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.
2015-03-23 The 6th Soryu-class SSK, SS-506 Kokuryu, (meaning Black Dragon) was commissioned into service with Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) at the Kawasaki Heavy Industries shipyard in Kobe on March 9th.
The 6th Soryu-class SSK, SS-506 Kokuryu, (meaning Black Dragon) was commissioned into service with Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) at the Kawasaki Heavy Industries shipyard in Kobe on March 9th. Credit: Japanese Ministry of Defense
The Soryu Class diesel-electric submarines are being built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF). Ten Soryu Class submarines are planned for the JMSDF. The class is an improved version of the Oyashio Class submarine.
The keel for the first submarine in the class, Soryu (SS-501), was laid down in March 2005. It was launched in December 2007 and commissioned in March 2009. Unryu (SS-502) was laid down in March 2006, launched in October 2008 and commissioned in March 2010. Hakuryu (SS-503) was laid down in February 2007 and launched in October 2009 for commissioning in March 2011. The fourth and fifth submarines under construction are scheduled to be commissioned in 2012 and 2013 respectively.
SS-506 Kokuryu was laid down 21 January 201, launched 31 October 2013 and commissioned 9 March 2015
Main characteristics (as provided by Kawasaki Heavy Industries):
Length 84.0m
Width 9.1m
Depth 10.3m
Draft 8.4m
Displacement 2,950 Tons
Engine:
– Kawasaki 12V 25 / 25SB type diesel engine 2 groups
Both in the Congress and in the Presidential Palace.
On 19 March, Angeli, a cartoonist of the “Folha de São Paulo”, which is Brazil’s largest newspaper, portrayed President Dilma Rousseff, who was only re-elected to a second term in October last year, as a tiny figure sitting in a huge armchair, under the headline “Little Miss Sunshine” (Pequena Miss Sunshine).
Only three months into her second term, Dilma Rousseff’s popularity, according to the most recent “DataFolha” opinion poll, was one of the lowest for a Brazilian president in recent Brazil history. She had a 62% disapproval rating nationwide. But in the south of Brazil in places it reached 75%, and even in the northeast, where her support was stronger in October, it stood at 55%.
The problems facing Brazil are cumulative.
Expanding allegations of corruption which encompass the private and state business sectors as well as leading politicians and political parties.
Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff reacts during a news conference at the Alvorada Palace in Brasilia September 8, 2014. REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino
Domestic economic woes from high inflation, diminished growth prospects, increasing unemployment, the first primary budget deficit in over a decade, and the 39% decline in the value of the Brazilian currency (the Real, R$) against the US dollar over the past two years.
International damage to Brazil’s foreign relations where Dilma’s government has set much store on engagement with the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), as well as with Venezuela, Argentina and Bolivia in South America.
And legal entanglements with foreign tax and oversight authorities as a result of the multiple international linkages of Brazil’s various corruption scandals
These multiple scandals involve not only the Workers Party (PT), but also those in São Paulo, a state long run by the main opposition party, the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB), where bribery and price fixing have emerged involving foreign corporations (the French conglomerate Alstom and the German firm of Siemens) in contracts for the Metro transportation system.
The problems are complicated by challenges to the credibility of leading media families and individual journalists which have resulted from the on going revelations of Swiss Leaks about secret bank accounts held by Brazilians at HSBC Private Bank in Switzerland.
Not all of these secret accounts involve any illegal activity.
But some apparently involve large sums secretly laundered by individuals hiding monies obtained from various kickback schemes involving Petrobras.
All of which contributes to the debilitating and widespread anger on the streets at the daily revelations of the pervasive corruption by those in power.
Any one of these crises would be bad enough.
But coming together they pose serious questions about the stability of the democratic regime established thirty years ago.
And worse.
They pose serious questions about the capability, and the capacity, of the Brazilian political establishment, to deal with any of these multiple challenges effectively.
In fact the crisis of governance is the most serious that Brazil has faced since military rule ended in 1985.
March 15 was the date in the Roman calendar that marked the “Ides of March.” It was the day on which Julius Cesar was assassinated in the Roman Senate, and saw the transition from the Republic to the Empire. March 15 also marks 30 years since the first civilian was installed in the presidency after two decades of military rule.
And it was the day on which over a million Brazilians last Sunday took to the streets throughout the country to protest against corruption.
Yet the solutions proposed were diffuse and contradictory.
Some wanted the impeachment of recently re-elected president Dilma Rousseff; others called for a return to military rule; others beat their pots and pans in a eerie rerun of the marches of “Families for God and for freedom” that preceded the Brazilian military coup in 1964.
But how, and what, and who, would achieve any of these objectives?
It is likely that the major party in Congress, the Party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement (PMDB), and until now a key component of the congressional coalition that supports Dilma’s government, will prefer a severely weakened president to a replacement.
But this is not a foregone conclusion.
Dilma Rousseff has not been consulting Michel Temer, her Vice-President in recent weeks. And Michel Temer, of Lebanese origin, is a former long-term PMDB congressman from São Paulo, and is the next in the line of succession to Dilma Rousseff. He is a former six term congressman, and has on three occasions served as president of the lower house of congress, and perhaps best known to most Brazilians because of his beautiful wife, Marcela Temer, who is 42 years his junior.
After Michel Temer in the line of succession comes the president of the lower house of Congress, Eduardo Cunha, a conservative evangelical Christian from Rio de Janeiro. And after him the president of the senate, Renan Calheiros, from Alagoas. But both Cunha and Calheiros have been involved in dubious activities in the past, and both are on the list of those accused of involvement in the Petrobras kickback scheme.
The demonstrations last Sunday were largest in south of Brazil, and the most covered by the media took place along the Avenida Paulista in Sao Paulo and on the Avenida Altantica in Rio de Janeiro. They were composed largely by the already disillusioned middle class, made up of those who voted overwhelmingly against Dilma Rousseff last October.
But demonstrations had also taken place the previous Friday in support of the scandal plagued state petroleum corporation Petrobas, that is at the centre of the current corruption scandal, as well as in favor of Dilma Rousseff’s Worker’s Party (PT). These were much smaller gatherings than the anti-Dilma demonstrations on Sunday, but were no less determine.
And already “social” movements in the countryside and in the cities, where the MST, the movement “sem terra” (“without land”), and the MTST, the movement “sem teto” (without roof), both close to the PT, have been agitating and blocking roads, and are adamantly opposed to the economic policies proposed to curb Brazil budget deficits by Joaquim Levy, Dilma Rousseff’s new finance minister.
The potential for confrontation is growing by the day since each side increasingly demonizes their opponents.
President Dilma Rousseff was re-elected in October by a very slender margin, and the election revealed a country deeply split on regional and class lines. The south supported the opposition led by senator Aécio Neves, who was the candidate for the PSDB. Even though he lost, significantly, in his home state of Minas Gerais, he was supported by a formidable array of advisers, including Armínio Fraga, a former Central Bank President, a fund manager who previously worked in New York for George Soros. Aécio Neves is the maternal grandson of the Tancredo Neves, who was the first civilian to be indirectly elected president of Brazil by an electoral college on January 15, 1985.
Tancredo Neves was 74 at the time, He was a politician highly skilled in the art of the possible. And he was a steadfast democrat and a firm opponent of military rule. He was able to weave together a formidable civilian alliance. But in a sad twist of misfortune he did not assume office. He became gravely ill after a extensive world tour and died on April 21, 1985. José Sarney, his vice-presidential running mate (and who came from a splinter of the party which had supported the military regime) took office as acting president, and became the president of Brazil after Tancredo’s death.
Nevertheless, despite many alarms and false starts, democracy prevailed.
And during the past two decades was consolidated under the two term presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso for the PSDB, (1995-2003), followed by two terms under Presidency Lula of the PT (2003-2011), who was succeed by his protogee, Dilma Rousseff of the PT in 2011.
The opposition to the PT government is stronger in Sao Paulo, which is the financial, business, and industrial heart of Brazil, and where on Sunday the calls are loudest her impeachment.
One democratically elected president of Brazil, Fernando Collor, left office under the threat of impeachment in 1992 (in a scandal that involved allegations of corruption).
But it is not at all straight forward that a similar move would succeed today.
Even if it can be proved that Dilma Rousseff was involved in, or knew about, the corruption at Petrobras.
Though the protestors on the streets of São Paulo last Sunday clearly believe she did. Dilma Rousseff was after all the chair of the its board of directors of Petrobras from 2003 until 2010, and she was also the chief of staff of President Lula da Silva, when the corruption at Petrobras was apparently rampant.
Brazil’s Federal Police and independent public prosecutors have been critical players in the crisis. Operation “Lava Jato” (operation “car wash”) has already placed many businessmen and former Petrobras officials in jail, and are perusing international links in Switzerland and the United States, among other non-Brazilian jurisdictions, to recover laundered money, and to find hidden bank accounts.
The Brazilian attorney-general has sent a list of politicians allegedly involved to the supreme court.
Most remarkable has been the arrest and preventative detention of executives at the Federal Police Headquarters in Curitiba of some of Brazil’s largest building and construction companies for paying bribes in exchange for contracts with Petrobras between 2003 and 2014.
This is the first time such arrests have taken place in Brazil. And they involve executives of Camargo e Corrêa, OAS, Odebrecht, UTC, Queiroz Galvão, Mendez Junior, Galvão Engenharia. The sum involved is said to be US$22 billion.
The Swiss attorney general announced this week that he had frozen US$400 million in suspected Brazilian accounts. SBM offshore NV, a Dutch supplier of floating oil platforms signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate with Brazilian authorities investigating companies for corrupt contracts with Petrobras. SBM had previously agreed with Netherland’s prosecutors to pay US$240 million to settled alleged improper payments to sales agents for companies, including Petrobras between 2007 and 2011.
The US Security and Exchange Commission is also investigating and several law suits have be filed by investors.
All of which makes the job of “market friendly” Joaquim Levy, Brazil’s new finance minister, difficult indeed.
Senate president Renan Calheiros of the PMDB, rejected a presidential decree to raise payroll taxes, apparently in retaliation for not clearing his name of the list in the corruption probe. Which sent Brazil’s currency to a 12 year low against the dollar. Eduardo Cunha, president of the lower house, also of the PMDB, then forced Dilma Rousseff to sack her education minister, the former governor of Ceará, Cid Gomes (he had only been appointed on January 1st), after he spoke at a tumultuous session of the congress.
He had accused the members of the lower house of being a bunch of “swindlers” (achacados), in response to which, an angry member of the house in a tumultuous session called him a “clown”. But on YouTube one observer said that Cid Gomes was the lucky one. He had in fact escaped the “Sinking of the Titanic.”
2015-03-23 A key part of the transition in Afghanistan on the military side is enabling the Afghan forces to use airpower in the fight against Islamic insurgency.
The Super Tucano is coming from the United States, and training on Soviet-era helicopters is part of that transition.
And Western forces maintaining relevant airpower capabilities to provide support to this transition is crucial as well.
Now the Royal Air Force has brought its new Puma into the effort.
According to a story on the RAF website published on March 19, 2015:
The RAF’s latest Puma helicopter literally stepped into the spotlight as it deployed for the first time on operations in support of the NATO mission providing training and assistance to Afghan forces.
On a dark winter’s night, illuminated by runway lights, the first Puma HC Mark2 aircraft was loaded on to a single C17 transport aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire for the 3,608 mile journey to Kabul.
Its departure came just days before the MOD announced that the new Puma, and the RAF’s latest version of the Chinook, the Mark 6, were both ready for operational use.
The news came at an event at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire, the home of Puma units 33 Squadron and 230 Squadron which will rotate through tours of duty in Afghanistan.
Puma pilot Squadron Leader Phil Williams said: “We flew the Puma Mk 2 out to RAF Brize Norton and within a matter of hours it was broken down ready to be loaded on to a C17 transport aircraft ready to be taken where it needs to go. On arrival in theatre it was unloaded and within four hours it was ready to be on task.
“That’s what makes Puma unique, if you want to get somewhere quickly and have an effect quickly this is the helicopter of choice for that. It can move up 16 troops or equipment, or a combination of the two, anywhere you want it to go and it’s got the flexibility to be re-rolled by the loadmaster in a matter of minutes”.
One man with aircrew experience on Merlin helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan Master Aircrew Gareth Attridge said that while the Puma Mk 2 might look the same from the outside, its new engines represented a step change in the helicopter’s capability.
He said: “The Puma Mk2 airframe is essentially the same as its predecessor, the main difference of the new version is that it has new Makila engines that enable it to fly much greater distances, operate better in hot and high conditions, and carry a larger amount of freight or troops. It also has improved fuel tanks that give the aircraft much longer range and endurance so we can go further, carry more, and work in more austere conditions.”
He said that another key feature of the improved version was a new digital glass cockpit, enhanced secure communications suite, and improved ballistic protection all of which made it safer for its crew and passengers.
AF Puma Mk2 loading onto a RAF C17 of 99 Sqn at night at RAF Brize Norton. RAF/MOD Crown Copyright 2015
One man who knows more than most about Pumas is Squadron Leader Chris Burgon, with 2,500 flying hours on the helicopter, including a total of seven operational tours of Iraq and Northern Ireland.
He said: “I thoroughly enjoy flying the Puma, I wouldn’t swap it for any helicopter in the world. The Mark 2 has significantly more powerful engines which have anticipators, a key safety feature, so that when pilot demands power using the throttle he gets it instantly and more of it. It also has a completely modernized glass cockpit which allows us to have a head-up digital display that gives the pilot far better situational awareness.
Sqn Ldr Burgon said the Puma Mk2’s increased capability enabled the RAF to realistically replicate operational conditions anywhere in the world, whereas in recent conflicts while its predecessor could carry a full payload in cold and damp Britain, that capacity could be halved in the heat and dust of Iraq or Afghanistan.
In addition, a total of 14 Chinook Mk6 helicopters have been ordered to enhance the RAF’s existing heavy-lift helicopter capability, at a cost of almost £1 billion, which will bring the overall number of UK Chinooks to 60.
The MOD has recently signed a £150 million contract for the development and manufacture stages of the Chinook Digital Automatic Flight Control System (DAFCS) to provide improved handling qualities and aircraft stability across the other 46 aircraft in the Chinook fleet.
Officer Commanding Chinook Development Flight RAF Odiham Squadron Leader Adam Shave who has flown all variants of helicopter, except the earliest Mark 1, said that the DFACS on the Mark 6 was a major improvement
He said: “The real gem in the Chinook Mark 6 is the Digital Automatic Flight Control System. Being digital, pilots have greater control of the aircraft even at speeds as low as one knot, so that it is more stable in a hover, and can be set it up for approaches and landing in a hot and dusty environment in a very precise way.
“What that means to aircrew is that the risk associated with landing in those conditions is hugely reduced. The Mk 6 is far safer and the chances of damaging the aircraft are much reduced. Historically, at the height of the Afghan conflict a Chinook sustained damage once every 100 days often requiring it to be taken off operations for months for repair.
“I have personally been involved in situations where a Chinook’s wheels have been damaged during a landing on a dark night in Afghanistan and can say categorically that that would not have happened in the latest Mk 6.”
Air Vice Marshal Julian Young, Defence Equipment and Support Director of Helicopters, who served as an RAF engineering officer on both Chinook and Pumas squadrons from the mid-1980s said he could not have foreseen then that the Puma would still be in service now with vastly increased capabilities.
He said: ““When I was Senior Engineering Officer with 230 Squadron in 1992 at what was then RAF Gutersloh in Germany with the Puma HC-1 they were a tired looking aircraft and a bit underpowered. I couldn’t have imagined then that it would still being in service now with the capability it has. It’s got new engines with 35% more power and up to 25% greater fuel efficiency. It’s a brand new aircraft in an old shell and even the old shell has been worked on.”
“The Chinook Mk6 is now as good as it gets, it’s got a glass cockpit, a new fuselage, it looks very similar to the older variant I had on my first tour as a Junior Engineering Officer on 7 Squadron in 1985, but from an avionic and capability perspective there’s a generational gap between the two aircraft. It now has a digital cockpit, better engines, can lift more and has a digital flight control system that makes it much safer to fly in a degraded visual environment.”
Since Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea and, at a minimum, support for forces in eastern Ukraine that are attempting to secede and join Russia, belligerence in its foreign policy rhetoric is becoming more common, as are references to its nuclear capabilities.
An exceptional reference occurred over the weekend.
On Saturday (21 March), the Russian Ambassador to Denmark expressed his government’s displeasure with Danish NATO policy—in particular its decision last August to join the NATO missile defense program.
The Danish government announced prior to the Wales Summit that it would equip one of its three frigates with radar systems that could be integrated into NATO’s ballistic missile defense system.
This, of course, is not particularly unusual: the Russians have expressed opposition to the NATO BMD in increasingly strident tones since its inception in 2001.
What was unusual was the Russian ambassador expressed his government’s opposition in an interview that was published in the largest Danish daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.
He did so for classic public diplomacy reasons:
Russian ambassador, Mikhail Vanin, said that Danish ships could become targets (photo: Christian Wenande)
“It is never too late to say something important to the Danish people,” he said.
“We know that the government will not contact us—they get orders from abroad about what to do and think.
We are not naive.
Therefore this is an appeal to the public.
The Danes should think very clearly about what the politicians are using their tax dollars for. It will be expensive and provide less security.
But it’s your decision.”
But beyond his concern for the average Dane’s pocketbook, he indicted why there would be “less security” for Denmark.
“I do not think that the Danes fully understand the situation.
It would be detrimental to relations between our countries and have consequences if you join the global anti-missile defense system under US leadership.
All who join will be part of the threat to Russia and will be targeted with Russian ballistic missiles.
If Denmark joins the missile shield, which is controlled by the United States, this means that Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles.”
Back in the day, such a blatant warning mixed with the implication that Denmark is being placed in danger by aggressive American policies would have given the Danes pause.
Today it is leading to a pragmatic non response.
On the one hand, the “peace” parties here (the Unity List and the Socialist People’s Party) have long opposed military spending in general and the acquisition of any capabilities that could be seen as “offensive” in particular.
So, for instance, Unity List has opposed buying new combat aircraft—but argue that the F-16s are needed to “defend Denmark,” at least until their wings fall off, and the Socialist People’s Party has more recently changed its position and is for buying only a minimum number of the cheapest aircraft available to replace the F-16s to do that task, which for them is 16–24 at the most.
Both are opposed to participating in NATO Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD).
The Russian ambassador’s op-ed has not led them to reconsider those positions.
Rather their spokesmen have both said that maybe the ambassador was speaking out of turn, maybe he did not clear his article with anyone, maybe he “drank too much vodka,” and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should contact Moscow to see if this is the case because it can’t be!
They simply cannot square belligerence with their ideological priorities.
On the other hand, the “Blue” center parties that have supported Denmark’s active and “militarized” grand strategy since the end of the Cold War have responded pragmatically.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs at first said nothing publicly, although it was leaked that the Russian was called in to the MFA on Friday to discuss the interview before it was published—and that meeting was an “undramatic” one with a subordinate to the Minister rather than the Minister himself.
They have let others, such a former MFA official, put it in context in the media.
That context was that the op-ed threat comes on the anniversary of the annexation of Crimea and is consistent with public rhetoric in the Russian media about that anniversary.
Furthermore, the risk for general East-West conflict is greater than since 1990, he said.
On the other hand, he also said that the ambassador probably took the initiative to deliver this “clumsy blow” on his own and wondered whether it was really part of a changed policy toward Denmark. There was no mention of NATO or BMD or any specific responses or context for Danes to reconsider their policies either way.
Furthermore, when the Danish Foreign Minister did address the issue publicly on Saturday afternoon, his response lacked belligerency. What he said was:
“I must say that the topic of his remarks makes me wonder. I think fundamentally, it is unacceptable to threaten such serious things. I also think it is the wrong signal at the wrong time because we are currently trying to dampen the rhetoric and the conflict with Russia. So I would appeal strongly to the Russian ambassador in this country, but certainly also to the government in Moscow, that you stop this hateful rhetoric and that you stop threatening things that are completely out of proportion what we’re talking about.”
“Russia knows full well that NATO’s missile defence is defensive and not targeted at them. We disagree with Russia on many important issues, but we also cooperate, for example, in the Arctic and it is important that the tone between us does not escalate.”
“So far we do not intend to do more about it here. That being said, much of the time we also hear it from Putin, and if one were to react every time you would be really busy. I merely note that this is not a tone that we want in Denmark. I do not want to contribute by escalating the situation further, but basically we obviously mediated, and we have established that it is not a way to communicate, and that it is too serious of a matter for them to threaten that way.”
In general, the reaction of Danish policy makers is that the Russian ambassador’s foray into nuclear threats via public diplomacy is really just part of overwrought nationalist politics for a domestic audience and probably nothing for Denmark to worry about.
Given this attitude, Danish policy will perpetuate the status quo through the upcoming general elections this summer or even until the end of the current defense agreement in 2017—barring a more severe provocation such as a SAS airliner colliding with a Russian military aircraft over the Danish straits as it takes off from Copenhagen International Airport.
Given the growing propensity for Russian recklessness in the air, that’s not a possibility to be discounted.
Dr. Gary Schaub, Jr. is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Military Studies at the University of Copenhagen.
He formerly served on the faculty of the Air War College and the School of Advanced Air & Space Studies at Maxwell AFB.
He can be reached at **@****ku.dk.
Editor’s Note: According to a story in The Copenhagen Post published March 21, 2015:
Martin Lidegaard, the Danish foreign minister, was not pleased with Vanin’s comments.
“This is obviously unacceptable,” Lidegaard said.
“Russia knows very well that NATO’s missile defence system is defensive.
We disagree with Russia on many important things, but it is important that the tone between us remains as positive as possible.”
Also see these recent two stories on Second Line of Defense:
2015-03-21 One thing which long range lift airplanes allow a country to do is to operate globally.
This point was driven home once again by the RAF flying to Vanuatu in support of the international aid effort to the cyclone-hit Pacific islands.
According to an article on the UK MoD website published on March 19, 2015:
The C-17 Globemaster arrived at 2pm local time today (Thursday), carrying 1,640 shelter kits which can house families of five people and more than 1,900 solar lanterns with inbuilt mobile phone chargers.
The Department for International Development (DfID) supplies will help protect some of the most vulnerable people affected by the cyclone, especially women and children.
An RAF spokesperson said:
All of the RAF crew and support personnel out here are delighted to be able help the people of the region alongside our international partners.
Similar to our recent humanitarian mission to the Philippines, the RAF has been able to respond rapidly to support DfID in helping people in need.
In just a few days we have deployed from the UK to the other side of the world and delivered vital aid to the Red Cross for distribution. We are now fully integrated within the international effort and look forward to assisting as much as we can over the coming days.
RAF C-17 fleet aircraft previously provided humanitarian assistance during the aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, as well as the Pakistan and Chilean earthquakes and the Philippines disaster zone.
The aircraft are capable of rapid delivery of troops and all types of cargo around the world.
It can carry out steep approaches at relatively slow speeds, meaning it can operate into small, austere airfields as short as 3,500 feet long and only 90 feet wide.
The RAF C-17 at Bauerfield International Airport Vanuatu on the 19 March 2015 delivering vital UK Aid. RAF/MOD Crown Copyright 2015
And an additional story on the Royal Air Force website added this as well:
International Development Secretary Justine Greening said: “Britain’s ability to rapidly respond to humanitarian disasters on the other side of the world is something to be incredibly proud of.
“Cyclone Pam’s trail of destruction has left thousands of people without their home and access to power. Our emergency shelter kits and solar lanterns, which have arrived thanks to the swift and invaluable support of the Royal Air Force, will help meet people’s basic needs.
“Britain stands ready to assist further to ensure supplies get to those in need and will continue to support the Government of Vanuatu as part of the wider Commonwealth effort.”
Air Commodore David Lee, Air Officer for Air Mobility, said:
“The RAF is pleased to offer its support and help to the people of the region, alongside our international partners.
“Similar to our humanitarian mission to the Philippines following Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, the RAF has responded rapidly to support DFiD in helping people in need. In just a few days, we have mobilised and deployed from the UK to the other side of the world, delivering crucial aid to the Red Cross for distribution.
“We are now fully integrated with the international effort and look forward to assisting as much as we can over the coming days.”
I have had the opportunity to track the evolution of the Osprey from seeing a small number of planes on the tarmac at New River to watching it mature and revolutionize the assault force.
Watching that growth and development path has been facilitated over the years by meeting with, and talking with Art “Turbo” Tomassetti when he first came to Eglin AFB and now after the end of his distinguished Marine Corps career he is working the F-35B issues from the Lockheed Martin side of the fence.
When I first met “Turbo” in 2010 there were very few buildings at Eglin to support the F-35 program.
Now planes are coming out of the production chute and the services and the partners are working with the planes and preparing for their entry into service.
In this interview, “Turbo” provides an update on the F-35B preparing for entry into service and provides some perspectives on the way ahead, as he always done in our interviews.
Question: When I was at Fort Worth recently, you were traveling. I assume that with the Marines focused on the entry into service of the F-35B this year, you are making the tours at the key spots where the plane is coming to life and getting ready for IOC?
Tomassetti: That indeed is what I am doing.
My typical flow is I try to get to the places where we have the airplanes operating every month and each is for a different reason.
I visit to see how they’re doing on progressing to close out SDD at Pax River to Beaufort to check on Pilot training and to Yuma to see how they’re progressing on preparation for IOC and OT-1as they will be the predominant entity conducting that event on the USS Wasp in May.
OT-1 will be a team event with personnel from OT in Edwards and from VMFAT-501 from Beaufort supporting as well.
The key focus of OT-1 is verifying that we can take the airplanes, move in from a land home base, put them out at sea, operate them at sea, and bring them home, which is what the Marine Corps would do in most cases, should they be called upon to go support an activity somewhere on the globe.
I will be at Yuma next week and looking to find ways we can support them most effectively.
Question: There is a story out there which highlights that the Marines are drawing upon USAF maintainers in getting ready for USMC IOC.
To the unvarnished eye this is a negative comment, but does this not highlight one of the goals of the programs, namely cross service and cross partner maintenance approaches?
Staff Sgt. with VMFA-121. VMFA-12 is the first F-35 squadron doing its organic maintenance. Credit: SLD
Tomassetti: It does.
As we talked about when I was at Eglin, a clear opportunity with a joint aircraft it is to have joint maintenance.
Commonality allows you to do things that you can’t do if you don’t have common airplanes.
The notion that every base is an isolated entity unto itself and that people will only have expertise to do their own thing is something we need to get past.
I think the world in the future is going to demand a lot more integration and cooperation than we’ve seen in the past in order to be successful.
That provides options as well. If you look at F-35 as a common global system, that’s much different than looking at it as an isolated system or one-off thing that has unique support requirements.
I think back to the days of Desert Storm where everybody came to play, but not everybody could play together because we didn’t have the interoperability that is built into this system from the ground up.
Question: A challenge of building a software upgradeable program is to understand how capable the initial planes actually are. They will progress over time, and in a real sense never be finished.
How capable do you see the initial F-35B to be deployed by the Marines for combat?
Tomassetti: I hear the same things and people say, “How can you go initial operational capability before you’re done developing the airplane?”
I agree with you we should really never be done developing airplane.
We should always be looking to improve it and that is the plan going forward.
We already talk about follow-on developments because we know technology’s going to change, tactics are going to change, the threat’s going to change.
We have to keep up with that.
The airplane never becomes static in terms of its growth.
Why would the Marine Corps declare IOC with something at this stage of the game?
I think you have to look at, if called upon to go someplace and do something. You are the person in charge. You would like to send your best assets forward.
Your best assets are those that can accomplish the mission and the ones that can keep your people safe doing the mission.
Look at what the Marine Corps has in its inventory as an example look at the airplane I grew up in, the Harrier. I went to Desert Storm in a Harrier that was a day-attack airplane.
It did not have systems to conduct night operations yet we conducted operations at night.
It is a subsonic airplane with a limited weapons envelope, but it got the job done because the people were well-trained.
The airplane was the best it could be at the time, and that’s what the Marine Corps had in its arsenal to do the job with.
Now the F-35B is in the Marine Corps’ arsenal and they look at the best platform to go do whatever the mission is.
I think today, the F35B has all of the attributes to excel in a number of mission areas and why would you not choose to send your best system out to accomplish the mission?
I think that’s where the Marine Corps is and that they realize that the airplane today is already getting to the point where it’s meeting or exceeding the capabilities of legacy airplanes.
In addition to that, knowing that you’re probably going to send the F35s with a mix of what you already have. Having the F35 out there with the legacy airplanes only makes the legacy airplanes better.
From the outset, the F-35 will have an additive effect in the battlespace and will enhance the lethality and survivability of the other air assets and of the ground force as well.
Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter prepares to make a vertical landing aboard Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., March 21, 2013. This marks the first vertical landing of a Marine Corps F-35B outside of a testing environment. (Cpl. Ken Kalemkarian/released)
Question: Another aspect, which is confusing, is the notion of IOC itself. IOC is a beginning point; not a statement of full maturity.
How should one interpret IOC?
Tomassetti: I try to tell people that if you go to Yuma on the day before that declaration and look around the squadron and look around the Flightline and go the day after the declaration, and look around the squadron and look around Flightline, I don’t think you’ll see anything different.
But what does change is the status of the squadron.
That squadron knows that they can be called upon to go somewhere.
That squadron commander knows his squadron is conducting their training when they’re evaluating their readiness, when they’re doing their inspections, when they’re participating at exercises, whatever the case may be. He’s looking at it through the lens of my folks need to be able to, if called upon, go someplace, and be effective and to meet the mission objectives.
That puts your mindset and how you approach what you do day-to-day in a little different prospect than, “Hey, I’m still just in this developing, maturing, on-my-way to something phase where my flying is mostly just focused on expanding my knowledge on the airplane.”
Now the squadron commander and his team are focused on going somewhere and doing something effective in support of the deployed force.
It is not about tests; it is about mission success.
Question: I want to return to the challenge of understanding software upgradeability. There is a constant problem of understanding that blocks of software are simply bundles of added capabilities; they are not the definer, a level of maturity necessary to use the airplane.
How do you view the growth process after IOC?
Tomassetti: When you have the airplane in hand and actually start using it, you’re going to do what you do with every other system, once you have it; you learn how to maximize what it can do.
It may or may not be what you envisioned in the initial proposition. It may or not be what you envisioned during development, but when you get the airplane and you’re operating it, you will find the way to get the most out of what that airplane can do.
The other key is that now as we put to the airplane and the ALIS 2.0 version of maintenance in the hands of the squadron in Yuma, they now become part of the process. I’m not saying that they haven’t been, but they’re now in the realm of we’re also now being able to contribute to the next iteration of the airplane.
They will find things out.
They will be part of the solution to make the airplane better as we move forward.
That’s a good thing, because while the Developmental Test team does their piece and a lot of what I just talked about is the things we would normally expect, the Operational Test team to do, because of where we are and how the program’s been set up, you now also have fleet squadrons that can contribute to that knowledge base and maturation process as well.
We just need to be able to collect all that information, make sense of it, and then figure out how to make the airplane better based on all that experience.
If you looked at the mission of the airplane and whether you talk about it in air-to-air or in an air-to-ground sense, it has to be able to locate, identify and prosecute targets. Today, that’s not necessarily achieved by making the wings bigger or making the tail different or changing the configuration or the look of the airplane.
An F-35B Lightning II is shown over the Mojave Desert as it arrives for testing at Edwards AFB, CA in April 2014. (Lockheed Martin photo by Dane Wiedmann.)
It’s done by changing the systems, the inside of the airplane, making the processors faster so that they can go through that cycle faster, which makes enables it to find and execute against targets more rapidly and more effectively.
And this true not just for the F-35, but for the information it can deliver to the other aircraft it operates with to make them more effective.
Identifying the target is probably the real key here, is not only tell me that what’s out in front of me: is it a tank , is it a truck , an airplane or a ship but tell me what kind of tank it is. Tell me how fast it’s moving or how long it’s been parked where it is or if it’s getting ready to fire. That kind of information processing is going to be done pretty much through software, not through bolting something on the airplane or changing the shape of something on the airplane.
What you’re going to do now is use and control the electromagnetic spectrum by changing boxes and software inside the airplane that no one will ever see from the outside.
You’re right. It’s a little bit different because folks in the past when you change airplanes, they’re used to seeing that change.
They see that new pod or new bump or that new antenna or it got bigger. It has more pylons or those kinds of things.
I don’t think you’re going to see the same thing in the lifecycle of F-35.
It’s going to keep getting better but as you described, it’s likely going to look the same from the outside.
Question: We put in our latest Defense News commentary the simple proposition that the F-35 is coming at a point for the services and the partners where they are looking at its contribution to the transformation of their forces, not simply adding a silver bullet to the holster.
How do you view the transformation process?
The F-35B Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force (ITF) is shown conducting flight test operations with aircraft BF-01, an F-35B short take-off/vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), following a January 2014 snow storm at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. The ITF is currently conducting Icing Evaluation testing with aircraft BF-05 at the 96th Test Wing’s McKinley Climatic Laboratory (MCL) at Eglin AFB. (Lockheed Martin photo by Layne Laughter.)
Tomassetti: It is twofold.
On the one hand, it is about operating legacy aircraft with the F-35 and learning how to make these legacy aircraft better and to use them differently as the services learn what the F-35 does and how it does it.
For the Marines, this means that the Av-8Bs and F/A-18s, which remain in the force, will not be used the same way they have been used before. You have to figure out how to integrate them. Understanding how do they operate differently and more effectively with the F-35s, and how do the F-35s draw upon the legacy aircraft to gain more significant effects from operating together.
On the other hand, the F-35 is simply not like a legacy aircraft. We need to learn how to operate them together to learn their special effects when so doing for joint F-35 operations, or anticipating the day when we have an all F-35 fleet.
The pilot and maintainer evolution will be critical to this as new pilots and maintainers enter the force now with no history/habits from legacy aircraft.
All of us old folks carry a lot of baggage from wherever we came from. It’s not a good thing or a bad thing. It’s just reality.
We’ve carried that with us. It shapes how we think about things. We’re going to bring a breed of folks into the airplane shortly that is going to have a fresh perspective, that is a different generation which grew up with X-Box 1 and Play Station not Pong and Space Invaders. They’re used to processing a lot of information.
They’re used to speed in information.
They are going to find out ways to do things with this airplane that we haven’t even thought of.
We have these big milestones we’ve got to track through to be successful in that but what those youngsters are going to bring to the table when they get their hands on this airplane and start putting their new perspective on it I think is going to be dramatically different over time.
For past interviews with Art “Turbo” Tomassetti see the following:
2015-03-15 The F-35 is not simply a replacement airplane; it is a 21st century air combat system embedded within a unique global enterprise.
On the one hand, the commonality of the software on the F-35 allows for allies to develop missiles for “their” F-35s and have “their” missiles available for export to other F-35 partners.
The commonality of the software and the testing of missile release on the various models means that if a Joint Strike Missile can be carried by a Norwegian F-35A it can be carried by every other F-35A in the global fleet.
Not only does this save significant money it makes divisions of labor in developing weapons for the global fleet as well.
This point has been driven home by the recent agreement between Australia and Norway whereby the Aussies are collaborating on the Norwegian Joint Strike Missile.
The Norwegian Ministry of Defence and the Australian Department of Defence have agreed to cooperate on the development of the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), following talks between Norwegian State Secretary Mr. Øystein Bø and his Australian colleague Mr. Stuart Robert during the Norwegian State visit to Australia this week.
The agreement seeks to support the introduction of an advanced maritime strike weapon on the F-35 in the early 2020’s time frame.
Although far apart geographically, Norway and Australia share many of the same challenges.
We are both maritime nations on the periphery of our immediate regions, with a large land mass and even larger maritime territories, yet relatively limited populations.
This means that we have to maximize the effects of the capabilities that we invest in to ensure that they cover as much of the spectrum of operations as possible, said Norwegian Minister of Defence, Ms. Ine Eriksen Søreide.
JSM with F-35A Credit: US Air Force/Forsvarsdepartementet
Norway and Australia have maintained a close dialogue for several years regarding the JSM within the framework of the multinational F-35-partnership.
This agreement takes the process one step further, with Australia agreeing to provide expertise in missile control and guidance systems.
The JSM is already a very capable missile, but with the support of Australia, we hope to make it even better. Though Australia is still a few years away from making any final decisions on its future maritime strike capability, we are encouraged by the interest they have shown for both the missile and for the capabilities of Norwegian industry.
We should now continue talks between our two governments, and aim to formalize this agreement in the near future, said Norwegian Minister of Defence, Ms. Ine Eriksen Søreide.
The Joint Strike Missile is an advanced long range precision strike missile, tailor made to fit the internal weapons bay of the F-35
The F-35, combined with the JSM, provide the ability to both locate and defeat heavily defended targets, both on land and at sea, at extended ranges, significantly enhancing the strategic capabilities of the aircraft. The missile utilizes advanced navigation, a passive infrared seeker, low signature and superior manoeuvrability to ensure mission effectiveness, thereby providing user nations with significantly enhanced combat capabilities.
Norway intends to procure up to 52 F-35A aircraft to enhance the ability of its Armed Forces to meet future security challenges, with first delivery planned for late 2015.
Norway’s first four aircraft will be based at the F-35 International Pilot Training Centre at Luke Air Force Base Arizona, while the first F-35 will arrive in Norway in 2017.
Australia has so far committed to procuring 72 F-35A, out of a planned 100, with the first two aircraft delivered in 2014.
On the other hand, there are three final assembly lines in the making for the F-35.
The main final assembly line, the one designed for large quantity production is in Fort Worth, and the line in Cameri is designed to assemble Italian and European jets and the Japanese are building a final assembly line for their F-35s as well.
March 12, 2015 saw the first Italian assembled jet roll out of the Cameri facility.
In a press release dated March 12, 2015, the event was highlighted.
History was achieved today when the first Italian F-35A Lightning II rolled out of the Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility here.
This production milestone marks the first F-35A assembled internationally and the first of eight aircraft currently being assembled at Cameri.
The aircraft, designated as AL-1, will now proceed to additional check-out activities before its anticipated first flight later this year…..
The FACO will build all Italian F-35A and F-35B aircraft, is programmed to build F-35As for the Royal Netherlands Air Force and retains the capacity to deliver to other European partners in the future.
In December 2014, it was selected by the U.S. Department of Defense as the F-35 Lightning II Heavy Airframe Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul and Upgrade facility for the European region.
The 101-acre facility includes 22 buildings and more than one million square feet of covered work space, housing 11 assembly stations, and five maintenance, repair, overhaul, and upgrade bays.
The first full F-35A wing section was recently completed and will soon be shipped to Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas, F-35 production line for final assembly.
For our Special Report on Cameri and the Italian approach, see the following:
The slide show above shows photos of the roll out as well as of wings being delivered to the final assembly line in Fort Worth.
The Italians are thus doing final assembly of their own planes, some for the Netherlands, building wings for the global fleet and providing a significant maintenance facility for the global fleet at Cameri as well.
2015-03-10 In an interesting piece published in the Air and Space Power Journal, Dr. Robert C. Owen takes a look at how to rethink tanking support for deployed forces.
Technology is emerging which can allow for innovations in C2 to allow for distributed operations, and new air platforms such as the F-35 and the Osprey certainly facilitate dispersal and aggregation of force.
And the former head of the Pacific Air Force introduced the concept of Rapid Raptor in part to ensure that a dispersed force could enhance its survival and contribute to a significant increase in lethality.
The Marines have been following a dispersed operations strategy for some time, and the KC-130J has been a key facilitator of such operations.
Functioning as tanker, supply ship, C2 and weapons carrier, the Marines have leveraged this versatile platform for provide for a very flexible and dispersible force.
In fact, the entire MAGTF concept is one of scalable force.
Another key development is the addition of new tanker assets by allies as well.
In the Pacific, the Aussies and Singaporeans are adding up to 13 new KC-30A tankers, the tanker of choice in the current Iraq operations, and the new A400M is coming to the Pacific as well and can perform lift and tanking functions as well and can be considered part of rethinking distributed operations in an area like the Pacific.
And it is also the case that the deployment of significant numbers of A330MRTT tankers in the Middle East allows the GCC states to operate a flying air base to support various nations combat capabilities.
The deployment of such capabilities broaden significantly the assets available for the tanking of allied air forces, and of course, tankers can land and provide fuel for land based systems as well.
KC-130Js attached to Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response from Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadrons-352 (shown) and 252, fly together in formation by the USS Bataan, Mediterranean Sea, June 15, 2014. (Official Marine Corps photo by Staff Sgt. Tanner M. Iskra, SP-MAGTF Crisis Response, 2nd Marine Division Combat Camera/Released)
Owens develops a concept of sea land basing of tanking support, somewhat like a spider’s web concept.
Essentially, SLB is a concept for the agile disaggregation of air refueling forces among austere military and civil airfields possessing minimal support facilities for large aircraft other than runways.
The signature characteristic of SLB would be the dedicated integration of at least one “missionized” base ship with an expeditionary air refueling unit of up to about 20 aircraft. This ship would house the command, logistics, maintenance, personnel, and other elements needed to support dispersed expeditionary air refueling operations at several airfields simultaneously.
At a given time, one or two of those airfields would serve as forward operating locations (FOL) able to service and protect aircraft and crews assigned to the SLB unit and/or those transiting through from bases or aircraft carriers located further to the rear.
In addition to the FOLs, an SLB ship would service a small number of “hide” airfields, providing protection and limited services only. The main difference between FOLs and hides is that the former would offer robust, expeditionary aircraft refueling support while the latter would not.
Otherwise, both types of base would be manned and resourced on a minimal and highly mobile basis, capable of being disembarked and set up or packed up and reembarked in just a few hours.
A key aspect of enabling such an operation is highlighting the role of aircraft which can both tank and lift in austere conditions.
As the following figure indicates, tanker aircraft capable of operating from austere airfields could disperse more widely than airliner-derived designs and operate further forward—with good effects on their survivability and off-load capacities at their points of need.
It may also be useful, as the Marines have done with their KC-130 fleet, to consider the secondary airlift and other uses of aircraft matched to the SLB mission.The austere airfield characteristics of these aircraft would fit them well for logistics operations and for support of maneuvering land forces as well as combat air units operating at forward locations or at main bases with damaged runways or limited parking areas.
And it is from this perspective that Owens considers the importance of the coming of the A400M to the global fleet.
Despite—or perhaps because of—its international pedigree, the A400M offers performance compatibilities worthy of serious consideration by US planners. Operationally, it can utilize virtually the same runways and parking areas as the KC-130J but with markedly better characteristics of range/off-load, speed, and cargo capacity.
Depending on range, the A400M will deliver from two to three times more fuel to receiver aircraft than the KC-130J. It is significantly smaller than the KC-46A, but in the context of SLB, the A400M can offset its relative limitations through forward basing.
Airbus Defence and Space has formally delivered the first of four Airbus A400M military transport ordered by the Royal Malaysian Air Force. The handover also marks the first delivery of an A400M to an export customer outside the original launch nations. The aircraft was accepted at the A400M Final Assembly Line in Seville, Spain on 9 March by Chief of Malaysian Defence Force General Tan Sri Dr. Zulkifeli. Credit: Airbus Defence and Space, March 10, 2015.
For example, in the scenario of supporting a refueling orbit 250 nm west of Manila, a KC-46 operating from Tinian would have 113,000 pounds of fuel available for off-load while an A400M operating from Tacloban would offer about 90,000 pounds. Moreover, the KC-46 would burn about 100,000 pounds of fuel performing its mission—a ratio of about .88 burn/off-load. The A400M, meanwhile, would consume 48,000 pounds for a .53 burn/offload ratio.
Depending on operational circumstances, then, an SLB fleet element of A400Ms could greatly reduce the logistical costs and fuel infrastructures required to support combat operations. Once again, the aircraft’s probe-and-drogue capabilities would limit it to the support of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, but it generally would do so more effectively than KC-130Js and with significantly improved flexibility and resilience over KC-46s.
Finally, the aircraft’s large cargo box and 41-ton cargo capacity would make it a better airlift partner to the C-5/C-17 fleet than either of the currently programmed tankers. At the moment, Air Force and Army planners contemplating movements into austere airfields confront the reality that C-130s can get into a wide range of airfields but can carry comparatively little while C-17s carry much more but also rut, gouge, and otherwise render unpaved surfaces unusable after only a few passes.
A fleet element of flex-role A400s could fill that gap. They could provide substantial lift over strategic and tactical distances in support of main air bases degraded by enemy attacks; furthermore, they could deliver combat-relevant mechanized, engineering, and air defense units closer to their points of need than any aircraft or combination of aircraft in the Air Force program-of-record fleet.
It is a pleasure to see an analyst who thinks about evolving concepts of operations up against new technologies to sort through ways to think about the way ahead.
We have argued that no platform fights along, and in Owens analysis this is clearly understood.
He concludes in part as follows:
The article noted that a modest fleet of A400Ms would increase the number of bases available for air refueling operations, optimize the operational opportunities presented by SLB, and provide valuable augmentation to the airlift fleet.
The costs of such an aircraft could be offset by earlier retirements of geriatric KC-135 and aging C-130H aircraft, and by reduced purchases of other tankers following the current KC-46A program.
Taken together these considerations of conceptual viability, capabilities of alternative aircraft, and the availability of cost offsets suggest that the Air Force would do well to carefully examine and test SLB with an eye toward achieving initial operational capability in the four-to-six-year midterm.
Accordingly, the Air Force should initiate an aggressive study-and test program for SLB in the near term.
