Russian Special Forces in Syria: Playing a Key Role

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
03/28/2016

2016-03-28 By Richard Weitz

The Russian media has recently given prominence to the role of Russian Special Operations Forces (SOF) in the military operation in Syria.

The Russia media confirmed the death of a Russian Special forces officer conducting forward air control had called an artillery strike on his own position after he was discovered and attacked by “terrorists.”

Even more revealing was the interview given by Colonel General Aleksandr Dvornikov, commander of the Russian contingent in Syria, to the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper.

Dvornikov provided the first official confirmation that Russian SOF “conduct ground reconnaissance of pre-selected targets for Russian warplanes, assist in targeting warplanes in remote areas and perform other tasks.”

Colonel General Alexander Dvornikov, deputy commander, Central Military District, holding the Hero of Russia rank, seen in the Kremlin's St.George Hall, at the ceremony of presenting state awards to officers and experts who distinguished themselves in the counter-terrorism operation in Syria, March 17, 2016. Source: Aleksey Nikolskyi/RIA Novosti
Colonel General Alexander Dvornikov, deputy commander, Central Military District, holding the Hero of Russia rank, seen in the Kremlin’s St.George Hall, at the ceremony of presenting state awards to officers and experts who distinguished themselves in the counter-terrorism operation in Syria, March 17, 2016. Source: Aleksey Nikolskyi/RIA Novosti

The General also said that Russian military advisors, which might also be SOF, provided critical air support, help train the Syrian military and other local forces such as the Kurdish military to Russian weapons, and assist them with operational planning.

“To boost the capabilities of the Syrian Army we provided advanced arms and hardware, including artillery systems, communications and reconnaissance equipment.”

The General also correctly boasted that Russian military intervention in Syria in late September 2015 saved the Syrian government from likely defeat.

A good starting point for considering the forces in Crimea is Mark Galeotti’s book ‘Spetsnaz’, which considers the history of the Russian SOF and how they had a central role in the hybrid war in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

The Spetsnaz is a designed for low-intensity conflict and fits somewhere in between an intelligence service and a conventional army.

Galeotti argues that the Spetsnaz have had different “identity crises” over the years. The role of the Spetsnaz has been widely debated within Russia since it was formed. Initially in the Russian Civil War, the precursors to the Spetsnaz was a guerilla war force run by the Political Police (NKVD – later KGB ) and a paratrooper force under direction of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU).

The Spetsnaz was formally established in 1950 under the direction of the GRU’s Naval Intelligence Directorate. While the Spetsnaz have remained under GRU control, they have been under the command of each branch of the military in their history: the Ground Forces, the Navy, and the Aerospace Forces.

In 2010, after the Georgia war, there were calls for the Spetsnaz to fall under a command other than the GRU. The airborne units argued that their VDR paratroop forces are very similar to the GRU, but the General Staff under the ground forces won this argument and the Spetsnaz briefly fell under General Staff Command.

However, the Spetsnaz was returned to GRU direction in 2013.

Phillip Karber of the Potomac Foundation offers five categories of Russian New Generation Warfare, ranging from a low level of conventional warfare intensity and a low degree of state responsibility to a high intensity and a high degree of state responsibility. The categories, from low to high, are: political subversion, proxy sanctum, intervention, negotiation, and coercive deterrence.

The categories of political subversion and proxy sanctum are the domain of irregular forces. Political subversion requires the “[seizure] of government buildings and checkpoints, sabotage, assassination, terrorism, propaganda and media campaign [and the] insertion of agents.”

Credit: UK Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/641550/Syria-war-Russian-spetsnaz-Aleppo-ISIS-70000-refugees-flee
Credit: UK Express

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/641550/Syria-war-Russian-spetsnaz-Aleppo-ISIS-70000-refugees-flee

The category of proxy sanctum also utilizes irregular forces, as the Russian state “consolidate[s] controlled areas, and core cadre, ‘volunteers,’ and militia destroy government infrastructure.”

In Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the Russian Federation has employed irregular forces in rapid localized actions that present others with fait accompli and, through staged incidents of supposed attacks against Russian interests or humanitarian crises, justify more direct Russian military intervention in addition to rendering diplomatic, logistical, and other non-military support for Russian operations.

Russia’s SOF have rendered technical and tactical training to the Ukrainian separatists as well as helped them organize a command-and-control system.

Furthermore, Russia’s SOF have exploited their deep penetration of the Ukrainian government’s armed forces and other security forces to help the Russian authorities and their local allies monitor, assess, and disrupt the Ukrainian government’s response.

At first, the Ukrainian authorities lacked confidence in their established military and internal security forces and created less effective paramilitary units that sometimes had extreme anti-Russian ideologies that exacerbated tensions.

In addition, Russian irregular forces have delivered weapons to pro-Russian separatists under the guise of rendering help to distressed populations.

This tactic involves delivering relief aid to territories in which Russia has created the conditions for a humanitarian crisis in the first place, thereby allowing Moscow to provide both “bullets and bandages.”

Moreover, when Moscow’s adversaries object to the Russian deliveries on foreign territory without the national government’s permission, Moscow can exploit this seeming indifference to humanitarian suffering as well as then show that it can ignore the foreign government’s wishes.

Under Putin, the special forces have also been used as political instruments.

They have conducted assassinations and sabotage operations against adversaries and provided a pretext for more overt and intrusive Russian intervention.

For example, they helped organize the South Ossetia militias, whose attacks helped provoke the Georgian government into launching its disastrous offensive in August 2008.

The Baltic authorities are now worried that the Russian special forces will work with local collaborators to create similar provocations and pretexts for Russian intervention in their countries.

In the future, the special forces aim to improve their ability to operate in small units supported by drones and other novel technologies for specialized missions, such as assassinating terrorists and warlords (including out-of-control proxies).

Eurofighter Continues Progress in Expanding Its Weapons Portfolio

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
03/25/2016

2016-03-26 Eurofighter is expanding its weapons portfolio, in part to subsume key strike functions of the Tornado as it gets retired.

A key missile in this effort is the addition of the Brimstone missile to the Eurofighter missile repertoire.

Progress is being made in adding Brimstone to the strike package, and given Brimstone’s performance in the Middle East, that is a good thing. Brimstone has demonstrated its capability as a premier close proximity strike weapon against multiple targets.

According to a Eurofighter press release earlier this week:

A series of successful ground rig trials with the air-to-surface MBDA Brimstone missile have been completed at BAE Systems Military Air & Information site in Warton, Lancashire. The trials are part of the integration of the weapon on to the Eurofighter Typhoon combat jet.

A Brimstone weapon, consisting of a launcher loaded with three missiles, was connected to an avionics systems integration ground rig to test the communication between the launcher and software.

The test was designed to ensure there was successful communication between the real weapon and the Typhoon aircraft. The activity follows successful completion of avionics design activity and the start of informal testing on the initial software in the rig.

Minister for Defence Procurement Philip Dunne said:

“I am delighted that the ground rig trials have been successfully completed as we progress towards integrating these precision strike weapons onto our Typhoon aircraft. Brimstone offers laser-guided precision technology which will boost Typhoon’s capability and it is currently proving its worth in the fight against Daesh in Iraq and Syria.

“These trials are another example of how the Ministry of Defence is investing its £178 billion over the next ten years in providing state of the art equipment for the Armed Forces.”

The trials, supported by MBDA, Eurofighter and the Eurofighter partner companies, are part of the test campaign for the Phase 3 Enhancements’ (P3E) package, which will introduce a low collateral precision strike air-to-surface capability to Typhoon through Brimstone.

The trials program is vital to collect feedback on performance and ensure a mature product enters flight test activities before entry into service.

Paul Ascroft, Technical Manager for Phase 3 Enhancement (P3E) package on Typhoon at BAE Systems, said:

“The ground rig trials are a key milestone in the integration of the Brimstone weapon on to Typhoon and we are delighted they have been successful. While testing of the software will largely be performed using a Brimstone simulator, it is vital to ensure that there is successful communication between the weapon and the aircraft.”

The ongoing trials are running alongside a flight test campaign for the Phase 2 Enhancement (P2E) package, which brings a range of new and improved long range attack capabilities to the aircraft through MBDA’s Storm Shadow deep strike missile and MBDA Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air missile.

These trials also form important maturity points for the UK Ministry of Defence’s Project CENTURION which will ensure that Typhoon is able to provide the continuous delivery of key combat air capabilities as Tornado moves towards its out of service date in 2019.

Weapons integration activity for Typhoon as part of the Phase 2 Enhancement (P2E) package and initial testing of the Phase 3 Enhancement (P3E) package is scheduled to continue in 2016. Flight tests on the Brimstone missile are due to take place later this year.

And last month, in a Eurofighter press release dated February 11, 2016, progress on integration of the storm shadow strike missile and the meteor air-to-air missile was highlighted as well.

Further trials of the Storm Shadow deep strike missile and Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air missile have been successfully completed as part of a program of improvements which will further enhance the powerful swing-role capability of the Eurofighter Typhoon combat jet.

It has been confirmed that a new operational release of the Storm Shadow missile was carried out in the UK Ministry of Defence’s Hebrides range in Scotland. The release – from the Italian Instrumented Production Aircraft (IPA) 2 – is part of work conducted to expand the safe weapon trajectory data envelope of the missile. The test, which was led by Finmeccanica – Aircraft Division, with the support of Eurofighter, BAE Systems, Airbus Defence and Space, and MBDA, follows the completion of ground trials on the weapon and a successful release of Storm Shadow in November 2015.

F-2000 Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force) of 4° Stormo (4th Wing), Grosseto, Italy with a pair of GBU-16 Paveway IIs and LITENING pod on ingress to the NTTR during Red Flag 16-2.
F-2000 Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force) of 4° Stormo (4th Wing), Grosseto, Italy with a pair of GBU-16 Paveway IIs and LITENING pod on ingress to the NTTR during Red Flag 16-2. Credit: Todd Miller

It was followed by another firing of a Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air missile using UK Typhoon aircraft IPA6, also at the Hebrides range. Led by BAE Systems with support from MBDA, Selex, QinetiQ and UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Eurofighter teams. The firing follows trials held in late 2015 which saw the Typhoon aircraft conduct guided Meteor firings against real air targets in pre-planned scenarios.

The Storm Shadow and Meteor firings are part of the flight test campaign for the Phase 2 Enhancement (P2E) program which will introduce a range of new and improved long range attack capabilities to Typhoon.

Commenting on the Storm Shadow tests, Enrico Scarabotto, the Italian Chief Test pilot who flew the IPA2, said: “The integration of the weapon further enhances Typhoon’s potent multi-role and swing-role capabilities, adding new capability to strike in day or night, in all-weather conditions. Storm Shadow adds attack stand-off capability to Typhoon which now really accomplishes every possible role in the combat scenario. The aircraft retains excellent performance in an incredible low pilot workload cockpit environment, essential for a single seat multirole aircraft.” 

Steve Greenbank, Director of Aircraft Programmes for Military Air & Information, BAE Systems, said: “These latest Meteor firing trials are another step forward in the integration of the missile onto the Typhoon aircraft, demonstrating they can operate safely, accurately and effectively.

“2015 was a hugely exciting 12 months for Typhoon, with contracts placed for new capabilities and enhancements.

The integration of Meteor further enhance the aircraft’s abilities to ensure Typhoon maintains its position as the most capable, agile and enduring swing role fighter in the international market. These trials also form important maturity points for the UKs Project CENTURION plan, which will see Typhoon provide the continuous delivery of key combat air capabilities as Tornado moves towards its out-of-service date.”

In addition to Meteor and Storm Shadow, the integration of MBDA’s Brimstone, part of the Phase 3 Enhancements (P3E) program, is on contract for Eurofighter Typhoon. Brimstone is a precision attack missile with proven capabilities against both static and moving/manoeuvring targets.

In an interview last year, Lars Joergensen from Eurofighter explained the Eurofighter approach to combining upgrades in the expanded weapons portfolio with the Tranche 3 package.

Question: With regard to weapons, obviously the coming of your AESA radar will facilitate change in interaction with weapons as well?

How would describe this change?

Lars Joergensen: Our current mechanically scanned radar has proven very good for the air to air mission.

With the AESA you have much more flexibility, and part of that flexibility will be to work with weapons differently in particular as a data facilitator.

The first new weapon were this will become very clear is Meteor where the airplane will interact with the data link on the missile to identify and destroy targets in a fluid air combat space. Other weapons will follow.

Thanks to the Eurofighter’s large nose aperture, combined with the ability to move the AESA antenna, we will be able to fire, guide and communicate with weapons “over the shoulder” so to speak while flying away from the threat, thus significantly enlarging our attack envelope with missiles.

Question: There is a clear interaction among changes in the aircraft, the weapons onboard the aircraft, and with upgrades in the sensor pods.

In a sense you are have a triangular approach to modernization?

Lars Joergensen: It is clear that a variety of Air Forces are using their sensor pods, including targeting pods, to provide a variety of information and quickly increase capabilities.

By combing those innovations with weapons innovation and tying them back to the aircraft you can get enhanced combat effect.

And given that the process of tranche upgrades inevitably will be slower than pod upgrades, this expands the ability to modernize at a more rapid pace than we could do simply through tranche upgrades on the aircraft itself.

The photos and graphics in the slideshow are credited to Eurofighter and show the integration of storm shadow and meteor with the Eurofighter and then the projected placing of the Brimstone onto the aircraft as well.

 

 

Shaping Amphibious Capability for the Australian Defence Force: The New and the Old

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2016-03-25 The Aussies have added two new amphibious ships to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and sorting out the way ahead is at the vortex of land, sea and airpower, and the ADF is addressing it in this manner.

It is a work in progress but the first new Canberra class ship is already in support of the operation in Fiji in disaster relief.

As one senior ADF officer noted in an interview last week, “We are trying new capabilities off of the ship as we do the relief effort. In many ways, this initial operation is really an operational testing activity.”

HMAS Canberra Deploys to Fiji from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

The second Canberra-class ship, the HMAS Adelaide is home ported in Garden Island, in Sydney Harbor.

And below is a picture of the new amphibious ship as seen on March 25, 2016 in Sydney Harbor.

The HMAS Adelaide in Sydney Harbor. Credit Second Line of Defense
The HMAS Adelaide in Sydney Harbor. Credit Second Line of Defense

Fleet Divisions were held on the flight deck of HMAS Adelaide, alongside Garden Island, Sydney on 24 March 2016.

According to the Australian Ministry of Defence:

The Royal Australian Navy band and a guard marched onto the flightdeck, while over 1,000 personnel from HMA Ships Kuttabul, Adelaide, Success, Melbourne, Warramunga and Newcastle formed into platoons which were inspected by the Governor-General, His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove, AK, MC (Retd), and Commander Australian Fleet, Rear Admiral Stuart Mayer, CSC and Bar, RAN.

HMAS Adelaide (L01) is the second of two Canberra-class landing helicopter dock (LHD) ships under construction for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Construction of the ship started at Navantia’s Spanish shipyard with steel-cutting in February 2010.

The ship was laid down in February 2011, and launched on 4 July 2012.

Delivery to Australia for fitting out at BAE Systems Australia’s facilities in Victoria was scheduled for 2013, but did not occur until early 2014. Despite construction delays and predictions that the ship would not be in service until 2016, fitting out progressed faster than expected, and the ship was commissioned in December 2015.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Adelaide_(L01)

Fleet Divisions 2016 - Fleet Base East

Garden Island is an inner-city locality of Sydney, Australia and the location of a major Royal Australian Navy (RAN) base.

It is located to the north-east of the Sydney central business district and juts out into Port Jackson, immediately to the north of the suburb of Potts Point. Used for government and naval purposes since the earliest days of the colony of Sydney it was originally a completely detached island. It was joined to the Potts Point shoreline by major land reclamation work during World War II.

Garden Island today forms a major part of the RAN’s Fleet Base East.

It includes active dockyards (including the Captain Cook Graving Dock), naval wharves and a naval heritage and museum precinct. Approximately half of the major fleet units of the RAN use the wharves as their home port.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Island,_New_South_Wales

Along with the new, the older capability can be seen in Sydney Harbor.

For example, L-50, the HMAS Tobruk, which has been decommissioned can be seen in the harbor.

HMAS Tobruk (L 50) seen in Sydney Harbor on March 25, 2016. Credit: Second Line of Defense
HMAS Tobruk (L 50) seen in Sydney Harbor on March 25, 2016. Credit: Second Line of Defense

HMAS Tobruk (L 50) was a Landing Ship Heavy (LSH) of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), based on the design of the Round Table-class of the British Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Planning for the ship began in the 1970s to provide the Australian Army with a permanent sealift capability.

She was laid down byCarrington Slipways in 1979, launched in 1980, and commissioned in 1981. She was a multi-purpose,roll-on/roll-off heavy lift ship capable of transporting soldiers, APCs, and tanks, and delivering them to shore via landing craft or directly by beaching.

The ship experienced problems during her early career with her engines (which differed from the British base design) and sewerage system (leading to the death of a cadet in 1981). During the 1980s, the ship delivered supplies to the Multinational Force and Observers on the Sinai Peninsula, assisted in the withdrawal from RAAF Base Butterworth, provided support and accommodation for delegates to the South Pacific Forum, and was part of the Australian response to the 1987 Fijian coups d’état.

In the early 1990s, Tobruk was part of ceremonies marking the 75th anniversary of the landing at Anzac Cove, then after a refit, participated in peacekeeping efforts in Somalia.

Plans to replace Tobruk with one of the Kanimbla-class ships began in 1993. She was offered for sale to the Royal New Zealand Navy, who refused because of the ship’s manpower requirements. Delays in converting the Kanimbla‘s for service meant Tobruk continued with normal operations during the 1990s.

Attempts to sell the ship to the British and the Portuguese did not succeed, and in 1997 the decision was made to keep Tobruk, as the Kanimbla‘s could not completely replace the heavy lift capability provided.

During this period, Tobruk was deployed to Bougainville on several occasions as peacekeeping operations during the Bougainville Civil War. At the end of the decade, Tobruk operated as part of the INTERFET peacekeeping operation in East Timor.

In 2000 and 2001, Tobruk was sent to the Solomon Islands on several deployments in response to thecivil war: first to evacuate Australian citizens, then as a neutral venue for peace talks. From late 2001 to early 2002, the ship was in northern Australian waters on border-protection duties as part of Operation Relex.

During 2005 and early 2006, Tobruk sailed to the Middle East on several occasions to deliver vehicles and cargo to Australian forces in the region. Tobruk and the two Kanimbla‘s were set to East Timor in mid-2006 in response to the 2006 East Timorese crisis, forming the first RAN amphibious readiness group since World War II.

The rest of the decade included further border protection deployments under Operation Resolute, a visit to Hawaii for the RIMPAC multinational naval exercise, support for the Army Aboriginal Community Assistance Program, relief operations following the 2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami, and use as the venue for a Fall Out Boy concert.

The HMAS Adelaide in Sydney Harbor at Sunrise on March 26, 2016. Credit Second Line of Defense
The HMAS Adelaide in Sydney Harbor at Sunrise on March 26, 2016. Credit Second Line of Defense

After spending several months in 2010 undergoing extended maintenance, Tobruk participated in the United States Navy’s Pacific Partnership humanitarian assistance deployment. Because of the need for propeller shaft repairs, Tobruk could not be part of the military response to Cyclone Yasi.

Heavy use and lack of maintenance in previous years began to take its toll, with Tobruk unavailable for service on several occasions during the early 2010s. As the two Kanimbla‘s had been forced out of service by ongoing issues, the Australian government had to charter a succession of civilian ships to provide standby heavy transport capability.

In 2013, Tobruk again participated in Pacific Partnership, followed by a visit to the Philippines with disaster relief supplies after Typhoon Haiyan. In early 2015, the ship was part of the response to Cyclone Pam’s impact on Vanuatu. Tobruk was decommissioned in July 2015, with calls for the ship to be scuttled as a dive wreck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Tobruk_(L_50)

But the shift from the old to the new is more than building new hulls.

It is about very different concepts of operations, whereby amphibious ships are moving beyond simply being transport assets bringing support or forces ashore for various humanitarian or defense capabilities.

It is now about becoming a key part of evolving 21st century integrated combat capabilities.

To get there will be a challenge for the Aussies, but clearly they are working the problem.

Jericho Dawn: The Aussies Shape 21st Century Ground Maneuver Forces

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
03/21/2016

2016-03-22 By Robbin Laird

During the previous week, at the Air Power Conference and then at the Williams Seminar on new approaches to air-land integration, a key focus has been upon how to shape a more integrated and effective force structure for 21st century missions and operations.

From the perspective of the ground forces, this means how to shape more effective ground maneuver forces in general, and in higher intensity conflicts, in particular.

Working more effective ways for air and ground elements to shape what we have earlier called, three-dimensional warriors, namely ground maneuver elements which can reach out into the air, space, and sea domains for operational support, and empowerment, is a key element of what Plan Jericho is all about and the intersection of Plan Jericho with Army modernization.

Air Commander Australia, Air Vice Marshal Gavin Turnbull (centre), AM, chats with other exercise participants including Lieutenant General Jon Davis (right), Deputy Commandant for Aviation, United States Marine Corps, at Exercise Jericho Dawn 2016 firepower demonstration at Puckapunyal training area, Victoria, on 18 March 2016. *** Local Caption *** The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Australian Army, with support from Northrop Grumman, have successfully conducted a firepower demonstration and a combat team quick attack demonstration at Puckapunyal Military Area as part of Exercise Jericho Dawn to display the powerful effects of integrated air and land operations. The live fire exercise allowed RAAF and Army operators, together with Defence and Industry representatives, to observe the combined air and land capabilities in two scenarios. The operators demonstrated the current capabilities, before trialling new ways to improve air-land integration, including the way that aircraft and vehicles connect and translate information through different communication networks.
Air Commander Australia, Air Vice Marshal Gavin Turnbull (centre), AM, chats with other exercise participants including Lieutenant General Jon Davis (right), Deputy Commandant for Aviation, United States Marine Corps, at Exercise Jericho Dawn 2016 firepower demonstration at Puckapunyal training area, Victoria, on 18 March 2016.

It is in part about shaping ways to take advantage of the information age, or as the Air Commander of Australia, Air Vice-Marshal Gavin Turnbull put it – “Getting the right information, to the right person, at the right time.”

It is not about data collection; it is about shaping effective decision-making at the point of attack.

As a senior Army officer involved with Army modernization, Brigadier General Mills, put it at the Williams Seminar the core focus of shaping a more effective integrated and connected force was as follows: “To generate more force, more rapidly, and more effectively when called to do so.”

Last Friday, the ADF tested out evolving concepts in what they called Jericho Dawn.

According to an Australian Ministry of Defence press release on March 21, 2016, the exercise was described as follows:

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Australian Army, with support from Northrop Grumman, have successfully conducted a firepower demonstration and a combat team quick attack demonstration at Puckapunyal Military Area in Victoria as part of Exercise Jericho Dawn to display the powerful effects of integrated air and land operations.

The live fire exercise allowed RAAF and Army operators, together with Defence and industry representatives, to observe the combined air and land capabilities in two scenarios.

The operators demonstrated the current capabilities, before trialling new ways to improve air-land integration, including the way that aircraft and vehicles connect and translate information through different communication networks.

Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies AO, CSC, said that the demonstration showcased existing air-land operations technologies and processes, and the operational gains that have already been achieved through better integration of systems and information.

“Through today’s demonstration we were able to provide a visualisation of the effects of some of the Australian Defence Force’s capabilities,” Air Marshal Davies said.

“The lessons identified from the activity will help shape Defence’s future capability decisions and improve existing training activities.

“Demonstrations such as today are an important means of testing and displaying joint effects.

“We are building on the Air Force’s international reputation for being good at what we currently do, and asking important questions about taking Air Force’s contribution to joint operations even further.

“If this kind of training exercise shows us something we can do that would help Air Force, Army and Navy fight better as a team, then that’s what we will pursue.”

The Australian Army’s Head Modernisation and Strategic Planning, Major General Gus McLachlan, AM, said that greater air-land integration is an important step towards the Army and the ADF working in a joint, combined and interoperable environment.

“Our Army is focussed on two key areas to ensure improved air-land integration. The first is to deliver better communication systems to ensure an agile, efficient and timely response to an intelligent, well-armed and motivated adversary,” said Major General McLachlan.

“The second is to advance how we plan and conduct air-land operations to deliver the right effect, at the right place, at the right time.

“The demonstration highlights how we can better harness the strengths of our team by digitally connecting air and land platforms.

“This increased connectivity enhances awareness and communication. It gives a common operating picture, so we are better able to plan and execute joint operations into the future.”

Chief Executive Australia, Ian Irving said Northrop Grumman has unparalleled expertise developing and deploying airborne gateways that ensure resilient communications of disparate networks and enable a fully networked battlespace.

“We’ve applied this key capability for more than a decade in numerous operational programs, exercises and demonstrations and have seen how effective and transformational networking a diverse force of assets can be,” said Mr Irving.

“Northrop Grumman congratulates Air Force and Army on their initiative in undertaking this technology demonstration and we look forward to continuing to support the ADF as it builds interoperability in its current and fifth-generation force.

“As demonstrated during the Jericho Dawn exercise, the ability to share information and situational awareness from various sources across diverse platforms and domains is critically important in facilitating joint and coalition operations.”

Australian Army soldiers Lieutenant Colonels Berni White and Stuart Mallett talk with US Marine Corps officer Lieutenant General Jon Davis at the range during Exercise Jericho Dawn at Puckapunyal, Victoria, on 18 March 2016. *** Local Caption *** The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Australian Army, with support from Northrop Grumman, have successfully conducted a firepower demonstration and a combat team quick attack demonstration at Puckapunyal Military Area in Victoria as part of Exercise Jericho Dawn to display the powerful effects of integrated air and land operations. The live fire exercise allowed RAAF and Army operators, together with Defence and Industry representatives, to observe the combined air and land capabilities in two scenarios. The operators demonstrated the current capabilities, before trialling new ways to improve air-land integration, including the way that aircraft and vehicles connect and translate information through different communication networks.
Australian Army soldiers Lieutenant Colonels Berni White and Stuart Mallett talk with US Marine Corps officer Lieutenant General Jon Davis at the range during Exercise Jericho Dawn at Puckapunyal, Victoria, on 18 March 2016.

Capabilities involved include RAAF’s C-17A, AP-3C, KC-30A, E-7A Wedgetail and FA-18 Hornet aircraft, as well as the Army’s air-land enablers from the 16th Air Land Regiment, Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters from 1st Aviation Regiment, and vehicles and equipment from the Combined Arms Training Centre.

We will be reporting more on the exercise and the evolving approach in upcoming interviews with key members of the RAAF and the Australian Army in the weeks to come.

And as Lt. General Davis, the Deputy Commandant of Aviation highlighted at the beginning of his presentation to the Williams Foundation seminar that when he attended the Avalon Air Show and then head of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) introduced Plan Jericho, it was clear that the Marines and the RAAF were on the same page.

“I went back to the Commandant and said that we need to work more closely with the RAAF because with Plan Jericho they are onto something big with regard to innovation.”

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

 

 

Russia, Australia and the Changing Strategic Environment

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2016-03-21 By Robbin Laird

I had a chance to meet with students and to give a presentation at the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies which is part of the Australian Defence College.

I made a presentation last year to the Williams Foundation, and this discussion was a follow on to that.

Russia seems a long way away when you are in Australia although Russia has gotten Australian attention in many ways, such as showing up in Syria with the Australian Air Force participating in coalition operations in the area or bringing warships off of the coast of Australia.

In a press roundtable with the Australian media, the head of the Royal Australian Air Force noted that although the RAAF has flown from time to time into Syrian air space, they had no real problems with Russian aircraft.

But he seemed happy to have done these flights with the support of their E-7 air battle management and surveillance aircraft to sort out various players in the airspace.

And in November 2014, the Russians showed up with warships off of the coast of Australia.

Pride of Russian fleet bound for Brisbane ... The Russia Navy’s guided-missile cruiser, The Varyag.Source:AFP
Pride of Russian fleet bound for Brisbane … The Russia Navy’s guided-missile cruiser, The Varyag.Source:AFP

The Australians sent out some warships to sort out what was going on, but I am sure they were reassured by the Russian answer concerning why the Russian navy had shown up near Australia.

RUSSIA has for the first time explained the presence of a fleet of warships off north-eastern Australia, saying that the ships are testing their range capability, in case they have to do climate change research in the Antarctic.

The Russian embassy also said the fleet could, if necessary, provide security for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who arrives in Brisbane for the G20 tonight.

The four Russian warships are conducting exercises in international waters around the Coral Sea in a move that has been interpreted as a show of force by M. Putin.

Moscow’s explanation comes as Defence said a third Australian naval ship has been deployed to monitor the fleet, with a fourth nearby.

Our discussion focused largely on the interaction between Russia and the evolving strategic context, in which Putin can be seen as a reshaping force.

Russian Navy Off of Australia, Nov 2014

Putin clearly is using force in ways to support Russian national objectives and in dividing when he can democratic states over key objectives.

He has brought Russia back into the game, and has done so in a way that has combined several elements of power.

He shapes convergence among information warfare, force packages and an ability to set specific objectives, rather than having vague long term military engagements set prior to sending the military on overseas operations with end date in sight.

What he has demonstrated is that the military trend to shape more effective intervention forces needs to be combined with a civilian capability to set limited objectives which allow the state to succeed up to the level of those objectives.

The experience of using Russia’s combat aircraft in Syria inspires optimism, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said at a meeting on the development of the country’s combat aviation on Wednesday.

“I want to say at once that the experience of the combat use of our aviation in Syria testifies to the high mastership of the design potential and our designers and technologists,” Rogozin said, adding that the skills and courage of Russian combat aviation pilots should be added to this.

This is in stark contrast with the democratic state’s ability to send force, but not to set limited objectives and seemingly unable to withdraw without the specter of failing to have mission success.

We have written about shaping 21st century intervention forces and the setting of limited objectives to be met with such force and then to withdraw.

Ironically, the only political leader who seems to get this is Vladimir Putin.

And pushing up to the edge and using various tools to achieve objectives was recently focused upon as well by James Durso.

The Russians are masters of hybrid warfare.

As Chairman of NATO’s military committee Petr Pavel noted, they “…create an influence that is strong enough, but below the threshold of Article 5, so they achieve the goals without provoking the enemy or opponent to initiate a defense response.”

A question was raised by one of the students at the College with regard to migration issue and Russian involvement.

The issue was the statement by SACEUR with respect to Russian actions in the Middle East.

The exchange between what SACEUR said and how the Russians responded is instructive of how the Russians use Information War very effectively.

US Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, Commander of the US European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO, said that the migrant crisis facing Europe is allowing terror elements into the continent undetected, with actions by the Islamic State (IS), Moscow, and Damascus pushing people out of Syria and Iraq and into the European system.

“Europe faces the dawning challenge of mass migration spurred by state instability and state collapse, a migration that masks the movement of criminals, terrorists, and foreign fighters,” Breedlove said at a Pentagon press briefing.

“Within this mix, [IS] is spreading like a cancer, taking advantage of paths of least resistance, threatening European nations and our own with terrorist attacks.”

Breedlove also said that his information suggests that radical foreign fighters have left from Europe to join groups like IS and subsequently reentered unchecked.

“As many as 9,000 fighters have gone, and as much as 1,500 fighters have returned back to Europe,” he said, adding that they bring with them the potential for future terror attacks.

Breedlove also had strong words for Russia, saying that its recent actions have placed it in opposition to US and NATO goals in the region, and that the Syrian government and its ally are “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”

http://www.dailynewsx.com/news/business-news/nato-commander-russia-and-syria-are-using-migration-as-a-weapon-52740.html

And the Russian response?

Moscow was amused by the top NATO General’s claims that it is using the refugee crisis as a “weapon” against the West, with the Defense Ministry’s spokesman saying such rhetoric reaffirms concerns of Breedlove’s apparent dislocation of memory.

“Taking into account that such recurrence of the ‘sunshine of the spotless mind’ appeared right before the scheduled meeting of the Armed Services Committee, there is no wonder that a decision has been made by the US congressmen to replace him on his post of the Commander-in-Chief of the NATO Joint Force in Europe,” Konashenkov said.

Su-35 Over Syria.
Su-35 Over Syria.

Konashenkov once again pointed out that Moscow could not have possibly been the reason for the refugee crisis, which began long before Russia launched its anti-terror operations in Syria. And unlike the anti-ISIS coalition, Russia’s operations in Syria have alleviated the refugee crisis in the country and led to the first step of the establishment of a peace-making process, Konashenkov added.

“Essential is the fact that as a results of the Russian operation, the UN is registering the reduction of refugee flows from Syria and a process of reconciliation has been initiated, which is something the Western so-called “anti-ISIS coalition” has been unable to achieve over the previous three years of their “fight” against terrorism,” Konashenkov stated.

 Responding to the “indiscriminate” and “non-precision” bombing claims, Konashenkov reminded the NATO general that precision of airstrike depends not only on smart weapons, but also on proper intelligence, pilot’s skills and aiming systems of the aircraft.

“Sole reliance on ‘supersmart’ or ‘superprecision’ weapons leads American hawks to tragic mistakes with fatal consequences, as it was repeatedly observed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and since recently – in Syria,” Konashenkov said.

https://www.rt.com/news/334363-breedlove-spotless-mind-sunshine/

Given this exchange – advantage Russia.

The reality is that the Russians have not taken any real responsibility for sorting or solving the migrant crisis.

But they certainly have not caused the crisis, nor or they especially supportive of terrorists moving throughout the region and coming among other places into Russia itself.

The blunt fact is that Russia has taken some degree of responsibility for Syria and should be brought into the effort to deal with the migrant crisis as part of their Syrian engagement.

European institutions and resolve are under stress and threat due to internal reasons, notably the Euro crisis, the pressures on security structures in the European Union and many other factors, and one could certainly argue that Russia is doing precious little to help this process and could be viewed as exacerbating it.

But they are not CAUSING it.

Turning the migration issue into a Russia versus the West issue is not going to do much to sort out the crisis.

One way to deflect Putin’s efforts is to hold him partly accountable for the future of Syria.

That would then take his limited objectives in Syria to a level where he would find a level of discomfort.

And if he responds well, that is good thing; if he does not then he has been exposed to be doing something perhaps short of Breedlove is saying, but moving in that direction.

Secretary Kerry once accused Putin of being 19th not 21st century in character.

Unfortunately, Putin is very 21st century but remembers some of the lessons of the powers of the late 19th century in terms of how to achieve limited objectives.

And in some ways, he is using 21st century means to pursue 19th century objectives as well.

 

“The Right Stuff” F-35 Style: The Edwards F-35 Integrated Test Force Talks About the Roll Out of the Global Aircraft

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
03/18/2016

2016-03-19 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

Our visits to Pax River provided insight into the East Coast team, which is completely integrated with the West Coast team at Edwards Air Force Base; the legendary home of the Right Stuff air combat innovators.

In his seminal work about US military aviators, and their teammates defense industry workers and all the engineers that make America number one in aviation technology, Thomas Wolfe captured the spirit of Edwards AFB perfectly:

“In 1947 the National Security Act, Title 10, turned the Army Air Force into the US Air Force and three years later Muroc Army Air Base became Edwards Air Force Base named for a test pilot, Glen Edwards, who died testing a ship with no tail called the Flying Wing. So now the magic word became Edwards. .

This was where things were happening.”

Nothing has changed; but it is at Edwards AND Pax that the “things are happening” as the global fleet of the F-35 emerges from testing into combat ready aircraft.

As Lt. General Davis, the USMC Deputy Commandant of Aviation, recently noted in a presentation to a Williams Foundation Conference, “the young squadron pilots are already pushing the envelope on our F-35s.

They are doing things that we old guys can not even imagine.”

By visiting Edwards we could complete our field research in order to gain a sense of the uniquely important integrated test forces at the two historical test centers: Pax and Edwards.

We had a chance to talk with the ITF, visit maintainers, and weaponeers, as well as interview the head pilot for the Developmental Test Flight Squadron.

We also during our time visited the Aussie crew finishing the boom testing for another 21st century combat system: the KC-30A tanker. As a result of our visit to Edwards, we got a broader sense of the coming of the 21st century air combat fleet.

Although we have heard endlessly about concurrency and its challenges, we have heard precious little about congruence or confluence of efforts among the centers of excellence which have already delivered the USMC’s initial F-35Bs (IOC) and will work together throughout the life cycle of the program, to deliver an ongoing combat effective aircraft which will be deployed and fight globally.

In addition to the integrated ITF at Edwards and Pax, there are operational and training squadron’s Lightning II aircraft at MCAS Yuma and Beaufort, and Naval Air Station Fallon, Nellis, Luke, Eglin and Hill AFB. Industry is also a truly global effort with final assembly lines at Fort Worth, Cameri Italy and in Japan, as well as the many, many global producers worldwide.

These centers are globally linked and involved in the reshaping of the aircraft through its software upgrades, delivering an ever-evolving flying combat system.

And as a global system of maintenance is put in place, the feedback from those operations will constantly bring focus into a system of continual product improvement.

The concept of designing for preplanned product improvement in both airframe modifications but also to be a true soft-ware upgradeable fighter, is the first of a new generation of both stealth and a fusion sensor cockpit.

Unless you visit these centers and see their cross linking and convergence on the evolution of the F-35 combat system, it may be difficult to see or understanding the next generation revolution being shaped by the first information age flying combat system.

This pre-planned soft-ware upgradeable aircraft is inherent within the F-35.

It is already evident in the program and a foundation has been established that will become a daily reality with all partners in the near future.

Because the aircraft is a digital product, the manufacturing, mission data generation, maintenance information and the test information, are all part of an evolving interactive narrative, which is drawn upon in the evolution of the product. The foundation has been laid down for a constantly evolving air combat system, informed by global operations and partner experiences in the use of the aircraft.

This is a significant break from any legacy aircraft, from the standpoint of maintenance, operations, manufacturing or evolution of the combat systems.

While the aircraft will keep its physical appearance throughout the program’s history, the combat systems and their ability to deliver fused data will evolve over time.

This represents a significant break from the past.

Our initial discussion was with four members of the Developmental Test Team who are key members of the 21st century “Right Stuff” team.

Dan Osburn, Deputy Director, 461st Flight Test Squadron (FTS), Intergrated Test Force / Director of Projects, provided an overview of the Edwards program and how it fit into the global effort. Osborne has a wide ranging background having come from the Air Force where he was involved with the C-17 Electronic Warfare Group and worked on the B-2 and X-35 at Skunk Works prior to that.

Brendan Rhatigan, Director of Engineering and Test Operations, has a background in software design and development and worked for many years at Pax River, last on the Presidential helicopter program.

Mary Parker is the Deputy for Logistics, with a long history working logistics in the USAF, has worked on the F-35 program for a number of years, and is living the transition from legacy to the new digital system.

George Hicks, head of test logistics for Lockheed Martin on the site, with 22 years in the USAF as a logistician, has extensive experience on the F-22.

This is a very experienced team, with many years of operational experience with the USAF and are seamlessly operating as a completely integrated government and industrial team.

In a later piece in our Edwards series, we are going to focus on the F-35 ITF approach in shaping a multiple year software evolutionary combat system to capture a very significant break from the past, and a new way for industry and the services to work together to deliver a joint product.

In a very far ranging on-the-record discussion with very experienced professionals we learned a lot:

Question: The F-35 is not a replacement aircraft.

How would you describe the aircraft from your perspective?

Answer: That is really a key point.

I would describe it as a premier state of the art fused weapons system with guns and missiles.

The aircraft paints the picture of the area of combat and shares that data via MADL or Link 16 to the other combat elements enhancing their decision-making capabilities.

Question: The F-35 program is like a “global car” concept, whereby the team can work worldwide with manufacturing centers across the globe in dealing with challenges and shaping solutions.

Have you had this experience?

Answer: That is a good way to put it and the answer is clearly yes.

We work that way regularly with Pax and take advantage of the three hour time difference to get a more effective work cycle and sending problems back and forth to be worked on throughout the more extended work cycle.

We have had that experience as well working with program partners, such as BAE systems, where we have an 8-hour time difference, which gives us a leg up on our workday as well.

For example, BAE works the fuel systems, and when we have found a problem, we send our test data to them to work on, and they send proposed solutions back to us to be worked upon. We might have to set up a 0400 telecom on our side to facilitate the process, but that is part of the job.

We have a 24 hour of continuous flow-of-data information coming through the program. We are going to get a lot more information on a faster basis because of the diversity of geographical locations and experiences.

Question: There is a clear misunderstanding of the evolution of software onboard the aircraft.

The notion of blocks seems to convey to many that the plane is not finished, but then again it never will be.

Could there be a better way to discuss the software or to explain blocks?

Answer: Blocks make sense to us, but the point about confusion is a good one.

For us, blocks are about combat capabilities, or mission sets.

They are additive.

It is not about whether we have an effective combat product.

For example, Block 2B, the USMC aircraft, is an F-35 with clean wing and delivering three types of weapons.

Over time, and rapidly, now the envelope will be expanded, but this does not mean the Marines do not have the most lethal combat aircraft they have ever had.

Perhaps it would be better to describe our software approach as one of agile development, of taking a stable foundational software system and evolving its capabilities over time as the plane operates, and inputs come back with regard to what are the most desirable next steps.

The Joint Program Office chairs a Baseline Review Board, which establishes what is to go into each block. It is a process rather then a final capability. We are looking to shape metrics that are meaningful, rather than ones which really are not. A release sequence for capabilities is established with a color-coding but what we are really shaping is an evolving product versus the idea that each imperfect product is being sequentially improved.

Question: How does the digital system work for maintenance and how does the system differ from the legacy approach?

Answer: The legacy system is called CAMS, the Core Automated Maintenance System and it is the repository of the paper reports digitalized.

When the crew ends their shifts they key in the data, which can lead to human errors of course.

The F-35 is a plane, which pushes data into the data brick, and the data flows into the system.

As the maintainers do their maintenance, the data is entered throughout the work day.

It is a point of maintenance system and the data is collected for each aircraft, which gives them an up-to-the-date health maintenance report available throughout the life of that aircraft, and provides a complete history to the depot as it goes into depot maintenance.

The health maintenance codes are downloaded from the airplanes computer (brick) and then inputted into the ALIS system and we work from there.

The F-35 is a two level maintenance aircraft: Flight line and depot. There are no back shops except for things like tires and batteries.

The key challenge (it takes a while to have the full data confidence), is to shape a health reporting data system with historically reliable data, from which parts, reliability and life cycles can be determined.

But if you don’t have the data foundation for which to build this data, you are not going to get there and with the F-35 approach, we have the foundation in place to get where we want and need to go in terms of data reliability.

We are a Developmental Test Group, which means we have a control officer for every flight and an engineering pool, in addition to the maintainers who collectively work anomaly fault resolution. We are in the business of shaping a more effective maintenance product in terms of health monitoring data accuracy.

In contrast, the Operational Test Group or an Operational Test Squadron, has a Crew Chief in charge that knows the complete aircraft and he works the problems within his team.

Question: The aircraft is a digital product. The plane speaks to the pilots and maintainers.

This is the first completely digital combat aircraft ever built.

We will talk with the maintainers in the afternoon, but how does the digital side of maintenance fit into the approach to managing the aircraft?

Answer: A key advantage of the digital system (we have 150 planes flying now and providing input data), is that we get very accurate information with regards to parts performance.

The key is to get accurate R and M data (or reliability and maintenance data), from which buying practices can be shaped. A key challenge is that if the R and M cycles are inaccurate, buying of parts, based on those cycles are also inaccurate, but it’s what happens in the early life cycle of a program.

As we get that right, we can then ensure we deliver the right stock of parts to planes on deployment to support their operations.

With the program we want to get away from the current practice of flying an F-16 squadron to Aviano for example, with its supply of parts brought by airlift and a surplus of those parts, that are not really needed.

We want to get to the point where global warehousing and accurate R and M data can support global deployments for the U.S. services; something we really do not have now.

Question: The effort of the past decade to build the aircraft has put together an approach to shape the next. How would you describe this approach?

Answer: The aircraft will look the same throughout its life cycle. But the stuff inside will evolve significantly over time.

We have built a baseline fusion system. As the sensors get better over time, and they will, we will have better information coming into the cockpit, and because we have shaped an effective fusion system, the decision making tools are there to make better use of better information.

Our efforts will be directed upon that task.

Question: We have to ask about the F-16 and F-35 “dogfight” story.

What is your perspective?

Answer: Our perspective is simple.

We fly four ship F-35s and F-16s frequently.

The F-16s don’t see the F-35s and the F-35 track the F-16s and practice multiple simulated kills during their flights.

The challenge is elsewhere: how can those F-16s leverage the F-35 to become more lethal and effective.

Biographies of Interviewees

Dan Osborn

The 461st Deputy Director is Dan Osburn and he provided an overview of the Edwards program and how it fits into the global effort

Osburn has a diverse 27 year aeronautical background with over 12 years as a designer engineer on the B-2 at Northrop Grumman and X-35 at Skunk Works before transferring over to the Air Force in test and evaluation.

He was C-17 Lead System Test Engineer, Electronic Warfare Group Flight Chief and F-35 461st Chief Engineer before becoming 461st Deputy Director.

Brendan Rhatigan, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics

Brendan Rhatigan is the F-35 Integrated Test Force Deputy Site Director at Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB). In this position, Brendan is responsible for all aspects of day to day execution of the F-35 flight test program at Edwards. Brendan leads an integrated contractor/government team that plans and executes flight sciences and mission systems flight test. Responsibilities include determining overall site priorities of test, executing efficient testing, and meeting F-35 program milestones dependent on flight test. Brendan also reports to the EAFB site director as a deputy site director responsible for maintenance and logistics in addition to his engineering duties.

Prior to 2009, Brendan managed engineering for multiple Lockheed Martin helicopter flight test programs at NAS Patuxent River. Brendan was the Lead Contractor Test Engineer for the MH-60S and MH-60R programs. He was able to see these programs through several test phases resulting in an operational and suitable assessment for the MH-60R program. He was the recipient of the National Defense Industrial Association Tester of the Year Award in 2005.

Earlier, from 1997 to 2002, Rhatigan served as the Software Architect for the EMDII phase of the MH-60R program. This phase added mission capabilities in acoustics, data fusion, operator aids, weapon stores and self-defense on top of a flight avionics baseline to the MH-60R platform. Rhatigan joined Lockheed Martin in 1993 to work on sonar and tracking systems. Brendan received a Lockheed Martin NOVA award in 2001.

Mary Parker

Mary H. Parker is the Deputy for Logistics in the F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) at Edwards AFB, CA.

She is responsible for oversight of F-35 Aircraft Maintenance; Joint-Service Technical Data (JTD) Verification; Logistics Test & Evaluation (LT&E); and Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) activities at the Edwards ITF. Mrs. Parker entered the Air Force in 1980 after receiving her commission as a Second Lieutenant through the Reserve Officer Training Corps.

While on active duty, she served in numerous field and staff maintenance assignments. She was a master maintenance and munitions officer with experience on the OA-37, T-38, F-4C/D/E, RF-4C, F-111A/C/D/E, F-4E/G – Wild Weasel, B-1B, B-52H, C-17A, NC-141A, NC-130, NT-39, EC-18, EC-135, HC-130P, MH-130H, and MH-130P aircraft, UH-1N, HH-60G, TH-53A, and MH-53J helicopters, plus airdrop & extraction test and evaluation.

Mrs. Parker retired from active duty in September 2006 and joined the Civil Service ranks in October 2006.

George Hicks

George Hicks is the F-35 Flight Test Senior Maintenance Manager since Aug 2012 at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. In this capacity, he is responsible for the complete operations of the Flight Test team including ground operations and test, maintenance, modification. Interfaces with all levels of flight test personnel and the customer. Provided leadership and management, at the Integrated Test Force for the daily activities of contractor, military, and government civilians working together to accomplish assigned mission. Ensures all aircraft maintenance, and modifications are planned to maximize aircraft availability, and aircraft are in the proper configuration for future test requirements.

From Mar 19999 to Aug 2012, Hicks was the F-22 Flight Test Operations Chief (LM-Aero) at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. In this capacity he was responsible for the complete operations of the Maintenance and Logistics Flight Test team including ground operations and test, maintenance, modification, and supply support.

Prior to that Hicks was in the USAF and was a F-22 Maintenance/Logistics Superintendent from Jan 1994 to Mar 1999 at Edwards Air Force Base, CA.

Prior to his involvement with fifth generation aircraft he was Command Chief, Upper Heyford Air Base, UK from Aug 1990 to Dec 1993; F-16 Maintenance Manager, Langley Air Force Base, VA, from Jan 1988 to Aug 1990 and has extensive experience working T-37, T-38, F-4, F-5, and F-16 aircraft.

The three slideshows highlight F-35s at Edwards, the first F-35Bs, the second the refueling of F-35s, and the third the creation of the gun for the F-35. Photos credited to Edwards AFB. 

Editor’s Note: Along with the “Right Stuff” which is driving combat innovation, there is the inevitable “Wrong Stuff” inventing a narrative about the program which has little to do with the real roll out of the program.

With the arrival of a completely different “information age” combat air asset, it requires come out of the Platonic cave of looking at what you think you know into a world which you really do not.

This has been put very well by Lt. Col. “Chip” Berke, an F-22, F-35, F-16, F-18 pilot and JTAC, when he addressed the Copenhagen Airpower  Conference last year:

And what made the F-22 different suggests how the F-35 is different.

The F-22 is a very fast and maneuverable aircraft, but that is not where it excels.

It is an information dominant aircraft, a characteristic that the F-35 takes to another level.

“The F-22 is the fastest, the most powerful fighter ever built.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is how fast it is, and it is really fast.

The least impressive thing about the Raptor is its speed and maneuverability.

It is its ability to master the battlespace is where it is most impressive.”

Rather than focus on speed is life and more is better, the Raptor has started the rupture in air combat whereby information dominance in the battlespace is the key discriminator.

Berke believes that the replacement mentality really gets in the way of understanding the air combat revolution that fifth generation capabilities have introduced and that will accelerate with the F-35 global fleet.

He argues for the need really to accelerate the leap into fifth generation-enabled combat forces for the US and its allies.

“When you look back a decade from now, what will the F-16 be in 2025? Or the F-18 in 2025?

The disparity which is already significant now will be even greater a decade out with comparison to the F-35.”

It is about the plane in an important sense.

We don’t want to find ourselves freaking out in 10 years that we wasted the last 10 years wondering, “Should we?” We should have spent all that time asking ourselves, “How do we?” 

The “should we” question is yesterday’s news. 

If you’re asking if we should fly Fifth Generation airplanes – if you’re asking if a Fifth Gen fleet is necessary, you are old. 

You are behind.

You are late.

And you’re going to lose.

Editor: And if you would like to take a look at the “wrong stuff” we have a video for you.

In a very useful overview on the F-35 program as well as a look at a number of its core capabilities, the C.A.B Show released a video on December 20, 2015.

The video is the most comprehensive facts based narrative of the development of the F-35 and its evolving capabilities ever put together.

The video is built around dealing with the continual barrage of criticism from Pierre Sprey and the team decides to take off the gloves and ask the question: Who is the real turkey: The F-35 or Pierre Sprey?

The video does a good job of ending the free ride for at least one of the critics, but does so in terms of looking at the capabilities the F-35 is bringing to 21st century air-enabled combat.

http://www.sldforum.com/2016/02/the-f-35-and-its-critics-cab-looks-at-the-f-35-program-and-corrects-the-record/

 

 

 

 

The Deputy Commandant of Aviation Down Under: Plan Jericho Marine Corps Style

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
||||||||

2016-03-19 By Robbin Laird

The Williams Foundation hosted a seminar on new approaches to air-land integration.

The terms of reference for the conference were as follows:

Air forces need to be capable of delivering air and space power effects to support conventional and special operations in the land domain.

Air-Land integration is one of the most important capabilities for successful joint operations.

The last decade has seen a significant shift in how airpower has supported ground operations. 

With the introduction of systems like Rover, the ability of airpower to provide precision strike to the ground forces saw a significant change in fire support from a wide variety of air platforms. 

Precision air dropping in support of outposts or moving forces introduced new capabilities of support.

The DCA was in Australia to learn from Aussie transformation and not simply to transmit a message.
The DCA was in Australia to learn from Aussie transformation and not simply to transmit a message.

Yet this template of air ground is really focused on air support to the ground whereas with the shift in the global situation, a much wider set of situations are emerging whereby the air-ground integration approach will become much wider in character, and the ability to insert force rapidly, as a precision strike capability, and to be withdrawn will be a key tool in the toolbox for decision makers.

Fifth generation enabled operations will see a shift to a distributed C2 approach which will clearly change the nature of the ground-to air command system, and the with the ability of fifth generation systems to generate horizontal communications among air assets outside the boundaries of a classic AWACs directed system, the change in C2 will be very wide ranging.

The seminar will explore how the ADF can take advantage of Army’s Plan Beersheba and Air Force’s Plan Jericho to enhance Air-Land integration.

Quite obviously, the evolving capabilities of the USMC are clearly convergent with the approach, which Williams wished to foster for the future of the ADF.

Lt. General Davis highlighted at the beginning of his presentation that when he attended the Avalon Air Show and then head of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) introduced Plan Jericho, it was clear that the Marines and the RAAF were on the same page.

“I went back to the Commandant and said that we need to work more closely with the RAAF because with Plan Jericho they are onto something big with regard to innovation.”

Equipping the Marine

The presentation was hard hitting, comprehensive and clearly on target for the Australian audience.

As Air Commodore Steve Roberton, Commander Air Combat Group and a former exchange officer with the USMC, commented, “If you think this was hard hitting, it was mild compared to some Marines.

The Marines are gung ho about the future and shaping new combat capabilities.

They do no like to lose.”

This theme was central to Davis’s presentation – the entire point about combat innovation was to be the best force, which America could deliver to any global crises at any time.

“We want to be the best partner to our friends; and the most feared enemy of our foes.”

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.

The Marines like at risk differently from the cubical commandos.

I recall a conversation I had with a well-known and oft quoted aviation analyst who told me that the Marines should have waited few years before using the F-35B because doing so now was “risky.”

I pointed out that it was inherently risky flying legacy aircraft into ever more challenging conditions than getting new equipment into the hands of Marines who would innovate rapidly in ways that could not be imagined in the chat corridors Inside the Beltway.

Future Tiltrotar

Davis provided several examples of innovation, but one was about the F-35.

He argued that there was no doubt that the F-35 is the right plane for the USMC.

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.”

The DCA noted throughout his presentation that the RAAF focus on bottom up innovation with the Plan Jericho processes was what the Marines felt was central to real combat innovation.

And shaping the way ahead was really about leveraging the new platforms, shaping key enablers and then ensures that whatever follow-on platforms are bought that they build upon but push the innovation envelope.

Every Sensor a Shooter

He saw the tiltrotar experience as a crucial baseline and saw the future of Marine Corps rotor wing as tiltrotar.

He saw the Cobras, Hueys, and Yankees replaced over time by a new generation tiltrotar aircraft.

He favored developing one, which would be two seaters, and able to be either manned or unmanned to provide for the kind of flexibility which the Marines would want to reshape the capabilities and approach of the assault force.

His version of the Plan Jericho approach to building a more integrated assault force was as follows:

Every platform a SENSOR, every platform a SHOOTER, every platform a SHARE/CONNECTOR, and every platform an EW NODE.

 And throughout he highlighted that the Marines were preparing for the high end fight and enhanced capabilities to operate throughout an expanded maneuver space, and able to operate from land, and sea sequentially, concurrently or jointly as the mission demanded.

With regard to equipping that force, he saw the need to build on fifth generation capabilities, multi-mission everything, spiral develop everything and leverage bottom up combat innovation.

He concluded that he saw a great opportunity to work with an ADF in transformation as the Marines went down a similar path.

Shaping New Approaches to Air-Land Integration: The Perspective from Down Under

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
03/17/2016

2016-03-18 By Robbin Laird

On March 17, 2016, in Canberra, Australia, the Williams Foundation held a seminar looking at the evolution of fifth generation enabled combat transformation which focused on new approaches to air-land integration.

And the seminar followed the two-day RAAF Airpower Conference, which addressed a broad range of airpower issues, and during the second day explicitly looked at the RAAF’s transformation approach, Plan Jericho.

Lt General Angus Campbell, Chief of the Army, addresses the question of innovation and modernization for the ADF,
Lt General Angus Campbell, Chief of the Army, addresses the question of innovation and modernization for the ADF,

Over the next few weeks, I will publish several pieces on the discussions over the three days, as well as a report for the Williams Foundation on their conference.

Next up is a look at new approaches to air-sea integration as well, and one of the major participants at the air-land integration seminar would certainly be relevant to the air-sea integration seminar, namely the USMC which is working at the seams of air-sea-land integration.

In addition, we will be publishing several interviews with the RAAF and the Royal Australian Army to provide further perspectives on the evolving transformation approach.

Lt. General Davis addressing the USMC approach to modernization and air-sea-land integration.
Lt. General Davis addressing the USMC approach to modernization and air-sea-land integration.

The former Chief of Staff of the Royal Australian Air Force, Geoff Brown, was the organizer for the event, and provided navigation throughout the day through the diverse presentations, as well as providing significant input to the final event of the day, the panel with senior leaders.

The current Chief of Staff of the RAAF, Air Marshal Leo Davies, provided an overview on the RAAF’s approach to transformation and his priority on shaping new approaches to operating with the ground forces.  It is not just about having a new fleet; it is about shaping new capabilities for the joint force, but one which is to be understood as multi-dimensional and not simply about who is supporting whom in a particular operation.

Several themes stood out from the Seminar.

The first was how significant the rethink on Army’s part really is.

The Chief of Staff clearly underscored that the land wars of the past decade are not the template for moving forward and saw the need and opportunity to shape new ways to integrate airpower with ground maneuver forces in providing for more effective capabilities in the contested battlespace.

The second was the reshaping of Army modernization to achieve the force envisaged by the Army Chief of Staff.

Brigadier General Mills, the head of Army Modernization, provided a hard hitting look at the Army and how the evolving force could shape a more distributed operational and decision making force, one which he saw as providing for 21st century ground maneuver forces.

Brigadier General Mills, Australian Army, addressing the question of Army modernization under the influence of evolving air capabilities.
Brigadier General Mills, Australian Army, addressing the question of Army modernization under the influence of evolving air capabilities.

The third was the clear synergy between the USMC and Plan Jericho.

Lt. General Davis, Deputy Commandant of Aviation, provided a comprehensive and hard hitting presentation on how the Marine Corps was evolving under the influence of the new technologies, the Osprey and the F-35, and how the focus of the Corps was upon “equipping the 21st century Marine,” rather than “manning the equipment.”

Davis highlighted that the Corps was working at the seams of air-land-sea integration, and described how he thought the tiltrotar revolution started with the Osprey would continue. He also provided an update on how the F-35 was fitting into the USMC’s overall approach to transformation.

He noted that the young pilots for the F-35 were already pushing the envelope on Close Air Support, and flying the F-35 into Nellis ranges through complicated red threats and being able to come out the other side and provide the maneuver force with various types of support, fires, ISR and C2.

The fourth was a clear response to industry to the Plan Jericho challenge to evolve differently in relationship to the evolution of the Australian Defense Force.

Major General Stephen Goldein, USAF Retired, from Northrop Grumman, addressing the C2 challenges.
Major General Stephen Goldein, USAF Retired, from Northrop Grumman, addressing the C2 challenges.

The Northrop Grumman presentation provided a clear look at the evolution of C2 capabilities in line with a transformed force; the Rockwell Collins presentation looked at how the JTAC role will change with new technologies; the L3 presentation provided a look at how commercial technologies could be leveraged to provide for the kind of cost effective and dynamic technological innovation which could support the connectivity needs for the RAAF.

And in an interview with the “Jericho Twins,” Group Captains Jake Campbell and Pete Mitchell, they underscored that indeed C2 transformation was emerging as a key thread for transformation in shaping a way ahead.

There were other threads to the discussion which we will highlight in the days to come, including, the evolution of training to build a 21st century force, the evolution of the remotely piloted aircraft to work in an evolving battlespace, the challenge of ensuring that we get the right information to the right people at the right time, the evolution of Army force projection with the new RAAF airlift capabilities, and the future of providing for forward air control from the air in the contested battlespace.

What is clear is that the Aussies are at the cutting edge of the rethink of how to reshape an integrated 21st century force.