforms have been pushed to a level that we could not guess at prior to real world operations.

Their performance and that of the entire force is highlighting the need for more effective combat multi-domain integration.

That is a key work in progress and these new platforms are driving us further down the road to achieve it.

We’ll make even more progress when we get to the link architecture and the translators that allow us to truly achieve fifth to fourth and fourth to fifth integration and to take national technical means and bring that into the fight as well.

What we’re not doing is bringing these disparate parts up together in a collaborative, honeycombed environment at the level that we really can. We’re not off-boarding everything from the F-22 and F-35 that we should. There’s a wealth of information on those platforms that never gets taken advantage of. However, we are working to ensure that we position ourselves to do so.

Question: You have Nellis in your command; how is Nellis working with the Marines and the Navy to shape innovation?

General Carlisle: The F-35 as a common platform among the air services is a key element in our transformation. Nellis and MAWTS have taken Air Force and Marine Corps integration to a whole new level of collaboration, integration and understanding as we work together on the F-35.

We’re doing the same thing with the Navy and Admiral Manazir and I have had discussions about greater collaboration and integration many times.

When you consider that in the international context, flying the same aircraft is taking us to a new level of collaborative engagement.

And assuming the Canadians buy F-35, we will see even closer integration among the five eye nations. We will shape a level of synergy among those air forces that exceeds anything we have done before.

Question: The airpower transition we are talking about really is about multi-domain evolution. Could you talk to that opportunity and challenge?

General Carlisle: At the Weapons School at Nellis we are now completely focused on multi-domain integration as a warfighting skill. The weapons school is a crucial incubator for practical changes and feedback about ways we can enhance greater collaboration and integration across the warfighting domains.

We are clearly working hard on integration of missile defense with our strike assets as well.

For example, we have made significant steps in the Pacific where we can better integrate area defense for the carrier strike groups and defend our airbases as well.

At the same time, we are still at a negative price point in terms of our ability to launch interceptors against incoming missiles. But of course, we are not just going to sit there and take incoming missiles.

In that sense, we are combing offense with defense to protect our forces and our interests.

We are clearly working on getting low-cost, high-magazine, high-accuracy defensive systems such as those associated with the rail gun or lasers.

Directed energy weapons are clearly part of the transition.

We will be putting one on an F-15 for test purposes before long. The first thing we are going to do with it is defensive, in particular against a SAM.

We know how to do hit-to-kill and our sensor and C2 packages are getting better.

We just need to enhance the technology, which provides us with the low-cost, high-magazine and high-accuracy systems to go along with the sensor grid.

Question: You are describing the kill web.

And as the air combat assets get better at off-boarding information and cross-supporting the strike and defense functions, the air combat force will get better.

We asked you about the F-22 as an air battle manager at the Trilateral Exercise. Could we revisit that dynamic?

General Carlisle: With regard to the F-22, the first strikes were in September 2014. We have done upgrades as well which allows us to fire SDBs at a greater level of accuracy. We are also using the sensor fusion on board the aircraft to pass information to the rest of the force, which is bringing their game up as well.

The F-22 functions in this sense as a battle manager because the pilot has the SA inside his cockpit to direct other aircraft on what they do and how they can do it more effectively.

We are better at this now than we were even a year ago.

You create a problem for an adversary when you have multiple places from which you can strike.

You have the SA and the information shared among all three platforms in the case of the trilateral exercise.

You couldn’t defend against all of them.

Question: It is clear that we need a weapons revolution to catch up with the new air platforms and the reconfiguration of the legacy platforms. What is your sense of this challenge?

General Carlisle: There is a clear need for new weapons. We need range; we need magazine depth; we need broad spectrum capabilities.

We need to be able to do a central sweep that can cover the spectrum that’s not defined by medium range, or medium wave IR, or X Band, but rather can cover the IR spectrum potentially in the EOIR, and potentially the RF spectrum as well.

Besides the networking and the architecture that we haven’t shaped to the level that we want to, the next thing is we have great fifth generation capability with fourth gen weapons, and that doesn’t make sense.

I don’t need a new point-and-shoot weapon.

I just want a look and shoot, and I want unlimited magazine depth.

I want scalable effects so that based on what the environment is I can change the weapon’s effect to protect friendlies.

Obviously, in the air-to-air mode, I need broad spectrum weapons.

I need range; I need numbers.

Editor’s Note: The following article by Tech. Sgt. Julius Delos Reyes from the 50th Space Wing Public Affairs published on July 13, 2016, describes Red Flag 16-3:

The Air Force kicked off a three-week long Red Flag 16-3 exercise on July 11, 2016 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.  Red Flag 16-3 is a US-only exercise that will test all participating units’ combat capabilities in a joint environment that centers on multi-domain integration.  

Red Flag is the service’s premier air-to-air combat training exercise and one of a series of advanced training programs that is administered by the U.S. Air Force Warfare Center and executed through the 414th Combat Training Squadron.

Previous Red Flag exercises have provided experiences to master the air domain, but todays’ flags must incorporate all domains.

“We fly, fight and win in air, space and cyberspace.  This is the exercise where we’ll put this to the test,” said Col. DeAnna Burt, Red Flag 16-3 Air Expeditionary Wing commander.  

Burt is the first space domain leader to ever command an AEW at a Red Flag exercise, a position that has traditionally been staffed by aviators.  She will lead the joint operation into accomplishing its main objective of, “establishing habits of achieving multi-domain combat success today to enable the rapid defeat of America’s adversaries tomorrow.”

As an AEW commander, Burt will be focused on multi-domain execution and will be engaging participants to determine how they plan to utilize the capabilities of all domains to supplement a tactical mission.

“We want to force people out of their comfort zone.  We’ll be pushing them to talk about kinetic and non-kinetic effects and how when they are synchronized achieve tactical success,” the colonel explained.

Historically, the exercise’s third iteration of the year is a US-only operation.  

This year, 115 aircraft from 25 Department of Defense units will be operating at the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), the Air Force’s premier military training area with more than 15,000 square miles of airspace and 2.9 million acres of land. And for the first time, an F-35 is participating in the exercise. The aircraft is from the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, based at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona.

Red Flag 16-3 participants are faced with 1,900 possible targets, realistic threat systems and an opposing enemy force that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world.  Nellis AFB and the NTTR are the home of a simulated battlefield, providing combat air forces the ability to train to fight together in a peacetime environment, and to survive and win together.

http://www.schriever.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/835752/air-force-kicks-off-red-flag-16-3

And the F-35 detail was added by Airman 1st Class Kevin Tanenbaum, 99th Air Base Wing Public Affairs, in an article published on July 19, 2016:

For the first time, the United States Marine Corps will be participating with their F-35B during the three-week Red Flag 16-3 exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

With the Marine Corps bringing this multi-role, next generation fighter, this year’s third iteration of Red Flag marks a historic moment in the Air Force’s premier air combat training exercise.

Working with multiple branches, the F-35B, assigned to the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, which is part of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and based out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, will be an intricate part of the demanding exercise that provides aircrews with multiple and intense air combat sorties in a controlled training environment.

“Red Flag is a military integration, getting to work hand-in-hand with the Air Force, Navy, and Army that are all out here,” said U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Jason Gilbert, VMFA-121 mechanic. “Just bringing all of the U.S.’s combat air forces together to show we are one team, one fight. We can get this done.”

Since the F-35 program is operational and rapidly accelerating the opportunity to work in a joint environment is a valuable aspect of this Red Flag for the Marines, as well as their only opportunity before being based at Marine Corps Air Station in Iwakuni, Japan.

“For us this is our one opportunity to integrate in multi-service before being based in January of 2017,” said U.S Marine Corps Maj. Brendan Walsh, VMFA-121 operations officer. “Red Flag also provides us the opportunity to integrate and train in a multi-service, contested environment.”

The training provided during Red Flag has been a smooth endeavor with the Marine pilots and maintainers eager to take full advantage of the opportunity.

“I think it’s a very fortunate opportunity for the Marine Corps to be a big player in this Red Flag with the F-35s,” said Gilbert. “It gives our pilots the opportunity to show the F-35 is the best jet out here. The Air Force works a lot like the Marine Corps, so participating in Red Flag has been pretty smooth.”

Marine F-35B aircrew members, assigned to the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Az., perform pre-flight checks and participate in Red Flag 16-3 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., July 12, 2016. Since its establishment in 1975, Red Flag has played host to military units from more than 30 countries to participate in high-end flight integration. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Kevin Tanenbaum)
Marine F-35B aircrew members, assigned to the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Az., perform pre-flight checks and participate in Red Flag 16-3 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., July 12, 2016. Since its establishment in 1975, Red Flag has played host to military units from more than 30 countries to participate in high-end flight integration. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Kevin Tanenbaum)

With this participation in Red Flag it is an opportunity for the Marines to showcase the differences of the F-35B from legacy Air Force tactical fighter fleets with its air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities.

“The difference between the Marine F-35 and the Air Force F-35 is that the Air Force version does conventional takeoffs and landings whereas the Marine Corp F-35 has the ability to do a short take off and a vertical landing,” said Gilbert.

This capability of being able to land vertically grants the Marine fighters unique abilities that the other models of the F-35 don’t have.

“The vertical landing and takeoff not only give the opportunity to base ourselves on amphibious ships, but also expediting sites that we can construct and conventional aircraft cannot use,” said Walsh.

With the F-35 becoming a linchpin for future coalition operations, the chance to bring the air frame to Red Flag and participate in a multiservice exercise has proven to be a valuable one for the Marine fighter unit.

“This Red Flag has been a huge success for our Marines,” said Walsh. “We look forward to the upcoming weeks and showcasing the capabilities of our airframe.”

http://www.tyndall.af.mil/News/tabid/6600/Article/851098/first-ever-marine-f-35b-takes-part-in-red-flag-16-3.aspx

The slideshow above show photos of F-35s, F-22s, and Typhoons shot by Royal Australian Air Force personnel at the RIAT 2016 show and are credited to the Australian Ministry of Defence.

For the Breaking Defense version of this interview, see the following:

Hawk Carlisle On The Way Ahead: DE, EW, Data

 

 

 

NAVAIR “Magic Carpet” Innovation for the F-18 Fleet

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2016-08-15 By Todd Miller

For those of us who are not pilots, we can discuss landing aircraft on aircraft carriers but cannot appreciate just how difficult and fraught with disaster the operation is. Pilots returning from long, mentally exhausting missions are often faced with a night landing in stormy weather, at times perilously low on fuel.

In a previous interview with Cdr. Robert Bibeau (at the time CDR of VFA-31 the Tomcatters), the aviator referenced his first carrier launch:

“As soon as I launched, the very first thing that came to mind was, ‘great, I have to trap now…’”

After many successful traps (Navy verbiage for landing on a carrier) that sense of the challenge ahead wanes, but never disappears.

In a visit to Pax River on Monday the 8th of August 2016, I had a chance to discuss these challenges and ways the Navy is working to improve the situation for the carrier aviator.

James “Buddy” Denham, Senior Engineer of NAVAIR Aeromechanics, puts landing on the carrier in perspective, “landing is not the mission, but it is an outcome of executing the mission from a carrier.”

And learning and then executing landing safely in all weather conditions requires skill and practice.

Prior to deployment on a carrier, a unit will put aside significant time to focus on nothing but honing their carrier landing skills in what is called FCLP (Field Carrier Landing Practice). Due to extensive training, onboard systems and procedures most carrier landings are well within tolerances.

However, there are a percentage of landings that are on the ragged edge of disaster. It is the nature of the activity.

The F-35C was designed from the ground up with new flight control software to attenuate the landing challenges.

This will reduce significantly the amount of time necessary to do carrier training prior to full deployment of a carrier as well.

This opens a gap with the legacy fleet, which NAVAIR is seeking to attenuate with a new technology called Magic Carpet

(Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies).

This technology involves what is effectively a reprogramming of flight controls within a specific landing “Delta Flight Path” mode selected by the pilot.

The reprogrammed flight controls help pilots make more precise landings, with reduced stress on themselves and the airframes.

The development has significance beyond carrier landings, as Denham expresses, “It’s going to change how we fly airplanes across the board.” Denham continued to explain how the technology is enabled by redundant fly by wire systems that utilize digital flight control and the availability of low cost sensors/systems (Inertial Guidance Systems) laser gyros (F/A-18E/F and EA-18G), or tactical navigation sensors (F-35) that complete the feedback loop so the aircraft can give the pilot what they want.

And what does the pilot want?

According to Denham, control of speed and flight path. It is that simple.

All that coordination of stick and rudder, throttles up and down, pitch, yaw, roll – it’s all about the pilot manipulating the aircraft controls to fly a desired flight path and speed.

Without Magic Carpet, the pilot in a legacy carrier aircraft has to do all the mental calculations and manipulate the flight controls to maintain glideslope and speed through to a successful carrier landing.

Each move creates an outcome that must be countered; if too low and the pilot lifts the nose they must increase the throttle to maintain speed, but then they have to drop the nose and decrease the throttle, and adjust AOA; banking left or right to align on center means losing lift, which requires increasing the throttle which means lifting the nose and so on.

The bottom line for the pilot is that the final 18 or so seconds of approach involve a constant manipulation of all controls to get the desired outcome. The window for success is small, and a little excess here or there creates a “spiraling overcorrection effect” – and disaster looms.

In the case of Magic Carpet, the pilot turns in behind the carrier and sets up for landing by engaging Magic Carpets “Delta Flight Path” mode.

The computer understands that this means maintaining a specific speed (auto throttles) and a glideslope of 3 degrees.

Thanks to pilot input, the computer also takes into consideration the carriers cruising speed, and adjusts accordingly to a point of touchdown. The symbology on the Heads Up Display (HUD) changes with the mode to simply reflect an intersect point with the carrier deck (based on the aircrafts current altitude) – and horizontally as it relates to lining up on the center of the landing area.

Once engaged, the Magic Carpets “Delta Flight Path” mode decouples the traditional relationship controls have to pitch, roll and yaw. Rather than move the aircraft up or down through use of the stabilator (all moving tail), the computer rapidly adjusts the flaps to increase or decrease lift. The increase or decrease of lift causes the aircraft to descends or climb relative to the optimal glideslope.

To watch the simulation is impressive, as the flaps move quickly (15 degrees per second on the F/A-18E/F, 60 Degrees per second on the F-35C) and the stabilator adjusts to maintain the correct angle of attack (AOA).

All these split second adjustments are managed by the flight control system reacting to “what the pilot wants.” It is as if the wing and control surfaces were alive, making fine adjustments like the wings of a large bird gliding in to land on water.

Key characteristics of Magic Carpet “Delta Flight Path” mode

The computer “decouples” the controls in such a way that pushing, pulling or moving the stick side to side repositions the aircraft relative to the glideslope with no other impacts on roll, loss of lift, AOA or airspeed that require pilot intervention.

Push the stick forward or pull the stick back until the intersect point is located at the right place on the carrier landing deck, then “release” the stick and the aircraft holds that glideslope to the intersect point automatically.

Move the stick side to side, and the aircraft alignment point moves accordingly left or right without inducing a bank and a loss of lift, and the aircraft holds that alignment automatically.

Auto control of the throttles ensures the correct speed is maintained, and the aircraft is automatically in a 3-degree glideslope, maintaining the desired AOA.

Symbology on the HUD reflects a horizontal line (denoting the intersect of the aircraft with the ship on the computer controlled glideslope), and a designator for alignment to centerline of the landing area. The pilot simply “steers to those points.”

The innovation is entirely aircraft driven, with no dependency on carrier systems. So effective is the system, that it is already deployed on the state of the art F-35, even as the Navy works to upgrade the current Super Hornet (F/A-18E/F) and Growler (EA-18G) fleets. As the attached graphics indicate, the system provides greater landing accuracy to essentially the same degree on both the F/A-18E/F and F-35C, regardless of Carrier or conditions. It simply works.

When I tried it myself – I had a revelation that speaks volumes. With no flying experience (other than a couple hundred of hours 20 years ago as an early sim gamer), I took to the US Navy F/A-18E/F simulator at NAS Patuxent River. Now let me own it, I wanted to make these landings. Not Navy pride, but it was something I had to achieve. Failure was not an option.

First, to landings with Magic Carpet – with some coaching I achieved a successful landing and very little stress (I did make the error of making multiple small adjustments as if Magic Carpet was not engaged, when one should push the stick forward 5 degrees and hold it until the glideslope intersected the carriers deck at the right spot). Move the stick forward or back, left or right – and the aircraft moves with complete stability and no drama. I admit, I expected it to be easy, or the Navy would not have invited a bunch of journalists to try it out!

With two successful Magic Carpet rides under my belt, it was time for the ultimate test, landing without Magic Carpet engaged. I had received a few tips from a Super Hornet pilot (did I mention I really wanted to stick the landing?), and started the approach. I made very careful adjustments; because I knew the instant I pushed too far I would get caught in a death spiral of over correcting. The concentration and intensity required went up 10 fold. Speed, nose up, nose down, alignment, glideslope, adjustment for the ship moving, reacting to the outcome of every adjustment. Totally focused, and very careful in perfect weather – I made my first trap!

On my second approach I pushed the aircraft wide to make it more difficult, and with some effort, got on the deck in one piece (though I would likely would get a “brown” pass on the greenie board – affectionately called a “turd.”). This provided a clear incentive to do better next time. Regardless, I was alive and perhaps there was an empty seat waiting for me at NAS Oceana!

With my pride intact and my goal realized I exited to the control room – and then I felt it. I breathed. My heart rate was way up, and the physical tension or anxiety I felt was significant. I was torqued. And that is the point. What Navy pilots are asked to do in perfect conditions is not easy, and add the dark of night, wind, fog and rain and you get the reality of the situation. What pilots must do to get back on board requires an intensity that only those who have done it can know.

I liken landing without Magic Carpet to walking a balance beam in heels with a 5 gallon bucket of water strapped to your back – and some friend shaking the beam! On the other hand, flying with Magic Carpet in “Delta Flight Path” mode is like walking down the sidewalk in sneakers! It’s not really Magic, but it to an exhausted Navy pilot coming back to ship on a dark night – it may seem like it.

Beyond the details of how Magic Carpet works and the impact it is expected to have on the US Navy, I was left with a broader realization of what NAVAIR engineers have achieved. Technology combined with software is driving innovation that will have a marked impact on flight as we know it in military and commercial environments. It is a sea change in flight driven by available sensors, and the ability to update software, make improvements, and add features.

As we experience innovation and added features with each upgrade of our smart phones operating system, or by the addition of a new app – such is the way forward for the modern weapons platform. The platform must be built with future scalability in mind, and complex software must be exhaustively tested to ensure there are no errors that “crash” critical systems, and there is complete redundancy of all critical systems.

As for Magic Carpet, it has been extensively tested with almost 800 shipborne traps to date.

The data compiled shows that touchdown dispersion decreased from an average of +/- 39 ft from target without Magic Carpet to +/- 18 ft from target when engaged. It is anticipated the approach will reduce wear and tear on aircraft (lower structural loads are evident, fewer harder landings are expected), as well as reduce training requirements. Most importantly, it’ll increase safety and allow pilots to get back on the ship without near the stress. Attached graphics show how the system has improved pilot and landing performance across the board.

Boeing has been contracted to prepare a fully redundant Magic Carpet for the Super Hornet/Growler with fleet launch in 2018-2019.

However, when Navy leadership experienced Magic Carpet for themselves, they insisted that the mode be put on the Super Hornet/Growler fleet as quickly as possible.

Starting in September 2016 units will be able to download the upgrade at their local stations as a simple update and start training and familiarization.

The current system will be introduced as a mode, with no redundancy. In the case of an isolated failure, the pilots will revert back to landing as they always have.

By 2018-19 the fully redundant system will be available, and the Magic Carpet will be the standard landing approach for all F/A-18E/F, EA-18G.

Thanks to Mr. James “Buddy” Denham, Senior Engineer at NAVAIR aeromechanics, NAWCAD Rob Koon Public Affairs & Michael Land, PEO(T) for their time and efforts during my visit.

Editor’s Note: With regard to the F-35C, the integrated helmet and software solution sets have already set the standard for where Magic Carpet is working to upgrade the F-18 fleet with regard to carrier landings.

In an interview at Pax River earlier this year with experienced naval aviators now flying the F-35C the landing and related training issues were discussed.

The “Magic Carpet” is already onboard the F-35 as Delta Flight Path (DFP) system.

In fact, the same engineer who designed DFP also has designed Magic Carpet.

https://sldinfo.com/the-emergence-of-the-f-35c-and-its-impact-the-view-from-pax-river/

Question: Carrier landings are challenging. 

They are dangerous and require a lot of training to get them right and to enhance the safety of the pilot, the crews, and the ship. 

In fact, during the Vietnam War, there were tests done of carrier pilots’ heart rates which we actually higher when landing on a carrier than when being shot at over Hanoi. 

How does the F-35 affect the landing challenges associated with trap and cat operations?

Answer: The plane flies very well.

The flying qualities are excellent and the machine systems built into the plane significantly enhance the ease of landing and taking off from the carrier.

Basically with the F-35 you get your mission cross-check time back.

Normally once you start the approach your scan is solely meatball, line up, and angle of attack. Your mission cross-check time behind the ship is zero because you’re just doing that scan.

With the F-35 and its enhanced flight controls and superb handling, the aircraft doesn’t deviate much from the desired flight path, which greatly eases the workload on the ball and frees up your scan.

It almost makes flying the ball a relaxing task.

Question: Ease of flying can clearly translate not just into safety but training time. 

What do you see as the impact? 

Answer: Before you go to the boat, everything stops in the squadron.

All training stops two to three weeks where all you’re doing is banging left-hand turns.

No one is doing any tactical training.

Everyone’s bandwidth is concerned with how they are landing at the ship.

Once you’ve been out on the ship for a few days and the landings are looking better, then finally you can start working on what we want to work on again tactically.

Where you’ve just taken a pause from all your tactical performance for the past nearly month, that’s going to go away with the F-35, which will allow you to be dedicated to your tactical performance.

Question: Clearly, the Super Hornet is an excellent airplane, but the F-35 is a very different aircraft with a different approach to air system operations. 

How do you see the F-35 affecting tactical training? 

Answer: With the current air wing (i.e, with the Super Hornet and Hornet as the tip of the spear), we are wringing out our tactics for a tactical advantage, which is also, at the same time, at the edge of the envelope for survival.

We are spending a lot of time making sure that we have the right tactics and the mastery of those tactics by pilots to survive and succeed.

It is about keeping a level of competence and capability where you’re not going to die.

There are points where you have a twenty second window.

You miss that window and you might be blown up.

When you’re traveling at those speeds, we are talking really only a couple of seconds that you have.

And, if you’re not performing tactics exactly as they’re prescribed, you put yourself in a kill zone.

With the F-35, we are jumping a generation in tactics and now looking at the expanded battlespace where we can expand our impact and effect.

You need to take a generational leap so we are the ones not playing catch up with our adversaries.

The Case for Building an Additional San Antonio Class Ship: Lucky 13?

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/12/2016

2016-08-13 By Scott C. Truver

In early August, the USS Wasp (LHD 1) Amphibious Ready Group (ARG)––also comprising USS San Antonio (LPD 17) and USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41)––conducted AV-8B Harrier II and unmanned aircraft strikes against ISIL targets in Libya, to drive the terrorists from the coastal stronghold of Sirte.

The ready posture of the Wasp ARG in the Mediterranean compensated for delay in getting host-nation approval to fly strike operations from Italy.

The Italian government said it would consider allowing U.S. forces to launch strikes from Naval Air Station Sigonella. “The government is ready to positively evaluate any request for use of bases and air space if that would be functional to a more rapid and effective conclusion to the operation underway,” Roberta Pinotti said on [2 August], according to Fox News. A day later, Italy had not yet agreed to allow U.S. offensive strikes against Libyan targets from the air base on Sicily. [ref] Sam LaGrone, “Marine Harriers Strike ISIS Targets in Libya from USS Wasp,” USNI NEWS, 3 August 2016https://news.usni.org/2016/08/03/marine-harriers-strike-libyan-targets-uss-wasp?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=93dca2cfbz[/ref]

The Obama Administration has a plan to increase Navy force structure to 308 ships, up from today’s 272-ship fleet. But if business as usual is the coin of the realm in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential campaign, the prospects for a 240-ship fleet in 2025 or so looks to be far more realistic. Three-hundred-and-fifty ships––as some have called out––look to be sheer fantasy.

The Nation’s amphibious warships are increasingly the focus of interest. The ARG carries with it the Nation’s “9-1-1 force.” More often than not, it’s the Navy-Marine Corps team embarked in amphibious warships that are the America’s first responders, covering the spectrum of the Sea Services’ engagement in the word––from humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions to high-intensity forcible-entry ops.

How Many Are Enough?

Based on post-Cold War strategic and operational concepts, beginning with …From the Sea in 1992, the Navy identified the need for as many as 59 amphibious warships, with a core of 15 large-deck/air-capable amphibious assault ships (LHA/LHDs). This force structure would provide amphibious lift for a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF, some 40,000 Marines and sailors) plus a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB, about 16,000 Marines and sailors) in the assault echelon of an overseas amphibious assault. That “1 MEF + 1 MEB” goal soon went by the boards. Fifty-nine ‘Gators simply could not be attained or sustained, in America’s “Fall-of-the-Berlin-Wall/Peace-Dividend” environment.

More than 20 years on, much remains the same.

“There is a requirement for over 50 ships on a day-to-day basis, that’s what…the COCOMs [combatant commanders] are asking for,” General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., then-USMC Commandant, noted at the AFCEA/USNI WEST conference/symposium in 2015. “We’ve got an objective of 38—that’s the requirement within the Department of the Navy. We’ve got a fiscally constrained objective of about 33. We’ve got an inventory right now of 31 . . . which equates to significant readiness challenges.”

“The availability of amphibious shipping remains paramount to readiness and Responsiveness,” General John Paxton, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, told the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness on 15 March this year. “The nation’s amphibious warship requirement remains at a minimum of 38 ships to support a two Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault echelon (AE).

As the Commandant and Chief of Naval Operations have testified in past years, the number of vessels required to meet the steady-state demands of our combatant commanders exceeds 50 vessels.

The current inventory of 30 vessels falls short of the requirement by both measures,” he continued, “and that shortfall is aggravated by recurrent maintenance challenges in the aging amphibious fleet. The current and enduring gap of amphibious warships to requirements inhibits ours and the Navy’s ability to train to our full capabilities, inhibits our shared ability to respond to an emergent crisis, and increases the strain on our current readiness.”

Still others have called for upwards of 54 ‘gators, bringing to mind 16th-Century philosopher Desiderius Erasmus who exclaimed, “Fortune favors the audacious!”

Indeed, as Dr. Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute concluded in October 2015, “The unraveling of the post-World War II international order fairly cries out for a larger and modern U.S. amphibious warfare capability.” [ref] http://lexingtoninstitute.org/dangerous-international-environment-cries-out-for-larger-u-s-amphibious-fleet [/ref]

One way to do that would be to continue with the San Antonio class––building a 13th LPD––while accelerating the next-gen LX(R) program: Audacious to be sure!

Today’s Gators

The Navy’s amphibious fleet in 2016 (see table) doesn’t even approach the “close to 54” ships in unofficial plans: 31 ships of which the 12 dock landing ships (LSDs) are getting long in the tooth, needing replacement during the next ten years or so.

The amphibious inventory consists of the following types:

Amhbibious Ships

Built by Litton/Ingalls Shipbuilding (precursor to Huntington Ingalls Industries, HII), the LHD 1 Wasp class comprises eight 40,650-ton multi-mission amphibious-assault warships. The ship’s primary role is to embark, land and support elements of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, providing embarked commanders with command and control capabilities for sea-based operations employing elements of a landing force.

Wasp-class characteristics include a flight deck and hangar for combinations of some 40 helicopters and short takeoff and landing aircraft––including the MV-22 Osprey, AV-8B Harrier and F-35B Joint Strike Fighter––and a well deck for air-cushioned and conventional landing craft. Each ship can embark 1,900 Marines and has 125,000 cubic feet of cargo space for stores and ammunition and 20,900 square feet for vehicles. The final ship in the class, the USS Makin Island (LHD 8), has gas turbine propulsion, hybrid-electric drive, diesel generators, and all-electric auxiliaries.

HII is building the America (LHA 6) amphibious assault ships, and the first of class commissioned in October 2015. Tripoli (LHA 7) is under construction, with delivery planned for 2019. The LHA 6 design includes the LHD 8 gas turbine and hybrid-electric propulsion plant, diesel generators, and all-electric auxiliaries, but no well deck for amphibious craft operations.

Instead, the first two America LHAs provide a significant in­crease in aviation lift, sustainment, and maintenance capabilities compared to the ships they replace and, for that matter, the LHA 8. They em­bark helicopters, MV-22 tilt-rotors, UAVs, and the future F-35B aircraft. LHA 6 and 7 have significantly increased JP-5 fuel capacity (1.3 million gallons, compared to 600,000 gallons for the LHA 8); more space to support elements of a Marine Expeditionary Unit or small-scale joint task force staff; and substantial passive-survivability upgrades.

The LHA 8, a recent Ingalls win, will modify the LHA 6 design to incorporate a well deck capable of supporting two LCAC vehicles and a reduced-island flight deck for an additional seven F-35B “spots” and a topside MV-22 maintenance spot. This will increase flight deck space, thus retaining aviation capability on par with LHA 6/7, which were optimized for aviation capability in place of a well deck.

According to Major General Christopher Owens, USMC, Director Expeditionary Warfare (OPNAV N95), Wasp is the only warship fully upgraded to support the F-35B, and USS America is receiving some modifications to enable JSF operations. USS Essex (LHD 2) will be the first big-deck amphib to undergo all the JSF modifications at once in a massive 420-day maintenance period. [ref] https://news.usni.org/2015/12/15/n95-f-35b-integration-larger-fleet-size-create-opportunities-to-rethink-how-fleet-operates.[/ref]

Commissioned between 1985 and 1998, the eight Whidbey Island (LSD 41) dock landing ships, built by Lockheed Shipbuilding and Avondale Industries, and four Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) ships, built by Avondale, operate amphibious assault vehicles, landing craft, helicopters and MV-22 aircraft. 609 feet in length, 84 feet in breadth and displacing 16,100 tons, the key difference between the LSD 41 class and the LSD 49s is that the latter are cargo variants that have significantly expanded cargo and ammunition stowage space, including 6,000 square feet of vehicle space and more than 40,000 cubic feet of cargo space, at the cost of two LCAC spots (from four to two).

The Whidbey Island class is the primary support and operating platform for LCACs and utility landing craft, and can also provide docking and repair services for other small craft. Both classes have two primary helicopter landing spots and can sup­port helicopters as well as MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft. Neither class has a helicopter hangar, requiring aircraft maintenance and refueling on the flight deck.

The San Antonio (LPD 17)-class landing platform dock ships are 684 feet long, with a beam of 105 feet, a maximum displacement of 25,000 long tons, and a crew of ap­proximately 380. Four turbocharged diesels with two shafts and two outboard-rotating controllable-pitch propellers generate a sustained speed of 22+ knots.

Other key characteristics include 20,000 square feet of space for vehicles, 34,000 cubic feet for cargo, and accommodations for approximately 700 troops (800 surge). The LPD well deck can launch and recov­er traditional surface-assault craft as well as two LCACs. The LPD 17 aviation facilities include a hangar and flight deck to operate and maintain a variety of aircraft, including tilt-rotor and rotary-wing aircraft and UAVs.

The original mid-1990s requirement was for 27 LPDs, about half of the ‘Gator requirements, but fiscal constraints reduced that to 12 ships. The class had significant and tumultuous “birthing pains,” but later LPDs have enjoyed significantly better performance. Indeed, John P. Murtha (LPD 26) delivered on time, with a significant reduction in cost compared to other LPDs in the program, while enjoying smooth sailing through INSURV Acceptance Trial events: no major deficiencies. [ref] See the author’s chapter, “The U.S. Navy’s LPD-17 Class: ‘Snake Bit’ No More,” World Naval Review 2016 (UK: Seaforth, 2015), pp. 104-123.[/ref]

What’s Next?

The Navy and Marine Corps recognized the need to move out quickly on an 11-ship LX(R) follow-on class to the LPD 17 program as an affordable means to replace the 12 Whidbey Island and Harpers Ferry dock landing ships.

The design of the next amphibious warship––whether to start from a clean sheet of paper or use an existing ship for modification to an LX(R) configuration––was resolved on 14 October 2014, when Navy Secretary Ray Mabus decided to use the LPD 17 hull form as the preferred alternative of several that were assessed.

By selectively reducing LPD 17 requirements and de-scoping specific spaces and equipment, the service will deliver sufficient capability and capacity to meet the LX(R) mission sets using an LPD 17 derivative design with costs that are well understood.

In the meantime, to ensure future expeditionary-amphibious requirements will be met, affordably, there are advantages from keeping the “hot” LPD 17 line open by building a 13th San Antonio-class warship. Such audacity would begin the renaissance of the ‘Gator navy along the lines that senior Marine Corps leaders have outlined: “over 50 ships!” And, the 13th LPD would be a critical element of the future fleet while delivering LX(R) smarter, cheaper and faster.

LPD 29 would serve as a bridge to LX(R) and reduce risk from starting a new program design. Accelerating the LX(R) ahead of the current program of record will continue the in-place production at Ingalls, retaining critical labor-learning curves and stabilizing a delicate supplier base. In addition to programmatic savings, operational benefits would accrue from delivering five ships in the same time it would take to deliver one under the program-of-record acquisition profile.

“Was I to die this moment,” the audacious Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson lamented in a letter of 9 August 1798, “‘Want of Frigates’ would be found stamped on my heart.” Two hundred and eighteen years later, one wonders whether “Want of ‘Gators” would be found stamped on General Dunford’s heart. Time will tell.

Dr. Truver is Director, TeamBlue National Security Programs, Gryphon Technologies. Information about ship class characteristics and capabilities gleaned from: U.S. Navy Program Guide 2015; Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, 19th ed.; and Naval Sea Systems Command fact sheets and news releases.

We have provided comprehensive coverage on the amphibious fleet from the beginning on Second Line of Defense and the impact of the new aviation assets, namely the Osprey, the F-35B and the CH-53K.

Here are some of the many earlier pieces:

https://sldinfo.com/the-uss-america-redefining-amphibious-assault/

https://sldinfo.com/evolving-the-amphibious-fleet-the-coming-of-lxr/

https://sldinfo.com/shaping-an-amphibious-coalition-an-interview-with-brigadier-general-mahoney-deputy-marforpac/

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

https://sldinfo.com/an-update-on-the-uss-america-a-discussion-with-captain-robert-hall-february-2015/

https://sldinfo.com/the-coming-of-the-ch-53k-to-the-amphibious-force-how-to-describe-a-new-21st-century-air-platform-and-its-impact/

https://sldinfo.com/combat-transformation-and-the-amphibious-force-a-pacfleet-marine-corps-perspective/

https://sldinfo.com/the-osprey-as-an-enabler-and-connector-first-landing-on-republic-of-korea-amphibious-assault-ship/

https://sldinfo.com/the-christening-of-the-america-class-amphibious-ship-the-opening-of-a-new-era/

https://sldinfo.com/the-amphibious-ready-group-arg-and-libya/

https://sldinfo.com/working-the-evolution-of-the-aussie-amphibious-task-force-mv-22-lands-on-hmas-canberra/

For a US Navy look at how the evolving amphibious fleet is having a broader impact see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/the-transformation-of-jointness-the-navy-and-marines-rework-operations-from-the-sea/

https://sldinfo.com/the-sea-services-prepare-to-prevail-in-the-extended-battlespace-an-interview-with-rear-admiral-manazir/

https://sldinfo.com/admiral-kevin-scott-reflects-on-bold-alligator-2012-shaping-a-culture-of-operating-off-of-the-seabase/

The photos in the first slideshow are credited to Second Line of Defense and show the USS Arlington at its berth in Norfolk.

The second slideshow highlights the ships in Bold Alligator 2014 which included the USS Arlington and the photos are credited to Second Line of Defense.

KC-30A Working in Pitch Black 2016

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
08/11/2016

2016-08-11  Making its debut in a multi-national exercise, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has deployed its KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport to RAAF Base Townsville for Exercise Pitch Black 12.

Measuring 58 metres in length and with a wingspan of 60 metres, the KC-30A is a heavily modified Airbus A330 airliner designed to perform the airborne refuelling role, and is the RAAF’s largest and newest aircraft.

Wing Commander Geoff Fox, Commanding Officer of No. 33 Squadron, said this deployment was a step towards bringing the KC-30A to an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) later this year.

“While we have a limited level of involvement in Pitch Black, we are conducting this deployment away from our home base to help prepare for future exercises and operations,” Wing Commander Fox said.

Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) duty crew oversee the arrival of a KC-30A Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft from Number 33 Squadron during Exercise PITCH BLACK 2016 (PB16) at RAAF Base Darwin, Australia, July 27, 2016. PB16 is the RAAF's largest and most complex exercise in 2016. This year's exercise features up to 2,500 personnel and 115 aircraft from participating nations including Australia, Canada, French (New Caledonia), Germany, Indonesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and the United States. (Australian Defence Force photo by CPL Casey Gaul)
Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) duty crew oversee the arrival of a KC-30A Multi Role Tanker Transport aircraft from Number 33 Squadron during Exercise PITCH BLACK 2016 (PB16) at RAAF Base Darwin, Australia, July 27, 2016. PB16 is the RAAF’s largest and most complex exercise in 2016. This year’s exercise features up to 2,500 personnel and 115 aircraft from participating nations including Australia, Canada, French (New Caledonia), Germany, Indonesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and the United States. (Australian Defence Force photo by CPL Casey Gaul)

For its missions, the KC-30A will transit to the Northern Territory skies to conduct refuelling with aircraft in the exercise.

The aircraft will unreel a hose-and-drogue from a wing-mounted pod, which is ‘plugged’ by a refuelling probe on a RAAF F/A-18 Hornet – with both aircraft travelling in formation at more than 500km/h.

“We can take off from a base and fly to a position 1800 kilometres away, and remain in that airspace for four hours with 50 tonnes of fuel available for other aircraft,” Wing Commander Fox said.

“In a big country like Australia, we are an extremely important capability for helping other aircraft to do their job.”

“Declaration of IOC later this year will allow us to conduct hose-and-drogue refuelling and strategic transport missions, before we move on to boom-refuelling.”

“Future Pitch Black exercises will see the KC-30A refuelling more aircraft, including the Super Hornet, Wedgetail, and some of our international partners.”

The first two KC-30As were delivered to Air Force in mid-2011. Delivery of all five aircraft will be completed by late 2012. The KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport carries around 100 tonnes of fuel most of which can be offloaded to other aircraft.

Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence

August, 9, 2016

 

KC-30A Refuels USAF F-16s During Pitch Black 2016

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2016-08-11 RAAF BASE DARWIN, Australia

For the first time, U.S. Air Force F-16C aircraft have deployed to Exercise PITCH BLACK 16 (PB16) in partnership with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport.

On July 19, a RAAF KC-30A flew non-stop with six F-16Cs from Kadena Air Base, Japan to RAAF Base Darwin in just over six hours.

RAAF Group Captain (GPCAPT) Adam Williams, Officer Commanding of No. 86 Wing, said it was the first time that a RAAF air-to-air refuelling tanker deployed in support of U.S. Air Force fighter aircraft to Australia.

“The KC-30A conducted 35 contacts with the six F-16Cs, transferring a total of 55.8 tonnes of fuel to the F-16Cs, or nearly 70,000 litres,” GPCAPT Williams said. “The air-to-air refuelling boom on the KC-30A performed well, with no significant issues.”

United States Air Force F-16s on the flightline at RAAF Base Darwin during Exercise Pitch Black 2016. Pitch Black is a biennial multinational air warfare exercise hosted by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that focuses on offensive counter air and defensive counter air combat in a simulated war environment. (Australian Defence Force photo by LSIS Jayson Tufrey)
United States Air Force F-16s on the flightline at RAAF Base Darwin during Exercise Pitch Black 2016. Pitch Black is a biennial multinational air warfare exercise hosted by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that focuses on offensive counter air and defensive counter air combat in a simulated war environment. (Australian Defence Force photo by LSIS Jayson Tufrey)

“Despite some periods of moderate turbulence en route, they completed the 5,400-kilometre journey safely,” Williams said.

Return trips saw the KC-30A deploy a total of 12 F-16Cs with the 14th Fighter Squadron in the week prior to PB16.

Commander of the 14th FS, Lt. Col. Mark Heusinkveld, said the support provided by the KC-30A was a testament to the interoperability between partner nations at PB16.

“The refueling not only provides mutually beneficial training between U.S. and Australian air forces, but also demonstrates the close military ties between our nations,” Lt. Col. Mark Heusinkveld said.

“It’s always advantageous when training opportunities like these present themselves,” Heusinkveld added.

“This strengthening of our multilateral relationship will only continue as we train and improve our alliance capabilities in the upcoming weeks.”

The deployment builds on successful refuelling trials between the RAAF KC-30A and U.S. Air Force F-16s assigned to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., conducted in late 2015 and early 2016.

To refuel the F-16Cs, the RAAF KC-30A used its 18-metre-long Advanced Refuelling Boom System (ARBS), controlled by an Air Refuelling Operator in the KC-30A’s cockpit through the use of fly-by-wire controls and 3D Glasses.

As each F-16C flew in close formation behind the KC-30A, the ARBS would ‘plug’ into a fuel receptacle on the F-16C and commence refuelling.

GPCAPT Williams said the KC-30A would refuel U.S. Air Force F-16Cs during PB16, as well as the E-7A Wedgetail and F/A-18s participating in the exercise.

“This deployment is a significant milestone for the RAAF’s KC-30A, as it demonstrates our ability to refuel international F-16s within the Asia Pacific region as well as during operations further abroad,” said Williams. “This will further reinforce the close bonds between our Air Forces in the field of air-to-air refuelling.”

PB16 is scheduled from July 29-19 Aug, 2016, and is the RAAF Chief of Air Force’s biennial capstone international engagement activity with forces drawn from a wide range of regional, coalition and allied nations.  PB16 allows participant nations to exercise deployed units in the tasking, planning and execution of Offensive Counter Air (OCA) and Offensive Air Support (OAS) while utilizing one of the largest training airspace areas in the world.

Credit: Australian Defence Force

August 9, 2016

http://www.yokota.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/2053/Article/909305/exercise-pb16-af-f-16s-receive-raaf-tanker-support.aspx