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.
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.
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become much wider in character, and the ability to insert force rapidly, as a precision strike capability, and to be withdrawn will be a key tool in the toolbox for decision makers.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
The current Chief of Staff of the Army, Lt. General Angus Campbell and Brigadier General Chris Mills, Director General, Army Modernization provided the Australian Army perspective on the evolving framework for air-land integration under the impact of evolving technologies at the Williams Foundation seminar.
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 reshaping of Army modernization to achieve the force envisaged by the Army Chief of Staff was provided as well by Brigadier General Mills in his presentation. He 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.
I had a chance to follow-up on his presentation to discuss further the approach, which Mills outlined at the seminar, in a meeting at his office on March 21, 2016.
It was clear from Mills presentation that he was thinking beyond the experience of the past decade towards where the technology and new concepts of operations could take the Australian Defense Force.
He emphasized that his background of the past decade was important, but he did not want to be captured by it. We have argued that the approach, which makes sense, is “Harvest the Best and Leave the Rest,” which clearly is his approach.
He highlighted both in the seminar and in the interview the importance of empowering the smaller maneuver group with technology and decision-making capabilities so that the effect, which can be created from joint fires and empowerment, can flow up and down the kill web.
We recently discussed the COIN experience with an experienced US Army officer who highlighted that he was concerned that the US Army was going back to its large stove pipes of separate platforms and specialties.
He argued that the real meaning for US Army officers from the COIN experience was the empowerment of the Forward Operating Base command elements.
“Junior officers were in charge of integrated operations and joint operations in their area of operations.
Now they are being sent back to Pentagon stove pipes.
This makes no sense, and is going the wrong way.
We need to empower the integrative capabilities of the small group, not put obliterate the role of the small group by putting them under the thumb of division headquarters and Pentagon stove pipes.”
This US Army officer went on to note that an Aussie Army officer trained him during his early years in the Army and that the Aussies focus on the battalion level and its importance.
“We need a similar focus in our modernization approach and strategy,” was the view of this US Army officer.
If this officer had been in the room with BG Mills, I am sure he would have found an intellectual soul mate.
During the briefing, Mills included a slide which would not appear in a typical Army briefing, for in this slide, the F-35 and naval fire support were prominently highlighted.
Question: You put up a slide, which highlighted a very comprehensive look at joint fires and support to the ground maneuver forces.
How do you view the way ahead?
BG Mills: We need to move beyond the label of air land integration and look at joint integration or multi-domain integration.
We need to focus on the reality of what it looks like at the small team, combat team level, with regard to multi-domain integration with joint effects from JSF or from the Air Destroyer or from overhead surveillance systems.
I think the reality is that as we move beyond this decade, those type of joint effects need to empower the small team to achieve tactical success as the array of tactical successes transcend into an operational impact.
So a number of what would be seen as operational effects I think in the fullness of time will transcend all the way down to the small team, combat team level.
Hence, when a combat team commander who is about to attack a city block can potentially compartmentalize all the electronic emissions going out from that block to know exactly where the threat is.
Then he can look at a whole range of joint fires both lethal and non-lethal to support them in achieving their objectives.
Brigadier General Mills, Australian Army, addressing the question of Army modernization under the influence of evolving air capabilities.
Question: What you talking about is shaping the right kind of joint force package designed to achieve a particular mission set in a timely manner?
Answer: The overall challenge is to generate more force, more rapidly, and more effectively when called to do so. That is the joint mission; it is not just about the Army.
Question: In some ways, what you are describing is taking the mental furniture of the Special Forces and applying more broadly to the Army?
Answer: That is a fair way to put it. The Special Forces are generally able to channel a whole range of joint effects for their particular tactical tasks.
They might have strategic effects but the reality is we need to take as you said that mental framework and apply that to what we call the joint land force.
All of those services that are collectively working to fight with Army to fight the land battle is referred to within the ADF context as the joint land force. That joint land force is by nature purple.
Although it was predominated by army people the reality is it needs to work as a joint organization and I would like to go back to the point you discussed.
Not only do you have to package this small team, but this small team has to be capable of dynamically repackaging the force on the fly with joint effects. For example, if you now need additional EW, the combat team will able to leverage additional EW from the joint force.
You now need the ability to coordinate direct air land integration fires and you need more F-35 support to deliver that effect.
The reality is that we potentially need to look at as we move beyond this decade of pushing support further down from division level and making it more readily available and more dynamically available to the small group level.
The time responsiveness of an Air Tasking Order that’s 72 hours old is really not going to make it.
I would suggest that time line needs to be radically truncated.
The Chief of Army made the point at the Airpower Conference that in many ways we are still using procedures and approaches that go back to World War II for air-ground operations; this makes no sense in terms of technological advances and operational shifts.
We need to shape a 21st century approach.
It is as a said, not about air-land integration, it is multi-domain integration at the small group operating level.
Question: A key question involves C2 and information parsimony. It is really about empowering the maneuver group with in the words of Air Commander Australia, “right information at the right time.”
Answer: The importance will be on the filter that can potentially gather up all of this data.
What’s the most important time sensitive information I need?
The ability to pull data that’s relevant to the combat situation at the time, and to use rapidly is what we need, not vast collections of data to be examined by historians.
That’s going to be a key for us because we’ve got so many senses now that are currently connected to our C2 systems within the ADF we’re potentially overwhelming ourselves.
We are reaching the maximum capacity of our processing exploitation and dissemination capability.
We need to provide that filter and connect information up to provide intelligence.
Latency is important here. It might be the best bit of intelligence but if it arrives too late it’s worthless.
Question: During your presentation at the Williams Foundation seminar, you showed a small UAV which costs around $12,000 which can be used by the small combat group.
You made the point that it was not just about enabling the small group, but opening up the possibility that the close contact picture might be then available to support the overhead or sea-based strike force.
Could you discuss your thinking here?
Answer: When that information stops becoming just important to that squad leader, platoon commander or company, it can become crucial for divisional commanders as well.
Suddenly the squad leader has identified a hot priority target. I’ve got imagery of a high priority target, hot value target that’s time sensitive from the squad commander.
How long does it take currently to pass that information up to the strike element?
This will only happen if the squad leader can jump the net and move directly to the fire cell within division so that that he can talk directly to the divisional asset and potentially the plane overhead, to coordinate the fires.
I think it’s this issue to work out the decision loop.
You want to connect the key people that need to be involved in a particular joint fire and potentially jump those who need the information but do not need to make a decision.
BG Mills closed by noting that he had nothing but respect for the U.S. military and its performance during his time of service in the Middle East.
“I have had the great privilege to work with some amazing US generals and some amazing US men and women in uniform.
I am in awe over what the US military has achieved in the past two decades supported by the American people.
I have learned a lot working with the United States military.”
Given the perspective of BG Mills, the slide, which we developed to capture the discussions with the RAAF and in the seminar generally, can be applied to the ground maneuver force as well as to considering the evolution of the RAAF itself.
The biography of Brigadier General Chris Mills:
Brigadier Chris Mills was born in Brisbane, Queensland, on 10 June 1969. Following graduation from university Brigadier Mills resigned his commission in the Reserves to enlist in the Regular Army and train at the Royal Military College Duntroon. He graduated from Duntroon to the Royal Australian Armoured Corps in June 1991. Brigadier Mills attended the Australian Command and Staff College in 2004 and attained a Masters of Management. Brigadier Mills has served in a range of regimental, training and staff appointments within Army and has served on a number of Joint and Inter-Agency headquarters.
Post staff college, Brigadier Mills was employed as the Military Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Army and worked within the Directorate of Capability and Development, Future Land Warfare, in Army Headquarters. In 2009-10 Brigadier Mills was privileged to be the commander of 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment (Queensland Mounted Infantry).
Brigadier Mills was promoted to Colonel on 17 January 2011 and assigned the position of Director Military Commitments Army; responsible for overseeing Army’s commitments to operations, domestic tasks and exercises, and managing Army’s preparedness reporting.
In 2013, Brigadier Mills was appointed the J73 in Headquarters Joint Operations Command, responsible for the design, planning and conduct of Joint and Combined Exercises. In 2015, he graduated from the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies and completed a Masters of Business Administration.
He was promoted to his current rank with effect 18 January 2016 and assumed the positions of Director General Modernisation and Director General Land 400.
Brigadier Mills has had operational experience in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
In 1999 he was employed within a British Armoured Infantry Battle Group in Bosnia.
In 2007 he deployed as Deputy Chief Plans within Headquarters International Security Assistance Force Afghanistan (ISAF).
Over the period August 2012 to August 2013 he deployed to Afghanistan as the Headquarters Regional Command South Chief of Future Operations, responsible for Divisional level planning and operationalizing base closure.
His academic achievements include a Bachelor of Science, Masters of Management and a Masters of Business Administration. His leisure interests include military history, rugby, distance running and a variety of other outdoor activities.
During the Airpower Conference hosted by the Chief of Staff of the Royal Australian Air Force, the co-leaders of the Plan Jericho project, Group Captains Andrew “Jake” Campbell and Peter Mitchell, provided an update on the Plan Jericho effort.
And the approach permeated the discussion at the Williams Foundation seminar on new approaches to air-land integration, notably because there has been a significant effort to better align the airlift and support sector with the evolving approach of the Army and its approach to ground maneuver warfare.
But what highlighted in many ways the approach and the way ahead was seen on Friday after the Airpower Conference and the Williams Seminar, namely in a Jericho Dawn exercise which focused on ways to provide better situational awareness for the ground maneuver force.
I had a chance at the end of the Williams Foundation seminar and the following week AFTER the Jericho Dawn exercise to talk with the co-leads about the exercise and its place and significance within the Plan Jericho effort.
The exercise involved changing how the air and ground communicated with one another in the maneuver space. As such, the exercise could seem to be a look at new technologies to connect the force.
But this would miss the real point of the effort, which is the reshaping the concept of operations and the co-evolution of the ground and air forces.
And the reshaping effort requires an ongoing operational training regime to understand what further changes are required to ensure that the air-ground maneuver forces work in an effective manner.
It is about technological enablement, but changing the culture and approach of the forces as they work the new technology into new approaches.
With regard to the Jericho Dawn exercise delivered on March 18, 2016, the Australian Ministry of Defence described the exercise as follows:
The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Australian Army, with support from Northrop Grumman, have successfully conducted a firepower demonstration and a combat team quick attack demonstration at Puckapunyal Military Area in Victoria as part of Exercise Jericho Dawn to display the powerful effects of integrated air and land operations.
The live fire exercise allowed RAAF and Army operators, together with Defence and industry representatives, to observe the combined air and land capabilities in two scenarios.
The operators demonstrated the current capabilities, before trialling new ways to improve air-land integration, including the way that aircraft and vehicles connect and translate information through different communication networks.
Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies AO, CSC, said that the demonstration showcased existing air-land operations technologies and processes, and the operational gains that have already been achieved through better integration of systems and information.
Group Captain Peter Mitchell, co-head of the Jericho project, speaking on the second day of the RAAF Airpower Conference, March 16, 2016.
“Through today’s demonstration we were able to provide a visualisation of the effects of some of the Australian Defence Force’s capabilities,” Air Marshal Davies said.
The lessons identified from the activity will help shape Defence’s future capability decisions and improve existing training activities.
“Demonstrations such as today are an important means of testing and displaying joint effects.
“We are building on the Air Force’s international reputation for being good at what we currently do, and asking important questions about taking Air Force’s contribution to joint operations even further.
“If this kind of training exercise shows us something we can do that would help Air Force, Army and Navy fight better as a team, then that’s what we will pursue.”
The Australian Army’s Head Modernisation and Strategic Planning, Major General Gus McLachlan, AM, said that greater air-land integration is an important step towards the Army and the ADF working in a joint, combined and interoperable environment.
“Our Army is focussed on two key areas to ensure improved air-land integration. The first is to deliver better communication systems to ensure an agile, efficient and timely response to an intelligent, well-armed and motivated adversary,” said Major General McLachlan.
“The second is to advance how we plan and conduct air-land operations to deliver the right effect, at the right place, at the right time.
“The demonstration highlights how we can better harness the strengths of our team by digitally connecting air and land platforms.
“This increased connectivity enhances awareness and communication. It gives a common operating picture, so we are better able to plan and execute joint operations into the future.”
Chief Executive Australia, Ian Irving said Northrop Grumman has unparalleled expertise developing and deploying airborne gateways that ensure resilient communications of disparate networks and enable a fully networked battlespace.
“We’ve applied this key capability for more than a decade in numerous operational programs, exercises and demonstrations and have seen how effective and transformational networking a diverse force of assets can be,” said Mr Irving.
“Northrop Grumman congratulates Air Force and Army on their initiative in undertaking this technology demonstration and we look forward to continuing to support the ADF as it builds interoperability in its current and fifth-generation force.
“As demonstrated during the Jericho Dawn exercise, the ability to share information and situational awareness from various sources across diverse platforms and domains is critically important in facilitating joint and coalition operations.”
Capabilities involved include RAAF’s C-17A, AP-3C, KC-30A, E-7A Wedgetail and FA-18 Hornet aircraft, as well as the Army’s air-land enablers from the 16th Air Land Regiment, Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters from 1st Aviation Regiment, and vehicles and equipment from the Combined Arms Training Centre.
The key to understanding what happened is to focus on the two situations being tested.
The first was using the current methods, which rely on voice communication and a ground controller operating as a human switchboard, which means that this person must work deconfliction of assets, which can not see one another.
The second was to rely on an air based “translator” or “machine switchboard” aboard a gulfstream aircraft where the Tiger system (Eurogrid), could be translated into Link-16 and the various ground-air systems able to see one another in the battlespace.
Although important, this shift actually underscored the crucial choke point which is the C2 system.
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
If the key assets on the battlespace can see one another, and the key units at the point of attack can see how best to attack the adversary, why are they reaching back in the battlespace for a “mother-may-I” general officer?
Even worse, training to absorb data in a fluid battlespace and to react quickly to the right data is a skill set, which one needs when one is not being directed by voice command as well.
“The tactical elements now have better situational awareness, but their command and control network needs to be able to support the decision speed that those linkages now enable.
We now need to make sure that the ground commander can make his decisions in a quicker manner to allow the enhanced situational awareness (SA) to be beneficial.”
They pointed out that in the second phase of the exercise that the exercise director actually had to slow down the exercise because “the call to fires done via the link systems so reduced the time it took to deliver the effect that it was becoming to fast for the VIP observers to be able to see clearly.”
This is probably a good metaphor for what the future holds for the old C2 structure!
But to be clear, the Jericho co-leads emphasized that working through new C2 concepts of operations within the overall transformation of the RAAF was a central lynchpin for change.
“The C2 system itself will need to be as flexible and agile and adaptive as the forces that we put out to deliver the localized tactical effects.
Group Captain Andrew “Jake” Campbell, the Co-Head of the Jericho team, speaking on the second day of the RAAF Airpower conference.
And this is especially true in a contested environment because when the forces lose a particular node, cannot sit around waiting for it return.
They will need to be reactive and adaptive.
We are talking about decentralized C2 as a centerpiece of the evolving force structure.
We need to start focusing on our tactical C2 layer this year and think about how that will interact with our strategic C2 layer.
We’ll be doing a lot of work on this challenge, which is a central one to the way ahead.”
As Group Captain Campbell added:”The C2 system is the potential handbrake in a modern networked force.
Some would argue that C2 has always been the handbrake to ops.
However, in modern warfare, fast and effective C2 will be the difference between winning and losing.”
Editor’s Note: One of the presentations at the Williams Foundation seminar was by Major General (Retired) Goldfein of Northrop Grumman who discussed C2 and the Jericho Dawn exercise which was upcoming the day after his presentation.
2016 is a year of political disorder in many nations.
Long established political parties are suffering fragmentation and leadership disputes.
In some nations new parties are forming and gaining momentum.
In others fringe parties are gaining traction and emerging as mainstream challengers.
Voter frustration and discontent seem to be surfacing in both rich countries and poor.
As a reminder, the list of politically turbulent countries includes several European nations including Ireland, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal and even Germany.
The upcoming UK referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU or exit is not only being closely watched by UK citizens but throughout Europe.
(Present polling indicates public opinion tilting towards exit, opposing Prime Minister Cameron’s preference to retain EU membership).
Will the British votes respond to Europ’e troubles rather than focus on the narrower issue of membership in the European Union?
Political cohesion of other EU members is being tested as regions or sub-cultures seek greater autonomy or even independence.
Catalonia’s current effort to secede from Spain is but one example.
Increasing separation of budgets between Flemings and Walloons in Belgium, and rising separation demands another example.
The growing crisis of refugees from Syria and North Africa is weakening political connections among Continental European governments and their citizenries.
A visible split has emerged between Chancellor Merkel and a wide swath of Germany’s population and its regional governments regarding the degree to which Germany should open its arms to Middle East refugees.
The historic Schengen Agreement providing for open borders among EU members is being ruptured by refugee security and economic risks as ordinary citizens demand restoration of border controls and limits to entry from neighboring EU member countries.
A voter demand for stricter immigration controls has become a key issue in the UK debate over possible exit from the EU.
The continuing Greek crisis is again threatening political relations among Eurozone members and institutional relations between the Eurozone and the IMF. Rifts are again widening over the balance between ECB monetary policy, EU and Eurozone austerity fiscal policies, and financial market regulation.
The French are effectively ignoring EU budget restraints, and Germans are delaying the pace of financial market unification, as anti-Brussels and anti-Euro sentiments grow in both France and Germany.
The credibility of ECB stimulus measures is waning not only within financial markets but among the general Eurozone public.
The criminal behavior of many recent refugees in several Western European nations is also generating physical backlash from residents and collapse of ordinary police functions.
Sweden’s entire system of national and local governance is being stressed to the point that incidents of abdication of authority at the local level are occurring.
Japan’s political leadership is not yet challenged, but elections lie ahead and its fragile economy is generating growing discontent among the citizenry.
Credibility of Abenomics has fallen markedly.
Public confidence in the Bank of Japan, the Government Pension Investment Fund and other retirement mechanisms is crumbling.
Capital flight from China to Japan has benefited the economy but has also helped to strengthen the Yen, which is damaging international competitiveness of the corporate sector.
The corporate outlook has been hurt by a stronger Yen and global economic slowdown, so large Japanese corporations are resisting broad wage increases that are needed to lift domestic consumption after years of income stagnation.
Among the emerging markets the BRIC’s are all in varying stages of political or economic deterioration.
Brazil’s entire government appears to be in chaos or paralysis as growing evidence appears of pervasive corruption at its highest levels.
President Roussef is likely to be impeached, throwing into confusion prospects for alternative political leadership. Prime Minister Modi’s political grip seems to be weakening in India.
Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff reacts during a meeting with leaders of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) at the Planalto Palace in Brasilia November 5, 2014. REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino. She seems to be invoking divine help, but he/she might be able to do so?
Putin’s political national approval level remains strong among the Russian people, but business leaders are restive and increasingly critical of excessive Russian military adventurism and breakdown of business ties with Western Europe.
Growing visibility of Minister of Defense General Shoigu domestically and internationally suggests Putin’s need for greater support of the military in the balance of competing powers in Russia.
Also, Putin recently decided to create a new, consolidated domestic military force and appointed Viktor Zolotov, his former personal security head, to lead it.
The Russian official description of the duties of the new domestic security force is to curtail domestic terrorism and corruption, but concerns are growing that the new force will be used to suppress domestic political critics by a new army directly reporting to Putin in the months ahead prior to the next national elections.
Even the hard solidity of the Chinese centralized Communist Party political power structure has recently been showing cracks.
The frequency of worker demonstrations has accelerated, along with rising job losses or long periods of no pay for work done.
Academics are showing unhappiness with Party-generated limitations on what they can teach, and how. There seems to be quietly rising discontent about China’s new external assertiveness and risky diversion of attention from needed domestic economic action.
The yuan, China’s market, and global confidence in Beijing are all dropping. It’s not an easy time to be the leader of the world’s second-biggest economy. Getty images.
Unease among party members seems to be surfacing.
Questions have bubbled up into public of whether Xi has gone too far in creating a cult of personality and infallibility, allegedly to place himself beyond criticism even from his supporters.
Two recent public challenges to XI appear to have generated extraordinary concerns.
One was appearance on the internet of an open letter urging Xi’s resignation, said to be authored by members of elite leadership circles. This letter generated a disproportionately aggressive response from State security personnel in widespread efforts to identify and hunt down the authors. ()
The other, perhaps more ominous challenge to Xi, or perhaps to Communist Party leadership in general, came in the form of an essay that appeared on the official website of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI).
This is the agency that pursues corruption by public officials and disloyalty to leadership. CCDI’s chief is Wang Qishan, widely known and widely feared throughout China as Xi’s personal enforcer.
This essay, “A Thousand Yes-Men Cannot Equal One Honest Advisor” was also translated into English. It is considered to be an “act of remonstrance”, which is a form of warning to the Party leader from his own supporters.
(In history such an act of remonstrance is considered to place the authors at risk, but serious enough to make thoughtful consideration desirable.)
This essay posted on the CCDI website has since been taken down.
It includes reference to 16 specific policies that may have become controversial among high Party circles. Subjects mentioned include “one country, two systems policy”, foreign policy aggressiveness, cult of personality, and Party control of media. Strangely the essay also includes concerns for safety and wellbeing of Xi and his family. Some foreign experts on China believe this essay may indicate areas of likely policy reconsideration priorities in the not distant future.
With regard to the United States, the turbulence in American politics and apparent rise of populism and nationalism among voters is shocking both the Democratic and the Republican Party leaderships.
Both major parties are experiencing widening divisions of political opinion to an extent not experienced in many decades.
While it is likely Republicans will retain majority control of the House of Representatives in November national elections, there is growing uncertainty about which party will be in control of the Senate. This uncertainty by itself generates uncertainty about taxation, immigration, environment, business and labor regulations and direction of thinking in the nation’s state and federal courts.
Critical questions about the boundaries of Presidential power may have to be decided after elections by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), with one or more vacancies to be appointed by the next President.
Mainstream media continues to oversimplify the current competition within each party for nomination of a candidate for President.
The long, elaborate, complex process of state primaries gets continuous intense news attention.
As is known throughout the world, Donald Trump has taken a lead among Republican Party primaries. Trump’s rise is presented as a rebellion against the “established” political structure nationally and locally.
Trump was able to identify and exploit growing dissatisfaction of ordinary people with continuing weakness of the economy and job opportunities. The majority of the nation’s population has been mired in stagnation and even decline in incomes since the start of the Great Financial Crisis. In essence median incomes have fallen 4% since the start of the Obama Administration.
The public doesn’t focus blame on President Obama, but rather on failure of the entire government under the President and Congress.
In many polls, Congress is more disliked than the President or his Cabinet.
Ideological divisions have widened between the two major parties, but also within each party.
Since the introduction of TV to all Congressional deliberations, including committees and subcommittees, members of Congress have grown accustomed to delivering speeches to their own state and local constituencies, rarely attentive to the speeches and legislative initiatives made by each other.
Bipartisan teamwork which long prevailed in the background in Congressional work has been abandoned in favor of focusing on and resolving internal party divisions.
Political rivalries within parties are now often far more intense than between parties. Bargaining and attempts at consensus building between parties are often viewed as political disloyalty.
Dysfunctionality of Congress has been immeasurably amplified by President Obama’s personal reluctance to interact closely with individual members of the House or Senate. Democrats in Congress are often openly critical of the Democrat President’s unwillingness to address their personal concerns and priorities.
Thus, both the Presidency and the composition of Congress in 2017 remain unknowns.
Therefore the outlook for domestic economic policies, debt management, climate change, healthcare, trade, defense, and foreign policy are all in question, leaving large uncertainties for world politics and the world economy in the next few years.
It must also be kept in mind that transitions from one Presidency to another have been notoriously slow in recent decades.
Although the changeover from the past President to the next takes place all at once, the elaborate process of appointing and securing Senate approval of new cabinet and sub-cabinet officials takes several months.
Once a new Cabinet and sub-cabinet team are in place a power struggle inevitably takes place among them, and between them and White House staff who are subject to personal decisions of the President.
Some Presidents delegate a wide span of autonomy and authority to cabinet leaders and their departments. Other Presidents delegate little authority, and let White House staff micromanage daily decisions whenever that is deemed desirable.
The nation and the world have become accustomed to President Obama’s preference for detailed control of the Executive Branch, delegating little authority to his senior public officials in such complex areas as national security and foreign policy.
A future President may manage quite differently.
Whatever the new system ultimately looks like, there will likely be a lengthy period of trial and error in policies and in the respective roles of Cabinet members and agency heads.
Thus, the rest of the world may find continuing uncertainty in the direction of American policy throughout much of the first year of a new President.
At a time of worldwide political and security challenges, and possible continuation of global economic slowdown, the global turbulence we have recently experienced may continue well into and even beyond the next year.
Last August, I had to chance to visit the SRG and discuss its mission, platforms and evolution with Air Commodore Westwood, and members of his team.
Air Commodore Westwood characterized SRG as a “pre-Jericho” force in the sense that the various ISR and C2 assets within the SRG were focused on collaborative ISR and C2 to provide both protection for Australia and to enable the expeditionary force to operate more effectively.
But the force was evolving with new platforms entering the force and with the evolution of the RAAF and Australian Defense Force overall in terms of shaping a more integrated force able to operate in the extended operational or battle space.
The torch has been handed to the new Commander of the SRG, Air Commodore Craig Heap.
I had a chance to discuss his thinking about the way ahead for the Royal Australian Air Force’s SRG, including the coming into the force of the P-8 and Triton and their impact and roles within that further evolution of the SRG.
Air Commodore Heap became the Commander of the SRG as of December 2015.
He has a long history in working Maritime ISR and Response operations in a variety of operational settings, including an appointment as the Joint Task Force 633 Air Component Commander in the Middle East in 2010, and command of the multi-national Air Task Group during the search for the missing Malaysian airliner, MH370.
In our discussion, he argued that the aperture needed to be opened on what SRG is doing, including evolving the SRG contribution to ADF and coalition partners.
“When we talk traditionally about the SRG mission, we talk about surveillance, battle space management and maritime warfighting.
That is now too limited given the potential of the capabilities we have, and are acquiring.
We need to broaden the mission into wider intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, battlespace control and strike roles, across multiple domains, which is where we are evolving along with the parallel evolution of the RAAF and the ADF.
The mission statement needs to focus not only on classical air battlespace management, but control of the battlespace.”
This comment fits in well with several of the other interviewees I have had with the Australian forces which really are concerned with how the ground, air and maritime components can co-evolve and shape a 21st century concepts of operations.
The graph below captures the sense of how the ISR, strike and C2 elements are being recast as the RAAF pursues Plan Jericho.
This affects very much as well how the RAAF thinks about any new platforms it adds to the force as well.
As the COS of the RAAF Air Marshal Leo Davies put it:
“It is like a jig saw puzzle.
You have these really nice pieces to the puzzle sitting in the container, but until you begin to look at the picture your trying to create through the overall puzzle, you do not know which bit goes where…..
How would you operate the air warfare destroyer differently as you add a Wedgetail, a P-8, a Triton or an F-35 to its operational environment?
And conversely, how could the changes in how the destroyer would operate as you evolve systems on it, affect how you operate or modernize the other pieces of the evolving puzzle?”
It is in this manner which Air Commodore Heap discussed the P-8 and Triton coming to the force, rather than seeing them as simply a replacement for the P-3.
Obviously, the P-8 can be considered a replacement in terms of the core mission performed by the P-3, but with the evolving approach towards “integratability,” to use Air Marshal Davies’ term, Heap is focused on how the new platforms can drive further change in how the entire SRG operates and shapes the further evolution of the RAAF, and beyond that to the entire ADF.
In the 2012 video below, Heap explained, after a flight onboard a P-8 being tested in Australia in doing ASW prosecutions, how he saw the platform and its evolving role.
Air Commodore Heap sees the platform as evolving in the integrated battlespace and underscored that how Australia was acquiring the platform was central to how it could co-evolve with other key assets.
“With FMS, you are buying a car off of the showroom floor.
We did not do that here; we are partners in the program, which allows us to become de facto shareholders in the program itself.
We are a cooperative development partner.
This puts the RAAF at the ongoing development table for the life of the program, to enable us to influence the capabilities of the platform as it evolves, ensuring that we can get an evolved platform that meets our needs.
For example, we needed the aircraft to perform a search and rescue function, something the USN did not have as a core role; they rely on the USCG.
But we needed a specialist payload to do this, and courtesy of the cooperative program, the USN has agreed to have an interim capability, followed by a fully developed deployable SAR payload built into the program as a priority. The USN as a our partner is also interested in using the kit on occasions when long distance maritime search is required.
The USN and your embedded RAAF instructors are currently flying Increment 1 but will Increment 2 will be the version that we will get with the first aircraft. We will initially get a mix of Increment 1 and 2 aircraft, but will be spirally upgraded to an all increment 2, then 3 fleet in lockstep with the USN.
We are deeply involved with the USN as well in designing and working Increment 3.
It is important to understand that what we are talking about is the actual evolution of the platform, and wider weapon system over time, which from our point of view needs to work with Wedgetail, F-35, Growler, Triton, the Air Warfare Destoyer, Special Forces and other core warfighting assets in the battlespace.”
He then went on to make a key point that with the USN is working very hard to integrate its core air assets, the Super Hornet, the F-35, the Growlers, the P-8s and the Triton UAVs, to work together that this would provide an important leg up on the kind of integration the ADF was looking for across the battlespace.
And of course, the SRG flies and operates systems which in the U.S. would be operated by either the USMC or USAF, so this drives the RAAF need to broaden the aperture on integration beyond what classically the USN would do, but there clearly are currently USN leaders who are thinking along the lines of the RAAF leadership, such as Air Commodore Heap articulated in the interview.
86495random1.05.0
He clearly was looking forward to adding the Triton to the fleet whereby the Remotely Piloted Aircraft could do wide area surveillance as an asset which could allow for better use of manned assets, or to support the initial assessment of HADR scenarios, or low intensity operations.
“What that means for our highly capable Naval surface forces is that before, where they could have an effect based principally on their organic means, which was limited by the range of their sensors and weapon systems, they now can have an effect at much greater distance, courtesy of support from a suite of state of the art RAAF assets in terms of integrated ISR, strike and C2.
As the lead for the Jericho Maritime warfighting program, we will leverage off the key Jericho tenets of maximizing combat effectiveness, facilitating innovation at the lowest level and speeding up and simplifying acquisition.
And then the question will become where is the best place to do the operational C2 in the battlespace, which will vary by mission to be on the ground, at sea or in the air, critically with full, degraded or denied enabling space capabilities such as SATCOM and GPS.
That is where we want to go with the evolving SRG,.”
Northrop Grumman built US Navy MQ-4C Triton soars over countryside.
Air Commodore Heap added: “My concept is to seek, acquire and potentially employ decisive, highly protected asymmetric effects across the spectrum of warfare though our people’s, and industry’s great ideas.
We need to have open system architectures with the flexibility to spirally add capabilities at speed, not be hamstrung by a 5 year acquisition cycle. If ISIS has an acquisition cycle, and I believe it does, it certainly isn’t as limited as our previous processes.
Our new FPR capability acquisition processes and Defence structure is designed to correct this issue.
The new Joint Air Battle Management system announced in the recent Defence White Paper will be sourced using this principle, so in 2025 when a developing technology becomes mature, it can swiftly be acquired almost immediately fielded on operations if required.”
And shaping a more effective sovereign integrated force was important for Australia, for its own national defense and to become a more capable ally for its partners.
“We are small but we want to be capable of being a little Tasmanian Devil that you don’t want to play with because if you come at us, were going to give you a seriously hard time that will probably not be worth the effort; deterrence in its purest form.”
The slideshow above shows Air Commodore Heap at various stages of his career and the photos are credited to the Australian Ministry of Defense.
In the first photo, outgoing Commander Surveillance and Response Group (CDR SRG), Air Commodore (AIRCDRE) Chris Westwood (left) and incoming CDR SRG, AIRCDRE Craig Heap.
In the second photo, then Officer Commanding No 92 Wing RAAF, Group Captain Craig Heap (left) speaks with Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) pilot Captain Jinyong Lee and RAAF Air Commodore Gavin Turnbull upon the arrival of a ROKN P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft at RAAF Base Pearce, Western Australia.
In the third photo, Four RAAF AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and HMAS Success along with four Chinese ships, Xue Long, Kuulunshan, Haikon and Qiandaohu are involved in the search for the missing Malaysian aircraft. A Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) P-3K2 Orion aircraft, a United States (US) Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, two People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) Ilyushin IL-76 and two Japan Maritime Self Defence Force (JMSDF) P-3C Orion aircraft form the international military contribution along with the P-3C Orion and C-130H Hercules from the Republic of Korea.
In the fourth photo, on the hardstand in front of the US Navy P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft and a No. 2 Squadron (2 SQN) E-7 Wedgetail is Commander Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group (SRG) then Air Commodore Chris Westwood (fourth from right), then Officer Commanding No. 92 Wing Group Captain Craig Heap (fifth from left), and Commanding Officer 2 SQN Wing Commander Paul Carpenter and 2 SQN aircrew.
In the fifth photo, incoming Officer Commanding (OC) No. 92 Wing, Group Captain David Hombsch (left) farewells the outgoing OC, Air Commodore Craig Heap on the No. 92 Wing flight line.
Finally, (L-R) then Deputy Chief of the Air Force, Air Vice Marshal Gavin Davies, CSC, then Officer Commanding 92 Wing, Group Captain Craig Heap and then Commander Surveillance and Response Group, Air Commodore Stephen Osborne, CSC, listen to the welcome home speech conducted by the Chief Joint Operations, Lieutenant General Brian Power, AO, CSC.
The Biography of Air Commodore Heap:
Air Commodore Heap joined the RAAF in 1984 as a direct entry pilot. On graduation from 132 Pilots Course in June 1985, Air Commodore Heap was posted to 34 SQN as a VIP copilot for 12 months. He then completed the Aircraft Systems Course at the School of Air Navigation before posting in 1987 to 5 SQN as an Iroquois helicopter pilot.
In 1989, with the demise of the RAAF helicopter fleet, Air Commodore Heap was attached to 292 SQN for P-3C conversion and subsequently served at 11 SQN until 1993. During this time he was selected as the 92WG display pilot for the RAAF 70th Anniversary.
In 1993 Air Commodore Heap was posted to 2FTS as a Qualified Flying Instructor, after completing the Central Flying School, Flying Instructors Course. Returning to 292 SQN in 1994 as a P-3C Qualified Flying Instructor, he instructed at 292 SQN for 18 months before returning to 11 SQN as the SQN Qualified Flying Instructor. Air Commodore Heap also resumed the role of 92 WG display pilot for the RAAF 75th Anniversary Airshow calendar.
On promotion to Squadron Leader in 1996, he served as the B Flight Commander and 11 SQN Qualified Flying Instructor for three years until the end of 1998. During this posting Air Commodore Heap acted as the Detachment Commander on numerous joint and combined exercises and operations, in Australia and overseas.
In late 1998 Air Commodore Heap was posted to the Central Flying School as the A Flight Commander, in charge of the RAAF Flying Instructors Course. In 2000, Air Commodore Heap was appointed as the Chief Flying Instructor, Central Flying School. As Chief Flying Instructor he was responsible for the conduct of all flying operations within the school including; Roulette training and operations; overseeing the pure flying and instructional standards of all ADF pilots; and Qualified Flying Instructors, in addition to facilitating the RAAF Flying Supervisors Course.
85165random1.05.0
In 2001, Air Commodore Heap was selected to attend the Canadian Forces Command and Staff Course in Toronto, Canada. Departing for Canada in mid 2001, he was promoted to Wing Commander and on return to Australia in mid 2002 was posted to Weston Creek, Canberra as member of the Directing Staff of the new Australian Command and Staff College. For the majority of his tenure at the College Air Commodore Heap was the manager of the Joint Operations Module, instructing course members in the planning and conduct of large scale coalition operations. In 2005 he was awarded the Chief of Defence Force Commendation for his service to the Australian Command and Staff College.
Air Commodore Heap returned to 92WG for refresher on the AP-3C in January 2005 as the incumbent Commander of the AP-3C Task Group in the Middle East. For his command of this Task Group he was awarded the Vice Chief of Defence Force Commendation. On return from the Middle East in late 2005 until mid 2007 he served as the Commanding Officer of No 10 SQN.
In 2007 Air Commodore Heap was posted as the Director of Studies Air and Chief of Operations at the Australian Command and Staff College. In November 2008, Air Commodore Heap commenced duties as the Chief of Staff to the Chief of Defence Force, from which he was posted to the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies in January 2010, completing a Master of Arts (Strategy) Degree with Deakin University. From November 2010, Air Commodore Heap returned to the Middle East as the Joint Task Force 633 Air Component Commander until June 2012, for which he was awarded the Commendation for Distinguished Service in the 2012 Queens Birthday Honours’ list. In October 2011 Air Commodore Heap assumed the post of Officer Commanding 92WG.
During early 2014 Air Commodore Heap deployed to Perth as the Commander of the Multi-national Air Task Group searching for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 and was subsequently awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross (CSC).
In July 2014, Air Commodore Heap assumed the post of Director General Aerospace Development on promotion to Air Commodore.
On 02 December 2015 Air Commodore Heap assumed command of Surveillance and Response Group and was simultaneously appointed the Senior Australian Defence Force Officer (SADFO) at RAAF Williamtown.
Editor’s Note: The second slideshow are of the Triton, with the first two photos credited to the US Navy and the rest to Todd Miller.
During my visit to Australia in March 2016, I was able to follow up earlier discussions with 2nd Squadron with the new head of 42nd Wing to focus upon Wedgetail, its role in the integrated task force in the Middle East, and evolving the capability as the RAAF reached out beyond its air-to-air battle management role to expand the aperture to encompass needs in the maritime and land domains.
The RAAF through its Plan Jericho approach is expanding its thinking and approach to operations to shape a 21st century multi-domain role.
Although connectivity is a central tissue of the effort, the Jericho approach should not be reduced to the question of enhanced connectivity.
It is about operations, and the training for operations to shape an ADF more capable of engaging with a force which is modular and can be tailored to the mission.
This means that the C2 they are after is strategic in the sense of being able to make the right decision about the force package to send to engage the mission, as well as pushing the level of operational decision making down to the right level.
And the challenge is not simply to connect everything with everything to collect loads of data, but in the words of Air Commander Australia, “to get the right information, to the right people and at the right time.”
This is about information parsimony and about an ability to distribute information as appropriate and as needed.
A way to look at the way ahead from the RAAF point of view can be seen in the graphic below, which has been created by Second Line of Defense.
Clearly, the Wedgetail is a key asset in this effort, and has already demonstrated its ability to contribute to the RAAF’s air combat capabilities, by adding battle management to airlifting to strike in an integrated force package.
During the visit to Williamtown on March 6, 2014 to 2nd Squadron, the Squadron Commander highlighted a key aspect of the Wedgetail: it is software upgradeable.
This is a software upgradeable aircraft with a defined launch point (IOC) but no fixed end point (FOC).
The system will always be evolving and growing as the software code gets rewritten to reflect events and demands from the squadron.
The squadron works through its experience and shapes change orders which get sent to the procurement authorities to sort out priorities for the next round of upgrading the aircraft.
The difference between older and such a new system was outlined by one participant in the roundtable as follows:
“We have in the same time frame bought a CRC system full up which will look pretty much like it is in 20 years; with Wedgetail it will look nothing like it does now in 20 years.”
The Commander of 42nd Wing is tasked with managing the current fleet of Wedgetails and shaping a way ahead for the capability within the extended and integrated airspace.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) general manager John Young (C) listens to Group Captain Stuart Bellingham during a press conference in Canberra, Australia, 18 March 2014 during the search for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.
But to do so, requires an overall understanding of the operational evolution of the ADF and its way ahead.
Put in blunt terms, the RAAF because it is small has developed operational leaders who have a much greater diversity of experience than a larger Air Force like the USAF, which means that an AWACs officer can become stovepiped into that experience.
Whereas with the RAAF, Wedgetail experience is part of the broader evolution of the ADF and that will drive the demand side for where the RAAF will want to take its software upgrades.
The new 42nd Wing Commander has a rich and diverse background which he brings to the task.
According to Air Marshal (Retired) Geoff Brown, Group Captain Captain Stuart Bellingham, was a key officer involved in bringing the JTAC experience to the RAAF and bringing a perspective into the RAAF understanding the Army’s needs and approaches to combat, which clearly is important in shaping a way ahead for a more integrated force approach.
The Group Captain indicated that the core thing, which he focused on initially, was “joint fires and forward air control, and JTAC experiences. This got me heavily involved with the special forces and the ground forces, more generally.”
This is not really what you would hear from the typical AWACs commander in the USAF.
He then went to Iraq and was involved as an air liaison officer for the second Gulf War, 2003.
Combined Forces Air Component Commander, Air Commodore Chris Westwood (now retired) briefs the Directors of the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC), (from left) Deputy Commander, Colonel David Lowthian, Captain John Alexander (Royal Canadian Air Force), Captain Charles Degilio (United States Navy – Reserve Component) and Group Captain Stuart Bellingham (RAAF). The briefing was conducted at the Combined Air Operations Centre during Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2014 at Joint Base Pearl Harbor – Wickham. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence
He then was involved with the Wedgetail but when the program hit substantial difficulties, he transitioned out and did another “three years in joint fires as the joint fires integration director.”
He then became Commanding Officer of 4 Squadron which put him at the heart of further evolving his command knowledge of the joint fires domain.
According to the RAAF, No. 4 Squadron is to be understood as follows:
Number 4 Squadron supports a diverse range of Australia Defence Force (ADF) capabilities and operations on a domestic and international front.
To achieve this effectively, 4 Squadron consists of three flights, as well as maintenance / logistics sections and a small administrative team.
The three flights are broken down into A Flight which comprises of aircrew responsible for operating the Pilatus PC9/A Forward Air Control (FAC) variant aircraft. B-Flight personnel employed as Combat Controllers integrate and control the elements of air and space power to enable precision strike and advanced military force operations. C-Flight members train students undertaking ADF Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) course as well as facilitating the continual development and assessment of current ADF JTAC qualified personnel.
4 Squadron supports ADF and multinational operations and exercises. Combat Controller Teams (CCTs) are regularly tasked to support operations throughout the world.
Aside from the training ADF JTACs, the unit also directly supports No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit (2OCU) twice a year, 76 SQN through Close Air Support (CAS) during Initial Fighter Course and all ACG frontline fighter Squadron CAS training with the provision of CCT and FAC/A
Combat Controllers from B FLT 4 are currently deployed on a rotational basis in the Middle East.
4 Squadron regularly deploys aircraft and personnel in support of Air Force and Army operations, including:
Pitch Black
High Sierra
Southern Frontier (US Marine Corps support)
Travelling Boomerang
Black Dagger
Faru Sumu
Red Flag
Sharp Dagger
During these exercises, PC9/A (F) aircraft fly FAC/A and CAS profiles, with CCT providing Terminal Control and battlefield airspace management. 4 SQN pilots utilise smoke grenades as weapons to represent high explosive ordnance used by fast jet aircraft.
This enhances the training realism and complexity for Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTAC).
(L-R) Then Commander Air Combat Group, Air Commodore Anthony Grady, No. 82 Wing Officer Commanding, Group Captain Geoffrey Harland and No. 4 Squadron Commanding Officer, with then Wing Commander Stuart Bellingham chat with newly promoted Combat Controllers during the remuster ceremony. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence
Smoke grenades are also used to assist pilots of fast jet aircraft visually acquire ground targets. Releasing smoke grenades in the vicinity of a target provides strike aircraft with an easily identifiable visual feature, assisting them to positively identify their target.
This enhances their ability to employ weapons accurately and efficiently and is a key element of Forward Air Control.
These procedures provide training not only for the ground personnel and the strike aircraft’s crews, but also for the 4 Squadron aircrew practising in the CAS and FAC/A role.
Local 4 Squadron operations centred around RAAF Base Williamtown mainly focus on supporting CCTs and JTACs.
Additional operations aim to train and enhance the skills, techniques and qualifications of the Pilots within 4 Squadron.
Naturally, he went to another command position where he dealt with among other things missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft somewhere over the Pacific.
He became the Director of the RAAF Air and Space Operations Center, which is part of the Joint Operations Command Headquarters.
And while there, Operation Okra or Operation Inherent Resolve was launched into the Middle East.
And that operation would become the next focal point for Bellingham as he would become the third commander of the air task force and do so in the last part of 2015.
He discussed his experience and that of the task force in a presentation to the Air Power Conference.
One of his slides was a good prelude to his next command.
“I remember one conversation in particular with my Senior INTELLO, during which he remarked upon the fact that no scriptwriter could have dreamed up the level of complexity and daily ‘excitement’ in which we found ourselves.”
He has come back to take command of 42nd Wing.
“I came back to Wedgetail after it had progressed from in your words “a troubled to a trailblazing program” and after having seen it perform in Iraq. I went for a fly a couple of times over Iraq in the E7 and what a phenomenal capability it is.
And we’re just come back from Red Flag where we sent the E-7 and crew across to Red Flag Nellis there in January.”
Question: What reactions did you have from the US and the partners to the new capabilities your brought to the operation in the Middle East?
Answer: The coalition partners bring different capabilities to the fight.
Obviously, the USAF is a key player.
When you walk into the CAOC there are 18 nations represented in the operation.
Around the table we discuss what we bring to the coalition.
The approach is based on mutual respect and making sure that we work effectively together in operations.
We’re a pretty small force, but I think we’ve done a reasonable job in supporting the coalition.
Question: That being said, what about your unique capabilities?
Answer: Wedgetail is highly valued and highly regarded within the coalition.
It is a combination of what the weapon system brings to the fight and how the crews use that weapons system and drive forward innovation.
With regard to the technology, it has a powerful combination of tools, the radar and electronic surveillance capabilities.
With regard to the training of the crews, which is evolving, we are focused on our ability to use the weapon system in a complex combat environment.
And exercises like Red Flag are important to the evolution of our training and our evolving combat approach.
Wedgetail at Red Flag 16-1. Credit Photo: Jaryd Stock
We like to think of ourselves as coming to the fight with something different, but complimentary and fusing straight in to support the coalition.
Question: Your background is a core asset as well for the evolution of the Wedgetail as the RAAF leadership looks to evolve the aircraft along with the evolution of the Navy and the Army.
Indeed, the goal in some ways is to co-evolve the software onboard the Wedgetail with those on core Naval and Army systems, notably as new capabilities get added to the force.
How do you see the way ahead?
Answer: It is about co-evolution.
We are looking at battle management across the air, sea and land spectrums.
We are looking to expand our reach beyond the purely air battle management role into a joint role.
For example, the coming of the new amphibious ships provides a wonderful opportunity to support Army and Navy at the same time.
We are looking to work closely with them on the amphibs and later this year look to exercise with them to shape a joint approach.
As the air warfare destroyers enter the force we will be working hand and glove with them in blue water operations to support their effects equally.
It is a two-way street.
We are looking to support them; and we are looking for them to support the combined operations in the air-sea battlespace.
It’s a really good environment to be in, in the joint space right now with the capabilities that each of us are bringing and shaping how we’re going to work together.
Question: How are thinking about working with the amphibious ships?
Answer: We will provide surveillance for the amphibious force and through the process of inserting and supporting force on the ground.
Obviously the role will vary with regard to whether it is a contested environment or not, but will provide electronic support and coordinate the various are and surface assets in the area.
Our role will be to fuse everyone together and then plugging that into our ampbhious task group, which may or may not have a destroyer with them.
We will bring the whole team together and make sure that everyone as the highest possible situational awareness within the operational space.
For earlier pieces on the Wedgetail, see the following:
With regard to Wedgetail in the recent Red Flag exercise, an article by Jaryd Stock, highlights comments made by the RAAF while at Nellis.
Since its very first deployment a few years ago, controlling aircraft in the search for missing Malaysian Airlines 777-200 flight number MH370, the RAAF’s E-7A Wedgetail, based at RAAFB Williamtown, is proving to be one of the most adept and quintessential Airborne Electronic Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft systems ever developed.
The work carried out by its crews from 2SQN is getting all the praise they deserve not only from Commanders from within the RAAF such as GRCAPT Gordon, but also U.S. commanders and allied partners in the Middle East Area of Operations (MEAO), where the SQN has a detachment with one aircraft operating in the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
APD had the privilege to interview detachment commander for Red Flag 16-1, Squadron Leader (SQNLDR) Glenn Salmon about the Wedgetail’s and, in turn, 2SQN’s roles and their deployment from Williamtown for 16-1.
“We deployed 35 personnel out of the 410 that have deployed to Nellis AFB with that we have maintenance staff, mission support, operations staff, intelligence and aircrew.
And these exercises benefit all of us deployed to this exercise, one of 2SQNs objectives on Red Flag is to strengthen our ties and reputation with our U.S. and UK allies – many of whom we have worked directly with on Operation Okra in the MEAO and many of whom we will end up working with whilst deployed in the future.
The exercise provides us the opportunity to display the world class level of command and control that we are becoming known for in the Middle East as well as highlighting our capabilities to coalition aircrew and leadership who may not have had the opportunity to work with us yet. We take great pride of the work we have conducted already and that is great for our reputation and we all feel it is well deserved”.
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 Defence Force
The importance of becoming a fully integrated team is second to none for the command and control units and the interoperability or knowledge and trust gained is never taken for granted. Even though there is a leap in capabilities the E-7 offers compared to the E-3 Sentry, surprisingly not all is that different between the crews and aircraft as both are working on providing as much experience for the crews from their respective units for real time missions.
SQNLDR Salmon states, “Whilst the E-3 and E-7 are generations apart in their technology, we still speak the same language and are working together to provide a common goal – that of battle-space management.
The two platform’s differing approaches to the task provide a great opportunity for us to see how somebody else tackles the same problem and in doing so, refine and validate our own procedures.”
He goes on, “Exercise Red Flag provides the most realistic simulation of what actual operations such as Operation Okra where we are operating at the moment will involve.
As our contribution in the Middle East continues, we are constantly increasing the number of our aircrew, maintainers and support staff that have operational experience.
Our USAF counterparts are in a similar situation. This means that we get an excellent melting pot of senior and junior people from both countries that can share and collaborate on their experiences from both previous exercises and more recently how we all are handling operations in the Middle East.”
SQNLDR Salmon also provides a rare insight into how personnel that serve in the RAAF feel about their own brethren, but also about their country and their fellow Aussies and how they sometimes don’t want to leave their families behind in order to serve but do it for their country and for the Australian public and the public of Australia’s allies!
“I have an immense sense of pride at what 2SQN has achieved over the past 3-4 years. The capability of the aircraft and the people that operate, support and maintain it has grown at an incredible rate. This has been borne out in our experience supporting the huge effort to search for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 off the west coast of Australia and more recently our 18 month (and counting) presence in the Middle East”.
“The level of service provided by the E7 and the personnel of 2 SQN in support of these operations and our regular activities back home is second to none. I still get a great sense of enjoyment out of flying the aircraft and it is a great privilege to be involved with the unit in this our 100th anniversary year”, he added.
The demands of the job, including significant amounts of time away from home and loved ones, can be difficult for people from time to time. However, the sense of reward, accomplishment, camaraderie and the knowledge that we are making a genuine contribution to operations on behalf of Australia is what makes it all worthwhile”, SQNLDR Salmon noted.
And the slideshow shows various Wedgetail (in several of the photos ) with the KC-30A in various locations and is credited to the Australian Ministry of Defence.
In a recent UK MoD announcement concerning the UK role in Baltic defense, it was announced that RAF Typhoons will be deployed along with the HMS Iron Duke.
This is clearly designed to operate forward an to provide for NATO defense in the Baltic region.
As the F-35 comes to the force aboard the new HMS Queen Elizabeth, a future deployment to the Baltic region will actually provide for an integrated force which could form a key element for both homeland defense for the United Kingdom as well as providing core combat capabilities within an overall kill web.
Such a kill web would be empowered by a force at sea which can reach back and forward to air assets deployed throughout the region.
With the Russians deploying tactical weapons – notably cruise missiles – with reach deep into what the UK would consider strategic space, the need to deter, and defeat such threats will be increasingly important.
With the Eurofighters flying both from the UK over the North Sea, and forward deployed, and with the F-35Bs deployed off of the Queen Elizabeth, such an integrated force can be built as part of both homeland defense and an extended kill web extending into Northern Europe.
And such integration can lay the foundation for the further modernization of the UK surface fleet, as the new destroyers can deploy combat systems, which can co-evolve with those of the F-35.
Rather than thinking of the kill chain, the kill web is about engagement forces in an area of interest which can operate throughout the distributed battlespace and defeat an adversary throughout the kill area.
The sensor-shooter relationship is within the distributed battlespace and not attributed to the strike platform itself.
The idea of shift from a linear kill chain and hub-and-spoke operations to one of an distributed force contributing to capabilities across the integrated battlespace was highlighted by a key Australian RAAF leader:
According to Air Commodore Roberton, the CO of the Air Combat Group, the RAAF is going through a three-phase process and “we are only at the first step.
“We need to be in the position where our maritime surface combatants are able to receive the information that we’ve got airborne in the RAAF assets. Once they’ve got that, they’re going to actually be trying to be able to do something with it.
That is the second level, namely where they can integrate with the C2 and ISR flowing from our air fleet.
But we need to get to the third level, where they too can provide information and weapons for us in the air domain.
That is how you will turn a kill chain into a kill web. That’s something that we want in our fifth generation integrated force.
And in a fifth generation world, it’s less about who is the trigger shooter but actually making sure that everybody’s contributing effectively to the right decisions made as soon as possible at the lowest possible level.
And that is why I see the F-35 as an information age aircraft.
I’m less concerned about the load outs on the F-35. You can give it another ten weapon stations and you would miss the core point.
What’s actually important is how the F-35 makes other weapon providers or effect providers out there far better and shape faster reaction times.
A lot of people seem stuck in the old mindset of how many weapons we are going to stack on each aircraft.
That’s almost two generations ago.”
And in an interview last year with the Royal Navy officer leading the Queen Elizabeth effort, the potential for re-shaping the approach to building out the new destroyers from the evolution of a more integrated force was highlighted.
Question: We argue that no platform fights alone; this is obviously true in terms of the carrier, which is both and enabled and enabling platform, notably with regard to its carrier air wing.
What is some of the thinking in the RN about the potential evolutions?
Artists impressions of the ship’s flight deck released before construction was underway. Credit: Daily Mail
Alcock: As I said earlier, we have not been defined by the carrier in our Navy and some of the newer assets will be rethought with the introduction of the carrier.
With the advent of the carrier we will need to re think doctrine, tactics and training.
There will be much work between elements of the CAG specifically interaction with Merlin Crows Nest and F35B but also our T45 destroyers will work extremely closely with F35B and be a great enabler in tactical development.
We need to explore the boundaries of what we can do as we leverage the carrier with regard to our other force assets, Navy, Army and Air Force.
The good thing is that a lot of people involved in the process have open minds about thinking through the process of change.
Weaponizing the kill web in which fifth generation leverages of weapons on surface and subsurface ships as well as managing hand-offs to fourth generation platforms is a key element of the way ahead.
MBDA the key weapons designer for the RAF is already developing and in the process of completing the first weapons with the kind of two way data links enabling such a handover, namely the Meteor and Spear 3 weapons.
Put in clear terms, although the UK carriers can be used for expeditionary purposes, they will provide key centerpieces for any extended defense of the homeland via modular integration with other allied forces.
These forces would be deployed as a a scalable kill web, where the sensor-shooter relationship among missile defense, and strike assets can operate in a distributed defense structure.
For the recent UK MoD announcement about Baltic operations, see the following:
Royal Air Force Typhoon jets and the Royal Navy warship HMS Iron Duke will deploy to the Baltic this month as part of the UK’s commitment to eastern European allies.
Four Typhoons will take a leading role in the Baltic Air Policing mission which aims to safeguard the safety of NATO partners and wider Europe.
Based at Amari air base in Estonia, the crews will operate in a Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) role.
As part of standing arrangements within NATO, members of the alliance without their own air policing assets are assisted by others which contribute on a four-month cycle.
The UK deployed Typhoon aircraft to Lithuania in spring 2014 and to Estonia between May and August 2015. They will operate alongside the Portuguese air force around the airspace of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
HMS Iron Duke. Credit: UK MoD
At sea, HMS Iron Duke is due to return to the Baltic region after participating in the bi-annual, multinational Exercise Joint Warrior off the coast of Scotland. The Type 23 frigate is half way through a six-month deployment to northern Europe as part of a multinational NATO task group where she has taken part in exercises and operations. She is available to NATO for a range of tasks including diplomatic visits to countries in the region.
Later this year Iron Duke is due to operate in the Baltic region with up to four other Royal Navy ships, including HMS Ocean and HMS Pembroke, in the maritime exercise Baltops 16.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said:
British planes protecting Baltic skies alongside our warship patrols and troops exercising, show how serious we are about the security of our eastern European partners.
With a defence budget that is increasing for the first time in six years, we can use our forces to keep Britain and our allies safe.
The evolution of 21st century weapon technology is breaking down the barriers between offensive and defensive systems. Is missile defense about providing defense or is it about enabling global reach, for offense or defense?
Likewise, the new 5th generation aircraft have been largely not understood because they are inherently multi-mission systems, which can be used for forward defense or forward offensive operations.
Indeed, an inherent characteristic of many new systems is that they are really about presence and putting a grid over an operational area, and therefore they can be used to support strike or defense within an integrated approach. In the 20th Century, surge was built upon the notion of signaling.
One would put in a particular combat capability – a Carrier Battle Group, Amphibious Ready Group, or Air Expeditionary Wing – to put down your marker and to warn a potential adversary that you were there and ready to be taken seriously. If one needed to, additional forces would be sent in to escalate and build up force.
With the new multi-mission systems – 5th generation aircraft and Aegis for example – the key is presence and integration able to support strike or defense in a single operational presence capability. Now the adversary can not be certain that you are simply putting down a marker.
This is what former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne calls the attack and defense enterprise.
The strategic thrust of integrating modern systems is to create an a grid that can operate in an area as a seamless whole, able to strike or defend simultaneously.
This is enabled by the evolution of C5ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance), and it is why Wynne has underscored for more than a decade that fifth generation aircraft are not merely replacements for existing tactical systems but a whole new approach to integrating defense and offense.
When one can add the strike and defensive systems of other players, notably missiles and sensors aboard surface ships like Aegis, then one can create the reality of what Ed Timperlake, a former fighter pilot, has described as the F-35 being able to consider Aegis as his wingman.
By shaping a C5ISR system inextricably intertwined with platforms and assets, which can honeycomb an area of operation, an attack and defense enterprise can operate to deter aggressors and adversaries or to conduct successful military operations.
The slideshow photos are of HMS Queen Elizabeth taken during a visit to the ship early in 2015, and among other things show the command bays which can be certainly used as a key asset in executing a kill web strategy.
One should note that the kill web is a play on the kill chain concept and suggests a significantly different way ahead from a hub spoke sequential approach.
But if some publics are more comfortable with a “softer” language then perhaps one could speak of a “resilient defense web,” or an “active defense web,” or “extended defense web” might work.
Editor’s Note: With all the fireworks about Donald Trump, what is missed is that both Trump on the Republican side and Sanders on the Democratic side represent rejections of the current state of affairs with regard to outsourcing manufacturing from the United States.
In the March 31, 2016 issue of Manufacturing News, Richard McCormack explains the Presidential election.
The Election Explained: An Angry Electorate Has Turned Dead-Set Against Free Trade and the Politicians Who Support It
The long-festering trade issue has exploded into a political firestorm in the U.S. presidential campaign, becoming the central point of debate. Making the trade issue even more potent is the fact that it has merged with far greater forces of public alienation and anger over declining incomes and a government perceived to be corrupted by corporate influence.
American voters have turned against the proponents of free trade and are expressing themselves at the ballot box, to the shock of “establishment” politicians, and economic and media “elites” who have pushed the free-trade agenda for decades.
Free-traders in the administration, Congress, trade associations, think tanks and corporate America have been slow to recognize that a “revolutionary change has taken place,” says pollster Pat Caddell. “The trade issue has become the concrete nexus issue for the American electorate,” he says. The animosity toward trade “is flowing into the issue of economic insecurity and the high anxiety of the American people.”
Record high levels of alienation and the sense that average Americans have little chance of succeeding in an economy that is rigged against them have merged together, something that has rarely occurred in American history, says Caddell.
Alienation and trade have become an “activation issue,” Caddell found in a survey of 1,950 Americans. “It is no longer, ‘I’m unhappy and can’t do anything about it,’ to, ‘We must do something.’ ”
The strong anti-trade sentiment is buoying the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
“Donald Trump did not invent this issue,” says Caddell. “This issue was already in movement. He had sensed it and boy did he hit a nerve.”
In the survey conduced for Americans for Limited Government, Caddell found that Republican voters are more opposed to the free-trade agenda than are Democrats.
When presented with the following statement that the “same political elite who have been rigging the political process in Washington are the same ones that have been rigging trade deals that hurt Americans but benefit themselves,” 76 percent of Republican voters agreed, while only 15 percent disagreed (10 percent said they don’t know). Among Democrats, 70 percent agreed, while 15 percent disagreed (15 percent didn’t know).
When combined with the 83 percent of Americans who agreed with the statement that “there are different rules for the well connected and people with money,” Caddell found himself “shocked” by how trade and alienation had merged together and are “driving a new paradigm” in American politics.
Eighty-one percent of Americans said that “political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right for the American people.”
Alienation and concerns about national security and economic security “have all flowed into the issue of trade and has become a voting issue — a super issue,” Caddell explains. “It is not just about trade. It is being fueled by many of these other attitudes, and it is significant. When you get an issue like that, and it’s very rare that you get them, you see major changes politically.”
When asked if trade agreements signed by the United States government are more beneficial to other countries, 63 percent said yes. Only 12 percent said that trade agreements are “more of a benefit to the U.S.”
The percentage of Americans who oppose any type of free-trade deal similar to President Obama’s Trans Pacific Partnership that has been endorsed by a majority of House and Senate Republicans, is “stunning, overwhelming,” says Caddell.
By a margin of 82 to 18, Americans have turned against the free-trade agenda.
Even more “extraordinary,” says Caddell, is that 74 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “while increasing international trade has led to cheaper goods, it doesn’t matter how cheap they are if I don’t have a good paying job.”
Only 14 percent disagreed with this statement. Seventy-two percent said it is worth protecting American jobs by raising tariffs on foreign goods “even if it harms America’s global reputation.”
When Caddell saw the answer to this question he said, “Oh my gosh, something is happening because that question would have been in the 70 percent or higher range” in the other direction in the past.
When survey respondents were read the statement that the reason for cheap goods and especially cheap clothing was because the workers making them in Asian countries “are paid slave-like wages in harsh working conditions without any worker protections at all,” 68 percent agreed with the proposal that “we should punish those countries with tariffs on those imports, which would raise the costs of those goods until there are fair working conditions for all comparable to the United States, even though we might pay more for clothes. . . ” Only 17 percent disagreed.
“You have created a very, very powerful mindset in the American people which will dominate this campaign up and down the line,” Caddell remarks.
Caddell broke down his sample by “likely” and “unlikely” voters. He found that anti-trade and alienation issues were strongest among “likely” voters. Importantly, “the undecided will move toward the opinion of the people who are more likely to vote and have opinions,” says Caddell. “That is how public opinion works.”
The “don’t know” portion of the sample will migrate to the anti-trade attitudes of those who are up to date on the issues, creating an even greater backlash against free-trade policies and media and political elites who promote them. “The heart of this is Americans believe that the political system is as corrupt as the day is long,” says Caddell. In the 1960s, when Americans were asked if the government was working in the peoples’ best interests, 60 percent said it was. Today, that number has plummeted to 26 percent.
“When you look at these alienation questions, you will understand what has been driving this election, because these attitudes became voting attitudes somewhere in the last two or three years. It snapped.”
The Republican establishment has much to worry about.
When asked if the United States was in a state of decline, 89 percent of Republicans said yes, while only 9 percent said no. And when Americans were asked to rank issues based on importance, last among them were social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage that Republicans have traditionally used as wedge issues.
Here is how Caddell explains the changes he found in the survey:
“The angry electorate is being concretized. The issue of trade policy has moved from a minor issue in the thinking of Americans to being a central issue. In other words, it has become a voting issue. Surprisingly, the party that has been the most strongly in favor of free trade, the Republican Party, has seen its rank and file become the most consistent and strongest opponents of free trade. This is a stunning change and it explains how it has hurt all of the establishment candidates. . .
“We are at a very historic moment here because the American people are in the saddle now. We are making a terrible mistake if we focus on Donald Trump being the independent variable. The independent variable is the American people, for both parties. They have decided they want change and they are alienated. Donald Trump has been the dependent variable.
“You are talking about the most stable political party that is hierarchically traditional in terms of whose turn it is to be president. The man [Jeb Bush] who raised $164 million, who was the brother of one president and the son of another and the overwhelming choice of most of the establishment, is gone. Every establishment candidate is gone, basically.”
Caddell says that the Republican Party should prepare for an angry backlash if the Republican establishment derails the Trump candidacy at its July convention.
With Americans already believing the establishment has rigged the system, the Republicans are “in a grave dilemma,” says Caddell.
“If you end up with a candidate who doesn’t reflect these kinds of opinions and attitudes — God help this country, because there will be something coming and it may be much more dynamic. I have always worried about this. You cannot ignore American public opinion. The American people want their sovereignty back. They want their right to control politics.
“The Declaration of Independence states that the government’s legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed. Do you think the federal government operates with the consent of the American people when three-quarters of the American people say it doesn’t?
“A few years ago, this was a pre-revolutionary moment. I’m afraid we have gone from pre-revolutionary to movement, but it’s not yet charted out. We are in the flux of a historical change.
“I will tell you this: Those who think they can reconstitute the old order and the old processes are already finding that to be difficult, and in the end it will be disastrous if they prevail to suppress rather than to reflect the feelings of a democracy.”
Democratic voters are also questioning the Party establishment’s creation of “super delegates” who will likely control the outcome of the primary race.
The super delegates represent a “rigged system,” says Caddell. “One of my complaints about the press is, how dare you compare Hillary Clinton’s [delegate] totals by including the super delegates. These are people who are unelected by the voters in these races. They should be separated. It’s going to be a greater issue in the Democratic Party. The people are saying, ” ‘we should decide.’ ”
