In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
2016-07-09 After an extensive competition, the Australian government downselected the French firm DCNS to build a new class of advanced conventional submarines.
In a press release from the Australian government dated April 26, 206, the Australian government announced the decision and underscored that
“The decision was driven by DCNS’s ability to best meet all of the Australian Government’s requirements.
These included superior sensor performance and stealth characteristics, as well as range and endurance similar to the Collins Class submarine.
The Government’s considerations also included cost, schedule, program execution, through-life support and Australian industry involvement.”
Less obvious in the press coverage around the decision was the innovative nature of the program and the significant opportunity to leverage evolving technologies in shaping the largest conventional submarine, which DCNS has been involved in building.
88533random1.05.0
In many ways, it is a “hybrid” submarine in the sense that it leverages the innovative technologies of the new Barracuda SSN being put to sea next year by the French Navy, leveraging the extensive experience which DCNS has in building the Scorpene ion class submarines in Chile, Malaysia, Brazil and India, and, for the first time, operating with a US combat system which will be shaped for this conventional submarine operating at range, speed and distance in the challenging waters of the Pacific.
In an article published by the Australian publication Manufacturers’ Monthlyon July 4, 2016, the perspective of Chris Burns, then CEO of the Defence Teaming Centre in Australia highlighted the approach to building submarines in Australia.
Regularly referred to as the second-most difficult thing to build after a space shuttle, the ability for a country to build its own submarines is a measure of industrial sophistication, a critical bit of sovereignty and more besides.
“If you can build a submarine you can pretty well build anything,” Chris Burns, then-CEO of the Defence Teaming Centre, told Manufacturers’ Monthly recently…..
The decision to base the submarine build at Adelaide was the right one, believes the Teaming Centre.
Nothing against Western Australia; they are fully capable of doing the middle-level maintenance,” said Burns of the shipbuilding rival state.
“What they don’t have is that experience – for example, here in South Australia we can physically cut a hole in the submarine or cut the submarine in half in order to refit it.”
SA’s DTC has long campaigned for a continuous shipbuilding program to level out peaks and troughs in work and consistency for the shipbuilding workforce.
Burns said this is unfair, and the local naval defence industry hasn’t had the chance – due to the stop/start nature of contracts in the past – to build up its muscle tissue.
“With the Air Warfare Destroyers from ship one to ship two you had a 30 per cent productivity improvement and from ship two to ship three we’ll have a 20 per cent improvement in productivity,” said Burns.
Any premium is also more than negated by things such as investing in the local industry, taxes being paid and not having to pay welfare to workers between jobs, he added…..
And in a piece written by Trevor Thomas on the Australian Defence Business Review at the time of the announcement of the decision by the Australian government, the analyst highlighted a number of key aspects of the decision.
The 4,500 tonne Shortfin Barracuda design represents the embodiment of all of France’s knowledge of both nuclear-powered and conventionally-powered submarines into a mature large platform design, whose first-of-class nuclear-powered Suffren is already well down the construction track for a launch in 2017.
Overall design and construction risk for Australia’s boat has therefore been substantially addressed, other than the switch to conventional power for which French shipbuilder DCNS has previous experience to draw upon…..
France offered Australia a more contemporary submarine design that will be the recipient of its most sensitive and protected submarine technology, and therefore likely to yield the most lethal conventional submarine ever contemplated by Western nations. To that has also been promised a distillation of technology from France’s nuclear submarine program – including technologies such as pump jet propulsion –something that neither Germany or Japan were in a position to match.
Rather than the progressive iteration of historical conventional submarine designs for export – as in the case of the Germans, and the updating of an older submarine design drawing more on strategic considerations for attraction than real differential capability – as in the case of the Japanese, France has offered Australia a bi-national industrial collaboration that brings with it the transfer of all technology, know-how and resources necessary to achieve operational autonomy and sovereignty in a regionally superior platform that also satisfies local requirements for interoperability with major allies.
Added to the French package is intimate government involvement (and therefore assurance) in the Future Submarine project, not just through majority ownership of DCNS, but also via a detailed technology sharing and industrial cooperation agreement from the French Director General of Armaments (DGA) attached to the original CEP response.
All these industrial undertakings were next cleverly integrated with the Australian Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda to ensure sovereign capabilities will be put into place to support the new submarines over their full life cycle.
DCNS was also quick to pick up on the subtle shift of terminology in the new Defence White Paper from a ‘continuous build’ of surface ships, to a ‘rolling build’ for Future Submarines.
The White Paper’s introduction of a breathing space – by way of a review in the late-2020s to assess whether the Future Submarine’s configuration remained relevant to contemporary strategic circumstances facing Australia – also saw DCNS proposing successive Block 1B capability developments, and including a latter Block 2A development that could possibly see a reversion to nuclear-powering of the boats should strategic developments and local Australian politics consider that necessary…..
Twelve new submarines of the Shortfin Barracuda genre will make a major contribution to the combined military deterrence of the US, Japan, Australia and other allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Interoperability is assured through the Government’s mandating of a US combat system.
France is nevertheless unique among European countries in terms of retaining specific responsibilities regarding defence and security in the Asia-Pacific subject to its holding of territories extending across New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and the Wallis and Futuna islands. More importantly, alongside the US, France and Australia are the largest contributors to the fight against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Australian warships are regular contributors to coalition operations in the Middle East, and recently a Navy frigate undertook joint exercises with a French Navy Task Force in Middle East waters, while RAAF KC-30A tankers have regularly been employed to refuel aircraft operating in that area off the French nuclear aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle.
Selection of the Shortfin Barracuda and DCNS of France as the preferred design/builder for Australia’s future submarines is a pragmatic choice by the Australian Government, which promises to bring the nation long-term benefits via combining the best of contemporary underwater warfare capability and industrial collaboration opportunities to enhance the long-term economic and national security of Australia.
The Australian MoD is very interested in shaping cross-cutting convergence among the services as the transformation of the force is shaped.
With regard to submarines, there is a clear interest that the submarine can leverage the extensive air modernization strategy being put in place by the RAAF, which means that DCNS and the winning American provider for the combat system can partner with the overall transformation of the Australian forces.
The artist drawings in the slideshow and the video are credited to DCNS.
2016-07-11 The P-8/Triton dyad is introducing a new maritime domain awareness strike capability to the fleet and to the joint and coalition forces.
In our latest Special Report, we look at the emergence of this capability in the US, and Australian forces and the P-8 in the Indian, and UK forces.
On May 23 and 24, 2016, during a Jacksonville Naval Air Station visit, we spent time with the P-8 and Triton community which is shaping a common culture guiding the transformation of the ASW and ISR side of Naval Air. The acquisition term for the effort is a “family of systems” whereby the P-3 is being “replaced” by the P-8 and the Triton Remotely Piloted Aircraft.
But clearly the combined capability is a replacement of the P-3 in only one sense – executing the anti-submarine warfare function. But the additional ISR and C2 enterprise being put in place to operate the combined P-8 and Triton capability is a much broader capability than the classic P-3. Much like the Osprey transformed the USMC prior to flying the F-35, the P-8/Triton team is doing the same for the US Navy prior to incorporating the F-35 within the carrier air wing.
In addition to the Wing Commander and his Deputy Commander, who were vey generous with their time and sharing of important insights, we had the opportunity to interviews with various members of the VP-16 P-8 squadron from CO and XO to Pilots, NFOs and Air Crew members, along with the wing weapons and training officer, the Triton FIT team, and key members of the Integrated Training Center. Those interviews will be published over the next few weeks.
87621random1.05.0
The P-8/Triton capability is part of what we have described as 21st century air combat systems: software upgradeable, fleet deployed, currently with a multinational coalition emerging peer partnership. Already the Indians, the Aussies and the British are or will be flying the P-8s and all are in discussions to build commonality from the stand-up of the P-8 Forward.
Software upgradeability provides for a lifetime of combat learning to be reflected in the rewriting of the software code and continually modernizing existing combat systems, while adding new capabilities over the operational life of the aircraft. Over time, fleet knowledge will allow the US Navy and its partners to understand how best to maintain and support the aircraft while operating the missions effectively in support of global operations.
Reflecting on the visit there are five key takeaways from our discussions with Navy Jax.
A key point is how the USN is approaching the P-8/Triton combat partnership, which is the integration of manned, and unmanned systems, or what are now commonly called “remotes”. The Navy looked at the USAF experience and intentionally decided to not build a the Triton “remote” operational combat team that is stovepiped away from their P-8 Squadrons.
The team at Navy Jax is building a common Maritime Domain Awareness and Maritime Combat Culture and treats the platforms as partner applications of the evolving combat theory. The partnership is both technology synergistic and also aircrew moving between the Triton and P-8
The P-8 pilot and mission crews, after deploying with the fleet globally can volunteer to do shore duty flying Tritons. The number of personnel to fly initially the Tritons is more than 500 navy personnel so this is hardly an unmanned aircraft. Hence, inside a technological family of systems there is also an interchangeable family of combat crews.
With the P-8 crews operating at different altitudes from the Triton, around 50K, and having operational experience with each platform, they will be able to gain mastery of both a wide scale ocean ISR and focused ASW in direct partnership with the surface navy from Carrier Strike Groups, ARG/MEUs to independent operations for both undersea and sea surface rather than simply mastering a single platform.
This is a visionary foundation for the evolution of the software upgradeable platforms they are flying as well as responding to technological advances to work the proper balance by manned crews and remotes.
The second key point is that the Commanders of both P-8 aviator and the soon to be operational Triton community understand that for transformation to occur the surface fleet has to understand what they can do. This dynamic “cross-deck” actually air to ship exchange can totally reshape surface fleet operations. To accelerate this process, officers from the P-8 community are right now being assigned to surface ships to rework their joint concepts of operations.
Exercises are now in demonstration and operational con-ops to explain and real world demonstrate what the capabilities this new and exciting aspect of Naval Air can bring to the fleet. One example was a recent exercise with an ARG-MEU where the P-8 recently exercised with the amphibious fleet off of the Virginia Capes.
The third key point is that the software upgradeability aspect of the airplane has driven a very strong partnership with industry to be able to have an open-ended approach to modernization. On the aircraft maintenance and supply elements of having successful mission ready aircraft it is an important and focused work in progress both inside the Navy (including Supply Corps) and continuing an important relationship with industry, especially at the Tech Rep Squadron/Wing level.
The fourth point is how important P-8 and Triton software upgradeability is, including concurrent modification to trainer/simulators and rigorous quality assurance for the fidelity of the information in shaping the future of the enterprise. The P-8s is part of a cluster of airplanes which have emerged defining the way ahead for combat airpower which are software upgradeable: the Australian Wedgetail, the global F-35, and the Advanced Hawkeye, all have the same dynamic modernization potential to which will be involved in all combat challenges of maritime operations.
It is about shaping a combat learning cycle in which software can be upgraded as the user groups shape real time what core needs they see to rapidly deal with the reactive enemy. All military technology is relative to a reactive enemy. It is about the arsenal of democracy shifting from an industrial production line to a clean room and a computer lab as key shapers of competitive advantage.
The fifth point is about weaponization and its impact. We have focused for years on the need for a weapons revolution since the U.S. forces, and as core allies are building common platforms with the growth potential to operate new weapons as they come on line. The P-8 is flying with a weapon load out from the past, but as we move forward, the ability of the P-8 to manage off board weapons or organic weapons will be enabled.
For example, there is no reason a high speed cruise or hypersonic missile on the hard points of the P-8 could not be loaded and able to strike a significant enemy combat asset at great distance and speed. We can look forward to the day when P-8s crews will receive a Navy Cross for sinking a significant enemy surface combatant.
In short, the P-8/Triton is at the cutting edge of naval air transformation within the entire maritime combat enterprise. And the US Navy is not doing this alone, as core allies are part of the transformation from the ground up.
(The slideshow above shows the CNO visiting Pax River Naval Air Station earlier this year and is credited to the US Navy.)
For your copy of the new special report, please go to the following:
Great Britain’s vote to leave the European Union on June 23 unleashed a wave of uncertainty across the continent and the world.
But if anything in the still-forming post-Brexit order can be taken to the bank, it is that the Obama Administration will look to Germany to fill the void.
After the Obama administration went all in for London’s “remain” camp yet still came up short, the future of Washington’s long-held “special relationship” with London has been called into question.
This line of thinking’s natural extension, America’s relationship with the now presumably UK-less EU, has bubbled to the forefront as well.
A major policy question facing the next Administration will clearly be how to deal with the new European map?
The overall architecture of the liberal international order is unlikely to materially change as a result of Brexit, though its ripple effects will be felt all the same.
The NATO alliance and the EU act as this order’s structural underpinnings; without the stability and continental cohesion provided by the EU, the functionality of NATO would be compromised.
This framework is under multiple strains that threaten to undermine its integrity.
The EU faces a security threat from Russia that splits the bloc along east-west lines and a sovereign debt crisis that divides it economically from north to south.
Superimposed over these divisions is an immigration crisis that more than anything has given rise Eurosceptic, populist-driven parties across the continent.
A divided Europe has long been a strategic ambition of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. With precedent for leaving the continental bloc now in the process of being set, the countries most concerned about Russian aggression, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, are likely to draw closer together and away from the unionist center in Brussels.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel attends a joint news conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, not seen. during their meeting at the Chancellery in Berlin, Germany, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Michael Sohn)
Fusing these gaps before they widen can best be achieved by leaving, as Robert D. Kaplan has put it, no strategic space between Washington and Berlin. Great Britain’s extrication from the union then will likely see a resulting compensatory effect, with the transatlantic order seeing its European center of gravity shifting from London to Berlin.
In many ways, the Brexit, should it be completed, will formalize what has already become America’s most beneficial European partnership. The two already share a deep security relationship that has seen Germany become the home for some of America’s most developed military and intelligence infrastructure abroad.
At the same time, the United States is Germany’s single largest trading partner, while Berlin holds status as the largest export destination for 14 EU member states. With Germany’s assumption of a leading role in determining Great Britain’s future market access to the bloc, powerful economic drivers therefore exist as well to naturally draw the U.S. and Germany closer together.
Without London, Berlin’s already dominant place within the EU will only become more pronounced; the possibility of a gradual, fundamental shift from the present, multipolar composition of the union to a more unipolar one oriented economically and, perhaps, militarily around Germany is increasingly likely. The current German foreign policy establishment has been supportive of the EU without beating its chest, but growing Euroscepticism at home calls the long term durability of this stance into greater question.
Washington needs Berlin, now as much as ever.
Germany will play the decisive role in deciding what Great Britain’s new relationship with the rest of Europe will look like, and Merkel has already shown a willingness to push back against the fiery orthodoxy of some EU leaders that has advocated a quick divorce from London.
Such leadership will push Berlin out of its preferred comfort zone of playing to the middle in continental politics. As this process unfolds, and as Berlin’s at times opaque view on the EU becomes naturally more defined, American support for Merkel and the allies within her ruling coalition will be vital.
This means delivering effective responses to German concerns about power vacuums in the Middle East, continuing to back up Berlin’s leadership initiatives like the recent migration deal with Turkey, and redoubled efforts at passing the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that both Obama and Merkel have called for.
The EU recently voted to extend sanctions against Russia, despite French hesitancy and Italian mutterings, in a show of solidarity following Brexit, and Merkel stood once more as the face of such efforts.
The more pronounced shape and scope of German leadership that will develop in the months to come will serve as an instructive look into Europe’s future.
It is a future that must bind Berlin and Washington close together.
Garth McLennan graduated from Arizona State University in 2015, with degrees in Political Science and Criminal Justice. He is based out of Vancouver, where his writing focuses primarily on American foreign policy.
Editor’s Note: The Euro crisis coupled with the Brexit European restructuring is putting pressure on the German system itself; with the Turkish upheaval complicating any partnership with Turkey, and with the Russians ramping up their relationship with Greece, it is clear that new European map is being drawn different from the one written in 1991 and then augmented with EU expansion.
There is political change in Germany and the United States going on at the same time so that any evolving relationship will be affected by the nature of the new US Administration and by the viability of the Merkel government.
A post-Brexit order might well suit a President Trump seeking for both domestic and global restructuring; and German conservatives might well look to the shaping of the post-Brexit Europe as one which rids itself of the burden of supporting the weak sisters in the European system.
The point is simple: the evolving European map as it allows has been in the time of significant historical change is a work in progress.
The P-8, which is a Maritime Domain Awareness Strike capability, is coming to RAF Lossiemouth.
This is part of the transition for the base becoming a 21st century air base positioned in the North of the United Kingdom and positioned in a key area for the defense of the United Kingdom and for NATO.
With Putin firing 50 officers in the Baltic fleet, in part, for not being aggressive enough, one does not have to imagine how important managing tensions in this part of the world is going to be.
RAF Lossiemouth currently is a Typhoon and Tornado base, but with the Tornados to be phased out within the next few years, the Typhoons will be joined by the P-8s.
This provides the opportunity to integrate the Typhoons with P-8s with the F-35s, which will operate off shore from the new carriers or, in other words, shaping a kill web to protect the homeland and to anchor the defense of the Northern NATO countries.
In effect, Lossie will train to support the formation and evolution of a 21st century combat force in which a multi-mission combat fleet of Typhoons will work with the maritime-focused but land-based capable maritime combat system which is the P-8, and which, in turn, will work with the multi-tasking flying combat system which is the F-35.
According to an article by Ben Hendry in The Press and Journal published on July 13, 2016:
The UK Government has purchased a fleet of nine P-8 Poseidon aircraft, each worth about £150million, which will be based at Lossiemouth.
And the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has entered a partnership with US aircraft manufacturer Boeing to create a £100million training centre at the Moray base.
More than 400 new personnel will be stationed at Lossiemouth to operate the aircraft, and 100 more will be recruited to serve in the support centre.
The estimated cost of developing the planes could reach £3billion over the next decade…..
As part of a historic agreement with the UK Government, Boeing has decided to create a £100million complex at RAF Lossiemouth, which it will use as its main training base for pilots across Europe.
The building is expected to open in 2019, in preparation for the first of the Poseidon craft arriving in 2020.
Yesterday, RAF Lossiemouth confirmed that high-ranking officers would spend the summer months mapping out how the huge facility will be sited in its grounds.
The RAF has kept skill sets alive after the decision to retire the Nimrod Maritime Patrol Aircraft in 2011.
To do so, the MoD has set up a “seed corn” program to support skill sets without actually having a relevant UK plane.
This is challenging, but NATO exercises have played their part.
And the Joint Warrior exercises held at RAF Lossiemouth have been part of the solution whereby former Nimrod operators have been able to fly on allied planes to keep their skill sets current. But it is challenging to have cutting edge skill sets and fly on someone else’s plane episodically.
86766random1.05.0
This will no longer be the case as the RAF trains its own personnel for the P-8 experience both in Jax Navy and then at RAF Lossiemouth.
The new training center at Lossie will be an important contributor for the effort as well.
But these skill sets will be different from those shaped by the Nimrod experience.
As Wing Commander Paul Froome OC XV(R) Squadron put it in an interview in April 2016 during a visit to RAF Lossiemouth:
“The P-8 is clearly not Nimrod.
“If we think that we’re going to take an old-fashioned air electronics operator, and use him in the same way on the P8, we’re missing a trick.
“We need to be developing the crews now to be maritime warfare operators, not electronic operators, and radar, and wet and dry, we need to be thinking bigger than that.
“If we don’t, then you end up making problems for your F-35, your Typhoon, your P8, your Reaper, your Son of Reaper.”
And during that same visit, there was chance to discuss the coming of the P-8 to the RAF.
The key RAF officer involved had met with a Navy Captain who had deployed with the P-8 to the Joint Warrior exercise.
During that meeting, the RAF officer highlighted that he was very impressed with the aircraft and very interested in the weapons hard points on the aircraft and their potential for operating in the North Atlantic.
It turns out that the USN Captain involved was none other than Captain Robinson, Deputy Commander, Patrol and Reconnaissance Wing ELEVEN, whom we interviewed later at Jax Navy and at the time remembered the exchange well and in his train and equip role was talking with the Brits about future infrastructure for support to the P-8.
Captain Robinson had worked earlier for Admiral Gortney who in our interview with him had highlighted the threats at the 10 and 2 O’Clock to North America, and when at Joint Warrior, Captain Robinson was operating in the 2’Oclock.
There is a chance to shape a much broader interlocking defense system with the Northern European states, which after Brexit, might be even more important to UK defense thinking.
Norway is interested as well in the P-8 which then create a significant interlocking force. For Norway, because the P-8 is not a P-3, they would benefit from seeing much deeper into the maritime space to protect their interests.
With the P-8, unlike a Nimrod or a P-3, it is not just about flying to an area of interest and patrolling it.
When you take off with the P-8 you link into the data network and are on station when you take off.
You are flying in the area of interest from the moment you take off from RAF Lossiemouth.
Another reason why RAF Lossiemouth may have been chosen is that it is home to a 24/7 Quick Reaction Alert Typhoon squadron and as such is positioned to operate the P-8 in a 24/7 manner as well.
The slideshow above shows the the various aircraft operating at RAF Lossiemouth earlier this year during Joint Warrior 16 and the photos are credited to the RAF.
For a copy of our new Special Report focused on the P-8/Triton dyad, see the following:
2016-07-13 The F-35B will be a staple for the USMC and the RAF and will fly with the Italian Navy as well.
There are a number of other Air Forces which are clearly interested in the aircraft as well, including Israel, Singapore, Japan, and Spain.
The plane can operate in a wide variety of locations, which gives it an operational advantage over those which must operate off of conventional air fields.
FARNBOROUGH, UNITED KINGDOM
07.12.2016
Video by Senior Airman Rebecca Long
American Forces Network Europe
As Ed Timperlake put it in an article published in 2012 entitled “strategic deterrence with tactical flexibility:”
Every fighter pilot has had or will have a moment in the air when the biggest indicator in the cockpit is showing how much fuel is left: the fuel indicator immediately can dominate the pilots attention and really focus thinking on where to immediately land.
Fuel is measured in pounds usually with an engineering caveat stating a degree of uncertainty over how low the number may go before all the noise will stop. Pounds of fuel remaining eventually become everything.
It is actually a very simple and terrifying equation, no fuel means simply no noise because the jet engine has stopped working.
Contemplating this very time sensitive dilemma, when the “noise gage” goes to zero, all pilots know that their once trusted and beautiful sleek multi-million fighters that they are strapped into will rapidly take on the flying characteristic of a brick.
Running low on fuel, calling “bingo,” on the radio which is announcing min fuel left for a successful recovery and then realizing you are actually going below “bingo” could occur for a variety of reasons.
In peacetime it is mostly a delay in landing because of weather related issues.
In combat, in addition to horrific weather at times, throw in battle damage to the fuel tanks and it becomes a real life or death problem.
In peacetime you can eject, probably lose your wings and that will be that.
However, in combat, in addition to shooting at you the enemy always gets a vote on other methods to kill you and destroy your aircraft. They will use any means possible.
Consequently if aircraft in their combat strike package get lucky and a few survive to bomb “homeplate” taxiways and all divert fields it can become a significant problem.
Even more realistically in this 21st Century world, missile proliferation, both in terms of quality and quantity, is a key challenge. All nations can be peer competitors because of weapons proliferation.
An enemy may have successfully improved the quantity and quality of their missile such that an Air Battle commander’s entire airborne air force can be eliminated by the enemy destroying all runways, taxiways and divert bases.
In a war at sea, hitting the carrier’s flight deck can cripple the Carrier Battle Group (CBG) and thus get a mission kill on the both the Carrier and perhaps even the entire airborne air wing if they can not successfully divert to a land base.
With no place to land, on the sea or land and with tanker fuel running low, assuming tankers can get airborne, the practical result will be the loss of extremely valuable air assets.
In such circumstances, The TacAir aircraft mortality rate would be the same as if it was during a combat engagement with either air-to-air or a ground –to-air weapons taking out the aircraft.
The only variable left, between simply flaming out in peacetime, vice the enemy getting a kinetic hit would be potential pilot survivability to fly and fight another day.
However, with declining inventories and limited industrial base left in U.S. to surge aircraft production a runway kill could mean the loss of air superiority and thus be a battle-tipping event, on land or sea.
Now something entirely new and revolutionary can be added to an Air Force, the VSTOL F-35B.
Traditionally the VSTOL concept, as personified by the remarkable AV-8, Harrier was only for ground attack. To be fair the RAF needed to use the AV-8 in their successful Falklands campaign as an air defense fighter because it was all they had.
The Harrier is not up to a fight against any advanced 4th gen. aircraft—let alone F-22 5th Gen. Fighters that have been designed for winning the air combat maneuvering fight (ACM) with advanced radar’s and missiles.
Now though, for the first time in history the same aircraft the F-35 can be successful in a multi-role.
The F-35, A, B &C type, model, series, all have the same revolutionary cockpit-the C4ISD-D “Fusion combat system” which also includes fleet wide “tron” warfare capabilities.
There has been a lot written about the F-35B not being as capable as the other non-VSTOL versions such as the land based F-35A and the Large carrier Battle Group (CBG) F-35, the USN F-35C.
The principle criticism is about the more limited range of the F-35B. In fact, the combat history of the VSTOL AV-8 shows that if properly deployed on land or sea the VSTOL capability is actually a significant range bonus. The Falklands war, and recent USN/USMC rescue of a Air Force pilot in the Libyan campaign proved that.
The other key point is limited payload in the vertical mode. Here again is where the F-35 T/M/S series have parity if the F-35B can make a long field take off or a rolling take off from a smaller aircraft carrier-with no traps nor cats needed it can carry it’s full weapons load-out.
An F-35B Lighting II participates in a flyover with the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, the Red Arrows, during the first day of the Farnborough International Air Show, July 11, 2016. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Eric Burks/Released)
The Royal Navy just validated this point by reversing back to the F-35B.
Give all aircraft commanders the same set of strategic warning indicators of an attack because it would be a very weak air staff that would let their aircraft be killed on the ground or flight deck by a strategic surprise.
Consequently, the longer take off of the F-35 A, B or C with a full weapons complement makes no difference. Although history does show that tragically being surprised on the ground has happened.
Pearl Harbor being the very nasty example. Of course, USN Carrier pilots during the “miracle at Midway” caught the Japanese Naval aircraft being serviced on their flight deck and returned the favor to turn the tide of the war in the pacific.
In addition to relying intelligence, and other early warning systems to alert an air force that an attack is coming so “do not get caught on the ground!” dispersal, revetments and bunkers can be designed to mitigate against a surprise attack.
Aircraft survivability on the ground is critical and a lot of effort has also gone into rapid runway repair skills and equipment to recover a strike package. All F-35 TMS have the same advantages with these types of precautions.
The strategic deterrence, with tactical flexibility, of the F-35B is in the recovery part of an air campaign when they return from a combat mission, especially if the enemy successfully attacks airfields.
Or is successful in hitting the carrier deck-they do not have to sink the Carrier to remove it from the fight just disable the deck. War is always a confused messy action reaction cycle, but the side with more options and the ability to remain combat enabled and dynamically flexible will have a significant advantage.
With ordinance expended, or not, the F-35B does not need a long runway to recover and this makes it a much more survivable platform — especially at sea where their might be no other place to go.
A call by the air battle commander-all runways are destroyed so find a long straight road and “good luck!” is a radio call no one should ever have to make.
But something revolutionary now exists.
In landing in the vertical mode the Marine test pilot in an F-35B, coming aboard the USS Wasp during sea trials put the nose gear in a one square box. So the unique vertical landing/recovery feature of landing anywhere will save the aircraft to fight another day.
It is much easier to get a fuel truck to an F-35B than build another A or C model, or land one of the numerous “decks” on other ships, even a T-AKE ship then ditch an F-35C at sea.
This unique capability can be a war winning issue for countries like Israel, Taiwan and the U.S. Navy at sea.
Indeed, it can be easy to overlook how revolutionary a vertical lift aircraft which can operate at supersonic speeds actually is.
In the final interview which we conducted with Col. “Turbo” Tomassetti at the time of his retirement in 2013, “Turbo” looked back at his time with the program and his 30 years in the USMC.
Col. Tomassetti underscored as well the important role which the F-3B is bringing to the USMC expeditionary approach.
“What does that airplane bring to the Marine on the ground?
It means that the warrior has access to information that they would not normally have.
And the F-35B is about bringing that aircraft up close in the battlespace and it can operate off of a variety of platforms to allow for operational flexibility.”
He contrasted his experiences with the Harrier and the F-35B and highlighted the impact of the digital capabilities and information dominance, which the F-35b will bring to the USMC.
He also emphasized that his commitment to the development of the aircraft try was founded on trying to ensure that the plane would be easy to fly, unlike the Harrier and to do so for the safety and security of the pilot.
He reflected back on the contrast between his involvement in the prototype phase of the F-35 and what is on the flight line currently.
“We really did not conceptualize the data fusion capability and its impact.
“We had some ideas in briefing slides and graphics, but now it is entering reality on the flight line.”
The Osprey has had an important impact on the USMC in shaping cultural change within the USMC overall.
The F-35B and its cultural impact have been prepared for within the USMC by the Osprey experience.
But still the F-35 demands a change in pilot culture.
“The legacy pilots need to jettison some of their (experiential or legacy) baggage and open their minds to what the new aircraft brings….
“I am looking forward to the next phase when the new pilots join the program directly from their initial training and the F-35B will then be their first operational aircraft. That will be a very exciting development”
Finally, he discussed the impact of the f-35 as a fleet on combat operations and how different this concept of operations will be for the force.
“It is too easy to fall back to what you know when you talk about the airplane.
“With the F-35 you have to get to the next step.
“You need to understand it is not just a single airplane…
“The common airplane can deliver shared data across the fleet of F-35s and with other assets as well.
“We need to learn to use that capability of a group of airplanes, regardless of where they took off from or what insignia is outside the aircraft.”
And if you are in the F-35 program, and start with As can you add Bs later down the line.
The pilot training is common in many respects, and as Col. Novotny, the 48th Wing Commander (at RAF Lakenheath) recently highlighted:
“So from the beginning, there is great synergy and opportunity to learn from each other.
“Obviously, they are primarily responsible for working the airspace issues, which will in turn shape how a basic element of how we will train and operate together as well.
“We’re talking about exchange opportunities across the logistics enterprise, and among the pilots as well. If you can fly the A you can fly the B; and vice versa; it is an adjustment, not a whole new training process.
“We are looking to have RAF pilots flying USAF jets and vice versa.”
2016-07-11 Earlier this year, during a visit to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland where the new P-8s will be based, we focused on the evolution of Lossie as a 21st century airbase.
RAF Lossiemouth currently is a Typhoon and Tornado base, but with the Tornados to be phased out within the next few years, the Typhoons will be joined by the P-8, which will probably operate as well from Lossie.
This provides the opportunity to integrate the Typhoons with P-8s with the F-35s, which will operate off shore from the new carriers or, in other words, shaping a kill web to protect the homeland and to anchor the defense of the Northern NATO countries.
In effect, Lossie will train to support the formation and evolution of a 21st century combat force in which a multi-mission combat fleet of Typhoons will work with the maritime-focused but land-based capable maritime combat system which is the P-8….and which, in turn, will work with the multi-tasking flying combat system which is the F-35.
Now the UK UK Ministry of Defence has formally committed to deployment at RAF Lossiemouth.
According to a press release on July 11, 2016:
The Ministry of Defence has confirmed the deal to purchase nine P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) for the Royal Air Force (RAF). The new aircraft, which will be based at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, will play a vital role in protecting the UK’s nuclear deterrent and the UK’s two new aircraft carriers. They will also be able to locate and track hostile submarines, and will enhance the UK’s maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) capability. This capability will also bring economic benefits to Scotland and the wider UK, with an additional 400 personnel based at RAF Lossiemouth.
87652random1.05.0
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said:
Our new MPA aircraft will provide significant protection of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and our £6 billion aircraft carriers.
They are part of our plan for stronger and better defence, backed by a budget that will rise each year of this decade. That means more ships, more aircraft, more troops available at readiness, better equipment for special forces, more being spent on cyber – to deal with the increased threats to our country.
The P-8A MPA, manufactured by Boeing, are being purchased from the US Government via a Foreign Military Sale. The cost of developing and delivering the UK’s MPA capability, including paying for the people, their training, the infrastructure and necessary support at RAF Lossiemouth will be around £3 billion over the next decade. By tapping into the well-established US production line, the UK will get a tested and proven piece of equipment in the right timeline. In addition, the RAF will benefit from collaboration with some of the UK’s key allies, including the US Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force.
The P-8A can operate at long range from its operating base without refuelling and has the endurance to carry out high and low-level airborne maritime and overland surveillance for extended periods. This cutting-edge aircraft will also be able to conduct wide-area search of open ocean to locate small boats and drop rescue life-rafts and equipment to vessels and people in distress.
Tony Douglas, Chief Executive Officer of the MOD’s Defence Equipment and Support organisation, said:
Already in service with other nations, the P-8A aircraft was the best solution to fill our Maritime Patrol Aircraft capability gap; it is tried, tested and can be delivered in the timeline we need. The fact that we have been able to commit the main investment decision on this key procurement less than nine months after the Government announced its intention to buy these aircraft is a great testament to the agility, professionalism, and drive of DE&S, working closely with colleagues across MOD and the US Navy.
The P-8A is based on the Boeing 737, which is already supplied by UK industry, supporting several hundred direct UK jobs. What is more, UK manufacturers also already provide specialist sub-systems for the P-8 itself. Companies include Marshall for the auxiliary fuel tanks, Martin Baker for the crew seats and General Electric for weapon pylons. The new order of P-8As is also set to create opportunities for the UK to bid for training and support contracts.
The announcement of this deal also marks the point at which responsibility for leadership of the MPA Programme transfers from Joint Forces Command to the RAF. With the first aircraft due to arrive in the UK in 2019/2020, the RAF has been committed to maintaining the skills needed to operate these MPAs through the ‘seed-corn’ programme, which has embedded former RAF MPA operators within the MPA squadrons of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA.
Air Vice-Marshal Gerry Mayhew, who is responsible for the RAF’s fast jets and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance assets, said:
The seed-corn initiative has been vital in ensuring that our future MPA aircrew are prepared to regenerate the UK’s MPA capability. By retaining those essential skills, our aircrew are already on the front foot when it comes to operating these new aircraft.
Earlier, the UK Minister of Defence visited Jax Navy and saw the P-8 first hand.
According to an article published on May 18, 2016 by Jax Air News, the visit was discussed.
The Right Honourable Michael Fallon, MP, the British Secretary of Defense, visited NAS Jacksonville May 9 where he met with Royal Air Force (RAF) “Project Seedcorn” personnel who have been embedded within the VP-30 maritime patrol training program since 2012. He also announced the RAF’s intent to sign its initial order for nine Boeing P-8A aircraft this summer. They expect to accept their first P-8A in mid-2019.
RAF Squadron Leader Mark Faulds said the purpose of the visit was for Fallon to experience the Boeing P-8A Poseidon first hand, inside and out, in order to gain a better understanding of the multi-mission aircraft’s capabilities. VP-16 provided the P-8A static display.
The secretary was also briefed at the P-8A Integrated Training Center by VP-30 Commanding Officer Capt. Dave Whitehead, and Commander, Patroland Reconnaissance Wing 11 Capt. Anthony Corapi.
Faulds explained that Project Seedcorn consists of 11 RAF personnel (two pilots, four TACCOs and five EWOs) who have trained on U.S. Navy P-8A aircraft embedded with Fleet Replacement Squadron VP-30 personnel since 2012.
The program enables British servicemen to maintain skills that would otherwise have been lost due to the cancellation of the outdated British Nimrod program in 2010.
Project Seedcorn also counts nine personnel embedded with squadron VX-1 at NAS Patuxent River, Md. By 2013, all Seedcorn personnel were certified P-8A instructors.
The defense secretary said, “This new fleet of nine maritime patrol aircraft will help to protect our nuclear submarines and surface ships. We can make this investment because we are increasing defense spending every year of this decade. That enables us to meet the NATO two percent commitment and keep Britain safe.”
During my visit to RAF Lossiemouth in late April 2016, I had a chance to meet with the Officer Commanding and members of the Tornado Operational Conversion Unit, XV(R) Squadron.
When one looks at the end of an era, in this case the sun setting on the Tornado in the RAF, one can look backwards or forwards.
Looking backwards, there is the legacy and history of the squadrons and of a core-fighting platform in the history of the RAF.
Here the plane and the crews have a distinguished record in all of the RAF operations since the plane became operational in the early 1980s.
The Tornado GR1 and subsequently the GR4 has been deployed successfully in operations since 1990 and has seen action in various operations in Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Operation ELLAMY over the skies of Libya in support of the UN Security Resolution 1970 and is currently in operations in the conflict against D’aesh.
Still one of the very few aircraft in the world that is able to operate at low level, day or night and in poor weather, the Tornado is now equipped with a modern precision-guided weapons suite and world-class reconnaissance sensors such as the Reconnaissance Airborne Pod for Tornado (RAPTOR).
The aircraft also carries the Litening III Advanced Targeting Pod, which is used in both attack and reconnaissance roles.
Looking forward is really about the fusion of technology with crew competencies carrying forward to the Typhoon and F-35 fleets of the decade ahead.
The GR4 is a two-seat, all-weather, day/night attack and reconnaissance aircraft, and its pilots and weapons systems officers have pioneered a unique contribution of the RAF in terms of introducing Brimstone and Storm Shadow to the fight and evolving those systems over time into the newly emergent Spear 3.
A walk around the hanger with some of the members of the Squadron highlighted their accomplishments. The planes have been pushed hard beyond any realistic expectation of their service life. Yet upgrades have kept the plane relevant to evolving combat needs, but the age of the aircraft and its complexity has been a maintenance challenge.
As one member of the Squadron noted, “We sent 10 Typhoons and 10 Tornados to the Libyan operation.
We had to swap out 18 engines during our time operating the Tornado, but only one Typhoon engine, and that was simply for precautionary measures, but turned out that it did not need to have been replaced.”
The complexity of the aircraft is a significant challenge for maintainability.
It is the very opposite of the digital aircraft, and they noted that the Typhoon maintainers live really in a different world from the wrench turners of the Tornado era!
But the crews have been able to maintain an effective ops tempo for Tornado, which attests to their skills and to the effectiveness of the sustainment approach which the RAF has with industry. Tornado is maintained through the ATTAC contract with BAE Systems.
We provide the Royal Air Force with a guarantee that their Tornado aircraft’s availability, capability and effectiveness will be maintained throughout its service life. This enables the RAF to perform their duties. We have a commitment to supporting and maintaining the fleet; with a responsibility of ensuring that enough aircraft are available for the squadrons to fly, making them easily deployable on operations.
According to David Ward, head of UK Fleet Operations, Tornado:
“We have a 250 strong team that works alongside the customer in order to deliver this service mainly from RAF Marham in Norfolk. To cut out any delays in the decision-making process there are communications links to the supply chain and project management teams at our Warton and Samlesbury sites also.
It is incredibly important that we perform for the RAF for the security of the nation, but it’s also important from a business point of view because around the world we have to deliver on our commitments here in the UK.
The benefits of the contract are as follows:
Guaranteed availability of the aircraft – UK Tornado fleet is able to rapidly deploy on operations. Recent deployments include Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Capability upgrades and maintenance – capability upgrades are scheduled around servicing to cut down on lost time and increase aircraft availability.
Prompt joint decisions – through working side-by-side with the customer and using camera links to team members at other locations.
The contract delivers significant savings by combining the skills and expertise of our employees and the RAF. RAF officers and BAE Systems personnel stand shoulder to shoulder each day to enable the Tornado fleet at RAF Marham to complete successful operations. It’s a partnership that has been so successful it has led to similar contracts most notably on the RAF Typhoon and Hawk fleets.
In a discussion with Wing Commander Paul Froome OC XV(R) Squadron we discussed the way ahead.
The Wing Commander has been operating Tornados since the late 1990s and has worked with the aircraft and the squadrons in virtually every capacity and in multiple operations.
He noted that with the decision by the government to stand down the Tornado by 2019, they had the twin challenge of maintaining the operational readiness of an aircraft still in high demand for operations while preparing to stand down the aircraft and its crews.
“The SDSR15 just confirmed that the Tornado will go out of service in March 2019. You work back from that date.
Once your kids are at what we call secondary education, high school, then you don’t need a kindergarten.
86805random1.05.0
The kindergarten is going to close, the force will then be set for its last few years.
But the Squadron’s output over the next year is critical to that force being capable to reach 2019. If I don’t get all of my students out — the basic students who’ve never flown the Tornado before, or those who have been away and come back to refresh on the Tornado- then we quite simply won’t have enough people to operate the aircraft, which remains a high demand combat asset.”
We discussed Brimstone and its evolution into Dual Mode Seeker Brimstone and the key role of the Tornado fleet in operating the weapon and shaping its concepts of operations.
The Brimstone program has delivered a unique and very effective close proximity weapon which is the weapon of choice by ground commanders in the kind of operations characterized by operating forces against combatants mixed with civilians. Although it started out to replace cluster bombs and to destroy tanks, it has become a very effective anti-personnel, anti-boat, and anti-vehicle weapon.
The crews evolved the tactics of the missile and its evolution and working closely with the weapon’s designers, MBDA, shaped further capabilities with the weapon as it evolved as well.
The basic approach is for the weapon systems officer to laser designate the key moving target, and then the weapon using its on-board radar to refine the aim point with significant precision on the desired target.
And this is a uniquely UK experience.
“With Paveway IV for example we can talk to other national users.
With Brimstone we can talk to our industry and ourselves.
It was so successful in Afghanistan and was the weapon of choice for a ground commander.
He knew that is was so low collateral damage, very accurate and very, very quick.”
The weapon has been used in trials against fast attack craft with Royal Navy assets as well.
It can provide for a capability to destroy fast attack boats coming against the Navy and obviously a useful weapon in many parts of the world.
The OC discussed as well the importance of the working relationship among the Tornado pilots, weapons systems officers and MBDA in shaping the evolving Brimstone weapons portfolio.
“We had MBDA up recently, and they came up to chat to my weapons instructors course about Brimstone 2, and how it’s developing and they are receiving feedback from operational experiences as well.”
The weapons aboard Tornado are transitioning to Typhoon and to the F-35, but the operational envelope of the Tornado is different and it is a two seat aircraft with a weapons systems officer in the second seat.
Here the CO saw the importance of the enhanced cockpits on the Typhoons and F-35s as crucial to enable the pilots to operate weapons while flying the aircraft.
“It is not just about adding technology; it is about how to operate it from the cockpit.”
One challenge is that the Tornado crews have combined a wide range of operational experience, ground attack, day-night operations, electronic warfare, and reconnaissance and the question is where those skill sets will migrate within the RAF.
With regard to EW, Wing Commander Froome argued that there has been an atrophy of the Wild Weasel like skill sets in favor of what became a more pressing need, namely to combat manpads.
“Earlier, we had two squadrons of Tornados that were effectively Wild Weasel squadrons with our ALARM or air-launched anti-radiation missile, similar to HARM.
As we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, some skill sets began to fade, and this was one of them.
The threats there were MANPADS, so our EW system developed a very capable counter-MANPAD capabilities.”
What will happen to the Electronic Warfare competence as the Tornados are retired?
“Good question.
They can provide support for a number of the new platforms like F-35 and P-8.
The RAF tends to be good at carrying forward core capabilities and sorting out how best to evolve them with new platforms coming in.
I think we’re very good, historically, on recognizing people with those competencies, and their skill-set, and using them in the best place.”
He did issue a caution with regard to the coming of the P-8 and the need to evolve the skill sets.
“The P-8 is clearly not Nimrod.
If we think that we’re going to take an old-fashioned air electronics operator, and use him in the same way on the P8, we’re missing a trick.
We need to be developing the crews now to be maritime warfare operators, not electronic operators, and radar, and wet and dry, we need to be thinking bigger than that.
If we don’t, then you end up making problems for your F-35, your Typhoon, your P8, your Reaper, your Son of Reaper.”
In short, sun setting one platform requires a shift to shape an effective sunrise of the next. It is about the challenge of managing an innovative transition.
For the military, which is often accused of not being innovative, it is clear that at XV Squadron that is not the case.
History of XV Squadron:
Key Dates:
1915 – Formed at Farnborough.
1938 – One of the first squadrons to receive the Fairey Battle.
1955 – Took part in the Suez crisis.
1983 – First RAF Germany squadron to receive the Tornado GR-1.
France and Low Countries 1939-1940, Meuse Bridges*,
Dunkirk, Invasion Ports 1940, Fortress Europe 1941-1944,
Ruhr 1941-1945*,
Berlin 1941-1945*,
Biscay Ports 1941-1945,
France and Germany 1944-1945,
Normandy 1944*,
Gulf 1991*.
(Honors marked with an asterisk, may be emblazoned on the Squadron Standard.)
The History of XV Squadron:
Formed as a training unit at Farnborough on 1 March 1915, No. 15 Squadron crossed to France in December of that year equipped with BE2Cs for corps-reconnaissance duties.
One unusual task the unit undertook was the dropping of ammunition by parachute to troops on the front line during 1918. After the War, the squadron succumbed to the inevitable disbandment.
The Squadron reformed at Martlesham Heath in March 1924, but it was little more than in name, as their aircraft were part of the A&AEE trial fleet.
This arrangement continued until 1934 when the squadron was reformed at Abingdon with Hawker Harts. It was shortly after this, that on the insistence of its Commanding Officer, Squadron Leader TW Elmhirst DFC, that the Squadron became known as XV Squadron.
During 1938, the Squadron was one of the first to receive Battles, and it was with these that XV Squadron flew to France in September 1939. In early 1940, the Squadron returned to the UK and re-equipped with Blenheims flown in the ground attack role. By the turn of the year, these had been traded in for Wellingtons, and shortly after that XV Squadron became one of the first Stirling heavy-bomber units.
One famous aircraft flown by XV Squadron was named ‘MacRobert’s Reply’, an aircraft donated by Lady MacRobert in memory of her three sons killed in RAF service. Lancasters arrived during 1943, and the Squadron remained part of No. 1 Group’s main force for the remainder of the war.
Other heavy bombers were flown in the shape of Lincolns and Washingtons, but in 1953, XV Squadron moved into the jet age with Canberras. During the Suez crisis, the Squadron dropped more bombs than any other Canberra unit, but was disbanded in 1957. In September 1958, the Squadron reformed at Cottesmore as the second Victor squadron, but six years later was again disbanded.
On 01 October 1970, the Sqn was reformed at Honington, before moving to Laarbruch in January 1971. After the Gulf War, three Tornado Squadrons at Laarbruch were disbanded, XV Squadron being one of these, at the end of 1991. On 1 April 1992, the XV (Reserve) number plate was given to the Tornado Weapons Conversion Unit at Honington. XV(R) Squadron remained at Honington training Tornado aircrew until November 1993, when it moved to Lossiemouth, its present home.
XV Squadron has approximately 175 permanent personnel, and up to 20 aircrew students at any one time. 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;; 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 SHADER.
XV Squadron teaches ab-initio aircrew straight from their advanced flying training at RAF Valley, as well as conducting Refresher Courses for experienced operators returning back to the Tornado GR4 following other tours of duty; additionally, XV Squadron 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.
For recent updates on Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Spear, see the following:
According to the UK MoD, in an update on air strikes against Daesh:
26 June 2016 Intelligence had determined that Daesh were using a large concrete bunker in western Iraq as a weapons facility.
Due to the massive construction, built during the Saddam era, it was decided to use four Stormshadow missiles against it, as the weapon has particularly good capabilities against such a challenging target.
The missiles were launched by two Tornados, all four Stormshadows scored direct hits and penetrated deep within the bunker.
MBDA, May 5, 2016 with regard to Brimstone enhancements:
The Brimstone air-to-surface missile developed by MBDA has successfully undertaken challenging operational evaluation trials by the Royal Air Force (RAF) that confirm the performance of the missile’s latest technical enhancements.
This was achieved during February 2016 at China Lake in the USA as the culmination of a programme to advance the operational edge this highly capable missile brings.
Brimstone has a record of approximately 500 missile firings with a very high success rate since its entry into service.
The operational evaluation trials involved 11 missile firings, including at the edge of the weapon system’s performance envelope.
The trials were conducted against a variety of operational scenarios with precise hits on very small, fast moving vehicles and against complex static targets.
The trials included single and salvo firings, whilst laser, millimetric radar and dual mode guided modes were used, as was ground-based, third party laser designation.
Brimstone Hitting Target During China Lake Test, February 2016.
The trials demonstrated the missile engagement envelope is significantly increased over the in-service missile, providing a 100% increase in stand-off range (based on MBDA modelling and release ranges of the in-service missile), and a significantly increased ability to engage targets at high off-bore sight angles.
This improves the ability to fire from a launch platform performing a close air support (CAS) flying pattern (‘wheel’) over the battlefield, without the need to manoeuvre the platform to align with the target.
The firings also successfully demonstrated the new Insensitive Munition (IM) warhead, against armoured and non-armoured targets whilst bringing additional deployment benefits.
The RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon will benefit first from this enhanced capability, with an integration programme underway for 2018. Separate activities are being conducted for Brimstone’s potential use on the UK’s Future Attack Helicopter and Protector remotely-piloted aircraft system (RPAS).
According to MBDA, Spear 3 is a two-way data link precision strike weapon for use in low collateral damage situations.
The next generation air launched surface attack weapon SPEAR is MBDA’s response to a component of the UK’s Selective Precision Effects At Range (SPEAR) air launched requirement. The weapon will maximise the potential of the UK’s future combat air capability, matching the weapon to the aircraft.
Spear on Eurofighter
Recent conflicts have demonstrated the need for precision strike weapons that can operate night and day in all weather conditions against severe countermeasures and importantly attack moving and manoeuvring targets. Powered by a turbojet engine, SPEAR has the beyond horizon reach to ensure that the aircraft remains safely away from hostile air defence units.
SPEAR is equipped with the latest generation precision effects warhead, designed to meet the demands of the future combat mission. The weapon will allow the warfighter to reduce the numbers of different weapons within inventory while also extending the operator’s ability to engage mobile, fleeting and re-locatable targets far beyond the horizon.
SPEAR will provide high aircraft survivability with a low collateral damage solution.
Fitted with the latest generation multi sensor seeker designed to operate in all combat conditions, SPEAR will be able to engage a wide range of target types both on land and sea.
Recent weeks have seen clear evidence of Russian perseverance in sustaining its Arctic presence despite the country’s national economic slowdown and other challenges.
This is particularly visible in Russia’s new icebreakers, which in the Arctic are the military equivalent of aircraft carriers in other oceans—the main symbol of national power projection and presence.
The Russian Federation, like the Soviet Union, has long had a fleet of icebreakers of various capabilities and sizes.
In addition to the conventional diesel engines found on all U.S. and other foreign icebreakers, Russia also has nuclear-powered icebreakers that normally can break thicker ice due to their more powerful motors.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of these icebreakers fell out of repair or came under private corporations or were loaned to foreign countries.
But the Russian government has since recovered control of many of these vessels as well as built many new ones for military and civilian use.
On June 10, 2016, the JSC Admiralty Shipyards in St. Petersburg floated Russia’s first icebreaker in four decades.
The diesel-electric ice-breaker Ilya Muromets, the first vessel of this class for the Russian Navy in 45 years. (Credit Anatoly Medved/TASS)
The Project 21180 Ilya Muromets, commissioned by the Russian Navy, is a diesel-electric powered, 280-foot, 6,000-ton icebreaker that is designed, to have the capacity for a two-month voyage of some 12,000 nautical miles, with a cruising speed of 15 knots, and able to smash ice of almost one-meter thickness.[1]
In addition to breaking ice for other vessels, the Ilya Muromets, which will join the Northern Fleet in 2017, can tug ships and convey cargo to isolated Russian military facilities.
The Russian Navy will acquire at least three more Project 21180 icebreakers in the future.[2]
The Northern Fleet has high-level responsibility for Arctic security and comprises some two-thirds of Russia’s naval vessels.[3]
The Northern Fleet needs icebreakers to sail on patrols in the Arctic outside the summer months.[4]
In addition to the three more military icebreakers, the Northern Fleet will acquire two cruise-missile corvettes with icebreaking capabilities, to open paths for themselves and other Russian ships, by 2020.[5]
Rosatom has proposed rebuilding a decommissioned nuclear-powered icebreaker, the Sovetskiy Soyuz, as a floating Arctic command headquarters with an operational life of over two decades.[6]
Russian civilian companies are also building more icebreakers that could have an inherent dual-use capacity to assist Russian military operations in the Arctic.
The Russian-state company Rosmorport is building the world’s most powerful diesel-engine icebreaker.
The first of these LK-25 Type Project 22600 ships, the Viktor Chernomyrdin, will be able to conduct two-month long voyages through approximately 6.5-feet thick ice.[7]
Russian energy corporations such as Novatek and Gazprom Neft are also acquiring icebreakers to support their Arctic operations to include transporting oil and gas as well as towing or rescuing distressed ships.[8]
Until now, there has been a division of labor among the shipyards around St. Petersburg that build Russia’s icebreakers.
The Admiralty Yard and Vyborg Yard make Russia’s diesel-powered icebreakers, while the Baltiisky Yard build the nuclear-powered vessels.
The Arctech Yard in Finland, which is Russian-owned, also makes some icebreakers for Russian clients as well as other customers.[9]
The new Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker Arktika launches in St. Petersburg, Russia. Russia has been modernizing its icebreaker fleet as part of its efforts to strengthen its Arctic presence, Evgeny Uvarov/AP
Russia’s is the only country with nuclear-powered icebreakers.[10]
It is now building its largest nuclear icebreaker in history, the Type LK-60 Project 22220 Arktika, at a cost of some $1.2 billion.
With 80,000 hp (60 megawatts), the ship can break ice up to 10-feet thick powered by two 175MW RITM-200 compact nuclear reactors that weigh half as much as the power reactors presently used by Russia’s nuclear-powered icebreakers.[11] The Arktika floated in June 2016, a year ahead of schedule.[12]
According to the official timetable, the ship will be commissioned in December 2019.[13]
The new Arktika will replace a previous nuclear-powered icebreaker Arktika that retired in 2008, which was half the size of the new ship.[14]
There are two more Project 22220 nuclear-powered icebreakers planned, the Ural and the Sibir.[15]
These new vessels may not have much of a near-term impact on Arctic dynamics since Russia already has more than 40 icebreakers, considerably more than the rest of the world combined.
At least another dozen icebreakers are on order.[16]
Some two thirds of these vessels are capable of operating in the high seas of the ocean, while the rest are designed for primarily coastal missions.[17]
Russia sees its icebreaker fleet as an important enabling capacity for infrastructure development in the region, for enhancing use of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) from East Asia to Europe, and for securing Russian access to the Arctic’s sizable energy and mineral resources.
The increasing activity level was symbolically represented by the December 2015 voyage of the Russian icebreaker Vaygach, which not only traversed the Northern Sea Route in the record time of 7.5 days, but did so in the second half of December, weeks after the traditional shipping season ends in mid-November—affirming Russian hopes to keep the NSR operational year-round.[18]
[1] “Russian Navy’s brand new icebreaker Ilya Muromets floats off,” RT, June 10, 2016, http://on.rt.com/7f3k; and Agence France-Presse, “Russia Unveils New Navy Icebreaker in Arctic Military Focus”, June 11, 2016, Defense News, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2016/06/11/russia-unveils-new-navy-icebreaker-arctic-military-focus/85747556/.
[2] “Russian Navy gets new icebreaker,” Russia Beyond the Headlines, June 10, 2016, http://rbth.com/defence/2016/06/10/russian-navy-gets-new-icebreaker_602031.
[4] Matthew Bodner, “Russia’s Polar Pivot,” Defense News, March 11, 2015, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/03/11/russia-arctic-bases-soviet-northern-command-navy-fleet-siberian-island/24335619/
[5] Agence France-Presse, “Russia Unveils New Navy Icebreaker in Arctic Military Focus,” Defense News, June 11, 2016, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2016/06/11/russia-unveils-new-navy-icebreaker-arctic-military-focus/85747556/.
[6] Sputnik, June 28, 2016, http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160128/1033824140/russia-arctic-rosatom-hq.html
[7] Atle Staalesen, “These are Russia’s new icebreakers,” The Independent Barents Observer, December 1, 2015, http://thebarentsobserver.com/2015/12/these-are-russias-new-icebreakers
[8] Atle Staalesen, “These are Russia’s new icebreakers,” The Independent Barents Observer, December 1, 2015, http://thebarentsobserver.com/2015/12/these-are-russias-new-icebreakers
[9] Atle Staalesen, “These are Russia’s new icebreakers,” The Independent Barents Observer, December 1, 2015, http://thebarentsobserver.com/2015/12/these-are-russias-new-icebreakers
[10] Camila Domonoske, “Russia Launches World’s Biggest, Most Powerful Icebreaker,” June 16, 2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/16/482288188/russia-launches-worlds-biggest-most-powerful-icebreaker
[12] Aiswarya Lakshmi, marinelink.com/news/arktika-largest-russia411416.aspx Russia Aims it Big With Arktika, World’s Largest Icebreaker Ship By June 19, 2016
[13] Rosatom has completed a power unit for the world’s largest nuclear icebreaker Arktika,” http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160627/1042026545/russia-nuclear-icebreaker-reactor.html
Sputnik, June 27, 2016
[14] David Hambling, Russia Built a Big, Bad Nuclear-Powered Icebreaker to Win the Arctic,” Russian Maritime Register of Shipping,” June 23, 2016, http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a21484/russia-nuclear-powered-icebreaker/.
[16] Norton A. Schwartz & James G. Stavridis, “A Quick Fix for the U.S. ‘Icebreaker Gap’”, February 3, 2016, The Wall Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-quick-fix-for-the-u-s-icebreaker-gap-1454542242
[17] Franz-Stefan Gady, “Russia and China in the Arctic: Is the US Facing an Icebreaker Gap?” The Diplomat, September 7, 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/russia-and-china-in-the-arctic-is-the-us-facing-an-icebreaker-gap/
