Russia In Syria: Expanding A Regional Strategy

10/25/2015

2015-10-25 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

There is understandable concern about Russia stepping up its involvement in Syria.

The Russians have taken ownership of Assad and his regime.

Now it has evolved way beyond merely word posturing, there is an immediate need for the U.S. and Allies to engage with both strategic and tactical military and diplomatic actions in the region.

The focus for action is direct and not complicated; defeat of ISIS, while supporting the Kurds in reshaping our position in Iraq, and putting the Iran nuclear agreement in the dust bin of history as it is recognized that one of the key architects of the agreement has clearly indicated they have no intention of playing an even handed role.

There is a clear and present danger of miscalculation, which needs to guide U.S. and our Allies to work directly with the Russians in the deconfliction of air space. We need as well to come to terms with the end of the latest age of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Not only are the Russians putting our UAVs in risk, but the information war is being lost to Russia as of today new documents have been leaked which put the United States into a moral abyss.  

According to Russia Today:

A cache of classified documents has revealed the inner workings of US drone operations in Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan, including the mechanism of targeting suspects slated for assassination.

The documents were provided to The Intercept by a source within the US intelligence community who wished to remain anonymous because of the government’s aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers. The documents, slides, visuals and analysis have been posted by The Intercept on Thursday as “The Drone Papers.”

Russia has had a significant stake in Syria for a long time, and Syria is part of their Mediterranean resurgence under Putin.

For Secretary Kerry when looking at Russia’s actions in the Ukraine, Putin was declared to be so 19th Century.

In reality, Putin is using military power in a 21st century way – to support a strategy of influence and strategic positioning.

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/syria-and-the-russian-recovery-putin-on-center-stage/

And in the face of Russian strategy in Syria, the lack of clarity in U.S. strategy and the use of the U.S. military to support strategic incoherence is leaving it exposed.

Rather than pursuing the advantages of the strategic shift to fifth generation warfare, an opportunity highlighted in a recent interview with ACC Commander “Hawk” Carlisle, Russian actions in Syria are pushing the U.S. back to the beginnings of airpower in World War I, where fighters operated to protect observation balloons.

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/f-22s-come-to-middle-east-operations-the-acc-commander-looks-at-the-way-ahead-2/

Ironically, Frank Luke, the man for whom the airbase was named, made his mark in this type of operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luke
Ironically, Frank Luke, the man for whom the airbase was named, made his mark in this type of operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luke

Disregarding the warnings of the recently retired head of ACC., General Mike Hostage, not to fly UAVs in contested airspace, now the vulnerable assets are facing Russian aviation in a potential face off. Either these assets are removed for their own protection, or pilots will fly to protect them, and engage the Russians in a World War I style of warfare.

This should underscore the clear limits of relying on UAV technologies except in unique circumstances, namely air dominance and clear strategic purpose.

In 2001, President George W. Bush claimed he had looked into Putin’s eyes and “was able to get a sense of his soul.” Clearly, Putin has done this with Obama, and his Syrian actions are playing off of what Putin sees as the Obama strategy which includes a pro-Iranian stance, an alienation of Israel, a pro-Baghdad Iraq policy, and a very weak “air campaign” with more lawyers than airstrikes.

Putin is backing a sitting government, that of Assad. One should remember that the bias in the UN Charter is to support sitting governments and that Russian claims that Western strikes in Syria are illegal under the UN charter is not simply hyperbole. Russian actions in support of Assad also expose the incoherence of the “other side” supporting the mishmash of opponents of Assad, ranging from ISIS, to legitimate opponents of Assad.

With a clear military force on the ground, namely those of Assad, and in support of the legitimate government of Syria, Russian airpower can rely on Syrian forces to help indicate targets, and can prosecute the enemies of Assad as well as ISIS in Syria.

And with no lawyers in the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop, Russian pilots are not constrained by the OOLDA (Observe, Orient, Legally Review, Decide, and Act) loop which has taken away the effectiveness of Western airpower.

To be clear, this is not about “ground forces” versus “airpower” for all operations are now air-enabled.

This is about a clear strategy within which military assets can be used. And Putin is clearing the decks to expand his influence in the region in the face of strategic incoherence and lack of strategic operational clarity for Western militaries.

Putin went to Paris recently and cut a deal with Ukraine to take Ukraine off the table for the moment. Putin is trying to put the lid on Syria, which would be supported by many Europeans, for this could provide relief from the crisis in Europe surrounding the upsurge of migration from the region.

Putin has met with the Israel leader and the Israeli military as well and they have discussed the way ahead in the region. Whereas President Obama is giving the cold shoulder to Netanyahu, Putin welcomed him to discuss the region and the way ahead on security arrangements.

French President Francois Hollande, left, greets his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin upon his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, Friday, Oct. 2 , 2015. Russian President Vladimir Putin is meeting the leaders of Ukraine, France and Germany in a revived European push to bring peace to eastern Ukraine.The long-awaited summit in Paris on Friday is being overshadowed by international concerns about Russia’s military intervention in Syria this week.(AP Photo/Jacques Brinon)
French President Francois Hollande, left, greets his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin upon his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, Friday, Oct. 2 , 2015. Russian President Vladimir Putin met the leaders of Ukraine, France and Germany in a revived European push to bring peace to eastern Ukraine. (AP Photo/Jacques Brinon)

The Russians have deployed missile defense systems around their main operating base, thereby deterring Western air forces. To be clear, there is little doubt that these defenses could be destroyed if needed, but what is the point?

The Iranians seem to be getting the point, that strategy-led military operations in support of a legitimate government in Syria – however brutal – makes the Russians a key player to be dealt with, especially one which can deal with Europe and Israel at the same time.

Calibrated military force supporting a strategy is what Putin has put in play certainly since the Crimean takeover.

In contrast, the Obama Administration has put in play an incoherent military operation against “ISIS” without clear allies on the ground, although as we have argued earlier, he had a clear opportunity with regard to the Kurds to reshape the partner mix.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/a-calibrated-response-to-isil/

Putin’s clear actions against Obama’s behavior, only enhances the opportunities for the Russians to influence events and shape outcomes. The PR “glow” from the Iranian agreement is already in the rear view of history; Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has declared that the strategic opening claimed by the Obama Administration is already dead on arrival.

Mr. Khamenei scoffed at the notion of talks with Washington of any kind, saying nothing positive would emerge from them for Iran. “Negotiation with the U.S. is banned because of the countless harms it inflicts,” the supreme leader’s official website quoted him as saying. “Besides, [negotiation] has no advantage, either. We are against negotiations with the U.S. because talks with the U.S. mean infiltration. They want to open the way for imposition.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-supreme-leader-bars-further-talks-with-u-s-1444220022

In contrast, the Russians have met with Iranian leaders over the past few months as a prelude to their latest Syrian actions. Put in other terms, military power in support of a clear regional strategy serves Putin’s purposes. And playing early “Gen 1” World War I type airpower makes little sense in supporting an effective strategy.

Simply opposing Putin will get the U.S. nowhere without recognizing how the game has already changed and the approach to counter-insurgency which the U.S. has followed for a decade, along with attachment to UAV-enabled ground operations has been overtaken by events.

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
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

And there is a clear need to get on with the strategic task of de-conflicting the Western and Russian air forces operating in the murky border regions of Iraq and Syria, notably with the ISIS operating with fluidity within the “borderless” region from their point of view.

It should not be forgotten that European Air Forces have been engaging with the Russians over the Baltic and North Sea regions, and already have some sense of what the current Russian air operations are all about.

And Western Air Forces, such as the RAF have already made it clear that they will not tolerate any direct threat to their forces as well in Iraq.

Working the fluidity is not simply a tactical issue; it is a strategic one.

And Putin has clearly put his marker down to be a player and kingmaker in the region.

For Putin, Russian airpower is a key instrument in his strategy and one not constrained by the OOLDA loop.

For earlier pieces on this topic, see the following:

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/syria-and-the-russian-recovery-putin-on-center-stage/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/making-sense-of-moscow’s-syrian-gambit/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/beyond-crimean-annexation-the-russians-look-to-the-wider-mediterranean/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/beyond-crimean-annexation-the-russians-look-to-the-wider-mediterranean/

According to a Pravda article which was published on October 7, 2015on Russia and US drones over Syria, the incidents were also tied to the information war points raised above:

US TV channel Fox News has recently reported that Russian aircraft intercepted elusive US MQ-1 Predator drones in the Syrian Sky three times.

After the first incident of interception, Pentagon officials said that that Russians were just lucky.

However, two other incidents occurred soon afterwards, although the Russian aircraft did not try to down the unmanned aerial vehicles, but simulated interception instead.  

Fox News said that the incidents occurred above the ISIS-controlled territory of Syria, above the “capital” of The Islamic State – the city of Rakka, near the Turkish-Syrian border, not far from Kobani and Aleppo. 

A specialized military publication confirmed in 2014 that Russian anti-aircraft troops forced a US military drone to land during the time of the Crimean crisis and referendum in March 2014

“The Ukrainian side tried to organize aerial reconnaissance above the Crimea with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles. The latter were part of the 66th military reconnaissance brigade headquartered in Bavaria, Germany, and deployed in Kirovograd, Ukraine. Yet, neither the US nor Ukraine managed to keep the Crimea and Russia’s Black Sea Navy under control. 

“As a result if the measures taken, two Israeli-made unmanned drones, MQ-5B Hunter, were intercepted. One of them was downed by militia forces on March 10, another one was forced to land with the help of a Russian ground-based radio technical reconnaissance system Avtobaza,” Russian military officials said. 

Earlier, the bureau of journalistic investigation reported that in sixty percent of cases, US drones attack and bomb buildings. According to Washington’s Blog, up to 90 percent of victims of American drone attacks are civilians. 

“I’m really good at killing people,” US President Barack Obama said once at a meeting with defense officials. 

For Lt. General (Retired) Deptula’s assessment of the current airpower being conducted against ISIL, listen to the following interview on October 12, 2015 with WYNC:

And in Defense News, Deptula had this to say about the air campaign:

Even the 1999 Kosovo campaign and the 2001 strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan dwarfed OIR’s strikes launched. These air campaigns averaged 138 and 86 strike sorties a day, respectively.

This limited application of air power to destroy ISIS raises questions about the administration’s objectives, according to retired Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

“To what end it’s still unclear, particularly since the application of air power to date, while enormously precise and effective to the extent that it has been applied, the degree to which it has been applied is very, very, very limited relative to what the potential application of air power could be,” Deptula told Defense News. “So there’s a lot of confusion of just what are the US critical national security objectives that the application of force today has been aimed at.”

Deptula also pointed out that OIR is lead by an Army general: Lt. Gen. James Terry. This begs the question, he said, if the administration’s goal is to take out ISIS through the use of air power alone, why put an Army commander in charge of the air campaign?

The administration’s “anemic” action against ISIS has created a void in the region, one that Russia is all too happy to fill, Deptula said.

“They are taking advantage of a less-than-robust US military effort regarding the Islamic State to dramatically increase their presence in the Middle East,” he said, adding that Russia’s moves in recent days have shown “not only can the Russians walk and chew gum, they can also play chess.”

The initial version of this piece was published by Breaking Defense.

Obama Must Act On Syria Or Putin Runs The Show

By ROBBIN LAIRD and ED TIMPERLAKEon October 16, 2015 at 10:23 AM

Italy – Singapore: Military Robotics Agreement

10/24/2015

2015-10-24  An agreement – signed on 8 October in Rome, at the General Secretariat of Defence – provides for the development of a high-performance  electric robot and strengthens technological cooperation between the Italian Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of  Singapore.

b94ea67e-5448-48eb-87f9-1db5f89735c901Medium

Project Pholus –a name  taken from  Greek mythology- is intended for dual use:  high risk military operations as well as  civilian emergency situations, such as earthquakes and other disasters,   where it will be used in search and rescue activities. 

For the Italian party, activities will be carried out by the Italian Institute of Technology (IIT-located in Genoa), which cooperates with Singapore A*STAR I2R laboratories.

The agreement was negotiated and signed -by delegation from the Defence  Minister- by Air Force General Pasquale Montegiglio on behalf of the Secretary General  of Defence, and  Rear Admiral Harris Chan Weng Yip, Singapore Future Systems & Technology Architect.

Italian Ministry of Defence

10/13/15

South Korean-US Army Joint Training for PAC-3 Defense Capabilities

2015-10-24 South Korea and US forces are working the offensive-defensive enterprise to deter North Koreans.

One element is enhanced joint training in the ADA capabilities of the two ground forces.

When a siren went off in the afternoon of July 15, Korean and U.S. soldiers moved to a launcher to load a guided missile quickly. Launching members reloaded the Patriot dummy projectile according to the mission manual as a safety control officer controlled the scene. And as a line chief completed the final inspection of loading the guided missile and its function status, a commander issued an order to intercept the target. Using a simulation track for training, this exercise was completed successfully with the virtual enemy aircraft and the ballistic missile hit by our Patriot.

The 8199 unit, the subordinate force of the 2nd Air Defense Guided Missile brigade, and 2-1 battalion, the subordinate force of the U.S. 35th Air Defense Artillery brigade, conducted the “Korea-U.S. air defense combined training” for three days, from July 13 to 15.

mnd_eng1437124255934_b_img

This training has been performed since 2013 in order to improve the combined mission capabilities during wartime, and includes equipment deployment and linkage, launcher installation and guided missile reloading, tactical effectiveness evaluation using a virtual enemy aircraft, etc. It has been an especially good opportunity for our military, which carries forward performance improvement of the Patriot, to improve understanding of the PAC-3 system and share know-how of equipment operations.

At the same time, there was an exercise interconnecting the Korea-U.S. ICC engagement control station (ECS). The ICC ECS is the main equipment of the Patriot system and it has a key part in guided missile firing control and firepower distribution. It shares track information captured through the system interface between both countries and prevents simultaneous engagement against the same target, so that it can prevent the use of unnecessary guided missiles and put the focus on firepower for a major defense area.

After the training, both sides had a time to discuss the mutual training evaluation results through a follow-up briefing, shared information and strived for development of mutual weapon system operation.

Taking this opportunity, I’m expecting to have more upgraded Korea-U.S. combined mission capability. We will obtain the U.S. Army’s know-how through continuous mutual exchange and prepare a performance improvement operation soon to be introduced to our military in advance to carry out our duties faithfully to defend our airspace,” said Lieutenant Colonel Kwon Jin-ki, the commanding officer of 8199 unit who led this training.

South Korean Ministry of Defence

http://www.mnd.go.kr/user/boardList.action?command=view&page=1&boardId=O_47261&boardSeq=O_119026&titleId=&siteId=mnd_eng&id=mnd_eng_030100000000

7/31/15

Norwegian Defense Review 2015

2015-10-24 On 1 October, the Chief of Defence presented his Strategic Military Review regarding the future development of the Norwegian Armed Forces. ​

One year ago, the Minister of Defence tasked the Chief of Defence with developing a Strategic Military Review on how the Norwegian Armed Forces can best meet future challenges.

After one year of thorough studies, hearings and internal discussions, Chief of Defence, Admiral Haakon Bruun-Hanssen handed over his final report to the Minister during a press conference in Oslo on Thursday 1 October.

“My advice to the Government is to strengthen our ability to conduct surveillance and intelligence; to improve the response times of our forces; to strengthen the manning of key structural elements, while also improving our ability to protect key infrastructure,” said the Admiral.​

A SOB​ER ​DE​FENCE STRUCTURE

The Strategic Military Review is based on the current security situation. It also deals with the operational capability of the Norwegian forces and the budgetary resources needed for the Armed Forces to perform their tasks and functions.

Chief of Defence recommends a sober defence structure with a new approach that addresses both current and future security challenges. The Chief recommends an increased emphasis on the defence of Norway. This requires a strengthening of surveillance and intelligence, increased readiness, responsiveness and endurance – as well as a strengthened ability to protect critical infrastructure.

“I am recommending that we continue to streamline our staff and support functions, while also reducing the number of bases and other infrastructure. This will help us to strengthen the operational capabilities. Despite those measures, however, I believe that we have to make substantial increases in our annual defence budgets,” said the Chief of Defence.

​​​CONTRIBUTION TO NATO​​​​

The recommended approach fulfils the mission given by the Minister of Defence. The structure will also make it possible for the Norwegian Armed Forces to solve their most demanding tasks, and it will strengthen the Armed Forces ability to contribute to NATO.

“One of Norway’s primary commitments to NATO is to form a credible first line of defence in our own country, and consequently, for the alliance as a whole. We must ensure that we are able to provide robust situational awareness in our immediate surroundings, while also maintaining the ability to support the arrival of allied reinforcements if that should prove necessary,” said Admiral Bruun-Hanssen.

​F-35, THE “FUTURE BACKBONE”

From a military point of view, it is preferable to execute the recommended changes quickly in order to achieve the desired operational effects and cost-effective operation of the Norwegian Armed Forces.

Despite speculation that the Chief of Defence would recommend cutbacks in the Norwegian F-35 acquisition, Admiral Bruun-Hanssen stressed that he is required to keep the minimum of F-35s, due to the importance as the future backbone of the Norwegian Armed Forces.

“We remain dependent on the timely introduction of new capabilities into our Armed Forces, such as the F-35. Only by completing the acquisition of 52 combat aircraft with the Joint Strike Missile, will we be able to provide the full spectrum capabilities that we need to address our future security challenges,” the Admiral underlined.

​​​AN ADVICE TO THE​​​ POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

The Strategic Military Review is only a recommendation, but it will serve as a key input in the Government’s work with a new long-term plan for the Norwegian defence sector. The Government is expecte​d to present its proposal to Parliament in early 2016.

On the Norwegian site​, you can read the full and a short version of the military advice in Norwegian. An English version of the Strategic Military Review will be available later this month.

https://forsvaret.no/fmr

Spanish Participation in Trident Juncture 2015

2015-10-24 The Spanish are key participants in the Southern tier focus of the large scale NATO exercise Trident Juncture 2015.

The Spanish joined NATO in the 1980s which was a major historical shift and one which contributed to the ending of the Cold War.

Members of the Second Line of Defense team were involved in the Spanish discussions at that time as well.

It is often forgotten that political military dynamics can be even more important than strictly military operations in deterrence with a competitor like Russia. 

Not only have the Spanish participated with their Eurofighters in Baltic air defense, but their engagement in Mediterranean defense activities such as the TJ exercise has been signifiant as well.

Nearly 8,000 military personnel (nearly 3,000 from the Navy and Marine Corps) are involved from Spain and involve many assets, including the LHD Juan Calos I and its helos and harriers, its Aegis frigates, submarines and other assets.

In the video below (in Spanish) some of the assets are shown and their role explained by Spanish officials.

 

 

 

 

 

Japan Releases 2016 Defence Budget Request: Highlighting Remote Island Defense

2015-10-24 According to the latest Japanese MoD budget request, both national and coalition capabilities need to be ramped up to deal with threats in the region.

Japan will build up its defense capabilities while focusing on the further enhancement of joint functions in order to seamlessly and dynamically fulfill its defense responsibilities, which include providing an effective deterrence and response to a variety of security situations, supporting stability in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as improving the global security environment.

 Japan will place particular emphasis on the following measures: intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities; intelligence capabilities; transport capabilities; command, control, communication, intelligence (C3I) capabilities; response to attacks on remote islands; response to ballistic missile attacks; response in outer space and cyberspace threats; response to large-scale disasters, etc.; and international peace cooperation efforts, etc.

One the priorities highlighted was the preparation to defend remote islands against attack.

In order to respond to attacks on remote islands, the MOD will develop continuous surveillance capabilities, ensure and maintain air superiority and maritime supremacy, enhance rapid deployment and response capabilities such as transportation and amphibious operation capabilities, and strengthen the infrastructure for C3I capabilities.

And this also includes air modernization as well.

Ensure and maintain air superiority

 Acquisition of fighter aircraft (F-35A) (6 fighters: ¥103.5 billion*)

* ¥2.5 billion is allocated separately as the initial expense to promote industrial participation of domestic corporations.

* ¥29.4 billion is allocated separately for other related expenses (ground support equipment, etc.), of which ¥2.8 billion is allocated as expenses necessary for building up regional depot capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region.

 Upgrade of fighter aircraft (¥3.8 billion)

Upgrade capabilities of existing fighters to adapt to the modernization of  the aerial combat capabilities of neighboring countries and to appropriately carry out air defense missions.

Improvement of air-to-air combat capability of fighter aircraft (F-2) (11 fighters).

Upgrade of fighter aircraft (F-2) by equipping JDCS (F) (4 fighters). *JDCS (F) (Japan self defense force Digital Communication System (for fighters))

 Shifting the posture of fighter squadrons, etc.

Shift the posture of fighter squadrons to develop readiness for ensuring air superiority, which is a prerequisite for realizing effective deterrence and responses to various situations, including strengthening of the defense posture in the southwestern region.

 Deploy two fighter squadrons at Tsuiki Air Base, and relocate the F-4 unit at Nyutabaru Air Base and the F-15 unit at Hyakuri Air Base.

 In order to enhance tactical skills of the ASDF, relocate the Tactical Fighter Training Group, which conducts research on combat maneuvers and trains relevant units, to Komatsu Air Base that is adjacent to a vast airspace.

 Acquisition of new aerial refueling and transport aircraft (under source selection)

Acquire new aerial refueling and transport aircraft that will allow fighter squadrons, etc. to continuously execute various operations in the airspace surrounding Japan.

New aerial refueling and transport aircraft (picture of current KC-767)

 Additional installment of aerial refueling functions to transport aircraft (C-130H) (¥1.2billion)

 Acquire upgrade components necessary for additional installment of aerial refueling functions to the rescue helicopter (UH-60J), in order to ensure adequate scope and time for search and rescue activities when responding to attacks on remote islands, etc.

 Transport aircraft with aerial refueling

 Acquisition of rescue helicopters (UH-60J) (8 helicopters: ¥35.4 billion) ・Develop posture that can adapt to the decreasing number of the ASDF UH-60J, maintain and strengthen rescue readiness, and effectively respond to various situations.

Steadily procure 8 UH-60J by bulk procurement with the MSDF SH-60K (17 aircraft) through a long-term contract, and reduce procurement cost.

 Acquisition of Type-11 short-range surface-to-air missile (1 set: ¥4.1 billion)

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/pdf/271016.pdf

Japanese Fy 2016 Budget Request

 

The F35 Global Enterprise and Sustainability: The Perspective of the RAAF and the RAF

10/21/2015
Tech. Sgt. Matthew Burch and Staff Sgt. Jason Westberry, from the 58th Aircraft Maintenance Unit, review post operations tasks on their Portable Maintenance Aid after the fourth F-35 Lightning II taxied into its new home at Eglin. The Airmen are among the first Department of Defense maintainers trained by Lockheed Martin logistics support personnel in the joint strike fighter's recovery and inspection procedures. Both aircraft in the photo arrived here Aug. 31 in a four-ship formation with Lockheed Martin pilots flying the F-35As and F-16 escorts piloted by the wing. (Credit: USAF)

2015-10-18 By Robbin Laird

The Royal Australian Air Force is shaping a transformation strategy, which they call Plan Jericho.

In anticipation of the coming of the F-35, the RAAF is looking to shape a 21st century joint force built around the F-35.

The Plan Jericho approach 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 also a transformation of training and logistics, key elements of what professionals pay attention to but do not get the focus of attention which platform acquisition itself receives.

Senior Defence leaders (L-R) Commander Australian Fleet, Rear Admiral Stuart Mayer, CSC & Bar RAN, Commander Forces Command, Major General Peter ‘Gus’ Gilmore AO, DSC, and Air Commander Australia, Air Vice-Marshal Gavin Turnbull lead the 2015 Anzac Day march through Sydney. Approximately 2240 ADF members are currently deployed on operation, continuing the Anzac spirit whilst serving Australia’s national interests at home and in many countries around the world. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence
Senior Defence leaders (L-R) Commander Australian Fleet, Rear Admiral Stuart Mayer, CSC & Bar RAN, Commander Forces Command, Major General Peter ‘Gus’ Gilmore AO, DSC, and Air Commander Australia, Air Vice-Marshal Gavin Turnbull lead the 2015 Anzac Day march through Sydney. Approximately 2240 ADF members are currently deployed on operation, continuing the Anzac spirit whilst serving Australia’s national interests at home and in many countries around the world. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence

In an interview with the Air Commander of Australia, Air Vice Marshal Turnbull., highlighted their importance:

Question: You are clearly shaping a 21st century expeditionary force, how do you deal with the challenge of shaping a logistics system, which can enable it?

Air Vice Marshal Turnbull: Logistics is not an exciting subject but it is essential to any operational success.

 We must make sure that it’s not so much a specific force, but it’s our ability to project a force within an appropriate timeframe wherever we may want it effectively.

 As we develop capability we have to maintain a keen eye on the fact it needs to be designed to be moved quickly and efficiently from wherever we garrison to wherever we operate.

 A deployable mindset is the key to keep people innovating in the right way.

For our logistics to be able to service our requirements anywhere in the world in a reasonable timeframe is a key focus for our transformation efforts.

Leveraging the F-35 global enterprise is seen as a key element of the effort, and with it shaping a sustainment approach, which can fully work with that enterprise.

In an interview with Air Vice Marshal (retired) John Blackburn, who has been associated with the effort from its beginning last year, the sustainment aspect of the effort was highlighted.

What we’ve seen in the past is that the logistics part has been underemphasized. We’ve always emphasized the platform and the logistics element is the poor cousin that follows in its trail.

For example, how are we going to provide situational awareness, common information systems across the whole logistics base. What we’re seeing now with global supply chains, and using the JSF as an example, is you’re actually looking at supporting your platform with a global supply chain, which is actually shared with all the other partner nations.

There are two key issues, which need to be addressed.

First, one needs to optimize delivery through a global supply chain vertically, if you want to put it that way. And then for the national force, you’re going to look horizontally across each of those supply chains, and so how does the joint logistics area manage that?

Do you order supplies only through that vertical global supply chain or do you rationalize across your force and your force holdings by the national joint supply chain?

We have to understand that you are going to end up optimizing platforms to the global supply chain such as the JSF for very good reasons. How that integrates and interfaces in a country-by-country case into a cross capability logistics system, I don’t think is understood as yet.

This is a critical issue to understand so that we can deploy as effectively as possible, and operate across a range of capabilities in a more complex logistics environment in the future.

Addressing both the national and global F-35 approaches are important because they are at the cutting edge of an approach which may well be repeated with regard to other systems to be supported globally in the future by US and allied militaries.

In other words, the F-35 system is a pathfinder effort for squaring the circle between a global supply chain and supply chains for a transformed joint force towards which Australia is clearly working.

Question: To put it into your words, the challenge is squaring the dynamics of a global vertical supply chain with a nationally based ability to supply your force?

Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Blackburn: The challenge you face now is a far more complicated logistics information system that needs to not only work in that vertical axis but in the horizontal axis country-by-country, and then you have to make some hard decisions because you’re not a just-in-time civil supply system. You need a resilient supply base, and not just depend on just-in-time deliveries from a global supply chain.

Cost is a critical factor as well.

If I quote from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute defense budget report of this year, they are projecting a 5.2 percent real growth per annum – real growth – in sustainment costs. When you look at the scale of that operating cost for a force like ours, that’s something that’s got to have to be managed very carefully to make sure that our force remains affordable.

I think the sustainable logistics part is going to be a very, very important factor in supporting a transformation effort.

The Blackburn-Berke-Godfrey panel addressing airpower transformation at the Copenhagen Airpower Symposium, April 17, 2015. Credit: SLD
The Blackburn-Berke-Godfrey panel addressing airpower transformation at the Copenhagen Airpower Symposium, April 17, 2015. Credit: SLD

Question: 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.

A similar perspective is emerging for the Royal Air Force as well.

In an interview with Group Captain Ian Townsend, a key officer involved in working the F-35 introduction into service for the RAF, the importance of the global enterprise was highlighted as well.

Question: You are working the task of bringing the F-35B to the UK in 2018 and preparing for its integration with the Queen Elizabeth.

 What role does your engagement with the Marines at Beaufort play in this process?

Group Captain Townsend: We have a pooling implementation agreement or PIA with the Marines.

The PIA formalizes how we’re going to work alongside them. We currently have 14 maintainers at MCAS Beaufort but, by the end of 2018, we’ll have about 242 maintainers.

They are all operating under the U.S. Marine Corps regulations and will be ready to come back to the U.K. and operate F-35 independently in late 2018.

Question: And concurrently, you are building your own infrastructure in the UK to then support your F-35s in the UK?

Group Captain Townsend: That is correct. It is a massive effort to put in place the UK infrastructure but we are learning significant lessons from other F35 partner nations.

We are conducting developmental test flying, operational test flying and frontline flying all at the same time, something we call concurrency. We’ve never done that before. If we hadn’t taken that approach, none of the F-35 operators would be where we are right now.

The Marine Corps wouldn’t be IOC, if they haven’t taken that approach.

And we certainly wouldn’t be thinking about IOC in 2018 if we hadn’t taken that concurrency approach.

Working alongside the Marines not only allows exposure to F35 operations through the maintenance department, but our pilots are also working alongside their Marines equivalents. We’re training to the 501 Operational Conversion Syllabus, so we will now know exactly what the Marines are trained to go and do, which I think will make us better partners in the future as well.

Question: And by then, the Queen Elizabeth will be doing sea trials and getting ready to accept you?

Group Captain Townsend: That is the target. The first period of developmental testing onboard the Queen Elizabeth happens at the end of 2018. We have a second period in the mid-part of 2019, and then we will conduct continuation training on the ship before she achieves operational capability at the end of 2020.

Question: One misunderstanding often is that the Royal Navy is seen to be flying the F-35B where it is really the RAF. And the RAF is flying both the upgraded Typhoon and F-35B and working through their integration.

How would you describe the importance of the RAF working both processes concurrently?

Group Captain Townsend: I think this plays very nicely into the fact that the Royal Air Force is the air-minded service. We focus solely on being the expert deliverers of air power.

However, being a joint force, we have the additional benefit of having Fleet Air Arm pilots embedded within the U.K. Lightning Force. So there is no Royal Air Force Lightning Force.

There is no Royal Navy Lightning Force.

We are just one force.

And we’re bringing together the expertise of both elements of light blue and dark blue uniforms to provide the very best effect for carrier strike in the future.

Question: It was clear looking at reactions to the USS Wasp sea trials, that the core point of the integration of the ship with the airplane was largely missed. The Queen Elizabeth is a ship designed for the F-35B and the F-35B will provide unique capabilities which the ship can capitalize on in shaping its concept of operations.

 How would you describe this synergistic process?

Group Captain Townsend: As an airman, I like anything that enhances my ability to deliver air power, and the ship certainly does that. The ship has been tailor-made from first principles to deliver F-35 operational output. The ship is part of the F35 air system.

I think this is the key change to where we were in Joint Force Harrier where the ship was really just a delivery vehicle. The ship was just a runway.

The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are much more than that. They are right at the heart of the air system’s capability fundamentally enabling and supporting what the air vehicle is doing three, or four, or five hundred miles away from the ship. And that wasn’t quite the same in Joint Force Harrier with the invincible class CVS carriers.

So it’s very different for us.

Everyone involved in embarked F-35 operations needs to understand what the air vehicle is going off to do because everybody on the ship is much closer to that end delivery of effect.This is a very different concept of operations from 15 years ago.

When I launched from the CVS in 2005 to fly an operational misison in Afghanistan, once I left the deck, I was gone.

The next contact I would have with the ship was when I called for recovery, several hours later.

Col. Peter D. Buck and Col. Robert D. Cooper greet United Kingdom Royal Air Force officers Air Commodore Harvey Smyth, Group Capt. Paul Godfrey, and Group Capt. Ian Townsend as they arrive at Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron, June 16, 2015.
Col. Peter D. Buck and Col. Robert D. Cooper greet United Kingdom Royal Air Force officers Air Commodore Harvey Smyth, Group Capt. Paul Godfrey, and Group Capt. Ian Townsend as they arrive at Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron, June 16, 2015.

Whilst I was airborne the ship and I became very separate operational platforms. When a UK Lightning launches from the QUEEN ELIZABETH, the information link between the air vehicle and the ship now means that they remain connected during the operation greatly enhancing operational capability.

In terms of being an information node or a C2 node, we’re in a much different place now.

And I think that’s really quite interesting for us as air commanders in terms of our ability to control what is going on forward with the airplanes.

I also think from a pilot’s perspective, being on the deck in my F-35, being able to see in my cockpit what is going on in the battle space, because my brothers in their F-35s already in the operational battlespace have sent information back to me, I think that’s really exciting as well.

We are no longer launching into the unknown.

We can see what’s happening.

We understand what we’re going off to go and do, but we can see the real-time situation in the battle space before we launch off the deck. A significant operational benefit..

Question: The impact of the global fleet of F-35s is significant as well in shaping enhanced capability for the Queen Elizabeth-F-35 enabled air system as well.

 How do you see the impact of the F-35 global enterprise on the RAF?

Group Captain Townsend: There are many benefits. Not just in terms of training alongside each other and seeing the TTP developments, but practically when you’re in the battle space, how much information can you get from all of these different F-35 partners that are out there.

Broadening that question a little bit further, being part of the global platform and global sustainment, what are the opportunities there about not having to take all logistics with you?

What can you do to leverage off an Italian ship that’s nearby that might have the particular part that you need but you might not have it because you haven’t had to take anything forwards.

There’s an awful lot of questions being raised and a lot of opportunities available about being part of this global platform.

Again, this is something that we in the U.K. have never done before and there are a number of lessons ahead.

Question: I believe that any new platform needs a decade to put its legs under it. But the basic point is that we’re moving in a different direction from the beginning, rather than spinning our wheels with historic patterns.

And your perspective is the need to get on with it, more or less?

Group Captain Townsend: I think that’s absolutely right and inevitable. But at least, the foundation has been set. The partners involved in the global platform understand each other’s business, from the outset, in a way that we haven’t really seen ever before.

I think the closest equivalent you could come to would be the F-16 program that was widely sold across the world, but every nation did F-16 differently.

There were different support solutions for every F-16 operating nation.

By and large, anyone operating F-35 is going to be doing it in broadly the same way with the same sort of broad sustainment solution.

That’s part of the global program.

That’s what makes it an attractive option for everyone that’s involved.

 

 

 

 

 

Brazil’s “Second Chance”: Shaping a Way Ahead Beyond Corruption

10/20/2015

2015-10-20 By Kenneth Maxwell

Lincoln Gordon, former U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, wrote a book called Brazil’s Second Chance which was published by the Brooking’s Institution in Washington DC in 2004.

Gordon had been a visiting fellow at Brooking’s for many years. He is famous (or rather notorious) in Brazil for his role during the military coup of 1964. He always struggled subsequently with what he did, or did not do, during that pivotal year. He was even obliged to write a supplement to his book in response to newly declassified documents. Lincoln Gordon died in 2009 at the age of 96.

The Brazilian military regime predates by a decade the military dictatorships’, which came to dominate the southern come of South America after General Augusto Pinochet took power in Chile in September 1973.

What happened in Brazil in 1964, as well as the U.S. reaction to the Brazilian military regime, however, proved to be model for the later dictatorships in the southern come of Latin America.

Lincoln Gordon maintained that his actions had been badly misinterpreted. His aim had been (bizarrely as this must seem today in the light of subsequent history) to defend democracy in Brazil not to destroy it. He always argued that João Goulart (Jango) posed a communist threat, and that this justified the way in which the U.S. embraced the coup with embarrassing, and almost preemptive, enthusiasm.

A former Harvard professor of government and political economy, Lincoln Gordon, like many Harvard professors at the time, greatly admired President John F. Kennedy, a Harvard graduate, who had appointed him to be the US ambassador to Brazil. Gordon came to the job with impressive credentials.

Among many other achievements, Dr. Kenneth Maxwell was the first holder of the Chair of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University. Credit Image: Bigstock
Among many other achievements, Dr. Kenneth Maxwell was the first holder of the Chair of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University.
Credit Image: Bigstock

He had been a very young administrator of the Marshall Plan in London and Paris, where he had been centrally involved in the democratic reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War. He was to be the principal agent in Brazil for Kennedy’s “Alliance for Progress”, and his appointment demonstrated how critical Gordon was to Kennedy’s plan to provide a democratic anti-communist alternative in Latin America.

Lincoln Gordon was a classic Cold War liberal, and as such, like President Kennedy, he saw Brazil as the next and most important target for an expanding Castro revolution in the Americas.

But in 1963 Lincoln Gordon was right about one thing.

The Brazilian military coup was welcomed not only by the U.S. government, then run by Lyndon Johnson, who had become president after the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, but also by many Brazilians, including many leading politicians.

There were always important civilian supporters of the Brazilian generals, and they remained important participants in the political process after the generals ceded power.

A very similar phenomenon was true about the end of military rule when those who had supported the rule of the generals became active participants in the newly established civilian led regime, including, most notably José Sarney, who had only shifted his position towards the end of military rule, and who became, following the unanticipated death of Tancredo Neves, the first civilian president of the first post military government.

Lincoln Gordon was, however, relatively sanguine about Brazil’s prospects when he published Brazil’s Second Chance in 2004. He thought Brazil would make it this time. He based his judgment on a technical analysis of what Brazil had experienced economically since 1964.

But he ended with a caveat: Political reform was needed to fully consolidate these gains.

He did not mention corruption.

The state run oil company Petrobras which is at the center of the current political and corruption scandal only got a passing nod. He had very little to say about the judiciary which now provides the Brazilian federal judge, Sergio Moro, who with his team of prosecutors in Curitiba, Parana, has almost single handedly unraveled the whole sorry mess.

Tancredo Neves in the month after his (indirect) election as the first post-military regime president in 1984, and before his unexpected death, had gone out of his way to travel the world, including to the US, to preempt any potential concerns.

At a critical moment when foreign interference might well have clouded the horizon for the democratic transition in Brazil, as well as damaging the prospects for prospective democratic transitions elsewhere in South America, the US administration, then run by the Republican, Ronald Reagan, reacted positively.

The Pinochet regime for example lasted until 1990, but its legitimacy in the eyes of outsiders, and most especially of the US, was severely compromised after Brazil successfully re-established civilian rule peacefully in 1985.

The irony of all this is that the current crisis in Brazil comes when another Harvard educated liberal democrat is back in the White House.

Barack Obama is no Cold War macho liberal like Jack Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson to be sure. He is much more a “shrinking violet” as far a foreign engagements are concerned, at least to his Republican Party critics, and evidently also to Vladimir Putin. And Obama has certainly lanced the boil, which has bedeviled U.S. relationships in the hemisphere by taking steps to end the diplomatic standoff with Cuba.

But Obama is also a Harvard educated liberal democrat and his relationships with Brazil has been clouded by the cyber-spying by the U.S.’s NSA on Dilma Rousseff’s cell phone and on Petrobras, according to Edward Snowden’s revelations.

And U.S. influence in Brazil is now exercised, for better or worse, less by the White House, and more by the U.S. Federal Courts and Federal Prosecutors, as well as the Justice Department, and by the FBI, all acting in ways that are at times independent of (a largely absent) U.S. White House policy.

And acting in ways, which can actually (and perhaps ironically) help Brazil deal with its crisis of corruption, which is international in scope.

Eduardo Campos, the former governor of Pernambuco state in northeastern Brazil, in his last interview before he was killed in a plane crash during the presidential campaign last year, said: “We are not giving up on Brazil.”

Was then Lincoln Gordon’s relative optimism in “Brazil’s Second Chance” misplaced?

Certainly many of the old ambiguities about democracy in Brazil have returned with a vengeance. As have many of the old demons, which have led to the collective evasion about the role individuals, played before, during, and after, the military regime.

And which also led to the convoluted rationalizations of those who like Lincoln Gordon, beloved they were defending democracy while effectively ending it.

All of which demonstrates how the Brazilian elite has an infinite capacity to negotiate the un-negotiable and to pretend that nothing has changed and that everything remains the same.

Or put, another way, have democratic (small D) contributions have more positive impact on Brazil than Democratic (large D) policy intrusions from Harvard liberals?

Editor’s Note: Among many other achievements, Dr. Kenneth Maxwell was the first holder of the Chair of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University.