2016-04-22 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

We had the opportunity in late 2012 to interview the then head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command (NORAD-NORTHCOM), Army General Chuck Jacoby.

Then on March 31, 2016, we sat down with the current NORAD and NORTHCOM Commander, Navy Admiral Bill Gortney at his office in Colorado Springs, Co., to discuss the current strategic environment and the way ahead.

Although only a bit more than three years between the interviews, the strategic shift since then has been dramatic.

The North Korean leadership change and the acceleration of their nuclear weapons and missiles program are changing the strategic calculus for the United States and Canada.

Meanwhile, the re-launch of Russia under President Putin has made the global presence of Russia felt in the Middle East, Asia and Europe.

The modernization of the Russian forces, and the evolving tactical nuclear force and nuclear doctrine of Russia are changing the threat calculus for the defense of the homeland.

It has been a dramatic shift in only three years.

Now the U.S. and Canada are facing an air-maritime environment where the threats from air or sea are real and present, and require a clear focus, recrafting of defense postures, and shaping new capabilities.

It would seem a good time to rethink NORAD’s mission areas and make it a very focused and integrated air-sea command to defend rapidly evolving strategic approaches to the North American continent.

With Canada looking to modernize their military forces it might take advantage of the innovations underway to shape an integrated air-naval force while Canada faces the challenges of recapitalization.

Question: It is clear that many people do not understand your command and its central significance for Canadian and American security and defense.

How would you describe your command?

Answer: We do a range of mission sets, from tracking Santa to thermonuclear war. But we are a different combatant command than the other geographic combatant commands, and the reason is who’s in charge in dealing with the threats to the homeland.

In contrast, NORAD is pretty clear-cut.

It is an air mission command, although the changes over time have been significant facing the command. NORAD was born in the Cold War when the air battle was going to occur above the Great Lakes and over the Seattle area.

After the Cold War, the 9/11 attack shifted the focus of NORAD to dealing with a different class of threats. But it is still an air defense command.

NORTHCOM was born because of the 9/11 attacks for there was no commander of the homeland.

But we are not the commander in charge of defending against terrorist attacks for that is the mission of the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

We are a supporting command to them in dealing with terrorist threats.

The rise of China and the new Russia are driving a reconsideration of the NORTHCOM mission, for we really do need a commander for the homeland in a more classic sense.

But when we were stood up it was not done to deal with more traditional or classic defense threats.

Gortney_03-12-15_posture statement

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.

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.

Question: How important is Canada to this effort?

Answer: Crucial. But the challenge for us is to shape what we in the US Navy call the NIFC-CA or Naval Integrated Fire Control—Counter Air battle network solution for North American defense.

Put in simple terms, we need to shape a more integrated air and maritime force that can operate to defend the maritime and air approaches to North America as well as North America itself.

We can look at the evolving threat as a ten o’clock and a two o’clock fight, because they originate from the ten and two.

And the ten o’clock fight is primarily right now an aviation fight.

They’re moving capability there, but it’s nothing like what they have at the two o’clock fight.

The two o’clock fight is more of a maritime fight.

This means that as the NORTHCOM Commander, I can only defend North America if I can reach deeply into the U.S. European Command area of operation.

I need EUCOM to handle the two o’clock fight for me.

Thus, it is critical to net and synchronize our operational plans so that we are not just fighting in isolation and this shift is a pretty significant change for us here at NORAD and NORTHCOM.

One way to think about it is that I’m a module in EUCOM’s bigger picture, because if it’s a Russian problem, EUCOM owns Russia.

And so I’m supporting EUCOM. EUCOM is supporting to me when it comes to the defense of homeland, but when it becomes a Russian problem, then it’s probably going to start, originate in Europe and then we are a piece of that defense effort.

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?

They’ll definitely come at us through cyber.

And they’ll deliver conventional and potentially put nukes on the table. We have to treat the threat in a global manner and we have to be prepared to be able to deal with these through multiple domains, which include cyber, but that’s not in NORAD or NORTHCOM mission sets.

We clearly need the capacity to have the correct chain of command in order to confront this threat; and if you look at where we are today with NORAD or NORTHCOM, we are only dealing with an air defense threat and managing to that threat.

We are not comprehensive in a manner symmetrical with the evolving threat or challenges facing North American defense.

Question: Clearly, the new leadership in North Korea is working to shape new nuclear and strike capabilities.

There probably is NO homeland defense threat more pressing and clear and present than the nuclear threat from North Korea.

How do you view this challenge?

Answer: I own the trigger to deal with this threat in consultation with the National Command Authority.

We are prepared to shoot in our defense.

We have invested in a ground missile defense system in Alaska; we have 44 interceptors in all. We have a sophisticated system of systems in place, but we need to improve its robustness as the system has been built over time with the fits and starts politically with regard to the system.

I testify along with the head of the Missile Defense Agency with regard to our system and the ways to improve it.

We need the maintenance and modernization of the system and the tests in order to assure ourselves that it’s going to work and I have high confidence in the system at the current time.

Then, we need improvements in the sensors. And we need investments and research and development to get us on the correct side of the cost curve, because both the theater ballistic missile defense and ballistic missile defense of the homeland have been on the wrong side of the cost curve.

We’re shooting very dumb rockets down, inexpensive rockets, with very expensive rockets, and we’re only doing it in the case of ballistic missile defense in mid-course so that the debris doesn’t fall on the homeland.

What we need to do is invest in those technologies that keep them from being launched, detect them, kill them on the rails, kill them in boost phase, start knocking the count-rate down instead of just taking a single rocket and shooting it down in mid-course.

It is about the kill chain, and shaping a more effective missile defense kill chain which is integratable in the overall North American NIFC-CA type capability which can integrate air and sea systems which is important to deal with the evolving threat environment.

But one has to think through our deterrence strategy as well.

What deters the current leader of North Korea?

What deters non-state actors for getting and using a nuclear weapon?

What will deter Russia from using tactical nuclear weapons in the sequence of how they view dealing with conventional war?

It is not my view that matters; it is their view; how to I get inside the head of the 21^st century actors, and not simply stay in yesterday’s set of answers?

Question: Canada faces a significant challenge with regard to defense recapitalization.

You have stated that Canada is a key player in shaping an effective North American defense.

Obviously, you are not going to enter into Canadian debates about specific defense choices, but what might you say at a more general capability level with regard to what you think is needed?

Answer: For 58 years, we have had a bi-national command, NORAD. The current government faces a set of tough problems, not the least of which due to past governments not addressing re-capitalization.

Clearly, what they need to do is to recapitalize their air and maritime force, and preferably one that can work together from the ground up as an integrated force.

I think NORAD needs to become a multi-domain command, and their forces could flow into that command and out of that command as a key enabler.

Question: Ed Timperlake has recently written a paper on the squadron pilot as a driver of innovation. Obviously, you have been a squadron pilot and a squadron commanding officer.

How has that experience shaped your command approach?

Answer: Regardless of what aircraft is given to the fleet, the fleet figures it out.

When we give the warfighters a new capability, they have a can-do, let us go figure it out attitude.

And they innovate.

I really take exception when armchair critics say that the military cannot innovate.

Obviously, to your point, they have never flown in a combat squadron.

Question: Last time we spoke with your predecessor primarily about the Arctic, so let us close there.

How do you view the Arctic area of operations?

Answer: Obviously, this is an area in transition on the way to become an area of transformation.

But from my perspective, I don’t have to enter the often-theological debate about the Arctic and its future.

What I do need to do as the NORAD and NORTHCOM Commander is to focus on the Arctic as a transit area of the threats to North America.

The Artic is and will always be an avenue of attack; and that is my primary focus and concern.

Biography for Admiral Bill Gortney

Adm. Bill Gortney graduated from Elon College in North Carolina, earning a Bachelor of Arts in History and Political Science in 1977. He entered the Navy as an aviation officer candidate, received his commission in the United States Naval Reserve in 1977, and earned his wings of gold in 1978.

On three different occasions, Gortney commanded forces in the U.S. Central Command area of operations, providing support to Maritime Security Operations and combat operations for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. These assignments included commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command / U.S. 5th Fleet / Combined Maritime Forces, Bahrain, 2008-2010; commander, Carrier Strike Group 10, on board USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), 2007-2008; and commander, Carrier Air Wing 7, on board USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67), 2002-2003.

Additional command tours included VFA-106, the East Coast FA-18 Fleet Replacement Squadron, NAS Cecil Field, Florida, 1996-1997; and VFA-15, 1994-1995, on board USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71).

Gortney’s fleet assignments included VA-82, 1981-1984, on board USS Nimitz (CVN 68); VFA-87, 1988-1990, on board USS Theodore Roosevelt; executive officer, VFA-132, 1991-1992, on board USS Forrestal (CV 59); executive officer, VFA-15, 1992-1994, on board USS Theodore Roosevelt; and deputy commander, Carrier Air Wing 7, on board USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69).

Other overseas assignments included deputy for Current Operations, Joint Task Force Southwest Asia, Saudi Arabia, 1999; chief, Naval and Amphibious Liaison Element to the Combined Forces Air Component Commander, U.S. Central Command, for the opening months of OIF at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia; and chief of staff, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command / U.S. 5th Fleet, NSA Bahrain, 2003-2004.

Shore assignments included VT-26, NAS Beeville, Texas, 1978-1980; VFA-125, NAS Lemoore, California, 1984-1988; Aide and flag lieutenant to the assistant chief of Naval Operations (Air Warfare), Washington D.C., 1990-1991; Joint Staff, J-33 Joint Operations Department CENTCOM Division, 1998-1999. A 1996 graduate of the Naval War College, he earned a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies. His first flag tour was as the deputy chief of staff for Global Force Management and Joint Operations, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia, 2004-2006.  From 2010-12 he served as director, Joint Staff. His most recent assignment was as commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, 2012-2014.

Gortney has flown over 5,360 mishap-free flight hours and completed 1,265 carrier-arrested landings, primarily in the A-7E Corsair II and the FA-18 Hornet. He is authorized to wear the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Navy Distinguished Service Medal (two awards), Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), Meritorious Service Medal (three awards), Air Medal (three awards: Gold Numeral One, two Strike/Flight), Defense Commendation Medal (three awards), Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Sea Service Ribbon (8 awards), and the Overseas Service Ribbon (2 awards).

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=127

Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, Adm. Bill Gortney provided a briefing Tuesday, April in Washington DC which provides an overview on the command and the way ahead.

A version of this article was first published on Breaking Defense.

2016-05-01  The last of the Tornado squadrons is found at RAF Lossiemouth.

During a visit to Lossie in April 2016, the Squadron Commander of XV(R) Squadron as well as members of the squadron were interviewed about the transition role and the legacy of Tornado.

The operational experience of Tornado as well as the weapons which it pioneered – notably Brimstone and its variants as well as Storm Shadow – and the con-ops associated with those weapons can clearly be found in the next evolution of the RAF.

Namely, it is the blending of weapons with air crews and support crews in the Tornado legacy can be found in the new capabilities being shaped with Typhoon and the missiles pioneered by Tornado in operations and reflected in the new what MBDA calls “fifth generation” weapons.

Tornado “thunder” is being passed on to the Typhoon and to those who use the weapons which it pioneered in combat.

But there is another heritage which can be found when you enter the hanger and see the Squadron’s famous ‘MacRobert’s Reply’ aircraft.

The photo below was shot last year at the time of the 100^th anniversary of the squadron.

The Squadron had a Tornado GR4 especially painted for their centenary in the Squadron’s famous blue and red colors.

In a special training sortie, this unique jet flew alongside the Squadron’s famous ‘MacRobert’s Reply’ aircraft.

The MacRobert’s Reply story has its roots with the MacRobert family and World War II.

The three sons of Lady Rachel MacRobert and her husband Sir Alexander MacRobert were all killed within 3 years of each other in separate flying incidents; the eldest of the three was killed in action whilst on missions during World War II.

Lady MacRobert’s response to her sons’ deaths was to donate £25,000 to purchase a bomber for the RAF and asked that it be named “MacRobert’s Reply”.

This was the start of a tradition that the RAF has kept alive. A succession of RAF aircraft has since carried the name. The current “MacRobert’s Reply” is a Tornado GR4 from XV (Reserve) Squadron, still identified by the cherished tail letter ‘F’.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/xv-reserve-sqn-100th-anniversary-tail-takes-off-from-raf-lossiemouth-04032015

The story is especially interesting for Americans as well because Lady Rachel born in the United States in 1884.

A fuller explanation of her life and the gift to the RAF is provided by this source found on the Free Library.

If the MacRobert story wasn’t true, someone in Hollywood would have to invent it. 

The saga begins in 1854 when Alexander MacRobert was born in Aberdeen. 

Fascinated by education, he was determined to improve his intellect but, coming from a humble family, university was out of the question. Instead, when his family emigrated to Canada, Alexander chose to stay in Scotland and take night classes at Robert Gordon’s College and the Aberdeen Mechanics Institute while still working full-time at a paper mill. 

Incredibly, despite his job and his studies, he still had time to meet and fall in love with Georgina Porter, who worked in another office at the mill. 

When he was offered the job of managing a woollen mill, he jumped at the chance. All he had to do was tell Georgina that the mill was in … Cawnpore, India. 

Alexander and Georgina married on Hogmanay 1883 and moved to Cawnpore. By 1888, MacRobert was wealthy enough to buy a small estate at Burnside, now Douneside in Aberdeenshire and, before long, turned it into a splendid country house. 

But MacRobert’s visit to the house in 1905 was to be like no other. The heavy-hearted Scot had brought his wife home to die of cancer. 

MacRobert honoured her memory with a pounds 25,000 donation to Aberdeen University for cancer research to be named “The Georgina MacRobert Fellowship”. And after his lonely return to India, he established the “Georgina MacRobert Hospital” in Cawnpore. 

It was in 1909, four years after Georgina’s death, that MacRobert met Rachel Workman while sailing home to Scotland. 

The fiesty young 25 year old was charming and intelligent – she had a BSc in Geology from London University – and her free thinking spurred her to join the suffragette movement. 

MacRobert was smitten by her and their courtship was, according one historian, “discreet and almost secretive”. 

Alexander eventually proposed, but agnostic Rachel refused to get married in a church, so they were wed in a Quaker Meeting House in York on July 7, 1911. 

At the stroke of a fountain pen, American heiress Rachel Workman became Lady MacRobert. 

During their courtship, the former paper mill manual worker had been knighted for his public services both at home and in India. 

Lady Rachel brought colour and energy into the marriage. But she also brought something Sir Alexander must have thought had passed him by – children. The couple doted on sons Alasdair, Roderic and Iain. And blessed with joy at home, Sir Alexander saw his businesses enjoy equal good fortune. 

A director of six companies, he merged them to form the British India Corporation, the highlight of his career in commerce. Back in Scotland, he bought the 9000-acre Cromar estate, which bordered on Douneside, from Lord Aberdeen. 

In 1922, when he was created a Baronet, he was proud to take the title of Sir Alexander MacRobert of Cawnpore and Cromar. 

Sadly, just when he was enjoying the fruits – and accolades – of years of hard work, Sir Alexander fell ill and died … fittingly, at Douneside. 

It says much about Lady MacRobert that she agreed he should be buried in Aberdeen beside Georgina, his first love and wife for more than two decades. 

Overnight, the Scottish estates, vast investments all over the world and not least, three sons aged 10, seven and five became Lady MacRobert’s responsibility. 

The boys were educated in English public schools and went on to study at Cambridge. 

In 1933, 500 guests arrived at Douneside for the coming of age of Alasdair – now Sir Alasdair as the eldest son. 

As if to give her growing sons “space” Rachel decided they could have the House of Cromar to entertain the friends they brought to Scotland. 

Aviation pioneers including Charles Lindbergh and Amy Johnson were the stars of the day and Sir Alasdair was greatly interested in their field. He had taken flying lessons in India and founded his own aviation business. 

Then tragedy struck. His promising young life was wiped out when an aircraft he was piloting crashed near Luton. 

Lady MacRobert mourned her husband’s heir but didn’t argue when Sir Roderic joined the RAF in 1938. 

On May 22, 1941, he led an attack on a petrol convoy in Iraq, but perished during the raid. He was buried in a Commonwealth grave in Mosul. 

The baronetcy fell to Sir Iain, just 24, who had joined the RAF straight from Cambridge as a pilot officer. 

A few weeks after taking leave to mourn his brother, Sir Iain returned to duty. His aircraft disappeared while searching for a bomber crew at sea. His body was never recovered. 

In 1953, his name appeared on the Runnymede War Memorial, unveiled by The Queen, in memory of the 20,000 airmen who have no known grave. 

The death of Iain was a final, devastating blow for Lady MacRobert who, as well as losing all three of her sons, would now see her husband’s title extinguished without an heir. 

But instead of crumbling under the strain of the tragedy, she decided it only fitting that someone else should fight on in her sons’ names in an aircraft donated by her. 

In one of the most powerful and poignant letters ever penned by a grieving mother, Lady MacRobert wrote to Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair: “It is my wish to make a mother’s immediate reply in a way that I know would also be my boys’ reply – attacking, striking sharply, straight to the mark. 

“The gift of pounds 25,000, to buy a bomber to carry on their work, expresses my reaction on receiving the news about my sons. They would be glad that their mother replied for them and helped to strike a blow at the enemy. 

“So I feel that a suitable name for the bomber would be “MACROBERT’S REPLY”. Might it carry the MacRobert Crest, or simply our badge – a frond of bracken and an Indian Rose crossed? 

“I have no more sons to wear the badge, or carry it into the fight. If I had 10 sons, I know they would all have followed that line of duty.” 

The chosen bomber was a Stirling of XV Squadron and in command was Flying Officer Peter Boggis who flew it bravely through many missions, including an attack on the German Navy at Brest for which he received the Distinguished Flying Cross. 

And when it crashed in 1942 at Peterhead, its replacement also bore the “MacRobert’s Reply” name. And so, a great tradition was born. 

Fifteen Squadron may have changed, but its “Foxtrot” aircraft has always been a “MacRobert’s Reply” – a Lincoln in 1947, a Washington in 1949, a Canberra in 1953, a Victor in 1958, a Buccanneer in 1970, and a Tornado from 1983 onwards. 

In 1993, when XV(R) Squadron moved to Lossiemouth, “MacRobert’s Reply” was back home in Scotland. 

But Lady MacRobert wasn’t finished after one bomber. She donated four Hurricane fighters, three named after her sons and one called “MacRobert’s Salute to Russia – The Lady”. Lady MacRobert also established the MacRobert Foundation and several trusts. And the House at Cromar, where her sons entertained their friends, became a leave centre for airmen. 

In 1954, Lady MacRobert passed away of heart failure, at Douneside, aged 70. 

The photos of the MacRoberts are credited to the MacRobert Trust.

http://www.themacroberttrust.org.uk/about-the-trust/gallery/

And the photos in the slideshow of Tornados at Lossie were provided by RAF Lossiemouth and are credited to them.

According to the RAF website, XV(R) Squadron is described as follows:

XV Squadron has over 280 permanent personnel, and up to 40 aircrew students at any one time, making it the largest and busiest fast jet squadron in the Royal Air Force. As the Tornado GR4 Operational Conversion Unit its main commitment is to the training of Pilots and Weapon Systems Operators before sending them onto front-line squadrons.

The Tornado GR4 is a multi role ground attack and reconnaissance platform. It is capable of performing a variety of day and night, all-weather operations. These include: Airborne Interdiction using precision ground attack munitions; Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defences; Close Air Support for coalition troops; Air-to-Air refuelling and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. The Tornado GR4 is currently deployed on operations over Iraq in support of Operation TELIC and it is due to replace the Harrier GR9 in Afghanistan on Operation HERRICK in the summer of 2009.

XV Squadron teaches ab-initio aircrew straight from their advanced flying training at RAF Valley and RAF Leeming, as well as conducting Refresher Courses for experienced operators returning back to the Tornado GR4 following other tours of duty; additionally, XV Squadron undertakes Fast Jet Cross Over training for pilots and weapons systems operators converting across to the Tornado GR4 from other fast jet aircraft and the Squadron also trains aircrew officers from other nations Air Forces who are posted to the UK on an overseas 2-3 year ‘exchange tour’ flying the Tornado GR4 with the Royal Air Force.

XV Squadron also conducts post-graduate courses. The Squadron is the home to the Qualified Weapons Instructor Course, the Electronic Warfare Instructor Course and the Instrument Rating Examiner Course; each of these courses provides advanced qualifications to front line aircrew. Additionally, XV Squadron provides both aircrew and ground crew support to RAF operations around the globe when required.