Aboard the USS Wasp: Participants in Operational Testing Provide a Progress Report

06/09/2015

2015-06-09 By Robbin Laird

On May 26, 2015, when journalists visited the USS Wasp to engage with the ship’s crew and personnel involved in operational testing, a panel was held at the end of the visit with several Marine Corps and Navy participants in OT-1.

The material presented provided a good overview on the tests and the progress to date.

Because only a small number of people were able to interact with the panel, but very good quality information was provided, in this article, I want to highlight some of the material provided during the panel discussion.

In a companion piece, I will combine the discussions with the XO of the ship, the CO of VMX-22 and one of the maintainers aboard the ship.

The participants in the panel were as follows:

Captain Andrew Smith, USN, USS Wasp Executive Officer, ESG 2;

Major Richard Rusnok, USMC, VMX-22 F-35B Det Officer-in-Charge, F-35 Detachment, Edwards AFB and the lead planner for OT-1;

Major Aric Liberman, USMC, VMFA-121 Special Projects Officer, Yuma, Arizona;

Major Brendan Walsh, USMC, FMFA-121 Operations Officer, Yuma, Arizona;

Major Paul Hoist, USMC, VMFA-501, Director of Safety and Standardization, Beaufort, SC;

SSgt William Sullivan, USMC, VMX-22 Airframes Division Chief, F-35 Detachment Edwards AFB;

Lt. Cdr. Neil Mathieson, Royal Navy, UK F-35B Ship Air Integration Lead, UK MOD< Abbeywood, Bristol, UK who identified his role and task as follows:

“I am here with a team of officers working with the US Marine Corps and US Navy to observe OT and then take any lessons learned to our Queen Elizabeth class carrier:”

Lt. Cdr. Beth Kitchen, Royal Navy, OT-1Evoultions Lead, VFMA-501, Beaufort, SC who identified herself as follows:

“I’m the Senior UK Engineering Officer at 501 Squadron at Marine Corps Air Base Beaufort. With the purposes of this detachment, I have been intrinsic to the maintenance organization, coordinating all maintenance resolutions where we’ve identified that there might be differences between how they’re executed on sea and on land.”

Also joining was Major Mike “Gravy” Roundtree, who discussed maintenance issues as the maintainers were working on the planes for the afternoon sorties and exercises.  The last time we saw Roundtree was when he flew the 199th sortie of the F-35B on August 24, 2012 at Eglin AFB, then the home of the Warlords.  He is still with the Warlords but they have been relocated to their permanent home at Beaufort, SC.

https://sldinfo.com/we-are-on-the-front-side-of-something-big/

He described his role as follows: “I’m the Aircraft Maintenance officer at the Marine Attack Training Squadron 501 at Beaufort. I’m serving as an operational training officer to call, train all the pilots to landing on the ship.”

Captain Smith, the XO of the ship, provided an overview on activities aboard the USS WASP.

The primary purpose of this event was to take what we’ve done with the F-35 in developmental testing and handing the effort now to the operators.

DT1 and DT2 were very data driven exercises, where we went out and tried to exercise the aircraft in order to get test points.

What we’re trying to do now is to develop the tactics, techniques, and procedures of operating this aircraft at sea effectively and efficiently.

From the perspective of planning this event, we have taken five different squadrons and multiple other organizations, technical experts across the joint program office, industry operational test team, we brought them out as well.

Captain Smith, the Executive Officer, USS Wasp. Credit Photo: USN
Captain Smith, the Executive Officer, USS Wasp. Credit Photo: USN

And the idea was to take six aircraft, which is the same size as the Marine expeditionary unit, which would be a normally deployed six-plane detachment which is part of that rotation, and take them out here and exercise them aboard the ship.

We can then learn how to make this aircraft function as a normal deployed aircraft outside of the normal test, developmental test environment.

Our primary focus here has been upon supportability.

That was one of our major emphases.

If you look at what General Davis and his team put together as priorities for what they wanted us to look at while we’re out here, the vast majority of those were focused on supportability.

LT CDR Kitchen together along with the other maintenance officers, put together an extensive list of items that we wanted to make sure that were functional at sea.

That goes from the mundane like changing a tire to the complex, like changing an engine.

Doing those evolutions at sea is a different animal.

You’ve got chains, you’ve got deck motion, you’ve got all those space constraints that you saw down in the hangar deck that you don’t have ashore.

We want to make sure that any differences that we saw from support ashore to afloat were properly documented and we make those changes with the ultimate goal of making the deployment for the very first squadron that’s going to go to sea as easy as possible.

From the effectiveness side of the equation, it was getting ten pilots out here and used to operating around the ship, and getting the ship used to operating 35’s on board, getting the deck crew used to moving an aircraft that is much larger than what they’re used to operating with on this somewhat smaller deck than what we would see on a normal big-deck aircraft carrier.

Functioning as a team, and that’s really what we’ve done over the first week.

And I think based on what we saw this morning, you could see how efficient the operations have become just over that one-week time span.

Question: How have you done with regard to supportability of the aircraft on board the ship?

Lt. Cdr. Kitchen: I’ll start by touching on the main solutions that we’ve conducted.

A large proportion of those main solutions that we’ve conducted have not directly been required as a part of the service of the aircraft themselves.

We have gone over and above basic maintenance requirements.

Among those things we have done over an above any basic maintenance requirements include: conducting demonstrations for installation removal of the engine, the lift back, and the integrated compartment, the canopy, and the ejection seat…..

At sea, we obviously have a moving deck.

We have looked at how we tie down the aircraft from very calm sea states up to heaviest possible sea states.

And these have taken a huge amount of time.

The good news is that we have gone through all of these evolutions, we have identified lessons, and majority evolutions we are confident that we can now conduct at sea.

The real difference between DT2 and DT1 and OT is the fact that this first time that Marines have been responsible for conducting maintenance.

So part of that verification was not just ensuring that we ensured that the equipment, the tools, the procedures in the ship environment worked but also that we trained the maintainers correctly.

And that’s why this detachment has been hugely a success not just from a flying perspective but a maintenance one as well.

Question: With regard to the UK personnel, it is clear that you view the USS Wasp operational trials as an important input to the preparation for operations aboard your own new carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth. 

Could you comment on how you are leveraging the working relationship with the USN and USMC to get ready for your own carrier, one which is specifically built for the F-35B?

Lt. Cdr. Kitchen:  UK personnel have been working with the Marine Corps now for about two and a half years.

I personally have been here in the States for a year working with the Marine Corps at Marine Corps Air Base Beaufort.

Our programs are aligned and they’re working in partnership in order to develop the capability of the 35B.

In terms of this ship deployment, we’ve got other UK maintainers who have been a part of the detachment.

We’ve got personnel who are working within the power line with the avionics department as well as any maintenance control.

And they are able to contribute to the maintenance effort in exactly the same way as the Marines are.

They are trained in the same way in the schoolhouse down at Eglin.

But the Marines also they are learning to look at how the UK conducts maintenance and how that can possibly be involved in the future.

Lt. Cdr. Neil Mathieson: As I mentioned during introductions, myself and the team from the UK are here observing OT and taking a lessons from the Marine Corps and the US Navy back to the Queen Elizabeth.

And the great news is we have seen a lot this week and validated a lot of our assumptions.

As you said, Queen Elizabeth has been specifically designed around about the thirty of the F-35Bs. 

So a lot of the infrastructure, the support issues, how the deck is operated, a lot of what we have seen this week has validated all of our assumptions, all design assumptions we have for the ship and puts us in a very good place.

And obviously the partnership with the Marine Corps is crucial to all of that and it has been a fantastic opportunity for us to come over and see what the USN and USMC have been doing.

Squadron Leader Nichol at Beaufort MCAS standing in front of an RAF F-35 jet which is part of the training effort. Credit: Second Line of Defense
Squadron Leader Nichol at Beaufort MCAS standing in front of an RAF F-35 jet which is part of the training effort. Credit: Second Line of Defense 

Question: When you start getting B-35Bs in Britain?

Lt. Cdr. Neil Mathieson: We already are getting them.

Our first squadron is being set up alongside VMFA-501 at Beaufort. 

In 2018, that squadron will “lift and shift” from Beaufort and stand up as 617 Squadron in the UK.

Our presence at Beaufort will grow to approximately 250 at Beaufort.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/dambusters-to-be-next-lightning-ii-squadron-18072013

Question: What has the British team learned from these trials that requires more work? 

What about the deck, for example?

Lt. Cdr. Neil Mathieson: The US and Royal Navies are certainly aware of the impact of the impact of F-35B jet launch on the deck. 

You will have seen on the flight deck something with a slightly different color coating.

That is a product that working with the Naval Research Lab as a research program with regard to high temperature deck coatings.

The UK is working hand in glove with N95 to understand that deck coating improvements and take it across with application on Queen Elizabeth.

Commercial issues are involved as well as there is a company in the UK that does this work as well as a company in the US that does the work.

And it’s really a research program just right now where we are measuring temperatures in the deck structure and learning if that product is going to be good enough to coat with.

So that’s one area we are learning every single day.

And actually one of many that we’ve seen throughout the week where we see an issue, we’re working the issue and we’re confident that there will be a solution by the end of the day.

Lt. Cdr. Kitchen: I can cover maintenance supervision lessons.

I think from my perspective this has been a very positive detachment.

Because what we’ve actually demonstrated is almost all of the maintenance evolutions that have been attempted we are now confident we can now conduct at sea.

There have been lessons identified where some of the equipment doesn’t necessarily interact with the ship’s facilities.

But these are all things that can be easily rectified.

For example, we wouldn’t be able to conduct a lift fan movement installation today only because we need an additional shackle that interfaces between the ship’s overhead crane and our lifting equipment.

This is a very simple piece of equipment to source and with this detachment it can be resolved.

It’s the same with a number of issues like that.

So, from a program perspective this has been successful.

A lot of observations will be sent back to the joint planning office and there are people who will be taking those lessons.

I’m not going to be requesting many procedural changes to joint technical documentation.

The tools that maintainers use though, I’ll allow SSG Sullivan to elaborate in a second, all seem to be fit for its purpose.

Even things like the automated logistic information system have gone exceptionally well here.

We haven’t struggled with connectivity.

None of the maintainers have reported that it has been any slower than it is on shore.

Which is a huge positive step for us.

Every detachment will have lessons to learn so we can evolve and make everything better and quicker.

And those are things that we are going to be taking back.

But the headline news is we are confident that we can maintain these aircraft at sea for periods of time.

SSgt William Sullivan: As far as tooling and things that we’ve used while on the ship, we’ve been all around successful.

I can’t think of any issues we’ve had aside from possibly a few things not going where they should with the extra shackle.

The aircraft jacking, which his obviously kind of a precarious activity, went extremely well.

I was very impressed with that.

As far as at sea versus on shore maintenance, we haven’t seen a whole lot of things go wrong.

Things have been going very smoothly from my point of view.

And obviously there are things as far as being on the ship that will take more time.

Obviously transcending decks and chaining aircraft and things of that nature are different at sea than ashore.

But as far as I’m concerned it’s gone very well.

4 members of the panel aboard the USS WASP. Credit: Second Line of Defense
4 members of the panel aboard the USS WASP. Credit: Second Line of Defense

Question: What about stealth maintenance?

SSgt William Sullivan:  The cell coatings on the aircraft F35 obviously are very advanced and have held up extremely well.

The recording of signature health of the stealth coatings has all gone successfully as well.

Lt. Cdr. Kitchen then went back to the earlier question about lessons learned to date with regard to maintenance.

The actual engine installation removal demonstration, which was conducted last night, that was relatively straightforward.

Our biggest concern was whether there would be sufficient space within the hangar to maneuver one engine out and obviously relocate another one in.

But the actual evolution itself is not any different from conducting it on shore so we are confident that that can occur.

One of the bigger successes of this detachment is actually embarking a power module onto the ship, which is about two thirds of the engine.

It was carried on the MV-22, and that arrived last Wednesday, there was a custom made skid that was designed by Pratt and Whitney and put it into the MV-22, it was then offloaded, and then we’ve been able to put it into the hangar and been able to prove that we can move it from the skid it was designed to put into the aircraft onto either a container or one of the maintenance vans in order to actually conduct the maintenance evolution itself.

That is going to be disembarking tomorrow.

That ensures that we can now replenish a spare module at sea.

It’s a huge achievement to be able to demonstrate that.

Question: What about flying the aircraft on and off the ship?

 How did that go?

Captain Andrew Smith: The aircraft itself flies fantastically.

It’s an incredibly smooth flying airplane that is much easier to fly from a pilot perspective than the Harrier was, especially around the ship and the ship environment.

The training we did for this detachment was much less than the training we did in a Harrier fleet to get to a ship.

And that’s just a testament to the ease of the airplane to fly, the pilot vehicle interface, as well as the simulators that we have on shore that allow us to recreate to a high degree of detail the ship environment.

We took pilots from across the spectrum. From East Coast, West Coast, Harrier, Hornet, two-seat, single seat, ship experience, no ship experience since flight school and we put them on this deck very easily in a very short amount of time with a short amount of adapting to the ship environment.

And you saw the results today.

It is a testament to the ease of the airplane, to its design specifications to how they execute those design specifications, and how easy it is for us to just adapt to flying the airplane.

The ship boarding rate is as high if not higher than the Harrier right now.

I don’t enough data points to give you an exact number, but I can tell you from experience over a large number of landings in the Harrier and observing in the tower that this airplane is going to have a fantastically high boarding rate.

An F-35B Lightning II awaits refueling before a night operations exercise during F-35B Operational Testing (OT-1) aboard USS Wasp (LHD-1) May 20, 2015. Over the course of about two weeks, U.S. Marines, U.K. military and industry partners will evaluate the full spectrum of F-35B measures of suitability and effectiveness, as well as assessing the integration of the aircraft into the spectrum of amphibious-based flight operations. (Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Anne K. Henry/RELEASED)
An F-35B Lightning II awaits refueling before a night operations exercise during F-35B Operational Testing (OT-1) aboard USS Wasp (LHD-1) May 20, 2015. (Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Anne K. Henry/RELEASED)

Question: What is a boarding rate?

Captain Andrew Smith: That’s the ability of the airplane to get aboard the ship without having to divert ashore.

It’s something we’re very concerned with because we’re always trying to maintain the ability to divert in case of a problem.

Well, we haven’t had any problems.

Question: What is the difference between flying the Harrier and the F-35B with regard to operating on this ship?

Captain Andrew Smith: The takeoff and landing portion of the F35 is seamless with the ship.

It is much easier to execute from the pilot perspective as well as the single officer perspective up in the tower.

We were able to, in a very short period of time, smooth out all of our process with the ship, have a team of three organizations come together, fly together for the first time, set up standard operating procedures (SOP) and function around the ship in a seamless manner.

And most of that is due to the fact that the jet takes care of a lot of the task loading that was resident in the Harrier and is not resident in this airplane.

So now we are able to pay attention to flying around the ship, and being a good steward of the aircraft and the ship at the same time, and bringing aboard exactly on time, exactly on the fuel safe that I’m looking to be aboard by.

Question: What blocks of software on the six airplanes?

Captain Andrew Smith: There are four block 2B aircraft and two block 3I aircraft. 

Major Richard Rusnok: Each iteration of software that comes up has associated increase in envelope capability.

So from the 2B perspective, the airplane is capable of about 550 knots or 1.2 mach, about five and a half Gs. 5.5 Gs. So that is what the envelope we’re currently flying to and that’s the out of sea envelope.

As the airplane becomes a 3F aircraft, it will get out to the 7G envelope, 630 knots and 1.6 mach. So that’s to come. That will be in the 2017-2018 time frame. That’s after all the flight-testing.

Question: What is the biggest surprise for you about this aircraft aboard the ship?

Captain Andrew Smith; I think for many it’s the situational awareness it gives you.

The other day I took off and all the combat systems that are supposed to be working in the configuration were working and in the shipboard environment which is a very challenging environment.

And I was just very impressive to me to launch off of the ship, have everything working that should be working, and then complete a tactical mission with a couple other 35’s.

And it’s awesome to see that in the shipboard environment.

U.S. Marine Corps Col. Matthew Kelly, military assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, provides background on the Marine Corps’ F-35B program to Air Marshall Bollam, Chief of Defence Material Air, United Kingdom, aboard USS Wasp while embarked in the Atlantic Ocean May 20, 2015. The current Marine Corps operational test, scheduled to continue through the end of May, will assess the integration of the F-35B while operating across a wide array of flight and deck operations, maintenance operations and logistical supply chain support in an at-sea environment. A former test pilot and career Marine aviator, Kelly participated in the earlier shipboard developmental tests of the F-35B. Royal Navy and Royal Air Force pilots are scheduled to begin flying the F-35B from the UK in 2018, and are on track to operate from the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers in 2020.
U.S. Marine Corps Col. Matthew Kelly, military assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, provides background on the Marine Corps’ F-35B program to Air Marshall Bollam, Chief of Defence Material Air, United Kingdom, aboard USS Wasp while embarked in the Atlantic Ocean May 20, 2015.

Question: You mentioned that the maintenance is done organically by Marines; what does that mean exactly?

Major Richard Rusnok: The maintenance aboard the ship is a 100% Marine-lead effort.

We have 91 maintainers on board, 91.

And that is built off the same number of maintainers we would take with a Harrier detachment.

So the numbers are comparable to legacy numbers that we would bring aboard.

We spent a lot of time studying and analyzing bringing which specialties out and we’ve learned some lessons like anyone would learn.

Like we wish we could have another Marine here, another Marine there. But as far as numbers, we’re completely comparable with legacy.

And the great part about it is the 91 Marines we’re not just turning airplanes and flying a robust flight schedule.

We’re also doing all of these evolutions and all these other demonstrations, validation and verification of brand new procedures that have never been done before.

So, they’re busy. They’re working hard. But they are working hard and having incredible results.

As far as keeping up with the daily flight schedule as well as validation and verification of these tasks.

That’s probably about it.

There’s three squadrons of maintainers on board from VMX 22, and 121 and 501.

So we’ve got three different patches in the maintenance department.

And if you can imagine a team coming together for the first time, can be challenging.

We have not had any of those kinds of challenges here because of the standardization and the level of training and the level of verification that has already been done on brand new procedures.

The Marines have done incredibly.

That’s the best news story of this detachment, is how well the maintenance work has gone thus far.

We have extremely high reliability ratings for being in the shipboard environment.

Question: How would compare landing on this ship versus a large deck traditional Navy carrier?

Major Brendan Walsh: The first major thing that I noticed was that the deck is straight line all the way in.

In many ways that takes a lot of the variables out of the landing pattern that you even have to do in daytime.

And you use an optical landing system very similar to what we have on the big deck carriers.

But then you also get to stop over the ship.

And you don’t have that last two seconds of very intense ball flying as we call it, CPM, where a lot of things can go wrong if you’re not very careful with your power settings or hitting the verbal on the backside of the carrier.

So the fact that you kind of get to stop and square yourself way and then you have another landing aid.

The hover position indicator which allows you to stop, get yourself in position before the landing signals officer clears you to land, its less emotional.

Question: What is up next on the path to IOC after these operational trials?

Major Brendan Walsh: I think that on all the training that we’ve done we’ve been validating how we are preparing to get initial operational capability in this airplane.The test environment has dropped a lot of ordinance, and that’s something that us as the IOC squadron need to do in the coming month.

So that is the next thing looming large for me as soon as I get back off the ship.

We’ve got a lot of weapons for each pilot to drop.

We have several missiles that we’re going to shoot in the June and July time frame and so in my mind, that last end to end check of how the ordinance performs off the aircraft based on the data and tests, it’s really the last thing that I’m looking for personally.

I know we have the right pilots assembled, I think we’ve validated our maintenance procedures, on land and at sea, and I can speak to the training that we’re working very hard to make sure our pilots are ready based on tactics, techniques, and procedures we have.

3 Members of the Panel aboard the USS WASP. Credit: Second Line of Defense
3 Members of the Panel aboard the USS WASP. Credit: Second Line of Defense

Question: What advantage does the F-35 bring an amphibious ship like the WASP?

Major Brendan Walsh: No one in the world has ever sent an airplane off of an amphibious ship with this level of situational awareness and fusion between aircraft to aircraft and aircraft to ship.

The fusion of the data aboard the airplanes and your ability to see what other planes are seeing a number of miles away from you as well as what the ship is seeing and then to be able to communicate with them without using the radio is a tactical and strategic advantage that can not really be over stated.

I’m not sure we can go into very specific instances, but the amount of situational awareness that I had with 360 degree view around my aircraft the other day, with all the things going on out here in this particular area of the sea space was extremely impressive.

And getting 4 F35’s together to, once again, tie back into all the other information sharing, perhaps one of those fighters just has to find that target, and finds that everyone else now knows where that target is.

So if you think about that in a multi threat scenario, you can have several fighters taking care of preps and air-to-air picture while other guys are finding perhaps targets that you are trying to strike.

And when one of them is tasked, you know what everyone is doing and you see the common picture in the battlefield because it’s being shared amongst the guys that are doing one specific thing. 

Question: How is the ALIS system working onboard the ship?

Major Brendan Walsh: The way developmental tests use ALIS is completely different from the way that the operational squadron use ALIS. So, because those aircraft are very unique compared to the fleet aircraft, they don’t use the standard systems that are here. It’s kind of an apples and oranges comparison in that respect.

We spend a lot of time trying to risk reduce coming out here for the ship and transfer. That was a major portion of our planning to make sure that went very smoothly, and as we’ve already stated it did go incredibly smoothly.

LT CDR Kitchen talked about the usage of ALIS already aboard the ship. As far as the deployable capability we currently have SOUV 1, that’s Squadron Operating Unit Version 1 onboard and that is permanently installed in racks. We have a special space, and this was provided through NAVSEA, special space for the appropriate security and classification to have it on board. It’s essentially bolted into the space right now.

And then when the SOU Version 2 comes out which is already being delivered to 121 in Yuma, then that will allow us to do one of the unique things with amphibious shipping is our ability to disembark from amphibious shipping once we get in the theater.

Then it’s something that is very unique to this ship into the units that embark with this ship is we don’t necessarily have to stay aboard the ship.

The operational environment, the requirements say go ashore, and base ashore, and base of foreign operating bases.

SOUV 2 will allow us for all intents and purposes, the same hardware is packaged differently and will allow us to take it off and put it in a forward operating base and to operate effectively and efficiently closer to troops away from the sea base we have currently.

Beauafort F-35B with USS WASP markings as seen at the MCAS Beaufort as the trials began. Credit: Second Line of Defense
Beauafort F-35B with USS WASP markings as seen at the MCAS Beaufort as the trials began. Credit: Second Line of Defense

Question: Recently, I visited Beaufort and the level of effort you are already putting into integration with legacy aircraft (F-18s at the base) and with the USAF in the Georgia Air National Guard is kind of a missing factor in evolving your capabilities.

Could you comment on that?

Major Mike Roundtree: That’s a testament of not just the airplane but the people the Marine Corps has chosen to put into this program that the moment we’ve gotten the aircraft or gotten block upgraded hardware or software, the first thing we do is look to see how we can use this airplane tactically and strategically.

We develop the syllabus, we develop the training programs, and we go out and do it. On the East Coast out of Beaufort we’re fortunate enough to have a large base in Savannah where we can integrate large exercises many times a year with F22, F16, F18, F15 and do large force exercises.

We use that opportunity to train our pilos. As well as to push the boundaroes of the airplane in a inter-connectivity type of way.

That’s all part of the development, the tactics, and our desire to develop this airplane fully from the beginning and look towards the future, future capabilities, and also start developing those tactics to try to get ahead of the curve.

And Lt. Cdr. Kitchen put on the finishing touch to the panel with this comment:

The F-35 can be surrounded by myth and legend.

But it is a real testimony to the capabilities of the maintainers of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the USMC to adapt to the new technological challenges.

Their knowledge of aircraft systems is now being applied to a new air system and taking steps forward into the unknown.

It is a testament to the professionalism of these maintainers that they are just getting on with the job of making this aircraft work.

Every single person involved in this detachment are passionate about this aircraft and not just because it is a sexy looking aircraft but want to see it working in every operational environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Military Innovation: The Leadership Dimension

2015-06-08 By Dr. Les Nunn

In his article entitled “Re-Norming the Asymmetric Advantage in Air Dominance: ‘Going to War With the Air Force You Have,’” former Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable Michael W. Wynne, concluded his paper with

“This march towards the future must begin in our imagination as we cannot assume that historical success will be replicated in the future without innovative thinking and serious planning.”

https://sldinfo.com/%E2%80%9Cre-norming%E2%80%9D-the-asymmetric-advantage-in-air-dominance-%E2%80%9Cgoing-to-war-with-the-air-force-you-have%E2%80%9D/

https://sldinfo.com/%E2%80%9Cre-norming%E2%80%9D-the-asymmetric-advantage-in-air-dominance-%E2%80%9Cgoing-to-war-with-the-air-force-you-have%E2%80%9D-part-ii/

https://sldinfo.com/%E2%80%9Cre-norming%E2%80%9D-the-asymmetric-advantage-in-air-dominance-%E2%80%9Cgoing-to-war-with-the-air-force-you-have%E2%80%9D-part-iii/

After pointing out the reality of not getting the desired funding to effectively develop a new air force, he addressed the issue of how best could the existing assets be best utilized.

In his well-reasoned position, Secretary Wynne suggested that fifth aircraft work hand-in-glove with fourth generation fighters in future battles.

He highlighted the role of fifth generation aircraft as scouts and battle managers with legacy aircraft providing density and weapons support.

Assuming this is the desired approach, how best can it be accomplished?

Innovative thinking is key here.

In interviewing many innovative thinkers (Ross Perot, Dr. Stephen Covey, George Foreman, Jack Hanna, among numerous others) for my books “The Creative Genius” and “Creating a Genius Company,” I found a number of consistent keys to success in creative people and creative businesses that can be applied here.

The traits of successful people included imagination, feelings for others, contrarians in thinking, loaners, passion, ability to look for patterns and find relationships, visualization, focus, determination, commitment, daring to be different, striving for constant improvement, and the ability to look at a situation from a number of different angles.

When delving into the backgrounds of these highly innovative people, it was learned that each of them had a widely varied history of jobs before launching their very creative business.

These backgrounds were across the board, but each job held had taught the person skills that, when combined with skills learned in other vocations, enabled the ultimate creation and operation of the new, successful, innovative company.

One person, for instance, was a truck driver, policeman, judo athlete, mailman, horse trainer, jewelry designer, and award winning artist. While some might consider him a failure in that he had so many different jobs, he ultimately became an Olympic competitor, three time U.S. champion, and a United States Congressman who was a very valuable asset to the military in obtaining needed funding. This was possible as he could easily see the big picture of what the Air Force was trying to accomplish and understood how the proposed subparts would effectively go together to make the military more powerful when adequately funded.

This concept is not new.

It was first experimented with in 1944.

In 1948 the Rock Pool Experiment was started with 20 artists who were brought together.

The consulting firm Arthur D. Little, Inc. was involved with this, but took it to another level with a new group composed of a physicist, electromechanical engineer, anthropologist, graphic artist and a sculptor.

A time of budget constriction is a time for thinking; not shrinking from innovation. At the heart of the decade ahead is the ABSOLUTE requirement for a clear commitment to innovation.  Credit Image; Bigstock
A time of budget constriction is a time for thinking; not shrinking from innovation. At the heart of the decade ahead is the ABSOLUTE requirement for a clear commitment to innovation. Credit Image; Bigstock

The synergy developed between these people of totally different backgrounds was surprising. Problem solving became easier as each vocation brought into the picture a fresh way of thinking about a problem.

This was recently shown to be true again with Simon Fraser University.

They combined experts in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics to study the toes of the lizard Gecko.

The resulting combined study led to the invention of a tailless timing belt climbing platform that can go up vertically smooth walls.

Biochemists at the University of Washington had worked unsuccessfully for many years to solve the structure of a retrovirus enzyme.

Finally, they put the problem onto the computer game “Foldit,” which allows multiple players to work together in solving problems. Using Foldit, non-scientific computer game players were able to create models good enough for the scientists to refine them and determine the enzyme’s structure.

This combination of science and non-science enabled the non-scientific computer people to do in days what scientists alone could not do in years.

The combining of seemingly unrelated skill sets learned from totally unrelated backgrounds resulted in a highly innovative environment.

In large companies and the military, it is historically not likely that a person will start out in one AFSC and cross-train into a number of apparently unrelated other AFSCs.

And that is not likely to change in the near future.

But following the examples of these highly innovative and creative people studied, it would enhance the future military in a truly needed skill set – innovative problem solving.

Commander’s call-type meetings are an attempt to bring all sub-organizations in a unit together to understand and effectively carry out the mission of that military unit, but more, much more, needs to be involved.

With limited funding, the different services are having to join together in mutual acquisitions and utilization of assets. Not only is this likely to continue, but we will see more integration between the services in budgeting, acquisition, planning, and operations.

Secretary Wynne anticipated this when he said “Tomorrow’s pilots must become strategists in the cockpit, directing the fight from their position as air battle managers.” He anticipated this direction would not only include air assets, but ground forces as well. To be truly coordinated, this must be the case.

There are a number of challenges to shaping an innovative approach forward.

The US Army has dominated strategic thinking during the land wars. This has meant that joint thinking has really been about support to US Army operations, but what Wynne is talking about, as a former West Pointer, is joint effects from a joint force.

Another factor which can drastically inhibit this innovative environment is the “generational technological gap” existing between newly entered younger military personnel as compared with their superior “lifers.” Generally, far more technologically advanced younger people can quickly find their “new and better” ideas of how to do the job are not well received by older, senior supervisors.

The current Deputy Commandant of Innovation highlighted the importance of getting on with the F-35 precisely because of what he called the emergence of the I-Pad generation pilots.

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20140730/DEFFEAT05/307300019/Commentary-iPad-Generation-Pilots-Will-Unlock-F-35-Capabilities

The insertion of the aged A-10 into the Washington debate precisely highlights thinking of a non-I Pad generation set of strategic thinking and interests.

For the future of the American military, all services must work together to attain and maintain the ultimate goal of global military effectiveness.

This is especially true when we look at China and other explosive threats in various quadrants of the world.

To accomplish this, several things are required: an open mind that your way might not be the only good way, an in depth understanding of the other services, subordination of some of each service’s goals that conflict with a multilateral joint service operation, joint planning, joint budgeting, joint training, as well as joint operations.

To accomplish this innovative environment, changes must take place in orientation, duty assignments, training, and implementation.

For that to happen, adjustments in mind-sets need to occur.

Any change in this area will require time to effect, in addition to a willingness to accept the change.

Dr. Les Nunn is Professor Emeritus, College of Business, University of Southern India. 

ln***@*si.edu

 

 

 

Moscow and INF: Why Is Russia Cheating?

2015-06-09 By Richard Weitz

In its just released report on foreign governments’ Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Non-proliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, the U.S. State Department highlighted that the Russians are violating the INF treaty.

“The United States determined the cruise missile developed by the Russian Federation meets the INF Treaty definition of a ground-launched cruise missile with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, and as such, all missiles of that type, and all launchers of the type used to launch such a missile, are prohibited under the provisions of the INF Treaty.

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty prohibits Russia and the United States from developing, manufacturing, or deploying ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500-5,500 kilometers.

The Treaty permits both sides to possess sea- or air-launched cruise missiles within the ranges banned by the Treaty, but the parties may not test them from mobile ground-based launchers or deploy them on land.

The Russian response has always been to deny that they have tested any missile in violation of the treaty.

According to one participant in the Russian-U.S. exchanges on the issue, “so far, our discussion has been roughly like this. Hi, we have a concern, you violated the treaty.

They say, no, we haven’t. But no, you really have, and let us share some information with you about… no, you have to give us more information. We don’t know anything about it.”

Russian officials and media have been describing the U.S. INF allegations as, in the words of Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov on the state-owned RT television channel, “part of the anti-Russian campaign unleashed by Washington in connection with the Ukraine crisis.

And the US is ready to exploit any means to discredit Russia.”

A Russian GLCM is launched from an Iskander-K launcher at Kapustin Yar in 2007.
A Russian GLCM is launched from an Iskander-K launcher at Kapustin Yar in 2007.

Why is Russia violating the INF Treaty? There are several possible reasons.

Russian officials may be maneuvering to induce the United States into withdrawing from the INF Treaty, which they have long disliked.

From Moscow’s perspective, it would be better for Washington to bear the onus of formal withdrawal from the treaty so that other countries in general, and NATO allies in particular, would resist strong measures against Russia.

By pursuing this “soft exit” strategy from the INF and other arms control agreements, Russia can violate an agreement while placing on others the burden of either withdrawing from it, responding with counter-measures, or remaining compliant and constrained by an accord that Moscow is violating.

Prominent Russian national security officials, including President Putin, believe that the INF Treaty—along with NATO membership enlargement, the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, and the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty—represents one of those unequal agreements that the collapsing Soviet Union and then the prostrate Russian Federation was compelled to accept.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has extended this complaint to cover more recent years.

Denying U.S. allegations of Russian treaty violations and accusing the U.S. government of lying and hypocrisy, the Ministry in 2014 charged that:

“Washington is systematically carrying out a plan to dismantle the global strategic stability system…The Americans started this process in 2001, by unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty.

Now it is aggravated by a rapid and unlimited build-up of the US global missile defense system, an unwillingness to clean up the territory of other states from the US tactical nuclear arsenal deployed there, elaboration of a provocative strategy of Prompt Global Strike, and an excessive build-up of conventional weapons, including their offensive components.”

Of course, this victimization perspective makes Russian officials more comfortable violating these treaties.

In addition, Russia might want INF-range systems to attack the ballistic missile defense systems and conventional forces that NATO is deploying around Russia’s periphery.

Russia could use intermediate-range systems to deter and defeat potential threats from surrounding countries and counterbalance U.S. superiority in conventional forces and missile defenses.

Russian officials have long argued that, whereas the United States does not need such missiles to deter attacks from its neighbors Mexico and Canada, Russia is surrounded by countries–including India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and China—that are acquiring large numbers of short- and intermediate-range missiles—states that have, or could soon have, nuclear weapons.

They also note that Russia is vulnerable from air strikes launched from these neighboring states.

The United States and Russia joined in a limited effort to induce other countries to adhere to the INF Treaty, but this campaign has so far involved little more than issuing an appeal at the U.N. General Assembly.

No other country has joined the Treaty beyond the United States and the Russian Federation (though some provisions apply to the other former Soviet republics).

It is possible that Russian leaders might have hoped that the United States would not soon discover the violation, especially if the plan was to develop the new system but not soon deploy it.

U.S. officials engaged in talks with the Russian officials and experts believe that only a small number of Russians originally knew about the program.

If Moscow had successfully concealed the violation, that would have decreased the prospects of a U.S. response.

Various U.S. experts believe that the Russian government may be violating other arms control agreements, such as the Biological Weapons Convention, the Vienna Document, and the Open Skies Agreement.

In addition, Russia has long been pursuing a variety of tactics to intimidate neighboring countries and undermine NATO’s cohesion.

In pursuit of these goals, Russian leaders have been threatening to attack countries that align themselves with NATO policies and have tried to win over West European leaders through sweetheart energy deals and other inducements.

Whatever the original reason for the deployment, Moscow may now hope that NATO governments will divide over how to respond to a new missile that only threatens the eastern members of the alliance.

While Poland and the Baltic states likely will favor a vigorous response, NATO members beyond the range of the new weapon might oppose a strong reaction.

Finally, Russian actions regarding INF, nuclear threats, and other issues suggest that they are pursuing a nuclear doctrine and modernization plan that differs from their published military doctrine, which continues to describe nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort.

This experience underscores the importance of the “trust but verify” maxim that has always guided good U.S. arms control policies.

Credit Photo: https://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/07/russia-inf/

ISIL as the 21st Century Herman the German?

2015-06-09  Our partner Rivista Italiana Difesa has published an article that looks at the evolution of ISIL’s military approach and Western responses.

The article starts by noting that the military forces involved in ISIL are the “most dynamic military amalgam since the time of the French Revolution.”

Interesting enough but the article goes on to underscore that simply declaring ISIL as fanatics does not take us down the road very far to understand how they fight and how to defeat them.

The article argues that in a fundamental way ISIL is like the famous Herman the German, a former Roman legionnaire who used Roman tactics to rid the Germanic tribes of the Romans by destroying three Roman legions in 9AD.

The point the article makes is that the ISIL is anchored by war veterans of multiple wars and conflicts leveraging inherited platforms and arming them in ways to support their warfighting efforts.

The case in point is using mobile assets armed with bombs as strike platforms. 

“They are using armored vehicles, tracked and wheeled, padded with explosives with a very high potential for kinetic impact.”

The platforms being used include American, Soviet and other vehicles (Humvees. T-55s, Soviet BMPs, etc.).

The response?

The Pentagon is sending anti-tank weapons, notably the SAAB Bofors AT-4.

The weapon was developed in the 1980s by SAAB and adopted by the US Army in 1987.

The weapon can be operated by small mobile teams to kill the vehicles rather than simply forming a static defense.

In the video below the USMC demonstrates the operation of the weapon.

The Italian Defense White Paper: Italy in the Cross Hairs

06/07/2015

2015-06-04 By Robbin Laird

The Italian government promised to deliver a white paper on defense and they have done so in April 2015.

More than a decade has elapsed since the last one, and it has been a decade of rapid change.

Italy is in the cross hairs in many ways as it tries to sort out as effective a defense policy as possible.

The EU is under pressure with the Euro crisis deepening and the future of Greece uncertain within the Euro and more generally.

The ISIS battle is not a foreign policy one, but on Italy’s doorstep in Libya.

Migrants are surging from North Africa and elsewhere and creating a genuine humanitarian, economic and political crisis.

Russia has returned as a direct threat to Europe; and the Chinese as an external power has entered the Med and Europe in major ways.

The economic crisis plus high operational tempos have put real pressures upon Italian defense forces and modernization efforts.

No White Paper could “solve” these challenges; but at least it could provide some guidance or perhaps a compass to navigate the way ahead.

As Tom Kington of Defense News put at the time of the publication of the White Paper:

The paper’s strategic ambition for Italy to take a central role in Mediterranean military affairs is likely to face an early test as European leaders grapple with a military response to the thousands of migrants sailing annually from Libya to Italy and the Libya-based people who send them.

Concern over the smugglers turned to alarm on April 19, when a fishing boat loaded with about 850 migrants capsized, leaving only 24 survivors.

With Europe favoring military action to destroy the boats used by the traffickers, Italy has pitched itself as the leader of a potential operation, which could possibly use Italian drones for surveillance and Italian aircraft for strikes. But UK media reported that Britain might also suggest itself as leader of a campaign.

“With Libya back on the agenda, no one else is more familiar with the country than Italy, thanks to its relationships there,” said retired Gen. Leonardo Tricarico, a former head of the Italian Air Force and now president of the Italian Intelligence Culture and Strategic Analysis Foundation, a Rome-based think tank.

Gaining military primacy in the Mediterranean means maintaining a full spectrum of capabilities for use in the region, while sticking to coalition roles based on “plug-and-play” capabilities outside the region, the paper states.

As the authors of the White Paper indicate at the outset:

This White Paper for international security and defence provides a strategic analysis and a mid-term outlook and political guidance, in order to shape Italy’s military as to successfully tackle current and future challenges.

In an unstable and increasingly insecure international environment, Italy must take on with ever greater focus and pragmatism its security needs and be able to look beyond current contingencies while developing a wider comprehensive approach to crisis management.

As a matter of fact, Italy must closely follow those worrying drivers that mold the global scenario, and focus on developments that may jeopardize national interests, with the final aim of a direct commitment for their safeguard.

Italy bears national interests in both the Euro-Atlantic and Euro-Mediterranean regions, being these areas intertwined and essential for its security requirements.

Our proactive participation in common security and defence policies should be aimed at granting stability and ensuring defence in the Euro- Atlantic region, dissuading and deterring military aggressions and political coercion. Developing similar and effective security architectures in the Euro-Mediterranean compels Italy to make it a focus of its efforts.

Beyond these higher priority regions, the need to tackle security threats that are global in nature and to respect Italian cultural tenets enshrined in the Constitution, call for a wider involvement, under the aegis of International Organizations, in the management of international security, even if with a lower level of ambition.

A fundamental need can be therefore outlined: sharing security and defence within international institutions where Italy is a proactive player, in coherence with a true comprehensive approach. As a matter of fact, such response is, today, the only realistic solution to bolster a solid and enduring security environment in the international arena.

A major challenge facing Italy is simply that the emergence of the Euro-Med region replacing any clear security and defense demarcation between the two has become a central reality. 

The challenge is how to deal with the reality of the intersection of threats “abroad” with threats “at home.”

tosato_francesco_cesi

To gain further understanding about the White Paper and the evolving Italian approach, I did an interview with my colleague Francesco Tosato, Senior Analyst at the Rome-based Centro Studi Internazionali, in late May 2015.

Tasato is in charge of the Military Affairs Desk at the Center. He graduated in Economics at Cà Foscari University of Venice in 2008, he earned a master in Administration, Finance and Management Audit at Sole 24 Ore Business School.

Previously he was already contributor for Ce.S.I. regarding military affairs, defense industry, new procurement programs of Italian Armed Forces and analyst of foreign military systems.

At the same time, he performed different roles in the marketing area of communication agencies, international commercial enterprises and financial companies, dealing about market and competitor’s analysis, creation of marketing and communication plans, data analysis and budgeting

Question: What is the most interesting thing that came out from the White Paper, from your perspective?

Francesco Tosato: The most important thing was that we had a White Paper.  We started a process of focusing upon our defense.  We do not have the tradition of doing White Books or Papers.  It is important to get broader public informed discussion about defense.

We clearly need to rethink our armed forces up against the threats we face now.

What do we want to do in the future with our forces?

In other words, put the discussion of the future of the armed forces into the center of a public debate, which is crucial to get the kind of support we need for the modernization of the forces.

Question: As the European and Mediterranean dynamics blend together, Italy is at the center of the emergence of a new Euro-Med region.  How do you view this?

Francesco Tosato: The White Book focuses directly on what you are talking about.  We need to focus our efforts on the Euro-Mediterranean region as our key priority.

Next up is the Horn of the Africa as a key priority.

But clearly other operational demands will come up with which we will deal, but in terms of priorities, these are two the most pressing ones.

We clearly have defined our core focus in the White Book – the Euro-Med region.

Comment: The commitment to do some serious strategic thinking about the challenges in the Euro-Med region is clearly a welcome one for the allies of Italy.  We need to roll up our sleeves and work very concrete ways to work together in the region.

Francesco Tosato: We clearly need to share our responsibilities and to work with allies in dealing with the Euro-Med challenges.

But we need to take a lead role, and work closely with France and Spain, for example.

We need to reshape our forces to work in this core area of focus for our responsibilities.

We need to collaborate in terms of both NATO and the European framework.  This collaboration will be driven by bilateral or trilateral efforts, rather than by a larger European force.

Question: What building blocks does Italy have that can allow Italy to play a key role in meeting these responsibilities?

Francesco Tosato: In the White Paper, three pillars are identified. European cooperation, NATO collaboration and the UN framework are those frameworks.

With regard to industrial relationships, the White Paper focuses on the need to strengthen national technology but in alliance or collaborative frameworks.

We need to integrate into new projects and new products.

There is a clear necessity to expand pooling and sharing of forces among European allies, such as the European Transport Command or of technologies as could be the case with the new European initiative on unmanned air systems.

This new agreement could provide a way ahead for cost sharing and technological co-development among core European players.

Question: The Dutch have highlighted the importance of Italy both in terms of the F-35 program as well as training solutions.  This clearly is an example of European collaboration as well?

Francesco Tosato: The Italian Air Force and industry have very good training capabilities and the two countries are working to move ahead with joint efforts as well.

his could be a building block for shaping a European training center as well.

This is one of our technologies to share with our European and other allies in shaping a collaborative environment for the Air Forces.

This could be linked with F-35 programs and with other European states, which will not operate the F-35.

We need to work the 4th and 5th generation context and in which we train pilots to operate in the evolving integrated context.

This kind of collaboration can give us more capability at less cost.

Euro Med Region

Question: Clearly another question posed by the White Book was the way ahead for the Italian Forces. 

Could you clarify the approach identified?

Francesco Tosato: There is a clear focus on reshaping the structure of the Italian Armed Forces.

The forces need to become more joint, notably with regard to logistics integration. 

There needs to be an operational command created under the Chief of Defense or the CHOD.

The services will do training and readiness; the operational command will be transferred to the CHOD.

We are changing the doctrine of the Armed Forces as part of the decisions announced in the White Book.

And an additional perspective from the Italian point of view has been provided by Pietro Batacchi of Rivista Italiana Difesa.

According to Pietro Batacchi, the White Paper provides an opportunity to have a more open debate about defense which involves all the key stakeholders.

Writing as the White Paper was being worked on in 2014, Batacchi highlighted what he saw as key principles:

The central role for NATO;

The UN remains a useful forum to discuss and deal with a number of global issues;

The EU is of limited utility in shaping common action projects in defense and security and this is due to the fact that “Europe lacks a leader from a military point of view capable of guiding, coordinating and directing the other members”;

Italy can take the lead in a number of Mediterranean efforts, including as appropriate military ones.

“The Libyan crisis has shown that vital interests of Italy are not perceived as such by other European countries and this must be for our country a useful lesson and an incentive to prioritize scenarios based on our own national interests.”

With the release of the White Paper in 2015, Pietro Batacchi argued that the promise of the White Paper had been realized in two key ways.

First, the process was one in which the key stakeholders did participate, so the discussion underlying the crafting of the White Paper could become a dynamic one, energizing a 21st century approach by Italy to defense and secrutiy.

Second, the White Paper recognized the seriousness of the threats to Italy and highlighted the need to reinforce the Euro-Atlantic relationship and to prioritize the Mediterranean one.

“The Mediterranean is the priority area for the intervention of our forces and the area in which our country must be able to intervene at all levels of the operating spectrum (Regional Full Spectrum), and taking the leadership of a coalition as appropriate.

For challenges facing Italy in the evolving Euro-Med region and possible approaches to evolving capabilities see the following:

http://rt.com/news/254613-china-russia-mediterranean-navy/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/airpower-italy-europe-and-the-way-ahead-lt-general-preziosa-looks-at-the-challenges/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/a-21st-century-approach-to-airpower-the-italian-air-force-and-the-f-35/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/he-return-of-russia-and-the-challenge-to-european-defense-the-italian-contribution/

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

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/connecting-the-dots-russia-shapes-a-military-infrastucture-for-influence-in-the-mediterranean/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-evolving-european-operational-map-cyprus-works-with-russia/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Insertion-Forces-Front-Line-Defence.pdf

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/re-shaping-coalition-insertion-forces-bold-alligator-2014/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/bold-alligator-2014-shaping-insertion-forces-for-crisis-response/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/prevailing-in-21st-century-conflicts-leveraging-insertion-forces/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Indian Assessment of the Chinese Defense White Paper

06/06/2015

2015-06-06  By Captain (Dr) Gurpreet S Khurana

New Delhi.

In comparison to the Defence White Papers published by China in the preceding years, the 2014 document is very concise.

Nonetheless, it reveals substantial content and context, disproportionate to the size of its text.

While much of the revelation is likely to be Beijing’s ‘strategic communications’, the document is nonetheless insightful.

Title of White Paper

The present White Paper has continued the trend of using a thematic title – a trend that was initiated with the 2012 document titled ‘The Diversified Employment of China’s Armed Forces’.

The trend and the specific title spelling out “China’s Military Strategy” signify the increased self-confidence of an emerging global military power, which until a few years ago, preferred to be opaque to the world on ‘matters military’.

The document also reflects an increased self-assurance as a nation, stating that “China’s comprehensive national strength, core competitiveness and risk-resistance capacity are notably increasing, and China enjoys growing international standing and influence”.

Core National Objectives

In the document, China has maintained its earlier stance of avoiding war through its military strategy of “active defence” (that envisages an ‘offensive’ only at the operational and tactical levels).

However, the document mentions “preparation for military struggle (PMS)”, which indicates its strong desire to retain the option of first use of military force, if it cannot achieve its core objectives otherwise.

Furthermore, the emphasis on “maritime PMS” indicates that these objectives pertain to Taiwan’s “reunification”, and fructification of its maritime-territorial claims in the Western Pacific.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the phase “You fight your way and I fight my way” indicates that China’s war-fighting concept to meet its core objectives is likely to be based on use of asymmetric capabilities.

Maritime Interests

The previous 2012 document stated the PLA Navy’s mandate to preserve China’s sovereignty over its territorial seas and its maritime rights and interests in ‘offshore areas’ against complex security threats, thereby portraying China as a victim or an underdog reacting to the actions of Japan, and implicitly, of the U.S.The new document, however, emphasises on a more proactive protection of its interests in ‘open waters’, thereby enlarging its strategic depth.

PLAN ship Type 052C Luyang II destroyer Changchun enters the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on Sept. 20, 2014. Fars News Agency
PLAN ship Type 052C Luyang II destroyer Changchun enters the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on Sept. 20, 2014. Fars News Agency 

Notably, the document also calls upon the need to shed the mindset that peace, stability and development of China is linked to affairs on land rather than the sea.

This indicates a maritime emphasis of China’s military strategy.

With regard to the security of sea-lanes, it uses the term “strategic Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs)”. Although the term ‘SLOC’ itself bears a ‘strategic’ connotation, the addition of the adjective indicates that China’s considers itself vulnerable to commodity denial during war, thereby severely limiting its option of use of military force.

Although the document does not specifically mention the ‘Indian Ocean’, the reference to Indian Ocean SLOCs may be inferred.

Naval Presence in Indian Ocean

Alike the previous 2012 document, the 2014 White Paper states that the PLA Navy would maintain “regular combat readiness patrols…(and maintain)…military presence in relevant sea areas.”

While the former may refer to the Western Pacific, the latter is a likely reference to the Indian Ocean.

This is buttressed by the statement that the PLA Navy would “continue to carry out escort missions in the Gulf of Aden and other sea areas as required, enhance exchanges and cooperation with naval task forces of other countries, and jointly secure international SLOCs.”

This implies that China’s naval presence in the Indian Ocean would continue, and may even increase. While such presence may be primarily for undertaking ‘Military Operations Other than War’ (MOOTW), it is likely to be dovetailed with preparing for ‘wartime’ operations.

The amphibious dock landing ship “Changbaishan”of the 18th escort taskforce of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is docking at the Port of Djibouti for the third round of in-port rest and replenishment. (People's Daily/Sun Haichao)
The amphibious dock landing ship “Changbaishan”of the 18th escort taskforce of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is docking at the Port of Djibouti for the third round of in-port rest and replenishment. (People’s Daily/Sun Haichao)

This assertion is borne out by Beijing’s assertion in September 2014 that its Song-class submarine deployed in the Indian Ocean was meant for counter-piracy mission.

(The credibility of this rationale was dismissed by naval analysts on operational grounds).

The document adds that the “PLA Navy will work to incorporate MOOTW capacity building into…PMS” thereby implying that China would also seek to develop fungible capabilities.

Furthermore, the White Paper lays emphasis on ‘sustenance’ of the forward-deployed naval platforms through “strategic prepositioning”.

This indicates that China is likely to seek overseas access facilities (if not military bases) in the Indian Ocean, or even resort to the US concept of ‘sea-basing’.

The latter possibility is supported by recent news-reports about China developing large ‘Mobile Landing Platforms’ (MLP) used by the US expeditionary forces.

Military Interface with Major Powers

The mention of Russia in the White Paper precedes all other countries.

The “exchanges and cooperation with the Russian military within the framework of the comprehensive strategic partnership…to promote military relations in more fields and at more levels” indicates the imminence of a China-Russia quasi-alliance.

The 2012 White Paper, without naming the US, had expressed a concern for its “pivot” to Asia strategy and “strengthening of its military alliances with the regional countries, leading to tensions”.

In contrast, the 2014 document mentions the US explicitly. While it does state the need for “cooperative mechanisms with the US Navy, including exchange of information in the maritime domain”, its tone and tenor indicates a precursor to a ‘Cold War-style’ military interface between the two major powers.

It talks about a “new model of military relationship” with the US based on “major-country relations”, with “strengthening of defence dialogue (and)…CBMs to include notification of major military activities (and) rules of behaviour” to prevent “air and maritime encounters…strengthen mutual trust, prevent risks and manage crises.”

.  China and Russia have a long and complicated relationship of allies, competitors, rivals and friends.
. China and Russia have a long and complicated relationship of allies, competitors, rivals and friends. 

However, it is yet unclear what kind of bipolar interface will eventually emerge since the current global environment marked by close China-US economic ties is vastly dissimilar to the erstwhile Cold War era.

The 2012 White Paper had mentioned India’s combined Army exercises with PLA and increased anti-piracy coordination with India. Since the 2014 document is more succinct, the lack of details is understandable.

However, the lack of even a mention of defence exchanges with India, or any other Asian country is remarkable.

Also ‘conspicuous by absence’ are the various facets of ‘transparency’ that the preceding Defence White Papers had addressed, ranging from China’s defence budget to its nuclear weapons policy of no-first use (NFU).

Evidently, China has ‘arrived’ on the world stage with a single-minded preoccupation of how it could challenge the unipolar world order dominated by the US.

The author is Executive Director, National Maritime Foundation (NMF), New Delhi.

This article was republished with permission of our partner India Strategic:

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories3816_China_Challenges_Unipolar_World.htm

 

The Italian Defense, The White Paper, and the Italian Parliament

2015-06-06 On June 4, 2015, Defence Minister Pinotti testified before the joint Italian House and Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committees with regard to the recently released White Paper.

According to a piece published on the Italian MoD website on June 4th:

The White Paper is a concrete initiative of the Ministry of Defence, aimed at providing the country with a systematic, efficient  and consistent  medium-to-long term project.

Minister Pinotti, answering today’s questions and those she was asked on 14 May (when she illustrated the Paper to the joint committees),  underscored that the project will guide the adaptation process of the Armed Forces  to the new requirements and, at the same time, raise people’s awareness level as regards defence and security being our common heritage and an indispensable condition for the development of our society.

With reference to the questions asked by 29 members of the committees, the Minister highlighted the central role of Parliament in the reform process, for both political and technical reasons.  In fact,  developing the culture of Defence among the public opinion is a goal that can be met only by the Parliament: 

“Promotion of the Defence  culture can only start from here, from the place where we must give a shared assessment of threats looming over our country  and the  tools needed to  face them.” 

The opportunity to enlarge the Defence concept to make it more inclusive as compared to other available  tools is illustrated in the White Paper, and  integrates the Government’s decisions on the reform of the Third Sector, in particular as regards the role of the civilian service.

As regards the central role of Parliament and its technical nature, the Minister added: “Many of the solutions that the Government may intend to adopt will need to be substantiated and enforced by legislative measures to be discussed by these committees and by the Parliament.”

The latter will play a central role also as regards resources: in fact, the Government has committed itself  to submit the six-year law on military investments to the parliamentary assembly.

The White Paper  “is the Government’s policy guidance tool, and its content is to be regarded as an order by the Defence administrative bodies”, the Minister added, explaining that within 6 months “ the Defence administrative bodies will have to produce legislative proposals to be submitted to the Parliament.”

As for the theme of a European common defence, evoked by various parties, the Minister agreed that “proceeding as single, isolated  countries would result in  waste of  resources and lack of interoperability.”

That’s why Italy has proposed  to establish a EUNAVFOR Med mission at European level, to be decided upon at the end of June.

Expressing the wish that a European Army be established, the Minister underscored that building a European Defence will require common industrial projects on the one hand, and “working together at operational level” on the other.

Regarding  governance, Roberta Pinotti explained that the reform process must proceed toward force integration at joint level in order to avoid duplicating roles, thus establishing  a fully joint military while safeguarding individual specificities. 

Dutch F-16 Engaged Over the North Sea

2015-06-06 In this video released by the Dutch MoD on June 2, 2015, one gets the perspective from a Dutch F-16 cockpit of flying in an exercise.

These images are from the cockpit of a Dutch F-16.

After the taxiing and taking off from Airbase Leeuwarde, the North Sea is seen a moment later and then an American KC-135-tanker appears in the video.