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.
2015-07-18 The F-35 has come to Hill AFB and with it the reactivation of the “Rude Rams.”
In an article by Mitch Shaw and published appropriately on the Hill AFB website:
7/2/2015 – HILL AIR FORCE BASE — Just over five years ago at Hill Air Force Base, budget cuts killed one of the Air Force’s most historic fighter squadrons.
But the commander who witnessed that deactivation is bringing back the “Rude Rams.”
In a ceremony at Hill in mid-June, Col. David Lyons became the new commander of Hill’s 388th Fighter Wing. Lyons took the reins from Col. Lance Landrum, who fulfilled commander duties for the 1,500-person wing for the past two years. Landrum heads to the Pentagon, where he will serve as the director of Colonel Management.
For Lyons, his new position represents a homecoming steeped in tradition.
Lyons was commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron when it was deactivated in the summer of 2010. The squadron’s indefinite shutdown was a result of an Air Force-wide restructuring plan designed to save money. The plan called for the retirement of 259 aircraft, a total that included 112 F-15s, 138 F-16s and nine A-10s.
An F-16 Fighting Falcon piloted by Lt. Col. Tom “Divot” Smith flies over Peru during dissimilar air combat training as part of Falcon and Condor 2007, a joint exercise between the U.S. and Peruvian Air Forces. The exercise allows the U.S. military to build relationships with military and civilian leaders of Peru. The F-16 is from the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Eric Kreps)
When the Rude Rams were shut down, Hill was also forced to give up 24 of its F-16s, reducing the base’s number of Fighting Falcons from 72 to 48.
But as the Air Force’s choice for the first operational F-35 wing, Hill’s fighter jet count will again move to 72 planes, which means the 34th is being reactivated as a fighter squadron.
“I was convinced that the 34th would come back as an F-35 squadron,” Lyons said. “Obviously, I have love for all of our fighter squadrons, but there is a special place in my heart for the Rude Rams.”
Lyons said much of that fondness has to do with the squadron’s rich military heritage.
According to a 2010 narrative written by base historian Aaron Clark, the 34th can be traced all the way back to World War II, when it was first activated on Oct. 15, 1944, at Seymour Johnson Field, North Carolina. The squadron flew P-47 Thunderbolts in combat operations over the Western Pacific in the latter days of the war.
The squadron’s next operation didn’t come until more than 20 years later, when it joined the fight in Vietnam in 1966. From 1966 to 1972, while assigned to George Air Force Base, California, the squadron played a critical role in the Vietnam conflict.
According to Clark’s report, the squadron first flew F-5 Thunderchiefs in Vietnam. One of the group’s pilots, Maj. Kenneth Blank, was the first pilot to shoot down a MiG-17, which he did in the north of Hanoi. The Rams then began a strategic bombing campaign that included hitting the Thai Ngyen Iron and Steel Complex, an important American target.
By early 1967, the 34th had logged 10,000 combat hours and hit multiple targets in the Dong Hoi area of North Vietnam. The unit was awarded the distinguished Presidential Unit Citation for its actions in Southeast Asia in 1967.
It was after the Vietnam conflict ended that the Rams were relocated to Hill, which happened in December 1975. Just four years later, the 34th became the first-ever fighter squadron to receive the new F-16 Fighting Falcon, which took the place of the F-4.
When the Gulf War started, the Rams were the first squadron to deploy in support of Operation Southern Watch, enforcing a no-fly zone in Iraq.
The group also played a significant role in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, post Sept. 11, 2001.
And the squadron wasn’t just relegated to military combat operations. It provided security for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and was the first active-duty Air Force squadron to deploy and fly missions into Latin America to stalk suspected narcotics-carrying aircraft.
The group’s final deployment came in May 2010 with a four-month mission at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.
While he’s proud to be out front, as a steward of the 34th’s proud history, Lyons says the future weighs heavily on his mind.
When the F-35s begin to arrive at Hill, they’ll be divided among three fighter squadrons and flown and maintained by members of both the 388th and its reserve component 419th Fighter Wing.
The first jet is scheduled to arrive at Hill in September, with the rest of the fleet coming in on a staggered basis, spread through 2019.
An F-22 and an F-35, flown by Air Force Reserve Command pilots from the 514th Flight Test Squadron here fly over the Utah Test and Training Range during a functional check flight approximately 75 miles west of Hill AFB. (Air Force photo) 2/10/15
The jets will be delivered at a rate of slightly more than one per month until August 2016. By that time, the base hopes to have 15 jets on base and reach a status the Air Force calls “Initial Operational Capability,” which means Hill meets the minimum operational capabilities to use the jet for normal operations.
Lyons said the transition from the F-16 to the F-35 will likely present hurdles.
“It’s a new airplane with new technology and new ways to maintain it,” he said. “That’s going to present challenges.”
An Air Force-wide shortage of maintainers will also offer a test.
The base will transition its 4th Fighter Squadron, along with its 24 F-16s, early, in order to ensure there are enough maintainers for the F-35.
“(The maintainer shortage) is another challenge,” Lyons said. “It’s critical to get the manpower we need to bring on this new technology.”
Without offering an official endorsement, Lyons also spoke of the proposed expansion of the Utah Test and Training Range.
The Air Force is proposing to expand the Utah Test and Training Range by nearly 700,000 acres in the rural areas of Box Elder, Juab and Tooele counties, providing a buffer against encroachment from communities through natural expansion and allowing for more testing space for the F-35.
“I don’t want to get too far out of my lane here,” Lyons said. “But the (F-35) requires a lot of airspace to train for the unique mission sets we’ll be able to do, so that airspace is absolutely critical.”
And a story from KSL.com (Utah) published on July 17, 2015 by Ben Lockhart focused on the reactivation ceremony.
HILL AIR FORCE BASE — The tone of the ceremonies was triumphant Friday as military leaders resurrected a once-defunct U.S. Air Force Squadron to execute what is being called a pioneering role in advancing American combat flying.
The Utah-based 34th Fighter Squadron, which closed in 2010 during a restructuring of the Air Force, returned to service Friday and will be the first unit in the Air Force to fly the military’s new combat-ready F-35A fighter jets.
The 34th Fighter Squadron’s new commander, Lt. Colonel George Watkins, told hundreds of Air Force personnel and visitors at the activation ceremony at Hill Air Force Base that his unit will rise and meet its unique responsibility.
“This is more than just a job,” Watkins said. “This is our passion for America and passion for the Air Force.”
Watkins, who flew 840 hours’ worth of combat missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya over the course of four deployments, told reporters that the squadron’s reactivation “has got to be one of the proudest days of my career.”
“It’s exciting. It’s going to be an incredible advance (in) our capability,” he said about the F-35A technology. “After flying the plane myself, I have no doubt it’s going to be awesome.”
Watkins touted the track record of the 34th Fighter Squadron, which was created in 1944 and was the first Air Force unit to fly F-16s when they were introduced in 1979.
“The Rams are back,” he said to loud applause, referencing the squadron’s mascot.
Air Force Reserve Command pilots from the 514th Flight Test Squadron here flew an historic four-ship formation of Ogden Air Logistics Complex depot fighter aircraft (from left to right: F-35, F-22, A-10, F-16) The jets were over the Utah Test and Training Range approximately 75 miles west of Hill AFB, setting up to execute scheduled functional check flights and proficiency training missions, Jan. 29. (Air Force photo) 2/6/15
Watkins said he needed to use aircraft provided by the 34th Fighter Squadron in Afghanistan in 2010 when the unit he belonged to at the time hadn’t received their own equipment. The individual missions Watkins flew were complicated by bad weather, rugged terrain and heavy ground fighting, he said.
If he knew the history of the squadron when completing those flights, according to Watkins, “I would have had more confidence flying at the time.”
The 34th Fighter Squadron belongs to the Hill Air Force Base’s 388th Fighter Wing, which is commanded by Col. David B. “Brad” Lyons. Lyons commanded the squadron when it was closed in 2010 and said he was grateful to be back on base for its reactivation.
“All I know is somebody somewhere had the good sense to return the Rams to duty,” said Lyons, who later told reporters the decision to close the squadron was the result of a complex policy decision made well above his rank. “Seeing the squadron shuttered at that moment (in 2010) was heartbreaking, but it was comforting to know we were not alone in that sentiment.”
Lyons gave remarks at the reactivation ceremony and offered high praise for Watkins’ leadership abilities.
“He’s an unconditional expert in tactical aviation, but he’s just as good with people,” he said. “He’s not scared to roll up his sleeves with his airmen.”
Lyons also expressed unreserved confidence in the F-35A aircraft line, the latest U.S. military fighter jet to be introduced into service.
“It’s like flying the future,” Lyons said.
The 34th Fighter Squadron will eventually operate about 35 to 40 of the F-35As, with the first wave of the new fighter jets scheduled to arrive in August.
Never underestimate the importance of squadron history when a new aircraft is stood up.
It is not just about the airplane; it is about the squadron, its legacy, its tradition and its competence.
The squadron is where the combat innovation occurs.
As Ed Timperlake has emphasized in several articles on Second Line of Defense that innovation is driven by the squadrons and how they invent the future while operating in real world operations.
And in a discussion with both Mike Skaff, the lead in cockpit integration for the F-35, and Ed Timperlake, that learning process was described, and it is one in which the “Rude Rams” undoubtedly will be at the cutting edge.
We’re old enough, and we can remember when there weren’t cell phones. There was a time when there wasn’t an Internet. We can remember that distinctly.
When these tools show up in the early ’90s, there’s a paradigm shift that we call ‘the information age’, and now it arrives in the airplane. With the F-35 we enter into the information age in a new way and we can connect these airplanes just like nodes of the Internet. I’m not saying we’re connected to the Internet, but it is like that. I like to think of this as information dominance. When a 5th generation fighter arrives in battle space the pilot has information dominance. The F-35 was specifically designed to provide the pilot with information dominance through multi-spectral, multi-sensor, distributed processing and advanced fusion – this is the distinction and the difference from the 4th generation. This is the paradigm shift.
Because this is software-defined plane built around evolution over time, we know the future is going to be different. The threats will evolve and everything else.
But initially, these initial airplanes have all of the hardware in place to last for a couple of software upgrades.
Air Force Technical Sergeants stand before an F-35 during the 34th Fighter Squadron activation ceremony, reclaiming its place in the 388th Fighter Wing, on Friday, July 17, 2015 on Hill Air Force Base. The 34th Fighter Squadron will become the first operational Air Force unit to fly combat-coded F-35s.
And so, we can redefine the airplane in its missions and how the sensors work and what they detect. Hypersonic cruise missiles, seeing that the horizon maybe with DAS, who knows what is the next evolution, but we know it is coming. And the plane is built to anticipate change.
Recently a Marine Corps general underscored that we are not making this airplane for Harrier pilots.
In fact, most F-35 pilots haven’t been born yet.
You’re making it for the next generation.
And they’re going to jump into the cockpit and they’re going to see a Nintendo or a PlayStation or whatever is the deal at that time.
But they’re not like us old guys that are looking for air speed, altitude, conventional electro-mechanical gauges.
They literally see a video console in front of them, and we’ve got to make the airplane for them.
They can deal with information and they can process it differently than you and I can.
And the link between the past and future at Hill was discussed briefly in an interview with Art Cameron of Lokcheed Martin, the former USAF general discussed his earlier time at Hill and now at Luke.
I spent 33 years in the USAF doing fighter sustainment, from turning wrenches on F-106’s in Northern Michigan in the late 70’s to working the latest fifth generation fighter, the F-22.
While I’ve worked all Air Force fighters, most of my career was with the F-16. I worked F-16’s at the first operational base, Hill AFB, in 1980. I worked F-16 flight test at Edwards AFB.
I deployed with the F-16. And, I led the MRO&U effort on the F-16 at Ogden Air Logistics Center. The F-16 was (still is) a great airplane.
However, it was built like most previous weapons systems, with sustainment not being an integral part of the design.
Aircraft operational capabilities have become evolutionary and revolutionary over the decades but, reliability and maintainability has not kept pace with the increased operational capabilities. The F-35, in many respects, is the first aircraft that has sustainment as an integral part of the aircraft design.
The original fifth generation aircraft, the F-22, was light years ahead in terms of sustainment with some of the integrated sustainment systems, the data management systems and the health management systems that are onboard the airplane.
The next fifth generation iteration, the F-35, is evolutionary and revolutionary ahead of even the F-22.
What we have learned in aircraft development is that the key to operational capability is to ensure aircraft availability.
Therefore, the big difference in the F-35 is that it’s built as an “Air System” which comprises both the aircraft and the sustainment system. Sustainment has been built in from day one in this airplane.
We like to say “sustainment is as integral to the aircraft as the wing”.
In short, the “Rude Rams” at Hill will be a key part of the “re-norming” or airpower.
It is in the hands of the warriors to make it happen; not the cubical commandos.
The first F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter ever to land at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, arrived here the afternoon of Sept. 13, 2013
The multirole, fifth-generation fighter arrived from the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron, Nellis AFB, Nev., and is scheduled to underwent post-production modifications at the Ogden Air Logistics Complex.
The Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, AO, officially handed over command of the Royal Australian Air Force to Air Marshal Leo Davies, AO CSC at a ceremony in Canberra today. Air Marshal Brown ended his four year term by expressing his gratitude to all Air Force staff for their contribution and thanking his colleagues, family and friends for their support during his 35 year career in Air Force. “I cannot leave without expressing my thanks to everyone in Air Force for the past 35 years. I have always felt fortunate to be part of the Air Force,” Air Marshal Brown said. “To be entrusted with the command of the Air Force is a special honour and even greater responsibility. The privilege of leading the Air Force has been immensely rewarding due to the contribution made by everyone in the Air Force.”
The Director General Chaplaincy – Air Force, Air Commodore Kevin Russell (left), reads a benadiction during the Air Force’s Change of Command Ceremony. The Ceremony sees the Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, AO, officially hand over command of the Royal Australian Air Force to Air Marshal Leo Davies (right), AO, CSC.
Air Marshal Brown welcomed Air Marshal Davies to the job and said he trusted Air Force would give Air Marshal Davies the same support that he was afforded. “I leave Air Force knowing that we are on the right path for the future, and Air Force is in the capable hands of Air Marshal Davies who will continue Plan Jericho,” Air Marshal Brown said. Air Marshal Davies said he was deeply honoured and privileged to lead the Royal Australian Air Force, and thanked Air Marshal Brown for his leadership and vision. “I accept this responsibility of leadership of the Royal Australian Air Force with all of its challenges and rewards, knowing that I will work hard every day to build on the achievements others have already made,” Air Marshal Davies said. “I thank you in advance for your support as we face the future challenges that will be demanded of us. I feel privileged to lead you at such an exciting time in Air Force’s history. Air Marshal Davies has served in a number of roles including the Commanding Officer of No 1 Squadron, Officer Commanding No 82 Wing Amberley, Director General Capability Planning in Air Force Headquarters, and was posted to Washington as the Air Attaché. His last posting was as Deputy Chief of Air Force.
In an interview with Second Line of Defense earlier this year, the new Chief of Staff discussed the way ahead and the reshaping of the RAAF to be at the spearhead of “fifth generation warfare” as the Australian Minister of Defence has put it.
Air Marshal Brown launched Plan Jericho, a comprehensive effort at transformation not only of the Air Force, but in terms of its role within the joint force.
Air Vice-Marshal Davies started precisely on the point of how he viewed Plan Jericho and its importance in helping shape a way ahead.
According to Davies: “The Plan Jericho approach dovetails very well with the overall relook which Australian defense is taking with regard to first principles.
There is a first principles review going on at the same time we have launched the Plan Jericho effort.
We think our approach is not simply about the Air Force but the overall process of transformation for Australian defense.”
He emphasized that “if we simply continue without transformation we will not be able to deal with threat environment which Australia and its allies face.
Significant innovation, shaping distributed operational capabilities, and greater coalition effectiveness are all part of the way ahead.
It is about building a more credible deterrent force, one whose effectiveness can not be in doubt in the eyes of the adversaries of the democracies.”
He explained further how he looked at the challeng.
“I call it the Janes factor.
I want a potential adversary to look at the Royal Australian Air Force, the Australian Defense Force more broadly, and then at a coalition force, of which Australia is a part, and flick through Janes fighting ships, fighting aircraft, fighting systems, and conclude that I do not want to butt heads with that group, actually.
That’s going to hurt me more than I can stand.
I suspect if we continue to evolve as we are, and have done over the last 20 years, without taking on a fifth generation warfare approach, then when they read that Jane’s volume on Australia, they’ll say probably they won’t be able to hurt me that badly.
This is clearly NOT the conclusion we wish our adversaries to reach.”
Air Vice-Marshal Davies highlighted that a key trajectory for force transformation was to be able to combine kinetic with non-kinetic capabilities to deliver the kind of combat effects, which are needed for a wide variety of combat tasks and situations.
He comes from an F-111 background, and the ability to project lethality at a distance was built into the F-111 approach.
But this approach is not the most relevant to the way ahead, for it is about combined capabilities delivering a multiplicity of effects appropriate to the task which is required.
“What we’ve had trouble appreciating, and this is somewhat tough for an F111 man, is that that concept is no longer valid.
We need to take the fighting force, not just the kinetic effect, to battle, and so our requirement for air lift, our requirement for anywhere refueling, became part of a fighter support package, but really the fighter support package now includes electronic warfare, it includes ISR, and it includes the ability to update the battle second by second, minute by minute, whereas what and we have been reliant upon ISR updates of day by day up until this point.
If we don’t have all the elements as we go forward into a particular series of events, I don’t believe we will prevail.
We will not be able to have the response that we need and for a force as small as the ADF is, that’s simply not going to be effective”
The force integration piece is the goal for Plan Jericho.
He mentioned that the Royal Australian Navy leadership was shaping a convergent approach to innovation and looking at naval and air integration as a key element of moving forward as well for their platforms.
“We already see manifestations of this in Operation Okra, where we have navy controllers on the Wedgetail and we will have Air Force controllers onboard Navy ships as well.
This is about breaking the cultural barriers.”
Air Commander Gary Martin, the Australian Air Attache in the United States, with Air Commodore Davies after the interview in late April 2015. Credit: SLD
A key element associated with the Plan Jericho approach is enhancing risk tolerance.
Risk aversion will not see the kind of innovation necessary to shape an integrated force which can leverage the new platforms, with the F-35 being a centerpiece for the innovation process.
“With the new technologies, the younger generation intuitively probes ways to do things differently.
We need to not get in the way but to facilitate change as senior leaders.
And we can seek out opportunities to enhance innovation.
For example, we have bought the C-27J in order to access many of the shorter airstrips in our area of operation.We can access four times the number of air fields in the Australian region with C27 than we can C130J.
We are going to send young crews to work with a mix of experienced C-130 crew members because we want to have fresh looks at how this fleet might operate in an island environment as vast as Australia and deliver the kind of military tasks that these crews will face and the Government expects.”
A core effort for the RAAF and the ADF is working a diversity of coalition efforts, and the coming of the global F-35 fleet enhances our ability to shape new working relationships in the near term.
“We have seen an expanding willingness among partners to share experiences and to shape convergent ways ahead in the past few years.
And we hope to continue this trend going forward.
For example, as South Korea adds the F-35 and works logistics or its integration with its Navy or Army, how might we learn from what they do?
And as we expand ways to enhance interoperability with the integration efforts we can expand the apertures of how we integrate various pieces of equipment going forward based on expanding working relationships with Asian and other allies.
I think that is the next step.”
We concluded the discussion by addressing a core question: when his time as Chief of the RAAF is over what will he hope to look back on as achievements during his time in office?
“There are two key tasks which I hope we will succeed in achieving.
The first is pushing beyond the platform approach.
A C-17 is not just about going from point A to point B. How do we reshape its role as we craft a fifth generation warfare approach?
More generally, how do we tie our inventory together in a more effective war fighting approach enabling us to prevail in the 21st century strategic environment?
The second is overcoming a risk averse culture.
We need to open opportunities for the young officers, airmen and airwomen to drive innovation and to open the aperture for integrative change.”
On August 6, 2015, the Williams Foundation will host an important conference on Plan Jericho, and the new COS will provide the keynote address at that conference.
According to the Williams Foundation:
The Sir Richard Williams Foundation invites you to attend a half-day Seminar from 0830 to 1230 on 6 August 2015 at the National Gallery of Australia.
Plan Jericho states that “Air platforms, command and control, and information management systems must be acquired in a deliberate manner, with a full regard for future operating concepts. We must achieve the future Air Force by design.” This Seminar will explore that statement and ask:
how can the RAAF, in partnership with the other Services, create the appropriate innovation / transformation environment to support the design and implementation of the RAAF’s Plan Jericho, and
is the RAAF on track to achieve the “future Air Force by design”?
This Seminar will build on the Williams Foundation Seminar series that has explored the opportunities and challenges afforded by the introduction of 5th Generation Air Combat capabilities.
The Seminar will:
examine how innovation can be encouraged at all levels and how can it lead to “transformation” by using US Industry and Military examples; and
identify options for a new model of teaming with Industry to support innovation and transformation.
Following the half-day seminar, there will be an invitation-only Workshop from 1230 to 1630 for Defence personnel who will play a role in implementing 5th generation enabled operations. Workshop participants will be issued with invitations through the RAAF Plan Jericho Office.
Second Line of Defense will attend the Conference and provide reporting from Australia before and after the event.
A full update on Plan Jericho will be provided as well as interviews with senior Australian defense officials and reporting from the field as well.
The significance of Aussie innovation goes beyond the confines of Australia.
For example, the working relationship with the USMC-USN team seen in the Northern territories will be highly interactive with the Aussies in shaping innovation both for the USN-USMC team as well as Australia.
Air-ground integration is an important aspect of the process of change which can already be seen in play in the current Talisman Sabre exercise.
FOG BAY, Australia (July 11, 2015)
U.S. Marines assigned to 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, and Australian Army soldiers assigned to 2nd battalion, Royal Australian regiment, set up a perimeter after a tactical insertion via MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft as part of an amphibious assault during Talisman Sabre 2015 at Fog Bay, Australia, July 11, 2015.
Talisman Sabre is a biennial exercise that provides an invaluable opportunity for approximately 30,000 U.S. and Australian service members to conduct operations in a combined, joint and interagency environment that will increase both countries’ ability to plan and execute contingency responses, from combat missions to humanitarian assistance efforts.
75 years after the start of the Battle of Britain, the RAF marked the anniversary today [Friday, 10 July] with an enhanced Change of the Guard and a flypast in front of The Queen and six Battle of Britain veterans at Buckingham Palace.
After the Guard Mounting by the Queen’s Colour Squadron – the first time the RAF has mounted consecutive Queen’s Guards – Her Majesty and other members of the Royal Family watched a flypast of four Spitfires, two Hurricanes and four Typhoon jets, showcasing the RAF aircraft protecting UK skies then and now.
This was followed by a Feu de Joie – ‘Fire of Joy’, a celebratory cascade of rifle fire – and Three Cheers for The Queen, led by Air Vice-Marshal Richard Knighton, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff.
The ceremony also involved ten Standards – military flags carried on poles – of Battle of Britain squadrons still serving in the RAF today as well as the RAF Central and Regiment bands.
Later a reception and lunch took place at the RAF Club attended by The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of Cambridge, The Earl and Countess of Wessex, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra.
Squadron Leader Rick Evans, officer commanding the Queen’s Colour Squadron, said: “Today was a fantastic occasion and opportunity for the Queen’s Colour Squadron to mark the Battle of Britain 75th anniversary.
“It comes at the end of an extremely busy fortnight which also saw our gunners assist in the repatriation of British citizens killed in Tunisia. These two very different tasks demonstrate QCS’ ability to represent the RAF and the nation in very different ways but with the same professionalism, diligence and, ultimately, dignity.”
Leading the flypast in a Spitfire was Squadron Leader Duncan Mason, officer commanding the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight at RAF Coningsby, who said: “For us, taking part today was an incredible honour.
Events like these events don’t happen often, but Leading the Typhoon element of the flypast was Squadron Leader Steve Kenworthy, of 3(F) Squadron at RAF Coningsby, who said: “It was a real privilege to lead the Typhoon formation in today’s flypast over Buckingham Palace, not only in front of Her Majesty, but also for the Battle of Britain veterans to whom we owe so much.
“It was a great event to be part of and something I shall look back on in years to come.”today gave us – the RAF and the nation – the opportunity to commemorate and recognise those extraordinary feats 75 years ago.
“Knowing that six Battle of Britain veteran pilots were watching us as we flew the very same aircraft they won the battle in, was humbling and I hope we did them proud.”
The Battle of Britain began on 10 July 1940 with a series of Luftwaffe attacks on shipping convoys off England’s south-east coast. On that day, the RAF shot down 14 enemy aircraft and severely damaged 23 more, according to the then Air Ministry. Some 200 patrols were flown involving 641 aircraft.
The battle ranks alongside the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo as one of the most significant in British history. It was the first major battle in history fought entirely in the air and was the first significant strategic defeat for the Nazis during World War II.
For catalogue of the official reports of the Battle of Britain, see the following:
Another busy start to the day at Biggin Hill in the summer of 1940. The Battle of Britain is at its height and 92 Squadron Spitfires with Geoffrey Wellum in ‘G’ for George, depart under early morning sunlight to engage a mass of incoming enemy aircraft over the southeast coast. By the end of 1940 the Squadron was credited with having destroyed 127 German aircraft.
One of the many ironies of history is shown in these two photos.
The first shows the RAF on the way to engage the German Air Force.
The second shows the RAF flying an aircraft built with the Germans and others, and flown by the German Air Force as well.
And one good way to remember the Battle of Britain and the RAF is to fund the modernization of the RAF for 21st century operations, by no means a certainty.
What is not widely realized that the RAF has been able to put a template for transformation together, which can allow it to play an effective joint and coalition role.
At the heart of the RAF approach is necking down from a larger type model series of aircraft to a smaller set of multi-mission aircraft which can provide for a more effective integrated role.
The sustainable reach part of the RAF is seeing the introduction of the new A330MRTT tanker, and the introduction of the A400M along with the C-17.
In terms of fighter aircraft, the RAF is undergoing a double transition with the Typhoon via weaponization and combat system upgrades taking on the Tornado roles along with the introduction of the F-35B aboard the new carrier.
This means that not only are the dynamics of different generations of aircraft – Typhoon with F-35 — to drive change but from the outset the RAF is working new approaches for the integration of sea-based and land-based air in a variety of new scalable, modular combinations under the influence of innovative C2 solution sets.
And in a fascinating BBC piece, the story of the Battle of Britain was broadened beyond the pilots, to the importance of the infrastructure put in place which allowed the UK to survive the initial onslaught.
Examining the German side of the story is key to properly understanding what happened during that world-changing summer of 1940.
For too long our image of the battle has been one of Spitfires and Hurricanes tussling against an over-mighty Luftwaffe, and of the Few who flew them saving Britain in our hour of need.
Certain aspects of the myth are true. It probably was our finest hour. By denying Germany the quick victory she so desperately needed, Britain did save the free world from Nazi domination.
Failing to defeat Britain in 1940 meant Hitler was forced into a long attritional war he knew he could not afford. This was instrumental in making him turn on Russia earlier than he originally planned – with catastrophic results.
By examining both the German perspective and looking in closer detail at our own, fascinating new light is cast on the Battle.
In reality, it was fought on a much broader front; beyond the Few were the men of Bomber Command and the rest of the RAF, and the full weight of a great maritime nation. Britain was no David to Germany’s Goliath, while the outcome was as much to do with German failings as it was Britain’s achievements.
And finally, one can listen to RAF pilots telling the story of the Battle Of Britain at the following:
This was the “lead from behind” effort from the US point of view, but an important moment for a number of allied air forces as well exploring their approaches and their limits in a coalition airpower campaign.
The report is more important for its look at the latter than the former.
What it provides is snapshots of how a number of allies involved in the air campaign approached the operation, and sorted out their sweet spot moving forward.
Separately treated are the UK, the French, the Italians, the Canadians, the Belgians, Danish, Dutch and Norwegians, the Swedes, and the Arab Air Forces.
This campaign has been important in preparing for the current air campaign over Iraq and Syria as well as preparing the Nordics for approaching Baltic defense and to deal with the Russians in the region.
We will focus here on the findings of the report with regard to some of those air forces.
The UK
For the UK, this began with Operation Deference, which proved to be an almost textbook example of crisis response undertaken at long range. Airpower was the only feasible means of quickly and safely evacuating several hundred UK civilians from sites deep within the Libyan desert.
The way in which the RAF Regiment 35 The Brimstone variant used in this case is referred to as “Legacy Brimstone,” the older variant of the weapon. provided organic defense to aircraft and to the evacuees also is noteworthy, and reinforces the importance of having a dedicated force-protection element within the air force.
Then, when the main campaign began, airpower achieved the decisive effect of removing most of the regime forces’ advantages, especially in airpower and heavy weapons.
RAF Typhoons prepare for take off at Gioia del Colle airbase, Italy,
This helped to even the playing field, and bought the anti-Qaddafi forces sufficient time to achieve a minimal level of organization, training, and equipment (pages 175-176).
A lesson which should have been learned by the US was the impact of the Brimstone missile which continues to play a unique and significant role in the current Middle East air campaign.
Two-man crews operate the Tornado, with the pilot in the rear operating the weapons systems.
The first squadron of Tornado operated first in 1982. The Tornados operated in the longest strike UK operation since World War II.
The initial strikes operated from the UK and involved three air refueling en route to Libyan targets.
They also operated a mixed formations whereby the Eurofighter operated with the Tornados on some of the operations. According to the RAF pilots, the Eurofighter provided the situational awareness, which the Tornado lacked.
The Storm Shadow cruise missile was used as the initial strike weapon and had a very high level of success and hits on targets.
The Brimstone was used as well in follow up operations in destroying Libyan armor.
This was the first operation in which the UK used the ASRAAM missile. The AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile is an infrared homing (“heat seeking”) air-to-air missile, produced by MBDA.
Their key role was battlefield air interdiction or BAI. And the typical load carried by the Tornado included mixes of LITENING targeting pod, Paveway IVs, Brimistone missiles, an integral gun, ASRAAMs, Storm Shadow, and counter-measure pods.
The Brimstone was the weapon of the choice for urban targets in the operation.
So why no Brimistones in the US inventory?
Is this the tanker example all over again?
The Italians
In 2011, the ITAF was on par with its coalition partners in terms of equipment (platforms, systems, and ordnance), procedures, and training.
The ITAF destroyed 534 (86 percent) of its 618 Designated Mean Points of Impact (DMPIs) and 97 percent of engaged targets.
Its shortcomings were circumscribed or were shared with most of its partners, and were balanced by areas of unique expertise or equipment.
Two Italian Air Force F-16 jet fighters fly over the Birgi NATO Airbase in Trapani on the southern Italian island of Sicily March 23, 2011.
Coupled with the provision of coalition-enabling logistic support and the difficult political and budgetary circumstances, the overall assessment was one of success and satisfaction.
The “lessons identified” and “lessons learned” process was launched immediately after the end of operations, with the closed-door airpower workshop held in November 2011. It included a “Lessons of Libya” panel that was chaired by Gen. b.a. Gabellini, the original head of the targeting division.
The first broad lesson that the ITAF drew in public from the Libyan crisis was the need for interdiction, air defense and SEAD, the very capabilities that protracted counterinsurgency engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan had sidelined.
This, in fact, merely underscored the long-held ITAF belief in the need for a balanced service centered upon an effective capability to carry out complex operations throughout the aerial domain, beyond the grand-scale logistics requested (or implied) by surface forces.
Air superiority’s enabling role with regard to surface operations is often forgotten or misunderstood by services whose use of aircraft is limited in quantity, breadth, and scope (pages 231-232).
Whatever the challenges facing airpower, it is the strategic process of leveraging airpower, which is crucial as well.
Among Italian analysts, little doubt exists that the prevalent conclusion is deep skepticism about these issues, regardless of their political or military background.
Italian Eurofighter jets prepare to land at Trapani-Birgi airbase in Sicily.
This consensus arises partly from practical considerations, such at the disappearance of a huge number of Libyan surface-to-air missiles, and the contrast between the “responsibility to protect” invoked in February and March 2011 and the bloody post-conflict anarchy.
Perhaps more importantly, it reflects a nearly universal Italian reading of the motivation and prospective outcome (versus Libya, domestic issues, other coalition partners). Gani best summarized the former view, saying: “It is evident that the cavalier and aggressive penetration in Libya aims to replace the Italians in terms of influence, trading position and energy and construction projects.”
Tani cynically described the latter as replacing the “consolidated kleptocracy of the Qaddafi family with a new pervasive kleptocracy” and “a stable lay autocracy with an Islamic-flavored chaos whose outlines cannot be mapped yet.”
Even the official SMD magazine concluded its analysis of the post- Qaddafi prospects with an eloquent “Inshallah” (“God willing”).
The Italian operational success, in other words, is not considered to have contributed to the overarching goal of stabilizing NATO and the Mediterranean; in fact, quite the contrary.168 If it were proved that the governments substituted action for analysis, the implication of the Libyan campaign would be that airpower is shaped by history (and, therefore, politics) rather than the contrary (pp. 237-238)
The Danes
Earlier this year, Second Line of Defense participated in and published a report based on a Copenhagen Airpower conference co-sponsored by the Williams Foundation of Australia and the Copenhagen-based Centre for Military Studies.
A key presentation at that conference was by Col. Anders Rex who underscored how the Danish Air Force was punching above its weight.
According to Col. Rex, coalitions are about solidarity and burden-sharing in dealing with shared tasks and missions.
Being a good coalition partner takes practice.
We have a core group in the Danish Air Force, which has done several coalition operations, and when we are not doing that we participate in multinational exercises.
This is a core competence that the Danish Air Force has developed, and as we do so we work to find the gold in each coalition operation.
Clearly, for the 30 operational Danish F-16s in the Danish fleet to have impact they need to work effectively with those of other Air Forces, especially the countries in the region who also fly F-16s.
A Danish F-16 aircraft are being prepared by his departure to Sicily, to participate in Operation Dawn Odyssey against Libya. (Photo: Jesper Kristensen)
Of course, the USAF is a much larger force than that of Denmark’s.
But Col. Rex underscored that “it’s so big that if you look at the rate of coalition training opportunities per airman I’m sure it’s a lot lower than an air force like the Danish one.”
For the operations which we undertake “It’s really important to know and understand how to make the most out of a coalition, how to dig out the gold.”
Airpower is the essential element to any kind of rapid response coalition operation.
Look at the Libyan operation as an example.
The Libyan mission was decided and less than 12 hours after the political decision, six Danish F16s took off from Denmark and flew down to Sigonella (in Italy); and less than 30 hours after we landed down there we flew our first combat mission in the operation.
That is fast.
Col. Rex highlighted that the Danes are able to do that because of their rapid decision making cycle.
The Danes have clear responsibilities and a tightly knit force.
One of the good things about being small is that you know everyone, especially when you get to the colonel level, for instance, there’s very few of us.
I think there’s about a hundred, so it’s easy to know a hundred people.
He also argued that coalitions are about diversity and being able to combine different forces that provide different capabilities into an integrated whole.
But of course, to do that you have to train, train, and train together.
The European F-16 operators punched significantly above their weight. Despite their small defense expenditures, they made a disproportionate contribution to the campaign. In particular, the RDAF accumulated a strike volume approaching those of the French forces and of the RAF.
The latter was reported to have dropped approximately 1,400 PGMs (including air launched cruise missiles) by October 24 and French Air Force and Navy aircraft in excess of 1,140 PGMs (including air-launched cruise missiles) by the end of September.
While—among the EPAF nations—Denmark came out on top in terms of strike missions conducted and PGMs dropped….
Examining the costs of the various national contributions, the European F-16 forces provided good value for money. The RDAF’s total cost for the operation was 621 million Danish kroner ($109 million). Of this amount, 297 million kroner ($52 million) would have been spent on training, salaries, and maintenance in any case.
Thus, the added cost for the RDAF’s Libya operations was 324 million kroner ($57 million). This added cost primarily covered the munitions expended.182 In January 2012, the Norwegian Minister of Defence stated that the cost of Norwegian Libya operations amounted to approximately 320 million Norwegian kroner ($55 million), which turned out to be lower than a May 2011 estimate (pages 301-302).
Conclusion
Second Line of Defense focused on a number of issues emerging from the campaign earlier, namely, how the USMC and the French approached the operation.
The coalition challenge inherent in the operation highlights how important working through better coalition C2 and ISR as the US and its allies work through 21st century air operations.
Royal Air Force Tornado GR4’s during a refueling mission over the Mediterranean Sea during 2011 combat operations in Libya. USAF Photo
We focused as well upon key aspects of C2 and other key tool sets to conduct such a campaign.
The operation underscored the challenge of “dynamic targeting.”
The shift from destroying identifiable military equipment being used by the Libyan forces supporting Gaddafi to engaging forces on the ground countering the rebels required “dynamic targeting.”
And this can only be done by situational awareness which allows aircraft to target elements blended with the population and this requires aircraft flying low, with close proximity weapons, with forces on the ground able to identify targets in a fluid situation.
As a French officer put it: “We had difficulty getting authorization to fly low, we had limited close proximity weapons and we had severe limitations of forces on the ground able to identify accurate targets.”
For one senior officer the problem was clear: “Going forward we have to augment our capability to do dynamic targeting.
If we are going to intervene in situations where we are supporting contested space and need to support either local or our own forces, we need better capabilities to influence the situation on the ground.
Air systems can clearly do this, but in coordination with ground targeting elements. And the pilots need to be granted more authority.
We have to stop believing that some far-away command authority has better SA or moral authority than the pilot over the target.
And the notion that unmanned systems are going to replace the pilot is ludicrous in a dynamic targeting situation.
If we are reluctant to give a guy with SA in the pilot’s seat authority, why are we going to give some guy in Nevada or Paris looking through a soda straw the authority to do dynamic targeting.”
And the coming of age of the Osprey, including the extraordinary rescue of a downed Air Force pilot.
Cpl. Sean Moberly with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 266, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, runs preflight checks on an AV-8B Harrier on the flight deck of amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge in preparation of Operation Odyssey Dawn missions. In OD, the Osprey was used as rapid mover of parts from Sigonella to the Kearsarge and tripled th expected sortie rates for the Harriers. Credit: US Sixth Fleet Public Affairs.
Clearly, Odyssey Dawn was a learning experience and a step towards reworking how to do joint and coalition operations.
More effective US organizational coherence is clearly a key challenge going forward in coalition operations.
The RAND study provides an important contribution looking back and forward on the process.
But it is not just about the challenges of the Alliance going forward; it is shaping more effective objectives, and approaches to joint operations as well.
The operation also showed the limits laid down by the political leadership, and the absolute significance of reworking how civilians approach the use of airpower in the period ahead.
The US military is more capable of conducting insertion operations than the political and civilian leadership is of determining the objectives.
Indeed, one can argue that the greatest strategic gap is shaping a strategic elite, which actually is one.
Editor’s Note: We would like to thank our partner Hans Tino Hansen of Risk Intelligence for bringing this report to our attention.
RAND summarized its report as follows:
Between March and October 2011, a coalition of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states and several partner nations waged a war against Muammar Qaddafi’s Libyan regime that stemmed and then reversed the tide of Libya’s civil war, preventing Qaddafi from crushing the nascent rebel movement seeking to overthrow his dictatorship and going on to enable opposition forces to prevail.
The central element of this intervention was a relatively small multinational force’s air campaign operating from NATO bases in several countries, as well as from a handful of aircraft carriers and amphibious ships in the Mediterranean Sea.
The study details each country’s contribution to that air campaign, examining such issues as the limits of airpower and coordination among nations. It also explores whether the Libyan experience offers a potential model for the future.
Key Findings
Airpower Prevented an Early Regime Victory
The air campaign enabled the opposition to survive Qaddafi’s offensive in March 2011.
Imposition of the no-fly zone and the continuation of coalition air strikes had a profound effect on the Libyan rebels beyond the protection those strikes provided from air and ground attacks.
Airpower Enabled Rebels to Go on the Offensive
Aerial intervention made possible not merely a victory against Qaddafi, but a Libyan victory.
The availability of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, especially of developed targets, was central to the conduct of the air campaign.
Intervention Was Done Cheaply and Effectively
No coalition personnel were killed, or even seriously wounded, carrying out operations over (or in) Libya.
Target planners and aircrews generally succeeded in their considerable efforts to avoid civilian casualties.
The war is estimated to have cost the coalition several billion dollars, a relatively low figure compared to other conflicts.
Several nations’ air forces were stretched to the limit of their abilities to sustain aircraft deployments.
Airpower Was Intertwined With Politics
The Libyan aerial intervention was unusual in having a rationale that explicitly revolved around a mandate to protect civilians.
The Arab states’ most important strategic contribution was in the political domain and in providing assistance to the Libyan rebels.
The United Nations’ endorsement of the intervention heavily influenced the participation of some countries.
Applying the “Libya model” of using airpower to enable victories by indigenous ground forces to other settings is potentially powerful but will often be more difficult, especially where political conditions are less favorable than in Libya.
Recommendations
Develop provisions among NATO countries to enhance their ability to operate as an alliance within ever-changing coalitions, anticipating that it will be hard to predict the roster of players in some future endeavors.
Prepare to deal with the unanticipated absence of significant allies.
Build capabilities for cooperation with indigenous forces, which is all-important in cases such as Libya and should be first among many areas of further investigation into improving strategies and techniques for aerial interventions.
Develop standardized procedures and templates for information sharing (to include classification protocols) with “‘NATO-plus”‘ partners to ease transition and integration issues.
Invest in munitions with limited kinetic effects, such as Brimstone, which demonstrated their worth in Libya.
For non-U.S. members, plan to address shortfalls in available capacity for air refueling, suppression of enemy air defenses, intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance collection and analysis, and other “enabling” functions that the United States predominantly contributed to the Libya campaign.
Recognizing what airpower cannot do — and communicating this effectively to national leaders — is as important as envisioning what it can do.
Earlier Second Line of Defense and partner pieces on Odyssey Dawn:
The latest Mission Impossible film will introduce the A400M to the viewing public.
As an Airbus Defence and Space press release highlighted:
It will be the world’s most advanced military transport aircraft for decades to come but the Airbus A400M may never again be called upon to perform its astounding role in upcoming movie Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.
The A400M can drop 116 fully-equipped paratroopers in combat fatigues as part of its core capabilities and also carry a sharp-suited superstar like Tom Cruise on the outside of the aircraft.
Working with the Airbus Defence and Space flight test team that is exactly what Paramount Pictures requested and got for what is sure to be one of this year’s biggest cinema hits.
Viewers will see Cruise run across the aircraft’s wing as it taxies for take-off and then cling on as it climbs away from the runway – special panels on the side of the aircraft that normally serve to cut air turbulence around the paratroopers playing an unexpected role as handholds for the actor.
The incredible sequence was shot eight times at RAF Wittering airbase in the UK and Cruise has declared it his most dangerous stunt ever.
But Airbus Defence and Space Military Aircraft Head of Flight Test & Operations Eric Isorce said “We knew exactly what we were doing. We work in different worlds but we are all professionals at what we do and Tom was an absolute pleasure to work with.”
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – ROGUE NATION
Paramount Pictures and Skydance present a Tom Cruise / Bad Robot Production, “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – ROGUE NATION.” With the IMF disbanded and Ethan (Tom Cruise) out in the cold, the team now faces off against a network of highly skilled special agents, the Syndicate.
These highly trained operatives are hellbent on creating a new world order through an escalating series of terrorist attacks. Ethan gathers his team and joins forces with disavowed British agent Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), who may or may not be a member of this rogue nation, as the group faces its most impossible mission yet.
Starring Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Rebecca Ferguson, Ving Rhames, Sean Harris and Alec Baldwin.
The film is directed by Christopher McQuarrie, with a screenplay by Christopher McQuarrie and story by Christopher McQuarrie and Drew Pearce. Based on the television series created by Bruce Geller. Produced by Tom Cruise, J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk, David Ellison, Dana Goldberg and Don Granger. Jake Myers is an executive producer.
Paramount Pictures will distribute “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – ROGUE NATION” on July 31, 2015.
And the best way to remember and honor those who have come before is to strive for excellence and to innovate going forward.
I have visited the 2nd MAW many times over the past few years, and have found the leadership and warriors of the 2nd MAW to have been engaged in global operations and while doing so finding ways to reshape the capabilities of the USMC to execute 21st century missions.
2nd MAW was an important stimulant to my own innovation.
After taking several journalists to Cherry Point, and having a chance to meet the senior leadership and several Marines, not a single story emerged. This was in spite of the 2nd MAW team being on the cutting edge of introducing the Osprey into combat, about to go on their final tour into Iraq, and to have discussed with passion why the massive buy of MRAPS made no sense.
In fact, the CG asked the relevant Lt. Col. to discuss why he thought the MRAPs were not good things to hand over to the Iraqis. In giving a spirited answer that history would prove correct – to the point of they were not going to be maintained by the Iraqis and that there were too many variants to be a useful leave behind, among other points, I thought that a story like that in 2007 would make good sense.
But it did not see the light of day.
Why?
I asked one prominent journalist why he did not pursue the story.
The answer: “the Marine who made these points was only a Lt. Col. When I deal with the US Army on such matters I only deal with Generals.”
OK, there clearly was a problem here.
And looking around, I found that indeed the apparently least interesting thing to discuss is what the warriors were actually doing in shaping their combat futures.
And it was at this time of course, all the cubical commandos and asserted facts journalists buried the Osprey into the proverbial sand of history.
Next up of course has been the F-35.
As one prominent analyst told me recently: “I do not know why the USMC is taking risks with the plane, for they should wait until the GAO and the testers are done.”
Of course, one answer is that the GAO and the testers are never done, and new equipment is not operated by either group.
Another answer of course is that the GAO is better at blocking acquisition than aiding it.
A powerful example is the tanker, where the USAF has no new tankers while the Airbus tanker is flying now with multiple Air Forces and has reached nearly 30 operational aircraft.
And ironically, the plane that is being sold is the USAF plane, so a good headline would be something like USAF tanker 30; GAO 0.
Major General Hedelund
Two interviews with former CGs of the 2nd MAW highlighted various aspects of the innovation generated by the warriors of the wing.
The most recent was with Major General Hedelund who focused on the process of change.
Question: Looking back how do you view the process of change?
MajGen Hedelund: If I reflect back on my own experience with the Osprey and can certainly underscore that innovation takes time. When I was getting ready to get my wings in Pensacola, a senior Marine came and shook my hand and said that I was going to be a lucky Marine.
Why I asked? He said “you are going to the East Coast CH-46s for one deployment and then to the MV-22 for the rest of your career.”
That was 1985. My next checkpoint along the way was a stop at the Boeing plant in 1988 to see the first Osprey on the planet.
This was the aircraft they rolled out for General Gray and it was pained in in General Gray’s camouflage. And there I was, Captain Hedelund, looking into to the cockpit with excitement, and at a cockpit that would never be used in an operational Osprey.
In 2001, I was slated to become a VMM commander but became an HMM commander because the V22 program was in an operational pause. So I became the CO of HMM-162, but then next up was Karsten Heckl, now Assistant Deputy Commandant for Aviation, who then became the first VMM-162 Commander.
When I became the CO of MAWTS-1 in 2006, I had my first crack at flying the airplane.
Major General Hedelund after the Second Line of Defense Interview on June 25, 2014. Credit: SLD
And the experience was an eye opener with regard to what a key platform it could be for the USMC and change the way we did amphibious assault.
Iraqi operations was really the first time that MAWTS-1 got their hands on a living, breathing V-22 and our task at the time was to integrate the plane into Iraqi operations and also for the weapons and tactics instructors course.
Question: When I first came to New River several years ago there were very few Ospreys on the tarmac.
When I came down earlier this year with Murielle Delaporte she was surprised the number of Ospreys on the tarmac, and as frequent visitor and interviewer of the French Air Force, she pointed out that numbers matter.
MG Hedelund: We are only talking now a few years, but the changes in that time have been truly stunning.
And we are taking that operational experience and marrying it with a wide range of innovative thinking as well, with regard to anticipating the F-35, to the use of UAVs, to the integration of electronic warfare, and with regards to digital integration of the assault force.
For us, innovation is blended with a combat culture that innovates for a purpose – to succeed in difficult circumstances.
With the Osprey we are not thinking rotorcraft terms.
We are thinking in big chunks of operational space and figuring out how to operate more effectively within the expanded battlespace.
When I say speed is life, I think that you can do things with a force that is relatively light by being ahead of them as far as situational awareness and reach so you can get in, get something accomplished and get out before the adversary knows that you’re in their backyard.
Question: I am able to spend time with your KC-130J squadron and the warriors operating Harvest Hawk. They are really expanding the notion of sustainment and really are crucial to what one might call sustainable reach.
The Osprey flight line as the MEU prepares to deploy from New River. Credit Photo: SLD, 2012
MG Hedelund: The KC-130J and Osprey pairing is changing the way the USMC operates, and another major change on the way is with regard to electronic warfare.
We are working with UAVs, Prowlers and with the F-35 when it gets here, to reshape how we think about electronic warfare.
A capability like Harvest Hawk has revolutionized how we look at NTISR and delivery of precision fires – game changer simply said.
Tactical electronic attack is an art form that enables thinking through how to operate a force in a contested operational area.
The Marines have pioneered electronic warfare, and at 2nd MAW we are working the problem hard.
Question: You have raised the point about evolving and future oriented capabilities. How is 2nd MAW getting ready for the future, including the introduction of F-35s into the MAGTF?
MG Hedelund: We want to accelerate the innovation, which the F-35 can bring to the USMC.
We are digital immigrants; the operators of the F-35 are going to be the digital natives.
Earlier, the then CG of 2nd MAW and now the current Deputy Commandant of Aviation, Lt. General Davis, provided a powerful sense of how 2nd MAW was addressing the future.
This interview was first published on October 4, 2011.
During an interview at Cherry Point Air Station, the Commanding General of the 2nd MAW continued an earlier conversation on the evolution of the Amphibious Ready Group. We had discussed earlier the emergence of the “newly enabled ARG” and its impact on the nation. Here the CG discussed the ground being prepared for the new USMC pilots, or the “iPad generation pilots,” as we have referred to them.
General Davis discussed the flexibility and significance of the Amphibious Ready Group and the MEU structure to the Marine Corps and the Nation. The General referred to the MEUs has having a “job jar” for each deployment and that “job jar” has of late turned out to be very different each time they set sail.
But because of the inherent flexibility of the ARG, they like no other combat structure are ready to handle the wide variety of mission sets the Combatant Commanders have asked them to take on. In many ways the MEU’s “job jars” can be shaped on the fly (vice being stuck with a preset and rigid mission structure).
The CG of the 2nd MAW has significant experience with the aviation elements, which are helping shape a newly enabled ARG, and he discussed the impact of these new systems — today. The capability of the ARG is being reshaped under the influence of the Osprey now, and will be even more so with the F-35B in the near future.
The Marine Corps, whether we’re maneuvering (from) forward operating bases ashore or maneuvering (from) sea bases afloat is an immensely valuable force. The Combatant Commanders keep asking for more of what we produce for deterrence and combat operations – in every corner of the globe.
Marine Forces are so utilitarian, offer such strategic agility, and can be very readily tailored to be right sized for the task at hand – that our demand signal is way up.
From my vantage point, it seems like we need more of what we deliver – and will need even more in the future … and we’re procuring the kind of equipment that allows us to sustain and exponentially improve upon our capability to do that in the future, and I would contend deliver a lot of bang for the buck.
General Davis discussed the impact of the Osprey in terms of speed and range and the operational flexibility of the Osprey for current operations.
The Osprey allows the warfighter to influence operations over a vast chunk of real estate at speeds and ranges twice that of conventional helicopters – the operational and strategic significance of this capability should not be unappreciated. Your ability to influence from a sea base or to maneuver ashore is expanded significantly with this plane. And when you team the Osprey with the F-35B, you will be able to provide significantly greater combat capabilities – and options – to the Combatant Commanders.
For example, the bad guys could look at Libya and conclude: Look at what the V-22s did to us in Libya; we are going to develop air defense systems that will deny the Marines the ability to use that plane to the strategic and operational advantage they displayed in 2011. But with the F-35 escorting that airplane, it will be able to expand where it the Osprey goes and under what conditions.
I will be able to go after an air threat, ground threat – and provide air-ground fires deep in the enemy’s battlespace in support of MV-22 operations – and do all that from a large deck amphibious ship.
We are just scratching the surface of what the MV-22 can do and when we can combine them with the F-35 –its the envelope will only expand….
Another aspect of the impact of the MV-22 on operations was underscored in the recent 26th MEU operations.
We were able to use the Osprey as a logistical enabler for the MEU at sea. This will allow you to leverage the value of the deployed fleet because you can actually leverage a distributed fleet to move critical material around the fleet in operation.
Just two days ago we saw a MV-22 deliver a Harrier engine from the supply ship over to a big deck and that hadn’t been done before. We have always done it with CH-53s but our CH-53s have pulled off of that ship to do another mission.
During the Libyan mission we flew the Ospreys to get parts and supplies which allowed us to sustain the ARG at longer ranges (four times what we were able to with a 46) – and at twice the speed – you can’t understate the operational impact of using this bird in a logistics role like that.
In the end it makes deployed MAGTFs that much more agile and effective – and valuable to a Combatant Commander.
Another illustration of the flexibility, which the Osprey provides, is the ability to move the plane from one location to another rapidly to augment capability. For example:
When we moved the Ospreys from Afghanistan to rejoin the ARG, they flew directly from Afghanistan to Kuwait to Souda Bay, being tanked along the way, and did the flight in one day (in under 13 hours of flight time).
The Osprey allows provides significantly greater survivability for the Marines.
I can fly to and from my objective area above the threat the primary threat. It’s very hard for the bad guys to predict exactly where the airplane is going or when it is going to come down on them.
It is very quiet in plane operating mode – allowing us to move Marines and material quickly, quietly and operationally effectively.
Due to the speed, range, low noise signature and cruise altitudes – the bad guys have a hard time telegraphing where the airplane’s going to land. There is a capability that is hard to put a quantitative value on – but to me a lot of folks talk about game changers – this is a no bull — bonafide one.
The CG then discussed the shift associated with the F-35B.
My son is a Harrier pilot and the way we are operating our AV-8Bs off of the MEUs is a sea change from what we used before. In fact, there is absolutely no comparison to what we do today – and what we deliver for the Combatant Commander with our AV-8Bs as compared to what I could do in my AV-8B as a young attack pilot. I look at what they did during the 26th MEU and I am immensely proud of the capability we have developed and delivered to the Combatant Commanders.
The improvements in capability we have put into the AV-8B has changed the way the combatant commanders looks at the jet and more importantly, changed the way they look at Marine Expeditionary Units and the capabilities that they bring to bear. Deep, responsive precision strike capability – now we are getting ready to deploy them with AMRAAM….
And what we have coming in the F-35B as compared to an AV8-B is absolutely no comparison.
It is absolutely, positively no comparison.
This airplane is going to change the capability of the ARG exponentially – in a very significant and positive direction. It is going to change again how the combatant commanders look at the MEU, the efficacy and utility of amphibious ships, the overall benefit of the MAGTFs embarked aboard amphibious ships and the strategic importance of this capability as it relates to our national security strategy.
And we will be able to bring an electronic warfare capability off of the ARG with the F-35B. We have driven home the importance of electronic warfare for the USN-USMC team and not just at the high-end of the fight.
The CG emphasized the importance of the EW culture within the USMC, and to the Prowler community within the USMC.
The Prowler guys are some of the brightest guys in the USMC.
But the F-35B was going to provide the USMC aviator cultures in our Harriers, Hornets and Prowlers to coalesce and I think to shape an innovative new launch point for the USMC aviation community.
We are going to blend three outstanding communities. Each community has a slightly different approach to problem solving.
You’ve got the expeditionary basing that the Harrier guys are bringing to you. You have the electronic warfare side of the equation and the high-end fight that the Prowler guys thing about and the coms and jamming side of the equation, which the Prowler guys think about.
And you have the multi-role approach of the F-18 guys.
I think it is going to be a fantastic blending of not only perspectives but also attitudes. And what I really look forward to is not the old guys like me, but the very young guys who will fly this fantastic new capability. The older generation may have a harder time unleashing the power and potential of the new gear – the new capabilities. We might say “why don’t you do it this way” when that approach might be exactly the wrong thing to do from a capabilities standpoint.
My sense is the young guys will blend. We’ve already picked the first Prowler pilot to go be an F35 guy. He’s going to do great and he’s going to add perspective and attitude to the tribe down at Eglin getting ready to fly the jet that’s going to make a big impact on the F35 community.
I think it’s going to be the new generation, the newbies that are in the training command right now that are getting ready to go fly the F35, who are going to unleash the capabilities of this jet.
They will say, “Hey, this is what the system will give me. Don’t cap me; don’t box me.
This is what this thing can do, this is how we can best employ the machine, its agility its sensors to support the guy on the ground, our MEU Commanders and our Combatant Commanders and this is what we should do with it to make it effective.”
During General Walsh’s time in Iraq, there was a double transition underway.
The first transition was the acceleration of stability operations.
The second was the growing collaboration with the Iraqis in shaping their evolving capability to provide for their own internal security.
This meant that the air element for the USMC had two crucial tasks: to support US force as they began to withdraw and prepare for their exit role as Iraqi advisors; to assist the Iraqis in shaping operations to provide for their own security.
As such, the core role of the USMC air was largely non-kinetic but with a residual kinetic role. The non-kinetic role needs to be understood as a presence and support role. The presence role was robust and significant; and General Walsh argued that the metrics for this significant airpower role are not well understood. “One can measure the effects of kinetic strike; it is more difficult to measure the effects of presence.”
Put in its simplest terms, General Walsh provided a core understanding to the strategic shift in the use of manned air in the COIN environment.
The shift is from shaping air around precision-strike to shaping air to provide collaborative presence.
The Challenge of D.O. : the Absence of Rear Area
At the heart of the challenge is that “you are not dealing with one large formation on attack; the forces are very decentralized and very distributed. You are dealing with a very large area and with a dispersed force. You are dealing with little formations all over Anbar province, which is 250 miles by 150 miles in area. You have companies and platoons split over a large territory, which you have to support with limited assets. There is no rear area; there is no safe area.”
General Walsh went on to characterize the situation facing the COIN (Counter-Insurgency) military force. “The enemy can hit you anywhere; the enemy gets a vote is how I characterize it. We are not on the offensive; we are on the defensive. Both the enemy and we are living among the people, and the challenge is to get them on our side. If they are on our side they will give us credible information upon which we can act. But to know that level of detail you have to be distributed or dispersed.”
For the Commanding Officer, the challenge is simply the following: “How does aviation provide support in such a chaotic environment? Just as the guy on the ground is not certain of what is about to happen, so does the pilot trying to support those ground elements: all must deal with managing uncertainty.”
Measuring the Effect of Presence
General Walsh’s answer revolved around the shift from precision strike to presence. Air presence was significant on three major levels for the USMC during this period in Iraq.
First, presence was crucial to support the Marine on the ground. This could be lift, it could be overwatch, it could be an ability to provide fire support, it could be to fly low to demonstrate to the population that the ground element had significant firepower available, it could be to deal with the disparate strikes to which the ground forces were still subject to from a dispersed enemy.
“A lot of times, Marines on the ground would ask us to come down lower so that they could see us. How do you measure that effect?” General Walsh characterized this concept as “no Marine walks alone.”
When a Marine is operating “outside of the wire,” the role of airpower is to provide protection and support to that Marine.
He gave an example of dealing with an IED-event. “When you have a vehicle blown with an IED and have the road all of a sudden divided into two slow moving small lanes of vehicles, how do you know who is in those vehicles? How do you know what they are going to do?
You can wait a long time for the clearing vehicles to show up, especially as we drew down combat posts. A request would come in: Please bring in a fighter for presence to show you are there. How do you measure that effect?”
Second, it could be re-assurance to the population. As the Iraqi leadership began to perform more functions, there was a remaining need to reassure the population that support could be provided throughout the country to the Iraqi allies.
“For example, when the provincial government was to be seated in Al Anbar in June 2009, there was an Al Qaeda threat to Ramadi. The Governor asked us to fly our F-18s at 5000 feet to reassure the population and to deter any threats.”
Third, it could be presence to deter attacks from a dispersed adversary. The pop-up capability of an adversary blended into a civilian population meant that air assets were in demand to come in and to support the ground elements on an ad hoc, and on-call role.
As an example of the challenge of confronting attacks in a dispersed environment challenge, General Walsh gave this example. “I was on the ground; we were stopped at a check point and the check point came under motor fire. Several vehicles in front of us were destroyed. All hell was breaking loose with mortars coming in every few seconds. We did not know where the things were coming from. We of course had no battery radar. We called in some F-18s and the minute the planes showed up the firing stopped; the enemy figured out that the F18s would know where they were with the obvious consequences. How do you measure this effect?”
Airpower All the More Crucial for Retrograde Operations
Indeed, General Walsh underscored that as the US forces withdraw, there was demand for more – not less – airpower. This happened on several levels.
On one level, this was due to the drawdown of the number of combat posts, which supported operations in Iraq. American forces continued to work with Iraqi forces but now had to commute from distance to do their work, rather than being in close proximity to combat posts. This meant that airpower had to provide regular support to the transit of US forces working with Iraqis.
“At one point we had 140 combat posts; while we were there we went from 36 to 4 combat posts; so air was relied on more frequently for convoy protection. As we drew down combat posts and associated capabilities, air was relied on for capabilities which had earlier been largely provided by the ground forces.”
Harrier operating in Iraq during a dust storm, Credit: USMC
On another level, this was due to the need to protect the convoys moving equipment out of Iraq. “”As you close down and do retrograde, you have to move further out in road miles and that requires air support.”
In addition, transport needs to move support elements to work with Iraqis increased demands for air transport. “We were increasingly asked to provide support for partnering operations…..”
Ground-Manned Air-Unmanned Air Assets: A Complementary Triade
The USMC experience in Iraq, which is being transferred to Afghanistan, is re-shaping as well the way the USMC will operate in its CONUS-based air bases. The same approach to using mission planning and integration to give the base commanders a better grasp of the operation of the air assets.
General Walsh added as well that the unmanned systems are very useful in providing persistent stare for ground engagements. Yet they are limited in terms of effectiveness by simply generating data, which are not useful unless they are integrated with ground presence. “If I know there is a problem but I am far away, what use is that?”
Another problem is the distance from the operation for a UAV controller back in the United States.
“For example, a ground controller for a UAS back in the US is viewing the entry into a house or area and trying to determine location of possible insurgent and trying to determine whether I place a hellfire or not on the target. So for the Marine on the ground who do you trust more, the guy making the decision back in the US or the USMC air element with whom I am directly talking and is directly overhead?”
The ability to work the Osprey with UAS will also be a significant improvement: “In Afghanistan, when the UAS tracks the bad guys, we will be able to use the Osprey to drop Marines close to the bad guys and then to prosecute.
Just having data identifying a problem is not going to close the deal: having the guys on the ground get there quickly enough to make a difference will.”
General Walsh concluded by emphasizing the central role of the manned element in playing the presence role within COIN.
“The ability of the ground and air elements to work together to shape presence in a COIN environment is central to re-assurance of the Marine on the ground, to the population you are trying to reassure, and to the ability to strike an adversary who can pop up without warning.”
And the most recent visit to 2nd MAW led to an opportunity to look at innovation in low altitude air defense, electronic warfare, unmanned operations, and F-35 training and integration into the MAGTF.
And a chance to meet the latest “members” of the 2nd MAW, who happen to be British!
The team at Second Line of Defense want to thank you for providing insights into the innovation which real warriors are putting into operation.
And we want to thank all those warriors who have shared their time with us and provided insights into the challenges of the way ahead, but showing the courage to actually shape the future, rather than to stop at the water’s edge and fear to enter the water.
Editor’s Note: The video at the beginning of the article was produced by 2nd Marine Air Wing and dedicated to the members of 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing commemorating the 74th year anniversary.
Since the GAO blocked the USAF buying the A300MRTT as the next generation tanker, the USAF configured aircraft has won every competition outside of the United States.
The latest country to join the Airbus tanker fleet is South Korea.
In late June, South Korea announced that they would buy four Airbus tankers with delivery starting in 2019.
It is clear that the operational experience of Australia with the KC-30A and the selection of the Airbus tanker by Singapore played an important role in the South Korean decision.
And Australia has decided to add to its fleet of KC-30As as well.
(Video is of KC-30A operating in Iraq operation with Air Marshal Brown onboard who is commenting on the aircraft and the squadron).
The fleet will expand to 7 with the decision to modify 2 A330s.
According to an Airbus Defence and Space press release on July 1, 2015:
In RAAF service the A330 MRTT is equipped with the Airbus Refuelling Boom System (ARBS), two underwing hose-and-drogue refuelling pods used to refuel RAAF F/A-18 and other fighters, and a Universal Aerial Refuelling Receptacle Slipway Installation (UARRSI) allowing it to be refuelled itself from another tanker.
The refuelling boom is now in service with RAAF and has been used to refuel other KC-30A aircraft and the E-7A Wedgetail.
The KC-30A is combat-proven in the Middle East where it refuelled a variety of Australian & Coalition aircraft.
Airbus Defence and Space Head of Sales & Marketing, Military Aircraft, Antonio Rodriguez Barberan said: “We deeply appreciate the RAAF’s long-term support of the development of the A330 MRTT since launch and we thank the Commonwealth of Australia for its continued faith in our company and its products.”
Much of the press surrounding the South Korean decision focused on the Boeing-Airbus rivalry and that Airbus won.
Although true, it misses the strategic point.
A member of the Royal Australian Air Force refuels a RAAF F/A-18 from a KC-30A Multi Role Tanker Transport while participating in Cope North 13 near Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, Feb. 13, 2013. In the RAAF’s new KC-30A, the refuel systems are controlled by an air refueling operator in the cockpit, who can view refueling on 2D and 3D screens. U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Matthew Bruch. 2/13/13
The Airbus tanker is maturing, is in use with the Aussies and is the tanker of choice for all Air Forces who have made decisions on tankers since the early Japanese and Italian decisions for an older variant of the 767 tanker.
This includes the USAF.
That decision was blocked on GAO and political grounds; not a consideration for the Aussies, for example, who picked what they believed to be the best platform for the task.
Since the GAO stands for the Government Accountability Office, who is going to hold them accountable?
Now the Aussies, the South Koreans, and Singaporeans will be flying the same tanker and will have a fleet of 17 tankers, which can operate in what we have called the strategic quadrangle operating over the Western Pacific.
This will enable US aircraft as well, as already seen in Iraq operations with four air forces flying Airbus tankers.
And for the USMC and the USAF, getting the Osprey certified for refueling by the A330MRTT is a very good idea.
Effectively managing security and defense from Hawaii back to Alaska and the West Coast of the United States is one key aspect of the challenge. The other is managing operational presence, capability, and effectiveness west of Hawaii. Hawaii is a key locus of the presence of U.S. forces in the Pacific.
Not only is it the physical seat of the U.S. Pacific Command, in charge of U.S. forces in the
Pacific, but also it is the home of significant naval and air capabilities, which are central to U.S. operational presence in the Pacific.
The Pacific Strategic Quadrangle. Credit: SLD
But moving out from Hawaii is the challenge, and here geography is crucial. In effect, U.S. forces operate in two different quadrants— one can be conceptualized as a strategic triangle and the other as a strategic quadrangle.
The first quadrant— the strategic triangle— involves the operation of American forces from Hawaii and the crucial island of Guam with the defense of Japan. U.S. forces based in Japan are part of a triangle of bases, which provide for forward presence and ability to project power deeper into the Pacific.
The second quadrant— the strategic quadrangle— is a key area into which such power needs to be projected. The Korean peninsula is a key part of this quadrangle, and the festering threat from North Korea reaches out significantly farther than the peninsula itself.
The continent of Australia anchors the western Pacific and provides a key ally for the United States in shaping ways to deal with various threats in the Pacific, including the PRC reach deeper into the Pacific with PRC forces. Singapore is a key element of the quadrangle and provides a key ally for the United States and others in the region. [ref]Robbin Laird, Ed Timperlake, and Richard Weitz: Rebuilding American Military Power in the Pacific: A 21st Century Strategy (Praeger, 2013).[/ref]
An air tanking fleet – especially a refuelable one – can provide an airborne base for operations for air assets – manned and unmanned – in the period ahead.
This will be especially important as allies can sort out their missions and support one another discretely in the air when discretion is necessary.
In a recent press release, Airbus Defence and Space highlighted a modernization of the Eurofighter.
This modernization improves the angle of attack performance characteristics of the aircraft, which is significant aerodynamically as well in terms of supporting the evolving weapons capability for the aircraft.
The modifications allow for an expanded operational envelope for the Eurofighter.
Airbus Defence and Space has successfully completed flight-testing of a package of aerodynamic upgrades to the Eurofighter Typhoon swing-role fighter that promises to enhance further the aircraft’s agility and weapons-carrying ability.
The Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK) is part of a wider Eurofighter Enhanced Manoeuvrability (EFEM) programme with the potential to help ensure the type’s continuing superiority for many years to come.
It entails primarily the addition of fuselage strakes and leading-edge root extensions, which increase the maximum lift created by the wing by 25% – resulting in an increased turn rate, tighter turning radius, and improved nose-pointing ability at low speed – all critical fighter capabilities in air-to-air combat.
The introduction of the AMK will not only enhance the Eurofighter’s current capability as a swing-role fighter-bomber, but will provide additional growth potential, enabling easier integration of future air–to-surface configurations and much more flexible applications, vastly enhancing the aircraft’s mission effectiveness in the air-to-surface role.
IPA7 during the trials. Photographer: Andreas Zeitler, Airbus Defence and Space.
Eurofighter Project Pilot Germany Raffaele Beltrame said: “This programme has been a tremendous success with very impressive results – in some areas even better than we expected.
“We saw angle of attack values around 45% greater than on the standard aircraft, and roll rates up to 100% higher, all leading to increased agility. The handling qualities appeared to be markedly improved, providing more manoeuvrability, agility and precision while performing tasks representative of in-service operations. And it is extremely interesting to consider the potential benefits in the air-to-surface configuration thanks to the increased variety and flexibility of stores that can be carried.
“It´s right to say that the EFEM/AMK work has allowed us to discover a new aircraft with much higher performance and greater potential to meet the challenges of the years ahead.”
The flight trials followed some five years of studies. Eurofighter test pilots, joined in the latter stages by operational pilots from Germany, Italy and the UK, completed 36 sorties from Manching, Germany on the IPA7 Instrumented Production Aircraft.
In a teleconference earlier this week a Eurofighter source, the importance of these changes for weapons loading and engagement was highlighted.
“We can operate more effectively with a mixed load, such as Paveway and Brimstone, and engage a variety of targets more effectively with the significant improvement in the high angle of attack capabilities.”
