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.
When I first encountered maintainers of the Osprey several years ago at New River, North Carolina, those pioneers referred to themselves as members of the Osprey nation.
As the Osprey became a reality for the USMC, and many Ospreys joined those early few, the term would now encompass not only Marines but Air Force operators. In fact, the pilots are all trained together by the USMC for their initial training.
As the US Navy is about to add the Osprey to its carrier fleet, and the Japanese have made their first buy of aircraft, others are clearly interested in joining in the Osprey Nation.
But there is a challenge to global growth, namely, the current sustainment process.
The USAF and USMC users of the aircraft are high demand assets and are already challenging the current sustainment system managed by the US Navy working with Bell-Boeing.
And it is clear from discussions with Marine Corps members of the Osprey nation that there is concern that as users are added, if the current approach is not modified, that parts will be in scarcer supply for their own use.
This is an important subject and I will return to ways to reshape the current system in a separate piece.
But in this piece, I want to highlight our discussions with Boeing during the visit to Boeing’s Philadelphia site.
A baseline briefing presented during the visit highlighted the demand side in terms of numbers of aircraft.
There are currently 295 field aircraft with 14 USMC and 3 AFSOC operational squadrons.
There are now USMC and AFSOC aircraft deployed abroad, in the UK and Japan.
There are now more than 260,000 flight hours on the fleet which provides a realistic picture of the performance of parts and of the supply chain.
The program of record will produce around 500 aircraft with international sales to come on top of the basic 500 aircraft.
And there is capacity to support additional domestic or international sales in terms of the manufacturing process.
But there have clearly been shortfalls on the supply side.
And those shortfalls have been driven by many factors, which I will discuss in the next article, but shortfalls there are and getting a better process in place to ensure that they do not happen, as there is a wave of international sales is crucial moving forward.
Currently, there is a performance based logistics contract in place but for only some of the parts.
The Bell-Boeing team has a PBL with NAVAIR currently for five years with a three year extension and they are currently working for another two-year extension.
Bell-Boeing and the government have a readiness team which has collected the baseline data on parts performance, operations and supply.
The USAF participates through AFSOC as well as NAVAIR. The readiness team is supported by an advanced IT system, built through a team effort by government and Bell-Boeing, to collect and process the data.
Data is becoming more available, given the length of the program, the number of flight hours, and the global operations of the fleet, to provide a solid baseline for reworking the sustainment system and approach.
In a briefing provided during the visit, the Boeing Logisticians highlighted that the IT system, called CAMEO, has matured enough to allow for the government and industry to sort through alternative methods for dealing with sustainment challenges.
At the heart of the challenge is that the government buys on a 12 month cycle, and parts demand may well not respect a 12 month forecasted cycle.
As one Logistician put it: “a challenge is to get out of the 12-month mode into a more rapid action decision making process with the ability to leverage the data generated by operational realities.”
The industry team has field representatives deployed with the force to provide for ground embedded support by CAMEO Support Representatives or CSRs whose tasking is to ensure that the field deployed data collection systems are working to maximum effectiveness.
“Those experts are in the field making sure that the equipment is all working the way it should, that data is being captured and utilized to support the maintenance process,and reporting back any shortfalls.”
Two MV-22B Ospreys from Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 161 (VMM-161) prepare to land onboard the JS Hyuga (DDG-181), during Dawn Blitz 2013 off the coast of Naval Base Coronado, June 14, 2013. Credit: 1st MEB
Data is generated by the aircraft itself and offloaded by maintainers and then that data over time has been forged into a large data base with a suite of analytical tools called the V-22 Readiness Integration Center or RIC.
The challenge is to leverage the data to sort out the best methods to match supply with demand in terms of parts and parts performance.
As another Boeing Logistician put it:
Condition-based maintenance is clearly one way ahead.
Here one leverages the sensors on the aircraft with regard to very accurate, real-time conditions of individual parts to determine realistic maintenance and supply needs.
In addition, applying statistical and predictive modeling tools leverages maintenance activity to better understand emergent demand for supply posture.
It is about seeing the incoming demand spikes before they actually spike, so you can prepare your supply posture appropriately, and understanding the lifecycle of components so you can better plan your maintenance processes.
In other words, the operational experience, the parts performance history with more than 260,000 operational hours, and the maturing CAMEO/RICsystem provide a solid, enabling foundation for reshaping how best to manage the supply chain and to ensure the global reach of supplies to the operational fleet.
Getting this right is crucial not only to sell the plane globally, but support the increasingly global use of the aircraft by the US Air Force and the Marine Corps as well.
And getting global support to global customers coupled with better support to deployed Marines and airmen can only lead to the one helping the other.
It is about a globally deployed supply chain working to optimize operational performance, and not having a taut 12-month order cycle limiting the global opportunities for the program or for the US and its allies.
Editor’s Note: The video above shows Gen. Nakatani, the Japanese Defense Minister, arriving outside the Pentagon and boards an MV-22 Osprey attached to Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1), Arlington, Virginia, April 29, 2015.
The flight was part of several events promoting a strong working relationship between Japan and the United States Marine Corps.
Credit: Headquarters Marine Corps
4/29/15
This is the fifth piece in our Osprey series.
For the first four pieces of a six part series see the following:
The visit to the Boeing facility was done by Robbin Laird and Murielle Delaporte, with Delaporte’s pieces to appear in the French press later this summer.
During the visit to the Boeing V-22 Osprey factory at Boeing’s Philadelphia site, we had a chance to sit down with the Vice President of Boeing Tiltrotor Programs, Kristin Robertson.
Prior to her current role, she was the Deputy Program Manager of the T-X Program, a part of the Boeing Military Aircraft (BMA) business unit of Boeing Defense, Space & Security.
T-X is a comprehensive training system or Family of Systems (FoS) designed to replace the USAF’s fleet of T-38 Talon training jets.
Previously, Robertson served as Director of Direct Attack Weapons Programs, a division of Boeing Missiles and Unmanned Airborne Systems (MUAS). Programs within her portfolio included the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), and the Countermine System.
Question: Having visited the plant and watched the evolution of the Osprey in combat over the past few years, it is clear that the plane is maturing.
Could you talk about your sense of where that manufacturing process is at this point in the program?
V-22 seen on Assembly Line during SLD visit. Credit Photo: Boeing
Kristin Robertson: With nearly three hundred aircraft under our belts, we credit process discipline as an enabler to support a stable configuration for the aircraft.
For example, we have implemented a number of lean manufacturing processes that drive repeatability, standardization and standard work, which have enhanced affordability.
And we have implemented innovative ways to achieve seamless and repeatable production.
Using 3-D model based definition, we are able to work on new configurations of the aircraft, which can fit, into the mature production process.
We also see a maturing of the supply chain, which can enable an effective way forward as well.
Question: The V-22 is very dependent upon composites, and you have drawn upon your commercial as well as military work to mature your composite production process.
Could you discuss this aspect of the program?
Kristin Robertson: A significant portion of the aircraft is composite.
Over time, our engineering and tooling have evolved. Automated, state-of-the-art tooling drives quality and repeatable manufacturing process.
Question: We are a turning point with regard to the aircraft, both in terms of international sales as well as new multi-mission variants.
What is your perspective on this opportunity?
Kristin Robertson: Although we do not define our customers’ concepts of operations, we are positioned to support those efforts as they evolve.
Roll-on and roll-off capability such as aerial refueling is a case in point.
We work with our customers to drive our investments and the technologies, and try to bring those to bear, to ensure that our customer has the capabilities that support that future vision of cooperative operations or changing CONOPs.
We think the architecture of the aircraft, the physical architecture, the computing architecture and how it all operates together is certainly a key enabler to any future capability.
As an industry, we’ve been investing in new architectures and new capabilities to help support a more rapid insertion model.
Question: As you face the possibility of global sales, it is important to get the global supply chain right.
How do you see this challenge?
Kristin Robertson: With global sales, we are currently working through FMS mechanisms and leveraging the current/follow on multiyear program..
Longer-term support agreements provide greater flexibility for industry and government from both a production stability and product perspective.
This approach drives affordability and leverages a stable product line.
This is the fourth piece in our Osprey series.
For the first three pieces of a six part series see the following:
Today, the Commander of the Air Combat Command spoke at an Air Force Association breakfast meeting and discussed the way ahead for the ACC and for airpower more generally.
He argued that today’s fights were seeing demand outstripping the supply of capabilities and clearly this worries him.
And he noted that although there are outside constituencies supporting modernization and force development for USAF assets, the USAF is the main constituency for readiness for USAF airpower and needs to do a better job explaining what this requires.
And readiness of the USAF is a concern in a period of budgetary difficulties with high demand side operational tempos.
The airpower role in the conflict with ISIS was operating within clearly political boundaries but was making an important contribution.
General Carlisle answering questions at the AFA breakfast presentation on June 1, 2105. Credit: SLD
Airpower assets have delivered 4200 strikes and 14,000 weapons to date.
Targets like IED factories (more than 50) and cash cow facilities for ISIS such as oil refineries have been destroyed.
And clearly, airpower has had an impact on the enemy’s ability to mass force and has been able to go after key officials in the hierarchy.
Among significant changes underway was the ability of the USAF and the services to leverage a diversity of sensors from a diversity of platforms to get greater fidelity on targets.
And the USAF had made command changes to more closely integrate “ISR warriors” within the operational community.
The coming of the F-35 was an important element for reshaping USAF air dominance capability and the Marines, the USAF, the USN and the partners are working closely in Fallon, Nellis and Yuma on ways to operate the air craft to enhance operational capabilities.
Next generation weapons are a key part of the modernization matrix, and with regard to directed energy weapons, Carlyle saw these as enhancing survivability of combat assets and then migrating to an offensive capability over time.
With regard to personnel recovery, the USAF is looking at the CV-22 as a possible asset for use in their approach, which would, if acquired, would then mean that the USAF would end up being a mixed rotorcraft and tiltrotar craft fleet for the personnel recovery mission.
And obviously, with a clear interest in NOT having pilots as hostages, the speed and range of an Osprey can be an important asset for the missions.
There were clearly areas like Africa where the speed and range of the Osprey would be extremely important as well.
The F-22s have played an important role in Middle East operations.
They have combined within the fleet strike, ISR, and support capabilities.
He gave an example of one F-22 pilot who within a 12 hour mission during the night, variously conducted strike, ISR, and armed escort missions with several air refuelings during the night mission over Syria and Iraq.
The coalition partners are shaping new approaches and capabilities as well.
Four air forces are tanking using Airbus tankers during operations.
And the GCC plus Jordanian Air Force is are on a rapid learning curve with regard to enhanced operational capabilities.
And in answer to a question about the F-35, Carlyle reinforced the reality seen about the USS WASP:
the ALIS system works and will become a key element for the global supply system.
“For sure, it is a work in progress and will go through a couple of iterations to get where we want to go, but we will get there.”
Despite all the attention paid to China’s island-building campaign and newly acknowledged naval ambitions, perhaps the most interesting discussion in the latest China Military Power report released earlier this month was the discussion of China’s nuclear forces.
Indeed, China is also the only legally recognized nuclear weapons state whose nuclear arsenal is growing in terms of numbers, diversity, and capabilities.
According to the Pentagon, China has 50-60 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
This is a doubling over the longstanding estimate that China possessed only two dozen or so long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the Continental United States.
The Chinese ICBM portfolio includes the silo-based liquid-fueled CSS-4 Mod 2 and Mod 3 (DF-5); the solid-fueled, road-mobile CSS-10 Mod 1 and 2 (DF-31 and DF-31A); and the shorter-range CSS-3 (DF-4).
China also has many nuclear-armed liquid-fueled CSS-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM) and road-mobile, solid-fueled CSS-5 (DF-21) MRBM for regional missions, such as attacking Taiwan, Japan, or U.S. bases in northeast Asia.
The Second Artillery Corps, which controls the PLA’s strategic as well as conventionally armed land-based missiles, also has not neglected its enabling capabilities; it has enhanced its mobility, concealment, command, control, and communications.
According to the report,
These capabilities improve the Second Artillery Force’s ability to command and control multiple units in the field.
Through the use of improved communications links, the ICBM units now have better access to battlefield information, uninterrupted communications connecting all command echelons, and unit commanders are able to issue orders to multiple subordinates at once, instead of serially, via voice commands.
Furthermore, the PLA Navy will soon obtain a sufficient number of strategic submarines to keep at least one of them on patrol at all times with a long-range, nuclear-armed ballistic missile able to attack the United States.
The Pentagon expects that China will double its current fleet of JIN-class SSBN (Type-094) and deploy as many as eight of them by the end of this decade as well as develop a more advanced Type-096 SSBN in the future.
China is also finalizing development of a CSS-NX-14 (JL-2) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) with an estimated range of 7,400 km.
According to the Pentagon, “Together these will give the PLA Navy its first credible long-range sea-based nuclear capability.”
Most interesting, the Pentagon now believes that China is equipping at least some of its DF-5s with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) and that China is likely developing a new road-mobile ICBM, the CSS-X-20 (DF-41), that may be able to deliver MIRVs.
The Pentagon ascribes defensive motives to China’s decisions to acquire more mobile warheads; to keep adding to its silo-based force; to deploy new command, control, and communications capabilities; and to miniaturize its nuclear warheads so as to place several of them on a single missile along with heavier decoys.
These steps are to “ensure the viability of China’s strategic deterrent in the face of continued advances in U.S. and, to a lesser extent, Russian strategic ISR, precision strike, and missile defense capabilities.”
(The report enigmatically adds without explanation that “India’s nuclear force is an additional driver behind China’s nuclear force modernization.”)
The Chinese also explain their unique operational practices—such as hiding some nuclear systems in tunnels and refusing to disclose the precise number of Chinese nuclear warheads or strategic delivery systems—as designed to enhance the survivability of its ICBM force.
The Pentagon report states that the PLA is specifically developing new technologies—“including maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRV), MIRVs, decoys, chaff, jamming, and thermal shielding” as well as hypersonic glide vehicles and “training exercises featuring maneuver, camouflage, and launch operations under simulated combat conditions–to overcome adversaries’ ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems.
As far as we can tell, China still keeps its land-based ICBM fleet at a low peacetime alert level, with the warheads stored separately from the missiles.
However, Unlike China’s land-based missiles, the missiles on the submarines are mated with their warheads, requiring China to develop, for the first time, new command and control and personnel reliability arrangements to ensure positive control over the submarine’s actions.
After they leave their base at Hainan Island in the South China Sea, Chinese submarine captains may have the pre-delegated authority to launch nuclear missiles if they lose communication with the Chinese high command.
The growing number of Chinese ICBMs also will require China to upgrade its nuclear command and control systems and procedures.
This problem becomes even more serious when one considers that, as the report notes, “The development of China’s conventionally armed missile capability has been extraordinarily rapid,” with the current fleet of short-range systems (less than 1,000 km) exceeding 1,200 systems by the end of last year.
China’s Communist Party-affiliated Global Times newspaper published a graphic showing the potential flight of China’s test of a hypersonic glide vehicle. Credit: Free Beacon
Furthermore, the Pentagon report notes continuing uncertainty regarding China’s declared “no first use” (NFU) policy—which means that “China will never use nuclear weapons first against any nuclear-weapon State, and China will never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State or nuclear-weapon-free zone.”
But some Chinese officers have publicly suggested that China should consider employing nuclear weapons first if an adversary’s non-nuclear attack threatened the survival of China’s nuclear force or of the PRC regime.
Such a caveat would be problematic since the Second Artillery co-locates nuclear and conventional forces and their command and control systems.
How should the United States respond to China’s new capabilities?
The United States can still discourage China’s use of nuclear weapons without having to rely on an unenforceable NFU policy by strengthening its own nuclear forces to deny China good options to escalate to nuclear war to counter conventional defeats.
To achieve this escalation control, the U.S. military needs updated nuclear delivery vehicles with capabilities for lower yields, rapid delivery, and high accuracy to have viable nuclear options with lower risk of escalation.
It also needs more flexible and secure command and control systems that are secure against Chinese cyber, ASAT, and other degradations (which requires both countermeasures and redundancy) and the capacity to apply tailored limited nuclear strikes against various targets.
The Pentagon also requires an improved capacity for adaptive and short-notice planning for nuclear scenarios, especially theater-based ones, as well as more realistic joint planning and exercises involving other COCOMS besides Strategic Command.
One gets the impression that, when confronted with nuclear scenarios, U.S. regional commands simply presume that STRATCOM will take care of the issue without realizing that how they execute even conventional war plans—especially their war aims but also their means to achieve them–could contribute to nuclear escalation by an adversary.
Beyond the Pentagon, non-DOD agencies need to consider the political and economic implications of possible nuclear weapons use by any party.
We must make sure that local allied and U.S. war plans are sufficiently harmonized.
We don’t want to have a situation in say North Korea, when the United States is striving for escalation control regarding China and the South Koreans are trying to destroy the regime and reunify the country.
And we require many more F-35s in order to be able to suppress China’s robust air defenses and improving capabilities for GPS jamming, and to have good enough tactical ISR to be able to destroy even mobile targets with conventional weapons, thus reducing our need to ever use nuclear weapons first.
The more capable U.S. nuclear and conventional forces, the less likely the United States or its allies will ever have to fight a nuclear war
The EU has taken a decision to create a naval force to disrupt human smugglers in the Mediterranean.
The force, to be known as EUNavFor Med, will form part of a wider approach to saving lives at sea EU High Representative Federica Mogherini said after a joint meeting of EU foreign and defence ministers.
She sees the creation of the naval force as part of a comprehensive approach to solving the migration crisis in the Mediterranean Sea.
The EU will, according to her, work with its African and Arab partners and help tackle the root causes of migration – poverty, crisis and war.
EUNavFor Med will aim to break the business model of smugglers and traffickers.
Based in Rome and headed by Italian Rear Admiral Enrico Credendino, it will work in the southern and central Mediterranean and in partnership with Libyan authorities.
Planning and assessment of smuggling networks will be the first stage, followed by the searching, seizing and disruption of assets of smugglers all within the framework of international law.
Speaking after the meeting Mogherini said she hopes planning, both practical and political in the UN Security Council, will be completed by the June Foreign Affairs Council.
This Common Security and Defence policy (CSDP) operation is part of a set of comprehensive measures aimed at responding to the immediate need to save lives, address emergency situations and to tackle the root causes of irregular migration as requested by the European Council on April 23.
There is currently no indication of how many vessels will serve on EUNavFor Med and for what period of time. The common costs of the operation are estimated at €11.82 million for a two months start-up phase plus an initial mandate of 12 months.
Republished with permission of our partner defenceWeb.
The operational headquarters of EUNAVFOR Med will be located in Rome, according to the statement that Defence Minister Roberta Pinotti released at the end of the EU Foreign Affairs and Defence Council.
Brussel’s green light for the mission “acknowledges that the current situation in the Mediterranean – illegal migration and the smuggler’s criminal activities- has become a European problem,” the Minister added.
Command of Eunavfor Med was assigned to Admiral Enrico Credendino.
Recently, I had the chance to talk with the current Deputy Chief of the Royal Australian Air Force, Air Vice-Marshal Gavin (Leo) Davies, who will take over as Chief of the Air Force this summer.
His tenure comes at a crucial time in the evolution of the RAAF and of the Australian Defence Force as a whole.
And the Australian approach is part of the evolving context within which key coalition partners of the United States are undertaking fundamental changes to shape their forces for 21st century operations.
Whether it be the UK innovating under the impact of the acquisition of their new carrier, or the Dutch and Norwegians leveraging the F-35 to shape ways ahead (the Dutch speak of Air Force 3.0) or the Gulf Air Forces shaping a very competent air arm engaged in Middle Eastern Operations, allies are reshaping ways to operate on their own or with their coalition partners.
No ally is clearer about shaping a template for change or shaping a way ahead than the Australians, and within Australia the RAAF.
The current Chief of the RAAF, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, launched what he calls Plan Jericho as the template for change.
Air Commodore Gary Martin, the Australian Air Attache in the United States, with Air Vice Marshal Davies after the interview. Credit: SLD
A former Air Vice-Marshal in the Royal Australian Air Force, John Blackburn, has been deeply involved in supporting the Plan Jericho launch, and provided an overview on the approach in a recent presentation to the European Air Group at High Wycombe and at a joint Aussie-Danish Airpower Symposium in Copenhagen on April 17, 2015.
As Blackburn explained at the Copenhagen Airpower Symposium on April 17, 2015, the idea behind the effort is pretty straightforward, namely, to leverage the coming of the F-35 as a trigger for transformation for the modernizing RAAF fleet.
Rather than just waiting for the coming of a fifth generation aircraft, the Aussies are looking to reshape the force to become a more integrated, lethal force enabled by vastly improved, shared, situational awareness and targeted decision making able to operate effectively in the challenging environments in which they operate. It is about a step change in the ability to operate as an integrated team across the Australian Defence Force and in Coalition operations.
In part, the challenge is to get past the replacement platform mentality.
The core air platforms have been or are being replaced but the task is not simply to learn the new platform and prepare for the next one in a narrowly defined functional area – fighter is a fighter, tanker is a tanker, a lifter is a lifter, an air battle manager is an air battle manger and so on down the 20th century species list – but to shape cross platform capabilities and to reshape how battle management, operations and warfare is conducted.
This is challenging for a small air force, which is already taxed in learning how to operate new platforms, and get them into operations.
The notion of preparing for the introduction of the F-35 and cross platform innovation will be evolved by testing new approaches to using other new platforms and leveraging them as well in new ways PRIOR to the F-35 becoming the dominant fighter in the RAAF.
For Air Marshal Brown, the task for Plan Jericho is about combat innovation and not just about a new airplane, but what that plane and the innovation in the RAAF associated with the plane might mean for the Australian Navy and Army as well.
The question he posed to launch Plan Jericho is simply: What is a 5th Gen / 5th Gen enabled Force?
For the Chief this is clearly a Force with: vastly improved shared situational awareness, the ability to operate as an integrated team and the term is a lever for joint integration in 21st century combat conditions and adapted to a 21st century strategic environment.”
The formal definition of Plan Jericho has been laid out in an official publication earlier this year and the way to understand it is as follows:
“Plan Jericho is Air Force’s plan to transform into a fully integrated force that is capable of fighting and winning in the information age.
Jericho Vision: To develop a future force that is agile and adaptive, fully immersed in the information age, and truly joint.
This is not the final plan, but rather the first step to meet our challenge of transformation for the future.
The discussion with Air Vice-Marshal Davies started precisely on the point of how he viewed Plan Jericho and its importance in helping shape a way ahead.
According to Davies: “The Plan Jericho approach dovetails very well with the overall relook which Australian defense is taking with regard to first principles.
There is a first principles review going on at the same time we have launched the Plan Jericho effort.
We think our approach is not simply about the Air Force but the overall process of transformation for Australian defense.”
He emphasized that “if we simply continue without transformation we will not be able to deal with threat environment which Australia and its allies face.
Significant innovation, shaping distributed operational capabilities, and greater coalition effectiveness are all part of the way ahead.
It is about building a more credible deterrent force, one whose effectiveness can not be in doubt in the eyes of the adversaries of the democracies.”
(L-R) Deputy Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Michael van Balen, AO, RAN, Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, AO and Deputy Chief of Air Force, Air Vice Marshal Gavin ‘Leo’ Davies, AO, CSC pay threir respects after laying wreathes at the Anzac Day 2015 National Ceremony held in Canberra.
He explained further how he looked at the challeng.
“I call it the Janes factor.
I want a potential adversary to look at the Royal Australian Air Force, the Australian Defense Force more broadly, and then at a coalition force, of which Australia is a part, and flick through Janes fighting ships, fighting aircraft, fighting systems, and conclude that I do not want to butt heads with that group, actually.
That’s going to hurt me more than I can stand.
I suspect if we continue to evolve as we are, and have done over the last 20 years, without taking on a fifth generation warfare approach, then when they read that Jane’s volume on Australia, they’ll say probably they won’t be able to hurt me that badly.
This is clearly NOT the conclusion we wish our adversaries to reach.”
Air Vice-Marshal Davies highlighted that a key trajectory for force transformation was to be able to combine kinetic with non-kinetic capabilities to deliver the kind of combat effects, which are needed for a wide variety of combat tasks and situations.
He comes from an F-111 background, and the ability to project lethality at a distance was built into the F-111 approach.
But this approach is not the most relevant to the way ahead, for it is about combined capabilities delivering a multiplicity of effects appropriate to the task which is required.
“What we’ve had trouble appreciating, and this is somewhat tough for an F111 man, is that that concept is no longer valid.
We need to take the fighting force, not just the kinetic effect, to battle, and so our requirement for air lift, our requirement for anywhere refueling, became part of a fighter support package, but really the fighter support package now includes electronic warfare, it includes ISR, and it includes the ability to update the battle second by second, minute by minute, whereas what and we have been reliant upon ISR updates of day by day up until this point.
If we don’t have all the elements as we go forward into a particular series of events, I don’t believe we will prevail.
We will not be able to have the response that we need and for a force as small as the ADF is, that’s simply not going to be effective”
The force integration piece is the goal for Plan Jericho.
He mentioned that the Royal Australian Navy leadership was shaping a convergent approach to innovation and looking at naval and air integration as a key element of moving forward as well for their platforms.
“We already see manifestations of this in Operation Okra, where we have navy controllers on the Wedgetail and we will have Air Force controllers onboard Navy ships as well.
This is about breaking the cultural barriers.”
A key element associated with the Plan Jericho approach is enhancing risk tolerance. Risk aversion will not see the kind of innovation necessary to shape an integrated force which can leverage the new platforms, with the F-35 being a centerpiece for the innovation process.
“With the new technologies, the younger generation intuitively probes ways to do things differently.
We need to not get in the way but to facilitate change as senior leaders. And we can seek out opportunities to enhance innovation.
For example, we have bought the C-27J in order to access many of the shorter airstrips in our area of operation.
Norwegian Deputy Minister of Defence, Oystien Bo (right to left) Deputy Chief of Air Force, Air-Vice Marshal Gavin (Leo) Davies, Kongsberg Executive Vice President, Pal Bratlie, BAE Director Land and Intergrated Systems, Graeme Bert and General Manage Aerospace QinetiQ, Dick Noordewier at the Kongsberg stand after The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Minister for Defence has announced Australias participation in a cooperative Joint Strike Missile (JSM) development program with Norway for the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter. *** Local Caption *** The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Minister for Defence has announced Australias participation in a cooperative Joint Strike Missile (JSM) development program with Norway for the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter.
We can access four times the number of air fields in the Australian region with C27 than we can C130J.
We are going to send young crews to work with a mix of experienced C-130 crew members because we want to have fresh looks at how this fleet might operate in an island environment as vast as Australia and deliver the kind of military tasks that these crews will face and the Government expects.”
A core effort for the RAAF and the ADF is working a diversity of coalition efforts, and the coming of the global F-35 fleet enhances our ability to shape new working relationships in the near term.
“We have seen an expanding willingness among partners to share experiences and to shape convergent ways ahead in the past few years.
And we hope to continue this trend going forward.
For example, as South Korea adds the F-35 and works logistics or its integration with its Navy or Army, how might we learn from what they do?
And as we expand ways to enhance interoperability with the integration efforts we can expand the apertures of how we integrate various pieces of equipment going forward based on expanding working relationships with Asian and other allies.
I think that is the next step.”
We concluded the discussion by addressing a core question: when his time as Chief of the RAAF is over what will he hope to look back on as achievements during his time in office?
“There are two key tasks which I hope we will succeed in achieving.
The first is pushing beyond the platform approach.
A C-17 is not just about going from point A to point B. How do we reshape its role as we craft a fifth generation warfare approach?
More generally, how do we tie our inventory together in a more effective war fighting approach enabling us to prevail in the 21st century strategic environment?
The second is overcoming a risk averse culture.
We need to open opportunities for the young officers, airmen and airwomen to drive innovation and to open the aperture for integrative change.”
Air Vice-Marshal Davies joined the Royal Australian Air Force as a cadet Navigator in 1979 and graduated to fly P-3B and P-3C Orion aircraft with No 11 Squadron at Edinburgh in South Australia. In 1987 Air Vice-Marshal Davies completed pilot training and after completing F-111 conversion course was posted in 1988 to No 1 Squadron at RAAF Base Amberley.
In 1990, Air Vice-Marshal Davies was posted to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico, to fly F-111D aircraft on exchange with the United States Air Force. On return to Australia in 1993 Air Vice-Marshal Davies was posted to No 1 Squadron as the Operations Flight Commander followed by one year as Operations Officer at Headquarters No 82 Wing during 1996.
After a posting in 1997 and 1998 as the Executive Officer at No 1 Squadron, Air Vice-Marshal Davies completed RAAF Command and Staff Course. In 2000, he commenced two years in Capability Systems within Defence Headquarters.
In 2002, Air Vice-Marshal Davies’ long association with No 1 Squadron was again rekindled when he returned as Commanding Officer and achieved 2000 hours flying the F-111. He was the Staff Officer to the Chief of Air Force during 2004 before taking up the post of Officer Commanding No 82 Wing at RAAF Base Amberley.
Air Vice-Marshal Davies worked as Director Combat Capability within Air Force Headquarters in 2006 and 2007, during which he was deployed to the Middle East to work within the Combined Air Operations Centre. From 2008 he was the Director General Capability Planning within Air Force Headquarters until 2010, when he was posted to Washington as the Air Attaché. Air Vice-Marshal Davies returned from Washington in January 2012 to take up his current position as Deputy Chief of Air Force.
In March 2015, his future promotion to Air Marshal and appointment as Chief of Air Force was announced with effect 4 July 2015.
I visited the HMS Queen Elizabeth on March 31, 2015 and conducted interviews in MoD afterwards.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth is a new carrier designed to leverage core 21st century technologies and to reshape the UK forces into a more effective power projection force.
And the full value of the carrier will not be realized until decision makers adjust their thinking as well to the options generated by the new power projection tools emerging for democratic decision makers.
Although this piece has been informed by several discussions with the Royal Navy and Air Force, they are not responsible in any way for my arguments made in this piece, but clearly there is a need to place the carrier in context.
And that context is evolving capabilities and the nature of the strategic context and decision-making approaches enabled by the carrier.
There are two clearly interconnected elements to any argument about the importance of the carrier at this point in history – the first is how it both enables and is enabled by adjacent evolving capabilities to shape an overall dynamic process of enhanced capabilities for the forces and the second is the relevance of this force transformation for UK and allied interests and operations.
Key Building Blocks for Force Transformation
When designing the carrier, clearly the designers were looking at core elements which the carrier would be built around which provide a base line infrastructure for 21st century operations.
A large carrier is first of all to be understood to be a floating infrastructure for operations, and dependent upon what comes from the flight deck of the carrier, it is an infrastructure for variable operations.
Credit: Aircraft Carrier Alliance – Queen Elizabeth Class at sea (CGI)
The integrity of the logistics of a carrier and its task force is a key advantage of carrier operations, namely that it, in the words of the CG of 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Major General Simcock, “it commutes to work.”
Recent events in Iraq whereby the ISIS seized US and allied equipment left behind in Iraq reminds one of the problem of leave behind stores and supplies as opposed to carrying the supplies with you.
A key advantage of a carrier is that it carries its logistics with it and when it leaves those supplies go with it.
The other advantage of a sea-based task force is that the force does not have to have significant supplies ashore to operate, or the creation of significant numbers of forward operating bases or FOBs which in turn must be protected.
The ability to project power ashore is simply limited by the ground forces on board and the nature of the aircraft used to project those forces ashore.
Obviously, if the goal is a large invasion force for occupation or stability operations, this would simply be a forced entry force. But, in a number of cases, this might be all the force one would want, especially when linked with a variety of coalition partners.
The UK carrier will come to its initial operational life as a new phase of building scalable modular insertion forces is unfolding.
The confluence of evolving ISR, C2, and fifth generation capabilities are shaping a new approach to scalable modular force.
Rather than building sequential build to mass air operations, forces which operate in an area of interest will increasingly be linked to other forces to allow for scalability, reachback and mission success by focused lethality rather than overwhelming with mass.
The carrier will operate as this phase of the evolution of airpower is unfolding and accelerating with the emergence of a global fleet of F-35s.
The RAF will focus on ways to link sea-based and land-based airpower into a seamless whole; the carrier will be capable of providing a C2 lead to the air insertion forces or to support to an air or land based C2 lead element.
Because it is a moving strike or defense force, the carrier can either lead of support a variety of national or coalition operations.
The carrier will not depend upon forces deployed ashore to lead and operation; but can carry out autonomous operations, or be part of pushing force ashore and then supporting it as a mobile support, strike or defensive system.
And the carrier will be operating in a period where missile modernization will accelerate.
The UK by laying down its complex weapons enterprise will have the advantage of leveraging weapons commonality across the weapons enterprise.
77784random1.05.0
The same weapons can be fired by air or surface platforms, e.g. SPEAR 3 can be fired from surface assets by simple modifications. This would mean that the air and surface fleet could be armed with basically the same missile, and provide for economies of scale and significant stockpiling advantages for the force.
The scalability of the aircraft aboard the new carrier is an essential part of shaping how the carrier can engage in a wide variety of operations.
The reach of F-35Bs coming of the carrier is significant when integrated with other F-35s either launched from sea platforms or land bases.
The integration of the fusion engines aboard each F-35 provides a wide-ranging honeycomb of ISR, C2 and strike integration.
And the capability, which the F-35 will have to work with other strike assets to identify targets and offboard the strike function, will mean that F-35s launched by the carrier can enable a significant strike capability across the air, surface, and subsurface fleet as well.
And the carrier can provide for a mix and match of missions dependent upon the situation.
It can be optimized for strike, for insertion of ground forces and their support, for sea control functions or defensive functions.
As Secretary Wynne commented with regard to the new UK carrier:
The ship could be used for offensive operations or configured as primarily a defensive asset , for example, optimizing its role as a sub hunters.
In other words, employing a defensive suite, much smaller than the planned offensive suite yields really interesting constructs.
Then as it achieves a position of importance and then the offensive unit could arrive supported by tankers to provide transit fuel to the offensive unit and swap out the primarily defensive assets which have been prioritized in its sub hunting role.
In other words, by thinking through how to CONFIGURE the flight deck, they are a wide variety of missions which the carrier can do, particularly as the combat aircraft can move from and to the deck enabled by the new 330 tankers which the RAF is operating.
In short, the flexibility of a 21st century carrier is based in part by its ability to integrate with the other force assets rather than simply compliment them.
And the F-35 is a lynchpin to this as well as the complex weapons enterprise and the ability of the weapons loading system to manage a variety of configurable weapons loads to the missions, offensive, or defensive. And the capability of the F-35 to be integrated into the subsurface and surface strike roles will bring significant synergy to UK forces and their contribution to coalition forces or the ability to either lead or support those forces.
Re-Shaping the Decision Making Context
The carrier is emerging as well when publics and decision makers are looking for alternatives to parking land forces in areas for long periods of time and achieving mixed, negative or uncertain results.
There is a clear need for decision makers to understand the importance of what insertion forces can do for their nation as long as they can more effectively correlate the mission with the political objectives which can only be set by political decision makers.
Put bluntly, publics are tired of long ground campaigns but would like to see national interests still projected and protected.
Insertion forces built around integrated air, ground and sea power is a core enabler of being able to combine the need to act as rapidly as democracies can act with the need to influence events and not simply occupy terrain until war weariness crushes strategic objectives.
The classic dichotomy of boots on the ground versus airpower really does not capture the evolving capabilities of either airpower or the evolving capabilities of ground forces capitalizing on those evolving capabilities to provide for more effective and more lethal insertion forces.
An evolving pattern of 21st century conflict is emerging.
F-35 BF-17 from the F-35 Integrated Test Force in Formation with RAF Typhoons, Edwards AFB, CA April 4, 2014 F-35 test pilot LtCol Jon “Miles” Ohman performs interoperability testing. Credit: USAF
It is a pattern in which state and non-state actors are working to reshape the global order in their favor by generating conflicts against the interests of the democracies but which the democracies are slow to react. Insertion forces can provide the tool sets which can act as rapidly as democracies can decide to act but still shape outcomes favorable to the democracies.
The USMC can easily setup a TEMPORARY FOB for 22nd MEU with their MV-22s somewhere in Kurdistan to conduct missions into Iraq proper to rescue Christians and eliminate any ISIS fanatics in the way in the process and then leave. USS Bush CBG could provide a real combat punch when ISIS mass their forces-or SOCOM/CIA identifies isolated groups. Just like they could have secured the crash site in Ukraine.
This is not about long term occupation and training; this is about ready now USMC sea based tiltrotar MV-22 assault forces coming to the aid of the Kurds and Christians, and setting up a forward operating base that can influence events in the Nineveh plain, helping move threatened minorities to Kurdish protection, all the while working with SOF in country, and then returning aboard ship.
The U.S. has insertion forces able to engage and withdraw, rather than setting up long-term facilities and providing advisers as targets. The ability to establish air dominance to empower multi-mission USMC insertion force able to operate effectively, rapidly and withdraw is a core effort that now exists in US way of war for emerging 21st century conflicts
The classic dichotomy of boots on the ground versus airpower really does not capture the evolving capabilities of either airpower or the evolving capabilities of ground forces capitalizing on those evolving capabilities to provide for more effective and more lethal insertion forces.
The ability to station and supply a Navy Marine Team anywhere around the globe, ready for immediate combat, demonstrates, yet again, why the US Navy Fleets of Carrier Battle Groups and ARG/MEUs are invaluable assets for American military power projection.
Clearly, the UK carrier, the maritime task force and the coming integration of sea and land based air fits into this future.
And both the UK public and decision makers will be given a much wider range of options than they have now without having to deploy forces ashore for long periods of time, unless the interest, the need and the support is available to do so.
The coming of the UK carrier is nothing less than providing for strategic options simply missing from today’s UK defense forces; and it fit into where other allies are moving as well.
For an example of an evolving context within which the carrier could well be engaged see the following:
In late March 2015, I had a chance to visit the new generation British carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and passed by the rapidly emerging Prince of Wales as well.
Then the next day after the visit, I sat down with Royal Navy and Royal Air Force senior personnel to discuss the way ahead from an operational point of view.
Earlier, I have visited the USS America and CVN-78 or the USS Gerald Ford, so that I have had a chance to look at the new generation large deck strike and assault ships.
In a separate piece, I looked at the different approaches of each ship in some detail, and focus on a future dynamic in which all three might work together to discuss the effects which could be delivered among the three ships as a synergistic force.
“HMS Ark Royal was arguably the first modern aircraft carrier. She was originally laid down as a merchant ship, but was converted on the building stocks to be a hybrid airplane/seaplane carrier with a launch platform.
Launched on 5 September 1914, she served in the Dardanelles campaign and throughout World War I.”
(See the comprehensive history of British aircraft carriers by David Hobbs, British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development and Service Histories: Naval Institute Press, 2014).
Arguably, the British are reinventing the large deck carrier under the influence of a confluence of a number of technologies (some similar to the USS Gerald Ford) and the impact of the F-35B (similar in some ways to the USS America).
But assuredly, the carrier is a key part of the transformation of British joint forces, and their ability to operate forward.
And given the general impact of the F-35 on warfare, the cross cutting transformation driven by the British carriers and the British integration into the global fleet of F-35s will drive significant change in combat approaches as well as generating innovative ways to deliver combat effects.
In 2007, I was aboard HMS Illustrious and was aboard one of the first Ospreys to land on that ship, and the ship was indeed the first foreign warship to land the Osprey.
The most recent is a South Korean large deck amphibious ship, so that shows what eight years of evolution of aviation can do.
Marines were flying their Harriers during my visit doing the certification so necessary to fly this complex aircraft.
The British Harriers were in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the deck was empty of British Harriers, which provided a very good opportunity for the Marines to do their flight certifications.
Also, the ship has a wonderful ski jump for the aircraft to use, which is also present on the HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The HMS Illustrious is a 22,000 ton ship; the HMS Queen Elizabeth is a 65,000 ton ship.
The relationship seen that day aboard the HMS Illustrious between the USMC and the Royal Navy carries over in a major way into the operational future of the HMS Queen Elizabeth.
Both the Marines and the RAF will fly F-35Bs and will train together at Beaufort Marine Corps Air Station and will forge a broader community of growing F-35B users world wide.
And given the integration of the Marines into the USN assault and strike force and the RAF’s integration in the Royal Navy’s operations of the carrier and the task force, their cross innovations will influence the future of naval warfare, and the projection of power from the sea.
The first thing you notice as you approach the ship is how large the ship really is.
And when you get onboard, the first thing you notice is how large the flight deck is.
I was told it was approximately 90% of the flight deck of a Nimitz class carrier; and the deck is very wide indeed.
The second thing you notice are the two islands aboard the ship.
This is due to the fact that it is not a nuclear carrier and the exhausts for the engines exit on two parts of the flight deck; and there is an island incorporating those exit points. The forward island is used to operate the ship; and the aft island runs flight deck operations.
And in a crisis, either island can perform both tasks, but visiting the two islands it is clear that the designers have focused on ways to enhance the workflow for the two different tasks, namely running the ship and operating the aircraft aboard the flight deck.
During the visit, I walked the flight deck with Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel and stood at the end of the ski jump.
It was a rainy and windy day, and the width of the deck before you, coupled with the projected operational footprint of the F-35B clearly brings up a vision of the commanders organizing task forces for force insertion from this deck.
It is a cross between the notion of a large deck amphibious assault ship, like the USS America, and a strike carrier, like CVN-78.
As David Hobbs put it:
Ships such as the USS America (are) able to provide both an amphibious force and air power from the sea in measures that are flexible and adjustable, a capability that analysts are referring to as “triphibious operations”, combing land, sea and air operations in a single ship that operates as an operational hub.
Queen Elizabeth will but just such a ship, but will approach ‘triphibious crossover’ from an original design as a strike carrier, whereas America began as an amphibious assault ship with an enhanced air capability.
The two may well operate in a similar fashion and from the basis of a new approach to naval aviation in the twenty-first century, the big-deck air-capable ship with a number of roles, many of which can be carried out concurrently.[ref]David Hobbs, British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development and Service Histories (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 371.[/ref]
The flight deck is built by Laird Shipbuilding (one of the members of the Carrier Alliance of yards building modules for the ship), so I felt at home aboard this flight deck.
And to the right of the ski jump, in the water, were 4 Polaris submarines. And the dock next to the ship is called the Hood dock, where HMS Hood left to pursue Bismarck and to where Prince of Wales returned after successfully completing the mission.
And also looking to the right from the top of the ski jump one sees the bridges under which this large ship has to sail to get to her homeport of Portsmouth.
The ship has a mast which collapses to allow it do so under the current bridge, but, interestingly, a new bridge is under construction, which hopefully will not get in the way!
The ship is designed to operate around 40 aircraft, F-35Bs and helicopters, and possibly Ospreys in the future.
The plan is to operate 24 F-35Bs, 8 ASW helicopters and 5 crows’ nests, probably off of Merlin helicopters.
The design emphasizes flexibility, with accommodation for 250 Royal Marines and the ability to support them with attack helicopters and troop transports up to Chinook size and larger.
In addition, to the innovative F-35B, the Royal Navy will add a new airborne command post to the deck, which will be available for a multiplicity of tasks in ship defense.
With the F-35B, the strike concept will be different from that of the USN and its large deck carriers. As an RAF officer put it: “The plane is so easy to fly, we will focus on getting the maximum effects from the strike force, and not have to focus as much attention to flight choreography as one has to do with legacy aircraft.”
The focus is clearly on effects generated from an aircraft carried designed for 24/7 operation.
The F-35B launched from the carriers are part of the picture; the very significant C2 capabilities aboard the ship are another. With the carrier afloat, the RAF is looking to build synergy among the various land based and carrier based aircraft to generate combat effects.
As an RN officer put it: “The strike force could be commanded from the ship, from the ground or from the air. We are building flexible C2 in order to get maximum combat value from aircraft launched from the carrier.”
The F-35B as a flying combat system, capable of integrated air operations with every other F-35 flying in the combat area is a significant foundation for shaping what the Queen Elizabeth will do in combat.
The reach of the F-35Bs coming off of the Queen Elizabeth will be expanded by the range of the operational fleet of other F-35s and the data grid generated over the expanded battle space.
And leveraging what Typhoons will be able to do as they undergo their current weapons modernization program will only enhance the strike effects of an integrated air-sea combat air force.
Projected forward in time, one can envisage how this might operate.
The Queen Elizabeth is in the Eastern Mediterranean and with its integration with the other F-35Bs aboard USN-USM or Italian ships, the data coverage would be significant.
The Typhoons operating in Cyprus would have a forward controller and defense shield as well as with the F-35Bs target acquisition elements. The Typhoons could operate with “greater survivability and lethality,” as one RAF officer put it.
Another scenario one could imagine is with regard to Baltic defense.
Rather than the current approach which requires sequential and segmented defense buildups to deal with the threat or reality of a Russian invasion of the Baltics, with the coming of the F-35 and the Queen Elizabeth one can envisaged a just time strike and deterrent capability.
If the Finns buy F-35s, they could deploy their aircraft in national defense and at the same time be part of a Baltic defense; Norwegian and Danish F-35s could operate over the Baltics as well.
Now a strike and ISR grid has been laid over the Baltics which can both detect and strike any advancing Russian forces and reassure the Baltic republics that there is not simply a demonstration deterrent force of a handful of aircraft, but a force which could interdict and defeat any Russian invading force.
Enter the Queen Elizabeth or a Marine Corps MAGTF aboard a large deck amphibious ship.
These forces can now be inserted directly into the deterrent or battlespace.
The F-35Bs being the edge of the insertion and integrate with an allied deterrent and strike force.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth is being built for 21st century operations, and is not simply repeating the approach of the past three decades.
And a number of innovations built into the ship are designed to enhance the capability of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to shape a new approach.
Several innovations one sees aboard the Ford can be found aboard the HMS Queen Elizabeth: significant power generation, significant C2 capabilities, very large rooms for reconfigurable C2 suites for operations across the Range of Military Operations (ROMO), as well as well designed work areas for the F-35B crews which will handle the operations and data generated by the F-35 to the fleet.
Significant power generation means that future developments can be accommodated, including the probability of the coming of directed energy weapons. The ability to drive the computer power necessary for evolving C2 is significant as well.
Walking through the ship, one sees miles of cable run to support operations, and notably to provide for robust and redundant C2. In fact both the Ford and the QE really have prioritized C2 in way that will allow these ships to play key roles in supporting not only a task force at sea but an overall joint or coalition insertion force.
The ship infrastructure is supported by an integrated management control system. IPMS or the integrated platform management system which provides integrated management to support operations and combat management.
This “brain” of the ship is designed to manage the workflow of the ship and to provide dynamic information to enable the infrastructure aboard the ship to support sortie generation rates for the mix and match strike force.
According to an L-3 (the designer and builder of the system) white paper on IPMS:
The QE Class are completely networked ships and IPMS is one of many electronic systems that will be provided.
To support the ships operational mission, and to ensure the platform systems are configured correctly at all times to support air operations, the IPMS has interfaces with the Combat Management System (CMS), the Air Group Management Application (AGMA) and a significant number of cameras provided by Visual Surveillance System (VSS).
This, along with the many platform, power and propulsion system interfaces, enables real time information relating to the status of systems to be displayed to decision makers throughout the vessel.
This interaction with the Mission Systems does, however, require that IPMS be designed, configured and authorized for operating in the UK Secret domain.
And the builders of the ship highlighted the integrated information aspects of the ship in the following manner:
The ships will each have a fully integrated command system, which has three functional areas:
Information System :The computing hardware, internal Networks and C4I software applications to support effective command and control on the carrier. E.g. – Considerable work has been done with Royal Navy and Royal Air Force
Information Defence Lines of Development to understand how the data repository on board will be accessed by new and legacy systems and how that repository will be configured in the future.
Communications: The communications equipment to support the required voice and data services. E.g. – an emulation of the Communication Control Management System and the Tactical C2 Voice system have been procured to exercise the business process of configuring the carrier for internal and external communications.
Air Management and Protection System: The on-board sensor and weapon systems for the management of aircraft in the air and on deck and the defense of the ship.
Walking below deck, the reconfigurable C2 suites are very impressive.
Of course, there are the suites for the most sensitive information, but a large area can be configured to support various types of C2 arrangements dependent upon the crisis, whether humanitarian or combat.
The F-35 requires its own workspaces to accommodate its security requirements and data management.
The ship is built with clearly configured areas to optimize the ability of the F-35Bs to operate aboard the ship and to support the flight and operations crews to optimize sortie generation aboard the ship.
The ship is designed to leverage the advantage of the F-35B and the space and energy savings of NOT operating catapults aboard the ship.
This also effects RN thinking about that core reality of operations, namely deck spotting and ways to most effectively use the deck in combat.
And there will be a landing system aboard the HMS Queen Elizabeth which is designed to facilitate F-35B landings as well.
Credit: Aircraft Carrier Alliance – Queen Elizabeth Class at sea (CGI)
The landing system will allow a more automatrf process, enhancing both safety and sortie generation.
The mix and match skill set to operate rotorcraft, strike aircraft, and possibly tilt-rotor will be an important core competence learned in the past and applied to this ship going forward. It is about deck spotting, workflow from the hangar space to the flight deck and weapons loading. The ability to launch a mix and matched force – in terms of aircraft as well as weapons – will be a core competence of the combat team aboard the ship.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth in common with CVN-78 has a new way to load weapons and to configure the weapons loads to enhance the safety and speed of the weaponization process.
There is a highly mechanized weapons handling system and advanced machinery automation. The weapons are brought to either end of the deck to be loaded onto the combat aircraft; and the mechanism for loading and moving the weapons can provide for a mix and match capacity to push the proper loads to the particular aircraft for the missions of the day. In fact, the system aboard the HMS Queen Elizabeth can prepare those loads the night before the early morning missions.
The UK approach to building a complex weapons enterprise means that there is a common stockpile supporting the strike force. This means that the numbers and types of weapons have been necked down and the introduction of new weapons will again be built around commonality which will allow the carrier to optimize its ability to arm the strike force as well.
With the common training and software between the RAF and USMC F-35Bs, certification for cross weaponization is certainly a clear possibility moving forward as well. The common pool of weapons in support of the F-35 is an important enabler for a resupply effort as well, whereby as the UK operates its carrier forward it could receive weapons from foreign stockpiles of common weapons as well.
The ship is clearly designed with maintainability in mind. One example is that the engine shafts can be taken out while the ship is in the water and be repaired, not necessitating a dry dock to do those repairs.
Affordability of through life support has also been a key driver in adopting a commercial design.
Key operational spaces can be readily reconfigured and additional equipment inserted in a cost effective and timely manner to suit the future requirements of the Armed Forces and the nation.
Ship manning is significantly reduced aboard the HMS Queen Elizabeth. High levels of built-in automation have been introduced to minimize manning requirements and the qualifications of aboard personnel would be adjusted as well to operate a highly automated ship.
The Highly Mechanized Weapon Handling System enables a streamlined crew to operate a vessel much larger than the carrier which it replaces, meaning that each ship will have a total crew of 679, only increasing to the full complement of 1,600 when the air elements are embarked.
In other words, current crew complement for the vessel is 679 sailors, compared to 3,200 for a Nimitz-class carrier of the U.S. Navy.
Given a tons per person operating measure, the UK will be shaping an innovative way forward.
In short, this is not your grandfather’s aircraft carrier.
Neither in terms of what will fly off the deck nor how it will operate nor how it will generate combat effects.
Not only is the F-35 a break through capability so is the design of in many ways a radically new large deck carrier.
The RN is looking with the RAF to reduce significantly personnel necessary to launch its air compliment, than does the USN with regard to its large deck carriers, which operates many aircraft, which the F-35B will operate to replace.
This is a clear area where the plane and the ship merge into a very different approach.
It will require nothing less than a transformation of the RAF and the RN in operating the ship and generating the kind of combat effects crucial to 21st century operations.
And Hobbs projected an interesting future for ships like the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the USS America:
Adaptable carrier designs represent a modular approach, with embarked aircraft or marine forces offering capabilities across the spectrum of warfare and humanitarian relief from a common hull with its small ship’s company, automated storage facilities and medical facilities.
They must represent the long-germ future for every navy that aspires to be more than a coastal patrol force.[ref]David Hobbs, British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development and Service Histories (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 357.[/ref]
Editor’s Note: With regard to the original HMS Ark Royal (and the credit for the photo):
Commissioned early in December 1914 and sailed for Dardanelles on 1 February 1915, arriving at Tenedos on the 17th. Although hampered by the poor performance of her sea planes she provided much-needed reconnaissance for the bombardment of the Turkish forts.
Involved in many operations March-April 1915 and covered the landings from 25 April onwards, but at the end of May was withdrawn to Imbros where she became in effect a depot ship for all aircraft based there (she was too vulnerable to U-boat attack to be risked at sea).
To Mytilene and Salonika from November 1915 to March 1916, then back to Mudros as parent ship to No 2 Wing, RNAS. Two of her Sopwith Baby Seaplanes attempted to bomb Goeben in January 1918. To Syra as parent ship through Dardanelles after the Armistice and operated in the Black Sea, transporting aircraft to Batum. Withdrawn at the end of 1919 to support Somaliland campaign against the ‘Mad Mullah’. Sea of Marmora and Black Sea 1920, covering withdrawal of White Russian forces from Crimea, and carried aircraft to Basra, in the Persian Gulf.
In reserve at Rosyth after refit November 1920~April 1921. Recommissioned September 1922 to take aircraft out to Mediterranean during the Chanak Crisis, refitting at Malta in April 1923 before returning to Dardanelles.
Renamed Pegasus in December 1934 to release name for new carrier. Survived to fight in Second World in various capacities, and sold in December 1946 for conversion to Panamanian merchant ship. As Anita I, started conversion at Antwerp but the ship was sold for BU in June 1949. (Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1906-21)
The first slideshow shows the Osprey and USMC Harriers operating aboard HMS Illustrious in the 2007 training exercise and are credited to Second Line of Defense.
The final photo is credited to the Royal Navy and was shot when in September 2013, the Osprey landed again on the ship.
The second slideshow photos were shot during the visit to HMS Queen Elizabeth and were shot by the RN/RAF team and are credited to them.
The first photo shows the ski jump on the flight deck for the F-35B. The second photo is of the ski jump and a shot of the Hood Dock from which HMS Hood left to go after Bismarck and to which HMS Prince of Wales returned after the Bismarck was sunk.
The third photo is shot from the ski jump and looks down at the entire flight deck.
The fourth photo shows Robbin Laird with one of the HMS Queen Elizabeth team at the end of the flight deck.
The fifth photo shows several members of the team who provided the tour of the ship.
The sixth, seventh and eighth photos show the islands aboard the flight deck.
The ninth photo provides another shot of the flight deck; the tenth photo is a shot of the reconfigurable C2 spaces aboard the ship;; the eleventh photo shows the massive crane used in the course of construction.
And the final photo shows those who provided the tour for whom more than thanks are due for providing insights into a key element of evolving air and sea power.
Special thanks goes to my hosts aboard the HMS Queen Elisabeth who included Group Captain Paul Godders, Cdr Uves Wood, Royal Navy, Lt Sarah Simmons RN – QNLZ Senior Air Engineer and WO Mick Davidson – ex QNLZ Air Engineering Department Coordinator now Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant Officer.
