Author: Robbin Laird

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

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
05/12/2016

2016-04-30 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did that process happen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What advantages has this given you in operations?

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

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

It is absolutely amazing.

And teamwork is much better.

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

Question: Could you talk about your operational experiences?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you describe that capability?

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

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

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

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

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

Question: You are reshaping the tanker culture?

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

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

It is a mixed crew in terms of background.

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

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

Answer: We are the tanker of choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what the Aussies are doing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You get that from listening to the chat.

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

He then flew to the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a PDF version of this article, download here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
05/11/2016

2016-05-11 By Robbin Laird

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would you characterize the Russian dynamic? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Admiral added:

One has to think through our deterrence strategy as well. 

What deters the current leader of North Korea? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putin made the nuclear connection himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Remember President Eisenhower, anyone?)

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

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

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

As Dr. James Conca wrote:

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

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

This same question never seems to go away. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a chance to comment on the article:

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

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

Blacjacks

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

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
05/09/2016

2016-05-06 By Robbin Laird

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multi-Mission Everything

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Osprey Multi-Mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fischer concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Kenji Thuloweit 412th Test Wing Public Affairs

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

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

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

The Osprey dropped by for a quick but important test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2016-05-09 By Richard Weitz

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

This year’s focus was international terrorism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North American Defense and the Evolving Strategic Environment: Admiral Gortney Focuses on the Need to Defend North America at the Ten and Two O’clock Positions

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
05/08/2016

2016-04-22 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been a dramatic shift in only three years.

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

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

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

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

How would you describe your command?

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

In contrast, NORAD is pretty clear-cut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gortney_03-12-15_posture statement

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

How would you characterize the Russian dynamic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: How important is Canada to this effort?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a notional rendering of the 10 and 2 O'Clock challenge. It is credited to Second Line of Defense and not in any way an official rendering by any agency of the US government. It is meant for illustration purposes only.
This is a notional rendering of the 10 and 2 O’Clock challenge. It is credited to Second Line of Defense and not in any way an official rendering by any agency of the US government. It is meant for illustration purposes only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They’ll definitely come at us through cyber.

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

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

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

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

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

How do you view this challenge?

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

We are prepared to shoot in our defense.

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

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

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

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

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

Adm. Bill Gortney, seen here at his Senate confirmation hearing in July, 2014, says he believes North Korea has an operational road-mobile missile that could carry nuclear weapons to the U.S. JOE GROMELSKI/STARS AND STRIPES
Adm. Bill Gortney, seen here at his Senate confirmation hearing in July, 2014, says he believes North Korea has an operational road-mobile missile that could carry nuclear weapons to the U.S.

JOE GROMELSKI/STARS AND STRIPES

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

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

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

What deters the current leader of North Korea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How has that experience shaped your command approach?

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

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

And they innovate.

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

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

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

How do you view the Arctic area of operations?

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

Russia, Canada, and the Arctic. Credit Graphic: Second Line of Defense
Russia, Canada, and the Arctic. Credit Graphic: Second Line of Defense

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

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

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

Biography for Admiral Bill Gortney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Approaches to Air-Land Integration: A New Special Report

Posted on | by Robbin Laird
05/02/2016

2016-04-19  On March 17, 2016, the Williams Foundation held its latest seminar on fifth generation enabled combat operations, this one focused on new approaches to air-land integration.

The terms of reference for the seminar highlighted the way ahead.

“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.

Williams Report March 2016

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.

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.”

This seminar is the fourth in a series of assessments and discussions of evolving approaches to 21st century combat capabilities under the influence of fifth generation air capabilities.

The Williams Foundation hosted a seminar early in 2014, which focused on air combat operations through 2025 and identified key impacts, which the new platforms of the RAAF and the coming of the F-35 would enable in transforming the force.

In April 2015, the Williams Foundation co-sponsored a seminar in Denmark to discuss the evolution of airpower.

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Copenhagen-Airpower-Symposium.pdf

And then in August 2015 the Williams Foundation sponsored a seminar where the RAAF could discuss in public its approach and involved a large number of officers debating the way ahead.

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Plan-Jericho-Report-October-2015.pdf

The latest 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.

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 Tiger Attack Helicopter as seen in the Jericho Dawn Exercise. One of the tasks in the exercise was to find ways to integrate the Tiger into the Joint Force. Credit Photo: Australian Defence Force
The Tiger Attack Helicopter as seen in the Jericho Dawn Exercise. One of the tasks in the exercise was to find ways to integrate the Tiger into the Joint Force. Credit Photo: Australian Defence Force

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.

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.

A Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) E-7A Wedgetail carries out the first operational air-to-air refuellilng from a RAAF KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft on operations above Iraq. *** Local Caption *** The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) marked a key milestone on 23 October with the first combat refuelling by a RAAF KC-30 Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft using its new-technology computerised refuelling boom. The flying boom system allows for faster transfer of fuel than the hose-and-drogue system and will allow the RAAF to refuel boom-refuelling equipped aircraft such as the C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft, the E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft and the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter. The KC-30 and E-7A operating in Iraq are serving with the Air Task Group (ATG), the RAAF’s air combat group operating within a US-led international coalition assembled to disrupt and degrade Daesh operations. The ATG comprises six RAAF F/A-18 Hornets, an E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft and a KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft. There are up to 350 personnel deployed, at any one time, to the Middle East Region as part of, or in direct support of the ATG, which is part of Australia’s broader Defence contribution to Iraq, codenamed Operation OKRA, which includes a Special Operations Task Group and a combined Australian – New Zealand training group for the Iraqi Army.
A Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) E-7A Wedgetail carries out the first operational air-to-air refuellilng from a RAAF KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft on operations above Iraq. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence

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.

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.

Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, DSC, AM, 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.
Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, DSC, AM, at the range during Exercise Jericho Dawn at Puckapunyal, Victoria, on 18 March 2016. 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 co-leaders of Plan Jericho Group Captains Jake Campbell and Pete Mitchell 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 included 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.

In this report, the main highlights generated by the seminar and discussion are augmented by a number of interviews conducted during and after the presentations at either the Air Power Conference or the Williams Seminar. As such, the report provides an overview on how the RAAF and the Australian Army are thinking about the transformation of the joint force.

To receive the Special Report, see the following:

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

 

 

 

Japanese Icebreaker Supports Australians in Antarctica

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2016-05-02 We earlier posted some photos of Australians working in Australia to support its mission in Anarctica.

Now according to a report from the Japanese Ministry of Defense, the Japanese have come to help the Aussies when their own icebreaker well “broke down.”

activities_03

Since the Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis grounded on February 24th off the Antarctica, the Government of Australia requested the Chairman of the Headquarters for the Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition (Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology) to assist transportation of Australian expeditioners and others by the Japanese icebreaker Shirase, which were scheduled to navigate in that sea area.

After the review following the request, approx. 70 expeditioners and three helicopters, which were supposed to be transported by the icebreaker Aurora Australis, got aboard the Shirase.

The Shirase transported them from Australia’s Mawson Research Station to the Casey Research Station.

Earlier we reported on the Australian mission as follows:

03/23/2016: A team of maintainers from 723 SQN have lent their support to the RAAF in recovering three AS350 Squirrel helicopters for the Australian Antarctic Division in Antarctica.

Leading Seaman Jodie Khan, Petty Officer Mark Anderson and Leading Seaman Tim Graham were collected from HMAS Albatross in a RAAF C17 Globemaster, flown to Hobart and then on to Wilkins Aerodrome near South Casey Station.

As well as their expertise, the team provided specialised equipment including loading ramps 723 Squadron developed specifically for loading Squirrel helicopters into the C17 Globemaster.

A permanent base in Antarctica is managed by the Australian Antarctic Division.

It lies on the northern side of the Bailey Peninsula overlooking Vincennes Bay on the Budd Coast of Wilkes Land in the Australian Antarctic Territory.

 

 

 

 

 

New Submarine Acquisitions: Australia and Norway

Posted on | by Robbin Laird

2016-05-02 Recently, Australia announced a decision to acquire a new submarine to replace the Collins class.

The submarine is to be based on a French design and involve the stand up of production from the outset in Australia.

The French naval shipbuilder DCNS will be a key player in the new design and build process with an American combat system to be integrated onto the new boat.

We will report more on this development in coming days.

But one should also note that the German-French competition seen in Australia is also occurring closer to home.

According to the Norwegian Ministry of Defence in April 7, 2016 press release:

Based on economic, industrial and military assessments, the Norwegian Ministry of Defence has concluded that the French company Direction des Constructions Navales Services (DCNS) and the German company ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) are the strongest candidates if Norway decides to procure new submarines. The Ministry of Defence has decided to focus our future efforts towards these two companies and their respective national authorities.

– France and Germany are amongst the largest nations in Europe. A submarine cooperation with one of these nations will secure that Norway acquires the submarines we need, whilst contributing to Smart Defence and a more effective cooperation on defence materiel in NATO, says the Minister of Defence Ine Eriksen Søreide.

DCNS and TKMS are the largest manufacturers of submarines in Western Europe. They have extensive experience in building advanced submarines and a large industrial capacity. The submarine designs offered by these two companies will be a good starting point for Norway’s future submarines.

– Norway’s approach is to base an potential acquisition on an existing submarine design. We want to avoid a large development project with the risk, uncertainty and cost such a project entails. Our criteria is therefore that Norway’s future submarines shall be built by a shipyard that has a long and continuous experience in building submarines, says the Minister of Defence.

The Norwegian Government decided in 2014 to investigate options for new submarines. This process is near its conclusion, and a recommendation is planned to be presented to the Norwegian Government during 2016. Pending governmental decision, a formal procurement program will be presented to the Norwegian Parliament for approval.

– It is important to emphasise that we are still in the planning phase, and we have yet to make a decision to go ahead with a procurement program, nor have we made a decision regarding a final supplier. Significant work remains before a procurement program can be presented to the Norwegian Parliament, says the Minister of Defence.

The Ministry of Defence has for several years worked to achieve cooperation with other nations with the aim of reducing the acquisition costs and in-service costs for future submarines.

In parallel with work towards the shipyards, the process of seeking cooperation with non-submarine building nations planning a submarine acquisition will continue, primarily towards the Netherlands and Poland.

Cooperation is very important to secure a robust capability and enable burden sharing on in- service support and future upgrades.

Several factors must be in place for such a cooperation to succeed.

This includes having a common set of requirements and synchronised timelines for acquisition.

The cooperating nations will also have to seek common solutions in the areas of logistics and in-service support.    

Norway’s six Ula-class submarines were commissioned between 1989-1992. The submarines were designed to last for 30 years, and will reach the end of their life in the mid-2020s.

The current plans are to operate the Ula-class until the mid-2020s. A procurement program for new submarines is expected to take more than ten years with first delivery approximately seven years after signing a contract, with subsequent delivery of one submarine per year.

Norwegian industry is world leading in key technology areas for submarines, and the Norwegian Government will seek to utilize the planned submarine procurement to help strengthen their market access.

Export and international cooperation is necessary to maintain a viable national defence industry, and an investment in submarines will be used actively in talks with international partners to help ensure the continued development of a competent and competitive Norwegian defence industry.

The Norwegian Parliament expects that a potential future procurement will ensure contracts for Norwegian defence industry equal to the procurement cost, and that these contracts will provide access to the home market of the chosen supplier.