In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
2015-07-12 On July 6, 2015, the UK MoD indicated that they had taken delivery of their third A400M.
According to an article on the UK MoD website:
The aircraft is the third of 22 A400M Atlas to be accepted by the UK as part of a £2.75 billion programme which is on track to meet the UK’s future air mobility requirements.
The A400M flying at the Le Bourget Airshow in June 2015. Credit: Murielle Delaporte
The MOD’s Chief of Defence Materiel, Sir Bernard Gray, said:
Having now undertaken and completed thorough checks on the UK’s A400M aircraft, I am satisfied that we have fulfilled and allowed for the safe delivery of this third aircraft.
We are very mindful of the recent tragedy in Spain and our thoughts remain with the families and friends of those affected by these terrible events.
This world-class aircraft will have an important role to fulfil with the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the programme is at the forefront of modern technology and the RAF is looking forward to receiving its full order in due course.
Prior to a pause in flying in May/June, the first two A400M Atlas to be delivered to the RAF completed over 405 flying hours, with the first aircraft – named “City of Bristol” – carrying out its first operational mission to Cyprus in March.
The RAF is now developing the use of the aircraft whilst continuing to grow the experience of the aircrew instructors, before they begin to train the crews destined for the A400M Atlas Squadron later this year.
The new fleet of A400M Atlas is due to replace the C-130 Hercules when it goes out of service in 2022. Over the next three years the aircraft will be equipped with advanced capabilities that will see it progress into a highly capable air transporter that will move people and equipment rapidly around the globe on military and humanitarian operations.
Introduced with the basic level of capability currently required by the RAF, over the next 12 months A400M will be capable of delivering a wide range of loads, as well as carrying out freefall and static line parachuting.
The aircraft will initially take part in low level operations as it builds up to meet all of the UK’s requirements, which once complete will include high altitude aerial delivery and parachuting, high precision drop and advanced self defence capabilities.
It correctly identifies major threats to U.S. security but not how to generate the resources needed to generate the capabilities needed to execute an effective counterstrategy.
The 2015 NMS identifies four “revisionist” states that potentially threaten U.S. and global security since they “are attempting to revise key aspects of the international order and are acting in a manner that threatens our national security interests.”
Iran is sponsoring terrorism, North Korea has been conducting cyber attacks, China is militarizing island disputes in the Pacific, and Russia is “undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces.”
Although the threat of a war with these countries is low since they are not seeking a direct conflict with the United States, “it is growing.”
Meanwhile, “violent extremist organizations” (VEO), including the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, undermine security via radicalization of populations, violence, and terror, exploiting weak or failed governments and opportunistic alliances with transnational criminal organization.
The NMS insists that the United States will “disrupt and degrade” these groups directly and by addressing the root causes of violent extremism through non-military and international efforts.
A focus of the current text is the threat of “hybrid” warfare tactics, combining conventional and unconventional military tactics, operating separately as countries and terrorist groups or in partnership.
Hybrid conflict may take multiple forms, such as “military forces assuming a non-state identity, as Russia did in the Crimea, or involve a VEO fielding rudimentary combined arms capabilities, as ISIL has demonstrated in Iraq and Syria.”
The JCS Spectrum of Conflict. NMS 2015.
The new Military Strategy places hybrid conflict in the middle a continuum of conflict ranging from one extreme of state conflict to the other extreme of non-state conflict: “overlapping state and non-state violence, there exists an area of conflict where actors blend techniques, capabilities, and resources to achieve their objectives.”
Pentagon analysts believe these hybrid tactics will persist since it gives the aggressor certain advantages such as generating ambiguity over the nature of the aggressor and their strategy and goals, complicating decision-making both in Washington and in the field, and making it harder to organize an effective response.
As U.S. military experts note, these tactics try to exploit the traditional seams between war and peace by combining kinetic and non-kinetic actions that fall below the threshold of conventional war.
Countering this threat is a problem that extends well beyond Russia.
As French Minister of Defense Jean-Yves Le Drian put it in his joint news conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, “the terrorist army that ISIL has become … is no longer a terrorist group; it has become a terrorist army, which both has the capacity to act as a classical army.”
The Strategy’s continued affirmation of a “whole-of-government” and “whole-of-nation” approach to security challenges recognizes that military power is most effective when employed in concert with other elements of power such as economic, diplomatic, information, legal, and intelligence instruments.
The problem is that the weakness of these non-military tools encourages the president and Congress to employ the U.S. military even when it is not the most appropriate instrument.
Non-military tools are especially important for responding to mixed “hybrid” threats.
Of course, any strategy document is only a declaration of intent.
For the U.S. military to play all its assigned roles effectively, it needs adequate resources.
In this regard, the current U.S. defense budget cannot provide all the means that the United States needs to manage this complex strategic security environment.
As the NMS explains, “the U.S. military does not have the luxury of focusing on one challenge to the exclusion of others.
It must provide a full range of military options for addressing both revisionist states and VEOs. Failure to do so will result in greater risk to our country and the international order.”
The requirements for an effective defense of U.S. interests include “maintaining highly-ready forces forward, as well as well trained and equipped surge forces at home, resilient logistics and transportation infrastructures, networked intelligence, strong communications links, and interoperability with allies and partners.”
Furthermore, countering A2/AD, space, cyber, and hybrid threats requires investments in space and terrestrial-based indications and warning systems; integrated and resilient ISR platforms; strategic lift; long-range precision strike weapons; missile defense technologies; undersea systems; remotely operated vehicles and technologies; special operations forces; and offensive and defensive cyber capabilities.
The NMS reaffirms the eight components of the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint Force 2020:
employing mission command;
seizing, retaining, and exploiting the initiative;
leveraging global agility;
partnering;
demonstrating flexibility in establishing joint forces;
improving cross-domain synergy;
using flexible, low-signature capabilities; and
being increasingly discriminate to minimize unintended consequences.
More questionably, the NMS posits that “war against a major adversary would require the full mobilization of all instruments of national power… a full-spectrum military that includes strong Reserve and National Guard forces,” which are said to “provide the force depth needed to achieve victory while simultaneously deterring other threats. “
However, any major war would likely end rapidly due to fears of nuclear escalation, well before the United States could mobile its Reserve Components.
The Pentagon also has great faith in its ability to regenerate capabilities if future circumstances require.
But it is unclear how to measure “reversibility” when it comes to recovering discarded or reduced capabilities, such as restoring defense production lines or recalling retired personnel to active service.
Any “snapback” potential will also decline as U.S. weapons systems and the veterans from the post-Sept. 11 conflicts decline in number and age.
Until the F-35 is widely deployed by U.S. and allied forces, even a minor war would strain existing U.S. intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.
The author would like to thank Tucker John Berry, Bogdan Belei, Vincent Macina, Andrew Smith, Claudiu Nicolae Sonda, and Conner Tuzi for research assistance with this article.
The Arab Spring and its aftermath have provoked significant regional unrest from which emerged political regime changes in many countries of North Africa and the Middle East. In Syria and Libya, notably, unrest has led to devastating civil wars forcing a large part of their population to attempt to reach European grounds seeking refuge and better living conditions.
The European Union (EU) faces security and humanitarian challenges of unprecedented proportions due to the huge migratory wave across the central and eastern Mediterranean.
As Malta’s Prime Minister stated in April, “What is happening now is of epic proportions. If Europe, if the global community continues to turn a blind eye… we will all be judged in the same way that history has judged Europe when it turned a blind eye to the genocide of this century and last century.”
By Maria Kottari
Amid ongoing migrant arrivals, and considerations by the EU of more direct action, this article outlines the conditions of trafficking across the Mediterranean Sea and the attendant security and humanitarian implications for the EU.
The article focuses on the case of illegal migration towards Greek shores and the internal policy challenges the country faces given its ongoing economic crisis.
An assessment of FRONTEX’s maritime operations in the eastern Mediterranean is made, along with an analysis of Turkey’s role and the EU’s strategy in the areas of maritime and migration policy.
Overview
The commemoration of the tragic shipwreck of the Titanic some 103 years earlier took place on 16 April 2015.
A comparison made by Amnesty International shows that in 2014 migrant drownings in the Mediterranean made up more than the equivalent of two Titanics in terms of numbers of victims.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) some 3,400- 3,500 migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers bound for European shores lost their lives crossing the Mediterranean in 2014. This number is expected to rise in 2015. On 18 April 2015, 800 migrants drowned off the Libyan coast and a similar event took place in the beginning of the same month with 400 victims.
According to the Greek authorities, during the weekend of 18 and 19 April the Greek coastguard rescued 1,047 migrants at risk. Amnesty International reports that the escalating conflicts in Africa and the Middle East have “led to the largest refugee disaster since the Second World War.”
Amnesty estimates that 57 million people have been forced to flee worldwide in the last year, 6 million more than in 2012.
As shown in Figure 1 (below), for the last two years illegal border crossings via seaways have surpassed illegal land border crossings.
Migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers from North Africa and the Middle East, mainly from Libya, Syria and Somalia, are crossing the Mediterranean in droves, aided by human traffickers, seeking better living conditions in EU territory.
Smugglers take full advantage of migrants’ desperation, trying to squeeze their last cent from them.
Migrants undergo cruel and inhuman treatment while crossing the Mediterranean, with poorly equipped and overladen vessels. Life jackets, adequate food and fresh water are seldom provided aboard; instead, a communication device to alert passing commercial or state vessels (or patrol aircraft) in the area is usually offered.
Under the current EU regulatory framework, the initial host country of irregular migrants is responsible for their processing and documentation, including feeding, clothing, housing and provision of medical treatment.
Ideally, those granted asylum or refugee status would be divided up among EU countries. The rest would be turned away. Recent events have shown that this is little more than theory.
The increased flow of illegal immigrants poses serious problems in Greece’s relations with its European partners, as Greece is not the final destination of migrants.
In contrast, the majority attempt to move onwards either to Italy or through the western Balkan countries to Western Europe or Scandinavia. However, as was decided by the EU’s Dublin II Regulation adopted during the Greek EU Presidency in 2003, illegal immigrants, when identified, should be returned to their first country of entry into European territory (Council of the European Union, 2003)
The central and eastern Mediterranean routes have scored the highest numbers of illegal border crossings and consequently the highest death toll to date. The central Mediterranean route refers to the migratory flow coming from North Africa towards Italy and Malta through the Mediterranean Sea.
Here, Libya often acts as nexus point where migrants from the Horn of Africa and West African routes meet before embarking on their journey towards the EU. The eastern Mediterranean route is defined for FRONTEX purposes as the passage used by migrants crossing through Turkey to the EU via Greece, southern Bulgaria or Cyprus.
Since 2008, this route has become the second biggest migratory hot spot, with the European Union external border with Turkey being the main nexus point on this route.
Italy, Malta and Greece have currently the most difficult and pressing cases to face and they have been hard pushed to cope. Illegal border crossing by sea generates internal policy issues in the countries concerned.
In addition, it represents the most significant and complex maritime security issue related to the Mediterranean Sea at present.
Illegal migration towards Greek shores
During the past three years, Greece has experienced a rise of illegal sea border crossings compared to 2010-2011.
More precisely, according to FRONTEX, 2010 saw a sudden increase in detections of illegal border crossing on the small 12.5 km-long stretch of land not delineated by the River Evros, which marks the land border between Greece and Turkey. Greece requested FRONTEX’s assistance, and it deployed the first Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT) in November 2010.
However, in 2011, the number of illegal border crossings along the Turkish land border skyrocketed again.
The Euro-Med region is becoming a single region with the dynamics of change in the Eastern Med and North Africa.
Greek authorities have taken a series of measures to control illegal border crossings, including:
a) Operation Aspida, with the deployment of additional Hellenic police officers and equipment to the Evros region;
b) Greek Operation Xenios Zeus focused on inland detections of illegal stays and their return;
c) construction of a fence along a 12.5 km area of the north-eastern town of Orestiada;
d) an extension of the maximum length of detention period for migrants;
e) an increase in the capacity of detention centres for identification and return;
f) the reduction of the time period from 30 to seven days during which irregular migrants can leave Greece if they are not in detention centres.
The European Commission has raised its opposition to the construction of the fence while Greek authorities claim it is a cost-effective way of policing this part of the border both for Greek and other EU countries facing migratory issues.
Greece has identified irregular migration flows as a security threat against its national identity and domestic politics.
In 2013, a shift to sea border crossings with migrants arriving to the Greek islands from Turkey was observed.
According to the Greek coastguard, the number of illegal migrants arriving in Greece by sea has tripled in the first three months of 2015.
Around 54% of irregular migrants come from Syria, 26% from Afghanistan, and the rest from Somalia, Eritrea and Nigeria.
According to the latest report released by the Syrian Human Rights Observatory, almost half of the citizens of Syria, a country with a population of about 22 million, have been forced to flee abandon their homeland as a result of the civil war that has now been raging for four years.
Syrian refugees trying to reach Europe are initially directed to Turkish territory and then to the Greek islands of the Dodecanese and the north Aegean Sea. Refugees are transported by smugglers in inflatable boats, fishing boats and, during summer season, in sailboats, in order to mislead the Greek coastguard.
The task of the Greek coastguard becomes more complicated in the vicinity of the Turkish Mediterranean shore, the main embarkation point for the smugglers’ boats to the Greek islands.
In many cases, transportation takes only ten minutes; thus the Greek coastguard’s response time is very limited.
The island with the biggest influx to date is Mytilene, followed by Chios, Leros and Samos. Other islands have also seen arrivals.
People-smugglers do not hesitate to destroy the boats, or to abandon them in the middle of the route, to avoid being arrested by the Greek coastguard. Illegal sea border crossing from the Turkish Mediterranean coast towards the Greek islands is widespread and smugglers operate on a trading basis; they have also mobilised social media in order to post their announcements of illegal transportation towards Greek territory.
Serious concerns have been raised by locals in the Greek islands about the effects of human trafficking on regional tourism etc. Turkey, in turn, is said to take advantage of the situation in order to boost its own tourist industry in the Turkish Mediterranean shores.
The massive migratory flows towards Greece during the last three years have produced a complex internal policy issue for the country, especially regarding living conditions in the detention centres.
Given the country’s economic crisis, migratory flow management and sea-border control have been the subjects of heated debate preoccupying the internal political agenda.
In November 2014, Syrian refugees gathered for almost a month in Athens city centre, at Syntagma Square, requesting the government’s mobilisation in order to provide them asylum and shelter. There were serious allegations that smugglers had sought to create a climate of tension and confusion between the Syrian refugees and the government over the asylum procedure and were trying to get vast amounts of money on the pretext that they could help asylum-seekers to move to other European countries.
FRONTEX and maritime migration flow challenges in Greece
FRONTEX was established in 2004 as the EU agency tasked to manage co-operation between countries to secure national borders.
Due to its extensive external borders and the intense migratory pressures Greece hosts an important part of FRONTEX’s operational activities.
Operation ‘Poseidon’, covering the Greek-Turkish and the Bulgarian-Turkish land border and the eastern Mediterranean region, is the largest FRONTEX has ever co-ordinated.
Operation Poseidon has been running since 2006, with an interruption during 2010 when the Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT) operation took place in the area of River Evros.
Due to the development of Operation Poseidon, up until 2011 Greece witnessed a decrease of 98% on illegal sea-border migration flows. As a result, this operation is seen as quite effective as it has forced the organised trafficking networks of migrants to change route and switch to the land border, particularly in the Evros region.
As already mentioned, the Syrian civil war has led to an increase of migratory flows to the Greek islands through the maritime borders. Therefore, it is evident that serious geopolitical developments have a significant impact on the migration flows.
This has led to a change of circumstances, which, at least initially, FRONTEX has been unable to manage.
FRONTEX’s presence in Greece has been reinforced with the inauguration of a pilot FRONTEX Operational Office (FOO) in Piraeus since October 2010. FRONTEX’s then director, Jean Louis de Brouwer, stated: “Greece is the member state confronted with the biggest challenge. This is not a Greek problem, it is an EU issue,” going on to emphasise that solidarity, as a fundamental principle of the EU, was embodied by FRONTEX.
“This operational office is the first of its kind,” he said. “It cannot fail.
It simply cannot fail. […] FOO is an absolutely essential element of FRONTEX’s development. Failure of this centre is not an option.” However, the increase of migratory flows to Greece through sea borders over the last three years raises doubts about the success of this regional operation office.
A higher amount of FRONTEX funds destined for the management of irregular migration goes to Spain and Italy compared to Greece. What is more, the financial contributions of the other member states are minimal, reaching only a fifth of the amount contributed by Greece to tackle the issue of irregular migration.
Many EU member states have refused to participate in joint operations under the responsibility of FRONTEX.
Greece claims that there is a significant solidarity deficit among EU member states and a weakness in common decision-making as well as a correct assessment of the pressing emergency of the incidents.
A striking example of this deficit is the amount of financial resources available for joint operations deployed in the Mediterranean per month. Operation Triton in the central Mediterranean reached 4 million euros per month as compared to Operation Poseidon in the eastern Mediterranean, which reached only 600,000 euros, even though migration is 35% higher in the eastern Mediterranean than in the central Mediterranean.
On the other hand, Greece has been attributed a higher amount of funds over the period since 2010; however the Greek authorities did not absorb the totality of the available funds.
One could argue that despite FRONTEX’s deficiencies, and even though the political will exists, there is a great incompetence on the part of the Greek state apparatus, both in central decision-making and in implementation at local level.
Conclusions
The current situation with the trafficking of irregular migrants and refugees along Mediterranean shores has taken on tragic dimensions.
Smugglers have developed new ways of trafficking, such as by cargo ship, which could hinder further the operations of the local coastguard and FRONTEX.
The challenges of irregular maritime migration require an evolving and active EU engagement in the Mediterranean.
Irregular maritime migration and smuggling by immigrants during their transit to Europe is a multifaceted phenomenon involving overlapping national jurisdictions and security concerns with implications for the EU as a whole, not only for the most affected member states.
Republished with the permission of Strategic Insights.
This article appears in the June 2015 issue of Strategic Insights.
For an opportunity to read the complete issue and to subscribe to this important publication, see the following:
During our visit to 2nd MAW on May 18, 2015, we had a chance to talk with two members of VMAQ-3, an electronic warfare squadron flying EA-6B Prowler jets.
It is part of Marine Aircraft Group 14 under the 2nd MAW.
We interviewed two members of the squadron who recently joined the EW world.
With the first Prowler pilots being trained this summer at Beaufort for the F-35B, a transition is already underway.
The Prowler is due to be retired in 2019 and will be replaced by a wide-ranging focus on EW throughout the MAGTF.
One asset that will play a role will clearly be the F-35, which is in Ed Timperlake’s words, a “tron warfare aircraft.”
And Major Summa, the XO of the Green Knights, who is taking over as the Warlords CO highlighted how the F-35 affected the EW approach:
Question: Obviously your pilots need to be trained to combine the air-to-air and CAS capabilities and to use the new organic tools sets as well?
Major Summa: It does.
Now we’re going to have a pilot that’s versed in doing CAS, if he needs to use the electromagnetic spectrum or exploit it to accomplish his mission, he’ll be educated and have the equipment to do so.
If he needs to use it in the air-to-air arena to exploit it, to accomplish his mission, he’ll have the training and the equipment needed to use it as well.
In the current situation, I would deploy a Prowler to work with my legacy fighters.
SOUDA BAY, Greece (Feb. 04, 2010) A pair of EA-6B Prowlers, assigned to Marine Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron (VMAQ) 3, take off following a transient stopover. The Moon Dogs of VMAQ 3 are based at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina with a mission of supporting the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) commander by conducting airborne electronic warfare, day or night, under all weather conditions, during expeditionary, joint, or combined operations. U.S. Navy photo by Paul Farley
The Prowler would have to be sortied and would operate only for a period of time and in a specific operational area.
With the low observability of the F-35 combined with the organic EW capability of the aircraft, the aircraft expands my capabilities for both air-to-air and CAS.
Clearly, unmanned aircraft or remotely piloted vehicles will be added to the mix as well.
Currently, the USMC Blackjacks carry payloads to contribute to EW and over time the UAV element will enhance its role as well.
In an article by Joshua Stewart in Marine Corps Times published on January 29, 2015, the shift in roles of Marines in supporting EW was discussed.
As the EA-6B Prowler flies into retirement and the Corps takes a new approach to electronic warfare, some Marines who spent their careers in the radar-jamming aircraft will be transferred to other military occupation specialties, and many will work with unmanned aircraft.
About 10 percent of Marines in the 7588 electronic warfare officer MOS will become 7315 unmanned aircraft systems officers. Concurrently, the Corps is changing the duties of the 7315 MOS.
“The new 7315 MOS will provide us with a cadre of better-trained and more versatile [unmanned aircraft systems] officers capable of serving in a variety of operational roles in support of Marine Corps doctrine,” said Maj. Paul Greenberg, a Marine spokesman at the Pentagon.
Most of the transitioning electronic warfare Marines will be company-grade officers with a primary 7588 MOS, Greenberg said. Other electronic warfare officers will stay in that MOS until they leave the service, and will serve in B-billets, he said.
The electronic warfare community’s transition is one facet of the Corps’ new approach to controlling the electromagnetic spectrum in battle, and the service’s new philosophy is more complex than merely rolling dozens of Marines from a niche community into a new MOS.
Currently, Prowlers are the service’s electronic warfare workhorse, but in the future, a variety of platforms — including unmanned systems, rotary aircraft and ground vehicles — will also be a part of this warfare domain. It amounts to a Corps-wide makeover of electronic warfare in which manipulating and monitoring the electromagnetic spectrum is a more integral part of every aspect of combat.
The mission of the squadron VMAQ-3 is identified as follows:
Support the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) commander by conducting airborne electronic warfare, day or night, under all weather conditions during Expeditionary, Joint, or Combined operations.
Captain Casey Jacobs, Prowler pilot, has been doing this job for over three years. This is his first fleet squadron.
Captain Colton Browser is an electronic weapons officer and he been in the squadron for just under three years as this is his first tour as well.
One of the challenges which the Prowler community has is that it has more in common with other EW communities in the Air Force and Navy than it does with many Marines.
This will change as EW becomes a ubiquitous part of USMC operations.
As Captain Jacobs put it: “The feedback we get from Marines is that the plane works in supporting them.
But there is a lack of general understanding of what we do, and the problem lies in that there isn’t a wide understanding of what we do and how we contribute.
We work a lot with the USAF as well.
And as such we are part of general support for the leadership with the Combined Air Operations Center during operations.”
Crewman with Marine Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 3 conduct a preflight walk- through of their EA-6B Prowlers at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., July 22, 2010.
Captain Browser added that the Prowler is understood more by myth than reality.
“We go to airshows and people have understanding based on myths more than realities and, for example, assume that our fuel probe is a laser beam and that sort of thing.”
It is quite different when one goes to the Weapons Tactics and Training Courses at MAWTS where integration of EW within the combat capability of the USMC is a key focus.
As Captain Browser put it: “At WTI there is a clear focus on how to integrate EW into combat operations.
At our most recent WTI, we participated in all of the various air support tasks for the MAGTF, including air to air and close air support.
This is in contrast to our Red Flag experience where we are treated as a specialized asset in the battlespace.”
And with the coming of the F-35, MAWTS is working on how to integrate the plane with its various capabilities into the force, and that includes EW.
Some Prowler pilots will transition to the F-35 community as well.
The members of the squadron noted that there are four Prowler squadrons overall with three of them at Cherry Point with 18 planes per squadron.
The Prowlers are a high demand asset and in constant rotation to combat theaters where they are attached to “different commands for whatever they are needed for.”
The rethink about EW is along the lines of Ed Timperlake’s broader concept of Tron Warfare.
As Captain Browser put it: “We are focused on the entire electromagnetic spectrum, so anything from communication, to RF energy produced by radars etc.
It is a very large spectrum that we need to contain to have combat superiority.
The Prowler has limitations on what we can control within that spectrum, but going forward the USMC approach will be that not just one platform can do everything.
We are going to shape a collaborative approach to achieve spectrum dominance.”
The Marines are blending the various MOSs or Military Operational Specialists in shaping a forward leaning tron warfare approach.
The RQ-21 Blackjack as seen at USMC Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina: Credit: Second LIne of Defense
According to the article by Stewart quoted earlier:
The MOS transition process will start as early as October as Prowlers begin to be phased out, Greenberg said. The transition will continue through fiscal 2019 when the aircraft leaves the fleet.
About 80 percent of electronic warfare officer billets are expected to become unmanned aircraft systems officer billets, he said. Other electronic warfare officers are expected to transition to other pilot or naval flight officer MOSs, or switch into intelligence or communication communities.
Greenberg said others will join the Marine Air Ground Task Force Cyberspace and Electronic Warfare Coordination Cell, a unit that will help the Corps develop its cyber and electronic warfare capabilities.
For Captain Jacobs: “The Navy has tended to be more stove-piped than the USMC with regard to EW.
What we have had to do to survive and thrive is to work with the infantry to provide EW directly to them.
They may not understand completely the process but they like the product.
This means that a broader range of MOSs than simply EW ones are looking at cyber and EW and what it contributes to the success of their own combat area of specialized interest.
This is creating a more integrated approach.”
In other words, the mental furniture of various combat specialties is being recast to open the aperture to understand that tron warfare is not a specialty but a constant of combat success.
This has been a consistent theme within Marine aviation since the decision was made to sundown the Prowlers in 2009.
At the time, LtGen Trautman, then Deputy Commandant for Aviation, said:
Employing a manned low density, high demand electronic warfare platform makes absolutely no sense in a world that will be dominated by F-35, unmanned aerial systems, and full digital interoperability among every aircraft and sensor operating within the future battle space.
Electronic warfare aircraft like the Prowler and Growler are, by their nature, self-limiting technologies that are an anachronism of the last century.
We can and must do better.
Editor’s Note: With regard to Tron Warfare, Ed Timperlake has described the subject as follows:
EW is a complex subject with many discreet but also connected elements. Over time all things electronic in the military took on many dimensions. Electronic Counter-measures (ECM) begat Electronic Counter-Counter (ECCM) measures, Command and Control (C&C) has grown to C5ISR. Information war in certain applications created a multi-billion dollar domain called “”cyber.”
Additionally there has to always be considerations of Electro Magnetic Pulse concerns (EMP) and the counter measures of ‘hardening” of electronic components. There are a lot of other EW issues in “tron war,” such as Infer-Red Sensing (IR) and always protecting “signals in space” information being transmitted and trying to jam the bad guys “signals in space.”
Tactically, it has been said on the modern battlefield — air, sea or land — if not done correctly, “you emit and you die.”
EW can include offensive operations to identify an opponent’s emissions in order to and fry spoof or jam their systems.
In successful “tron” war, often-kinetic kill weapons can be fired. The kinetic kill shot is usually a high-speed missile designed to HOJ (home on jam). There is also the ability to emit electronic “kill” or spoofing signals i.e. to emit miss signals to an enemy’s incoming weapon sensors.
A combat certainty is “tron” warfare will grow in importance and will evolve as a critical component of future combat engagements. The issue of all things “EW” or “tron” war is extremely complex because electrical components engage in empowering a nation’s ability to fight and win and covers so many facets of combat.
2015-06-29 Air Marshal Geoff Brown, AO, Chief of Air Force talks about Air to Air refueling operations in the Middle East Region while flying aboard the KC-30A
He highlighted the significant reliability of the tanker and its contribution.
The Aussies have been operating 1 tanker from 33rd squadron and it has delivered more than 20 million pounds of fuel over its 6-7 months in the Iraq operations.
While Brown was onboard, the Aussie tanker is seen refueling USMC hornets from VMFA-232, the “Red Devils: based at Miramar.
Australia’s Air Task Group (ATG) as part of Operation OKRA comprises six RAAF F/A-18A Hornets, an E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft and a KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft.
Nearly 400 personnel have deployed to the Middle East as part of, or in direct support of the ATG.
Operation OKRA is the Australian Defence Force’s contribution to the international effort to combat the Daesh terrorist threat in Iraq. Australia’s contribution is being closely coordinated with the Iraqi government, Gulf nations and a broad coalition of international partners.
The KC-30A and the Airbus tankers of three other allied air forces have made major contributions to supporting the air forces engaged in the operations in Iraq and Syria.
The coalition partners are shaping new approaches and capabilities as well.
Four air forces are tanking using Airbus tankers during operations.
According to the head of the Australian Air Mobility Group, Air Commodore Warren McDonald:
Operation Okra has accelerated the maturing process of the KC-30A.
At the end of 2013, the squadron was transferred from a project focused Transition Team to Number 86 Wing – and in doing so was placed directly into the hands of the war fighter.
In 2014 the Wing, in conjunction with the project office, addressed the training and key operational issues that were preventing the full utilization of the KC-30A.
The shift in operational focus, as a result of transferring the KC-30A to the Wing, is reflected in the increase in AAR from 40% to 75%.
The deployment to the Middle East has also accelerated the certification of aircraft able to be tanked by the KC-30A.
In three months, we have dramatically increased the number of aircraft certified.
This would not have happened without the press of events and the operational tempo associated with the deployment.
It is the tanker of choice in Iraq we are being told by coalition partners.
Commander Air Mobility Group Air Commodore Warren McDonald CSC has been appointed the next Deputy Chief – DCAF – of the Royal Australian Air Force.
McDonald, who will be promoted to Air Vice-Marshal, will assume the role of DCAF in July, when current deputy chief Air Vice-Marshal Leo Davies will be appointed Chief of Air Force, in turn replacing the current retiring chief, Air Marshal Geoff Brown.
And the same source indicated in a May 15, 2015 article that the Aussie tanker was close to finalizing its operational boom as well:
Two KC-30A crews have completed the first boom contact by the aircraft in RAAF service.
The first KC-30’s crew deployed the 17-metre-long Aerial Refuelling Boom System (ARBS) to make 14 successful contacts with the refuelling receptacle of a second KC-30 during a three-hour flight out of RAAF Base Amberley southwest of Brisbane on May 13.
No fuel was transferred between the aircraft.
Royal Australian Air Force KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft conduct their first air-to-air refuelling boom contact. Credit: Australian MoD
The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) stated in March that the KC-30 project – AIR 5402 – had been removed from the Projects of Concern list, after an extensive development and testing program led to issues that were previously identified with the introduction of the ARBS being resolved.
“More training flights are being flown to ensure aircrew are experienced with the operation of the ARBS,” said Air Vice-Marshal Gavin Turnbull, Air Commander Australia. “We will shortly begin training flights with the KC-30A using its ARBS to refuel the E-7A Wedgetail.
“The KC-30A has already been cleared to refuel other aircraft in flight with its hose-and-drogue refuelling pods, which are mounted beneath the wings. The refuelling pods have been used to great effect in Operation OKRA by refuelling RAAF Hornets and Super Hornets over Iraq, as well as coalition strike aircraft.”
The ARBS is capable of offloading fuel at a rate of 4,500 litres per minute, and is also compatible with the C-17 Globemaster. In the future, the boom will be used to refuel the F-35 Lightning II and P-8 Poseidon.
During the visit, in a meeting with maintainers, the early process of standing up the aircraft and maintaining it was discussed.
One of the maintainers who was 28 argued that the new ALIS system was not all he hoped it would be.
He was asked the following: “What did you maintain before? F-18s was the response. How did ALIS work on F-18s? He paused and then said, “Good point; we are not where we want to be put we are on the path.”
The F-35 as a combat air system is considerably better than the legacy aircraft it is “replacing.”
This point was already made in 2012 by Lt. Col. Bachmann, who is now the CO of the Warlords at Beaufort.
In an interview conducted just after he flew the 200th sortie of the F-35 on August 24, 2012, Bachmann underscored the following:
Question: You have been with the program for a while.
Bachmann: Yes I have. I have been with the program since 2006. And I have been here at Elgin for two and half years. Prior to that I have been a Harrier pilot and have done a stint as a forward air controller.
Question: How would describe the current learning process at Eglin with regard to the plane?
OD Bachmann after 200th F-35 Sortie in August 2012. The plane has more than 500 sorties as of November 2012. Credit Photo: SLD
Bachmann: I would emphasize the role of the maintenance officers.
These guys are on the cusp of getting their MOSs or Military Occupational Skills. Their jobs as avionics, or engine or power line maintainers mean’s they have gone to skill and are getting certified.
They have got airplanes to work on, and are getting ready to go to Yuma and stand up the first squadron there. Their ability to go to school, work on the airplanes, fix them when they come back from flights, and then we fly them again is absolutely fantastic for the program.
The maintainer cadre is what will cause the F-35B to succeed in the USMC. It is wickedly important.
The new Yuma squadron cannot survive without its core maintainers and it is really important that we get the training right.
A key transition point for the Marines was when they began to own their own maintenance processes.
This meant that the aircraft became “normalized” within the evolving USMC approach to the air system.
As a maintainer put it during a later visit to YUMA to the Green Knights:
MFA-121 is the first F-35 squadron and the first with organic maintenance.
A squadron with organic maintenance simply means that the Marines are manning the maintenance squadron with inputs from technical representatives, but because it is the first operational squadron obviously the Marines need to prepare for overseas deployment and to prepare to support the aircraft in forward positions…..
We had a chance to discuss the progress with a powertrain maintainer on the F-35 working at VMFA-121. Staff Sargent Jason Lunion has been a maintainer since 1999 and his first squadron CO (for VMFA-223) was Lt. General Davis who is now the Deputy Commandant of Aviation.
He most immediately comes from working on engines with the Harrier but has wide range of experience, as one would expect for members of the first squadron with organic maintenance for the USMC in supporting the F-35.
The F-35 is the first low observable aircraft to be operated by the maritime services, and requires some changes in how the maintainers support the aircraft, and notably at sea.
The discussion with the Staff Sargent highlighted that the low observable qualities of the aircraft created some specific challenges, and one of those, which he mentioned, was working on the panels.
Staff Sgt. with VMFA-121. VMFA-12 is the first F-35 squadron doing its organic maintenance. Credit: SLD
The panels on the aircraft provide easy access for a number of maintenance functions, but as he described it one change is the impact on the T-handles, which open the panels.
“The panel is opened numerous times a day and we are wearing down T-handles that provide access to the panel and wearing down the fasteners themselves.”
He was asked about the general shift from legacy to LO maintenance and highlighted that the Marines have not operated an LO aircraft before so there is a learning curve.
“There is a drastic increase in awareness when you are working around the aircraft.”
A key aspect of the aircraft is the use of computer aided maintenance and sensor-informed systems. The Staff Sargent focused on how the sensor-enabled aircraft was also a work in progress much has one has seen with new commercial aircraft which rely heavily on sensors to provide data about performance and maintenance demands.
“When a sensor indicates a problem, is it the sensor or is a real problem?”
He also added that “because of all these sensors, and all these little gadgets on the motor that are supposed to eventually take this to a on-condition inspection basis, until their maturity’s reached, we’re going to continue to have a lot of fine tuning to do.”
He noted that compared to the Harrier working on the F-35 engine was much easier.
“With regard to the Harrier, you have to remove the wing and then crane the engine out. That is clearly not very maintainer friendly, but the F-18 is a different case where removal of the engine is straightforward.”
When asked about his overall experience, he emphasized that some aspects were welcome additions, and others were a work in progress.
The impact of organic maintenance and Marine Corps ownership of the aircraft was highlighted by Lt. Col. Bachmann when interviewed recently at Beaufort, SC.
Coming to Beaufort has been crucial to moving the ball forward with regard to IOC.
We have been able to operate the aircraft with Marine Corps maintainers and to integrate the plane into our approach to maintenance and operations.
The readiness of our airplanes to fly on the ramp increased by almost 30% the day we fully go here at Beaufort.
Being on an all-Marine base has increased our readiness.
The recent operational trials aboard the USS WASP provided a real test of ability of maintainers to support six aircraft (which would be a normal load aboard a ship the size of the WASP) at sea.
And the findings from interviews aboard WASP were very clear: it is very supportable at sea, as well on land.
An interview with young Marine Corps maintainer aboard the ship from Beaufort highlighted what he saw as an advantage.
This F-18 maintainer – now F-35 maintainer – had NEVER maintained an aircraft aboard a ship before.
How did it go?
“It was easier onboard than onshore.
We had less space; we had to be better organized; and the electronic systems aboard the aircraft simplified the process.”
A visit to the training squadron May 19, 2015 as well as to the USS WASP the following week drove home a core point – the Brits and Marines are working closely together to stand up their separate but coordinated capabilities associated with an F-35 enabled 21st century combat force.
The F-35 global enterprise is a key enabler of the use of collaborative resources.
The Brits are training at Beaufort on F-35 equipment at the base – including the simulators – as there own systems are stood up in the UK and the squadron to the UK to get ready to work with the HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Squadron Leader Nichol at Beaufort MCAS standing in front of an RAF F-35 jet which is part of the training effort. Credit: Second Line of Defense
The Brits are integrated members of the squadron and the Marine Corps and British maintainers are learning together how to adapt their specific protocols – which are different – to a common airplane.
Obviously, this will play real dividends down the road in terms of being to cross deploy at sea.
Squadron Leader Hugh Nichols from the Royal Air Force, who is the national representative of the UK at Beaufort and a squadron instructor, was asked what is the advantage of being here working with the Marines?
Sqn. LDF Hugh Nichols: There are many, but let us start with their sense of urgency.
They are taking IOC very seriously.
The Marines have this thing by the scruff of the neck and they are running with it.
They are Marines, and if anything gets in the way, they deal with it.
Working with them will clearly ensure that we are ready for the Queen Elizabeth.
And the comingling of our squadron with the Marine Corps squadron is important in terms of cross learning.
Our young maintainers are working with Marine Corps maintainers and they are learning to work through different procedures and protocols to learn how to maintain a common airplane.
Question: Obviously, this will yield operational advantages later as Marines fly onto your ships and vice versa. How do you see this?
Sqn. LDF Hugh Nichols: Obviously, deciding to do that is above my pay grade, but clearly you are right, we have cross operated in the past and shaping commonalities from the outset will help us to so in the future.
The Marines could fly jets off of the Queen Elizabeth and we off the Wasp or other ships F-35B enabled in the future.
And aboard the USS WASP during the operational trials, a major part of the effort was upon sustainability at sea.
Put bluntly: Maintenance was not a background factor but a crucial factor shaping the way ahead on the IOC of the aircraft from the Navy-Marine Corps point of view.
The Marines identified the major objectives for OT-1 as follows and logs and sustainment were among the most salient:
OT-I objectives include:
Test and assessment of day and night flight operations;
Efficacy of the F-35B landing signals officer’s launch and recovery software;
The crew’s ability to conduct scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities;
The suitability of F-35B maintenance support equipment for shipboard operations;
The logistics footprint of a six-plane F-35B detachment;
Day and night weapons loading;
And all aspects of the logistics and sustainment support of the F-35B while deployed at sea.
Data and lessons learned will lay the groundwork for F-35B deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers following the Marine Corps’ F-35B initial operating capability (IOC) declaration in July 2015.
Captain Smith, the Executive Officer of the USS WASP, also underscored the centrality of the operational testing of the maintenance systems.
The idea was to take six aircraft, which is the same size as the Marine expeditionary unit, which would be a normally deployed six-plane detachment, which is part of that rotation, and take them out here and exercise them aboard the ship.
We can then learn how to make this aircraft function as a normal deployed aircraft outside of the normal test, developmental test environment. Our primary focus here has been upon supportability. That was one of our major emphases.
If you look at what General Davis and his team put together as priorities for what they wanted us to look at while we’re out here, the vast majority of those were focused on supportability.
LT CDR Kitchen together along with the other maintenance officers, put together an extensive list of items that we wanted to make sure that were functional at sea. That goes from the mundane like changing a tire to the complex, like changing an engine.
Doing those evolutions at sea is a different animal. You’ve got chains, you’ve got deck motion, you’ve got all those space constraints that you saw down in the hangar deck that you don’t have ashore.
We want to make sure that any differences that we saw from support ashore to afloat were properly documented and we make those changes with the ultimate goal of making the deployment for the very first squadron that’s going to go to sea as easy as possible
The mix of maintainers who came aboard the ship – many for the first time aboard a ship to do maintenance – and were able to execute the maintenance mission is a testament to the maturity of the system.
4 members of the panel aboard the USS WASP. Credit: Second Line of Defense
According to Major Richard Rusnok, USMC, VMX-22 F-35B Det Officer-in-Charge, F-35 Detachment, Edwards AFB and the lead planner for OT-1:
The maintenance aboard the ship is a 100% Marine-lead effort. We have 91 maintainers on board, 91. And that is built off the same number of maintainers we would take with a Harrier detachment. So the numbers are comparable to legacy numbers that we would bring aboard.
We spent a lot of time studying and analyzing bringing which specialties out and we’ve learned some lessons like anyone would learn. Like we wish we could have another Marine here, another Marine there. But as far as numbers, we’re completely comparable with legacy.
And the great part about it is the 91 Marines we’re not just turning airplanes and flying a robust flight schedule. We’re also doing all of these evolutions and all these other demonstrations, validation and verification of brand new procedures that have never been done before.
So, they’re busy. They’re working hard. But they are working hard and having incredible results. As far as keeping up with the daily flight schedule as well as validation and verification of these tasks. That’s probably about it.
There’s three squadrons of maintainers on board from VMX 22, and 121 and 501. So we’ve got three different patches in the maintenance department. And if you can imagine a team coming together for the first time, can be challenging. We have not had any of those kinds of challenges here because of the standardization and the level of training and the level of verification that has already been done on brand new procedures. The Marines have done incredibly.
That’s the best news story of this detachment, is how well the maintenance work has gone thus far. We have extremely high reliability ratings for being in the shipboard environment.
The maintenance team aboard the WASP was a mixed UK and Marine Corps team and indeed, a key role was played by Lt. Cdr. Beth Kitchen, Royal Navy, who was there on behalf of the Royal Navy and as an integrated member of the VFMA-501 squadron from Beaufort.
“I’m the Senior UK Engineering Officer at 501 Squadron at Marine Corps Air Base Beaufort. With the purposes of this detachment, I have been intrinsic to the maintenance organization, coordinating all maintenance resolutions where we’ve identified that there might be differences between how they’re executed on sea and on land.”
3 Members of the Panel aboard the USS WASP. Credit: Second Line of Defense
Lt. Cdr. Kitchen described the RN/RAF working relationship with the Marines.
I personally have been here in the States for a year working with the Marine Corps at Marine Corps Air Base Beaufort. Our programs are aligned and they’re working in partnership in order to develop the capability of the 35B.
In terms of this ship deployment, we’ve got other UK maintainers who have been a part of the detachment. We’ve got personnel who are working within the power line with the avionics department as well as any maintenance control.
And they are able to contribute to the maintenance effort in exactly the same way as the Marines are.
They are trained in the same way in the schoolhouse down at Eglin. But the Marines also they are learning to look at how the UK conducts maintenance and how that can possibly be involved in the future.
She then reported on the results aboard the ship.
Because what we’ve actually demonstrated is almost all of the maintenance evolutions that have been attempted we are now confident we can now conduct at sea. There have been lessons identified where some of the equipment doesn’t necessarily interact with the ship’s facilities. But these are all things that can be easily rectified.
For example, we wouldn’t be able to conduct a lift fan movement installation today only because we need an additional shackle that interfaces between the ship’s overhead crane and our lifting equipment. This is a very simple piece of equipment to source and with this detachment it can be resolved.
It’s the same with a number of issues like that.
So, from a program perspective this has been successful. A lot of observations will be sent back to the joint planning office and there are people who will be taking those lessons. I’m not going to be requesting many procedural changes to joint technical documentation.
The tools that maintainers use though, I’ll allow SSG Sullivan to elaborate in a second, all seem to be fit for its purpose. Even things like the automated logistic information system have gone exceptionally well here. We haven’t struggled with connectivity. None of the maintainers have reported that it has been any slower than it is on shore. Which is a huge positive step for us.
Every detachment will have lessons to learn so we can evolve and make everything better and quicker. And those are things that we are going to be taking back.
But the headline news is we are confident that we can maintain these aircraft at sea for periods of time.
She added as well that:
We have gone over and above basic maintenance requirements.
Among those things we have done over an above any basic maintanence requirements include: conducting demonstrations for installation removal of the engine, the lift back, and the integrated compartment, the canopy, and the ejection seat…..
At sea, we obviously have a moving deck. We have looked at how we tie down the aircraft from very calm sea states up to heaviest possible sea states. And these have taken a huge amount of time.
The good news is that we have gone through all of these evolutions, we have identified lessons, and majority evolutions we are confident that we can now conduct at sea.
The real difference between DT2 and DT1 and OT is the fact that this first time that Marines have been responsible for conducting maintenance. So part of that verification was not just ensuring that we ensured that the equipment, the tools, the procedures in the ship environment worked but also that we trained the maintainers correctly.
And that’s why this detachment has been hugely a success not just from a flying perspective but maintenance one as well.
The F-35B Power Module being removed from the Osprey onboard the USS Wasp. Credit: USMC
And during the OT-1 process, an Osprey delivered the power module for the F-35B engine.
Lt. Cdr. Kitchen described that effort as follows:
One of the bigger successes of this detachment is actually embarking a power module onto the ship, which is about two thirds of the engine.
It was carried on the MV-22, and that arrived last Wednesday, there was a custom made skid that was designed by Pratt and Whitney and put it into the MV-22, it was then offloaded, and then we’ve been able to put it into the hangar and been able to prove that we can move it from the skid it was designed to put into the aircraft onto either a container or one of the maintenance vans in order to actually conduct the maintenance evolution itself.
That is going to be disembarking tomorrow. That ensures that we can now replenish a spare module at sea.
It’s a huge achievement to be able to demonstrate that.
And reports from the operators aboard the USS WASP were that the ALIS system worked well.
Major Brendan Walsh, USMC, FMFA-121 Operations Officer, Yuma, Arizona noted the following with regard to ALIS performance and the way ahead:
The way developmental tests use ALIS is completely different from the way that the operational squadron use ALIS. So, because those aircraft are very unique compared to the fleet aircraft, they don’t use the standard systems that are here. It’s kind of an apples and oranges comparison in that respect.
We spend a lot of time trying to risk reduce coming out here for the ship and transfer. That was a major portion of our planning to make sure that went very smoothly, and as we’ve already stated it did go incredibly smoothly.
As far as the deployable capability we currently have SOUV 1, that’s Squadron Operating Unit Version 1 onboard and that is permanently installed in racks. We have a special space, and this was provided through NAVSEA, special space for the appropriate security and classification to have it on board. It’s essentially bolted into the space right now.
And then when the SOU Version 2 comes out which is already being delivered to 121 in Yuma, then that will allow us to do one of the unique things with amphibious shipping is our ability to disembark from amphibious shipping once we get in the theater.
Then it’s something that is very unique to this ship into the units that embark with this ship is we don’t necessarily have to stay aboard the ship.
The operational environment, the requirements say go ashore, and base ashore, and base of foreign operating bases.
SOUV 2 will allow us for all intents and purposes, the same hardware is packaged differently and will allow us to take it off and put it in a forward operating base and to operate effectively and efficiently closer to troops away from the sea base we have currently.
Progress has clearly been made to date with regard to F-35 maintenance and a solid foundation is being laid for the US and its partners to sort out an effective path ahead.
As Lt. Cdr. Kitchen put it clearly:
The F-35 can be surrounded by myth and legend.
But it is a real testimony to the capabilities of the maintainers of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the USMC to adapt to the new technological challenges.
Their knowledge of aircraft systems is now being applied to a new air system and taking steps forward into the unknown.
It is a testament to the professionalism of these maintainers that they are just getting on with the job of making this aircraft work.
Every single person involved in this detachment are passionate about this aircraft and not just because it is a sexy looking aircraft but want to see it working in every operational environment.
Interview with Commander Martin Dellin, 7th (GE) FPB squadron, Commanding Officer of the FGS Donau
The CO: A Logistics Officer As Captain of the Seas
I have been the Commanding Officer of the FGS Donau since two years.
I started with the normal training as a watch officer and became a supply officer.
So I am a logistics officer, which is an unusual background for a CO.
I spent a large part of my career in the German Navy – about eight years – at sea. A such, I have been deployed three times with the United Nations in Lebanon (UNIFIL) for six and seven months tours.
I was the second ship to be sent for this particular mission, so we had to figure out how to communicate and operate with countries, such as Brazil or Bangladesh without of course using NATO communications and standards.
That was quite a challenge at first.
As far as NATO deployments are concerned, I also sailed with the SNMCMG2 in the Mediterranean area of responsibility.
The FSG Donau: From Support To C2
We have six Type 404 Elbe class replenishment ships like the Donau in the German Navy.
They are twenty years old and should be on duty for another fifteen.
The FGS Donau is a supply and support ship, i.e. a Tender originally built to support in particular fast patrol boats units and to be embedded in squadrons.
Maintenance crews would go on each ship to conduct repair, while the upper deck was dedicated to maintenance.
There was initially little space for the staff and for Command and Control (C2).
The mission of these kinds of supply ships has recently evolved in the German navy, as they sail alone or in deployments such as the current SNMCMG1’s.
As a flagship, our primary task is to host the staff, as well as communications to be able to function as a Group.
So the configuration of the ship has evolved, with less maintenance crews and containers and more communication upgrades (such as broadband internet for instance) to rebalance the supply and C2 roles.
The Group: Fine-Tuning Common Operating Procedures
The very first week at sea is a good time for everyone to get to know each other, especially for the staff, since the situation onboard the Donau is a new one for most of us, i.e. a German flagship and completely foreign staff.
We first had to compare the ways of the Netherlands and the German navies and we found little differences.
First of all because, thanks to NATO, we have a common knowledge and we only need to enhance our common NATO experiences.
But if NATO standards are common, each Navy has its own traditions (e.g. the German navy always plays a song when leaving or entering a harbor) or set of national regulations during exercises (e.g. whether or not doing MCM – mine counter-measures – or RAS – Replenishment at sea – manoeuvers in the fog with poor visibility).
So we basically have one or two weeks to figure out each national restrictions or specificities to plan the next operation accordingly.
We also have to get used to speak English onboard all the time, except among the German staff of course, but units have nearly the same way of maneuvering and I was surprised that this first week ran so smoothly.
Except Monday…
The Challenges: Mother Nature As The Eternal Reminder
Last Monday and Tuesday have been a challenge for the Group, as the conditions in the North Sea were not the best.
It was not so much the sea state of 3 meter high waves than 40 knots gusty winds coming from abeam, which lead the ships to lean at an angle ranging between 25 and 35%.
At 40% I shall get nervous, as these ships are not built to sustain this kind of challenge beyond their stability point.
Technically the Donau is capable of resisting 90 knots winds from the side, but this is not something I am willing to try: maybe the ship can make it through a storm, but the crew will fall early on.
In this rough weather, each ship had its own challenge earlier this week: the HMS Pembroke is a small unit, with a minimum haul and only two meters in the water to limit its signature.
It therefore catches up winds in a stronger way.
The FGS Auerback also had trouble, because its crane makes its gravity point very high: it was leaning at a 35% degree angle, which is quite the limit for this type of minesweeper.
StandingNATO Mine Countermeasures Group 1 at Anchor Off of Kiel. Credit Photo: Murielle Delaporte
Under these conditions, all crews are ordered to stay inside and nobody is allowed on deck.
After these two days, conditions in the Baltic sea were a gusty 30 knots (Beaufort 7), a good weather to manœuver and getting used to each other…
The Goals: Rating Up The Experiences In Seamanship
The team spirit is good among the crew, and my goal, as the CO of Tender Donau, is first to be a good supply ship for the Group, currently three units – later eight – to refuel and resupply as need be.
Seamanship is not a problem, but can always be enhanced, so another goal is to rate up the experiences in seamanship.
I give you a very concrete example: this ship is built to take along its side other ships, such as the FGS Auerback or fast patrol boats, with side decks organized to do so at a certain height.
RAS (replenishment at sea) maœuvers with ships not used or built to work together can be a challenge, as it was yesterday evening when it took us a long time to figure out how to have the HMS Pembroke come along the side of our supply ship where was the right point to put the gangway.
So if we encounter only minor adjustments issues as far as NATO standards are concerned, seamanship is a bit more complex to find the best ways to work as a group.
NATO allows us to go beyond our national responsibilities and work together towards a better understanding in view of future deployments and operations.
Editor’s Note: Murielle Delaporte went to sea with the NATO counter-mine task force and was onboard the German Marine Tender Donau earlier this year.
She is the co-founder of Second Line of Defense and the editor of Operationnels where a complete dossier on the NATO approach to mine warfare is discussed from the standpoint of her time in the Baltic sea operation.
2015-06-19 By Robbin Laird (with Murielle Delaporte)
During May 2015, I had a chance to return to VMU-2 and to continue the discussion of the USMC approach to the evolution of unmanned aerial systems within the expeditionary force.
In that interview, the importance of shaping a more flexible UAS for USMC operations was highlighted,
With regard to the RQ-21A, the squadron was working with industry to shape ways to enhance capability.
We are looking at size, weight, power tradeoffs to enhance overall platform capability.
Currently, we are at 135 pounds with the platform and we could go as high as 165 which would give us more payload to carry onboard.
Lt. Col. Faught emphasized throughout the discussion the need to evolve the payloads along with other key aviation capabilities being shaped for the MAGTF. He especially felt that EW payloads will be increasingly of interest going forward.
And he felt as the F-35B joins the force along with the Ospreys, the opportunity to rework evolving UAVs to operate with these more expensive combat systems would be significant.
During this visit, which was with Murielle Delaporte, we discussed the way ahead with Captain Guy Nelson, the Operations Officer, Captain Johnathan Putney, the Assistant Operations Officer, and Captain Justin Pvlischek, the Intel Officer.
The members of the squadron provided a very clear perspective on the challenges and potential ways ahead.
It is clear that the use of UASs in Afghanistan was an important phase in the evolution of UAS use within the US forces.
Lance Cpl. Onterrio D. Morris, avionics and maintenance technician, and Sgt. Gene H. Williams, quality assurance representative, with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron 4, 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Forces Reserve, prepare the RQ-7 UAV for launch during Integrated Training Exercise 4-15 on the Camp Wilson flight line aboard Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, Calif., June 18, 2015. The UAVs used by Marines during ITX 4-15 are used to support other units’ exercises and missions providing reconnaissance and simulated aerial target acquisitions. (U.S Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Ian Ferro)
But this really is a phase and one which needs to be put into its historical place with a clear need to move on.
UASs were used in a land operation with many years of infrastructure put into place, and this infrastructure – wide ranging, expensive and significant – is hardly going to be waiting for an expeditionary insertion force.
And the con-ops learned in Afghanistan clearly are a problem as well.
As one squadron member put it:
“The UAS controllers were more part of the intelligence system in Afghanistan than of the Marine Corps.
They were an asset which plugged into the intelligence gathering system, and did not operate as we do more generally with air assets in the USMC.
Normally, the airborne assets work with the ground element and share the intelligence picture in an operational context.
This was the norm in Afghanistan: an external asset managed by the intelligence system rather than organic integration with the MAGTF.
As the operations officer put it bluntly: “We are trying to burn down the whole UAV structure which the Marine Corps created in Afghanistan and shaping a new approach, one in which it is integrated within MAGTF operations.”
According to the Marines interviewed, the intelligence community views UAVs as “their assets” because that is how the system evolved in Afghanistan.
“UAV operations personnel would basically check in with the air officer who would then pass them over to intel and they would then work together.”
Rather than having UAVs as part of the fire support system, they became assets which were part of observation and evaluation and the authorization of fires was handled separately.
“This became a loop rather than a straight line which is where we would like it be when we operate as a MAGTF.”
The separation of Marine Corps UAV assets was the norm rather than the exception.
“When I would fly in Afghanistan, I might look down and see a Shadow or Scan Eagle below me, but I never once coordinated with these assts.
I had no idea what they were looking at.
I just knew that they were below me,” noted the Operations Officer.
Lt General David A. Deptula, who in his last active duty position oversaw the planning, policy, and development of Air Force UAVs, and grew that force by over 500 percent in the Air Force, agreed with the Marine officers interviewed about the need for integration.
“One of the biggest advantages of remotely piloted aircraft is that they allow for the condensation of the ‘find, fix, and finish’ kill chain onto one platform.
To capitalize on this capability these aircraft need to be integrated into the entire combat enterprise, not just one piece of it.”
That is exactly what the next phase of UAVs involve in the Marine Corps—the integration of these systems within the Air Combat Element (ACE) of the MAGTF.
“The GCE should be requesting the capability, not the asset.
If you need persistent IS with full motion video, that will probably fall to UAS.”
The UAS operator is a key part of the equation and when it works properly, the operator can work with the GCE and work with the sensor onto the target by shared situational awareness.
The challenge is shaping ways to parse the information to the appropriate element within the MAGTF to empower the GCE or ACE to become more effective.
A problem facing the USMC is the relatively limited capabilities of the UASs which they currently operate whether the Shadow or the RQ-21A.
Their range is limited, and their footprint is not agile.
The Marines are bringing the RQ-21A aboard amphibious ships but its limited range – 50 nautical miles – and its footprint limit its utility.
And it takes up precious ship space as well.
“4 Shadows take about 50-55 Marines to operate with only one airborne at any one time.
With the RQ-21A we will take 22 marines with us onto the ship with the MEU but with our equipment size, we are already taking up about 12-15% of the space on the ship.”
These limitations also can frustrate the training and career processes.
Marines are trained at Air Force UAV schools and the Air Force personnel go on to operate Predators, and the Marines operate a much more limited asset.
Another clear requirement is to build swappable packages for the evolving USMC UAS birds as well, for missions can highlight C2, ISR or EW needs.
And the sweet spot for the USMC would be to have UASs, which could work with Ospreys and F-35s to provide persistent capability complementing the insertion force.
The RQ-21A has too small of payload to be able to provide for this kind of operational flexibility being limited to the 20 pound or less category.
But there is a clear need, one driven by USMC innovation overall.
“When we looked at an after action report for a SP-MAGTF mission, there was a desire to have communications reachback, the ability to have armed escort and persistence surveillance, all capabilities which the proper UAS can provide.
Why would put in anything else but a UAS to provide for those capabilities?”
And a core challenge facing UASs clearly is not just bandwidth but jamming.
“Our current platforms actually operate at bandwidths that are commercially available. Our Shadow operates at the same bandwidth as your WiFi does.”
Beyond the question of evolving a new generation of UASs more appropriate for the USMC expeditionary approach and Osprey and F-35 enabled and capable of collaborative engagement, there is an opportunity in the short term.
The USAF has Predators going to the Air National Guard and as Afghanistan winds down Predators could be made available to the Marines.
For the Africa and Middle East missions, Marine Corps Predators could be operated on French bases in West Africa and Djibouti in East Africa (where the Italians recently operated Predators for several months) with the ground stations able to support USN-USMC ARG-MEUs operating on either side of Africa.
The Marines did not suggest this option, but they did focus on how longer-range land based assets could support an expeditionary force.
“The Reaper is the best thing out there, whether you look at speed, range or endurance.
And you can have the ground control station anywhere you want within the broad operational area.”
In the slideshow above, two key UAVs that the squadron operates are seen as the squadron works with them in their hanger area.
The first photos show the Shadow and its supporting elements.
The final photos show the RQ-21A which will be deployed aboard ship soon by the Marines.
