Brazil in Political Crisis: A New Interim President Comes to Power

05/15/2016

2016-05-15 By Kenneth Maxwell

On Thursday May 12, 2016,  the Brazilian senate voted by 55 to 22 to begin an impeachment trail of Dilma Rousseff.

This means she was suspended from office and vice president Michel Temer was installed as interim president of Brazil.

The trial of Rousseff in the senate could last up to 180 days.

This will bring it close to the opening of the Olympic Games.

Dilma is unlikely to step down voluntarily.

Rousseff is well known for her obstinacy.

But she is also known for her courage in adversity.

Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff reacts during a meeting with leaders of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) at the Planalto Palace in Brasilia November 5, 2014. REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino
Then Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff reacts during a meeting with leaders of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) at the Planalto Palace in Brasilia November 5, 2014. REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino

Brazil’s first female president claimes that she has been the “victim of a great injustice.”

She is accused of breaking budget laws to disguise the scale of the fiscal deficit during her re-election campaign in 2014: “I have made mistakes, but I have not committed any crimes.”

She is unlikely to be acquitted.

The balance of the votes are against her. But she is not charged with personal corruption.

The case against her involves her alleged manipulation of the budget. But this been an endemic practice by previous presidents, governors, and municipal leaders for decades.  In fact the accusations against her are political.

The decision to impeach her is a political act, which is the direct result of her abismal ratings of popularity.  The action is conducted within legalistic and constitutional mechanisms.

So it is not a “coup” as she claims.

But it is without question a “constitutional” removal from office of an elected president by a partisan congress, where she has lost support, and where her political enemies, many of them accused of corruption, have been calling the tune.

Acting president Michel Temer has moved quickly to install a new government.

The key figures in Temer’s government are the new finance minister, Henrique Meirelles, and Jose Serra, the new minister of foreign affairs.  Both men have presidential ambitions. Michel Temer, who is 75, will not run for office in the next presidential election which will take place in 2018.

Michel Temer is the interim President of Brazil. Credit Photo: Reuters
Michel Temer is the interim President of Brazil. Credit Photo: Reuters

Jose Serra is a long term leader in the main oppostion party (the PSDB). Serra was twice the presidential candidate of the PSDB in 2002 and 2010, when he was defeated by Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, of the workers party (PT).

Dilma, who was Lula’s handpicked candidate to suceed him, was twice elected president, also in opposition to a PSDB candidate, most recently, when she ran for a second term against Aecio Neves, also a leader of the PSDB, a former governor on Minas Gerais, and now a senator from Minas Gerais, and a leader of the impreachment against Dilma Rousseff.

Serra is a long term political leader in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s industrial, commercial, and financial capital, where he has served a mayor, governor, and was elected as senator. He has a PhD from Cornell university. Serra has quickly asserted his leadership of the foreign ministry by criticising the so-called “Bolivarian” states of Latin America, principally Venezuela and Cuba, for their claims that Dilma was removed by a coup. He will undoubtedly go on to criticise the BRICS, another major component of the PT’s foreign policy agenda. As a senator Serra also introduced legislation (which passed) to privatise Brazil’s offshore petroleum assets.

Henrique Meirelles, the new minister of finance, is a former long term president of Brazil’s central bank. During Lula’s two terms in office, he was an essential figure in establishing and retaining Brazil’s financial credibility for Lula when he first became president. Lula was a left-wing union organiser and PT founder and his election had been opposed by Brazilian business leaders.

But Lula gave Meirelles de facto autonomy at the central bank, and he presided over a time when Brazil experienced great prosperity as a result of high commodity exports, low inflation, the discovery of vast off shore petroleum reserves, and substantial social progress.

Meirelles is a fiscal hawk.

He has a PhD in economics from MIT, and he was for 28 years with BankBoston, where he became president and chief operating officer. He has also said he will appoint Ilan Goldfajn, chief economist at itau Unibanco, as the new head of Brazil’s central bank. Goldfajn is also a PhD in economics from MIT. He also worked as chief economist and risk manager for Gavea Investments in Rio de Janeiro, the company established by Arminio Fraga, who was the Brazilian Central Bank president under Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Arminio Fraga had previously worked with George Soros in New York City. Temer had wanted Fraga to be his finance minister, but he declined.

These appointments in the financial area, however,  will undoubtedly be very well received by the financial establishment in São Paulo, and more generally by the co-called “markets.” The “Financial Times” in fact called them the ideal “wishlist for investors.”

But who is Temer and what are the prospects for his administration?

Temer is a Brazilian career politician from São Paulo. He has twice been speaker of the chamber of deputies.

He is the son of Lebanese Christian immigrants, a lawyer, and constitutional law professor at the pontifical catholic university of São Paulo. He is also the author of a work of fiction “anonymous intimacy” and a collection of poems. But he is not well known by the public, nor is he popular. And there have been accusations against him for electoral improprieties and illicit funding of his campaigns.

He is best known for his marriage to Marcela Temer (32) who is 43 years younger than her husband, and is a statuesque former beauty queen who has “Michel” tattooed on her neck. The Brazilian weekly newsmagazine, Veja, a protagonist in the  impeachment debate, called Marcela Temer (approvingly): “Beautiful, maiden like, and a housewife.”(Bela, recatada, e “do lar”). Which only reinforced the popular reaction to Temer’s new cabinet which is all white and all male.  But then only 53 out of 513 Brazilian congressional representatives are women.

Michel Temer certainly has the insider skills of a long serving politician, but he also has all the faults of a long term “articulator” of the back room deals which characterize the “inside the beltway” mentality of Brazilian politics.

His choice of ministers reflects this pattern.

His first choice as minister of defence, for example, was representative Newton Cardoso Jr, the son of the former vice-governor of Minas Gerais. Newton Cardoso Jr had supported Dilma’s re-election, but he then voted for her impeachment. The army reacted with fury to this nomination. A general was quoted a saying that it was “incredible” that a “boy of 26 years old” would “command men of 60 at a critical moment of crisis on the eve of the Olympic Games.”

Temer retreated. Cardoso Jr was not appointed to be minister of defence.

But other ministers bring heavy baggage.

Temer’s first chose as minister of science was Marcos Pereira, an evangelical pastor, who is a “creationist.” Evangelical  Christians form an important bloc  in the congress. But again he was forced to retreat. But he did secure the agriculture ministry for senator Blairo Maggi of Matto Grosso, known as the “soya-king”. Maggi it is claimed was responsible for deforesting large tracts of the Amazon rain forest.

One thing is certain. Michel Temer’s honeymoon will be very short indeed.

His government faces formidable problems on many fronts:

Not least the worst recession in modern times.

Growing inflation.

Competing would-be presidential hopefuls in key positions in his administration.

Providing security for the rapidly approaching Olympic and para-Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro.

The continuing spread of Zika.

The on-going Petrobras investigations, plea bargaining and convictions (as well as other corruption scandals.)

And against this background the ongoing impeachment trail of Dilma Rousseff in the Brazilian senate, which for all her faults, omissions, misjudgments, and misgovernment, now risks becoming the trail of a wronged woman, pursued by middle aged, corrupt, and vengeful men.

But the new interim president of Brazil is the last man to realize the potency of this image.

Dilma defenestrated is much more powerful than Dilma in office. 

NATO Missile Defense System: Next Steps?

2016-05-15 By Richard Weitz

While celebrating the formal inauguration last week of its new Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense (BMD) site in Romania, NATO’s July heads-of-state summit in Warsaw will need to decide how to develop NATO’s BMD architecture after the fulfillment of the existing plans to establish one more Aegis Ashore site in Poland.

In September 2009, the new Obama administration announced major changes in plans for establishing missile defenses in Europe.

The administration cancelled the Bush administration’s planned deployment of a third U.S. national missile defense site in Europe—a BMD radar in the Czech Republic and ten Grand-Based Missile Interceptors in Poland—and instead decided to focus on first deploying shorter-range interceptors closer to Iran and then deploying more advanced capabilities in later phases to match the expected growth in Iranian missile capabilities.

The administration also more explicitly described this alternative BDM program for Europe, the so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), as a U.S. contribution to the defense of NATO’s European members.

At the 2010 Lisbon summit, NATO decided to make missile defense a priority mission and committed to protect European populations and territory from missile attacks as well as NATO”s deployed armed forces, which had been the previous focus of NATO’s collective BMD efforts.

The NATO decision did not highlight any particular country as a threat but cited general concerns about the proliferation of ballistic missiles around its periphery, especially to the southeast, where the alliance faced emerging missile threats from Iran and potentially other states

The first EPAA phase 1, which began in 2011, resulted in the deployment in Turkey of a forward-based AN/TPY-2 BMD radar, which shifted to NATO’s operational control in 2012; the establishment of a BMD command and control node in Germany; and the sustained deployment of a rotating fleet of Aegis BMD-capable ships, armed with the U.S. Navy’s Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) interceptor, in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

The just completed EPAA Phase 2 consisted of deployment of four Aegis BMD-capable ships to Naval Station Rota in Spain and the construction of an Aegis Ashore BMD site in Romania.

Aegis Ashore employs a system nearly identical to the sea-based version, with the same vertical launch system, fire command and control system in an enclosed “deckhouse,” the SPY-1 radar, and SM-3 interceptors designed to intercept ballistic missiles in flight.

The US and NATO have just started EPAA Phase 3 with the beginning of the construction of another Aegis Ashore in Poland equipped with the new U.S. SM-3 Block IIB interceptor being co-developed with Japan. Upon its completion by the end of 2018, the BMD coverage will extend to all NATO European territory.

The Obama administration cancelled a planned EPAA Phase IV deployment due to problems developing the proposed interceptor—and never offered an alternative post-2018 vision for NATO BMD.

NATO allies have been working to develop and deploy their own national contributions to missile defense (the Netherlands, for example, is upgrading the radar on several air-defense frigates to an extended long-range missile defense early-warning system). But they have also not officially proposed how to develop the alliance’s collective missile defenses after 2018.

At the 2012 Chicago summit, NATO declared that its collective missile defense had achieved “Interim Capability;” current plans are to raise this status to “Initial Operational Capability” at the early July 2016 Warsaw summit, following the deployment of the Aegis Ashore system in Romania and further improvements in NATO’s collective BMD command and control capabilities. At present, missile defense in no longer a divisive issue in the alliance and allies see missile defense as a shared commitment of all NATO members.

At present, there are no public plans to develop the system further, beyond EPAA Phase 3.

The United States has been constantly changing its BMD plans regarding Europe. At times, these shifts have weakened European trust in U.S. security guarantees regarding missile defense. Yet, NATO must recognize and soberly evaluate current threats and upgrade its deployments and capabilities accordingly.

The threat environment has notably changed since the U.S. 209 and 2010 NATO BMD decisions. The Iran nuclear deal and Tehran’s decision to focus its missile program on developing short- and intermediate-range missiles have decreased the near-term threat potential nuclear missile threat to Europe from Iran.

Meanwhile, Russia has become more threatening, with the modernization of Russia’s missile capability, threats of Russian nuclear strikes against NATO members, and menacing aviation and ground exercises and deployments against NATO.

Until now, the United States and NATO have defined their missile defense programs as directed against exclusively non-Russian threats. In particular, the 2010 U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR) states that U.S. missile defenses are focused on defending against limited missile threats from states of proliferation concern like North Korea and Iran to the U.S. homeland as well as regional missile threats to U.S. allies and partners and deployed U.S. forces throughout the world.

NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, center; Prime Minister Dacian Ciolos of Romania, right; and Foreign Minister Lazar Comanescu at May 12, 2016 opening of an antimissile system.Credit Robert Ghement/European Pressphoto Agency
NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, center; Prime Minister Dacian Ciolos of Romania, right; and Foreign Minister Lazar Comanescu at May 12, 2016 opening of an antimissile system.Credit Robert Ghement/European Pressphoto Agency

Despite growing tensions with Moscow, the Obama administration, in the BMDR and subsequently, has insisted that U.S. missile defense efforts are not directed against Russia (or China).

Indeed, until recently, the United States and other NATO countries tried to cooperate with Russia on missile defense within the NATO framework as well as bilaterally. These efforts proved unsuccessful since Moscow insisted on receiving binding legal guarantees from Western leaders limiting the capabilities and deployments of NATO missile defenses.

Although Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has resulted in the suspension of formal NATO-Russian dialogue and joint projects on European missile defense, and NATO has been strengthening its conventional capabilities for defending its members against Russian threats, NATO leaders continue to state that their missile defenses are not directed against Russia.

Some NATO experts are arguing the alliance should be allocating more time and resources to the missile threat posed by Russia in light of its new assertiveness, current missile deployments, and future modernization efforts.

But developing defenses against Russia’s strategic deterrent, as opposed to the current declared focus on Iran, is technically and financially impossible for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, there is no political consensus in Europe to launch a program due to divisions within NATO on how robustly to challenge Moscow and on how much to spend on defense.

The next U.S. administration will need to take the lead in deciding where to direct the NATO BMD program after 2018.

There would be value in having the capacity to defend against more limited Russian air, ballistic, and especially cruise missile strikes in Europe, such as those Russia has demonstrated in its Syrian campaign.

Having even limited capabilities against Russian strikes would force Moscow to contemplate larger missile strikes to overcome these defenses.

As noted on this site (http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-russians-rethink-their-approach-to-warfare-tactical-nuclear-weapons-outside-the-nuclear-ladder-of-escalation/), the Russian military is developing concepts for waging limited missile and aviation wars in Europe, and the alliance should better constrain any Russian attempt to apply such options in practice.

Also, see the following:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/northcom-how-america-should-deal-russias-nuclear-16154

The European Air Group Works 4th and 5th Generation Air Combat Integration

05/14/2016

2016-05-14

Recently, the European Air Group held a working group which continued their work on 4th and 5th generation 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.

The first day saw experts from academia and industry set the scene with their interpretation of the technological and political developments that are going to shape the future of air power and more specifically the challenges of integrating 4th and 5th generation multi-national air forces into that vision.

The second day opened the floor to a discussion between the individual EAG nations present, Tactical Leadership Program (TLP), Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC); European Union Military Staff (EUMS) and the USAF that was being represented for the first time at an EAG 4th 5th Generation Forum.

DSC06654-Resize-300x143

The debate focused on the specific challenges being experienced at a national program level whilst also providing an overview of the future Air Force compositions.

The identification of the common challenges being experienced with this cutting edge evolution of the approach to, and employment of, air power is key to the development of future collaborative solutions.

National representatives were able to take away key areas for further consideration and investigation that when resolved will be fundamental to enhancing interoperability between the nations.

The 4th 5th Generation Integration Information Forum will continue to provide a crucial communication channel between the EAG nations as the next generation of combat aircraft are brought into service in Europe.

 http://www.euroairgroup.org/project/4th-5th-generation-integration-information-forum-april-2016/

The kick-off briefing at the April 28th session was provided by Dr. Robbin F. Laird of Second Line of Defense.

The initial session was held in November 2014 at High Wycombe.

Honoring interoperability as our essence, the EAG Steering Group held in Breda, The Netherlands on 16 May 2014 tasked the Permanent Staff to analyze the challenges of operating 5th generation fighter aircraft alongside legacy 4th generation aircraft in a coalition environment.

 In November 2014, the EAG hosted a two-day seminar with three clear objectives: (1) identify 4th/5th generation aircraft integration challenges at an unclassified level, (2) evaluate the need to harmonize a number of these challenges at a Multinational level and (3) determine a potential role for the EAG in resolving these challenges.

 With the presence of representatives from the EAG nations and the Tactical Leadership Program (TLP), the seminar began with an opening address given by Dr. Robbin F. Laird, a long-time analyst of global defence issues currently focusing his work on analysing the evolution of fifth generation aircraft systems and the emergence of fifth generation warfare. Dr. Laird set up the appropriate strategic framework to allow further discussions.

 This EAG initiative to establish practical steps to think through and shape the impact of the arrival of 5th gen aircraft on current 4th gen-based European airpower is considered a unique and worthwhile effort that will be further developed during 2015 with a second seminar.

http://www.euroairgroup.org/project/4th5th-gen-aircraft-integration-initiative/

See also the following:

The European Air Group and Typhoon Integration: Shaping a Way Ahead for More Effective Operational Impacts

 

The F-35 and 21st Century Defence: Shaping a Way Ahead

05/13/2016

2016-05-08

We have published a book on the F-35 and 21st Century Defence: Shaping a Way Ahead.

The book is appearing initially on Amazon and will be available worldwide on Amazon stores in their digital format for reading on Kindle.

UK site

Australian Site

The book is about the arrival of the F-35 and its interactive role with other key innovations, which are reshaping the defence forces of the democracies.

As one analyst, put it: “If you did not have the F-35, you would have to invent it to be part of and to further the innovations we are pursuing to reshape defence, combat, and homeland security operations.”

The book draws on literally hundreds of visits with pilots, maintainers, testers, industrialists and visits in Asia, Europe and the Middle East discussing the F-35 and how it is viewed by key states as part of their defence transformation.

The F-35 has arrived.

With more than 50,000 flight hours on the F-35 fleet and an operational squadron with the Marines, and second shortly, to be joined by the USAF this year and the Navy next year, the F-35 fleet has already taken off.

There are currently more than 250 F-35 pilots and 2,400 aircraft maintainers from six nations already trained and more than 110 jets are jointly under construction at the Fort Worth and Cameri production facilities with Japan starting its initial production as well.

F-35 Single Page Version_Page_001

The F-35 has become tactically operational in the USMC while the aircraft is undergoing developmental testing by the Pax River and Edwards AFB with an F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) for the USAF and USN. What is not widely understood is that the ITF is managing the ongoing developmental testing for the life of the program.

With the scope, complexity and concurrent global reach of the F-35 program, a new approach to testing was set in motion. The program is one of “spiral development” in which combat F-35 Type/Model/Series (T/M/S) airplanes emerge throughout the process to operate as effective combat assets, even while the developmental testing for all three types of F-35s continue.

Put bluntly, the F-35B in the hands of the Marines is a fully “up” combat aircraft (both airframe, sensors and weapon systems) addition to the USMC Air/Ground team.

All Squadron Pilots in Marines, USAF and Navy, will be backed up by the best test community in the world at Edwards and Pax. This partnership forged for decades will continue a dynamic synergistic combat way for the entire life of the F-35 Global Enterprise

For the Lightning II, the past decade of putting together a unique, and innovative approach to shaping the F-35 fleet has paid off and has built a solid foundation for the decade ahead.

As U.S. fighter pilots and their partners generate fleet and ultimately combat experience that will lead to never ending innovations and developmental testing.

Put bluntly, if you waiting for the end of developmental testing come back in 30-40 years. Meanwhile, the F-35 fleet will have reshaped air combat operations.

The global enterprise is a key part of what happens at Pax River.

The UK is an integral part of the team, and as Gordon Stewart, UK MoD flight engineer at Pax described this powerful and productive partnership:

This is the most integrated test team I have ever worked on. As we work the way ahead, it might be a UK person, a Lockheed person, or a US government person who provides the best solution. It is a very well integrated team at the working level.

It is a very different test process than in the past, although what is happening in the F-35 program is the way we are approaching the future as well. In the past, there was much more serial testing.

Twenty years ago when I first started, the contractor would do something and then throw it over the fence to the government, which would look at it, approve it and then pass it on to the operator.

Now with the pace of technology, and the role of software, we have a much more integrated process. We are shaping the evolution of the aircraft as it goes out the door as well.

At Pax, we are testing a software version ahead or a couple ahead of what the fleet is getting at the moment. In effect, we are testing the next iteration of the aircraft.

And the Edwards and Beaufort efforts provide important pieces to the evolution as well. We have an integrated RAF and Royal Navy team at Edwards. 17 (R) squadron at Edwards is a mix of RAF and RN.

At Beaufort, we have a UK team and one of our aircraft, and we are working closely with the USMC. That is another key element of the joint integrated effort, from our point of view.

In an historic first there was no clearer example of the global nature of the program when the first F-35 to fly across the Atlantic landed at Pax River.

At 1430 on February 5, 2016, the first Italian made F-35A flew into the pattern at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland and touched down.

The Italian AF pilot call-sign “Ninja” had only flown the jet for 50 hours previous to his seven hour trans-Atlantic dead of winter flight. And most amazing for reliability the airplane, which was the first built in Italy itself, had only 15 flight hours prior to the trans-Atlantic flight completed the entire mission “up and up” with no “gripes” or maintenance problems.

The landing of AF-01, which flew first in Italy in September, was by one of the Italian pilots trained at Luke AFB in the Fall 2015 with a first flight in November, highlighted the progress of the program.

Historically, allies and partners who operate U.S.-generated fighter aircraft would do so sequentially over time as the type/model/series progressed, with U.S. fighter pilots flying the newest jets first and then allies next as production was generated off of U.S. lines.

For example, the first flight by the U.S. of the F-16 was in 1977, however, it took until 2001 for the first USAF F-16s to be introduced into the Italian AF.   Under the terms of a USAF and Italian Air Force agreement named the “Peace Caesar” program was the lease of F-16s to make up for shortfalls in Typhoons in the Italian Air Force fleet.

Put in blunt terms, the Italians are flying the most advanced U.S. combat jet in current production at the same time as the U.S. services.

This provides a unique moment in history and a clear opportunity for shaping new global capabilities.

A key aspect of the global nature of the program is the ability of the fighter pilots of different services and nations to share experiences. With regard to the transatlantic flight, Ninja commented:

I talked with the Marines about their flight – they went from Yuma to Pax – and their flight plan to come over in 2014. They were very helpful. Semper Fidelis is what I have to say about that.

Ninja also underscored that the advantage of learning to operate the aircraft from the ground up was an opportunity to shape new combat approaches as with all members of the first-ever concurrent state-of-the art international fighter program.

Training, Tactics and Procedures (TTPs) will be applied critiqued and modified over and over bay all Air warriors in the F-35 global consortium. Diversity of experiences can lead to unity of purpose to always have the best TTPs to fight and win in air combat.

https://sldinfo.com/lessons-learned-at-pax-river-the-coming-of-the-f-35-fleet/

Recently, in a presentation in Australia, Lt. General Davis, the Deputy Commandant of Aviation for the USMC told an international audience at a seminar Australia, how the F-35 was already a key part of the Marines shaping their way ahead.

“Now that it is in the hands of Marines, they are innovating in ways which the leadership really did not anticipate and much more rapidly than might be imagined.

He described an event where the Commandant was going witness a Yuma to Nellis scenario in which F-35s would be used to support Marines in the maneuver space.

He went to the Marines working the exercise and asked: “Was everything ready for the Commandant?”

The answer was: “Sir we are not going to do exactly what you asked for and are not ready to do it that way?”

Davis commented: “The Commandant is just about here, what are you talking about?”

The Marine answered: “Frankly, the scenario you suggested was not tough enough for we wanted to take our F-35s into a more advanced SAM belt to get through and then support the Marines on the ground.”

Davis was a bit taken aback, but the innovation already evident by the squadron pilots was rewarded with a demonstrated success on the Nellis ranges.

The Commandant was impressed, and although a ground combat Marine, he argued “we need to get that plane into the hands of Marines as fast as we can.”

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

No partner has been clearer about the central role of the F-35 in defence transformation than has been Australia.

The Aussies have stood up a newly enabled Air Force, and are working the Air, Naval and ground sides to provide for both the kind of homeland defence, and extended perimeter defence which they see as crucial to their national survival and security.

The Williams Foundation in Australia has led the effort to look at what they are calling fifth-generated enabled defence or combat operations, and throughout are looking at the interactive dynamics of change associated with rebuilding their force as the F-35 comes into the force.

https://sldinfo.com/the-renorming-of-airpower-the-f-35-arrives-into-the-combat-force-2-1/

https://sldinfo.com/plan-jericho-the-raaf-shapes-a-transformation-strategy-2/

https://sldinfo.com/integrating-innovative-airpower-a-report-from-the-copenhagen-airpower-symposium/

https://sldinfo.com/australian-defence-modernization-shaping-capabilities-for-21st-century-operations/

As the Air Commander Australia, Air Vice-Marshal Turnbull put it in a recent interview:

“The F-35 clearly is about decision-making and ISR but we are not waiting for the plane to show up before we reshape our ability to use fused data and to push information to the right people at the right time in order to make the right decisions.

I’m thinking about decision making in the cockpit back to the strategic level, but teaching the JSF pilot how to operate in the decision space where he can be a decision-maker, that’s what we need to do as well to shape an ability to get better decisions at the point of attack or defence.

And we are focused throughout the force on how to work the shift forward to the operational level most capable of achieving the desired effect.”

https://sldinfo.com/building-from-airpower-integration-in-the-middle-east-to-shape-a-more-integrated-and-capable-australian-defence-force-the-perspective-of-air-commander-australia/

And this is not simply the position of Air Force; it is the position of Army and Navy as well.

For example, Brigadier General Mills, Director General, Army Modernization made a recent presentation at the latest Williams Foundation conference, which highlighted how he saw the F-35 as part of the transformation necessary for the joint land force as the Aussies, call it.

During the briefing, Mills included a slide which would not appear in a typical Army briefing, for in this slide, the F-35 and naval fire support were prominently highlighted.

Mills Slide

“Question: You put up a slide, which highlighted a very comprehensive look at joint fires and support to the ground maneuver forces.

How do you view the way ahead?

BG Mills: We need to move beyond the label of air land integration and look at joint integration or multi-domain integration.

We need to focus on the reality of what it looks like at the small team, combat team level, with regard to multi-domain integration with joint effects from JSF or from the Air Destroyer or from overhead surveillance systems.

I think the reality is that as we move beyond this decade, those type of joint effects need to empower the small team to achieve tactical success as the array of tactical successes transcend into an operational impact.

So a number of what would be seen as operational effects I think in the fullness of time will transcend all the way down to the small team, combat team level.

Hence, when a combat team commander who is about to attack a city block can potentially compartmentalize all the electronic emissions going out from that block to know exactly where the threat is.

Then he can look at a whole range of joint fires both lethal and non-lethal to support them in achieving their objectives.”

Mills then added:

“You now need the ability to coordinate direct air land integration fires and you need more F-35 support to deliver that effect.

The reality is that we potentially need to look at as we move beyond this decade of pushing support further down from division level and making it more readily available and more dynamically available to the small group level.

The time responsiveness of an Air Tasking Order that’s 72 hours old is really not going to make it.

I would suggest that time line needs to be radically truncated.

The Chief of Army made the point at the Airpower Conference that in many ways we are still using procedures and approaches that go back to World War II for air-ground operations; this makes no sense in terms of technological advances and operational shifts.

We need to shape a 21st century approach.”

https://sldinfo.com/the-australian-army-modernizes-for-the-21st-century-battlespace-an-interview-with-brigadier-general-chris-mills-australian-army/

In the first section, we will look at the intersection between the arrival of the F-35 and innovation and transformation of defence capabilities and approaches.

In the second section, we will look at some of the key elements in the F-35 global enterprise which will see an unique arrival of an entire global interactive fleet of users, who can work with one another to meet homeland defence, extended perimeter defence, or expeditionary operations as needed by the leadership of that particular F-35 partner state.

The reach of the F-35 as a data sharing and decision making asset is unprecedented in combat history.

In the third section, we look briefly at some elements of the evolving strategic environment within which the F-35 can provide some solution sets, which can enhance the capability for national defence or embedded coalition capabilities which can empower a diversity of coalitions in the defence of the homeland or in extended perimeter defence.

In short, the F-35 is here now.

And key partners are already rethinking how they will use the plane based on direct engagement in the development, production, training, flying or maintaining the aircraft today.

A very clear look at the way ahead was articulated by the current Chief of Staff of the Royal Australian Air Force, Air Marshal Davies:

“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:

“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/

 

An Update on the KC-30A from Edwards AFB: Clearing the Way for Expanded Operations

05/12/2016

2016-04-30 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

After our day with the F-35 Developmental Test Team at Edwards AFB, we met with the KC-30A team at Edwards. The team was continuing the effort to clear the tanker boom with an ever-growing number of receiver aircraft.

The team we met with had experience with the aircraft during its current operations and the Middle East and provided a good overview to the aircraft, its evolution, and its role in shaping what has been the first engagement of the RAAF with its new combined air capabilities of Wedgetail, KC-30A, fighters and support and C2 elements to a long-distance operation.

This new capability of the RAAF to deploy a sovereign force package provides the Australian Defence Force and the Australian political leaders with new options and possibilities for national or coalition engagements worldwide.

The members of the team who participated in the interview are as follows:

  • SQNLDR Jamie Minor, 33SQN KC-30A Captain
  • SQNLDR Lee McDowall, Aircraft Research and Development Unit (ARDU) Senior Flight Test Engineer (FTE)
  • FLTLT Tom Hawes, 33SQN KC-30A Co-pilot
  • FLTLT Jacques Le Roux, ARDU FTE and KC-30A/C-17 Clearance Flight Test Lead
  • FLTLT Ben Liersch, ARDU FTE and KC-30A/F-16 Clearance Flight Test Lead.

The main purpose of the team at Edwards was to work on C-17 and F-16 certification for the KC-30A boom.

The tanker has operated the hose and drogue system for some time, but the boom is just now becoming IOC’d.

The number of aircraft certified has been growing and includes, RAAF Hornets and Super Hornets, USN Hornets and Super Hornets, the French Rafale, the Eurofighter and Tornado (via Voyager certifications), the Harrier and Prowler, the F-35, the Wedgetail, and upon leaving Edwards will have finished C-17 and F-16 clearances as well.

Question: When visiting the tanker squadron a couple of years ago and prior to your deployment to the Middle East, you were working on getting the boom operational.

How did that process happen?

Answer: Air Vice-Marshal Chris Deeble was given the task of shaping a way ahead.

And he did this by reworking the relationship with Airbus so that there could be a complete sharing of data and information to get the boom operational as effectively and quickly as possible.

We formed a joint committee or an integrated team where we shared all knowledge and work towards finding a common solution for the way ahead.

We removed the barriers that were artificially in place between Airbus and ourselves.

We pared down our requirements to those, which were both needed and realistic, and got rid of the ones which were generated more by our bureaucratic process than by what was needed for operational realities.

We wanted to get a capable and effective system more rapidly through this process and that is what has happened.

Question: Those who do not know about your tanker will not know that you tank from the front, rather than the rear of the aircraft.

What advantages has this given you in operations?

Answer: A major advantage when combined with the IR cameras and illuminations is that we can operate at night as effectively as in the day.

The view is so crisp that we can see the receiver pilot’s teeth when he comes in for fuel.

It is absolutely amazing.

And teamwork is much better.

We can have a very integrated team of the pilot, co-pilot and ARO (Air Refueling Officer) working together on the flight deck to work the mission with the aircraft coming in for fuel.

Question: Could you talk about your operational experiences?

Answer: With a new program, generally, you crawl, walk and then run.

With this program, we needed the capability relatively quickly so we sort of crawled and then ran.

The deployment to the Middle East has rapidly accelerated our maturing of the aircraft.

We went to the Middle East in the Fall of 2014.

We operate one tanker at a time in Operation Okra and a deployment is four months.

Some airmen have already completed three or four rotations in the mission.

Even though we have only one tanker there, we are delivering more than 10% of all the fuel in the operation.

We have offloaded around 40-45 million pounds of fuel in the Middle East during the operation to coalition forces.

We are operating at 96-98 percent mission success rate, and the maintenance has been outstanding.

It is a commercial plane with military systems onboard and is built for rapid fuel intake, for commercial airlines expect to turn around planes rapidly.

They don’t make money with the plane on the ground.

We can do this as well, but are limited only by the austere conditions at military bases which slows the refueling process.

And the efficiency of the engines is outstanding which means that we burn less fuel than a KC-10 or KC-135 when flying and doing the tanking operations.

Question: With the situational awareness which you have on the plane, you operate the plane often to the fighter rather than forging a track to which the fighter goes.

Could you describe that capability?

Answer: We have a very good communications suite, including SATCOM, on the aircraft, as well as Link 16.

So we can see the fighters in the battlespace and we can see their fuel loads and anticipate where the need for refueling might lie.

It is about positioning yourself efficiently to refuel fighters to get them back in the fight as rapidly as possible; it is not just about being a tracked gas station in the sky.

And with our communications capabilities we can act as a relay between the fighters and other assets in the battlespace and link back to the home base as needed as well.

We can function as a communications relay for the fighter fleet as well.

Question: You are reshaping the tanker culture?

Where do your crews come from and how are they preparing for the boom part of your tanker’s future?

Answer: We have a mixture of people with fighter, tanker and airlift experience.

It is a mixed crew in terms of background.

And we have an exchange with the USAF with the KC-10 are building up our boom training and experience with them as well.

Question: How are the coalition partners responding to your tanker and your efforts?

Answer: We are the tanker of choice.

The amount of respect we are getting from being in the Middle East, I’ve never seen anywhere else. Especially from Marines and the U.S. Navy, we constantly hear: “We want you guys every time we’re going to do a strike package.”

So whenever there’s a strike package happening, they request us when possible: “We want the Aussie KC-30 tanker on board.“

Question: The KC-30A is being used by a number of other Air Forces, although you are the lead country is using the aircraft. What have been your interactions with them?

Answer: We have growing interaction with non-USAF’s which is also broadening our mutual experience.

For example, we have an exchange with the French, whereby the French are leveraging our work to shape their transition strategy with their own tanker.

All of the clearances we are doing for ourselves benefit all the other KC-30A air forces.

And we think we are driving the entire KC-30A enterprise forward as well evolve our experience and our capabilities.

During the tests here, we have an Airbus person with us as we certify the boom.

We have embedded him in our team and put an Australian flag on his back and made him feel like one of us.

And that breaks down the barriers necessary to have the kind of innovation, which we want to see.

Editor’s Note: Not only are the Aussies evolving the qualitative elements of their tanking operations and culture, but they are increasing the numbers as well.

Because the MRTT is a derivative of a commercial aircraft, it is possible to leverage a used commercial aircraft as the baseline aircraft which can be modified.

This is what the Aussies are doing.

According to a story published on July 1, 2015 by Australian Aviation:

Australia is to acquire two further Airbus KC-30A tanker-transports, taking the RAAF’s fleet to seven, Defence Minister Kevin Andrews has announced.

“The two additional KC-30A aircraft will be delivered in 2018 and provide a substantial increase to the air-to-air refuelling capacity of the RAAF,” Andrews said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Defence has signed an update to the existing acquisition contract with Airbus Defence and Space for the two aircraft and associated conversion at a cost of approximately $408 million.”

The KC-30 (Airbus calls it the A330 MRTT – Multi Role Tanker Transport) is a development of the A330-200 airliner, featuring an ARBS (Advanced Refuelling Boom System) boom mounted beneath the rear fuselage and underwing mounted ‘probe and drogue’ pods. It also has a significant ‘air logistics support’ capability able to carry cargo in its underfloor freight compartments and, in RAAF service, 270 passengers in airliner-style seating.

Although four of the original five aircraft were converted from ‘green’ A330 airframes to their KC-30 configuration by Qantas Defence Services (now Northrop Grumman Australia Integrated Defence Services) at Brisbane Airport, the two new aircraft – secondhand ex Qantas A330-200 airliners – will be converted to tanker configuration by Airbus Defence and Space at Getafe, Spain.

Indeed, if one visits Getafe, Spain, it is possible to see the first Qantas modified jet.

It is to be found as of the end of April 2016, in the first of the three hangars through which over an 8-month period, the commercial jet becomes a tanker.  

The second is standing outside of three hangars ready to enter the process of conversion.

By the way, in the other two hangars are the first and second Singaporean tankers being built from “green” commercial jets.

With regard to the qualitative evolution of the tanker and its culture, the Air Commander Australia, Vice Air-Marshal Gavin Turnbull had this to say:

What we have given the tanker crew is what the fighter pilot experienced in the first decade of the 21st century.

We added Link 16 into the cockpit and suddenly they had situational awareness of the battlespace around them and could now work within the battlespace, rather than simply going to a tanker track and acting as a gas station in the sky waiting for the planes to come in to get gassed up.

This has meant changing the skill set for the tanker crew as well.

We need to have smart people with smart situational awareness combat skills rather than truck drivers. They now position themselves where they’re next needed.

They’re maintaining their awareness and they’re moving into the battle space, and the jets are coming off their targets and are surprised about how close the tanker is.

In fact, we’re starting to get the reverse complaint where pilots who are coming off targets don’t have time to think and reconfigure their airplane before they’re on the wing of the tanker getting some more fuel.

And what this means in practice is a more capable asset, combat team and force.

This was pointed out by Air Commodore Lennon, Commander of the Air Mobility Group, who discussed the case of working with a Marine Corps pilot over Iraq.

A USMC Hornet lost an engine, and was in danger of going down in an area where it might not be good for the pilot to land or bail out.

The KC-30A came to the Hornet and supported it as the aircraft had to fly down in a cascading pattern to get back to base.

“Link 16 can tell you where the assets are and the fuel status of the air combat force. But it cannot tell you about intentions.

You get that from listening to the chat.

In this case, the pilot was listening to the chat and discovered a problem.

He then flew to the problem.

The Marine Corps Hornet had lost an engine and could not stay level at the refueling speed, so they set up a descent pattern to work the problem.

They could not do that until they were outside of the core combat area.

They set up what is called a toboggan where you just slow the descent so the Hornet could keep up his speed to get refueled.

And of course as he transferred fuel, he got heavier which in turn made it more difficult to keep your speed up, but the tanker adjusted to the need for the Hornet.”

Air Commodore Lennon also highlighted an aspect of Tanker 2.0 in terms of new capaiblities as well.

“Airbus is working hard on building an autonomous boom where the boom will actually work out where the receptacle is and fly itself into contact.

This will ease the workload for the tanker crew, and provide significant capabilities to fuel new assets coming to the tanker, such as UAVs. It would be an important step forward.

If you have a good reliable autonomous system, then the boom operator is not tiring as quickly and so you can stay on station longer and enhance your persistence in the battle space.”

For a PDF version of this article, download here.

Editor’s Note: The Aussies are currently completing certification of their C-17s begun at Edwards with their own C-17s in Australia.

The slideshow below is credited to the Australian Ministry of Defence and shows the tanking of the Aussies own C-17 with the KC-30A in the skies near Brisbane, Australia.

A flight test team from the Aircraft Research and Development Unit successfully conducted the first air-to-air refuelling trials between a RAAF KC-30A Multi Role Tanker Transport and a RAAF C-17A Globemaster III on 27 April 2016 off the Queensland coast.

Pilots and aerial refuelling operators from No 33 Squadron and No 36 Squadron, both based at RAAF Base Amberley, as well as members of the United States Air Force were also involved in the trials.

These trials are part of the clearance program for air-to-air refuelling from the KC-30A’s Aerial Refuelling Boom System (ARBS), which is also compatible with refuelling the F-35A Lightning II, as well as the E-7A Wedgetail, P-8A Posideon, and other KC-30As. Air-to-air refuelling increases the operating range of RAAF aircraft, and is a critical capability in establishing the RAAF as a modern and fully integrated combat force.

The Aircraft Research and Development Unit is located at RAAF Base Edinburgh and is part of the RAAF Air Warfare Centre, which is responsible for driving innovation and integration across the Air Force.

For the version of this article which appeared on National Interest, see the following:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/interview-flight-testing-australias-airbus-kc-30-tanker-16009

 

 

The Russians Rethink Their Approach to Warfare: Tactical Nuclear Weapons Outside the Nuclear Ladder of Escalation?

05/11/2016

2016-05-11 By Robbin Laird

We have been building on Paul Bracken’s work on the second nuclear age to focus on the impact of the rethink regarding nuclear weapons going on globally.

https://sldinfo.com/rethinking-nuclear-deterrence-shaping-a-way-ahead/

SLD: And to the point of different perspectives, that really goes to the heart of the matter.  We are not going to bargain with ourselves.  And in the world we are in and it will get worse from this point of view, there is no clear ladder of escalation.  The rules are not clear, and learning will be by crisis not strategic design. 

Bracken: The absence of any clear escalation ladder is at the heart of the challenge.

If you knew how many weeks I wasted on trying to construct the follow-on escalation ladders for the 21st Century but could not convince myself that they were worthwhile.

In the first nuclear age it was learning by crisis, and we got fortunate because the crises that started were not particularly severe. If the Cuban Missile Crisis had come in the late ’40s, God only knows what would’ve happen. 

Nonetheless, I think we need to prepare for a crisis exploitation which crystallizes the issues we’re talking about, much as 9/11 did. Many people prior to 9/11 were talking about, terrorism, counterterrorism, but nobody paid any attention to them.

The early Bush administration in 2000 was dismissive because they had other fish to fry and then 9/11 happens and the existence of prior thinking on counterterrorism was rapidly exploited. 

The kind of crisis in which learning might occur could revolve around something like the Pacific islands in dispute in the South China Sea. 

If there’s a major Chinese move against one of these islands, the Japanese and US forces will be forced to respond. 

But what if the Chinese start moving some nuclear weapons around?  What do we do then? 

That’s really a distinct possibility. But I cannot find anybody in the U.S. government who really thinks about the realism of such a situation like that. 

Well we did find someone thinking about that, and he is the current head of NORTHCOM and NORAD.

Admiral Gortney provided a thoughtful look at how the second nuclear age is affecting the threat calculus against North America.

Question: The Russians are not the Soviets, but they are generating new capabilities, which clearly provide a need to rethink homeland defense. 

How would you characterize the Russian dynamic? 

Answer: With the emergence of the new Russia, they are developing a qualitatively better military than the quantitative military that they had in the Soviet Union.

They have a doctrine to support that wholly government doctrine. And you’re seeing that doctrine in military capability being employed in the Ukraine and in Syria. 

This is the moment a Russian Blackjack bomber, capable of carrying 16 nuclear missiles, was intercepted by RAF Typhoons as it headed for UK airspace. Credit: Daily Mail
This is the moment a Russian Blackjack bomber, capable of carrying 16 nuclear missiles, was intercepted by RAF Typhoons as it headed for UK airspace. Credit: Daily Mail

For example, the Russians are evolving their long-range aviation and at sea capabilities. They are fielding and employing precision-guided cruise missiles from the air, from ships and from submarines. 

Their new cruise missiles can be launched from Bears and Blackjacks and they went from development to testing by use in Syria. It achieved initial operating capability based on a shot from a deployed force. 

The Kh-101 and 102 were in development, not testing, so they used combat shots as “tests,” which means that their capability for technological “surprise” is significant as well, as their force evolves. 

The air and sea-launched cruise missiles can carry conventional or nuclear warheads, and what this means is that a “tactical” weapon can have strategic effect with regard to North America. 

Today, they can launch from their air bases over Russia and reach into North American territory. 

The challenge is that, when launched, we are catching arrows, but we are not going after the archers. 

The archers do not have to leave Russia in order to range our homeland. 

And with the augmentation of the firepower of their submarine force, the question of the state of our anti-submarine warfare capabilities is clearly raised by in the North Atlantic and the Northern Pacific waters. 

What this means for NORAD as well is that limiting it to air defense limits our ability to deal with the multi-domain threat. 

It is an air and maritime threat and you need to go on that tack and defense through multiple domains, not simply the classic air battle. 

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

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/

The Admiral wisely underscored the point that it was crucial to understand what was in the mind of North Korea and Russia when contemplating nuclear use.

Question: The nuclear dimension is a key part of all of this, although there is a reluctance to talk about the Second Nuclear Age and the shaping of deterrent strategies to deal with the new dynamics. 

With regard to Russia, they have changed their doctrine and approach.

How do you view their approach and the challenge to us which flows from that change? 

Answer: Both the Chinese and Russians have said in their open military literature, that if conflict comes, they want to escalate conflict in order to de-escalate it. 

Now think about that from our side. And so now as crisis escalates, how will Russia or China want to escalate to deescalate? 

The Admiral added:

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? 

If one begins to think through what we have seen from the Russians under President Putin we clearly see significant changes in defense policy, capabilities and approaches.

The Syrian operation saw a deployable air and maritime strike force move to the chess board of global conflict and achieve key objectives which the political leadership had set for them. Then many of those forces were withdrawn.

The Russians ended up with an enhanced presence structure through the intervention and political credit in the region for bolstering the regime in power.

They also used the cruise missiles for the first time that the Admiral referred to as well.

Putin made the nuclear connection himself.

For the Russians, President Putin announced in December 2015, that Kalibr cruise missiles had been fired by the submered Rostov-on-Don submarine from the Mediterranean for the first time. 

He said TU-22 bombers also took part in the latest raids and that “significant damage” had been done to a munitions depot, a factory manufacturing mortar rounds and oil facilities. Two major targets in Raqqa, the defacto capital of Isis, had been hit, said Mr Shoigu. 

President Putin said the new cruise missiles could also be equipped with nuclear warheads – but that he hoped they would never need them. 

He said: “With regard to strikes from a submarine. We certainly need to analyse everything that is happening on the battlefield, how the weapons work. Both the [Kalibr] missiles and the Kh-101 rockets are generally showing very good results. 

We now see that these are new, modern and highly effective high-precision weapons that can be equipped either with conventional or special nuclear warheads.”

https://sldinfo.com/the-fight-against-isis-the-russians-and-the-french-go-after-fixed-targets-with-cruise-missiles/

The intervention in Ukraine demonstrated as well a skillful seizure of Crimea, and use of information warfare, special forces, and internal subversion in Ukraine. There was very little interest demonstrated in a full up classic invasion of Ukraine by a large Soviet army group.

In fact, if one looks carefully at the Russian military and how it has been modernized, the shaping of an intervention force using modern means, and technologies has been a clear priority over the force structure used in the past built around large army groups.

Not only is this more effective to serve the global policy of Putin, but if one inserts tactical nuclear weapons within a conventional calculus, there really is no need for a large Soviet army group.

(Remember President Eisenhower, anyone?)

Strategic deterrence holds in Putin’s view, for the US will not allow the Russians to shape an arsenal that would have decisive consequences in nuclear exchanges, or put more bluntly, the US should focus on nuclear modernization which keeps this kind of nuclear deterrence in place.

Yet there is no real consideration in US defense strategy for having nuclear weapons thought of OUTSIDE of a ladder of NUCLEAR escalation strategy.

But what if small yield and precise nuclear weapons are used with limited effect to stop any potential war in the West for such use with Europe in increasing disarray might make sense to achieve political results of fundamentally collapsing the Western Alliance, the threat still considered by Putin a key one to Russia and its ambitions?

As Dr. James Conca wrote:

In the end, however, our nuclear force crews, and the American public, see the threat of full-scale nuclear war as “simply nonexistent.” 

Not so in Russia. They’re ready. And what would we do if they used these tactical nukes against one of its neighbors? 

This same question never seems to go away. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/11/20/could-russias-new-nuclear-weapons-win-world-war-iii/#12d5c2214c71

Editor’s Note: In a piece published on May 12, 2016 in the New York Times, Andrew Kramer quoted Russian officials who made it clear that any thought that NATO had that anti-missile systems were part of conventional deterrence was not how they thought.

Last fall, Russian security officials appeared to drop hints of another military response to the missile defense system — a nuclear-armed drone submarine. Russia, this leak appeared to say, has options.

During a high-level security meeting, a television camera zoomed in on an open binder showing the weapon’s design, ostensibly by accident.

The drone, according to easily decipherable text accompanying the design drawing, would be capable of carrying a large nuclear device into coastal waters and detonating it, touching off a radioactive tsunami to flood and contaminate seaside cities.

The submarine would “defeat important economic objects of an enemy in coastal zones, bringing guaranteed and unacceptable losses on the country’s territory by forming a wide area of radioactive contamination incompatible with conducting military, economic or any other activities there for a long period of time,” it said.

A Russian commentator, Konstantin Bogdanov, wrote on Lenta.ru, a news portal, that the antimissile sites in Eastern Europe might even accelerate the slippery slope to nuclear war in a crisis.

They would inevitably become priority targets in the event of nuclear war, possibly even targets for preventive strikes. Countries like Romania that host American antimissile systems might be the only casualties, he wrote, whereas the United States would then reconcile with Russia “over the smoking ruins of the East European elements of the missile defense system.”

For our earlier forum on the Second Nuclear Age, see the following:

http://www.sldforum.com/archived-articles/prevail-second-nuclear-age/

For a chance to comment on the article:

http://www.sldforum.com/2016/05/providing-an-answer-to-admiral-gortney-how-putin-is-thinking-about-nuclear-weapons/

For a presentation by Ed Timperlake, prepared in April 2016 on the impact of the second nuclear age, see the following:

Blacjacks

The Osprey Tanking the F-35: “Multi-Mission Everything”

05/09/2016

2016-05-06 By Robbin Laird

When Lt. General Davis, the Deputy Commandant of Aviation spoke at the Williams Foundation seminar on new approaches to air-land integration, he described a key aspect of the evolving Marine Corps approach with their air assets as “multi-mission everything”.

Technology is important to this effort, and he highlighted that the Osprey being brought into the force was a generator of “disruptive change,” but the kind crucial to real combat innovation.

“But change is difficult; and the critics prevalent.”

He noted that if we held this conference 12 years ago, and the room was filled with Marines we would hear about all the things the Osprey could not do and why we should not go ahead. “If we brought those same Marines into the conference room now, they would have amnesia about what they thought then and press me to get more Ospreys and leverage it even more.”

But it is not just about technology – it is about “equipping Marines, not manning the equipment.”

His point was that you needed to get the new equipment into the hands of the Marines at the earliest possible moment, because the young Marines innovate in ways not anticipated when the senior leadership gets that equipment to them.

Multi-Mission Everything

 

Clearly, Harvest Hawk is a key example for the KC-130s and the multi-missionization of the Osprey is another.

It is not hard to see the advantage of an Osprey refueling role for F-35Bs operating off of a forward engaged large deck amphibious ship like the USS America for its initial operations and support for the insertion of force.

And of course, the Osprey can be refitted rapidly for its other roles.

When we visited the Boeing plant, the multi-mission approach to the Osprey was highlighted during the visit.

The Osprey has redefined assault forces, and has led to the creation of new approaches to amphibious assault.

Now with multi-mission capabilities becoming available, the range of capabilities available to the assault force is broadened.

This is particularly significant as the amphibious strike force is redefined and able to carry organic capabilities hitherto only available to a large deck carrier.

During the visit to the Boeing V-22 Osprey plant at Boeing’s Philadelphia site, the Boeing team explained the range of possibilities for the Osprey adding multi-mission roll-on-roll off capabilities.

In the slide below the core capabilities being worked are highlighted.

Osprey Multi-Mission

Indeed, an example of the flexible uses of the V-22 were illustrated during the USS WASP-F-35B integration tests

The F-35B engine is modular, and the Osprey brought the largest module directly onboard solving any question of supplying engines for the F-35B underway on a large deck amphib or carrier for that matter.

What is being worked in the near term is the aerial refueling piece.

The USMC clearly wishes to add aerial refueling to its Ospreys to work with the F-35Bs and Harriers aboard their large deck amphibious ships.

Obviously, this adds organic capability, which expands the initial insertion options for the USN-USMC team. It also opens up possibilities of change for the large deck carrier community as well, both US and worldwide.

The capability is important, but equally interesting is the approach Bell-Boeing has developed to prepare for the possible introduction of air refueling.

During the visit to the factory, a visit to the multi-mission lab and a discussion with Ted Bayruns, Associate Technical Fellow and V-22 Modernization Lead Engineer, highlighted the very innovative approach being taken.

Basically, through the use of a 3-D Virtual Reality simulation facility in which human operators are inserted during requirements definition, the process of shaping an onboard aerial refueling system is crafted whereby adjustments can be made early to the system to optimize it in terms of potential operator use.

This means that validated requirements can feed to the preliminary and detailed design phases.

Continuous use of the lab throughout the remaining engineering development tasks supports “in-process” evaluation of prototypes which are incorporated as requiredto the baseline. Instead of taking years, months are required to get an initial design right.

During the visit, Douglas Fischer, Boeing V-22 Lead Human Factors Engineer, described how Boeing is using virtual reality to reduce the engineering cycle time, reduce program cost, and improve system integration.:

“Boeing Philadelphia has used virtual reality for years to support a variety of projects and programs, but primarily for concept development and design reviews.

We are now developing tools and capabilities with the VARS program to use virtual reality technology within the systems design engineering model.

The traditional systems engineering model completes processes such as requirements development, design definition, design reviews, testing and verification in a sequential manner.

Using a virtual reality rapid prototyping model allows us to simultaneously conduct the systems engineering processes.

This means we are able to support concept development, requirements verification, design reviews, and testing processes at the same time.

And then we can not only develop a workspace that’s suitable for the operators, but we can also start developing installation procedures and maintenance tasking.

The modification to our systems engineering supports rapid decision making and eliminates integration errors, reduces program costs, and enables us to support accelerated schedules for the USMC…..”

Bringing the con-ops into the design process is also an advantage, which can be facilitated by the new approach.

Fischer concluded:

“We weren’t really sure how they were going to use this tanking equipment, so we brought out our operators and air cabin and aircrews, and we developed the CONOPS with them.

We’ve never done that in a design review or technical meeting before.

We’re actually able to come here, immerse the operators in the virtual environment, and go step-by-step through the procedures, and identify, add, delete, the procedures based on their inputs on how they’re actually going to use the equipment.

This approach provides a unique and informative understanding of whether the proposed concepts are usable and allows the operators to complete their jobs.

We don’t define our customer’s requirements and conops…we invest to mature potential capabilities.”

In other words, the Osprey is entering the next phase of its development, a multi-mission phase.

https://sldinfo.com/the-next-phase-for-the-v-22-multi-missionization/

Now at Edwards AFB, the F-35B has done an initial test with the Osprey for a tanking role.

According to Kenji Thuloweit 412th Test Wing Public Affairs

4/29/2016 – EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — A U.S. Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey descended on Edwards to link up with a Marine F-35B Joint Strike Fighter April 28.

Both aircraft are assigned to Marine Operational Test & Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22) out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona.

VMX-22 has a detachment here where Marines are testing and evaluating their version of the JSF, which is the short take-off and vertical landing variant.

The Osprey dropped by for a quick but important test.

“The test was to validate ground refueling from an MV-22 to an F-35B, which is integral to the construct of the Marine Air Ground Task Force,” said USMC Maj. Adam Geitner, pilot and VMX-22 F-35 Detachment Aircraft Maintenance officer.

The Marine Air-Ground Task Force is the organizational foundation for all missions across the range of USMC military operations. MAGTFs are a balanced air-ground, combined arms task organization of Marine Corps forces under a single commander that is structured to accomplish a specific mission.

“This was the first time an MV-22 has refueled an F-35. Both ground refueling and air-to-air refueling are important pieces to the Marine Corps’ MAGTF operational construct. From a tactical point of view, the MV-22 to F-35 ground refueling allows the Marine Corps to employ assets in austere environments on a short notice without having to rely on long-term planning and fixed facilities,” Geitner said.

The one-hour test consisted of hooking up fuel transfer lines between the two aircraft with the MV-22 fueling up the F-35B. The test validated the equipment and procedures on both the F-35B and MV-22.

Geitner said the MV-22 Osprey has the ability to carry approximately 10,000 lbs. of fuel in its fuel containers loaded in the back of the aircraft. This is coupled with approximately 12,000 lbs. carried internally, which can either provide fuel to its own aircraft or to external aircraft in air-to-air refueling operations.

A U.S. Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey (left) descended on Edwards to link up with a Marine F-35B Joint Strike Fighter April 28. Both aircraft are assigned to Marine Operational Test & Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22) out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona. The Osprey dropped by for a test to validate ground refueling from an MV-22 to an F-35B. (U.S. Air Force photo by Christian Turner)
A U.S. Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey (left) descended on Edwards to link up with a Marine F-35B Joint Strike Fighter April 28. Both aircraft are assigned to Marine Operational Test & Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22) out of Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona. The Osprey dropped by for a test to validate ground refueling from an MV-22 to an F-35B. (U.S. Air Force photo by Christian Turner)

Fuel was successfully transferred to the F-35, which taxied off back to the Joint Operation Test Team area.

“The next step will be air-to-air refueling from an MV-22. This is even more significant for the MAGTF when operating F-35s from [amphibious assault ships] because it provides organic air-to-air refueling capability that vastly extends the range of the aircraft and also provides operational flexibility,” said Geitner.

Previously, Marine AV-8B Harrier aircraft would require USMC KC-130s to provide air-to-air refueling capabilities. However, they are limited to land and when the amphibious assault ships are operating in either blue water operations, or in regions that deny them access to land-based air facilities, as it limits air-to-air refueling capabilities, Geitner added.

“With the MV-22 being on the ship, co-located with the F-35, all of those constraints with the KC-130 no longer apply.”

http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123473207

This moment was anticipated as well by Lt. General Schmidle, then DCA, and now Deputy Director of the Defense Department’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office,

We are looking at a sixteen-ship F-35B formation flying with a four-ship Osprey formation. 

The Ospreys could fly with the Bs to provide fuel and munitions for rearming wherever the F-35Bs can land. 

As you know, the F-35B can land in a wide variety of areas and as a result this gives us a very mobile strike force to operate throughout the battlespace. 

This kind of flexibility will be crucial in the years ahead.

 

 

 

 

Moscow’s Assessment of Syria and Global Terrorism: Shaping a Way Ahead

2016-05-09 By Richard Weitz

Second Line of Defense again attended the annual Moscow Conference on International Security, which met April 26-28, 2016.

This year’s focus was international terrorism.

The presenters also offered insights into Russia’s military operations in Syria and expectations for future relations with the United States.

The Russian speakers rightly boasted about Moscow’s military success in Syria.

The intervention led by the Russian Aerospace Forces, which began at the end of September, has been surprisingly successful—a textbook example of the application of limited military power for attainable goals.

With few Russian casualties, the Russian forces saved the Assad government from likely defeat last year and have made Moscow an indispensable player in the Syrian peace process.

Syrian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov boasted that, “Coordinated with the government forces and later with the patriotic opposition squads, the Aerospace Forces’ operations made it possible to push back the terrorists and lay the groundwork for ceasefire agreements, delivery of humanitarian aid to those who need it, and the start of political settlement in Syria.”

He called the cooperation between Russia, the United States, and other countries on this issue as “an advance towards implementing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to create a broad-based antiterrorist front, which he addressed to the UN General Assembly.”

Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov summed up preliminary results of the V Moscow Conference on International Security. Credit: Russian Foreign Ministry
Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov summed up preliminary results of the V Moscow Conference on International Security. Credit: Russian Foreign Ministry

In his report to the conference, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that, with Russian military assistance, Syrian government forces had recovered more than 10,000 square kilometers as well as 500 populated areas from Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate), and other terrorist groups.

He added that, following the withdrawal of the main Russian units from Syria, the remaining force was seeking to destroy the militants’ military infrastructure (including arms depots and training camps) and financial assets (denying them means to purchase weapons or pay their fighters). Shoigu asserted that other Russian objectives in Syria were now securing a political settlement and providing humanitarian relief, which he said amounted to more than 700 tons of medical, food, and other aid over the past few months.

Lieutenant General Sergey Rudskoy, the chief of the Main Operative Department of the Russian General Staff, reproted that the Syrian and Russian forces had already destroyed some 200 oil extraction facilities under the opposition’s control, as well as more than 2,000 means for delivering oil products.

He stated that Russian and Syrian actions had also disrupted all shipments of oil and gas from Syria to Turkey, which Russian analysts see as a major source of terrorist financing, armaments, and other support.

Rudskoy said that the Russian armed forces were using some 70 UAVs as well as orbiting satellites and other technical means to monitor developments on the ground.

In his presentation, the Chief of the Russian General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, attributed part of Moscow’s success in Syria to the experience Russian forces had gained fighting in insurgents in the North Caucasus, which “gave Russia an opportunity to develop the solid foundation for the legal framework and combat practices.”

It would be interesting to study this issue further—what lessons did the Russian military learn from Chechnya and apply in Syria.

Other Russian speakers emphasized the imperative of addressing the broader global terrorist threat.

Chief of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Colonel General Sergei Makarov noted that it was necessary to cooperate in fighting against terrorism, drug trafficking and cybercrime. Credit: Russian Foreign Ministry.
Chief of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Colonel General Sergei Makarov noted that it was necessary to cooperate in fighting against terrorism, drug trafficking and cybercrime. Credit: Russian Foreign Ministry.

Sergei Afanasyev the deputy head of the Russian General Staff’s Main Intelligence Directorate (the GRU), warned that Russian military experts estimated that Daesh–the self-designated Islamic State and also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS)–had some 33,000 armed fighters in the Middle East, 14,000 in Syria and 19,000 in Iraq.

He also assessed that they had obtained substantial heavy weaponry, including tanks, armored personnel carriers, and anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems.

Furthermore, Afanasyev warned that Daesh was in the process of destabilizing Libya, building on their stronghold the Mediterranean port of Sirte, recruiting thousands of fighters from Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.

Moreover, he claimed that hundreds of Islamist militants were also entering Europe each year from these combat zones, “ready to use the experience they have gained” in new acts of terrorism.

Finally, he saw the rise of a “Terrorist Internationale” in Africa, led by Boko Haram with thousands of members, in destructive competition with the al-Qaeda affiliated groups of the continent, that risks destabilizing the whole of Africa.

Many of the Middle Eastern speakers at the Conference praised Russia’s positive contributions to fighting terrorism. Russian government propaganda about Western democracy promotion exacerbating regional instability and Western indecisiveness in the face of Islamist terrorism appealed to some in the region.

In his conference presentation, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan criticized the United States and its local allies for pursuing a double-standard approach in the region and supporting proxy terrorist forces.

In his words, “the world is exposed to insecurity, instability and escalation of fear of terrorist activities of Takfiri-Zionist trends which are supported by the US, the Zionist regime and some regional countries headed by the Saudi government.”

Conversely, Dehqan termed the Russian-Iranian partnership in Syria a successful example of fighting terrorism and promoting regional stability.

The General announced progress in developing “concrete plans” for Russian-Iranian defense cooperation.

According to Iranian sources, Dehqan discussed Iran’s buying Russian Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jets and T-90 tanks.

Earlier that month, the Iranian government began receiving the S-300PMU-2 air defense systems (NATO reporting name SA-10 Grumble) that Tehran had purchased from Russia.

In the side conversations at the conference and in other discussions in Moscow, it became evident that Russian national security experts are torn between wanting to exploit the last year of what they see as a weak Obama presidency, or waiting until 2017 in the hope that an even more favorable Republican administration might gain power, with the risk that a more vigorously hostile Clinton administration might emerge.

Russian leaders are calculating the prospects of a possible Trump presidency to decide whether to forego gains this year in the hopes of achieving what they would perceive as better results next year.

The Russians perceive that Trump would follow a general policy of isolation, which would weaken NATO, and that Trump seems open to dealing with Putin on outstanding issues—Russia could have Syria, the U.S. would have Turkey, Russia gets Crimea, and so on—and Russians see his worldview as similar to that of Putin—disdainful of democracy, anti-Muslim, tough on terrorism, and so forth.

Of course, Obama’s own reset strategy failed in the face of the enduring obstacles to Russian-U.S. partnership, but asymmetrical cooperation might prove possible if Washington and Moscow prioritize different areas of the world.