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.
2015-10-31 October 23rd 2015 was a historic day for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) following the first combat refueling by a RAAF KC-30 Multirole Tanker Transport aircraft using its new-technology computerized refueling boom.
The flying boom system allows for faster transfer of fuel than the hose-and-drogue system and will allow the RAAF to refuel boom-refuelling equipped aircraft such as the C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft, the E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft and the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter.
The KC-30 and E-7A operating in Iraq are serving with the Air Task Group (ATG), the RAAF’s air combat group operating within a US-led international coalition assembled to disrupt and degrade Daesh operations.
The ATG comprises six RAAF F/A-18 Hornets, an E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft and a KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft.
There are up to 350 personnel deployed, at any one time, to the Middle East Region as part of, or in direct support of the ATG, which is part of Australia’s broader Defence contribution to Iraq, codenamed Operation OKRA, which includes a Special Operations Task Group and a combined Australian – New Zealand training group for the Iraqi Army.
KC-30A and Wedgetail are two pieces of kit in the Plan Jericho integrated force re-set for the Royal Australian Air Force.
Recently, the KC-30A engagement was instrumental to rescuing a USMC F-18.
In a real world warfighting perspective, the KC-30A with the crew’s battlefield awareness and operational agility has come to the aid of a UMSC F-18 over the skies of Northern Iraq.
In an Australian first, a RAAF KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport has refueled a United States Marine Corps (USMC) F/A-18C Hornet with engine trouble over Iraq.
The USMC Hornet was flying a combat mission against Daesh over Northern Iraq when it was forced to shut down one of its two engines due to a mechanical issue.
Short on fuel, the Hornet requested air-to-air refueling support from the RAAF KC-30A.
A challenging feat at the best of times, air-to-air refueling with an engine-out Hornet had only ever been conducted in flight testing scenarios and never before from the RAAF aircraft over a war-zone.
The RAAF KC-30A aircraft’s captain, Squadron Leader Jamie, said the situation demanded some brainstorming and clever flying.
“The hardest part was that the Hornet couldn’t maintain the required altitude or speed that we normally refuel at due to the hostile environment over Iraq,” Squadron Leader Jamie said.
“The first option was to accept refueling at a reduced speed, lower than normally required, and refueling at that speed had never been done by me or my crew.
“The other option was to do what we call tobogganing, where we refuel while descending to allow the Hornet to gather more speed. This option would have brought us below a safe altitude, so we went with the first option.”
Squadron Leader Jamie said the USMC pilot demonstrated incredible skill and the RAAF KC-30A and USMC Hornet were able to conduct the complicated maneuver in order to enable the jet to refuel, fly out of Iraq and land safely.
“The Hornet had also dropped bombs from one of its wings, making his aircraft already less stable, which when combined with the loss of an engine, makes refueling in mid-air a real challenge.
“He did a great job in the end and it was a good feeling to help him out.
“If we hadn’t been able to assist, he would certainly have had to make a less than ideal landing in Iraq.”
The Australian Air Task Group comprises six F/A-18A Hornet aircraft, a KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport and an E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft.
As part of Operation OKRA they participate in close air support operations, air to air refueling and airborne command and control in Iraq and Syria as part of the international coalition formed to disrupt and degrade the Daesh threat.
And with regard to the Wedgetail, the software upgradeable C2 aircraft is looking to evolve its capabilities by working with other assets in an integrated battlespace.
KC-30A refueling Wedgetail over Iraq. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence
One of those assets is the F-35 coming to the RAAF in the predictable future.
Group Captain Antony Martin, Officer Commanding No 42 Wing which includes the Wedgetail squadron, provided an update on the Wedgetail and discussed the thinking about the way ahead.
“We have been in the Middle East for almost 12 months. We have flown about 1300 hours on station….
And the USAF has shown clear interest in our experience, as the AWACS is getting old and E-7 could be part of the post-AWACs transition.” The Wedgetail is doing the traditional fighter control but has encompassed a broader approach to management of combat assets within the battlespace, including ground elements as well.
The Wedgetail is working with the F-22s and in so doing is shaping tactics to work the relationship between fifth generation aircraft and a non-fighter battle management system.
“We are starting to draft a new E-7 con-ops to work with fifth generation aircraft, notably with the coming of the F-35, and shaping IP chat as a tool within the battlespace is part of the Jericho approach as well…..”
Wedgetail is largely a software upgradeable platform so ongoing spiral development with regular interaction namely from users to application engineers will be key for the future development of the capability.
And the USN is working with the RAAF with regard to the Wedgetail working with the new Hawkeye C2 aircraft as well providing both the U.S. and the Aussies with expanded reach into the battlespace.
2015-10-30 The KC-30A has become a key element of the Australian expeditionary force.
And the plane is a key enabler of Plan Jericho where the Royal Australian Air Force is focused upon shaping innovative 21st century concepts of operations.
One of those changes is battlespace awareness and moving the tanker to the fight.
Question: Clearly, when you launched Plan Jericho, you were focused on tapping into the operational community and unleashing creativity inherent within that community.
Could you discuss your thinking in that regard?
Air Marshal (Retired) Brown: I think the KC-30A operators are a good case in point.
It is about changing what you call the mental furniture.
Here the KC-30A operators were looking at their role in the battlespace and working out new ways to execute the mission rather than the traditional way of flying around in tanker tracks and operating as a flying gas station.
They understand that they were not simply flying gas stations but a key asset in the battlespace enabling the fighters and all air assets for that matter.
The crew looked at their operational situation and determined ways to move closer to those fighter assets and anticipated when the fighters would need to be refueled BEFORE those fighters even asked for fuel.
When I was onboard the KC-30A over Iraq, and saw the operators determine that Marine Corps F-18s engaged over an area of interest, and the tanker crew then determined when they thought the Marines would need fuel and moved closer to them and picked a refueling spot and put out the hoses to get ready to tank the USMC Hornets BEFORE the Marines even had requested refueling.
That is the kind of change which we want to encourage in the RAAF.
The Marines were expecting to need 112,000 pounds of fuel for the mission but because of the repositioning of the tanker, they only needed 84,000 pounds.
You clearly are not always going to operate the tanker that way, but the point is that our tanking crew is involved and integrated into the battlespace and are thinking in terms of dynamic operations, not in any static sense.
In a real world warfighting perspective, the KC-30A with the crew’s battlefield awareness and operational agility has come to the aid of a UMSC F-18 over the skies of Northern Iraq.
In an Australian first, a RAAF KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport has refueled a United States Marine Corps (USMC) F/A-18C Hornet with engine trouble over Iraq.
The USMC Hornet was flying a combat mission against Daesh over Northern Iraq when it was forced to shut down one of its two engines due to a mechanical issue.
Short on fuel, the Hornet requested air-to-air refueling support from the RAAF KC-30A.
A challenging feat at the best of times, air-to-air refueling with an engine-out Hornet had only ever been conducted in flight testing scenarios and never before from the RAAF aircraft over a war-zone.
The RAAF KC-30A aircraft’s captain, Squadron Leader Jamie, said the situation demanded some brainstorming and clever flying.
“The hardest part was that the Hornet couldn’t maintain the required altitude or speed that we normally refuel at due to the hostile environment over Iraq,” Squadron Leader Jamie said.
“The first option was to accept refueling at a reduced speed, lower than normally required, and refueling at that speed had never been done by me or my crew.
“The other option was to do what we call tobogganing, where we refuel while descending to allow the Hornet to gather more speed. This option would have brought us below a safe altitude, so we went with the first option.”
Squadron Leader Jamie said the USMC pilot demonstrated incredible skill and the RAAF KC-30A and USMC Hornet were able to conduct the complicated maneuver in order to enable the jet to refuel, fly out of Iraq and land safely.
“The Hornet had also dropped bombs from one of its wings, making his aircraft already less stable, which when combined with the loss of an engine, makes refueling in mid-air a real challenge.
“He did a great job in the end and it was a good feeling to help him out.
“If we hadn’t been able to assist, he would certainly have had to make a less than ideal landing in Iraq.”
The Australian Air Task Group comprises six F/A-18A Hornet aircraft, a KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport and an E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft.
As part of Operation OKRA they participate in close air support operations, air to air refueling and airborne command and control in Iraq and Syria as part of the international coalition formed to disrupt and degrade the Daesh threat.
It was announced yesterday that Northrop Grumman won the initial new bomber contract.
It should be noted that this is the second major contract Northrop Grumman has won against Boeing.
The first was the tanker contract where they were partnered with Airbus to deliver a next generation tanker.
Less noticed in the press coverage was the fact that Northrop has put the capability together to do so for some time.
Although the name of the bomber is not yet selected, we will refer to it as the B-3, notably because Northrop built its predecessor, the B-2.
First, they are a major player in both the F-22 and the F-35. In the case of the F-35, they build major elements of the fused combat systems of the F-35 as well having built a state of the art manufacturing facility to build the fuselage for the F-35.
Oct. 27, 2015: Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, center, accompanied by Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, left, and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh III, right, speak at the announcement news conference that Northrop Grumman is being awarded the US Air Forces next-generation long range strike bomber contract at a news conference at the Pentagon. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
In fact, this facility received recognition as a major manufacturing facility in 2013.
F-35 Integrated Assembly Line (IAL) was named “Assembly Plant of the Year” by Assembly Magazine in recognition for the facility’s world-class processes to reduce costs, increase productivity and improve quality. Northrop Grumman is the first aerospace company to receive this award.
Inspired by automation systems used by automakers, the IAL was designed and developed by Northrop Grumman, working with Detroit-based KUKA Systems Corporation’s Aerospace Division, a commercial automation integrator. The IAL is central to producing the F-35’s center fuselage as well as driving new levels of efficiency into the manufacturing process, reducing process times, increasing precision and quality, and reducing production costs.
“Northrop Grumman has been a leader in designing, developing, and applying automated systems to the complex task of assembling modern fighter aircraft,” said Brian Chappel, vice president of the F-35 program for Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. “The IAL is one example, where Northrop Grumman maximizes robotics and automation, providing additional capacity and assembly capability while meeting engineering tolerances that are not easily achieved using manual methods.”
And on October 4, 2015, the first center fuselage for Japan was finished and prepared for delivery.
Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) has completed – on budget and on schedule – the center fuselage for the first F-35 Lightning II aircraft to be assembled in Japan’s F-35 Final Assembly and Checkout (FACO) facility in Nagoya, Japan. The center fuselage, designated AX-5, will be integrated into an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant.
Second, Tom Vice, the head of Northrop Grumman Aerospace systems has led an effort at significant technological innovation, design and manufacturing upgrades in the sector that will lead the B-3 program, such as the aircraft integration centers of excellence in Palmdale, California and Melbourne, Florida.
Northrop Grumman announced the creation of several centers of excellence throughout the country last year, to improve its strategic alignment with its customers’ needs for increasingly innovative and affordable products, services and solutions.
A leader in aviation integration and manufacturing, the St. Augustine facility has been operational since 1980. It is the home of E-2D Advanced Hawkeye production and employees have also performed work on the EA-6B Prowler, C-2A Greyhound, A-6 Intruder, F-14 Tomcat, F-5 Tiger and E-2C Hawkeye aircraft. Key aircraft manufacturing processes are managed by a team of more than 1,000 employees. With the site’s designation as a center of excellence, the workforce will grow by an additional 400 employees during the next three years.
Third, the company recently announced a major restructuring, one which will clearly be important in building the B-3. The key aspect of the restructuring is bringing the electronic and information systems sectors into an integrated mission systems sector. And the B-3 is obviously a perfect platform to be shaped with an integrated mission systems approach at the center of the effort.
And that mission systems approach is clearly part of the shift to a multi-tasking fifth generation combat approach and not a legacy hub-and-spoke directed air combat force, characterized by specialized or multi-mission aircraft.
On October 15, 2015, Northrop announced its restructuring approach.
Northrop has a big role in the Lockheed-led F-35 fighter, unmanned aerial vehicles and satellite systems, and plans to shrink to three from four business units, combining parts of existing operations into a single mission systems platform. Enlarged aerospace and technical services units complete the lineup, which Northrop said would help it enhance innovation.
In a comprehensive look at the way ahead for the USAF with the building of a new “bomber,” Lt. General (retired) Deptula underscored its role within combat transformation.
What we previously labeled as “bombers” can play dramatically broader roles than they ever did in the past. To capture this potential, however, requires innovative thought and shedding anachronistic concepts that aircraft can only perform singular functions and missions.
The era of specialized aircraft is over, as technology has moved on and resource constraints have grown. The information age allows new aircraft to become much more than just “bombers” or “fighters” but actually sensor-shooter aircraft.
When integrated with other system “nodes” in every domain—air, space, land, and sea—they will have the capability to create a “combat cloud,” a manifestation of a self-forming, self-healing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)-strike-maneuver-sustainment complex.
As we wrote earlier, the B-3 is not a replacement bomber but rather is part of the revolution in air combat affairs.
In a piece first published in May 2015, the main thrust of the context and impact of a B-3 was the focus of attention.
The bomber has a long and distinguished history in first the Army Air Corps and then the US Air Force.
When the B-17 was born, it was a controversial aircraft, which proved its worth when Nazi Germany controlled a continent and only the B-17 fleet could deliver strikes inside Nazi-controlled territory, given the bomber’s range and payload.
Unfortunately, there was significant conflict before the war when fighter pilots and bomber advocates argued for the primacy of the one over the other — with the result being B-17s flying unescorted into Nazi territory and facing significant attrition.
Bombers and fighters are interactive capabilities, then and now.
With the addition of the B-29, a new tool set was added as well to Pacific operations, which become the harbinger of things to come in the Cold War, as the B-52 entered the fleet.
The bomber started as a “strategic” asset in terms of being a central part of the nuclear triad and then in terms of the amount of ordinance it could deliver in conventional operations.
That role became clear in the Vietnam War.
Flash forward to 2015, and the B-52 is still around having been joined by the B-1 and the B-2; all of which are playing roles unimagined at the time the B-52 was introduced. Now bombers can perform a wide variety of tactical missions, including close air support, given the revolution in precision-guided munitions and the sensors that can be used to guide those weapons to their targets.
There has been an inversion of the strategic and tactical with the evolution of airpower, whereby small teams of aircraft can deliver strategic effects while conducting “tactical” missions.
Any new bomber will be born in a period where the tactical and strategic are being redefined.
Although the new bomber will build upon the technology enhancements made over the years to the B-2, the B-3 will be no more a successor to the B-2 than the Osprey was a replacement for the CH-46. As Lt. Col. Berke of the USMC – the only F-22 and F-35 operational pilot and the first F-35B squadron commander — has put it: “The Osprey is the chronological successor to the CH-46 but that is about it. It compares in no other way.”
Clearly, the B-3 has the possibility of being defined as a blend of advanced airframe approaches and the proven, modern avionics and sensors that are being integrated on the F-35.
The new bomber therefore “replaces” the B-2 in the sense that the Osprey replaces the Ch-46. And a Lt. Col.
In the USAF 15 years from now might make the same comment which Berke made about the Osprey with regard to the B-3.
The B-3 will enter a fleet in the midst of a revolution in air combat affairs.
This revolution is seeing sea and air operations inextricably intertwined with air power, so much so that airpower is the ubiquitous enabler for 21st century combat operations.
And, with the introduction of the F-35 global fleet, a re-norming of airpower is underway y and an offensive-defensive enterprise is being created for the US and its allies to prevail against the wide-ranging global threats in the 21st century strategic environment.
The strategic thrust of integrating modern systems is to create 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 Secretary Wynne has underscored for more than a decade that fifth generation aircraft are not merely replacements for existing tactical systems but an entirely new approach to integrating defense and offense.
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.
Rather than looking solely at the organic capability of the B-3, the synergy the B-3 brings to the battlespace is the key discriminator in how it is built, deployed and used.
For example, forward-deployed fifth generation aircraft and missile defense systems can find targets for the weapons loads on the B-3, which in turn can function as the battle manager for an integrated missile defense, fifth generation, attack and defense enterprise. This means that that the sensors, the C2 and information management capabilities of the bomber are a crucial element of its capability.
At the heart of shaping an offensive-defensive enterprise is what one might call the S3Revolution.
Sensors, stealth and speed enable the air combat enterprise to find, kill and respond effectively to the numerous adversarial threats global powers and pop up forces can present to the US and its allies.
A redesign of forces is underway and modular capabilities provide for scalable forces which can provide both presence and reach-back and forces can be tailored to match the threat. As the central force in the air combat enterprise, the B3 can enable the United States tohave the upper hand with the Chinese in a 21st-century strategic engagement.
The bomber as the centerpiece of the air enterprise provides a new kind of presence, linked with highly interoperable, Lego-like blocks able to work with allies that allow for scalable forces with reach-back to U.S. capabilities in the littoral and the homeland. The bottom line: U.S. forces need to be highly connected and interoperable with its allies. The bomber provides a core reach-back capability enabling the entire engagement force.
The B-3 will be born in a period of the offensive-defensive enterprise, the S-cubed revolution and the redesign of forces around modularity scalability and reach-back.
It is not simply going to provide more ordnance over greater distance to do strategic missions; it is about reinforcing and enabling greater capabilities for the combat air force undergoing a revolution in air combat affairs.
Slide Credit: Ed Timperlake
The platform needs to be built with the revolution in air combat affairs in mind.
Range and payload will be important elements of the basic platform, as will leveraging new concepts of stealth to provide low observability.
But that is simply a foundation to what the B-3 is all about.
First, it needs to be capable of drawing upon the sensor rich environment being delivered by the global F-35 fleet, unmanned systems and various ISR assets.
Second, it needs to have a C2 system whereby it can obtain and provide tailored information to the warfighter engage in a particular mission set.
Third, with the scalable force it will need to be able to provide battle management capabilities for more forward deployed or shorter-range assets.
Fourth, the weapons revolution is accelerating, and over time, different weapons could well be placed on different platforms, so that the B-3 will need to able to not simply to manage the weapons it has onboard organically, but to be able to operate in a sensor-enabled strike environment, where it is a key but not necessary the lead or even most important asset.
Fifth, with the coming of the second nuclear age, not only will the B-3 become a nuclear delivery vehicle but a deterrent asset able to work with the combat air force to deliver timely and effective strikes against nuclear powers like North Korea BEFORE they can use their missiles and weapons against US and allied targets.
In other words, the B-3 is part of the re-norming of airpower, a key enabler of the forward deployed F-35 global enterprise, a key element in both living off and providing targeted information, and key user and provider of sensor enabled weapons, and a key deterrent weapon against second nuclear age powers.
This has little to do with the B-17, somewhat more like the B-52 but not really about building a powerful organic strategic asset like the B-2.
It is about being a highly effective enabler of more effective longer-range engagement operations, which can effectively tap into joint or coalition airpower.
It is not simply about being a powerful thing in itself (a bomber), but providing significant enhancement of the contextual capabilities of 21st century airpower.
Editor’s Note: This piece was first published on Breaking Defense:
The Plan Jericho approach for the Royal Australian Air Force is about shaping a more integrated force built on 21st century situational awareness and decision-making systems.
It is a work in progress for the Royal Australian Air Force and the Australian Defence Force.
It is clearly not just about platforms, but how you re-shape the concepts of operations, and transform to a more integrated force.
Clearly required is a transformation of training, a key element of what professionals pay attention to but do not get the focus of attention which platform acquisition itself receives.
80916fade1.05.0
This can be seen a shift in training as described by the C-130 operators in Australia, which requires shaping a flexible multi-mission joint crew, or with regard to shaping the training for the inherently joint asset which the new LHD amphibious ship requires.
The transformation of the C-130J role clearly requires a shift in how the crew operates the aircraft and thinks about its operational role. And operational experiences fold into the thinking about how to re-shape capabilities of the platform to reshape its role as well.
As Group Captain Newman noted with regard to operations to support the humanitarian mission in Iraq during Operation Okra, the performance of the C-130J in the mission was hampered by an absence of organic ISR. If the plane had been able to identify more effectively in the drop space the nature of the threat and the where the desired recipients were, then the team could have been more effectively and more valuable to the rest of the force working the humanitarian mission.
As a result, the RAAF is thinking through possible requirements that may demand organic ISR for the aircraft, in addition to the new ISR linkages enabled by communications upgrades on the aircraft as well.
Group Captain Newman also focused on ways the new capability might be used to provide a variety of specialized force insertion packages.
“As we shape the capability of the C-130J to operate as an insertion package, we can then provide a variety of specialized tool sets in effect to the commander. In effect we are becoming a swiss army knife working with the embarked forces, which provides a broader range of options to the commander.”
Group Captain Newman underscored that the changing role for the C-130J meant changing the training approach for the crews as well as developing enhanced training opportunities with the Australian Army as well.
Wing Commander Nick Hogan is in charge of the RAAF’s C-130J training squadron and he focused on how the shift was from a largely rigid training system to a flexible one. In effect, when the C-130J was used predominately as a lifter, training took several months and delivered pilots and crew to support transport similar to airline practices.
As the new capabilities began to roll into the aircraft, bolt-on training modules were added which simply extended training time. But starting in 2012 a fundamental reworking was set in place whereby integration of the various elements into a baseline training system was shaped. The crew required appropriate training to allow them to approach the aircraft as if it were a swiss army knife with the ability to use every blade.
To discuss further the way ahead with regard to training associated with the transformation effort, a phone interview with Air Vice Marshal (retired) John Blackburn, who has been associated with the effort from its beginning last year.
Question: What are the major shifts necessary to transform training to shape a joint force able to leverage the kinds of situational awareness envisaged in Plan Jericho?
Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Blackburn: There are two key goals which, when combined, drive the re-design of the training system. Vastly shared situational awareness to a force, operating, as an integrated team requires a different type of training regime than we have followed in the past.
Historically, the system was broken into parts and managed sequentially. You went from pilot training, to fighter conversion to operational training, to a TOP GUN environment for advanced training. And each of these separate pieces were not really focused on the joint force.
Each part produces a piece of the puzzle.
Nowhere do we have a design on how you train the total system apart from exercising with the other forces or preparing for an operation.
We now need to design an end-to-end training and education system.
You are looking not just to train a jet pilot fighter but a complete team that can fight and operate together with shared situational awareness to enhance its effectiveness.
We need to design a training system focused on the overall combat results we’re trying to achieve and to train for the roles of all the players that are actually going to integrate together to achieve the desired combat effect.
We are talking about a change in mindset.
It’s not just about the platforms and the systems of how they integrate, but how the people will be trained and developed and how they themselves will integrate. Our training system needs to be able to produce that result.
In other words, we are shifting from a platform replacement mentality and that needs to be joined by a shift in training and education to shape the joint combat effect which in turn can affect how we think about what we need to procure in the future as well.
John Blackburn presenting at the Copenhagen Airpower Symposium, April 17, 2015. Credit: The Williams Foundation
Question: With the coming of the F-35 to Australia, you obviously have in mind getting joint combat effect from the beginning from the plane, but the training system will have to focus upon that effect.
What is your thinking about this challenge?
Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Blackburn: Training to fly the jet and to operate with other aircraft will be a crucial first step, but only that. It will be a two way street whereby the F-35 community opens up its aperture to embrace transformation of jointness and the other force elements look at ways to leverage its capabilities for the joint fight.
We need to expand the opportunities to do experimentation.
We should be encouraging students in their courses not only to learn the basics but to think about innovation and experimentation. Obviously, the less experienced they are, the more careful you’ve got to be. But it is the culture you want to embed into all your people in your air force, your army or the navy from day to have the kind of training necessary for combat innovation.
Question: Training, obviously blends with shaping a more integrated training approach for the operational force overall.
What are your thoughts on the cross-cutting of the training and logistics challenges for transformation?
Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Blackburn: They are cross-cutting. It is important in the training of pilots to operate for the joint force to understand that an airplane without sustaining capability is a museum piece. It’s nice to look at but not much use.
We have to educate our people from day one.
There’s a bigger world out there, and yes in the first part of your career, you focus on your specific skillsets, in being a pilot, an air combat officer, or logistician, or an air traffic controller or a battle manager for example.
But, if you don’t understand how it works as a system, then you’re not going to be much use as you progress in your career.
I would argue that day one in any of our military courses, you start to get the students to understand they’re part of a larger system. The critical learning point is that it is not just the platform; it’s the total system that matters.
Editor’s Note: A key challenge is training to the expanded battlespace, a development that will require Live Virtual Constructive Training to become a core capability for the US and its allies.
And this has already started for Australia, the US and Canada.
With regard to coalition partners, the RAAF worked its first Live Virtual Constructive Training Exercise in a full flight mission simulator with the USAF. Richmond and Williamtown were connected to Nellis and the Wedgetail and the C-130Js were linked into a Nellis Red Flag exercise along with the Canadians who brought their own C-130J into the exercise. To do this required setting up new security procedures, data and comms links, but this is simply the beginning of reshaping coalition training capability going forward
Clearly, in thinking through operations in the expanded battlespace which the Pacific represents, LVCT is a key tool set. Visits to Fallon and Nellis have underscored how important LVCT is to the US forces; and clearly for the coalition forces as well.
The current air wing that we have is capable of training inside the Fallon battlespace in a way in which we normally train: you use simulators to practice, and then you get in your airplane and you go against representative threat systems. Most of the representative legacy threat systems are on the Fallon ranges. And they are either physically there or we have a simulation that emulates the threat presentation. And all of that can be contained in that air space.
The threat baseline that we’re looking to fight in the mid-2020s and beyond is so much more advanced that we cannot replicate it using live assets. And those advances are in the aircraft capability, the weapon capability, and in the electronic warfare capability of the threat systems. That drives us to thinking about a different way to train.
In order to do that, you have to be able to have a realistic and representative emulation of the threat that is not live. And there are a couple of ways to do that. The first one is you make it completely constructive, and the second way is you make it simulated.
Live, virtual, constructive (LVC) training is a way to put together a representation of the threat baseline where you can train to the very high end using your fifth generation capability. Some of it is live with a kid in the cockpit, some of it is virtual in a simulator, and so “virtual” is actually the simulator environment. And then constructive is a way to use computers to generate a scenario displayed on either or both of the live or simulated cockpit.
You can also combine them to be live-constructive, or virtual-constructive, and by that I mean there are systems out there right now that you can install in the airplane that will give you a constructive radar picture air-to-air and surface-to-air along with the electronics effects right onto your scope.
You’re literally flying your airplane, and through a data link, you can share that information between airplanes, you can share it between dissimilar airplanes.
You could take a set of Navy airplanes, for instance, an E2D and a division of F-18s or F-35s on the Fallon range. And you could have a constructive scenario that is piped into all five of those airplanes. It’s the same scenario, has all the same effects. And then the blue players can act according to that constructive scenario, and react to that constructive scenario in the live environment, but there’s nothing real in front of them…the threat is all simulated by computer generation.
Now let’s say that through fiber network, you pipe that constructive picture over to a coalition partner…for example, you do so to the RAAF in Australia…it is piped to a live airplane or a simulator over there, and let’s say there’s two Australian airplane simulators, and they’re seeing the same picture as the Americans are fighting.
And let’s say that there is a network that goes to the Aegis Cruiser, which is off the coast of Florida, and is going to be their Aegis Cruiser for the training. And you can show them the same picture.
And you can transmit the comms across that. You can easily see the training power in this LVC construct.
There are other systems that will allow you to have a live wingman up in the air in Fallon or on another range, his lead in a simulator, and when the simulator lead looks at his or her visual, he can see a virtual representation of his live wingman doing everything he does in the aircraft , and a link sends the aircraft maneuvers down to the simulator.
And when the simulator or the live person looks through their enhanced Joint Helmet Mounted Queuing System, he can see a virtual airplane on his visor.When the virtual airplane on the helmet system say, dumps a flare or drops ordnance against the target, you actually see it come off the airplane in your visor. And you can actually fight a virtual bogey on your visor, and the guy’s not there. And you fight it with your airplane, just as if it is a real piece of metal. So that’s the live-constructive piece.
If you optimize the networks so that you have a live airplane flying somewhere, a simulator that’s exactly what emulates a live airplane, and then a constructive scenario that goes to both you now have the full LVC construct. You can overcome the barriers of geography, if the range is not big enough. You could also overcome the barriers of multilevel security, because if you go up and use all of your weapons system modes up in the air, live, there are surveillance systems that can pick up what you’re doing.
In this way, you can protect high end modes with encryption, and then create an architecture where LVC allows you to train to the complete capability of your fifth generation platform integrated into the advanced air wing and connected to AEGIS and the aircraft carrier as well as operations centers ashore. And that’s what we’re looking to do.
We realize that the fifth generation platform has now bumped us up against the limits of our training ranges and that we do not quite have the LVC components built yet, so that is where our current focus lies.
For a comprehensive look at Plan Jericho, see the following:
As he embarked the Allied Command Transformation’s “fast train.” as he describes it, barely two weeks ago, General Denis Mercier just got back from attending his first North Alliance Council’s military committee (NAC) meeting as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT).
And he is getting ready for the upcoming NATO Industry forum which, this year, will take place in Portugal.
In the meantime, he is currently attending the launching in Europe[1] of the live part (LIVEX) of a major ongoing NATO exercise, called Trident Juncture 2015 (TJ15).
TJ15: What’s New
This exercise, the largest since 2002 Strong resolve, should not be read as a reaction to Russia’s recent behavior, since it has been in the making for the past two years, but as a demonstration of the Alliance’s readiness.
“Trident Juncture 2015 is to show NATO’s deterrence posture and its ability to adapt to any development or threat reflecting the Wales Summit’s objectives”, General Mercier explained a few days ago at a roundtable in Washington, D.C.
Meant to assess the Alliance’s capacities, readiness, speed and interoperability, TJ15 is to be considered a testbed for the Readiness Action Plan (RAP) and the recently implemented Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VHRJTF).
But for General Mercier, it is “much more than a training exercise.”
TJ15 addresses three major goals:
First, the exercise focuses on a key flagship activity for NATO’s Connecting Forces Initiative (CFI) launched in the wake of the 2012 Chicago Summit.
TJ15 will bring together 17 national exercises:
“This is the key change compared to the 2002 exercise which I was part of,” stressed the General.
‘Many national exercises are going to be held under the same scenario, which makes it very interesting and realistic, since the same crisis can affect both sides of the Atlantic.
Trident Juncture brings a strong value added to them.
Second, the task of preparing to connect these exercises and a large number of forces and capacities has just ended and was done via a Command Post Exercise.
This CPX lasted from October 3rd through October 16th and involved Allied Joint Force Command Headquarters Brunssum and several other headquarters.
A certification process of these headquarters, as well as of the Visegrad European Battle Group[2], is to be completed during this period.
For General Mercier, “the connection and the coordination which took place between Canada and the European countries participating in the exercise worked even better than expected and is something we can build on for the future.”
Third, TJ15 has to be considered as a “laboratory for NATO’s new ideas and new concepts,” says SACT.
For the very first time, industries will be involved in the course of the exercise as observers, in order to better comprehend the battlefield requirements expressed by the armed forces.
As many as 35 firms will be monitoring the exercise and such participation will be addressed at the previously-mentioned Industry Forum.
The Challenges
One of the key challenges for NATO exercise schedulers based in Norfolk, Virginia, is to integrate real world events into the flow of exercises and inject lessons learned as they come along.
“NATO’s process actually allows that pretty easily, not only in terms of process, but also because the planning structures – in this case the Joint Warfare Center based in Stavenger, Norway – are well rounded, while the baseline generic scenario called SOROTAN is flexible enough,” notes General Mercier.
“We shall assess if we need new scenarios in the aftermath of the exercise, but, as you know, it takes time and money to create new scenarios,” he says.
Compared to 2002, the scope of warfare types to integrate and the new kinds of threats and elements of surprise to insert and inject in scenarios have increased exponentially.
A crisis response scenario (not Article V), TJ15 will therefore mix the old and the new, conventional and non-conventional threats, i.e. hybrid warfare, high intensity warfare with armored vehicles, BMD threat, cyber threat, access denial to SLOC (Sea Lanes of Communication), etc.
The location of the exercise is the Southern Flank (Spain, Italy and Portugal) with a “360 degree” aperture to the threat, said General Mercier.
The next LIVEX will take place in 2018 in the North.
“How do we build a deterrence posture strong enough to face all current threats – State and non-State – and anticipate emerging ones ?” is therefore the second key challenge identified by SACT.
One of the answers comes along with the CFI, as having some 36 000 personnel, 4 brigade-size units, 140 aircrafts and 60 ships from 30 different countries able to operate together and communicate together is already a success in itself.
TJ15 will test that ability inherited from the Afghan years with ACCS enabling all coalition national communication system to work together.
“The lessons from Afghanistan gave birth to what we refer to as the Federated Mission Network, which aims at allowing us to enhance our interoperability today between national and NATO systems,” stressed the Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation.
The mere existence of a “Trident Juncture 2015” and the increasing number of national military exercises involved are a deterrent on their own, as they show NATO’s determination to get ready and stand for collective defense and security against any threat wherever it is coming from.
TJ15 is furthermore not the only NATO exercise: “about 1,000 exercises were organized this year under NATO’s umbrella, while 170 national exercises were integrated”, SACT pointed out.
Besides communication, the mere organization of an exercise of that scope and designation of specific Air, Sea and Land ranges require a lot of preparation.
Indeed, one of the first lessons learned so far is that getting the appropriate agreements to do cross-borders LIVEX takes time, as it would in a real-life crisis.
“Reality is in the details”, SACT noted, “and we need to keep investing in LIVEX to work these out.”
The main concern in the mid to long-term, for General Mercier, is however to watch out that “the right balance between pre-positioned and deployed forces is constantly preserved.
We need to enhance our flexibility in order to show that we are able to rapidly adapt to any contingency”.
For NATO to keep a credible posture of readiness, the new SACT concludes therefore that two ingredients are crucial:
First, we need to demonstrate these capabilities (via LIVEX); and secondly, we need to integrate industries so they better understand our requirements, and so that, when a crisis occurs, we can quickly tap into technological research centers to find part of the solutions.”
If Strong Resolve 2002 was solely about training a combat joint task force, Trident Juncture 2015 thus encompasses a much wider scope.
Anticipating the best way to apply innovation to warfare concepts in order to cope with increasingly high tech risks and threats is indeed part of ACT’s main missions.
[1] The Opening Ceremony took place today in Italy (See >>> http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_123995.htm).
[2] The Visegrad countries are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia (see for instance >>> http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/visegrad-countries-may-turn-eu-battlegroup-into-permanent-v4-rapid-reaction-force)
During my visit to Eurofighter in Munich, Paul Smith explained the thrust of modernization of Eurofighter and the approach highlighted by Italian test pilot, Major Raffaele Beltrame.
In this interview, Lars Joergensen explains the underlying approach to modernization.
The Second Line of Defense team first met Lars at a seminar in Copenhagen on airpower. This was not surprising for not only is Lars Danish but he is currently running the Eurofighter campaign in the Danish competition for its replacement combat jet.
The team was impressed not only with the knowledge of combat aviation evidenced by Lars but his ability to explain how Eurofighter fit into the evolution of 21st combat aviation and the evolving choreography of air combat operations.
Lars has an impressive background with Eurofighter, having worked on a wide range of issues within the company.
He worked as a sensor flight test-/system engineer on the Eurofighter for 8 years, then in the Business Development world and now doing sales in Denmark.
Although I have been to Munich many times, Lars invited me to have a chance to talk with the team and to see the Eurofighter cockpit modernization and related facilities.
With the Royal Air Force and the Italian Air Force focused on retiring Tornado and having Eurofighter subsume Tornado ground attack functions, the shift from air defense to a broader multi-mission role is obvious and important for the Eurofighter nations.
But our discussion goes beyond this to shape a broader understanding of the intersection between the radar modernization and the evolution of the crucial triad of plane, pods/sensors and weapons in shaping the way ahead.
And underlying the modernization of the plane is a shift from the classic federated computer system in the aircraft to a more flexible sensor integration approach.
81057random1.05.0
Question: The airplane was born in the last period of the cold war and was designed for air defense.
How would you describe its evolution since its origins?
Lars Joergensen: The plane was conceived in the 1980s, designed in the 1990s and built in the 2000s. It was produced and used in the first decade of the 21st century as an air defense or air superiority fighter. Its combat systems were optimized for those missions.
It was designed to fight and win the air-to-air battle and assist in clearing the skies to enable the ground attack mission then to succeed against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. It could always carry ground strike weapons, but that was in the context of a second phase after performing the mission it was optimized for.
Now with the incorporation of the Tornado missions by Eurofighter, the multi-mission capabilities are being shaped and implemented for the aircraft.
And for the RAF and the IAF, there has been a plan for some time to fly both the F-35 and the Eurofighter together and in so doing the Eurofighter is being modified and modernized as part of their approach to air combat operations.
They are planning for the cross-use of these airplanes and sharing many of the same weapons.
And even if they fly many of the same weapons, they are planning to use the planes and those weapons differently in shaping their approach to 21st century air operations.
Question: You were showing me earlier, the nature of the core computer system in the aircraft and the evolving dynamics of change.
Could you explain the baseline concept as well as the approach to change?
Lars Joergensen: The systems architecture is built around a federated system where each computer communicate with each other via high-speed data busses.
Each of the combat sub-systems was housed in separate physical computers as part of the avionic system running the aircraft.
And each of these sub-systems, such as communications, display & control, attack, flight control, etc. was tasked to one of the four core Eurofighter companies.
But technology has changed, computer processing speed has increased dramatically, and now we are looking at the computers in the aircraft less as blocks of capabilities, than as cluster of slots housing GigaHertz clock speed processors, which can add, enhanced capabilities and provide some key data fusing functionalities.
We have learned that too much integration can actually be a disadvantage as it removes the flexibility to quickly add on new functionality.
One could say that our way of now clustering processors with high communication needs to “slots” which then exchange data via a lower bandwidth bus is an optimized compromise of an integrated architecture.
So in my view we found the optimum compromise, which also provides for significant redundancy, which is a good thing in the evolving era of what your team has called Tron Warfare.
Obviously, integration is necessary to ensure flight integrity, but because integration occurs through the avionics bus this clearly is a key focus of attention as we modernized the airplane.
And of course, some classic capabilities can be modernized but the basic system works so well that it is modernization more for security purposes than anything else. Here I have in mind the flight control system which is central to managing an aircraft which is designed inherently to be unstable but stabilized by the flight control system. The plane is balanced and stabilized by the computer flight system.
And as we move forward, we will look at the slots in the computer systems as places where we can build in additional data links, or fuse data in conjunction with the pods and weapons on the aircraft as well.
Notably with regard to the communications ports and the attack identification ports we are looking at adding in more interactive capabilities for the aircraft.
Raffaele Beltrame with Lars Joergensen in cockpit simulation and development center in Munich Germany. Credit: Second Line of Defense
Question: Let us focus on some additional modifications as well. Eurofighter has recently announced an upgrade of the aerodynamic system, which enables an expansion of the payloads to be delivered by the aircraft.
Could you discuss those innovations?
Lars Joergensen: By the addition of fuselage strakes and wing root extensions, we have increased the maximum lift created by the wing by 25% and increased increased yaw stability significantly at high AOA. The immediate benefit is increased turn rate, tighter turning radius, and enhanced nose-pointing ability at low-speed, which are essential fighter capabilities in air-to-air combat.
In addition, the kit provides extra growth potential, enabling easier integration of future air-to-surface configurations and flexible applications, enhancing the aircraft’s mission effectiveness in the air-to-surface role.
You can really now create some fancy weapon configurations on the airplane and still have a good aerodynamic robustness of the airplane, which helps you a lot when you’re clearing and certifying weapon loads because the certifier knows that this airplane is now very robust and able to deliver those weapons with a broader AOA.
Question: Earlier we discussed the F-16 and its analogy to how you see the Eurofighter evolving.
Could you return to that discussion and lay out how you see the significance of the F-16 analogy?
Lars Joergensen: Because the F-16 had a robust airframe, a very good thrust to weight ratio and a federated avionic architecture, it has been able to evolve way beyond the original concept of the airplane. By the constant addition of capabilities, it has grown significantly in weight over time, roughly a pound a day since 1974 through the late 1990s.
It was able to do so successfully because of its robust airframe, its good thrust to weight ratio and miniaturization of computers and of electronics.
Its federated avionic architecture made it possible to upgrade the weapon system stepwise and in competition – one of the “secrets” of its affordability. Just look at the multitude of EW systems and targeting pods available for the F-16.
And with the weapons development, notably the AMRAAM, suddenly even the F-16 could become an air superiority fighter and provide impacts similar to an F-15, something not envisaged when the F16 was designed.
Question: Let us return to the question of flying and fighting with 5th generation fighters. The British have flown with F-22s at Nellis and the Germans in the Alaska Red Flag.
What feedback have you had from those experiences?
Lars Joergensen: At a Farnborough Air Show a couple of years ago, we had discussions with some members of the Air Force Research Lab who were focused on how the F-22 and the Eurofighter made a powerful team in carrying out air strikes. Given the speed and high altitude both airplanes can fly at, they were interested in discussing how to weaponize such an air combat force.
As they put it, “We are firing third generation weapons from fifth generation aircraft and this makes no sense.”
And clearly they were interested in looking at the interaction between weapons in the internal bay of an F-22 allowing it to operate as a low observable aircraft and Eurofighter with its evolving payloads as an interesting way to shape a way forward.
With regard to Eurofighter we have own variation of flying older weapons as you saw in the cockpit simulator where we receive voice-warnings with regard to some weapons not being designed to operate at the speed which Eurofighter can operate and deliver weapons.
There are two other problems as well, namely data sharing and linking and IFF challenges.
How do we ensure friend and foe identification with a mixed combat force involving the F-22?
81081random1.05.0
Question: With regard to weapons, obviously the coming of your AESA radar will facilitate change in interaction with weapons as well?
How would describe this change?
Lars Joergensen: Our current mechanically scanned radar has proven very good for the air to air mission.
With the AESA you have much more flexibility, and part of that flexibility will be to work with weapons differently in particular as a data facilitator.
The first new weapon were this will become very clear is Meteor where the airplane will interact with the data link on the missile to identify and destroy targets in a fluid air combat space. Other weapons will follow.
Thanks to the Eurofighter’s large nose aperture, combined with the ability to move the AESA antenna, we will be able to fire, guide and communicate with weapons “over the shoulder” so to speak while flying away from the threat, thus significantly enlarging our attack envelope with missiles.
Question: There is a clear interaction among changes in the aircraft, the weapons onboard the aircraft, and with upgrades in the sensor pods.
In a sense you are have a triangular approach to modernization?
Lars Joergensen: It is clear that a variety of Air Forces are using their sensor pods, including targeting pods, to provide a variety of information and quickly increase capabilities.
By combing those innovations with weapons innovation and tying them back to the aircraft you can get enhanced combat effect.
And given that the process of tranche upgrades inevitably will be slower than pod upgrades, this expands the ability to modernize at a more rapid pace than we could do simply through tranche upgrades on the aircraft itself.
81072random1.05.0
Put another way, the “intelligence” of the weapon system can be described as the sum of the capabilities of the platform, the pod, the weapons and of course the other datalink participants.
And it is the sum of all these elements that turns you into an effective operational asset.
It is often easier to upgrade the pod instead of the platform.
For example during the Swiss flight evaluations, we turned the Tranche 1 Eurofighter platform into a really good recce-asset overnight by adding a pod and leave all the processing in the pod – there were no changes to the platform’s avionic system or software.
One can also use the intelligent weapons as sensors. For example, the Norwegian F-16 uses the IRIS-T seeker as very capable IRST.
And with the coming of Litening 5 to the Eurofighter, which then allows Eurofighter partners to determine how to use the slots in the pod to augment desired and relevant combat potential.
The press release concerning LItening 5 highlighted this point:
“Meanwhile, the miniaturization of some of the components used in the pod has left two empty spaces, which Oren says will allow customers to incorporate dedicated, and in many cases classified, features.”
Since we have a high capacity connection to the pod, these empty spaces can often be used as a quick fix to urgently needed Weapon System features.
Features you then might pack into the platform upgrades at a later time, when it fit with the general upgrade cycle.
Editor’s Note: The three slideshows show various shots of Eurofighters, the AESA radar coming with Tranche 3, and some of the weapons integrated with the Eurofighter.
The Russian intervention in Syria is a strategic turning point in the Middle East.
The intervention alters the conflict and affects the alliances playing out in a fluid and dynamic situation.
To get beyond the Inside the Beltway discussions, and get a sense of how a key regional player is looking at the evolving situation, we had a chance to talk with Amatzia Baram, a leading Israeli expert on the region, in a recent telephone interview.
Question: We would like to start our conversation by getting your sense of how the Russian military intervention in Syria is changing the game in the Middle East.
The Russians are doing a re-set but perhaps not along the lines that Hillary Clinton had in mind when she suggested it.
Let us start with this question: Can Putin take ownership of Assad and make a difference in terms of stability in the region?
Amatzia Baram: Surprisingly, yes.
The Russians are doing two things in Syria.
The first is to firm up their military position in the Eastern Mediterranean, whereby their fifth fleet can expand its operations in Tartus and to have an air base at Lattakia to provide protection to the naval base.
Previously, Assad didn’t give them permission to expand Tartus and use it as the Russian fifth fleet port.
Until now, the Russian fifth fleet, which is also known as the Russian Mediterranean Fleet was home, ported in Sevastopol, hardly a key Mediterranean port.
Now they will be able to operate their surface fleet and submarine fleet from the Eastern Mediterranean.
Second, Assad is hoping that the Russians help neutralize Iran in Syria. The Russians are supporting Assad in keeping the corridor between Damascus and the beach and the shore of the Aluwite Mountains.
The Iranians are now controlling most of Assad’s controlled area.
Assad is very worried about it because he feels that even if he stays as a president, the Iranians are taking more and more of Syria.
He has enlisted the aid of the Russians to protect his interests.
This a secondary Russian objective but an important one to Assad.
Question: Will the Russians expand their influence in Iraq as well due to their expanded Syrian presence?
Amatzia Baram: We shall see what they do, but they clearly are gaining traction in Iraq with their actions.
For example, the NATO radars in Northern Iraq are feeding information into the joint intelligence center in Iraq.
The Iraqi government is sharing information with the Iranians and now with the Russians.
And Prime Minister Abadi is under pressure from the Shite, pro-Iranian militias and from Tehran to ask the Russians to send air-to-ground support jets to attack ISIS within Iraq as well.
But Abadi is not interested yet in doing so for two reasons.
First, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was in Baghdad recently and indicated that the U.S. clearly does not want this to happen.
Second, he knows that the Russians are not worried about collateral damage, which would occur if they come in and if the Russians were to attack Mosul with those methods or against Ramadi or Fullujah, he would lose the support of the Sunnis forever.
He still hopes that they will help him to liberate the areas taken by ISIS.
A number of Sunni tribes are indeed working with him.
Question: How do Russian actions affect his relationship with key players in the region, such as Israel and Iran?
Amatzia Baram: You have to start from the fact that Putin does not fear Obama or any strategy, which the President will put together.
A measure of this was that he informed Washington of his air strikes coming in Syria through a junior functionary in Iraq.
In contrast, Putin met with the Israeli PM in Moscow and senior Israeli and Russian military officers met for a few hours to talk about coordination.
There is now a “red” phone line between the head of the Russians Operations Center and the Israeli Air Force.
Maybe it is blue-and-white on one side and red on the other but it’s a direct link.
Putin knows that Israel takes his actions very seriously.
And he remembers what happened when we had a direct exchange in 1970 where the IAF downed all five Russian fighters over the Sinai. He has a long memory with regard to this kind of impact.
It is obvious; we do not want to go to war with Russia.
There is a key danger however.
Our pilots know every tree and every trench between Israel and Turkey. The Russian pilots do not and there is a clear danger that they will show up in key conflict areas unintended with perhaps negative consequences.
That is why deconfliction hot lines are important as well.
In Syria, the U.S. and the allies have vast areas to adjust; in between Israel, Lebanon, and Damascus, and the Alawite mountain and shore line, we are talking only a few kilometers.
Question: Can a negotiated settlement over Syria take place now?
Amatzia Baram: I can see the parameters of a solution, but it will be very difficult to put in place. There are so many moving parts, that conflict is very likely among those moving parts.
There is a clear European interest in seeing the conflict dampened down and they need to work on resolving those challenges before any realistic chance for ending the civil war in Syria is possible.
They cannot absorb millions of Middle Eastern refugees in Europe in very few years.
It will kill Europe.
My approach would be first to stop the influx by working with Turkey. Then to return many of them, to Turkey and Kurdistan-Iraq, where they are safe but extremely unhappy.
At the same time, it is importanat to build a no-fly zone inside Syria and guard it. It will be necessary as well to build modern industrial projects, including high-tech that will provide the refugees with income (in addition to the present UN support) and know-how.
All this will be temporarily.
Then, depending on the end of fighting, you can start sending people back into Syria and Iraq with the newly acquired skills and operating industrial establishments.
On the whole, this is the only way Europe can help the refugees and migrants without destroying itself.
My view would be to ask the Turks to reverse the whole process.
Is it possible?
It’s not easy, but with the right amount of money it’s possible.
Question: What is the impact of Russian actions on Iran and the responsibility of the Russians to hold the Iranians accountable in the nuclear agreement?
Amatzia Baram: The Russians will not hold the Iranian feet to the fire.
The Russians are very practical and I would say cynical.
To them, Iran is a huge economic opportunity.
They are not really worried about Iran becoming a nuclear power and they see it this is an American problem.
The Russians will keep their economic ties with Iran as long as they can, and they will not support the Americans if the Americans decide to do something about Iranian infringements.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin during their meeting at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence outside Moscow, Russia, September 21, 2015. REUTERS/Ivan Sekretarev/Pool
Question: What about the impact of the Russian-Israeli agreement and its possible spillover effect on Lebanon?
Amatzia Baram: The Russians are not supporting Hezbollah. If Assad is giving Hezbollah all sorts of advanced weapons that we don’t want them to have, to the Russians this is an Israeli problem.
The Russians are not doing it, Assad is doing it.
The Russians will not prevent Assad from paying Hezbollah for their support with sophisticated weapons.
But they will not interfere with us dealing with this challenge.
The only danger is an accidental confrontation in the air.
They are now supporting the Iranian ground offensive against the revolutionaries from the air, but they do it in northwestern Syria and not in Lebanon.
The Russians are not really allies of Iran. This is very important to understand.
The Iranians are useful to them in many ways: militarily and economically in Syria.
I think Israel can reach an agreement with Russia in terms of: You don’t support Hezbollah, you don’t stop us when we want to attack a convoy. We attack a convoy; we shall let you know perhaps 10 minutes before the operation when it will be too late for information to leak.
The message will be: Just keep your air planes away.
Question: The thrust of your assessment makes Northern Syria the key flash point to shape a way ahead, certainly from a Russian point of view.
They are more than willing to promote a cease-fire, given that they have already achieved their key objective, one, which would be ratified by an cease fire agreement.
How do you see the way ahead for Northern Syria?
Amatzia Baram: This very limited area, the corridor between Damascus and the Alawite Mountain and the northwestern Syria, are now the two crucial areas.
The Russians would wish to be a broker for any agreement in which Assad is taken off of the table and the key players behind Assad become part of any future agreement.
The paradox here is: because the Russians are more massively invested now in western Syria, they also are more interested in reaching some agreement.
The Iranians will be part of any agreement as well. They have sent soldiers to Syria in order to expand a little the area around Latakia in the northwest with Russian air support, but even the Iranians are not feeling very happy about having to pump Iranian soldiers and resources into the front in Syrian front.
They would like Iranian soldiers to be in Iran. They much prefer to fight the Sunni revolutionaries until the last Arab.
The war in Syria is not very popular in Iran.
Hezbollah looks invincible, and indestructible. This is absolutely a mistake. No one knows how many fighters they have lost so far. For a good reason, they are not telling you how many people they lost, and they lost at least 1500, possibly more. They have been keeping some 5,000 fighters in Syria, fighting non-stop.
Hezbollah is exhausted as well.
The Sunni revolutionaries, however, are not exhausted. The Russians are not either, but the Russians are uneasy about the whole situation. They must have Tartus and Latakiya as bases, but they don’t want to go on in the war.
They’d like to end the war right now if they can.
I see a lot of fatigue on the Iranian and Hezbollah fronts, and that, to my mind, is an opportunity.
If I were in Obama’s place, I would start talking to the Russians seriously about some political solution that will recognize Russian interests.
If they can get that from the U.S., I think they’ll be more ready to compromise on Assad.
Then the problem will be, of course, the Iranians.
But if the US and the Russians together tell the Iranians, “That’s how it’s going to be,” I doubt that the Iranians are going to risk everything in order to explode this agreement.
In my view, this is the way to go.
Editor’s Note: Prof. Dr. Amatzia Baram is a professor of Middle East History and Director of the Center for Iraq Studies at the University of Haifa.
Professor Baram was born in Kibbutz Kfar Menachem in southern Israel and raised and educated there.
He served as an officer and commanded tank units in the Armoured Corps during his regular military service from 1956 to 1960 and while in the reserves.
He was ‘on loan’ to the Iraqi desk at Military Intelligence as an analyst when the Iraq-Iran War began in 1980.
After release from regular military service he worked on the kibbutz farm, before graduating in biology and teaching sciences at the kibbutz high school.
He he decided on a career change following the Six Day War in 1967 and started his education as an historian of the modern Middle East and Islam in 1971
On September 29, 2015, I had a chance to meet with and to discuss with Lt. General Preziosa, his perspectives on the evolution of 21st century airpower.
This is the third time I have had the opportunity to meet with the Italian Chief of Staff, and to engage in a brisk dialogue on the way ahead for 21st century airpower.
The Italians, like the British, are undergoing a double transition, whereby the Eurofighter is being modernized in two ways: namely, subsuming air-to-ground missions and facilitating the transition in the replacement of the Tornado by adding a new AESA radar to the airplane, and introducing the F-35 to help shape joint force transformation.
For Lt. General Preziosa, the close relationship with the RAF was important in working through the way ahead with regard both to Eurofighter modernization and working with the F-35.
“There is no point in having to repeat lessons which have been learned by one Air Force or the other.”
Lt. General Preziosa talking to the F-35 pilot who just performed the first flight at Cameri of the F-35. Credit Photo: Lockheed Martin
In the Italian case, the new Cameri facility is a key element for the Italian Air Force, which not only will see the build for the Italian Air Force but for the Dutch Air Force as well.
And then the facility will serve as a key maintenance and sustainment facility for the F-35 global enterprise.
In fact, Italian industry is well positioned as a member of the Eurofighter consortium, the F-35 global enterprise, and the builder of a new trainer aircraft and related training facilities.
The industrial base is well positioned to support 21st century air operations.
We started by focusing on the recent first flight of an Italian built F-35 flying in Italian airspace.
Lt. General Preziosa noted “the quality of the aircraft which has come off of the Italian line clearly demonstrates the competence of our industry and the importance of our strategic partnerships with U.S. and global defense industry.
The fact that the Dutch Air Force will buy planes from the Italian line is also a recognition of the quality of the Italian effort.”
For Preziosa, the F-35 is really a different type of plane, probably not well captured by the term fifth generation aircraft.
The F-22 and the F-35 are called fifth generation aircraft, but really the F-35 is the first airplane built for the digital age, we are rapidly moving from the dog-fight concept to the data-fight evolution of the broad utilization of air power.
It was conceived in and for that age, and is built around the decision tools in the cockpit and is in fact a “flying brain.”
And that makes it different from other aircraft.
It is a multi-tasking aircraft, and fits well into the I-phone age.
Other aircraft – with the exception of the F-22 – are built to maximize out as multi-mission aircraft, which execute tasks sequentially and directed to do so.
The F-35 fleet thinks and hunts and can move around the mission set as pilots operate in the battlespace and leverage the data fusion system.
It is a battlespace dominance aircraft; not a classic air superiority, air defense or ground attack aircraft.
It changes the classic distinctions; confuses them and defines a whole new way to look at a combat aircraft, one built for the joint force age as well.
The Army and the Navy will discover, as the F-35 fleet becomes a reality, how significant the F-35 is for their combat efforts.
Lt. General Preziosa highlighted as well the unique functions, which an F-35 fleet will be able to do as well as its intersection with the legacy fleet.
“The passive sensing capabilities of the F-35 fleet is largely ignored in the public discussion of the F-35; but this unique combat capability will be crucial in the period ahead to establish air dominance and the kind of combat effects we want to shape and execute.
General Chief-of-Staff of the Kuwaiti Armed Forces Lieutenant General Abdulrahman Al-Othman and Italian Chief of Staff of Military Aviation Lieutenant General Pasquale Preziosa. December 2013.
Related to and separate from this is what can be called the “off-boarding revolution” whereby the F-35 operates in the battlespace and enables the payload deliverers whether in the Air, Sea on Land to deliver the kind of kinetic effect we would want.”
For Lt. General Preziosa, the Eurofighter is an excellent aircraft but will be modified to work more effectively with the F-35 in operating in the 21st century battlespace.
The payload evolution of the Eurofighter is significant, and weapons modernization will support both the F-35 and the Eurofighter in providing new tools for the tool kit for air operations.
In effect, the two planes will work together in shaping along with other allied assets a 21st century air combat choreography within which weapons modernization and other assets will be woven in over time for the US and its allies to remain ahead in the inevitable competition with adversaries.
“There is nothing static in airpower; there is always a fluid dynamic, and the F-35 provides a benchmark for now for air power excellence and for several decades moving ahead we will leverage the decision tools and multi-tasking capabilities of the F-35 as well add capabilities to our Air Forces.”
We discussed Italian Air Force operations as well as the recently announced deal with Kuwait to buy Eurofighters.
In both cases, the professionalism and competence of the Italian Air Force was highlighted as a key factor in shaping the way ahead and as a diving factor being capable to support the training on the new platform of the future customer.
I have talked at some length with the RAF about their rapid alert aircraft and their operations in Baltic air policing and in those discussions they highlighted how much capability was necessary to generate the aircraft to execute those missions.
What was envisaged was something like a pyramid with the operational aircraft at the top and significant resources necessary to support the top of the operational pyramid.
Preziosa highlighted a similar image.
“We had four aircraft operational 24/7 for the Baltic Air Policing mission, but that meant we had to have other aircraft available, more than 100 personnel operating locally and reachback to Italy for logistical support.
This also required us to pay attention to air defense and provide modern air defense support to our Eurofighters.
81118random1.05.0
We use a messaging system to support our Eurofighters and not radio communication from the ground; the Lithuanians did not have such a system, so we needed to install it and operate during our time in the Baltic Air Policing mission, quite similar to what happened in Iceland during the Icelandic Air policing rotation in 2013. ”
With regard to the Kuwait sale, Preziosa noted that the Kuwaitis were clearly aware of the work, which the RAF and Italy were doing to ensure that F-35 and Eurofighter would be able to work together.
They also focused upon the training infrastructure in Italy and the maturity of the Eurofighter support structure as important elements of downselecting the Eurofighter for the Kuwaiti Air Force.
And, of course, the Saudi use of Eurofighter and their own positive views of the Saudi experience in current Middle Eastern operations played a part as well.
Preziosa went on to highlight the quality of the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 trainer.
“Unlike the current new build US trainer, ours is not simply a set of briefing slides.
We would like the USAF to take this trainer seriously as a replacement trainer, and thereby recognize the benefits of global relationships as we have done with the F-35.”
A final topic for discussion was the operation of Predator by the Italian Air Force, notably in Djibouti.
Here the Predator enterprise (if one might call it that) had already shaped ways to share data, and the data sharing arrangements with Predator presaged some of the ways the F-35 fleet will also share data.
“Predator is an important building block moving forward in 21st century air operations, and our data sharing capabilities have provided crucial information to shape combat decisions..”
Editor’s Note: Italy is the only NATO Air Force to have performed all NATO Interim Air Policing (IAP) missions in Slovenia, Albania, Iceland and the Baltic.
An earlier version of this piece was published on Breaking Defense.
Italian translation of interview with Lt. General Preziosa:
Un aggiornamento sull’evoluzione del Sistema Aereo: un confronto con il Generale Preziosa sul futuro dell’Aviazione Militare Italiana
Robbin Laird
Il 29 settembre 2015 ho avuto la possibilità di incontrare il generale Preziosa e di confrontarmi con lui sull’evoluzione della aviazione militare nel 21° secolo. Questo è stato per me il terzo incontro con il Capo di Stato Maggiore italiano ed è stato l’occasione per un’acuta riflessione sul futuro dell’aviazione nel 21° secolo.
Gli italiani, così come gli inglesi, stanno affrontando una doppia transizione che vede da una parte un doppio processo di ammodernamento per l’Eurofighter che si sta facendo carico delle missioni dei Tornado per sostituirli e sta implementando i radar AESA e vede dall’altra vede l’introduzione degli F-35 che darà forma a una trasformazione delle coalizioni.
Secondo il Generale Preziosa, la collaborazione con la RAF è stata fondamentale per definire il percorso, sia in riferimento all’ammodernamento dell’Eurofighter che all’entrata in servizio dell’F-35.
“Non ha senso studiare ex novo soluzioni già trovate da un’altra Aeronautica Militare”.
Nel caso dell’Italia, il nuovo stabilimento di Cameri è un asset fondamentale per l’Aeonautica Militare italiana e si occuperà dell’assemblaggio non solo degli aerei italiani, ma anche di quelli olandesi. Inoltre Cameri si occuperà di fornire supporto e manutenzione agli F-35 a livello globale.
Di fatto l’industria italiana si trova in una situazione ottimale in quanto membro del consorzio Eurofighter, partner del programma F-35 e costruttore del nuovo aereo da addestramento con annesse strutture per l’addestramento. La nostra base industriale è ben posizionata per sostenere le operazioni aeree del 21° secolo.
Abbiamo iniziato parlando del primo volo del primo F-35 costruito in Italia avvenuto recentemente nello spazio aereo italiano.
“Il livello qualitativo dell’aereo uscito dalle linee di assemblaggio italiane mostra chiaramente la competenza della nostra industria e l’importanza della partnership strategica con gli Stati Uniti e con l’industria della difesa globale”, ha sottolineato il Generale Preziosa. “Il fatto che l’Olanda acquisterà aerei usciti dalle linee di assemblaggio italiane è un altro riconoscimento del livello qualitativo dell’impegno italiano”.
Secondo Preziosa l’F-35 è un aereo veramente diverso, per cui probabilmente la definizione di “quinta generazione” non è pienamente rappresentativa. “L’F-22 e l’F-35 sono definiti aerei di quinta generazione, ma in realtà l’F-35 è il primo velivolo costruito per l’era digitale. È stato concepito nell’era digitale per l’era digitale ed è stato sviluppato intorno agli strumenti di comando presenti nel cockpit. Di fatto è un cervello volante. E questo lo rende diverso dagli altri aerei.
È un velivolo multi-tasking perfetto per l’era dell’I-phone. Altri aerei – ad eccezione dell’F-22 – sono costruiti per dare il massimo come aerei multi-missione, in grado di eseguire compiti in sequenza e manovrati in questo senso.
La flotta di F-35 pensa, caccia ed è in grado di muoversi nell’ambiente di missione mentre i piloti operano nello spazio di battaglia sfruttando il sistema di dati integrati. È un aereo per il dominio dello spazio di scontro: non un semplice aereo per la superiorità, la difesa aerea o l’attacco al suolo. Rimodula le distinzioni classiche; le confonde per definire un modo completamente nuovo di guardare agli aerei da combattimento. Ed è anche costruito in un’ottica di forze aeree congiunte.
L’Esercito e la Marina scopriranno, quando la flotta di F-35 sarà una realtà, quanto l’F-35 sia importante in combattimento.”
Il Generale Preziosa ha anche sottolineato le funzioni uniche che una flotta di F-35 sarà in grado di adempiere e anche la sua capacità di interagire con le flotte di aerei tradizionali.
“Le capacità passive di rilevazione dell’F-35 sono largamente ignorate nella discussione pubblica sull’F-35, ma questa capacità di combattimento sarà cruciale in futuro per stabilire il dominio aereo e il tipo di combattimento a cui si vuole dare forma e che si vuole eseguire. Connessa e allo stesso tempo separata da questo è quella che potrebbe essere definita “la rivoluzione dell’off-boarding” laddove l’F-35 opera nel campo di battaglia e consente di sganciare il carico esplosivo ovunque in aria, mare o al suolo per ottenere il tipo di effetto cinetico voluto.”
Secondo il Generale Preziosa l’Eurofighter è un eccellente aereo ma sarà modificato per operare in modo più efficace insieme all’F-35 nello scenario di battaglia del 21° secolo. L’evoluzione del carico di armi dell’Eurofighter è significativa e l’ammodernamento delle armi fornirà nuovi strumenti per le operazioni sia dell’F-35 che dell’Eurofighter.
Effettivamente i due velivoli opereranno insieme agli altri asset alleati per definire la coreografia del combattimento aereo del 21° secolo, che vedrà l’ammodernamento delle armi e di altri asset intrecciarsi per permettere agli Stati Uniti e ai loro alleati di mantenere la supremazia nell’inevitabile competizione con gli avversari.
“Non c’è niente di statico nel settore aereo: c’è sempre un fluido dinamico e l’F-35 oggi rappresenta il benchmark per l’eccellenza aerea e per molti decenni a venire potremo sfruttare gli strumenti di comando e le capacità multi-tasking dell’F-35 come ottime capacità aggiuntive delle nostre forze aeree.”
Abbiamo poi parlato delle operazioni dell’Aviazione Militare italiana e dell’accordo con il Kuwait annunciato di recente, sottolineando come, in entrambi i casi, la professionalità e la competenza dell’Aviazione Militare italiana siano stati fattori chiave per definire il percorso.
Ho discusso a distanza con la RAF dei loro aerei di ricognizione e delle operazioni di controllo aereo da loro effettuate nel mar Baltico. La RAF ha sottolineato l’enorme capacità richiesta per sviluppare aerei in grado di portare avanti queste missioni. L’idea era qualcosa di simile a una piramide con in cima gli aerei operativi e ingenti risorse necessarie a supportare la vetta della piramide operativa.
Preziosa ha descritto un’immagine simile. “Avevamo 4 aerei operativi 24 ore su 24, 7 giorni su 7 per la missione di controllo aereo del Baltico, ma ciò significava anche che dovevamo avere altri aerei a disposizione, più di 100 risorse operative in loco e risorse dall’Italia per il supporto logistico. Questo ci ha portato a mettere a fuoco la difesa aerea e a fornire un supporto di difesa aerea moderno ai nostri Eurofighter.
A supporto dell’Eurofighter utilizziamo un sistema di messaggistica e non di comunicazioni radio da terra; i Lituani non utilizzavano questo sistema, quindi lo abbiamo dovuto installare e lo abbiamo utilizzato durante la missione di Controllo Aereo del Baltico.
Per quanto riguarda la vendita al Kuwait, Preziosa sottolinea come i rappresentanti del Kuwait fossero consapevoli del lavoro svolto dalla RAF e dall’Italia per assicurare la capacità dell’F-35 e dell’Eurofighter di lavorare insieme. E allo stesso tempo hanno evidenziato come le infrastrutture per l’addestramento e la maturità della struttura di supporto all’Eurofighter abbiano rappresentato fattori chiave per la scelta dell’Eurofighter per l’Air Force del Kuwait.
Come di certo hanno avuto un peso significativo l’utilizzo dell’Eurofighter da parte dei Sauditi e il riscontro positivo sull’utilizzo che ne stanno facendo nelle operazioni in Medio Oriente.
Preziosa ha poi parlato delle qualità dell’M-346 di Alenia Aermacchi. “Diversamente dal nuovo trainer realizzato dagli Stati Uniti, il nostro trainer non è un semplice assemblamento di slide di istruzioni. Vorremmo che l’USAF lo prendesse seriamente in considerazione come trainer sostitutivo, riconoscendo così i benefici di una collaborazione a livello globale, proprio come noi abbiamo fatto con l’F-35.”
Un ultimo argomento di discussione è stato l’utilizzo del Predator da parte dell’Aviazione Militare Italiana in Gibuti. Qui la struttura-Predator (sempre che si possa chiamare così) aveva già delineato una modalità di condivisione dei dati che lasciava intravedere il modo in cui la flotta di F-35 potrà condividere dati.
“Il Predator è un importante assetto che si muove verso le operazioni aeree del 21° secolo e la capacità di condividere dati ha fornito informazioni cruciali per definire il modo di eseguire il combattimento.”
Nota dell’editore: L’Aviazione Militare Italiana è l’unica tra le aviazioni NATO ad aver preso parte a tutte le missioni Interim Air Policing (IAP) della NATO in Slovenia, Albania, Islanda e nel Baltico.
