DoD, NSA and Dependency on Foreign Microelectronics

06/03/2016

2016-06-03 By Richard McCormack

Washington legislators have re-awakened to concerns over the Defense Department’s inability to plan for and deal with what is now the final stage in the shift of American microelectronics production offshore.

Congress wants the Pentagon to figure out how it is going to deal with issues associated with purchasing “trusted” electronics for military weapons and national security surveillance systems from foreign and foreign-owned producers.

Within the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017 (HR-4909), which passed in the House of Representatives on May 18, Congress directs the federal government to figure out how it can buy “trusted” semiconductors from foreign producers, now that the ownership of its most important source of leading-edge microelectronics has been sold by IBM to a foreign company.

The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the authorization bill (Report 114-537) states that Congress “remains concerned with the Department of Defense’s ability to ensure access to cutting-edge microelectronics with the requisite level of verifiable trust incorporated” into those semiconductors and circuits.

Since 2004, under a 10-year contract that was valued initially at more than $600 million, IBM provided DOD and the National Security Agency with output from its “Trusted Foundry” fabs in East Fishkill, N.Y., and Burlington, Vt. IBM produced small runs of specialized chips that could be used with confidence throughout the military and national security complex. But last July, IBM finalized sale of its semiconductor business to Global Foundries, a company owned by the Emirates of Abu Dhabi. Included in the transaction was IBM’s federally supported Trusted Foundry.

Within the 2017 authorization bill, there is $69 million for the Trusted Foundry. DOD and the Defense Security Service have renewed the Trusted Foundry contract after they were assured that Global Foundries “could obtain the appropriate accreditations to be a DOD Trusted Supplier following the [IBM] transition,” DOD officials told the Armed Services Committee. But DOD’s continued access to secure chips provided by the former IBM facility “is uncertain,” added Marie Mak, director of acquisition and sourcing management at the Government Accountability Office. “There are no near-term alternatives to the foundry services formerly provided by IBM.”

DOD’s reliance on a single-source of supply for sensitive microchips could soon end, “yet there is no sense of urgency,” says a congressional aide. “We are trying to push DOD to consider its options.”

The language in the DOD authorization bill mirrors those remarks: “Due to market trends, supply chain globalization and manufacturing costs, the Department’s future access to U.S.-based microelectronics sources is uncertain,” says the House Armed Services Report. “As such, the Department is considering various potential approaches that would allow it to access commercial, non-trusted sources in the global microelectronics marketplace, while still ensuring trust.”

Congress isn’t sure the Pentagon knows what it’s getting into.

Having lost its last U.S.-owned source of trusted semiconductors and with the “dwindling number of domestic microelectronics manufacturers on which the Department can rely, the [Armed Services Committee] believes that there should be a better understanding of what trust capabilities exist and are in use by the commercial marketplace,” says the NDAA.

DOD was warned of this potential outcome more than a decade ago. The Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply in 2005 outlined the potential consequences of “a profound restructuring” of the electronics industry caused by offshore outsourcing, the rise of increasingly competitive government-subsidized foreign producers and substantial declines in federal support for basic R&D. The Defense Department did not adopt DSB’s recommendations and now the fail-safe point described in that report has been reached.

The result is congressionally mandated studies by DOD and the Comptroller General of the United States focused on how the government can evaluate and emulate how companies in the private sector assure the purchase of foreign-produced trusted microelectronics semiconductors and components “and prevent malicious content in devices,” according to the authorization bill. The studies will address how DOD can leverage commercial microelectronics purchasing practices and will answer this question: “What are the challenges associated with implementing these practices for defense systems?”

It is unclear how DOD can oversee or regulate production of sensitive chips without issuing security clearances or requiring that chips and systems be produced by U.S. citizens.

Can U.S. military and national security contractors share designs and intellectual property with foreign-owned producers?

Will foreign companies agree to make small runs of complex mil-spec chips intended for use in sensitive U.S. military and national security surveillance systems that could be used against their own countries?

In a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee last October, three government officials testified that there are only four major companies left in the world making advanced semiconductors: TSMC of Taiwan; Global Foundries, owned by the UAE; Korea-based Samsung; and Intel Corp., which does not make national-security-specific chips and recently announced plans to lay off 12,000 workers (having misjudged growth of the mobile market).

With the loss of so much of the U.S. electronics industry and the sale of IBM’s Trusted Foundry, DOD “sees this as a significant risk to assured supply of the most advanced microelectronics for defense systems and platforms that must remain technologically superior to our adversaries,” noted the joint statement of Andre Grudger, acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy; Kristen Baldwin, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for Systems Engineering; and Brett Hamilton, chief engineer for trusted microelectronics at the Navy Surface Warfare Center Crane Division. “Consolidation in the microelectronics industry has raised DOD concerns for assured supply for national security missions.

In the past 15 months alone [through October 2015], 21 mergers and acquisitions worth over $51 billion are pending or have been completed, including two of the top 10 largest U.S. semiconductors firms.”

More recently, China’s announcement of a $200-billion investment in semiconductor technology, in a “go-it-alone” strategy to become self sufficient in the technology, is raising additional concerns, which the federal government will soon be addressing separately.

(The semiconductor industry R&D consortium Sematech closed its doors last year.)

“China’s recent significant investment in the [U.S.] microelectronics industry is an example of foreign transactions that DOD is actively monitoring from a technology and market share perspective,” the three government officials testified.

The three DOD officials also disclosed that one of the reasons for the Obama administration’s push for the creation of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) is to assure supply of electronics for the U.S. military. The NNMI “can enable the DOD Trusted Defense Systems Strategy by supporting flexible hybrid electronics and integrated photonics manufacturing institutes, which deliver new manufacturing capabilities in electronics,” said the government officials.

In February, 2005, The DSB’s Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply, concluded that DOD had “no overall vision of its future microelectronics components needs and how to deal with them. Technology and supply problems are addressed as they arise. An overall vision would enable the Department to develop approaches to meeting its needs before each individual supply sources becomes an emergency.”

DOD never addressed those options “as urgent issues,” said GAO’s Mak. “[B]y relying on a sole source supplier for leading-edge microelectronics, DOD now faces some difficult decisions with potentially significant cost and schedule impacts to programs that rely on these technologies as well as national security implications.”

The NDAA also calls on the Secretary of Defense “to develop and implement a strategy for developing and acquiring trusted microelectronics from various sources by 2020.” That strategy must be submitted to the congressional defense committees a year after passage of the 2017 Defense authorization bill. “The Secretary of Defense would also be required to certify by September 30, 2020, that the Department has implemented the recommendations of the strategy and has created an assured means of accessing sufficient supply of trusted microelectronics.”

DOD is also directed to “consider utilizing” funding from Title III of the Defense Production Act and the National Security Space Industrial and Supply Base Risk Mitigation Program (NSS-ISB) for projects that “ensure the availability of domestic production capabilities. . . for strategic-hardened and trusted microelectronics.”

According to the NDAA, the Secretary of Defense is required to brief the Committees on Armed Services in the Senate and the House of Representatives by September 1, 2016, with “information on the Secretary’s plans to ensure a continued domestic source of strategic-hardened trusted microelectronics and the Secretary’s views on using DPA Title III and the NSS-ISB for such purposes.”

This article was republished with the permission of our partner Manufacturing News.

Visiting the Integrated Training Center at Navy Jax: Shaping the Way Ahead for the New Navy Combat Team Operating P-8s and Triton

06/02/2016

2016-05-29 By Ed Timperlake and Robbin Laird

The great historian Max Hastings in a seminal book about all the fighting forces of World War II said that after some very nasty set backs early in the war, the US and Royal Navies emerged as the most effective fighting forces in the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/books/review/inferno-the-world-at-war-1939-1945-by-max-hastings-book-review.html?_r=0

We have often spoken of the US Navy’s combat operational goal in WW II of creating a Big Blue Blanket over the Pacific via a vast deployed fleet.

This now evolved into a “Big Blue ‘Tron’ Blanket.

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/21st-Century-Approach-to-Tron-Warfare.pdf

But what also can never be forgotten is the other war winning combat approach; the USN and RN Hunter-Killer teams of air and surface platforms working in harmony to win “The Battle of The Atlantic.”

In today’s 21s Century military world add in nuc attack subs, satellites and “remotes” and todays “Big Blue ‘Tron’ Blanket” and “Hunter-Killer Teams” now become global scalable “Kill Webs.”

When we visited at the end of March this year Admiral Gortney, NORTHCOM Commander and a proven fighting Carrier Admiral, he focused on the challenge of dealing with the threats at the 10 and 2 O’clock to North America.

He highlighted as well the centrality of shaping integrated air and maritime capabilities to deal with the threat and suggested that NORAD migrate from a pure air to an integrated air and sea command to deal with the 21st century challenges facing his command.

https://sldinfo.com/north-american-defense-and-the-evolving-strategic-environment-admiral-gortney-focuses-on-the-need-to-defend-north-america-at-the-ten-and-two-oclock-positions/

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/northcom-defending-north-america-at-ten-and-two-oclock/

This is a notional rendering of the 10 and 2 O'Clock challenge. 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.
This is a notional rendering of the 10 and 2 O’Clock challenge. 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.

When we visited Navy Jax, we were able to talk with those creating an effective response to the challenges highlighted by Admiral Gortney, namely the P-8/Triton community.

These maritime war fighting assets are key elements in the evolving approach to crate effective “kill webs” to address a very real and growing threat to North America.

And an important asset in shaping this way ahead is provided by the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Weapons School (MPRWS) located in the Integrated Training Center.

In effect, this is where the Weapons and Tactics Instructors are being trained and shaped to win the tron wars being fought at 10 and 2 O’clock.

The training and successful use of all technology is ongoing a ensure that air-maritime force has both timely information, appropriate weapon technology and the appropriate level of decision con-ops it needs to deal with evolving threats.

We had a chance to interview Lt. Commander “KC” Campbell, the Weapons and Tactics Department Head, during our visit to the ITC.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=52596

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=77993

Obviously, the major challenge facing the ITC is implementing the transition from P-3 to P-8/Triton.

Half of the squadrons have transitioned but that leaves another half to go.

But Lt. Commander Campbell is not taking his eye off of the ball of shaping a transformation approach as the new capability comes into the fleet.

He emphasized that the capability was new and there was a need to shape new tactics for the new capability.

He fully recognized the dynamic iterative nature of his mission.

For example, the P-3 flew to an area of interest and then went on station.

“With the P-8 when we take off we are already in the area of interest.

We already have a tactical picture from the Mobile Tactical Operations Center and we are already working within and on the common operating picture.

This is a change in capability; and needs a change in approach.”

The new capability especially as the USN-USMC team works towards enhanced capabilities in the extended battlespace requires shaping new techniques, new tactics and changing the mental furniture of the entire warfighting community.

To do this, Navy Jax deploys personnel from Jax to the fleet to interactively reshape thinking.

“I have a team of about 25 junior officers who spread out from Jax to the fleet and shape training nodes.

They make sure common tactics are implemented and standardized across the fleet.”

And in the process, of course, the fleet interacts with the P-8/Triton community to reshape concepts of operations going forward.

“There are cross-functional teams throughout the fleet which are working the evolution of tactics.”

Fallon Air Station is one key piece of the training effort where Jax sends instructors.

“In effect, a university structure is emerging at Fallon to look to integrate the new technologies, platforms and approaches in the shaping and application of new tactics.”

P-8 has been to Red Flag and is starting its migration into the joint and combined world as well.

And twice a year there is a weapons and tactics course.

Of course, there is always feedback on the effectiveness of tactics, techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) from the Fleet and then assure that operational improvements are standardized and then go back out to the squadrons.

In effect, the P-8/Triton team is shaping a common approach or “theory” of ISR and C2 applied to the extended battlespace; and the two platforms are the applications of the theory.

In short, the USN is positioning itself for an innovative way ahead that is neither “manned or unmanned” but synergistically working through how new systems can work with one another to deliver the desired outcome or effect in the battlespace, notably in the ISR, C2 and anti-submarine domains.

Editor’s Note: The P-8s are deploying and learning with the Fleet as Lt. Commander Campbell has described.

One example of this deployment and learning cycle was with the Truman battle group last fall.

According to an article by the VP-5 PAO published 10/14/15 in the Jax Air News:

As September drew to a close; so did the Harry S. Truman Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX). During the exercise, the “Mad Foxes” of VP-5 and “Fighting Tigers” of VP-8 provided real time support for anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASuW), and maritime Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) to the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 8. 

Patrol Squadron (VP) 5 Commanding Officer Cmdr. Alan D’Jock, stated, “I could not be more proud of the VP-5, VP-8, and Mobile Tactical Operations Center (MTOC-3) “Mad Tiger” team.  We look forward to deploying with the Fighting Tigers and continuing our relationship throughout the remainder of our home cycle and next year’s deployment.”

P-8 in Truman Exercise

The VP-5 and VP-8 Mad Tiger team was well prepared for the uncertainties of such a dynamic environment.  A contributing factor to the success of the exercise was due to the VP liaison officers (LNOs) aboard Harry S. Truman.

These individuals were led by Cmdr. Alan Miller, executive officer of VP-10 and provided enhanced communication between CSG8 and the maritime patrol reconnaissance aircraft. Each crew was able to adapt to and overcome potential problems that may arise such as formidable weather or simulated hostile contacts.

“The experience that VP-5 and VP-8 garnered from COMPTUEX is invaluable. What our aircrews saw on station is very difficult to duplicate in a simulated training environment,” remarked D’Jock.

VP-5 and VP-8 provided 532.8 flight hours from 73 events to the exercise. The squadron’s participation was a valuable asset to both the surface forces, as well as to the aircrews in the aircraft.

AWO3 Dymer, an electronics warfare officer with VP-5, said, “Being a part of the exercise was physically and mentally demanding but also taught some of the most senior crews lessons and tips for real world scenarios. It opened the eyes of many new sailors by showing the massive coordination required to accomplish many jobs.”

With this exercise complete, Oct. 2, VP-5 and VP-8 continued their training for a successful deployment next year.  The Mad Foxes of VP-5 and Fighting Tigers of VP-8 will continue training, and participating in exercises abroad as well as at home.

And as Lt. Commander Campbell noted, the P-8s have started their joint learning engagements in Red Flag.

The slideshow above highlights the Pelicans engagement in Red Flag earlier this year.

In an article published March 30, 2016 and written by the PAO of VP-45 and published in the Jax Air News, the first deployment to Red Flag was described:

Members of Patrol Squadron (VP) 45 participated in Red Flag 16-1 at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nev., Jan. 25through Feb.12, with the Navy’s newest maritime patrol aircraft, the P-8A Poseidon.

As part of the squadron’s Fleet Response Training Plan home cycle, Red Flag is an exercise held periodically at Nellis AFB since 1975. The exercise provides pilots, aircrews and support personnel from the U.S. and allied countries the opportunity to practice their skills in a simulated combat environment.

“These scenarios largely involved the P-8 performing advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions and preparing the battlespace with timely and accurate information on threats to multiple platforms,” said Lt. Cmdr. Annie Gilson, a naval flight officer with VP-45.

“These platforms were able to use this information to neutralize targets more efficiently and effectively in a highly dynamic environment.”  

Those in attendance of this year’s Red Flag exercise were members from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Royal Australian Air Force and United Kingdom Royal Air Force.

“Working with the foreign militaries provided a better understanding of what they do,” said AWO2 Irma Sanchez, acoustic operator with VP-45. “Getting an opportunity to work with these militaries was a real eye opener into the bigger picture.”

“As a squadron, I feel that we did really well,” said Sanchez. “For our first Red Flag exercise as a P-8 squadron, I felt that we exceeded the standards that were set for us.”

Participants said one of the reasons VP-45 had such a successful exercise was because of their ability to work as a team.

“During Red Flag, our communication and capability to work together was very important,” said AWO2 Mathew Pereida, a VP-45 electronic warfare operator. “Working together as a team led to successful takeoff times, mission completeness, and overall coordinated operations effectiveness.”

Overall, members of VP-45 felt Red Flag has prepared them for the future.

“Red Flag does a great job of detecting and resolving squadron and aircraft deficiencies and how we can improve,” said AWO2 Jason Foor, “It really showed us what level we are operating at and where we can be in the future.”

For the USMC approach to Tron Warfare in the distributed battlespace, see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/ea-6b-prowlers-in-final-four-flight/

https://sldinfo.com/visiting-2nd-marine-air-wing-the-role-of-electronic-warfare-and-vmaq-3/

https://sldinfo.com/the-deputy-commandant-of-aviation-down-under-plan-jericho-marine-corps-style/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typhoons Busy Dealing with Russian Air Force

05/31/2016

2016-05-31 RAF Lossiemouth is a Quick Reaction base and supports the Baltic Air Policing Mission as well.

This ensures that Typhoon pilots and crews are getting used to dealing with the Russian Air Force.

According to David Mackay of The Press and Journal in a piece published May 31, 2016, Lossie crews have scrambled six times in nine days to intercept Russian aircraft.

RAF Lossiemouth fighter pilots were scrambled six times in just over a week while keeping a watching brief on the Russians.

The Typhoon crews intercepted 17 planes in nine days earlier this month during a busy start to their peacekeeping mission in Estonia.

The Moray jets from II Squadron have been called to shadow eight Sukhoi fighters as well as spy planes and military transports.

Yesterday a former RAF Kinloss serviceman described the mission as essential to keep Vladimir Putin “in his place”.

He said: “The crews will have been briefed before they went out on what to expect and will know how busy they will be kept.

“Going from the pictures of what’s been going on, the Russians are just getting in the way, creating a nuisance and causing mischief. They’re just making sure we’re still there, basically.

“When they fly in our airspace they run without any air-navs, so the air traffic control doesn’t know what it is, so a Typhoon has to go up there and fly alongside. That’s exactly what they’ll be doing in Estonia.”

Crews are ready 24 hours a day to investigate unidentified aircraft in international airspace along Estonia’s northern coast and border with Russia.

The Baltic state does not have any planes to run the missions itself so relies on Nato nations to carry them out.

The former RAF serviceman said: “It’s absolutely imperative that Nato is there. What we don’t want to happen is the same thing as Crimea in Ukraine.

“We need to make sure that Putin knows we are there protecting Estonia and the other Baltic states.”

The slideshow highlights Typhoons operating at Lossiemouth and are credited to the RAF.

 

EART 2016: Enhancing European Capabilities

05/30/2016

2016-06-03 An important achievement in European military cooperation has been the European Air Transport Command.

According to the European Air Transport Command (EATC) website:

On 1st September 2010 a new chapter in the book of European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) was opened, as the EATC was inaugurated in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

The establishment of this new multinational command represents a significant step on the way to pooling and sharing national military assets and truly marks an unprecedented level of European defence cooperation.

The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany have put major parts of their air transport- and air to air refuelling fleets under the operational control (OPCON) of the EATC. On 22 November 2012 Luxembourg officially joined the EATC, Spain followed on 03 July 2014, finally Italy on 04 December 2014.

Now the missions of almost 200 aircraft are planned, tasked and controlled out of Eindhoven.

In addition to that the EATC runs a nationally defined level of responsibility for aircrew training, coordination of training and exercise objectives as well as the harmonization of appropriate air transport regulations of the participating nations.

The overall objective is to manage the scarce resource air transport as effectively and efficiently as possible.

EATC Factsheet

The latest EART exercise (EART 2016) was run to test procedures and approaches to supporting common missions.

The third European Air Refuelling Training (EART) has been launched at Eindhoven Airbase on 10 April 2016. Initiated within the European Defence Agency’s air refuelling initiative, this successful and effective training is run by EATC and hosted by the Netherlands.

 EART is the only multinational air refuelling training for air crews and engineers, enabling them to become familiar with scenarios they’re not regularly exposed to. It is organised on a yearly basis since 2014 and in combination with the Dutch Frisian Flag fighter exercise.

Four different tankers from The Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy together with their air and ground crews will participate in the 2016 EART edition. The United States are participating with a team of observer (without assets) in the training.

Over the past years EATC has further developed and refined the EART training concept. The main objective is to train tankers crews in multinational and complex air operations.

Then EART also aims at providing specific training out of the range of the participants’ national daily training: academics, mentors, air refuelling operators, crews, planners,taskers, engineers, etc… are training together for two weeks, cooperating in a multinational environment, building up interoperability with their counterparts.

Major Domenico, pilot with the Italian Air Force, and Major Jerôme, navigator with the French Air Force, have participated in EART 2016.

Here are their impressions.

Major Domenico was the Italian detachment commander and mentor pilot for EART 2016 participating with a team of 29 persons including two flight crews and one maintenance team. The Italian tanker was a KC-767A.

“It is always interesting to take a look at what is happening just outside your world. Sharing news, future programs, projects, procedures and techniques is always the most interesting part in multinational exchanges.”

The priority for Major Domenico and his detachment was to verify whether the Italian air-to-air refuelling standards were in line with those of the other countries participating in the training.

Moreover during EART 2016, they had the opportunity to meet in person other operators that had the same or a similar role in the partner countries.

As for the challenges, the primary one was to perform and fly the mission up to the national standards in an environment which was not the homebase and where there was none or only limited support from the squadron.

“Basically, we are requested to replicate abroad the same level of expertise owned at home.“


Major Jerôme was integrated as a mentor into the French detachment. His tasks included to accompany crews of any nationality during their flights, to debrief after the flight and to help improving procedures. The French tanker was a C135 FR.


“The most important thing is the opportunity, thanks to EART, to exchange with other “tanker men”.

Major Jerôme had the opportunity to fly with Dutch crews in a KDC10. He considers this experience as a very exciting learning the different procedures of partner nations. The major challenge for the whole team was to perform dedicated training in an environment the crew is not used to. The most challenging scenario was “on-scene-commander” (OSC) for a simulated survivor.

Other challenges were accompanied let-down with fighters, tanker-tanker rendez-vous, radio communication procedures or the use of code words as an operator.

For Major Jerôme, EART 2016 confirmed the experience in working together and being efficient.

“We should be very proud the way we train.”

EART Factsheet

 Further information on EART 2016 was provided by Shervin Fonooni and Moharam Fonooni in an article published on May 27, 2016 on Aviation Photography Digest.

They interviewed Col. Jurgen van der Biezen, Head of the EATC Functional Division and Deputy Exercise Director of EART 2016.

Col. van der Biezen has more than 2200 flight hours in the F-16 with 3800 flight hours over all.

According to Col. Van der Biezen several objectives were achieved at the exercise:

  • Plan, brief, execute and debrief, Multinational Tanker Training and Tanker Operations in large-scale operational packages in a realistic scenarios;
  • Practice multinational mixed fighter operations in the OCA/DCA role against a robust airborne and ground based threat that will enhance tactical development and validatons:
  • Practice Tanker-Cell Operations and Tanker to Tanker RV procedures;
  • Train both aircrew and logistics in quick turnaround procedures and execution;
  • Practice large scale link-16 operations in multinational operations including ASWACs and CRCs;
  • Establish multinational relationships and lessons learned between NATO and non-NATO (PFP) Air Forces.

They also identified two additional objectives as well: the refueling of the first Dutch F-35s and the preparation for additional European MRTTs.

“The two F-35s will be flown to the Netherlands at the end of May and supported by the Dutch KDC-10s.

At the beginning of April, the KDC-10 underwent a certification program at Edwards AFB that will allow us to refuel the F-35 with the KDC-10.”

And the authors reported that “supported by OCCAR, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Luxembourg are negotiating with Airbus to purchase four A330 MRTT tankers.

These nations want to form the nucleus of a European fleet of tankers to which any European nation can be part of.

The Airbus tankers would operate from Eindhoven Airbase. Germany would join the four nations in 2017, while Belgium would do it for 2024….

The number of AAR assets under EATC command will increase too with the progressive introduction of the A400M. ”

Editor’s Note: An Update on the KDC-10 and the Dutch F-35s:

A Royal Netherlands Air Force KDC-10 from RNLAF 334 Squadron connects with a RNLAF F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over Edwards Air Force Base March 31.

The tanker and fifth-generation fighter took to the skies over Edwards and California to certify the KDC-10’s ability to conduct aerial refueling with the F-35.

It was the first time an F-35 refueled with the RNLAF tanker.

The first Dutch F-35 unit, 323 Test and Evaluation Squadron, is currently undertaking operational test and evaluation at Edwards as part of the Joint Operational Test Team.

4/7/16

http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123471989

And later:

A white Gulfstream jet carrying Netherlands Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert joins up with two Dutch F-35As and a Royal Netherlands Air Force KDC-10 refueler May 23 on the final leg of a transatlantic trip that began at Edwards AFB, Calif.

Most of the Dutch component of the F-35 Joint Operational Test Team headed to their homeland where they will conduct test sorties and introduce their fifth-generation fighter to the Netherlands people, which falls in line with a promise made by Hennis-Plasschaert to bring the jets home for an up-close and personal viewing for the public.

The two Dutch F-35As took off from Edwards May 21 and landed at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. After fueling up and running some checks, the jets launched over the Atlantic followed by two RNLAF KDC-10 aerial refuelers and a NATO C-17 carrying gear and spare parts. The planes landed at Leeuwarden Air Base in the Netherlands, which is one of two bases that will be home to the RNLAF’s F-35s when they arrive permanently in 2019.

The RNLAF plans to replace its legacy F-16A/B fleet with a minimum of 37 F-35s, split between two bases.

The deployment is expected to last three weeks, then the jets will return to Edwards to continue operational test and evaluation.

5/24/2016 – EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif

http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123474244

 

 

 

Visiting Jacksonville Naval Air Station: The “Family of Systems” and Naval Air Transformation

2016-05-26 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

On May 23 and 24, 2016, we visited Jacksonville Naval Air Station and 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.

MEDIA RELEASE Date: 31 Mar 2016Serial: LOS/PR/2016/11 RAF LOSSIEMOUTH PREPARES FOR EXERCISE JOINT WARRIOR RAF Lossiemouth is set to host a small contingent of international Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) and F-16 fast jets for Exercise Joint Warrior 16-1 which will take place from the 11th to the 22nd of April. Exercise Joint Warrior is a tri-service and multinational exercise conducted in the UK during the spring and the autumn of each year. The exercise will involve more than 31 warships and submarines, 60 aircraft, and a total of around 6,500 personnel from the 14 participating nations. This year RAF Lossiemouth will be hosting MPA aircraft such as the P3 Orion, Atlantique and the new P-8 Poseidon which is planned to be based in Moray. RAF Lossiemouth’s Typhoons will also take part in the Exercise alongside a detachment of Turkish F-16s. Flight Lieutenant Guy Radcliffe, the Exercise Operations Officer at RAF Lossiemouth, said: “The hosting of these Exercise participants will involve every section at RAF Lossiemouth. In order to facilitate each visiting units’ individual requirements for the Exercise, planning has been ongoing since last year to ensure that we are ready. “It will be an extremely busy fortnight for the Station and the airfield itself. Particular challenges will involve working with different coalition countries, operating large aircraft from an airfield which is set up for much smaller, fast jets and fitting it all around RAF Lossiemouth’s own ongoing high operational tempo, essential training and QRA.” The aircraft from the Canada, Germany, France, Norway, Turkey and the US will begin arriving at RAF Lossiemouth in the weeks leading up to the Exercise. All crews will be staying in local hotels for the duration of the Exercise. Normally RAF Lossiemouth operates its flying programme from 0800 to 2300, however during this Exercise some night flying may take place outwith this period. There will be some departure
P-8 at Exercise Joint Warrior 2016 as seen at RAF Lossiemouth. Credit: RAF

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.

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 several takeaways from our discussions with Navy Jax which we will discuss more fully in the period ahead as we build out the interviews.

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 Indian P-8 during the search for the missing Malaysian airliner. Credit: India Strategic
The Indian P-8 during the search for the missing Malaysian airliner. Credit: India Strategic

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.

https://sldinfo.com/secretary-hagel-and-the-opportunity-for-industrial-mobilization/

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.

https://sldinfo.com/building-21st-century-weapons-for-21st-century-operations-key-attributes-of-the-new-weapons-enterprise/

https://sldinfo.com/at-the-vortex-of-4th-and-5th-generation-aircraft-integration-the-weapons-revolution/

https://sldinfo.com/a-leap-ahead-in-the-weapons-revolution-the-coming-of-the-hypersonic-cruise-missile/

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. There might be a day in future combat when P-8s crews will receive a Navy Cross and Presidential Unit Citation for not only killing an enemy sub but also a P-8 crew sinking a significant enemy surface combatant.

In short, the P-8/Triton team are 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.

Editor’s Note: The slideshow highlights Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Sigonella conducts a refueling evolution on one of the Navy’s newest maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, the P-8A Poseidon, for the first time on board Naval Air Station Sigonella. (U.S. Navy photo by Shannon R. Haney/Released). March 10, 2016.

An example of a recent exercise where P-8 is being introduced to the coalition fleet is the following:

U.S. and Royal Thai navies enhance maritime cooperation during Exercise Guardian Sea

Commander, Logistics Group Western Pacific

The U.S. Navy and the Royal Thai Navy are conducting Exercise Guardian Sea in the Andaman Sea May 23-27. The bilateral naval training aims to enhance cooperation between the two navies in anti-submarine warfare and maritime domain awareness.

“Guardian Sea provides our navies the opportunity and challenge of detecting and tracking submarines, and to practice procedures related to anti-submarine warfare,” said Capt. H. B. Le, commodore, Destroyer Squadron Seven. “This year’s exercise will be the most complex to date and we look forward to working alongside the Royal Thai Navy ashore and at sea to improve our skills and enhance our interoperability.”

This year’s Guardian Sea exercise features the Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63), a P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol craft and a Los Angeles-class submarine operating alongside ships and aircraft from the Royal Thai Navy. Navy personnel from the U.S. 7th Fleet’s Task Force 73 and Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 7 will also participate in the exercise.

“Guardian Sea is an excellent opportunity to operate at sea in a realistic training environment with our friends and partners in the Royal Thai Navy,” said Cmdr. Doug Pegher, commanding officer, USS Stethem. “Our Sailors gain valuable experiences from these engagements and we build important maritime relationships that endure beyond the exercise.”

Along with operations at sea, the Guardian Sea exercise features a small shore phase that includes symposia and subject matter expert exchanges between the two navies.

Task Force 73 is the U.S. 7th Fleet’s Theater Security Cooperation agent for South and Southeast Asia and supports exercises across the region to include the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) series, Southeast Asia Cooperation and Training (SEACAT), the Naval Engagement Activity (NEA) with Vietnam, and the multilateral naval exercise KOMODO.

5/23/16

Editor’s Note: Clearly, the P-8 is a key plank holder in shaping a new approach to North Atlantic defense which can be called the extended defense or kill web.

In this video, the P-8 is seen in its first engagement in the BALTOPs exercise, in 2015.

P-8s at BALTOP 2015 from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

For a look at the UK evolution, see the following (and with the Norwegians as prime candidates to add P-8 to their Aegis and F-35 systems, Norway is a key player as well):

 

From Deployments to the Baltic Region to Empowering the Kill Web in Defense of the Homeland: UK Evolution?

 

 

 

The Role of the US Army in the Pacific: The Perspective of the PACOM Commander

05/29/2016

2016-05-29 When we wrote our book on evolving Pacific strategy, we highlighted what we thought was a critical need to reshape how the Army positioned itself in the Pacific.

Let us review possible Army roles and approaches in the period ahead in the Pacific. The most obvious one is its role in South Korea.

North Korea remains a key threat and the defense of South Korea remains a core challenge. But reform is necessary in terms of both the coming transfer of command authority and the changing nature of technologies and strategy that deterrence of North Korea demands.

Even within South Korean defense itself, the U.S. Army structure can change and become more flexible and integrated into the air and naval forces to provide for mobile and extended defense.

In addition, missile defense, notably of U.S. bases in the region, and support of deployed forces is a core U.S. Army mission…..

However, smaller force packages, designed to operate with more mobility and lethality along the lines of the evolution of Special Forces, could grow in significance as partners in the region for regimes dealing with various threats.

But opportunities to link these forces with air and naval force evolutions should be leveraged moving forward…..

Indeed, the key challenge facing the Army will be to shape an evolving force structure, more mobile, and more lethal, and better connected with the joint and coalition forces required as part of any Pacific strategy for the 21st century.[ref] Laird, Robbin F.; Timperlake, Edward (2013-10-28). Rebuilding American Military Power in the Pacific: A 21st-Century Strategy: A 21st-Century Strategy (The Changing Face of War) (p. 325). ABC-CLIO. Kindle Edition.[/ref]

Apparently, the current PACOM commander agrees.

According to Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., Commander, U.S. Pacific Command in a speech delivered to the US Army Association in Hawaii on May 25, 2016:

During the Civil War, Army coastal artillery was used to engage ships.

In the early 1900s, the batteries at Fort Kamehameha here in Hawaii were built to defend against the maritime threat. The Army’s Coast Artillery Corps took on this mission, as well as some mine warfare missions, and later anti-aircraft, too.

But as time passed and the need for longer range and more mobile defenses increased, we developed maritime and air capabilities that allowed the Army to divest itself from the coastal defense business. The Coast Artillery Corps was disestablished and the anti-aircraft defenders morphed into Air Defense Artillery.  

Well, guess what… in the 21st Century, I believe the Army should consider getting back into this business because we now face an inverse problem. 

Incredibly sophisticated missiles are proliferating throughout the world.

Countries like China, Iran, and Russia are challenging our ability to project power ashore, from the sea, through ever-more sophisticated anti-ship missiles.

More and more, adversary rocket forces are projecting power over the water in order to protect their control on land.

They are also developing land attack missiles and the precision targeting systems that can threaten our facilities ashore.

We need systems that enables the Army to project power over water, from shore.

Fort Kamehameha hasn’t moved an inch since it was built… but what we need today is a “Fort HIMARS” – a highly mobile, networked, lethal weapons system with long reach – and if we get this right, the Army will kill the archer instead of dealing with all of its arrows.

I believe that the Army should look at ways to use the Paladin and HIMARS systems to keep at risk the enemy’s Navy… not only the enemy’s land, which we already do and do well. 

The Army will be back in the coastal defense game, in a completely new way. 

With today’s technology, we don’t have to sacrifice range for mobility.

Adm. Harry Harris, commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, has urged Pacific Army leaders to project the power of their land-based service into the air, sea and cyber domains. Credit: US Navy
Adm. Harry Harris, commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, has urged Pacific Army leaders to project the power of their land-based service into the air, sea and cyber domains. Credit: US Navy

According to an article published by Stars and Stripes by Wyatt Olson on May 26, 2016:

Imagine, he said, a Navy F-18 Hornet fighter jet acquiring a target at sea, but then passing the information through a sophisticated communication system to, say, an Army High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, which has a top range of roughly 200 miles.

“Wow, a Navy fighter communicating with an Army ground-based system to kill a sea-based target,” Harris said. And though this scenario might sound “aspirational,” he said, such a capability was demonstrated during last year’s Northern Edge exercise in Alaska.

“So this is well within the realm of possible,” Harris said…..

“We need systems that enable the Army to project power over water from the shore.”

The Army should establish a “Fort HIMARS,” he said, “a highly mobile, networked, lethal weapons system with long reach. And if we get this right, the Army will kill the archer instead of dealing with all of its arrows.”

As Ed Timperlake put the opportunity:

A key challenge is to shape an understanding of the appropriate tactical and strategic role of the US Army in the Pacific.

One just has to look at the geography of the Pacific and ask why just Guam and does a THAAD Battery always have to be moved by truck?

The answer to this question is part of a larger question: how does Army missile defense play in the attack and defense enterprise within the strategic quadrangle?

US Navy and Japanese Aegis ships, THAAD on islands, and “Rapid Raptor” which are a parts of an evolving con-ops that can be proof of concept for F-35 and tankers can make tactical and strategic moves to many PacRim airfields.

The problem is the US Army is not a lift command.  It borrows USAF lift to move around the vast Pacific. And the Afghan war has weighed heavily on the lift and tanking resources of the USAF and its ability to support the joint force.

What is needed is to rethink how to support ADA in the Pacific without overtaxing lift assets.

An alternative way to think about the ADA approach is to build the support facilities throughout the Pacific whereby THAAD and air defense can be supported. THAAD–globally transportable, rapidly deployable capability to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles inside or outside the atmosphere during their final, or terminal, phase of flight. THAAD Weight launch vehicle, fully loaded 40,000kg=88, 184 lbs or 44 short tons.

http://oshkoshdefense.com/variants/m985a4-guided-missile-transporter-gmt/

The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of missile battery truck alone is 66,000 lbs.

Now let us rethink how it might be deployed to remote islands as part of a flexible grid.

The CH-53 can take 30,000 lbs internal or sling 36,000 external-range unrefueled is 621 nm. The MV-22 human capacity is 24 combat-loaded Marines-range app 700 miles.

The actual missile battery is 26,000 lbs and well inside the lift capacity of a CH-53.

The problem is the mechanics to raise and lower the battery and rearm. A battery lowered from the air sans truck on reinforced concrete pads with calibrated launch points may make sense. A separate modular lift device could be put in place to load and reload.

Consequently, taking apart modules doesn’t appear to be a showstopper, and Marine MV-22s flying in Army ADA troops into any reasonable terrain is absolutely no problem.

The weight of TOC and Radar maybe of concern, and it appears that in todays world there may have been little appreciation by Big Army on using MV-22 and CH-53Ks.

To be very fair the US Vietnam War Army did get it brilliantly by setting up firebases in remote areas with helo lift of very heavy guns.

A THAAD island maneuverability concept is the same in principle but with different technology.

Combine ADA Batteries with the ability to move a floating airfield as needed inside the potential sanctuary of a 200+ KM protection umbrella of disbursed island bases with ADA batteries and power projection of the sort needed in Pacific defense is enhanced.

The targeting and thus war fighting capability of a projected threat from any PLAA2AD becomes incredibility complicated. A distributed offensive defensive grid is an additional factor in the US current PLA or North Korean IRBM kill chain R&D efforts.

Editor’s Note: We have focused considerable attention on the Army ADA opportunities in the Pacific and an expanded role. For some of these stories, along with exlusive interviews with a number of key warriors in crafting the new approach see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/a-missile-defense-commander-in-the-second-nuclear-age-an-interview-with-the-thaad-commander-on-guam/

https://sldinfo.com/the-thaad-system-to-guam/

https://sldinfo.com/the-allies-air-sea-battle-and-the-way-ahead-in-pacific-defense/

https://sldinfo.com/a-key-army-contribution-to-pacific-defense-the-evolving-missile-defense-mission/

https://sldinfo.com/the-evolving-contribution-of-the-army-missile-defense-force/

https://sldinfo.com/plusing-up-the-armys-ada-role/

https://sldinfo.com/the-role-of-ada-in-the-attack-and-defense-enterprise-reinforcing-forward-deployed-defensive-capabilities-in-the-21st-century/

https://sldinfo.com/complex-missile-defense-test-a-system-of-systems-appraoch-in-action/

https://sldinfo.com/pacific-defense-and-the-strategic-quadrangle-the-us-armys-taiwan-mission/

https://sldinfo.com/the-pacaf-commander-and-reworking-pacific-defense-the-aor-will-become-a-caoc/

https://sldinfo.com/the-re-shaping-of-pacific-defense-the-usaf-and-building-out-from-todays-force-towards-tomorrows-capabilities/

Vietnam Offers US Modest Arms Sales, But Major Strategic Opportunities

05/26/2016

2016-05-26 By Richard Weitz

Obama’s just completed his trip to Vietnam, the first of his presidency.

The US President discussed trade and investment, economic and energy development, human rights and democracy (the main area of disagreement in the joint presidential news conference), academic exchanges and humanitarian assistance, and of course regional security issues (i.e., China).

It was impressive to see how warmly the president was greeted, both in his public speeches and during his motorcades, when many younger people, eager for more political and commercial freedom, cheered his appearance.

For the readers of this website, perhaps the most important event was Obama’s announcement that the United States would remove the last prohibitions against Vietnamese purchases of U.S. weapons as well as expand other military cooperation.

Vietnam now will be subject to the same arms transfer executive and congressional branch rules that apply to all foreign military buyers of the United States. The Vietnamese welcomed the measures as signaling how their relationship had finally been “normalized.”

For both governments, the move was clearly aimed at strengthening Vietnam’s ability to counter further Chinese encroachments in the disputed maritime territories of the South China Sea.

U.S. official worry that, if Beijing continues its present coercive tactics and regional militarization, the vitality of this critical seaway will be threatened.

President Obama holding a town-hall-style meeting with members of the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, on May 25, 2016.Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
President Obama holding a town-hall-style meeting with members of the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, on May 25, 2016.Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

Obama insisted that the Pentagon would continue to send ships and planes through this vital waterway and would defend the principles of peaceful resolution of disputes, freedom of commerce, adherence to international law, and respect for other norms sometimes contested by Beijing.

In signaling U.S. willingness to expand the transfer of arms to Vietnam, U.S. policy makers aim to discourage such Chinese behavior directly and by showing Beijing how assertive Chinese policies are driving Beijing’s neighbors to align with Washington against China.

According to media reports, including press briefings by U.S. officials, before the president’s departure for Hanoi the Obama administration remained undecided on whether to lift the arms sale ban.

What may have finally tipped the scales in favor of removing all restrictions was the aggressive flying by Chinese fighter jets a week before the visit to maneuver within about 15 meters of a U.S. Navy reconnaissance plane.

Chinese opposition to U.S. surveillance patrols is well known, but these flights, as well as U.S. maritime reconnaissance patrols, occur outside Chinese territory over international waters. Since the Chinese harassment closely resembles recent incidents where Russian warplanes flew recklessly near U.S. patrols in international waters, the Pentagon may have lobbied for renewed arms sales as a means of signaling to Moscow as well as Beijing that such actions have costs.

Developing this line further, besides deterring Chinese adventurism, the new U.S. approach toward Southeast Asian arms sales provides an opportunity to weaken the Beijing-Moscow alignment.

In addition to its well-known security ties with China, Russia also tries to maintain military cooperation with the member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) through bilateral dialogue and drills as well as through multilateral structures.

Of note given Obama’s repeal of the arms embargo on Vietnam, has become a more important market for Russian weapons sales in recent years.

At a time when Rosoboronexport, the state corporation that oversees Russia’s foreign weapons sales, is thinking of skipping the Farnborough International Airshow since the European arms market is “not interesting” to the Russian defense industry due to sanctions and other restrictions on defense collaboration.

Whereas ASEAN states bought only six percent of Russia’s arms exports in 2010, the figure increased to 15 percent in 2015. From 2007 through 2014, Russian weapons sales to the Asia-Pacific region and other Asian countries—including hundreds of tanks, warplanes, helicopters, armored vehicles, and self-propelled guns, as well as thousands of missiles–amounted to more than $30 billion.

Rosoboronexport, that the “successful use of Russian weapons on large- scale counterterrorist operations” will boost sales even further in coming years—such as of the Kalibr (NATO reporting name: SS-N-27 Sizzler, or “Club” for the export version) cruise missiles, and the Russian Naval platforms that launched them against Syria.

Indonesia is anticipated to buy advanced Russian Su-35 Flanker-E (export-version) fighters, which only China has purchased so far, to supplement the Su-27 and Su-30s already in its fleet and replace its aging U.S.-made F-5E/F fighter planes.

Rosoboronexport also expects the Indonesian Marine Corps to buy more Russian-made BMP-3F infantry fighting vehicles.

Rosoboronexport also hopes to sell more advanced fighters to the Royal Malaysian Air Force, building on the earlier $900 million sale of 18 Su-30MKM ([NATO reporting name: Flanker-H) fighters. Russian Helicopters continues to service the combat helicopters Laos purchased from Russia in the 1990s.

In pursuit of a June 2015 contract, Russia has already planned to deliver three Yakovlev Yak-130 (Mitten) combat-ready trainer planes and associated equipment to Myanmar (Burma) by the end of the year. Bangladesh has also purchased some of the Yak-130 and Vietnam has expressed interest in the plane as well.

Vietnam has arguably been Russia’s closest strategic partner in Southeast Asia.

In 1979, following the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, Moscow established a naval base in Cam Ranh Bay, which it now uses to refuel Tu-95MS Bear nuclear-capable strategic bombers that engage in long-range patrols over the South and Central Pacific, including the U.S. West Coast and the U.S. territory of Guam—leading to Washington protesting to Hanoi.

Despite Beijing’s objections, Gazprom is drilling in maritime zones disputed by both countries.

Thanks to its growing military budget and its strained relations with China, Vietnam has become a major Russian weapons buyer.

Russia also provides most of Vietnam’s military training, though India, which has experience operating the export version of Russian weapons, also provides training. A $3-billion contract signed in 2009 to equip the Vietnam’s People’s Navy (VPN) with six Type 636 Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines, armed with torpedoes, mines, and Klub supersonic cruise missiles that can hit naval and coastal targets, should be completed this year.

Vietnam’s People’s Air Force should have three dozen advanced Su-30MK2s by the end of this year and is considering buying the Su-35S, all designed to replace its aging fleet of Soviet-era MiG-21, Su-22, and Su-27 fighters. The VPN is acquiring a half-dozen stealthy Project 1166 Gepard 3.9/Dinh Tien Hoang-class light frigates, armed with sub-sonic Kh-35E anti-ship missiles, to add to its flotilla of Russian-designed Project 12418 Molniya missile-armed Fast Attack Craft, fast patrol boats, corvettes and frigates that are optimized for littoral combat.

Most of the Army’s tanks, helicopters, and other equipment also comes from the Soviet Union or Russia, and the Army is now considering buying T-90 main battle tanks to supplement its hundreds of T-72s and replace its T-55s. Vietnam produces some of these weapons systems and their armaments, like the Kh-35 anti-ship missile, under license from a Russian manufacturer.

At times, Russia has found it challenging to manage the tensions between China and the ASEAN states.

Whereas Beijing prefers to address its territorial disputes over the South China Sea and other differences with the ASEAN states unilaterally, or at least without the intervention of non-ASEAN members, many of the latter have been seeking to internationalize their disputes by drawing in outside powers that could balance China’s superior economic and military power over the ASEAN countries.

Whereas the United States—sometimes joined by Japan, India, or Europe–has pursued this line to help avoid military conflicts or other coercive action that could threaten the usability of this vital waterway, Russia has traditionally sought to distance itself from any regional disputes involving China and Southeast Asian countries to avoid antagonizing one of the parties.

Nonetheless, Moscow has made moves that could be seen as favoring China or the other parties.

At the April 2016 the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov joined Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in demanding that all outside powers refrain from interfering in differences among Asian powers, such as regarding the rival territorial claims in the South China Sea, which they insisted should be resolved through direct talks among the parties to the dispute.

On the other hand, the communique issued at the ASEAN summit in Sochi titled toward the ASEAN position by calling for more rapid adoption of a “code of conduct” and more dialogue on regional security issues at the East Asian summits, which include Russia as well as China and the United States.

The U.S. decision to expand arms sales to Vietnam, and presumably other Southeast Asian states, provides an opportunity to tip Moscow off this balance.

In the near term, these countries will want means to monitor and discourage Chinese adventurism—which would mean buying U.S. maritime patrol planes and helicopters, coastal radars and reconnaissance UAVs, and fast patrol craft and other littoral vessels.

But these purchases could expand over time and, in some cases, signify a decision by these countries to fundamentally upgrade their security ties with the United States to have better support in Washington against China.

We have already seen this in the efforts of some countries to join the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite Beijing’s objections.

The U.S. government will need to expand its economic and other assistance for these states to achieve U.S. goals and to enable Asian partners to execute their pivot plans.

The United States must also continue developing military-to-military ties with local armed forces (something Obama highlighted in his response to a question in Hanoi), through U.S.-provided training and joint exercises and perhaps an expanded military presence, in Vietnam’s case at Cam Ranh Bay.

The United States will want to increase its foreign military financing (FMF) in Southeast Asia and coordinate these initiatives with Japan to help expand any sales chances

These measures will place even greater pressure on Moscow to side with ASEAN states against China and in order to sell weapons and sustain other security ties with these Southeast Asian countries.

In turn, this will sharpen China-Russian differences over East Asian security, exposing tensions that so far they have managed to suppress.

Reshaping Operational and Training Approaches: Airpower Led Combat Innovation

05/22/2016
|||||

2016-05-19 By Robbin Laird

We have argued throughout the discussion of fifth generation aircraft that the transition was about the re-norming of airpower.

It was about reshaping airpower as airpower leads a broader transformation of US and allied combat forces to prevail in 21t century environments and to meet 21st century challenges.

In dealing with a number air forces, it is clear that the process of change is not only underway but accelerating.

And in discussions with the practioners of transformation, it seems clear that a number of key elements of change are underway.

First, the F-35 is more a first generation transformation asset than a phase moving towards 6th, 7th or whatever generation

It is a first generation information dominance aircraft built around distributed C2 operating in a contested environment.

Second, the shift towards developing, buying and working with software upgradeable aircraft means that a key way ahead for airpower is the co-evolution of platforms with one another and with other combat systems on land and at sea.

It will be about the co-evolution of capabilities to shape more effective combat forces.

Third, as a new approach gets put in place, it will affect the way ahead with regard to future procurement of new combat platforms for air, sea or ground operations. As a multi-domain approach evolves for 21st century combat forces co-evolution of platforms becomes central.

In making future platform selections, a key decision point is how they contribute to the ultimate desired effect, and how they contribute to decision-making superiority and enhanced information security and dominance.

In other words, the shift from a platform centric world is not about platforms not mattering; they do; but what is crucial is now evaluating how a new platform contributes in a multi-mission, or multi-tasking and specialized effect for the evolving force.

Recent travels have highlighted the important work, which a number of the forces shaping a transformation approach are conducting.

It is not about some abstract future; it is about the transformation of operational approaches by those forces engaged in defending the interests of the democracies.

Air-Led Transformation: The Australian Case

In Australia, the Royal Australian Air Force is working with other key elements of the Australian Defence Force to shape force transformation. It is an air-led effort, but it is a multi-domain one.

As the Chief of Staff put it with regard to the approach:

“It is like a jig saw puzzle.

You have these really nice pieces to the puzzle sitting in the container, but until you begin to look at the picture your trying to create through the overall puzzle, you do not know which bit goes where.”

With regard to F-35 as an example, Davies argued the following:

Chief of Air Force, Air Vice Marshal Leo Davis AO, CSC Addresses the Conference. *** Local Caption *** The biennial Air Power Conference on 15 and 16 March 2016, explores the idea of seamless joint effects. The theme of Multi-Domain Integration - Enabling Future Joint Success explores the integration of air, sea, land, space and cyber operations to evolve to a truly joint force. Day one focuses on strategic multi-domain integration, While day two focuses on the implementation of operations through Plan Jericho. The conference will also announce the 2016 RAAF Heritage Awards.
Chief of Air Force, Air Vice Marshal Leo Davis AO, CSC Addresses the RAAF Airpower Conference 2016. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence.

“I think Joint Strike Fighter on its own, a fifth generation air combat aircraft, could be regarded as just an air combat aircraft.

If you want to shoot the bad guy down, if you want to defend the battle space for a land maneuver or for a maritime strike, that’s fine.

But what we’re beginning to appreciate now is that it’s not just an air combat asset it is also an ISR node.

If you were to then put two more pieces of your puzzle down and go, “Well that’s starting to form a bit of a picture here,” in the center of your puzzle. ”

What else could I do if it was truly an ISR node?

How do I manage that asset differently than if it was just going to shoot down another fighter?”

Although the puzzle analogy suggested an overall approach what he really was focusing on the interaction between the evolving bigger picture, and relooking at what each piece of the puzzle might be able to do in fitting into a new puzzle big picture so to speak.

“How would you operate the air warfare destroyer differently as you add a Wedgetail, a P-8, a Triton or an F-35 to its operational environment?

And conversely, how could the changes in how the destroyer would operate as you evolve systems on it, affect how you operate or modernize the other pieces of the evolving puzzle?”

https://sldinfo.com/mastering-the-reshaping-of-the-joint-force-capability-puzzle-a-discussion-with-air-marshal-davies-of-the-royal-australian-air-force/

The Plan Jericho approach built around a structural change in the RAAF is being accompanied by similar changes in the Army and Navy as well.

Notably, the RAAF has led an effort for a PUBLIC discussion of the transformation approach and has thereby provided insight for interested publics in terms of both the challenges and the strategic direction for the ADF.

Thus, the Australian Defence Minister could not only lead but highlight the approach in PUBLIC as well.

To maximise the capabilities of our current and future Air Force our systems must be networked and integrated to a degree not previously achieved. Air, land and maritime forces need to exploit the high level of connectivity made possible by use of systems uniting them through the space and cyber domains.

Much work has already begun in this regard under Plan Jericho, to which the Chief of Air Force referred, to ensure we have a fully networked joint future force across air, space, electromagnetic and cyber.

With its modernised inventory, Air Force will introduce and develop capabilities that will enhance its ability to work jointly with its sister Forces, in many cases before the systems they will network with enter service with Army and Navy.

The work being undertaken by Air Force now in exploring the “art of the possible” and reducing risk through experimentation and trials means that the benefits of a joint force will be more rapidly realised once the networked systems committed to in the White Paper enter Army and Navy service.

The European Air Group and Air Power Transformation

The European Air Group based at High Wycombe in the United Kingdom has focused upon ways to more effectively integrate a transforming Air Force. This means, on the one hand, how to get better value out of legacy assets, and on the other hand, how best to co-evolve legacy with fifth generation assets.

As Brigadier General de Ponti of the European Air Group put it recently:

“The Eurofighter-Typhoon project is an important effort for our air forces.

It is about the co-evolution of Typhoon with the shaping of a 4th-5th generation integrated force.

It is two prongs of shaping more effective European airpower.

It is a building blocks approach to shaping evolving capabilities.”

https://sldinfo.com/the-european-air-group-and-typhoon-integration-shaping-a-way-ahead-for-more-effective-operational-impacts/

The EAG has pioneered as well the effort among the 7 European Air Forces, which are part of the EAG ways to work legacy with fifth generation as the F-35 enters European Air Forces.

F-35 flying with Typhoons across the Atlantic February 2016. Credit: Italian Air Force
F-35 flying with Typhoons across the Atlantic February 2016. Credit: Italian Air Force

Recently, the European Air Group held a working group which continued their work on 4th and 5thgeneration integration, which is viewed, as crucial with 5th generation aircraft here now.

The 2016 two-day 4th 5th Generation Integration Information Forum was held at the home of the EAG, RAF High Wycombe, at the end of April 2016.

With national 5th Generation aircraft programs maturing and the need to integrate 4th and 5th generation aircraft into future coalitions acknowledged the forum is providing a vital conduit to keep information flowing between both EAG nations and external partners and increase the awareness of nations about the challenges to come.

https://sldinfo.com/the-european-air-group-works-4th-and-5th-generation-air-combat-integration/

At the first day of the working session in April, in addition to a discussion of how to think through the co-evolution opportunity and challenge, a number of developments were discussed as well.

First, the emergence of robust machine-to-machine translation technologies had already put into the hands of the warfighter significant capabilities to forge greater capabilities to deploy and operate integrated force packages.

The man-machine revolution is a key part of the way ahead for air-enabled combat power.

Second, fifth generation weapons are emerging which can operate off of both legacy and fifth generation platforms, with different effects and uses, but with the ability to provide a common stockpile of weapons to enhance the sustainable firepower of an integrated fleet.

These weapons are software driven and able to be enhanced further as lessons area learned or the threat evolves alongside their host platforms. Data links allow for cross targeting by different platforms leveraging weapons on other platforms, and capable of much more capable autonomous operations once launched.

Third, lessons learned at recent exercises, including the Trilateral Exercise at Langley last December were discussed as well.

https://sldinfo.com/trilateral-exercise-2015-operating-as-an-integrated-air-combat-team-in-contested-airspace/

https://sldinfo.com/airpower-in-contested-air-space-highlights-from-the-trilateral-combat-exercise/

NATO Focuses on The Next Steps in Coalition Airpower

One of the take-away lessons from Langley was how targeting and communications are changing under the influence of fifth generation aircraft.

This was a pull exercise in which a fifth generated enabled force was being shaped, in which the core capabilities of the Typhoon and Rafale were being leveraged to shape a more capable air combat force.

The F-22 was ending publically its period of looking like an orphan; and although the F-22 has flown with Typhoon in the past, this was the first time flying with the Rafale.
As Hawk Carlisle put it: “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts and we are working in this exercise in shaping a more effective force.”

The changing threat environment was highlighted by the senior Air Force officers present at the media day event. All of the speakers — USAF Chief Mark Welsh, ACC Commander Hawk Carlisle, USAFE Chief General Frank Gorenc, RAF Chief Sir Andrew Pulford, and General Antoine Crux, Inspector General of the French Armed Forces representing the Chief of Staff of the FrAF – commented on the evolving threat environment, which was perhaps the only topic on which all five provided comments.

The threat environment was largely discussed in terms of contested air space.

The environment is seen as one in which U.S. and allied forces would have an increasingly difficult time to operate to support broader military operations.

The threat was characterized variously as anti-access, area denial, or multi-spectrum threats, or simply adversaries enhancing their capabilities. General Hawk Carlisle put it in terms of a multi-spectrum environment shaping a new threat envelope.

“In this exercise in particular we are focused on enemy aircraft and their missiles, surface to air missiles, and electronic warfare as evolving adversarial threats.”

Carlisle then went on to note that during the exercise “we are focusing on link architecture and communications to pass information, the contributions the different avionics and sensor suites on the three aircraft can contribute to the fight, the ability to switch among missions, notably air-to-air and air-to-ground and how best to support the fight, for it is important to support the planes at the point of attack, not just show up.”

A visit to the NATO Air Power Competence Center highlighted work 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.

Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought among those looking at future generation-enabled air operations.

JAPCC

One school of thought looks at the evolution of networks within which airpower creates its effects and the coming of fifth generation is largely understood in terms of both its impact upon and role within the evolution of networks. This can be seen largely as an update on understanding of network centric warfare in the second decade of the 21st century.

The second school of thought focuses on the evolution of C2 within which fifth generation aircraft provide an impetus to an evolving trend towards decentralized C2.

The difference can be a subtle one but it is a significant one.

The first prioritizes the networks, their operations, and their security and assumes that the hub and spoke system largely continues within which hierarchical decision-making remains a norm.

The second focuses on a honeycomb approach within which force packages are shaped to work with one another but C2 evolves within the battlespace.

Tactical decisions are made at the key point of attack and defense; strategic decision making is really about the decision to deploy a force package, shaping ways for confluence of force to operate and evaluating the impacts of those force packages and calibrating next steps for the deployment of continuous evolving force engagement model.

Although the project is entitled air warfare in a networked environment, the study falls squarely in the second school of thought.

The co-evolution of platforms to shape C2 in self-adjusting networked operational environments is a key element of the approach.

This second focus is at the heart of the JAPCC study.

How will enhanced communication networks working with the co-evolution of new and legacy platforms reshape operations and mission effectiveness?

The study is based on a number of key propositions, which are guiding the research and analysis for the evolution of NATO C2.

“An advanced C2 network through unrestricted communication will permit new forms of information transfer among different platforms that display information from different sensors and employ different weapons

This will happen through:

• Self-synchronization
• In pre-authorised sub-tasks
• Requiring a multi-functional supported-supporting toolbox

The different features or characteristics of these platforms may be combined in real-time to create more effective mission-tailored clusters.”

And this will likely result in an evolution in NATO Air C2 doctrine.

The Director of JAPCC is General Frank Gorenc, USAF. In previous interviews he addressed interoperability through machine-to-machine interaction as part of his future Air Power vision.

Recently, he has clearly identified the significant impact of the coming of the F-35 on NATO airpower.

In an interview with Defense News published on March 16, 2016, General Gorenc identified how he sees the impact of the coming of the F-35:

“The beauty of the F-35 is for the first time ever we have an airplane that literally can do four out of five core competencies. It can do air and space superiority, it can do strike, it can do intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and it can do command and control.”

With the coming of the F-35 and the evolution of the networks within which coalition airpower operate and are changing, it makes sense to think through a broader approach to C2, notably one which can leverage the evolving man-machine relationship.

The longer-term objective is to have a more effective coalition force which can provide much more effective C2 in a fluid battlespace with maximum effect.

With the evolution of two way data-linked weapons, and of remotely piloted vehicles and the coming of the F-35, the need to both understand and shape a more effective approach to self-synchronization of platforms through a collaborative use of the joint battlespace is crucial.

And understanding how this can be done in accord with the evolution of Alliance or Coalition rules, caveats and missions is required as well.

The JAPCC is taking a solid step forward in looking at the future of airpower and how that future is reshaping concepts of operations.

From Kill Chain to Kill Webs: Expanding the Integrated Fires Solution Approach

The USN is a final example of working operational transformation under the impact of fifth generation capabilities, but seeing them as accelerating efforts already underway.

Some time ago, the Navy put in place its NIFC-CA or Naval Integrated Fire Control—Counter Air battle network solution for enhanced kill chain capabilities.

Now the current head of Naval Air Warfare and the designate to head the Navy’s N-9 Warfare Directorate, Rear Admiral Manazir is leading and effort to think more broadly and to focus on shaping interactive kill webs in an extended battlespace where the blue forces operate as key kill web cells within a honeycombed force.

When we interviewed him late last year, Rear Admiral Manazir discussed the expanded reach and punch of the sea services in the expanded battlepace.

Kill web

Overall the sea services are expanding their reach, remote sensing and precision strike capabilities. They do so by being networked into an operational honeycomb of interconnected forces with reach, range and lethality against air, sea, space, and land-based targets.

“It is about reach, not range, for the honeycomb-enabled expeditionary strike group,” Manazir said. “The F-35 is a key enabler of this shift, but it is part of an overall effort to operate in the expanded battlespace.”

As the sea services evolve, the decade ahead is not a repeat of the past 15 years. It is not about prolonged ground combat and counterinsurgency. The technology and training exist to insert force to achieve discrete and defined objectives, to maneuver in the extended battlespace, and to work with allies and joint forces to prevail across the full range of military conflict in any part of the globe.

Reach & Punch: RADM Manazir On The Future Of Naval Airpower

Then during a presentation to the Mitchell Airpower Institute earlier this year, Rear Admiral Manazir introduced the kill web concept within his thinking about the integration of force packages within the integrated battlespace.

His focus on fifth generation was clearly along the lines of the other key players thinking through the force structure evolution NOW and into the future, namely how does fifth generation interact with other key elements to shape a more effective deployed force with distributed but interconnected warfighting capabilities?

Conclusion

The F-35 has arrived at a key juncture in the evolution of 21st century warfighting capabilities.

There is a fundamental OPERATIONAL and TRAINING rethink which is not simply about introducing the F-35 to the force, but it is about the co-evolution of platforms within the force, their weaponization and their connected operations.

And there is a diversity of activity by key players in the transformation process ranging from Australia to the US to Europe to the Middle East back to Europe to the United States and back to Asia.

It is a combat learning dynamic of which the F-35 global enterprise is a key enabler, but in which the F-35 itself will be transformed by the co-evolution of the other key combat assets, the training of the force, and by lessons learned from combat experience folded into the combat learning cycle.

The future is now.