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.
In an interview with India Strategic and at remarks at his annual pre-Air Force Day briefing here October 3, Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha observed that the Indian Air Force (IAF) was “terribly short” of modern aircraft, and that the Government was alive to this.
“The contract negotiations with the French are in process… Our intent is to conclude the agreement at the earliest,” he said.
Reliable sources told India Strategic that there were some difficulties in signing the Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) even after discussions between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his host President Francois Hollande during the Indian leader’s visit to Paris in April, particularly over offsets and some Transfer of Technology (ToT).
And as the process was getting stuck again, Mr. Modi went out of the way to telephonically call Mr Hollande in September to address the difficulties from the Indian side, and the French leader showed tremendous goodwill and understanding in helping resolve the situation.
Thanks to the good relations Mr. Modi has built with Mr. Hollande, Dassault has agreed to 50 per cent offsets, and the discussions are now on fast-track, sources said.
A smiling Air Chief Marshal Raha said that he hoped to get the first squadron of Rafales in two to three years.
Notably, the Indian side deputed IAF’s Deputy Chief, Air Marshal SBP Sinha while the French, Air Marshal Stephane Reb, Director of the International Directorate of the DGA (General Directorate for Armament) of the French Ministry of Defence to conduct and conclude the negotiations. Both have exchanged visits, and the stipulated agreement – the enabler to move forward – will be signed any time, perhaps well before December 2015.
Air Chief Marshal Raha said that the IAF needs at least six squadrons – 126 aircraft – of Rafales or equivalent aircraft in the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) category for frontline operations, and it is to be seen if IAF gets more Rafales or other aircraft. He was asked if there was an option to go in for another machine.
He said he favored Government-to-Government contracts as they are speedy and devoid of competitive politics, and future acquisitions should go on the same lines.
As for more Rafales, he said “the need is there, and if Costs, Transfer of Technology and Make in India requirements are good, we may get more.”
Asked if there was a choice for the US, Swedish or other aircraft manufacturers to be back in fray, he indicated a possibility but described the Rafale as “a very good aircraft.”
Egypt and Qatar have bought the Rafale while the UAE is considering it, he pointed out.
About the overall deficiency of combat aircraft, Air Chief Marshal Raha said that “50 per cent offset is being sought from the French industrial suppliers as part of the procurement of 36 Rafale aircraft.
“Greater visibility (however) would emerge only after the Indian negotiating team completes the negotiations.”
Air Chief Marshal Raha underlined the importance of Make in India, and pointed out that “the offset implementation under the Rafale project will support” this, adding that some other similar initiatives are also underway in the aviation sector.
It may be recalled that IAF had issued a tender for 126 MMRCAs in 2007, and Rafale emerged as the winner in 2012 in the six-corner contest.
But negotiations were bogged down over offsets and responsibility over the quality of production at the state-run HAL, the prime integrator for the aircraft in India. India finally scrapped the deal and Mr Modi personally sought 36 aircraft to meet IAF’s immediate requirements.
Further acquisitions are possible, depending upon the conclusion of the current deal.
French sources told this writer during a recent visit to Paris that Dassault’s partners in the Rafale program, primarily Thales and Safran, were already gearing up their production lines for the Indian order.
Significantly, the French Government has asked Dassault, the designer and integrator of Rafale, to divert requirements of the French Air Force (Armée de l’Air) to Egypt, Qatar and India.
India is likely to conclude an agreement for 36 Rafale combat jets with France “soon, latest by end 2015” for delivery in two to three years
Republished with permission of our strategic partner, India Strategic
My last visit to a Royal Australian Air Force base during my visit to Australia in August 2015 was to Williamtown Air Base, which is the home for the Surveillance and Response Group (SRG) as well as the key fighter squadrons.
Prior to a round table with the 4 Wings in the SRG, I had a chance to discuss the role of the SRG and the way ahead for Plan Jericho as viewed by the Commander of SRG, Air Commodore “Shorty” Westwood.
For Air Commodore Westwood, Plan Jericho was a leadership vision about innovation, which was coming at the right time.
The RAAF has undergone a significant re-capitalization effort, but to get best combat effect from the force, the key was to shape effective integration, which would transform the effects, which the force could deliver.
On 25 June 2015 members of No 52 Airborne Electronics Analyst Course graduated from the 12 month long course conducted at No 292 Squadron.
On 25 June 2015 members of No 52 Airborne Electronics Analyst Course graduated from the 12 month long course conducted at No 292 Squadron. Commander Surveillance and Response Group, Air Commodore Chris Westwood addresses the guests at the graduation ceremony. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence
Air Commodore Westwood: “I’m sure you’ve noticed there’s a real degree of excitement in the Air Force about Jericho.
It’s come on the back of a very successful capital improvement program over 20 years.
The Air Force that we see today is fundamentally a really good mid-sized air force.
When you pull those platforms together, the next logical step is to ask where is the next bang for the buck?
It’s not buying necessarily more platforms; it’s getting more out of them.
There’s a general feeling around the Air Force that the Jericho Plan just arrived at the right time.
And we are taking the Jericho mentality into the joint and coalition environment.
We are not just looking to reshape the RAAF; it is about working with our joint and coalition partners and shaping more effective forces.
We’re looking for Jericho-like activities and trusted relationships throughout the joint and coalition environment.”
He characterized SRG as a “pre-Jericho” force in the sense that the various ISR and C2 assets within the SRG were focused on collaborative ISR and C2 to provide both protection for Australia and to enable the expeditionary force to operate more effectively.
The force consists of four wings, each of which plays a particular role within the overall ISR/C2 effort.
Surveillance and Response Group has over 2100 personnel spread across Australia working in the following areas:
No 41 Wing (Air Defence / Air Battle Management)
No 42 Wing (Airborne Early Warning and Control)
No 44 Wing (Joint Battlefield Airspace Control)
No 92 Wing (Maritime Operations).
The foundation force is the over the horizon ground based radar, which provides the core information to assess threats and challenges in the area surrounding Australia. Space-based ISR is now integrated as well with the ground based radar data. This is completed by truck-based radar that can be moved to deal with a particular challenge.
It is combined with the P-3 and now the P-8 (coming next year) to provide effective maritime surveillance data and positional targeting capabilities.
The Wedgetail can operate over the areas of interest and provide the air-sea-land C2 most effective for the joint force.
KC-30A MRTT and E-7A Wedgetail conduct Air to Air refuelling testing in the airspace near RAAF Williamtown. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence, June 2015.
And the Air Traffic Control system provides for an integrated military and civilian air space, within which UAVs such as the newly acquired Heron can operate throughout Australian airspace as well. 44 Wing provides a significant capability which is captured by the concept of Joint Battlefield Aerospace Control or JBAC.
The 44 Wing concept of air traffic control encompasses the tactical role of the JBACs as well.
Air Commodore Westwood: “The goal is seamless integration which is always a work in progress, but that is why I think we are key part of the shaping of an effective Jericho policy.”
Australia has a large front yard and backyard.
The SRG’s primary task is to provide information about the dynamic environment around Australia to enable the defense force to provide for effective means to operate in the defense of Australia.
Air Commodore Westwood: “When you focus on all of Australia and the approaches to Australia, you are talking about a very large front and backyard.
And we are working US and allied forces in providing for defense of the region, which expands the challenge of shaping collaborative ISR/C2 capability information and enabling the force.
That is our challenge and our task.
We have multiple tools at our disposal.
And every part of that ISR family brings something different.
Every part of the ISR puzzle has strengths and it has weaknesses.
The secret in managing your front and backyard is to be persistent.
You need to know what happens in your, in your front and back yards on a timely, accurate and persistent basis.”
Editor’s Note: The Royal Australian Air Force’s Surveillance and Response Group is responsible for:
All of the Air Forces traditional air surveillance assets
Maritime warfare
Aerospace, surveillance and battle space management
Developing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and electronic warfare (EW) capabilities.
Surveillance and Response Group has over 2100 personnel spread across Australia working in the following areas:
No 41 Wing (Air Defence / Air Battle Management)
No 42 Wing (Airborne Early Warning and Control)
No 44 Wing (Joint Battlefield Airspace Control)
No 92 Wing (Maritime Operations).
Surveillance and Response Group (SRG) was formed on 30 March 2004 by merging the former Surveillance and Control and Maritime Patrol Groups. Its motto is ‘Foremost Sentinel’, which encapsulates the group’s contribution as the early warning and response capability of the Australian Defence Force.
Headquarters Surveillance and Response Group is at RAAF Base Williamtown, NSW. Its personnel are responsible for personnel management, capability management and development, technical capability and business management.
No 41 Wing (41WG) based at RAAF Base Williamtown, commands all of the Air Defence operational and training units.
Spanning across Australia, these units include 3 Control and Reporting Unit (3CRU) and Surveillance and Control Training Unit (SACTU) located in Williamtown; 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit (114 MCRU) in Darwin and 1 Radar and Surveillance Unit (1 RSU) in Adelaide. SACTU provides the training for Air Combat Officers and Air Surveillance Operators to enable them to perform effective air battle management and surveillance operations.
41 Wing headquarters is chiefly responsible for tasking of its subordinate units in order to provide continuous wide-area surveillance, airspace control and execution of air battle management operations.
No 42 Wing (42WG) reformed on 1 January 2006 and is located at RAAF Base Williamtown. The Wing delivers the ‘Wedgetail’ Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) capability for the Air Force.
This capability incorporates independent air and support operations in the maritime and land environments, with 2SQN supporting the aircraft and project at Williamtown. The AEW&C aircraft represents an entirely new capability for the ADF, providing a platform that will gather information from a wide variety of sources, analyse it and distribute it to all friendly air and surface assets.
(Front row L-R) Air Commodore Adam Brown, Director General Aerospace Maritime, Training & Surveillance, Air Commodore Noel Schmidt from the Airworthiness Co-ordination and Policy Agency, Air Commander Australia, Air Vice-Marshal Gavin Turnbull, Air Vice-Marshal Chris Spence, Airworthiness Co-ordination and Policy Agency and Commander Surveillance and Response Group, Air Commodore Chris Westwood stand along with members from No 5 Flight and the Airworthiness board in front of the Heron Remotely Piloted Aircraft at RAAF Base Woomera. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence
AEW&C will control the tactical battle space, providing direction for fighter aircraft, surface combatants and land based elements, as well as supporting aircraft such as tankers and intelligence platforms.
No 44 Wing (44WG), headquartered at RAAF Base Williamtown, commands all of the Air Traffic Control (ATC) detachments of which there are eleven across Australia. 44WG also commands the ATC Technical Ground Electronic Services (GES) workforce.
44WG through its detachments is responsible for the delivery of fixed and remote air traffic control services to Army, Navy and Air Force and also for the provision of tactical control of forward airfields, battlefield aviation and other airspace activity, both within Australia and for operational deployments.
44WG personnel have been actively involved in a number of recent operations including Sudan, East Timor, Iraq/Middle East, Solomon Islands and Indonesia. Their roles have ranged from active operational duties to training, peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.
Headquartered at RAAF Base Edinburgh, No 92 Wing (92WG) has long been established as the first Maritime Wing in the history of the Royal Australian Air Force. 92 WG commands two flying squadrons, Nos 10 and 11 Squadrons, a training unit, No 292 Squadron; an operational detachment, 92WG Detachment A at Butterworth, Malaysia; and a number of operational support and development elements.
Operating AP-3C Orion aircraft, 92WG’s combat roles include anti submarine and anti surface surveillance maritime warfare for which the aircraft are equipped with torpedoes and Harpoon anti shipping missiles.
The Wing is also responsible for conducting long range intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions in support of Australia’s national interests worldwide. 92 WG is also responsible for search and survivor supply missions throughout Australia’s region of responsibility.
The P-8 is coming to the RAAF as well and the RAAF website described the aircraft and its role as follows:
The P-8A Poseidon will provide Air Force with an advanced maritime intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and response aircraft.
The P-8A Poseidon uses advanced sensors and mission systems, including an advanced multi-role radar, high definition cameras, and an acoustic system with four times the processing capacity of Air Force’s current AP-3C Orions.
Together with the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, the P-8A aircraft will replace the AP-3C Orions.
Planned for RAAF Base Edinburgh, the P-8A has an extensive communications suite that includes radios and data links across VHF, UHF, HF and SATCOM spectrums. An internal fuel capacity of almost 34 tonnes, gives the P-8A the ability to remain on station conducting low level anti-submarine warfare missions at a distance of greater than 2,000 kilometres from base.
The P-8A will be compatible for air-to-air refuelling with the KC-30A MRTT.
Air Force will acquire eight P-8As, with the option for a further four subject to the outcomes of the Defence White Paper review.
The first aircraft will be delivered in 2017, with all eight aircraft fully operational by 2021.
The acquisition of the eight P-8A aircraft will cost approximately $4 billion, including support facilities.
The P-8A is built from the ground up as a military aircraft. It is based on the proven commercial designs of Boeing’s 737-800 fuselage, but is substantially structurally modified to include a bomb bay, under wing and under fuselage hard points for weapons, as well as increased strengthening to allow for continued low level (down to 200 ft) operations and 60° angle of bank turns.
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the P-8A is scheduled for the period 2017 – 2020.
And the MQ-4C Triton aircraft is described on the RAAF website as follows:
The MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), is a high altitude, long endurance (HALE) aircraft that will be used for maritime patrol and other surveillance roles.
Supporting missions up to 24 hours, the MQ-4C Triton is equipped with a sensor suite that provides a 360-degree view of its surroundings, for over 2,000 nautical miles.
Up to seven MQ-4C Tritons will be based at RAAF Base Edinburgh (SA) and will operate from the runway alongside the P-8A Poseidon when it enters RAAF service.
The MQ-4C Triton will operate alongside the P-8A to replace the ageing AP-3C Orion capability. The endurance of the MQ-4C Triton means it can stay airborne for longer than a traditional aircraft where the pilot is in the aircraft.
Like other Air Force aircraft, the Triton will be flown by a qualified RAAF pilots, experienced in complex airspace. However the Triton will be flown a ground station where pilots are supported by a co-pilot while the information gathered is analysed and disseminated by up to operational staff.
Operational staff may include aircrew, intelligence, operations and administration officers, engineers and logisticians, depending on the training or mission requirements.
Whilst building on elements of the Global Hawk UAS, the Triton incorporates reinforcements to the airframe and wing, along with de-icing and lightning protection systems. These capabilities allow the aircraft to descend through cloud layers to gain a closer view of ships and other targets at sea when needed and will complement theP-8A Poseidon.
The Triton platform has been under development by the United States Navy since 2008.
According to a May 29, 2015 article on the RAAF website:
Airservices Australia and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) today for the operation of the Heron remotely piloted Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) in Australian civil airspace.
Commander of Surveillance and Response Group Air Commodore Chris Westwood and Airservices Australia’s Executive General Manager Air Traffic Control Greg Hood signed the MoA at a ceremony in Canberra.
Air Commodore Chris Westwood said the MoA formalises the partnership between Airservices Australia and Air Force and enhances Australia’s position on UAS.
“The purpose of the MoA is to set out procedures for Airservices Australia and Air Force to work within, and allows the Heron to be safely flown in civil airspace without any significant impact on civil air traffic,” Air Commodore Westwood said.
“The MoA aids both Airservices and Air Force by facilitating the initial operation and integration of remotely piloted aircraft into civil airspace, based on Air Force’s mature and thorough airworthiness and aviation safety system.”
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the regulator of all Australian airspace, will also work with Airservices and Air Force to monitor the arrangements from a civil aviation safety perspective.
Airservices Australia Executive General Manager Greg Hood said that the agreement further reinforces the close working relationship between Airservices and the Royal Australian Air Force and ensures that UAS are operated safely in civilian airspace.
“This MoA is recognition of the changing way that airspace is being used to embrace new technologies,” Mr Hood said.
“We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with Defence on the use of this type of technology safely in Australian airspace.”
The Heron is planned to fly in civilian airspace from Rockhampton Airport in late June, as part of Exercise Talisman Sabre 2015. This will be the first time the aircraft has flown outside of restricted military airspace in Australia.
Air Force currently operates two Heron aircraft from RAAF Base Woomera in South Australia, as part of a plan to ensure that Australia remains at the forefront of advancing aviation technology and that Air Force pilots maintain the skills to operate UAS until the introduction of the MQ-4C Triton.
Earlier I have visited the Queen Elizabeth and discussed the initial approach to shaping a cross-modernization strategy for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
The SLD team has visited the RAF based at Beaufort USMC Air Station and talked with the team there about the working approach with the USMC in shaping the standup of the initial F-35B squadrons.
And onboard the USS WASP during the recent sea trials, Brits and Americans worked together on the ship integration trials.
What is often missed is that the F-35B coming to the carrier or the large deck amphibious ship is not just about the airplane, it is about the evolving combat air system which the integration of the ship and the strike/ISR/C2 aircraft brings to the force.
During my visit to the United Kingdom in September 2015, I have had a chance to discuss with the Royal Air Force two key elements of their fighter transition, the coming of the F-35 and the modernization of the Typhoon, and their interaction with one another.
In this piece, the focus is on the F-35 part of the equation but given the background of the person interviewed that interactivity is built into his operational thinking.
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.
In London, on September 18, 2015, I had a chance to talk with Group Captain Ian Townsend, the replacement for Group Captain Godfrey, and a key officer involved in working the F-35 introduction into service for the RAF.
He is an experienced Typhoon pilot and has been involved with the dynamics of dealing with the Russians in protecting UK airspace as well in the Baltic Air Patrols for NATO.
He has also been involved in working with the Japanese and bringing to the Japanese an understanding of Typhoon and UK thinking about the introduction of the F-35 to the force.
This is another aspect of the allies working together to think through the evolution of 21st century airpower.
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.
(When visiting MCAS Beaufort Group Captain Paul Godfrey commented: “Without the Marines, the F-35 program would not be where it is today.”)
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.
Aircraft from 3 (Fighter) Squadron, Commanded at the time by Wing Commander Ian Townsend Officer, are seen intercepting Russian aircraft as part of the NATO mission to police the airspace over the Baltics. The planes were ordered into the skies after four separate groups of aircraft were detected by Nato air defences in international airspace near to the Baltic states. The aircraft were subsequently identified as a Russian Tupolev Tu22 Backfire bomber, four Sukhoi Su27 Flanker fighters, one Beriev A50 Mainstay early-warning aircraft and an Antonov An26 Curl transport aircraft. Credit: The Daily Mail, June 18, 2014.
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.
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.
This is 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.
77671fade1.05.0
Question: How would characterize the role of the F-35 compared to the other elements in the evolving RAF air combat force?
Group Captain Townsend: The F-35 is not a multi-role fighter.
Multi-role, in current thinking, would be a sequential series of tasks.
The F-35 is doing a number of missions simultaneously.
The concept of mission simultaneity is really important.
The airplane has the ability to do things without the pilot asking it to do it.
Automatically conducting, particularly, ISR whilst it’s conducting an OCA mission or an attack mission in a very different way than platforms have done business in the past.
This is something that other operators are working in the package alongside F-35 need to understand.
That the F-35 operator won’t be going through sequential thought process.
He will be thinking about the battle space in a broader sense, a much different way than a Typhoon operator would be thinking about the battle space.
I think there is another step change and difference in the way in which the information is displayed to the pilot which is important and is extremely intuitive.
I’ll give you an example. I commanded a Typhoon squadron for two years.
Very early on this job with F-35, I was lucky enough to fly the F-35 simulator. and the different way in which F35 displays information compared to Typhoon is eye-catching.
In fact, I asked for the simulator to be stopped because I was taken aback by the information being displayed to me.
There was just so much data available at my fingertips, but displayed in a really different sense in Typhoon.
So very, very quickly, I knew a great deal about the entity being targeted – sensor fusion at work.
I think it’s a very different way of displaying information that any other fast jet has done before.
Knowing what my wingman is seeing and my wingman knowing what I am seeing, and my ability to communicate what I want to have achieved by my formation, by my package, which all may be by the air wing that’s air-borne at the time.
This airplane changes the game in a way which we can conduct that sort of business.
Question: What is the potential for the Royal Navy of having you guys on board and of re-thinking where they want to take the development of the surface fleet?
Group Captain Townsend: I think this plays very much into the concpet that ‘Aegis is my wingman’.
I think from a U.K. perspective, Type 45 is my wingman.
The importance there is that the F-35 pilot for the U.K. or for any of F-35 operator, the information he has available to him allows him to make decisions for other operators in the battle space. And that is not simply other operators meaning other airplanes; that is, other operators being air, land, or maritime platforms.
The ability for the F-35 pilot to control the battle space in its entirety means that people operating in the surface fleet, for example, need to understand what the F-35 can achieve.
Because if they don’t, they don’t know what the F-35 pilot is going to ask them to do when they ask them to do it.
So they have to instinctively understand the capability of the airplane, because every, every platform involved in the battle space now is part of what the F-35 air system can deliver in terms of operational effect.
I think the fifth-generation capability sets the context for the battle space.
You have to understand, when you’ve got a capability that is so different in the battle space.
If you cannot connect into it or influence or, or interact with it, your utility and your fourth-generation platform or your surface ship Type 45, is significantly reduced.
Question: Training for the expanded battlespace is a challenge, and the F-35 is part of the evolving training challenge.
The UK has very limited air space in which to train.
How are dealing with this challenge?
Group Captain Townsend: There are number of reasons that make the U.K., I think, unique in its approach to synthetics.
We don’t have access to airspace around the U.K. that allows us to use the full capability of F-35.
For security reasons, we wouldn’t want to expose the full capability of F-35.
And we also lack some of the threats, some of the high-end surface-to-air missile threats, for example, that we want to train against.
All of this forces us into the synthetic environment which is not a scary place for the U.K. fleet because the Typhoon force has been exploiting synthetics now aggressively for the last couple of years.
Now the peculiar thing for the U.K. is the closer we get to conducting a warfighting operation, the more we will fly the simulator rather than the live airplane.
And if I was to put that premise to any USAF pilot or U.S. Marine Corps pilot, they would look at me cock-eyed.
But it’s the only way we can train at the high-end.
Fortunately, we’ve already got capability demonstrated and we’ve been using this for the last five or six years at RAF Waddington where we’ve got a joint synthetic environment that allows us to connect Type 45 to Typhoon to E3 with a joint flight simulator so we can conduct CAS for the fire support team.
That technology is already proven.
What we need to do now is take the next step which is introduce the higher security capable F-35 into the lower security environment of Typhoon and E3. Again, not impossible, proven through scientific programs, what you need to know is make our frontline service capability.
But synthetic training is, is something that we’re looking at extremely closely because it’s the only way we’re going to get operational capability from the F-35.
We can’t do it live in the U.K.
Question: There clearly are major shifts underway with regard to command and control under the impact of fifth generation warfighting approaches.
How do you view this dynamic?
Group Captain Townsend: In the legacy case such as my operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Balkans with Harrier, I was told to go to a particular place with a particular weapon load to conduct a specific task at a certain time, even told which direction to fly sometimes to drop my ordinance.
We cannot constrain F-35 in that way.
We need to find a way to direct air missions in F-35, that relay the commander’s intent and then allow the pilot in F-35 to assimilate the information he’s presented with to make the decision at the source in line with the commander’s intent.
The air-tasking message and the air-tasking order at the moment, is not a great vehicle through which to achieve that.
And I think then, we get into the realities of F35 pilots conducting mission command.
There is a danger that the information that could be passed back from the F-35 community in all these F-35 packages back to the CAOC could lead the air command element to be more directive, because they’ve got more information in their CAOC than ever before.
I think that would be a mistake.
The F-35 should give us the confidence to allow the pilot to make more decisions than ever before, but we have to get the commanders intent and this breadth of tasking rather than directive tasking framed in the right way.
Editor’s Note: The practical implications of the analysis provided by the RAF Group Captain for journalists, analysts and GAO types is pretty fundamental: don’t analyze the ship without reference to the plane; and don’t discuss the plane as a replacement platform for together the Queen Elizabeth and the F-35B are a 21st century air system.
We have argued that no platform fights alone, and clearly this true for the Queen Elizabeth.
In the photo below a Japanese officer participating in joint training with the RAF as seen in a 2014 visit.
Officer from 201st Tactical Fighter Squadron give the thumbs up at RAF Coningsby
Japanese Air Self Defence Force officers has visited 3 (Fighter) Squadron at RAF Coningsby in what is the second visit between the two squadrons following the RAF officers visit to Japan last year.
During their stay, 3 Japanese officers, from the 201st Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS) based at Chitose Air Base, on the Northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, have been shown how the RAF uses the Typhoon in its operational capacity as well as gaining an understanding of the synthetic training used by Typhoon pilots.
Wing Commander Cab Townsend, Officer Commanding 3 (Fighter) Squadron said: Our approach to QRA and the challenges we have faced in the Baltic region have many parallels to how the Japanese perform similar operational activity.
Credit Photos in the Slideshow Above: Second Line of Defense
The first few shots show some of the F-35s at the squadron during the May visit, including one with Wasp markings that was prepared to join OT-1.
The sixth photo shows Squadron Leader Nichols in front of a UK F-35. Even though he is standing in front of the plane, within the squadron any squadron member might fly this plane, as will the Brits fly USMC jets. This is the same as at Luke where the Aussies and the USAF pilots fly each other’s planes. This is part of the F-35 global enterprise already being stood up.
The seventh and eighth photos show Murielle Delaporte with Squadron Leader Nichols and Major Brian Bann.
The final photos show Lt. Col. Bachmann and Major Bann with Murielle Delaporte and Robbin Laird in front of the Warlords squadron building.
For additional pieces on the coming of the Queen Elizabeth carrier see the following:
The F-35 is not only not simply a replacement aircraft, but it is a global aircraft.
And with the allies buying around 50% of the aircraft over the next few years, while Washington sorts out its strategy, the innovation driven by the allies will be significant as well.
My recent visits to Australia have highlighted that the RAAF is in the throes of shaping a transformation strategy shaped in part around the coming of the F-35.
But what can be missed are the impacts of other allies and their efforts for transformation associated with the F-35.
For example, the RAF is engaged in a double transition – Typhoon subsuming Tornado with F-35s coming to the force.
This double transition is a compressed version of the broader topic of 4th/5th generation transition similarly to what the Italian Air Force is doing and the interaction between the RAF and the IAF could be a good driver for change.
And notably the European Air Group has set up a Typhoon integration cell at the same as it is tasked to work through the challenges and opportunities associated with the reshaping of airpower under the fifth generation warfare transition.
This means that the Italian and British opportunity for leadership is clear in a challenging period of airpower history.
The clear advantage of a global transformation enterprise associated with the F-35 is that transformation in airpower does not simply depend on the United States, nor weighed down by a number of U.S. legacy discussions, which impede change.
With regard to the Italians, they have proven to be forward leaning in spite of all the fiscal and political challenges, which is an amazing achievement.
And the industrial and technological aspects of the Italian achievements are significant as well.
At the Copenhagen airpower symposium this spring, a senior Dutch Air Force officer, underscored how significant the change on the Italian side was from his point of view.
At the Centre for Military Studies-Williams Foundation Airpower Symposium held in Copenhagen on April 17, 2015, Air Commodore Dré Kraak, from the Royal Netherlands Air Force, discussed the way ahead with regard to training for the Dutch Air Force and highlighted an important evolving coalition relationship with Italy.
And the Air Commodore went out of his way to praise the Italians, who in his words, “have seen dramatic progress in their aerospace production capabilities over the past twenty years.”
He started his presentation by highlighting that the Dutch selection of the F-35 was a no brainer.
It was by far the best aircraft in the competition.
Without any doubt, without any doubt operationally, the F35 is the best airplane ever.
And anybody that chooses something else– it’s probably a political choice and not a decision being made by a fighter pilot.
There’s no fighter pilot in the Dutch Air Force that does not think that the F35 is the best aircraft in the world at this moment.
Not only will Italy build the bulk of the Dutch F-35s, but they are also emerging as a key partner in possible training solutions as well.
On Sept. 7, the first F-35A assembled outside the US, made its very first flight from Cameri airbase.
The aircraft, designated AL-1, is the first of eight aircraft currently being assembled at the Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility at Cameri, in northwestern Italy. During the flight, that lasted about 1,5 hours, the F-35A was escorted by a Eurofighter Typhoon.
Italy’s first F-35A Lightning II, known as AL-1 and assembled at the Cameri Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility, flew for the first time today marking the program’s first-ever F-35 flight outside the United States.
Lockheed Martin F-35 test pilot Bill “Gigs” Gigliotti, lifted off the runway at 1:05 p.m. European Standard Time for a 1:22 hour check flight in AL-1 marking a historic milestone for Italy, Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi manufacturing cooperation and Lockheed Martin.
“The first flight of AL-1 is a monumental achievement thanks to the hard work and dedication of our Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi and Lockheed Martin teammates,” said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin F-35 Program General Manager. “Italy’s ‘primo volo’ (first flight) sets a firm foundation for Italy’s F-35 program and future opportunities for the Cameri FACO. My heartfelt congratulations to all who worked tirelessly to bring us to this major international program milestone.”
Today’s first flight for AL-1 went as planned. “As expected, the jet performed exceptionally well and without any surprises,” Gigliotti said. “I’m honored to have flown AL-1 on its maiden flight and grateful to the Cameri team for providing a great jet.
We look forward to continued successes leading up to aircraft delivery later this year.”
The Cameri FACO is owned by the Italian government and operated by Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi in association with Lockheed Martin. The Cameri FACO’s F-35 production operations began in July 2013 and ‘rolled out’ Italy’s first F-35A aircraft, AL-1, in March. AL-1’s official delivery to Italy is expected by the end of the year.
The facility will assemble both Italy’s F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant and the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant, and is planned to assemble the Royal Netherlands Air Force’s F-35A aircraft in the future.
The F-35A and F-35B will replace Italian Air Force and Italian Navy AV-8 Harriers, Panavia Tornados and AMX fighters.
In addition to its responsibility in the operations of the FACO, Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi also produces the F-35A’s full wing-sets.
The work contracted to Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi, a strategic co-supplier of F-35A full wing assemblies, is one of the largest manufacturing projects for the Italian F-35 program, with 835 full wing assemblies planned. Finmeccanica participates in the F-35 program also with Selex ES, responsible for various onboard electronics.
The F-35 Lightning II, a 5th generation fighter, combines advanced low observable stealth technology with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. More than 130 production F-35s have been delivered to customers and have flown more than 38,700 cumulative fleet flight hours, fleet-wide.
It should be noted as well that the F-35 is being built on three final assembly lines.
The F-35 program has been built around a very different manufacturing model for fighter jets, more modeled on what an Airbus would do than the more traditional station build approach.
The F-35 is to be built on three final assembly lines (FALs)– Fort Worth, Cameri, and next year in Japan.
The line in Fort Worth is a pulse line, meaning the planes move on the line through their full build. Currently, the planes move, about five days through the line during their 20 months on the line. Three configurations are built on the single line – F-35As, Bs, and Cs – as well as modified allied versions of those aircraft, such as the drop chute on the Norwegian F-35A.
The aircraft is built on a digital thread foundation, meaning that digital systems are crucial to the supply chain and component builds and for the final assembly of the components, as well as for the maintenance of the plane.
As Donald Kinard, a key F-35 manufacturing expert put it in an interview earlier this year:
Question: What is the impact of having two other national approaches to final assembly?
Kinard: They see things differently.
The Italians have seen the way we build the airplane and we see how they build the aircraft.
Technically we build the aircraft the same way but improvement ideas come from all of the participants.
I’m the collector of those lessons learned from all the sites and so it’s been real interesting to see the feedback we’ve received.
One of the strengths of the program from inception was the incorporation of technology and knowledge from all of the partners.
Of course, the Italians and Japanese are building a lot different quantities than we are.
The Italian FACO is going to be two a month, the Japanese FACO is going to be at most one a month.
With those kind of numbers, they’re not doing it exactly the way we are. They’re not going to have a pulse final assembly line, for example. They’re probably going to have a station build line, but those are all things that you would do.
Our line is established for quantity build and if I was building one a month I might not pulse them either as it costs money to move them.
But overall, we are now in the manufacturing phase, which I might call, taking it to the streets.
Meaning we’re taking a digital thread to the workers on the floor. And moving forward as well we’ll eventually take this right to the maintainers.
A lot of things we’re doing in a production floor will eventually be a bonus for the maintainers who work on the airplane.
For example, we can set up a portable optical projection system, and one can project work instructions directly onto the airplane that he’s working on.
The fidelity of what he sees and can focus his attention on is ramped up.
The interactivity among the suppliers, the FAL and the maintainers is much simpler because we can talk to each other from long distances away using the digital thread too.
And changes in the production process software are already cross-fertilizing with the maintainers.
For example, in the transition from LRIP-5 to LRIP-6 software, we introduced more functionality into the Prognostic Health Management (PHM) system.
We then used the PHM improvements in the production process to get what we call network status of for our combat mission systems.
From a production point of view, we get a lot of information as we’re building the airplane in terms of how well every system is working.
And the PHM is going to continue to get better as we go through the different software lots as well.
The software changes have helped the pilot, but it’s also helped us build the airplane because we were historically using very manual techniques to go troubleshoot problems.
With the software enabled process and airplane, we have significant situational awareness (SA) of the airplane, not just for the pilot flying the airplane but for the supply chain, the FAL and the maintainers.
As Secretary Wynne, the man who started the talks on building the Italian facility with the Italians put it with regard to the importance of the event:
“This flight makes the F-35 truly an international program.”
And having visited the Cameri facility, the sense of excitement in the workforce is clearly contagious.
As Air Commodore Westwood, the Commander the Surveillance and Response (SRG) put it:
“The goal is seamless integration which is always a work in progress, but that is why I think we are a key part of the shaping of an effective Jericho policy.”
Clearly, working the ISR and C2 pieces of the evolving 21st century approach to combat operations is a key part of the overall effort.
It is not an end in and of itself, but part of the tool sets for working a more integrated and effective force.
After the discussion with Air Commodore Westwood, I had a chance to sit down with representatives of the four wings, which make up SRG to learn about their approach and the way ahead.
For an American, it was interesting to see elements in the SRG, which would belong to the USAF or the USN separately in the US forces, but are placed under a common command in the RAAF. SRG conducts its operations 24/7 365 days a year and, with the advent of new capabilities, will be delivering to the Australian Defence Force an integrated surveillance picture across surface, subsurface, air and space.
Surveillance and Response Group has over 2100 personnel spread across Australia working in the following areas:
No 41 Wing (Air Defence/Air Battle Management)
No 42 Wing (Airborne Early Warning and Control)
No 44 Wing (Joint Battlefield Air Control)
No 92 Wing (Maritime Operations).
The roundtable was held with:
Wing Commander des Jardins, XO 41 Wing
Wing Commander Robson, CO No1 Remote Sensor Unit (Over the Horizon Radar and Space Surveillance)
Group Captain Martin, OC 42 Wing
Group Captain Edgeley, OC 44 Wing
Group Captain Champion, OC 92 Wing
Group Captain Hombsch, HQSRG Chief of Staff
The discussion began with regard to 41 Wing.
The Wing looks after battle management and is located throughout the Australian continent.
According to Wing Commander Lou des Jardins, “we are responsible for producing the recognized air picture for Australia and the surrounding areas of interest and to our north, in particular.”
A clear way ahead for SRG is working the relationship with the Navy to shape a more effective air-sea common operating picture.
According to Wing Commander des Jardins, “the air battle managers at Williamtown are complemented by a deployable unit that is currently based in Darwin but can be deployed wherever we need it .
It is designed to fit in the back of C-17s or C-130s.
It was deployed to Kandahar for two years, and did the job over there before we handed the task back to the USAF.”
Question: The impact of combat experience was important for your thinking about the way ahead as well, I would assume?
Wing Commander des Jardins: “It is very much so.
When the team returned, the cabins were refurbished and they were redesigned along the needs that were shown through that experience.
The importance of redesign to shape a slightly bigger system with more workstations, and an increased flexibility in how we operate the mobile system overall was highlighted by our combat experience in Afghanistan.”
The discussion then turned to shaping the way ahead and the shaping of the evolving exercise regime.
Clearly, with the threat evolving, working ways to more effectively deal with high tempo operations is important for the C2 side of the house.
And to do so with a more joint approach
One of the participants highlighted that “the Jericho policy incentive is to develop a much more integrated exercise program and we are rewriting our campaign plan for 41 wing to create more joint efforts in our training at home and to support our presence overseas.”
Group Captain Antony Martin, Officer Commanding No 42 Wing which includes the Wedgetail squadron, provided an update on the Wedgetail and discussed the thinking about the way ahead.
“We have been in the Middle East for almost 12 months. We have flown about 1300 hours on station.
The plane has performed well from a serviceability point of view, which is due in part to having a new airplane.
The minor problems we have had have been aircraft issues, not mission systems issues.
A Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft in the skies of the Middle East. Credit: Australian Ministry of Defence.
We have a small footprint of around 35 people for ops, and maintenance.
We are flying regularly with about 12 sorties per month.
And the USAF has shown clear interest in our experience, as the AWACS is getting old and E-7 could be part of the post-AWACs transition.”
The Wedgetail is doing the traditional fighter control but has encompassed a broader approach to management of combat assets within the battlespace, including ground elements as well.
The Wedgetail is working with the F-22s and in so doing is shaping tactics to work the relationship between fifth generation aircraft and a non-fighter battle management system.
“We are starting to draft a new E-7 con-ops to work with fifth generation aircraft, notably with the coming of the F-35, and shaping IP chat as a tool within the battlespace is part of the Jericho approach as well.”
And the Wedgetail team was recently in Baltimore to meet with Northrop Grumman to shape ongoing work on upgrading technologies for improving the radar and mission system performance.
Wedgetail is largely a software upgradeable platform so ongoing spiral development with regular interaction namely from users to application engineers will be key for the future development of the capability.
The head of No. 44 wing, Group Captain Edgeley, then discussed the approach to air traffic management
The core point is that a high level of integration is required between civil and military operations. This integration enables the operational flexibility required to meet the increasing complexity of military operations, but also reduces the requirement to exclude civil operators from military airspace and airfields.
“We are trying to integrate military and civil traffic in a way that no one else tries to do.”
This also provides an advantage in leveraging new unmanned technologies, which are being worked into Australian airspace as part of normal operations.
As the need to work an expanded battlespace is met, the challenge for Joint Battlefield Airspace Controllers (military air traffic controllers) will be to handle a much more complex deconfliction effort within the battlespace.
In a way, this is part of the controller’s effort towards Plan Jericho, and the transformation of jointness.
A clear challenge is to ensure that No. 44 wing can recruit and retain the kind of qualified personnel necessary to shape capabilities going forward.
“We probably cannot compete with the civil sector in terms of salaries, so we are creating a job opportunity which is much broader than what a civil air traffic controller does. Our personnel get the opportunity to do more than just air traffic control.”
The 44 Wing concept of air traffic control encompasses the tactical role of the JBACs or Joint Battlefield Aerospace Control as well.
With 92 Wing, the discussion turned to the P-3 and preparing for the entry into service of the P-8 in Australia in 2016.
As Group Captain Champion put it: “The P-3 has served us well but we are transitioning to the P-8 which has a much greater set of sensor capabilities which we will become part of our overall enhanced capabilities to see and defend the approaches around Australia.”
With the F-35, the P-8 and the Triton operating in the waters surrounding Australia, in addition to the ground based assets providing core data, the challenge will be to integrate data in a timely manner and ensure it is delivered to the appropriate actors in the broad defense belt surrounding Australia.
And doing so will require an ability to work closely with allies shaping their own common operating pictures.
SRG clearly faces challenges, but is at a critical vortex of the Plan Jericho effort.
Shaping capabilities to inform the joint force in an effective manner to enhance their lethality and survivability will be the challenge; but Australia is investing in new systems to provide for new tool sets; and with Plan Jericho, the mindset is being reshaped to look to draw the best from what each platform can provide, to shape a more effective joint force effort.
During a visit to Royal Air Force (RAF) Coningsby to discuss various air power issues, including the Rapid Reaction Aircraft, dealing with the resurgent Russians during Baltic Air Patrols and in the airspace surrounding Britain, the Typhoon upgrades and transition, and fifth generation warfare transition issues with two senior RAF officers, involved with Typhoon and the F-35, there was a chance to visit the Royal Air Force Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.
My hosts were the new boss of 11th Squadron, Matt Peterson and the new boss of RAF Lossiemouth Group Captain Paul Godfrey. RAF Lossiemouth is the home of 1st, 2nd, 6th and XV(R) squadrons.
This is an unusual museum for planes are from the second world war and are still capable of being flown and are done so on a regular basis.
My host during my visit, Group Captain Paul Godfrey, has flown many of the aircraft and has around 100 flight hours in the Spitfire and 80 hours in the Hurricane.
On April 29th 2011, a formation of RAF fast jets and aircraft from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF) will over-fly London, in celebration of the Royal Wedding. Pictured are Sqn Ldr Matt Peterson (right) and Wg Cdr Roddy Dennis. Credit: RAF
He noted that the Spits he has flown all handle quite differently because they are different model series, whereas the two Hurricanes handled quite similarly, which might be explained by the fact that both are late model series aircraft.
The first photos show the Lancaster bomber. “Avro Lancaster PA474 is one of only two airworthy Lancaster aircraft in the world. It is maintained in flying condition as a living tribute to all the 125,000 aircrew who flew with Bomber Command during World War II. 78,814 of them became casualties of war: 55,573 were killed, 8403 were injured, and 9,838 were shot down and made prisoners of war.”
The next photos show the six Spitfires and two Hurricanes.
“Spitfire MK IIa is the oldest, original airworthy Spitfire in the world and the only Spitfire still flying today that actually fought in the Battle of Britain…..
Spitfire Mk Vb AB910 flew a remarkable 143 operational missions in almost three years of war fighting, its pilots show down a German bomber and damaged another in August 1942 and it flew over the invasion beaches of Normandy on D-Day itself….
Spitfire Mk LFIXe MK356 flew operationally for 60 days during 1944 and completed 60 missions – many of them ground attack sorties in the build-up to D-Day – it was hit by enemy fire three times and shared in the shooting down of a Luftwaffe MeBf109 on D-Day +1.
The 8th photo shows a modified Spitfire for reconnaissance missions, and could fly above 40,000 feet at high speed for the day.
Hurricanes LF363 and PZ865 are two of only 13 of these rare aircraft still flying in the world today. PZ865 is the last Hurricane ever built and LF363 is the last Hurricane to enter operational service with the RAF.”
The final British aircraft in the slideshow is a C-47 Dakota. This Dakota was flown by the Canadian Air Force.
“As a tactical transport aircraft, the Dakota was used to carry troops and freight, for the air-dropping of supplies and paratroops, for towing gliders, and for casualty evaluation.”
The next photos are of Group Captain Godfrey who can be seen when one visits the museum as the pilot in the Spitfire banner.
The quotes are taken from the brochure provided at the museum.
And the final photos show a late model Me-109 which can be seen at the museum at the Eurofighter facility near Munich.
The visit was to focus upon the modernization trajectory of Eurofighter, a key program in which British, German, Italian and Spanish industry cooperates.
But the museums remind us of a different period in history.
The photos are credited to Second Line of Defense.
For our piece on looking forward through the rear view mirror of the Battle of Britain towards the future innovation by design, see the following:
When considering China and Russia, new or dramatically enhanced strategic technologies could vitally affect U.S. security during the next 15 years.
Under certain conditions, revolutionary improvements in these capabilities could disrupt a strategic balance, but under different circumstances they strengthen stability and deterrence by making military planners even more cautious about taking actions that could risk strategic escalation.
At the strategic level, hypersonic, space-based, cyber, high-precision conventional, and substantially improved anti-missile weapons could have the greatest impact. Chinese and Russian officials have complained about the potentially disruptive effects of these non-nuclear technologies on their strategic deterrents, which they claim could leave them vulnerable to U.S. coercion.
But China and Russia are also developing these weapons.
Whether a new technology proves revolutionary depends on its military impact, how rapidly it evolves, how many countries acquire that technology, the operational constructs its possessors employ, and other variables.
Perceptions often differ on these subjective issues as well as the potential effects of strategic technologies. For example, some would see revolutionary improvements in strategic missile defenses as enhancing crisis stability, while others believe they would strengthen mutual deterrence.
At the tactical level, new capabilities create a wide range of military effects, from new cost-exchange ratios to novel time and depth advantages. We are seeing a transition from very few and precision-strike weapons to a proliferation of many cheap smart weapons.
For example, developments in science and manufacturing have driven down the price of commercial unmanned aerial vehicles. Nanotechnology can enhance lethality while reducing size, and rail gun projectiles are much less expensive than using missiles.
At the regional level, robotic, cyber, and directed-energy technologies are lowering the barrier for entry for states seeking to develop anti-access or area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities against U.S. forces.
At the strategic level, these new technologies could offer the United States great military advantages. For example, having hypersonic weapons with global reach would enable even U.S.-based systems to strike time-sensitive high-value targets throughout the world in less than an hour. This capability would make the United States less reliant on overseas-based systems — which require foreign permission to use — and less concerned by A2/AD threats.
However, new military technologies, such as missile defenses, anti-satellite weapons, and hypersonic delivery systems, could also raise the risks of conflict in future crises. Ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems may convince their possessors that they could launch a disarming first strike–expecting that their missile shields to protect them against any retaliatory strikes. Anti-satellite weapons could paralyze an adversary by jamming his communications sufficiently long to present the opponent with a fait accompli. Hypersonic weapons could significantly shorten the time one side would need to attack the other. Cyber weapons offer the potential of engaging in aggressive acts without attribution.
Looking at concrete cases, Russian and Chinese experts have expressed concerns about U.S. “conventional counterforce” strikes that employ hypersonic weapons or precision-guided cruise missiles against their nuclear forces resulting in U.S. missile defenses having to defeat a substantially weakened Russian or Chinese counterstrike.
However, both Russia and China are actively researching new strategic technologies to overcome U.S. military capabilities.
For example, Russia aims to produce hypersonic cruise missiles with India while China has concentrated its hypersonic R&D efforts on making “boost-glide” missiles akin to those being developed by the United States.
Chinese officials have increasingly joined Russian officials in denouncing U.S. missile defenses. Yet, both China and Russia have been acquiring surface-to-air missiles that have some capacity to shoot down low-flying ballistic missiles. Furthermore, they have been researching more advanced BMD systems to better understand these technologies in order to overcome U.S. missile defenses and potentially deploy their own.
China, Russia, and the United States all have counter-space capabilities that can be employed against satellites and other space-based enablers for reconnaissance, communications, navigation, targeting, and intelligence-gathering. Indeed, any system that can track and intercept a ballistic missile in mid-flight could also be used to target low-orbiting satellites. Modern militaries are highly dependent on these critical capabilities for conducting military operations, verifying arms control agreements, and providing tactical warning of foreign missile launches.
China destroyed one of its own satellites in 2007, generated an enormous debris cloud in the process, while the U.S. government used a sea-based BMD interceptor the following year to eliminate a failing satellite carrying a dangerous propellant. Chinese, Russian, and other analysts have interpreted the U.S. interception as a warning to Beijing and others that the United States retained retaliatory anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, which may have had the salutary effect of discouraging either country of conducting another such satellite shoot down.
While the potential for near-term technological breakthroughs in these capabilities is small, the pace and impact of these of revolutionary military capabilities are hard to predict. Few existing treaties explicitly constrain the quantitative or qualitative dimensions of these new strategic technologies.
It would be ideal to shape the deployment of potentially destabilizing systems with arms control agreements that constrain the most destabilizing capabilities and operational practices, but there are major impediments to progress in this area. However, it would be challenging to agree upon and enforce these arrangements since revolutionary strategic technologies are, by their nature, changing rapidly.In addition to uncertainty regarding their potential, countries tend to envisage different ways of using such systems due to their varying strategic traditions, geopolitical challenges, and technological strengths. Russia and China are seeking new strategic systems is to overcome U.S. missile superiority, while the United States wants to retain the freedom to develop sophisticated military technologies to overcome potential adversaries’ A2/AD capabilities.
Even without arms control, some strategic technologies could enhance rather than weaken strategic stability, such as making it more difficult to launch an effective first-strike (e.g., through mutual missile defenses) or by augmenting threats of retaliation (e.g., with possible cyber second-strikes).
Furthermore, decision makers of a country possessing robust missile defenses or counter-space weapons may feel less vulnerable to an adversary’s first strike. Similarly, if a country has multiple means of retaliation, such as cyber or hypersonic weapons in addition to nuclear forces, than its dependence on a guaranteed nuclear second strike for deterrence may decline.
The potential for technological breakthroughs in military technologies has spurred the Pentagon to launch a “Defense Innovation Initiative” designed to increase long-term investments in strategic technologies. One factor behind the new campaign was U.S. concern regarding the proliferation of strategic technologies that previously only the United States possessed.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called for a new “offset” strategy designed to enable the United States to stay ahead of potential adversaries such as China and Russia in critical military technologies, especially to overcome their A2/AD strategies. In Hagel’s vision, the first offset strategy was the U.S. buildup of nuclear forces in the 1950s to negate the Soviet advantage in conventional military power, while the second was the drive during the 1970s and 1980s to develop new revolutionary technologies such as stealth, long-range precision strike, and enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
This work is continuing within the Department of Defense, and defense officials have encouraged U.S. allies, especially in Europe and Asia, to develop complementary multinational and national capabilities.
Furthermore, the progress by Russia, China, and other potential U.S. adversaries in developing strategic technologies elevates the importance of making U.S. military forces more “operationally resilient” to defend against and rapidly recover from strategic attacks.
Since World War II, the United States has enjoyed a relatively secure global network of bases, but the proliferation of strategic weapons means that the Pentagon increasingly needs to prepare to defend against, and recover from, attacks against overseas bases, including those outside the immediate theater of war.
Potential countermeasures against non-nuclear strategic weapons include dispersing forces over a wider geographic area, hardening military facilities and other critical infrastructure, concealing targets through stealth and electronic countermeasures, having the ability to rapidly launch satellites and replace other damaged networks, and of course, launching preemptive strikes to disrupt an attacker’s preparations.
The USMC is as integrated a force as exits as a 21st century combat force.They use their KC-130Js in a very flexible role supporting their air-ground-sea combat team.They have seen a major transformation with the coming of the Osprey, whereby they are the paired asset, and with the range and speed of the Osprey, have become the core interactive element in reshaping ow the Marines can insert force.
Additionally, with Harvest hawk, the Marines have pushed the boundaries of how a C-130J can operate in the battlespace. The Harvest Hawk is a modified KC-130J which brings ISR, C2 and weapons into the battlespace as part of the Marine Corps force.Its changing role has brought with it changes in how the aircraft is operated and how pilots and crews are trained.
The Royal Australian Air Force is undergoing changes with regard to its own C-130Js equivalent to the USMC.But how the change has come about and its trajectory is different from that of the USMC.
But clearly, the RAAF C-130J community working with the Australian Army in the throes of transforming jointness would be a good partner with the Marines in thinking through evolving concepts of operations for 21st century operations.And perhaps we might see that unfold in future engagements by the Marines during their Darwin rotation.
One impact of the Plan Jericho approach will be to expand the range of collaboration in which the RAAF engages in as it works its approach to transforming jointness.Clearly, the USMC would be a good partner in this journey, and not the least of which the Darwin rotation provides a rich soil within which an expanded aperture is clearly possible.
80916fade1.05.0
During my visit to Australia in August 2015, I had a chance to visit the C-130J community in Australia located at Richmond Air base.I discussed the changes underway with Group Captain Carl Newman, CO of 84 Wing and Wing Commander Nick Hogan, CO of 285 Squadron.
With the coming of the C-17 and the KC-30A, the role of the C-130Js changed fundamentally.Strategic reach is provided by the new aircraft with the lift role of the C-130J significantly reduced.And with the coming of the C-27J, the regional lift role is reduced as well.
This means that the C-130J has been and is being modified to play a different role, one closely connected with the transformation of the working relationship between the Australian Army and the RAAF.
This can be done to provide a specialized insertion package, or as part of a rapid mobility tool to start the process of rolling in a ground force, along the lines envisaged with the coming of HMAS Canberra.
The new LHD is being shaped for its future role in the Australian Defence Force, and the evolving working relationship between the Army and the RAAF is clearly part of that shaping process.
Air Mobiity Group, Air Commodore Richard Lennon, highlighted the basic shift fromAir Mobility Group functioning largely as a garage storing tanking and lift assets which transport and fuel assets to its broader engagement in a much broader role in the battlespace and with it its ability to engage with and support ground, air and naval forces.
In particular, there is a concerted effort to augment the ability of the RAAF to go with ground forces to support operations, rather than just take them to operations.
In part this is about technology – adding comms and ISR links – but much more broadly a change in the concepts of operations and training, about which my meetings at Richmond with the C-130J squadron provided more details.
It is also about changing the role of the lifters and tankers in terms of how they will be equipped and operate in the battlespace.
They can function as nodes, IT transit elements, C2 enablers or repositories, but more generally, the question is how to use the real estate on the tanker – both outside and inside – to expand its role in the battlespace?
In the case of he C-130J, the plane is being modified with command and control, ISR, and other equipment to provide a means to take ground forces – special forces or the Australian Army – into an area of interest and then continue to support those forces.
The graphic below provides a broad look at how the transformation of the aircraft is being done.
Credit: Second Line of Defense
A number of communication and ISR links have been or are being put into the plane to allow for multiple interactions with forces so that the C-130J can perform in a lead force insertion package.At the same time, new techniques are being learned by the crews to perform force insertion or expeditionary missions.
Among the key changes underway are the ones which can be seen in the accompanying table.
The transformation of the C-130J role clearly requires a shift in how the crew operates the aircraft and thinks about its operational role.And operational experiences fold into the thinking about how to re-shape capabilities of the platform to reshape its role as well.
As Group Captain Newman noted with regard to operations to support the humanitarian mission in Iraq during Operation Okra, the performance of the C-130J in the mission was hampered by an absence of organic ISR.If the plane had been able to identify more effectively in the drop space the nature of the threat and the where the desired recipients were, then the team could have been more effectively and more valuable to the rest of the force working the humanitarian mission.
As a result, the RAAF is thinking through possible requirements that may demand organic ISR for the aircraft, in addition to the new ISR linkages enabled by communications upgrades on the aircraft as well.
Group Captain Newman also focused on ways the new capability might be used to provide a variety of specialized force insertion packages.
“As we shape the capability of the C-130J to operate as an insertion package, we can then provide a variety of specialized tool sets in effect to the commander.In effect we are becoming a swiss army knife working with the embarked forces, which provides a broader range of options to the commander.”
Group Captain Newman underscored that the changing role for the C-130J meant changing the training approach for the crews as well as developing enhanced training opportunities with the Australian Army as well.
Wing Commander Nick Hogan is in charge of the RAAF’s C-130J training squadron and he focused on how the shift was from a largely rigid training system to a flexible one.In effect, when the C-130J was used predominately as a lifter, training took several months and delivered pilots and crew to support transport similar to airline practices.
As the new capabilities began to roll into the aircraft, bolt-on training modules were added which simply extended training time. But starting in 2012 a fundamental reworking was set in place whereby integration of the various elements into a baseline training system was shaped.The crew required appropriate training to allow them to approach the aircraft as if it were a swiss army knife with the ability to use every blade.
This has also meant changes to the simulators supporting the program.The main shift has been from training with the core CAE-operated simulator, to shaping a variety of innovative simulator tools adjacent to the core simulator, which can reduce the time needed in the training program to be operating the core simulator.
This not only saves money, but also expands training time available to work through various key Swiss army knife tool sets, which need to be learned.
A key aspect of the way forward was expanding the exercise regime with their joint and coalition partners. Obviously, working with the Australian Army is a key part of the way ahead.This month, the RAAF and the Australian Army exercising together to work through how best to leverage the new capabilities of the C-130J to work with the Army as an insertion and supporting force. This activity, Exercise IRON MOON, is one of a series of Navy, Army and Air Force exercises employing a range of maritime, land and air surveillance and response capabilitieswhere, clearly, the evolving capabilities of the C-130J provide an important force multiplier to this community.
With regard to coalition partners, the RAAF worked its first Live Virtual Constructive Training Exercise in a full flight mission simulator with the USAF.Richmond and Williamtown were connected to Nellis and the Wedgetail and the C-130Js were linked into a Nellis Red Flag exercise along with the Canadians who brought their own C-130J into the exercise.To do this required setting up new security procedures, data and comms links, but this is simply the beginning of reshaping coalition training capability going forward
Clearly, in thinking through operations in the expanded battlespace which the Pacific represents, LVCT is a key tool set.My visits to Fallon and Nellis have underscored how important LVCT is to the US forces; and clearly for the coalition forces as well.
At the Williams Foundation seminar, the former head of Nellis, Lt. General Lofgren had highlighted the importance of LVCT to shaping the way ahead to transform the forces; my visit to Richmond demonstrated that steps are clearly being taken down this path.
But transforming jointness is not a one-direction effort.
The RAAF is changing its capabilities to expand ways to work with the Army.The Army needs to reshape how its various assets connect with and operate with the RAAF.Nowhere is this more the case than with Army Aviation.The Tigers, and MRH90s need to clearly work with the RAAF as those assets operate off of the HMAS Canberra, for example.
According to Group Captain Newman, these steps are starting to be taken.There is a long way to go down this path of transforming jointness however and clearly Plan Jericho will enhance the RAAF’s ability to contribute to this process.
The slideshow highlights the following: My hosts for the visit are sitting with an Aussie reservist working on a scenario for the simulation process; the C-130J flight simulator; the C-130J virtual loadmaster simulator, and screens associated with the simulator and two shots of an Aussie C-130J at Richmond Air Base.
The video shows the support to Army forces discussed in the interview for Exercise Northern Shield 2015.
A Company of Army Commandos have parachuted out of three Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft and dropped into the waters of Exmouth, Western Australia to fight and defeat a simulated enemy during the inaugural Australian Defence Force Exercise Northern Shield.
The Special Forces contingent descended into Exmouth against the setting sun, loaded into zodiac watercraft and moved to a beach landing site, before conducting a late night raid to clear role player combatants occupying several buildings near a defense facility.
Exercise Northern Shield is an Australian Defence Force (ADF) training activity where high-readiness forces deploy quickly to North Western Australia in response to a simulated security threat.
It incorporates force preparation activities, Special Forces activities, land force maneuver, air mobile operations and maritime activities.
This is the first time Exercise Northern Shield will be held.
The exercise will entail deploying land forces by air as well as establishing an enhanced air presence in the region, specifically in Learmonth and Exmouth, and simulating support to maritime security operations.
Approximately 1000 Army and Air Force personnel are directly participating in the exercise.
Editor’s Note: Air Commodore Richard Lennon, the head of the Air Mobility Group, added a significant comment about the AMG’s transition, which is directly relevant to the C-130J transformation discussed in this interview.
I like the term Mission Simultaneity for the air mobility fleet as well as the fighters.
Whilst not fifth gen, it reflects the fact that one aircraft can insert a force (maybe through airdrop), provide ISR over watch both before and after the insertion whilst acting as a C2 node.
Previous doctrine might have had three different aircraft providing that level of capability.
Air Commodore Lennon was commenting on this point:
But the redesign does not stop by simply introducing F-35s into the mix; it is about reshaping the whole approach to air combat, which “Hawk” Carlisle described in his interview.
As one RAF officer involved with the F-35 and Typhoon transition has put it:
‘Mission Simultaneity’ is the way we are describing it and the RAF uses this description already in the next wave of Air Power doctrine.
