In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
New Delhi. The Indian Navy has initiated the first steps towards acquiring the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) as well as the long-range surveillance drone Predator B Guardian by sending Letters of Request (LORs) to the Pentagon under government-to-government deals.
The LORs, requesting price and availability for 22 Guardians and three EMALS catapults, are now under consideration by the US Department of Defense (DOD) for clearance under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.
According to sources in Washington, a positive view is likely to be taken and discussions between the two countries should begin soon.
Once the process is through, the US Government (USG) will confirm by sending Letters of Acceptance (LOAs).
The Predator B Guardian is a naval version for long-range surveillance over the waters and will contribute to maritime domain awareness.
The Indian Navy is considering the EMALS for its second indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal due out by 2028. EMALS has been adopted by the US Navy as its next generation aircraft launch system, and again significantly, for its new generation aircraft carriers beginning with CVN 78 Gerald R Ford.
Dr Vivek Lall, Chief Executive Global Commercial Strategic Development for the San Diego-based General Atomics which makes these two systems, declined comment but told India Strategic: “As far as General Atomics is concerned, we will be opening an office in the Indian capital to assist both the Governments as required.”
Notably the Guardian is a high performance Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft, and could only be sold to India after it cleared the Missile Technology Control regime (MTCR) regulations. Powered by a high performance Honeywell TPE331-10 turboprop engine, it operates from a high altitude of 50,000 feet (about 15 km) and can fly for 27 hours before returning to its base.
It is equipped with day-night sophisticated sensors including Raytheon’s SeaVue multi-mode maritime radar to identify and track vessels of different sizes, signals and electronic intelligence systems, satellite communication and even the Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS).
The EMALS uses the propulsion power of electromagnetic energy, and the advantage of the system is that it can adapt to launch different sizes of aircraft from a carrier deck with the flick of a switch. Using Direct Current electricity, it is also being devised to launch satellites in the coming years.
The existing generation of aircraft launch steam catapults, developed decades ago, are much slower.
The Indian Government has acted fast to acquire these assets towards securing the Indian waters against terrorist and hostile intrusions. The LORs in fact were sent by the Navy soon after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official visit to Washington in June, just as the US also anchored India’s entry into MTCR and declared India to be a Major Defense Partner (MDP).
There are no confirmed financial figures for either the drones or the EMALs, but according to industry sources, the list price for the 22 Guardians should be around US two billion dollars.
Overall though, General Atomics, the biggest privately-held US defense company, could land with big multi-billion dollar deals in the coming years as the Indian Air Force (IAF) has also expressed interest in acquiring more than 100 Predator C Avenger attack drones. IAF had sent a communication in September last year, and significantly during Mr Modi’s visit, this requirement was mentioned at the highest levels.
The jet-powered Avenger is a high performance next-generation drone, or Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), for time-sensitive strike missions. It fires missiles to neutralize multiple hostile targets with precision with the flick of a command sent through satellites.
As the procedural paperwork for this drone could also begin only after the MTCR clearance, the Indian Ministry of Defence (MOD) should clear the proposal in due course. (India has just become the 35th Member of MTCR).
Notably, FMS deals require government-to-government (G-to-G) negotiations but with active support from the industry which manufactures every system in the US. The process ensures reasonable pricing, largely in accordance with what the US armed forces would pay for similar systems.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) of the Department of Defense (DOD) however charges a fee within a band of 2.5 to 5 percent to facilitate the process.
For instance, in the case of Boeing C 17 heavy lift transport aircraft; this was fixed at 3.8 percent. The fee varies for different deals, but will be the same for every country that buys the same system from the US.
The EMALS system is accompanied by Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) to assist in secure landing of aircraft.
USMC and RAF F-35Bs flew from USMC Beaufort Air Station to participate in the RIAT and Farnbourgh air shows.
USAF sent F-35As across the Atlantic to participate as well in RIAT. These flights are the latest trans-Atlantic crossings with the Italians coming first on February 5th with a landing at Pax River and then with later flights as well to Luke AFB bringing Italian build F-35s across the Atlantic.
The Dutch were next flying from Edwards AFB to the Netherlands.
These flights are simply part of the process of standing up the F-35 enterprise in the extended defense of Europe and the North Atlantic.
Put simply, the simultaneous standup of F-35s in the UK by the RAF and the USAF, the coming of the F-35Bs to the new British carriers, the F-35Cs to US aircraft carriers, of F-35As to Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands provides a key opportunity for synergy in shaping the extended defense of NATO.
With the same combat systems operating across the force, and the sharing of data across that force, a significant capability is being stood up from the beginning to provide for the common defense.
This is a work in progress and will take significant effort and innovation. It will be about opening the aperture on thinking about common infrastructure, shared logistics, and cross-cutting combat learning and innovation.
But it is inherent in flying a common airplane, that the pilots, maintainers and airpower leaders associated with the F-35 can figure it out.
We hear often about the need for NATO to enhance its defense capabilities; yet one key means for doing so is simply staring NATO in the face, namely leveraging a common fifth generation aircraft and reshaping the capabilities of the entire combat force.
This has been recognized by key organizations such as the European Air Group or the NATO Joint Air Competence Center (JAPCC). The European Air Group, based at High Wycombe in the UK, is an advisory group to the 7 key European Air Forces, and they are working on ways to shape 4th-5th generation integration.
The JAPCC is based in Germany and is working on how airpower was changing with the operations of fifth generation aircraft and the co-evolution of legacy systems with the augmentation of the role of fifth generation aircraft with the F-35 operating with the Marines and shortly by the USAF.
The con-ops rethink is driven by the practical experiences rooted in the common effort to standup US and allied F-35s.
In fact, when we interviewed Squadron Leader Hugh Nichols, the RAF pilot who flew the UK F-35 recently to the UK, at USMC Beaufort Air Station last year, he underscored what the joint standup with the USMC meant.
“The Marines have done a fantastic job working through previous program difficulties and have blazed a trail towards bringing this next generation capability into service. They are Marines, and if anything gets in the way, they deal with it.
“Working with them will clearly ensure that we are ready for the Queen Elizabeth.
“And the pooling agreement is important in terms of cross learning. Our young maintainers are working with Marine Corps maintainers and they are learning to work through different procedures and protocols to learn how to maintain a common airplane….
The first of Britain’s new supersonic ‘stealth’ strike fighters has touched down in the UK for the first time. The F-35B Lightning II jet was flown by RAF pilot Squadron Leader Hugh Nichols on its first transatlantic crossing, accompanied by two United States Marine Corps F-35B aircraft from their training base at Beaufort, South Carolina.
“The Marines could fly jets off of the Queen Elizabeth and we off the Wasp or other ships the USMC enable for F-35B use in the future.”
The F-35s flying in the skies above the UK are simply a step in what could well be a significant launch point towards enhanced NATO synergy and capability.
The two UK airbases where F-35s will be based, RAF F-35s at RAF Marham and USAF F-35s at RAF Lakenheath, are in very close proximity and the joint training, joint logistics, joint maintenance and joint operational experience will be significant.
And the UK is building facilities at Marham that the USAF will not do but which sharing arrangements can be shaped and worked.
And it is not just about the F-35, but it is about fifth generation enabled combat, and here the ability to fly every day with RAF Typhoons and USAF F-15s along with the new P-8s coming to the RAF along with the entire RAF ISTAR force provides a significant infrastructure for shaping transformation.
In an April interview the head of the RAF F-35 force, Air Commodore Smyth, we discussed the possible synergies and how he saw their impacts.
“It is early days, but we are discussing ways to shape synergy. We already have an excellent working relationship with our USAFE colleagues, and both sides are being very open to exploring ideas.
“But the real opportunity will lie in joint training and some semblance of joint sustainment.
Col. Peter D. Buck and Col. Robert D. Cooper greet United Kingdom Royal Air Force officers Air Commodore Harvey Smyth, Group Capt. Paul Godfrey, and Group Capt. Ian Townsend as they arrive at Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron, June 16, 2015.
“How do we do training in a more joined up way, both synthetically which is of immediate interest to me, and live with our F-35s because there’s got to be synergy in our approaches in British and European air space. This could then no doubt grow beyond a UK-USAFE relationship, as our close European neighbors establish their F-35s in their countries.
“The next question then is sustainment. What is the appetite from the USAF to want to leverage off what will already be found at RAF Marham as we shape our infrastructure?
“The USAF has operated F-15s at RAF Lakenheath and have used a classic USAF model of flying in parts to sustain their F-15s with C-5s, C-17s and tankers.
“It would make sense to shift to a new model whereby our F-35s shared sustainment and parts, transparently between our two bases, which after all are not very far apart.”
Last December, USAFE and the RAF set up a joint working group to work the synergy issue.
This group has met three times to date and will brief initial findings to senior RAF and USAFE leadership later this summer.
A wide gamut of issues are being concerned from training, to ops, to warehousing of parts, and to sharing across a wide spectrum.
When I visited RAF Lakenheath in June, I had a chance to talk with the 48th Wing Commander, Col. Novotny about the strategic opportunities inherent in the joint standup.
He underscored that unlike setting up an F-35 base in the United States, standing one up at RAF Lakenheath was about putting the F-35 into play with the UK, the Norwegians, the Danes and the Dutch.
“We are not flying alone; but joined at the hip.
“We will be flying exactly in the area of interest for which the plane was designed and can fly together, maintain together, and operate together leveraging the air and sea base for which the F-35 B will fly from as well.
“It is a unique and strategic opportunity for the USAF and for the nations.
“I’m glad that we are the first base overseas, but I see there is great potential for two countries to develop in concert, side-by-side, and to set, set the model for joint operations.
“As we get this right, we can bring in the Danes, the Norwegians and Dutch who are close in geography and the Israelis and Italians as well to shape the evolving joint operational culture and approach.
F-35 BF-17 from the F-35 Integrated Test Force in Formation with RAF Typhoons, Edwards AFB, CA April 4, 2014 F-35 test pilot LtCol Jon “Miles” Ohman performs interoperability testing. Credit: USAF
“Before you know it, you’ve got eight countries flying this airplane seamlessly integrated because of the work that Lakenheath and Marham are doing in the 20 nautical miles radius of the two bases.”
He also highlighted the advantages of joint learning by pilots and maintainers associated with the correlated standup at RAF Marham and at RAF Lakenheath.
“We’re talking about exchange opportunities across the logistics enterprise, and among the pilots as well. If you can fly the A you can fly the B; and vice versa; it is an adjustment, not a whole new training process.
“We are looking to have RAF pilots flying USAF jets and vice versa.
“Doing Red Flags requires bring forces to Nellis and expending monies to come to the exercise, clearly an important task notably in learning to fly together in high intensity warfare exercises.
“But what can be shape from the RAF Marham and Lakenheath bases is frequency of operations with core allies flying the same aircraft.
“The same aircraft point can be missed because the UK did not fly F-16s, the Norwegian, the Danes and the Dutch do. And the USAF does not fly Typhoons and Tornados; the UK does. Now they will ALL fly the same aircraft.
“I did two OT assignments and we worked to get into Red Flag when we could to do joint training.
“Here we can do that virtually every day. We reach the Dutch training airspace, and can work with the Dutch, with the Brits, with the Germans, with Typhoons, with F3s, with the NATO AWACS.
“We take off and we fly 30 minutes to the east and we make it happen. It is Red Flag as regular menu; rather than scheduling a gourmet meal from time to time.
“Most of that learning is done after the sortie.
“Face-to-face interaction, the conversations that are happening in the squadron vaults that happens at Red Flag three weeks out of every two years.
“We will have the opportunity to do that regularly here.
“There is such a unique opportunity here compared to any other place.
“Because every other place which is s going to get into the F-35 program in whatever capacity is going to eventually attempt to develop a little bit of a stovepipe. It happens.
“This is the only place where it’s not the case.
“There’s no other place where we have a maintenance officer who’s run into an issue on Monday at Lakenheath and decides to get in the car and drive 35 minutes to Marham and talk to them and see what they’ve figured out face-to-face.
“Learn to listen.
“Have a bite to eat.
“Be back here by 2:00 in the afternoon with the solution that came from another country.”
A new defense capability is staring NATO in the face as well as for UK and US defense leaders.
The challenge will be to do what one USAF officer noted in discussing the potential for synergy:
“Let’s not talk about what we can or we can’t do.
“What’s right to do?
“Everything can be changed.
“And if it makes sense for us to operate in a different manner, we change the written guidance to support that as long as the leadership is in full agreement.
“We will have to break glass.
Applying yesterday’s procedures and policies to this joint effort makes little sense.”
An insertion force is characterized by strike, defense, lift, tanking and air battle management that can be effectively integrated to get to an objective area, and then to operate over and within until mission success.
Sustainable reach is a fundamental operational objective.
This means that lift and tanking assets are much more than “support” assets, they are part of the overall sustainable assault force.
For 21st century airpower, several changes are underway with regard to capabilities, and few can be more important than the arrival of new tankers, especially when adding multi-mission capabilities to its core function.
A virtual global fleet of Airbus tankers is emerging based on this need.
Now the Dutch Air Force is joining the virtual global fleet.
Dutch tanker as presented by Dutch MoD and credited to the Dutch MoD.
According to a press release by the Dutch Ministry of Defence, dated July 28, 2016:
The Netherlands is ready to purchase 2 Airbus tanker/transport aircraft with Luxembourg. The aircraft will be NATO property and will be stationed at Eindhoven Air Base for pooling and sharing. Belgium, Germany, Norway and Poland intend to join the agreement at a later date.
The MRTT (Multi Role Tanker Transport) project is an example of the type of future-oriented collaboration between European countries that the government advocates. Minister of Defence Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert wrote to the House of Representatives to that effect today.
The purchase of the MRTT A330 type aircraft is an important contribution in addressing the scarce tanker and transport capability of the European Union in particular. In addition to refuelling aircraft and strategic transports, MRTT aircraft can also be used for carrying out medical evacuations, if necessary in intensive care units.
Netherlands leading
The fleet will be NATO property. The European Defence Agency (EDA) and the European materiel organisation Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en matière d’ARmement (OCCAR) are closely involved in the purchase of the aircraft, on behalf on the NATO Support & Procurement Agency (NSPA). Luxembourg and the Netherlands will have exclusive user rights. In addition to the purchase, the MRTT project also covers maintenance and operational deployment. The Netherlands is the lead nation in this multinational collaboration project.
The new aircraft will be stationed at Eindhoven Air Base. The Netherlands will also be responsible for registering the aircraft and monitoring their airworthiness. A study will be carried out to determine whether European Air Transport Command, which is also stationed in Eindhoven, will be able to supervise the MRTT pool.
Costs and personnel will be allocated on the basis of the number of flying hours that each country needs. The expected life span of the fleet is 30 years and the investment budget is between €250 million and €1 billion.
Expansion
The Netherlands and Luxembourg recorded the agreement in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The contract with Airbus was signed today. If Belgium, Germany, Norway and Poland decide to take part in the agreement, both the MoU and the quotation given by Airbus allow for expansion. If more countries do indeed decide to join, the design costs will be shared with these countries too, leading to lower costs for Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The number of A330 MRTT aircraft to be purchased could eventually rise to 8. According to the National Aerospace Laboratory, Eindhoven Air Base has sufficient room for manoeuvre in its allotted noise zones to accommodate 8 A330 MRTT aircraft.
Collaboration
The 2 participating countries are examining the possibility of collaboration with France and the United Kingdom, among others, in relation to training and instruction as well as maintenance. France is set to receive its first A330 aircraft in 2018. The United Kingdom already has A330 MRTTs in service.
The 2 aircraft will be delivered from 2020. In the same year, the Royal Netherlands Air Force will start to gradually decommission its 2 KDC-10 aircraft. This will ensure that tanker/transport capability will remain available to the Netherlands Defence organisation.
I have visited the KC-30A fleet at Amberly in Australia, and we have discussed the aircraft with RAAF personnel during a period of testing at Edwards AFB earlier this year.
I am currently in Australia and hope to re-visit Amberly next week to get an update on both the KC-30A and then the Wedgetail at Williamtown Air Base as well.
In 2008, the USAF selected the Airbus A300MRTT tanker. It was a clear winner from the standpoint of what the USAF wanted from a tanker.
But politics and the anomalies of the US acquisition process intruded and the next Administration picked a Boeing tanker, one which has yet to enter the USAF inventory.
For the USAF leadership, the Airbus tanker was clearly better, with its size and its ability to hold fuel in its wings, the potential for using the space on the aircraft, inside and out was especially compelling, notably with the introduction of the F-22 and the coming of the F-35 and its data rich generating capabilities.
The tanker could become part of the battlespace and work with fifth generation aircraft in a compelling manner.
There was much comment generated by the GAO, the press, analysts and pundits on that selection and that competition.
But the reality is the reality.
It is not just about points of view.
The A330 tanker has won every competition worldwide since the loss in the United States with the single exception of the recent announcement by Japan of adding the new Boeing tanker to their original order of a different variant of the 767 tanker.
And the Australians, as the lead nation, have already demonstrated what a capable platform it is, and a centerpiece for the global reach of the RAAF.
With the USAF not becoming the lead nation for the new Airbus tanker, that task fell to Australia.
88682random1.05.0
The Aussies normal acquisition path is to buy a foreign product, and work with the service or services who have put that platform into practice, and then work the platform into operations leveraging the work of the lead or operating force using the platform.
This was different.
The RAAF now was in the lead and worked with Airbus to bring the tanker into operation.
At the recent Airbus Defence and Space Trade Media Brief, an update was provided on the tanker from the operational and developmental point of view.
2016-06-26 Second Line of Defense attended the Airbus Defence and Space Trade Media Brief held in Munich Germany on June 20 and 21st 2016.
We will be reporting on a number of the presentations and the launch discussion of the new H Force weapons system by Airbus Helicopters.
In this first piece, we will focus upon the presentation by Jerónimo Amador, the head of marketing for the A330 MRTT and other Airbus derivatives.
The first day started with the head of Airbus Defence and Space, Dirk Hoke, greeting the journalists attending the two event. The CEO told the gathering that the new strategy of the sector would be announced in the Fall and launched then. But clearly, the presentations, which followed, highlighted elements of that strategy and foreshadowed the way ahead.
Probably, no two presentations highlighted this more than the one on the tanker or from a group perspective the H force weapons presentations and demonstration on day two. They did so in a core way: these are very flexible, modular, and upgradeable systems, with software upgradeability playing a key role.
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….
An overview on the tanker was provided by Airbus Defence and Space in a press release dated July 2016:
The Airbus A330 MRTT Multi Role Tanker Transport Aircraft is the only new generation tanker/transport flying, and certified today, and is battle-proven in recent coalition operations.
In service with the air forces of Australia, UAE, Saudi Arabia and UK, the A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) provides military strategic air transport as well as air-to-air refuelling capabilities.
It is based on the latest medium to long range, twin-aisle, commercial aircraft of the Airbus fly-by-wire family, the A330. More than 1,600 of these have been sold to over 100 customers and nearly 1,300 are operated all around the globe, ensuring easy support and many years of commercial life ahead.
The civil version from which the A330 MRTT is derived, the A330-200, already benefits from the most up-to-date design and manufacturing techniques, and integrates the most advanced avionics as well as proven fly-by-wire control systems which allow total flight envelope protection.
Representing the state-of-the-art in its category, the A330-200 has a maximum range of 8,000 nm/ 14,800 km, with a maximum speed of Mach 0.86. It is the primary choice as a platform for a tanker/transport, offering the best performance at the lowest investment and costs, and has won every major competition outside the USA that it has entered since launch.
Critically, the A330-200 wing is large enough to hold all the fuel needed in the tanking role without requiring any additional fuel tanks and so avoiding any reduction in its ability to carry passengers or cargo.
For air-to-air refuelling missions, the A330 MRTT is provided with the advanced Airbus Defence and Space Aerial Refuelling Boom System (ARBS), to refuel receptacle-equipped aircraft such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-35 Lightning II, or even the A330 MRTT itself (when fitted with an UARRSI).
The Airbus Military ARBS is the only new generation boom in service, permitting the fastest fuel transfer rate and greatly reducing the refuelling operation time. Refuelling can be performed at any altitude up to 35,000 ft while cruising at speeds between 180 kt and 300 kt.
To refuel probe-equipped receivers such as Eurofighter, Tornado, Mirage and Sukhoi models, the A330 MRTT is fitted with two Cobham 905E under-wing hose and drogue pods.
All the AAR (Air to Air Refuelling) systems are controlled from an advanced Fuel Operator Console that is positioned in the cockpit and features an Enhanced Video monitoring System to perform day and night refuelling.
To go further or stay longer on station, the A330 MRTT can be fitted with a Universal Aerial Refuelling Receptacle Slipway Installation (UARRSI) which allows refuelling from another tanker’s boom.
Able to refuel any receiver, the A330 MRTT can carry up to 111 tonnes / 245,000 lb of fuel in its tanks. In a deployment mission, the A330 MRTT enables four Eurofighters, to fly 3,600 nm / 5,794 km by refuelling them en-route, or, when carrying 20 tonnes / 44,800lb of payload, to deploy four fighters a distance of 2,800 nm / 4,500km.
The A330 MRTT can also be used on “towline” missions, whereby it can be on station at about 1,000 nm /1,600km from its base for some four hours 30 minutes, with the capability to provide 50 tonnes of fuel to receivers. Or it can provide 60 tonnes /2,170 pounds of fuel while remaining on station for five hours at 500 nm / 800 km from base. This exceeds by far what any other current tanker can offer.
With its true widebody fuselage, the A330 MRTT is ideal to carry a wide range of military or humanitarian payloads on strategic missions. Its cabin is designed to ensure optimum seating configurations in every class, maximising both capacity and comfort. It can accommodate a large variety of layouts, ranging from 253 seats in a three-class configuration, through 298 passengers in two classes, or more than 300 in a single class layout. The cabin is furnished with an attractively modern design.
These features enable a complete range of configurations, from pure troop transport to the complex customization required for VIP guests.
The A330 MRTT is also designed to carry a payload of up to 45 tonnes/99,000 lb.
Thanks to its optimised fuselage cross section, the cargo can conveniently be carried under-floor in any of the standard containers and pallets, ranging from the LD1 to LD3 and LD6, as well as the standard 88×108 inch 463-L NATO military pallets, which can be loaded onto the aircraft through a proven semi-automatic cargo loading system. Some of the cargo can also be carried as non-palletised “bulk”.
The main deck cargo compartment can also be used for cargo, as required, when the aircraft is specified as a freighter. In this instance the main deck is fitted with a large upper deck cargo door and cargo loading devices in the main deck floor. This allows the A330 MRTT to carry up to 26 88×108 inch 463-L NATO military pallets.
Furthermore, the aircraft can also be configured as a combi, to carry freight in the forward part of the main deck and passengers in the aft part.
The A330 MRTT can also be used for medical evacuation (MEDEVAC), as its cabin can easily be converted to accommodate up to 130 stretchers.
It is offered with a customised suite of military avionics and a mission system integrated with civil avionics. A comprehensive survivability package including a Defensive Aid System, fuel tank inerting system and an armoured cockpit are all available.
Already ordered by Australia, France, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom, the A330 MRTT has also been selected by India and Qatar.
The slideshow above shows an Australian KC-30A crew attending the recent RIAT air show in the United Kingdom.
I have had the chance to visit with the pilots and crews of four new or modified new air systems used by the U.S. and the allies in current Middle Eastern operations. Each of these platforms has provided capabilities important to the effort and foreshadows the way ahead.
The F-22 has contributed a new multi-tasking capability; the Operation Shader Typhoons have provided a new ground attack capability for the Eurofighter; the KC-30A has provided significant tanking support as well as re-shaping the con-ops of the tanker; and the Wedgetail has provided a new capability for air battle management in which scanning and tracking can be done simultaneously by the air battle manager.
Discussions with the pilots and crews of each of these new or evolving platforms provided a number of key insights into the evolution of airpower.
For the F-22, the multi-tasking capabilities of the aircraft are being fully flexed in operations. The ability to shift among strike, support, and air battle management tasks has become a key part of the operation. As well, the modernization of the F-22 is expanding its ability to perform its various tasks within a US and coalition environment.
For the Typhoon, the new variants are very capable ground attack aircraft. The RAF refers to these as Operation Shader ready Typhoons, and they are able to fully integrate the Paveway IV within the operations of the aircraft in the battlespace. The Tranche 2 Phase 1 enhancement has seen the integration of Paveway IV into the aircraft; the integration provided a focused capability for the ground strike role.
Image Shows: Typhoon FGR4’s from 1 (Fighter) Squadron based at RAF Lossiemouth Scotland en-route to the United States of America to participate in Exercise Red Flag the largest and most complex air war fighting exercise in the World. Images by Cpl Neil Bryden RAF
The software completely changed with an enhanced capability to perform the ground attack role. The pilots can now direct the weapon to a variety of targets with the onboard control systems and software.
JTACS in the Middle East operations are now calling for the Typhoon/Paveway IV capability on a regular basis. The RAF can operate a four-ship formation and strike 16 targets in one pass. The RAF has been able with the modified Typhoons to provide combat mass and significant strike capability, which could be delivered rapidly, and coalition partners quickly began to pick up on this capability.
The Aussies have brought two new aircraft to the fight, namely, the KC-30A and Wedgetail. During my Australian visit I will get updates on both, but it is clear that each provides a significant capability in terms of what a new platform can provide.
Notably, the KC-30A is not just a flying gas can. It does not simply follow the classic tracks system for tanking but flies to where the fighters need to be fueled; it can also find ways to support the combat fleet more flexibly than traditional tankers.
And the operations in the Middle East have laid the groundwork for the next iteration of the tanker in which the RAAF is looking at how to use the space onboard the aircraft for the ISR or C2 capabilities of the air battle management or support functions.
Wedgetail is a very new type of air battle management system, which can both scan and track in the battlespace. This means that the radar tracking signals can be turned on for a short period of time and the information provided to the strike fleet to supplement their own target tracking functions. It is not simply about operating as an air traffic management/battle management system as does the classic AWACS.
It is a software upgradeable aircraft and is in the throes of being prepared to operate with an upgraded architecture which, in turn, will allow it to expand its combat contribution throughout the electronic magnetic spectrum.
But no platform FIGHTS alone, which means that a key part of shaping the way ahead is to find ways to better integrate the force for operations in the extended battlespace.
Indeed, the evolution of new platforms, especially those that are software upgradeable, like the F-35, the P-8 and the Wedgetail, should be shaped on the grounds of their contribution to force packages, not simply on the grounds of what can be upgraded from an organic platform perspective for that platform considered by itself.
As General Hawk Carlisle put it with regard to the challenge:
“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.
A Tyndall F-22 Raptor is ready to taxi and take off during Red Flag 16-1, Jan. 26 at Nellis AFB, Nev. Tyndall’s F-22 Raptors bring a lot to the exercise as the jet’s stealth capabilities, advanced avionics, communication and sensory capabilities help augment the capabilities of the other aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Alex Fox Echols III/Released)
“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.”
A senior U.S. Navy warfighter reinforced Hawk Carlisle’s perspective:
“Hawk clearly speaks to the advantages of the high-end platforms we are fielding, but notes that we are deficient in bringing up our network integration at the same pace.”
Yet understanding this point can be difficult.
The shift is from deploying or upgrading a new platform from an organic platform perspective to one where the upgrades are done with a sense of how best to build force packages to operate in the extended battlespace.
It is about shaping a honeycombed force in which platforms are the key parts in the force package and oriented towards better-integrated operations in the battlespace.
It is not simply about networking the entire force; it is about shaping effective force packages, which can operate more effectively together either in force modules, or a total force package.
A good perspective on the transformation effort was provided by the RAF ISTAR force commander who is focused on the significant challenge of moving for an ISTAR force small f to an ISTAR force big F. The shift has serious implications for how to leverage platforms.
A Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter fires a flare while banking away from a RAAF KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft over the skies over Iraq. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence
For example, the introduction into service over the next few years of the Poseidon P-8A offers opportunity to bring the previously stove-piped maritime patrol force into the ISTAR fold.
The ISTAR Force Commander, Air Commodore Andrew, sees this as a real test of his transformation leadership – cautioning that if we don’t view the P8-A as a maritime domain awareness strike asset, rather than a replacement MPA, the UK will never realize the full benefit of their investment and generate the enhanced operational effectiveness that is required for the future Joint Force.
As an all software upgradeable fleet replaces the core stove-piped platforms, the possibility could exist to put the platforms in competition with one another for modernization upgrades. Which upgrade gets the priority for which platform to make the greatest contribution to the integrated ISTAR capability are the sort of decisions that should lie with the ISTAR Force in the future – it is at Force level, not within individual programs and projects that the overall capability benefit can be seen and prioritized.
“Making the financial and conceptual space for that enhancement requires a common approach to training, manpower, support and sustainability, information and operating concepts that is at the heart of the transformation. Treating each of the platform types as interconnected segments of an ISTAR capability Venn diagram will allow us to create the breadth of intelligence and understanding in the common operating picture that the Joint Force needs.
“Getting out of the platform stovepipe mentality will not be easy; it will be necessary to shape an overall operational approach to where the key operators of the platforms become plug and play elements in the overall ISTAR Force.”
This is clearly what Carlisle is talking about; and with the contributions of the new or modernized assets like F-22, Typhoon, KC-30A and Wedgetail in mind, how do we get a priority on force package integration at the modular force package level?
And as new assets get introduced like P-8 or F-35, how best to overcome the problem of platform autism?
2016-07-22 When we recently visited the Air Combat Command, we were informed that at RIAT 2016, a session with four pilots had been held at RIAT 2016, which provided a perspective from the squadron pilot’s perspective.
The pilots came from the USAF, the USMC, the RAF, and the Norwegian Air Force.
The ACC later sent us a video and we created two video slices from the overall video.
The first provides an update on the USMC and the F-35 with a very good overview on USMC thinking about the aircraft, and its role in the evolution of the joint and coalition force.
The Norwegian Air Force pilot discussed the importance of the situational awareness for the pilot from a Norwegian perspective.
He pointed out that with their High North operations and challenging whether overall, an all-weather capability was crucial.
And because Norway operates a small fleet without a lot of specialized aircraft, they welcomed a multi-tasking ISR/EW/C2 combat aircraft as a centerpiece for their force.
And building coalition commonality and interoperability from the ground up at USMC Air Station Beaufort, at Luke AFB, at Nellis, at Edwards, at Pax River and so on is a key part of shaping the future of airpower.
Last week, the U.S. Defense Department announced that, following months of assessment by a Republic of Korea (ROK)-U.S. Joint Working Group, the U.S. Forces Korea command would station a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in the ROK.
According to the announcement, “The THAAD deployment will contribute to a layered missile defense that will enhance the alliance’s existing missile defense capabilities against North Korean missile threats.”
The decision is welcome but needs to be followed by additional measures to network the ROK, Japan, and the U.S. regional ballistic missile defenses (BMD).
The upcoming THAAD deployment, scheduled for the end of 2017, will help protect U.S. and ROK military personnel and assets on the Korean Peninsula as well as the South Korean population from DPRK missile strikes by adding another layer to Seoul’s missile defenses.
THAAD can engage North Korean missiles at a considerably higher altitude than the Patriot missile defense systems in South Korea.
It could also provide an additional opportunity to engage North Korean missiles before the PAC-2 and PAC-3 batteries attempt a lower-altitude interception.
The United States has employed a variety of tools to address DPRK and other missile threats:
S. Korean officials have engaged in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy to persuade North Korea to end its nuclear weapons programs, refrain from the further testing of ballistic missiles, and behave less provocatively on the global scene.
Through declaratory policy, U.S. officials have repeatedly warned North Korea against developing, testing, or using nuclear and missile capabilities.
Washington has imposed unilateral sanctions to impede the DPRK’s WMD activities and has worked with partners to secure multilateral sanctions.
The United States has offered South Korea and other partners diverse security guarantees, including implicit and sometimes explicit pledges to employ U.S. nuclear capabilities to protect them, if necessary, and has provided U.S. allies security assistance–such as weapons, defense technologies, and financial support–to enhance their own defense capabilities.
The Pentagon also bases or deploys large numbers of U.S. troops in Asia, with an impressive range of conventional and unconventional capabilities, reinforced by globally usable U.S.-based assets, such as naval forces and long-range strategic bombers.
Finally, the United States has also been building defenses against North Korean missiles.
These include national BMD systems in Alaska and California as well as some forward-based capacity in Asian countries and on U.S. warships. The U.S. Defense Department is deploying an additional 14 Ground–Based Mid-Course Interceptors in Alaska to hit any long-range DPRK missiles launched toward the Continental United States.
Effective missile defense can, along with other defensive measures such as dispersing and hardening potential targets and developing means to destroy adversary missiles before they can be used, bolster regional deterrence and defense by complicating a potential aggressor’s planning and negating the value of their missile threats.
The ROK has been developing an indigenous Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD) for intercepting short- to medium-range ballistic missiles as well as cruise and ballistic missiles capable of threatening retaliation and preemptively destroying DPRK missiles before they could be used.
Due to the large number of missiles and artillery systems aimed at South Korea, the ROK military aims to rely on massive artillery counter-battery strikes and some preemptive missile strikes to suppress the North’s strike weapons soon after hostilities commence.
However, the ROK has only recently begun to acquire sensors and systems (like Global Hawk and the F-35) able to locate and destroy the North’s mobile missiles, but for now ROK planners expect the United States to accomplish this mission using its own ISR and strike assets as part of their agreed “4D” strategy to detect, defend, disrupt, and destroy North Korea’s missile inventory.
The ROK also needs to acquire more precision-guided munitions and promote greater jointness in what has traditionally been an Army-dominated military.
Until now, South Korea has resisted integrating its BMD systems into the Asian regional network that the United States and Japan are building due to a quest for strategic autonomy, indigenous defense capabilities, concern about China’s reaction, preference for offensive strike systems, and aversion to collaborating with Japan.
Even the U.S. BMD radars and PAC-3 interceptors deployed in the ROK are officially intended only to defend the U.S. forces there from a DPRK missile attack.
The United States and South Korea have been focusing on developing mechanisms, physical and conceptual, to keep their BMD systems in the ROK interoperable, though with limited progress.
The THAAD decision provides a welcome means of better integrating ROK and U.S. missile defenses on the Peninsula, but additional measures are needed. Greater integration of national BMD systems in Asia is needed.
For example, protecting Japanese territory from North Korean missile strikes would be crucial for helping the United States defend South Korea from Northern aggression. U.S. forces based in Japan would support the defenders directly and also help U.S. military reinforcements based outside Asia move to South Korea.
Recognizing this, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Hagiuda said that Tokyo supported the THAAD deployment decision because it would promote regional peace and stability.
A senior Japanese Defense Ministry official said that a THAAD system in the ROK would help all three countries detect DPRK missile launches. In late 2014, Japan, South Korea, and the United States signed a trilateral pact to exchange data about the North’s nuclear and missile programs.
Last month, from June 20-28, the three countries conducted a trilateral crisis, “Pacific Dragon,” at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai near Hawaii.
This is a notional rendering of the 10 and 2 O’Clock challenge as articulated by Admiral Gortney in our interview with the Northcom Commander earlier this year.It is credited to Second Line of Defense and not in any way an official rendering by any agency of the US government. It is meant for illustration purposes only.
The participating vessels in the exercise included the USS John Paul Jones, the USS Shoup, the JS Chokai, the ROKS Sejung the Great, the ROKS Gang Gam Chan, and the U.S. MQ-9, which is capable of antimissile detection and tracking. The exercise focused on improving coordination among participants in the detection and tracking of ballistic targets and using each country’s Aegis Ballistic Defense System to share tactical data via a data link.
However, the exercise did not include the live firing of an interceptor missile.
More seriously, the South Korean Navy and the Japanese Navy lacked the legal authority to share military information with each other directly since they were unable to realize a proposed 2012 defense intelligence sharing arrangement. Instead, the U.S. Navy had to act as an intermediary, shuffling data between the two countries.
Japan and South Korea both need more missile defense ships and BMD interceptors.
The United States and Japan should accelerate bilateral research and development of advanced BMD capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region, which could help protect the U.S. bases and forces in Japan needed to reinforce the Korean Peninsula.
The two countries must also make their early-warning systems more interoperable with the United States; in this manner, they would provide redundancy for their space and other sensors, which are inherently vulnerable to attack or malfunction. In addition, Japan and South Korea must more extensively disperse and harden potential missile targets (such as by building more runways).
Japan should also consider hosting its own THAAD system and taking other steps to deepen interoperability and cooperation between Japan and South Korea regarding missile defense.
Editor’s Note: The comments below come from our interview earlier this year with the Northcom Commander, Admiral Gortney:
Question: Clearly, the new leadership in North Korea is working to shape new nuclear and strike capabilities.
There probably is NO homeland defense threat more pressing and clear and present than the nuclear threat from North Korea.
How do you view this challenge?
Answer: I own the trigger to deal with this threat in consultation with the National Command Authority.
We are prepared to shoot in our defense.
We have invested in a ground missile defense system in Alaska; we have 44 interceptors in all. We have a sophisticated system of systems in place, but we need to improve its robustness as the system has been built over time with the fits and starts politically with regard to the system.
I testify along with the head of the Missile Defense Agency with regard to our system and the ways to improve it.
We need the maintenance and modernization of the system and the tests in order to assure ourselves that it’s going to work and I have high confidence in the system at the current time.
Then, we need improvements in the sensors. And we need investments and research and development to get us on the correct side of the cost curve, because both the theater ballistic missile defense and ballistic missile defense of the homeland have been on the wrong side of the cost curve.
We’re shooting very dumb rockets down, inexpensive rockets, with very expensive rockets, and we’re only doing it in the case of ballistic missile defense in mid-course so that the debris doesn’t fall on the homeland.
What we need to do is invest in those technologies that keep them from being launched, detect them, kill them on the rails, kill them in boost phase, start knocking the count-rate down instead of just taking a single rocket and shooting it down in mid-course.
It is about the kill chain, and shaping a more effective missile defense kill chain which is integratable in the overall North American NIFC-CA type capability which can integrate air and sea systems which is important to deal with the evolving threat environment.
But one has to think through our deterrence strategy as well.
What deters the current leader of North Korea?
What deters non-state actors for getting and using a nuclear weapon?
What will deter Russia from using tactical nuclear weapons in the sequence of how they view dealing with conventional war?
It is not my view that matters; it is their view; how to I get inside the head of the 21st century actors, and not simply stay in yesterday’s set of answers?
2016-07-09 After an extensive competition, the Australian government downselected the French firm DCNS to build a new class of advanced conventional submarines.
In a press release from the Australian government dated April 26, 206, the Australian government announced the decision and underscored that
“The decision was driven by DCNS’s ability to best meet all of the Australian Government’s requirements.
These included superior sensor performance and stealth characteristics, as well as range and endurance similar to the Collins Class submarine.
The Government’s considerations also included cost, schedule, program execution, through-life support and Australian industry involvement.”
Less obvious in the press coverage around the decision was the innovative nature of the program and the significant opportunity to leverage evolving technologies in shaping the largest conventional submarine, which DCNS has been involved in building.
88533random1.05.0
In many ways, it is a “hybrid” submarine in the sense that it leverages the innovative technologies of the new Barracuda SSN being put to sea next year by the French Navy, leveraging the extensive experience which DCNS has in building the Scorpene ion class submarines in Chile, Malaysia, Brazil and India, and, for the first time, operating with a US combat system which will be shaped for this conventional submarine operating at range, speed and distance in the challenging waters of the Pacific.
In an article published by the Australian publication Manufacturers’ Monthlyon July 4, 2016, the perspective of Chris Burns, then CEO of the Defence Teaming Centre in Australia highlighted the approach to building submarines in Australia.
Regularly referred to as the second-most difficult thing to build after a space shuttle, the ability for a country to build its own submarines is a measure of industrial sophistication, a critical bit of sovereignty and more besides.
“If you can build a submarine you can pretty well build anything,” Chris Burns, then-CEO of the Defence Teaming Centre, told Manufacturers’ Monthly recently…..
The decision to base the submarine build at Adelaide was the right one, believes the Teaming Centre.
Nothing against Western Australia; they are fully capable of doing the middle-level maintenance,” said Burns of the shipbuilding rival state.
“What they don’t have is that experience – for example, here in South Australia we can physically cut a hole in the submarine or cut the submarine in half in order to refit it.”
SA’s DTC has long campaigned for a continuous shipbuilding program to level out peaks and troughs in work and consistency for the shipbuilding workforce.
Burns said this is unfair, and the local naval defence industry hasn’t had the chance – due to the stop/start nature of contracts in the past – to build up its muscle tissue.
“With the Air Warfare Destroyers from ship one to ship two you had a 30 per cent productivity improvement and from ship two to ship three we’ll have a 20 per cent improvement in productivity,” said Burns.
Any premium is also more than negated by things such as investing in the local industry, taxes being paid and not having to pay welfare to workers between jobs, he added…..
And in a piece written by Trevor Thomas on the Australian Defence Business Review at the time of the announcement of the decision by the Australian government, the analyst highlighted a number of key aspects of the decision.
The 4,500 tonne Shortfin Barracuda design represents the embodiment of all of France’s knowledge of both nuclear-powered and conventionally-powered submarines into a mature large platform design, whose first-of-class nuclear-powered Suffren is already well down the construction track for a launch in 2017.
Overall design and construction risk for Australia’s boat has therefore been substantially addressed, other than the switch to conventional power for which French shipbuilder DCNS has previous experience to draw upon…..
France offered Australia a more contemporary submarine design that will be the recipient of its most sensitive and protected submarine technology, and therefore likely to yield the most lethal conventional submarine ever contemplated by Western nations. To that has also been promised a distillation of technology from France’s nuclear submarine program – including technologies such as pump jet propulsion –something that neither Germany or Japan were in a position to match.
Rather than the progressive iteration of historical conventional submarine designs for export – as in the case of the Germans, and the updating of an older submarine design drawing more on strategic considerations for attraction than real differential capability – as in the case of the Japanese, France has offered Australia a bi-national industrial collaboration that brings with it the transfer of all technology, know-how and resources necessary to achieve operational autonomy and sovereignty in a regionally superior platform that also satisfies local requirements for interoperability with major allies.
Added to the French package is intimate government involvement (and therefore assurance) in the Future Submarine project, not just through majority ownership of DCNS, but also via a detailed technology sharing and industrial cooperation agreement from the French Director General of Armaments (DGA) attached to the original CEP response.
All these industrial undertakings were next cleverly integrated with the Australian Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda to ensure sovereign capabilities will be put into place to support the new submarines over their full life cycle.
DCNS was also quick to pick up on the subtle shift of terminology in the new Defence White Paper from a ‘continuous build’ of surface ships, to a ‘rolling build’ for Future Submarines.
The White Paper’s introduction of a breathing space – by way of a review in the late-2020s to assess whether the Future Submarine’s configuration remained relevant to contemporary strategic circumstances facing Australia – also saw DCNS proposing successive Block 1B capability developments, and including a latter Block 2A development that could possibly see a reversion to nuclear-powering of the boats should strategic developments and local Australian politics consider that necessary…..
Twelve new submarines of the Shortfin Barracuda genre will make a major contribution to the combined military deterrence of the US, Japan, Australia and other allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Interoperability is assured through the Government’s mandating of a US combat system.
France is nevertheless unique among European countries in terms of retaining specific responsibilities regarding defence and security in the Asia-Pacific subject to its holding of territories extending across New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and the Wallis and Futuna islands. More importantly, alongside the US, France and Australia are the largest contributors to the fight against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Australian warships are regular contributors to coalition operations in the Middle East, and recently a Navy frigate undertook joint exercises with a French Navy Task Force in Middle East waters, while RAAF KC-30A tankers have regularly been employed to refuel aircraft operating in that area off the French nuclear aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle.
Selection of the Shortfin Barracuda and DCNS of France as the preferred design/builder for Australia’s future submarines is a pragmatic choice by the Australian Government, which promises to bring the nation long-term benefits via combining the best of contemporary underwater warfare capability and industrial collaboration opportunities to enhance the long-term economic and national security of Australia.
The Australian MoD is very interested in shaping cross-cutting convergence among the services as the transformation of the force is shaped.
With regard to submarines, there is a clear interest that the submarine can leverage the extensive air modernization strategy being put in place by the RAAF, which means that DCNS and the winning American provider for the combat system can partner with the overall transformation of the Australian forces.
The artist drawings in the slideshow and the video are credited to DCNS.
2016-07-11 The P-8/Triton dyad is introducing a new maritime domain awareness strike capability to the fleet and to the joint and coalition forces.
In our latest Special Report, we look at the emergence of this capability in the US, and Australian forces and the P-8 in the Indian, and UK forces.
On May 23 and 24, 2016, during a Jacksonville Naval Air Station visit, we spent time with the P-8 and Triton community which is shaping a common culture guiding the transformation of the ASW and ISR side of Naval Air. The acquisition term for the effort is a “family of systems” whereby the P-3 is being “replaced” by the P-8 and the Triton Remotely Piloted Aircraft.
But clearly the combined capability is a replacement of the P-3 in only one sense – executing the anti-submarine warfare function. But the additional ISR and C2 enterprise being put in place to operate the combined P-8 and Triton capability is a much broader capability than the classic P-3. Much like the Osprey transformed the USMC prior to flying the F-35, the P-8/Triton team is doing the same for the US Navy prior to incorporating the F-35 within the carrier air wing.
In addition to the Wing Commander and his Deputy Commander, who were vey generous with their time and sharing of important insights, we had the opportunity to interviews with various members of the VP-16 P-8 squadron from CO and XO to Pilots, NFOs and Air Crew members, along with the wing weapons and training officer, the Triton FIT team, and key members of the Integrated Training Center. Those interviews will be published over the next few weeks.
87621random1.05.0
The P-8/Triton capability is part of what we have described as 21st century air combat systems: software upgradeable, fleet deployed, currently with a multinational coalition emerging peer partnership. Already the Indians, the Aussies and the British are or will be flying the P-8s and all are in discussions to build commonality from the stand-up of the P-8 Forward.
Software upgradeability provides for a lifetime of combat learning to be reflected in the rewriting of the software code and continually modernizing existing combat systems, while adding new capabilities over the operational life of the aircraft. Over time, fleet knowledge will allow the US Navy and its partners to understand how best to maintain and support the aircraft while operating the missions effectively in support of global operations.
Reflecting on the visit there are five key takeaways from our discussions with Navy Jax.
A key point is how the USN is approaching the P-8/Triton combat partnership, which is the integration of manned, and unmanned systems, or what are now commonly called “remotes”. The Navy looked at the USAF experience and intentionally decided to not build a the Triton “remote” operational combat team that is stovepiped away from their P-8 Squadrons.
The team at Navy Jax is building a common Maritime Domain Awareness and Maritime Combat Culture and treats the platforms as partner applications of the evolving combat theory. The partnership is both technology synergistic and also aircrew moving between the Triton and P-8
The P-8 pilot and mission crews, after deploying with the fleet globally can volunteer to do shore duty flying Tritons. The number of personnel to fly initially the Tritons is more than 500 navy personnel so this is hardly an unmanned aircraft. Hence, inside a technological family of systems there is also an interchangeable family of combat crews.
With the P-8 crews operating at different altitudes from the Triton, around 50K, and having operational experience with each platform, they will be able to gain mastery of both a wide scale ocean ISR and focused ASW in direct partnership with the surface navy from Carrier Strike Groups, ARG/MEUs to independent operations for both undersea and sea surface rather than simply mastering a single platform.
This is a visionary foundation for the evolution of the software upgradeable platforms they are flying as well as responding to technological advances to work the proper balance by manned crews and remotes.
The second key point is that the Commanders of both P-8 aviator and the soon to be operational Triton community understand that for transformation to occur the surface fleet has to understand what they can do. This dynamic “cross-deck” actually air to ship exchange can totally reshape surface fleet operations. To accelerate this process, officers from the P-8 community are right now being assigned to surface ships to rework their joint concepts of operations.
Exercises are now in demonstration and operational con-ops to explain and real world demonstrate what the capabilities this new and exciting aspect of Naval Air can bring to the fleet. One example was a recent exercise with an ARG-MEU where the P-8 recently exercised with the amphibious fleet off of the Virginia Capes.
The third key point is that the software upgradeability aspect of the airplane has driven a very strong partnership with industry to be able to have an open-ended approach to modernization. On the aircraft maintenance and supply elements of having successful mission ready aircraft it is an important and focused work in progress both inside the Navy (including Supply Corps) and continuing an important relationship with industry, especially at the Tech Rep Squadron/Wing level.
The fourth point is how important P-8 and Triton software upgradeability is, including concurrent modification to trainer/simulators and rigorous quality assurance for the fidelity of the information in shaping the future of the enterprise. The P-8s is part of a cluster of airplanes which have emerged defining the way ahead for combat airpower which are software upgradeable: the Australian Wedgetail, the global F-35, and the Advanced Hawkeye, all have the same dynamic modernization potential to which will be involved in all combat challenges of maritime operations.
It is about shaping a combat learning cycle in which software can be upgraded as the user groups shape real time what core needs they see to rapidly deal with the reactive enemy. All military technology is relative to a reactive enemy. It is about the arsenal of democracy shifting from an industrial production line to a clean room and a computer lab as key shapers of competitive advantage.
The fifth point is about weaponization and its impact. We have focused for years on the need for a weapons revolution since the U.S. forces, and as core allies are building common platforms with the growth potential to operate new weapons as they come on line. The P-8 is flying with a weapon load out from the past, but as we move forward, the ability of the P-8 to manage off board weapons or organic weapons will be enabled.
For example, there is no reason a high speed cruise or hypersonic missile on the hard points of the P-8 could not be loaded and able to strike a significant enemy combat asset at great distance and speed. We can look forward to the day when P-8s crews will receive a Navy Cross for sinking a significant enemy surface combatant.
In short, the P-8/Triton is at the cutting edge of naval air transformation within the entire maritime combat enterprise. And the US Navy is not doing this alone, as core allies are part of the transformation from the ground up.
(The slideshow above shows the CNO visiting Pax River Naval Air Station earlier this year and is credited to the US Navy.)
For your copy of the new special report, please go to the following:
