Robbin Laird, Author at Second Line of Defense

MARCOM’s Support at Sea: An Interview with Deputy Chief of Staff Ops

Posted on January 27, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

01/27/2015

2015-01-27 By Murielle Delaporte

Editor’s Note: Murielle Delaporte is embedded at sea with the NATO counter mine force discussed in this article.

This interview was conducted prior to departure.

NATO Allied Maritime Command’s Deputy Chief of Staff Operations, Commodore Arian Minderhoud, an overview on the evolving role of MARCOM, notably in relationship to the development of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF)

How does the SNMCMG1, which was reactivated about a year ago, fit with MARCOM and NATO’s strategy as a whole?

Under the authority of MARCOM, there are two Standing Maritime groups – composed at the moment with frigates and destroyers – which operate in the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, the Baltic, and sometimes the Black sea area.

Two other groups – MCM for Mine Counter Measures – are operating in the Baltic, North Sea and the Atlantic for Group One and the Mediterranean and the Black Sea for Group Two.

This year, there is a combined operation for these two groups, but there is normally a division of labor between the two.

These four groups constitute the very core of NATO‘s maritime immediate reaction force and fit with the development of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force.

As you may assume, if there is a developing crisis, these four standing groups, although different in their composition, would be the first ones in the operating area.

Two mine-hunters of the SNMCMG1 departs Den Helder to head towards the Baltic Sea (credit: M. Delaporte)

Of course, if the crisis was to last, they would probably need to be reinforced with additional capabilities – such as C2, reconnaissance, Maritime Patrol Aircraft, submarines and so on -in order to take command of a situation at sea in support of the Very high readiness joint task force.

Joint, the VJTF will indeed be composed of Army and Air Force personnel with the maritime component being initially resourced from the NATO standing maritime groups.

If there is follow on action required (which should be assumed), there will be follow on forces resourced from NATO countries.

There is not a clear definition of what these forces will look like, as they are not yet designed, but you must think along the lines of amphibious capabilities as well as more submarines, more air support and more expeditionary capabilities.

Immediate reaction forces bound to NATO maritime forces have a two to five day notice to move, but because these four groups are at sea or doing port visits, they are operational.

The follow on forces have a five to seven day notice to move and can build up to thirty.

This is how these forces fit in the concept and the current concept development of the VJTF.

Again, I believe it is mostly important to underline that it is a JOINT task force.

SNMCMG1 - Hand-over ceremony in Den Helder NETHERLANDS - Commodore Minderhoud adressing SNMCMG1 crew - 22 JAN 2015 photo by WO C.ARTIGUES (HQ MARCOM). Lithuanian Navy Commander Giedrius Premeneckas handed over command of Standing NATO Mine Counter-Measures Group one (SNMCMG1) to Dutch Navy Commander Peter A.J. Bergen Henegouwen during a brief Ceremony conducted by NATO Allied Maritime Command's deputy Chief of Staff Operations Commodore Arian Minderhoud. Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 1 (SNMCMG1) is a multinational, integrated maritime force made up of vessels from various allied countries. These vessels (including their helicopters) are permanently available to NATO to perform different tasks ranging from participating in exercises to actually intervening in operational missions. These groups provide NATO with a continuous maritime capability for operations and other activities in peacetime and in periods of crisis and conflict. They also help to establish Alliance presence, demonstrate solidarity, conduct routine diplomatic visits to different countries, support transformation and provide a variety of maritime military capabilities to ongoing missions. — SNMCMG1 – Hand-over ceremony in Den Helder NETHERLANDS – Commodore Minderhoud adressing SNMCMG1 crew – 22 JAN 2015 photo by WO C.ARTIGUES (HQ MARCOM).

Of course, there would be moments without the need for maritime support for the VJTF, but most of the time, you will need on the XXI^th Century battlefield your logistics, your re-supply, your maritime awareness and dominance in the maritime area.

What is the impact of such a development on the way you are going to operate this year?

For the moment and as far as the four maritime groups are concerned, we are going along with the cycle of planning that we have, but we may expect that one of the biggest exercise will be used to trial, exercise and further develop the VJTF concept with the standing maritime groups being fully part of that exercise[ref]NDLR: NATO’s major joint exercise in 2015 is Trident Juncture. For details, see our two interviews about NATO training with French Lieutenant-Colonel Thozet and US Navy Lieutenant Commander Chris Hahn, published in: Opérationnels SLDS # 19, Summer 2014, pages 13 to 16.[/ref]

Many nations are going to participate, but there will be some core nations with brigades, such as Germany and the Netherlands which will constitute the very first Army brigade to support the VJTF.

Given the current events in Europe, how would you describe the main evolution of Allied Maritime Command?

I believe that NATO allies should be able to respond more quickly and in a more effective way than in the past.

We should be at a higher readiness state in order to be able to do so, therefore we need flexibility, jointness and the ability to operate and react in the high end of the operational spectrum.

This implies more jointness, more international exercises and more exercises in the high end of warfare training.

The way to achieve this is by increasing the tempo of international exercises and by working more with national Task Forces.

NATO should be more systematically joining in bilateral and national exercises to make use of these opportunities and work with a large group of units, joint assets with lots of nations in the relevant areas.

These areas are at the moment of course the Baltic – where the SNMCMG1 is operating – the Black sea, the Mediterranean, and, for training opportunities, the Atlantic and the North Sea near Scotland.

So, if there is an aircraft carrier strike group operating in the Med, of course NATO likes to join in to take that opportunity; same thing, if there is an American Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) operating, of course NATO likes to join in…

We do try indeed to seize every single opportunity to jointly train and exercise together.

NATO forces already join in national Task Forces in order to enhance interoperability, as it is currently the case with France in the Mediterranean for SNMG2 and will be in the spring for SNMCMG1 for counter-mining maneuvers of the shore of Cherbourg (French HOD Ops, for “Historic Ordnance Disposal Operations “).

As Commander Dave Benham, MARCOM’s Chief Public Affairs Officer in Northwood, explains:

“An example of NATO joining in national exercises is the way the SNMG2 currently operates with the French aircraft carrier group at sea.

The follow on forces of the greater overall maritime capability of NATO are hence being reflected in the entirety of our forces, not just the ones under NATO command at any given time. “

MARCOM has also been tasking counter piracy operations in the past years: how to you balance out all these priorities?

NATO has made the decision not to use Standing Maritime Groups on a rotational basis anymore for counter piracy operations.

The reason why NATO is slowly withdrawing from counter-piracy is because we have not seen any successful attack since 2012, so, although the mandate has been extended till the end of 2016, the decision has been made to re-focus on NATO’s other priorities and its primary area of responsibility.

NATO is therefore still committed to Operation Ocean Shield.

With the deployment of ships, aircrafts, situation awareness capabilities, network and so on.

However, NATO will not always have surface assets assigned to this operation.

As far as this specific group – the SNMCMG1 – is concerned, what kind of evolution do you foresee regarding its major missions, such as mine counter-measures, re-assurance and deterrence? Are reassurance missions more prominent today than legacy demining missions or is this a wrong assumption?

In order to prepare an exercise, don’t you need to do real operation at the same time therefore constantly operating as you train? How does the group interact with amphibious operations?

I believe all missions are interlinked.

Assurance is being faithful, so you need to have port visits close to the Baltic states, Poland and Germany, but in order to be effective you need to be able to commit your task as ordered. Mine counter-measures and operational readiness in the area are the primary tasks for the ships of this group.

Reassurance is visual: it is all about being there and being ready as well. You need be ready before your task is ordered, so there is an interlinkage between operational readiness, assurance and collective defense.

As far as mine counter-measures go, HOD (Historic Ordnance Disposal) operations are indeed in the end NATO real operations: in the North sea, there are thousands of historic explosives from the WWII; in the Baltic the same: there is still a huge number of explosives on the seabed and one the task of this particular group is to make sure we search the seabed and take away all these explosives, so they do not penalize the shipping industry in these areas.

Weather in the North Sea, the approach to Rotterdam or the Baltic, removing this historic ordnance is a task for a number of years to go.

This mission has been done for a number of years in some of these areas, but it is becoming more important as the economic activity has been growing.

We have to make sure all economic assets – weather an oil rig, a wind mill, or cables – are protected and that all activities, economic or naval operation, are conducted safely: the sea needs to be safe and that is one of our tasks as well, and part of the HOD Ops.

Regarding training, the task for an MCM unit is to make sure that the amphibious force can safely conduct operations.

The MCM needs to make sure it is safe to send bigger and more expensive ships in that area, a task which can sometimes last several weeks.

Making sure that a designated area is sufficiently safe for follow on operations is the primary task for MCM operations.

The reactivation of SNMCMG1 was triggered by the Russian-Ukraine crisis and the situation in Crimea and we were able to do so as we had enough ships.[ref] “This group has been in operation for more than forty years and went briefly into a period of abeyance last February, before being reactivated by SACEUR,” explains Commander Benham.[/ref]

There is a minimum requirement for this group of six MCM units, but, if there is a relevant and attractive program or exercise, more nations will join in with more ships.

Under the preceding Lithuanian Commander, the group included up to nine ships in an exercise and under the upcoming Dutch Commander, there will be up to eight ships in some of the planned deployments.

From a NATO point of view, if relevant programs and nations are able to contribute to the group, the more the better.

The limit is simple: “we would like as many ships as we can”!

For the complete article see the following:

http://www.operationnels.com/2015/01/27/the-sea-needs-to-be-safe/

For the first piece in this series see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/the-standing-nato-mine-counter-measures-group-one-change-of-command/

The USS Gerald R. Ford and the Landing and Take-Off Launch System

Posted on January 26, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

01/26/2015

2015-01-26 CVN 78 is being built to support a half century of air-breathing platform innovations.

The new carrier will see the UCAS, the new Hawkeye, the Osprey and the F-35C come onboard.

This is the beginning of the decade ahead of innovation.

But what comes next?

The new catapult and landing gear systems are designed to allow for innovation for lighter or heavier air-breathing systems, manned or remotely piloted, for the years ahead.

The shift from steam and hydraulics to electro-magnetic pulse and the implementation of an advanced arresting gear is designed to enable a long-term transformation of the embarked air wing.

During our visit to the Gerald R. Ford, we examined both the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) and discussed them with Captain Meier and with Mr. Hicks, Construction Superintendent.

EMALS

According to Hicks, there are three, highly publicized, new technologies aboard the ship: EMALS, AAG and the dual band radar. There are many other improvements but these are foundational systems for the new carrier along with the new weapons handling system.

The two big steam cylinders are replaced with banks of electromagnetic motors.

A great advantage of EMALS is the acceleration curve is very smooth.

It ramps up very smooth as opposed to a steam cat that spikes up on the front end.

The control that you have around that acceleration is virtually infinite.

And if you get half way down the cat and the system senses that you’re not getting there, it will increase power as necessary to reach end speed.

The system itself is intelligent enough to increase power as you go and increase the acceleration rate so that at the end you’re actually going 160 knots per hour or whatever you want to be at the end.

Naval EMALS Components. Credit: HI — Naval EMALS Components. Credit: General Atomics

Question: Computer control must play a key role in the system?

Hicks: It does. With the steam catapult, the steam valve opens and you get what you get.

If it turns out the speed is not building up as expected, you have no other options. The system is not going to try to fix itself.

This system has tons of detectors in it that every little nuance and every step along the way is measured , it knows what the speed should be, what the speed is, what power is available and how to increase power or decrease power as necessary.

When you think about that there’s a whole array of failures that can happen within this system and still give the proper launch speed.

It’s impressive to watch the system operate at Lakehurst.

They deliver 150 knots every single time.

Question: This will allow for less loss of aircraft and provide less wear and tear on the airframes?

Hicks: It should reduce the wear and tear on the airframes.

Question: We are looking at the EMALS on the deck, what remains to be done prior to testing onboard the ship?

Hicks: We actually started cat trough alignment around this time last year and have completely aligned all 4 catapults now.

All of the motor sections and electrical cabling in cats 1 and 2 are complete.

We have everything installed in this track (Catapult 2) with the exception of the covers. At this point we’re setting up for testing within the next few weeks. We’re ready to send power to the trough at this point.

Below decks we are 5 months into our test program, and are testing the generators. We are right on our original schedule.

Question: Maintenance should be improved as you shift from hydraulics and steam?

Hicks: It clearly should and we provide a very different approach to maintenance as well associated with computer management of an electric power driven system.

There is a single officer on a single console who does the health monitoring of the system and will guide the maintenance process.

This system is one of numerous initiatives built into the design of this ship that will allow us to change from the current nine to ten year dry dock repair cycle and extend it to a 12 year docking cycle.

Essentially in a half-life you have taken away one full dry dock repair cycle.

AAG

When we visited the AAG work area, Hicks provided us with an explanation of what we were seeing in the workspace.

Essentially what used to be in this space would’ve been a large hydraulic ram.

The hydraulic ram would’ve had cables attached to it and the cables would’ve come out up across the flight deck and as the aircraft makes a trap, the hydraulic ram would push fluid through a cascading orifice that was set based on the specific aircraft arrested.

That’s all been replaced with a new advanced arresting gear.

data-sheet_aag

Captain Meier and Construction Supervisor Hicks during the ship tour and standing near catapult number 2 aboard CVN 78. Credit: SLD

“Advanced arresting gear is actually three main components starting with an electric motor, a cable drum and a water twister.

The real technological breakthrough here is this water twister.

The water twister is essentially a dead headed pump, a paddle wheel for lack of a better term. That’s the brawn of the system.

It’ll take up most of the energy.

It’ll actually pull in probably 70% or so of the energy.The cable drum itself but nothing more than a fishing reel. It just winds up the cable.

And the electric motor is essentially the brains of the system.

So if you were to catch a very light aircraft the water twister would want to rip the tail hook off. The electric motor, when light aircraft come in, will adjust the system to the appropriate measures to land the aircraft.

It’ll actually make the deceleration curve very similar to EMALs acceleration curve, and it’ll make that very smooth as well as opposed to a hydraulic ram.”

Question: Where are you with regard to installing the AAG on the Ford?

Hicks: From an install perspective, on the ship today we have all the cable drums and the motors installed and have three of the six water twisters now installed, and these mechanics are actually installing the sheer blocks around this critically aligned machinery.

For earlier pieces on CVN 78 based on our visit to the ship see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/the-arrival-of-the-cvn-78-the-ships-captain-talks-about-the-way-ahead/

https://sldinfo.com/crafting-the-gerald-r-ford-flight-deck-enlarging-the-operational-space/

https://sldinfo.com/shaping-flexible-c2-at-sea-the-role-of-flexible-infrastructure/

https://sldinfo.com/the-second-line-of-defense-visit-to-the-uss-gerald-ford/

Obama’s State-of-The-Union Speech Misses Opportunity to Address Defense Challenges

Posted on January 26, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

2015-01-26 By Richard Weitz and Robbin Laird

In his January 20 State-of-the-Union address, which focused overwhelmingly on domestic politics, President Barack Obama made a number of claims about the success of his foreign and defense policies.

Among those policies cited were the following:

Halting the advances of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) without the United States’ engaging in another major ground war in the Middle East,
Ending the US combat mission in Afghanistan in December,
Compelling China to adhere to “play by the rules” and punished Russia for failing to do so,
Making diplomatic progress with Cuba and Iran, and
ReassuringUS allies by “stand[ing] strong and united” with U.S. allies to address their security and other concerns.

The President clearly highlighted how he viewed his foreign policies as a success.

That is why he offered so many implicit comparisons with what he sees as his predecessor’s unilateral and military-first approach, and why he eschewed commenting on Yemen, Turkey, cyber security, nuclear disarmament and arms control, Middle East peace, and other issues where the administration’s achievements have fallen short of its declared goals.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) watch as U.S. President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 20, 2015. REUTERS/Larry Downing

Unfortunately, the US approach to Syria is not working either; Iraqi leaders are complaining about inadequate US assistance; the administration still adheres to a schedule-determined drawdown from Afghanistan rather than conditions-based withdraw despite what happened in Iraq; the preoccupation with sanctions and diplomacy risks diverting attention from concrete Russian and Iranian gains in military capacity; Islamists don’t seem to hate us less; US allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East deeply doubt US security guarantees; and those who wish the United States will continue to ignore the administration’s “red lines” as lacking credibility.

Perhaps the most serious defect is the president’s failure to call for an end to defense sequestration, which could return as early as this October, when the new fiscal year begins.

The process has lowered readiness, limited operations, undermined predictable planning, prevented needed modernization and upgrades, and risks inflicting long-term damage on US capabilities and credibility that will transcend the Obama administration.

Obama expressed satisfaction in overseeing a sustained U.S. economic recovery, but did not note the opportunity this provides to end the disastrous sequestration strictures, which will return next year without congressional action.

Sequestration is not a policy but a disruptive force undermining credible 21^st century defense efforts.

Among other problems, their original premises–such as an expected decreasing demand for US military power and the gambit that confronting the Congress with a suicidal alternative would force Republicans and Democrats to comprise and reduce spending and raise taxes–have been overtaken by events.

Indeed, the Administration’s own offset and nuclear revitalization plans cannot succeed without major and sustained spending increases.

Having good economic and diplomatic tools is important, but without hard-power capabilities they often lack enduring impact.

Although the Army has recovered from 2013, when only 10% of its forces were ready to deploy, even today only 33% of Army units are “appropriately ready” to respond to present contingencies, less than half the optimal level.

According to Army Secretary John McHughes, “We have come some significant distance on restoring our readiness over the last two years thanks to some relief that Congress has provided us,” he said. “But at ’16, should sequestration return, all the progress that we’ve made … will be lost. You can add to that our modernization programs, our family programs. Virtually no corner of the Army would be untouched in a negative way should sequestration remain on the books”

Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno more bluntly warns that. “If sequestration occurs, for the next three to four to five years, we’re moving towards a hollow Army”

Full implementation of sequestration could require the Army to cuts its end strength to 420,000 active-duty soldiers.

Ideally, the Congress will also support the Army request to be allowed to stretch out the planned reduction of US active-duty soldiers to 450,000 (from 490,000 by the end of FY2015) by another year beyond FY2017. The Army is straining to meet its mission requirements even with current numbers.

According to Hughes, 9 of 10 of its division headquarters are now deployed outside the United States, striving to address unplanned missions in Africa, Europe, and Iraq. According to Odierno, some 45,000 soldiers are deployed on foreign missions, while another 80,000 are forward stationed around the world. And a major war could break out in Korea or some other of these locations at any time.

The Navy faces similar problems.

According to Sean J. Stackley, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition, the service faces serious challenges in the rising costs of modern weaponry; growing demands for crisis response, forward presence, and strategic deterrence; and more serious competition from Russia and China, which are rapidly increasing the size and capabilities of their fleets. “

In fact, on any given day since 9/11, nearly half of our fleet has been underway and of that number 100 ships have steadily been on deployment,” Stackley told the Atlantic Council earlier this month. “

The demand for naval presence has risen as the Navy has taken on greater responsibility for missions ranging from sea-based missile defense first in the Sea of Japan, more recently in the Eastern Mediterranean, to anti-piracy in the Indian Ocean, and humanitarian assistance wherever disaster occurs” [http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/congress-should-reverse-strictures-on-us-defense-spending-stackley-says]

The Navy is trying to manage as best it can by relaxing requirements, cutting capabilities, extending mature technologies, and helping its industry partners by making Navy demands more stable even while making multi-year contracts and sustaining competition by suppliers.

The USAF is at a crossroads.

It is about to undergo a serious transformation as the global fleet of F-35s enter the force, and shifts its attention from providing support to the US Army on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, to now deal with global threats which require significant air power capabilities.

Training is crucial for this transition yet all of the airpower services have faced significant cuts in training, which undercuts the ability of these services to execute their missions.

As one analyst has noted:

Pilots and maintainers of today’s and tomorrow’s fleets are handling more complex aircraft than ever before in history. For pilots, this requires significant proficiencies that go beyond simply being a competent “flyer” of an airplane – they are becoming key C2, ISR and strike assets, all in one. Clearly, training is crucial to dealing with the growth in complexity.

As General Hostage, the recent U.S. commander of Air Combat Command, said in a recent interview: “What we’re asking a young lieutenant to do in her first two or three years as a fighter pilot is so far beyond what they asked me to do in my first two to three years, it’s almost embarrassing. The things we require of her, the things she has to be able to do, the complexity of the system that she operates, are so much more taxing, and yet, they make it look easy; they’re really, really good. Training, training, training comes to mind as a requirement for dealing with today’s and the coming air systems, which are managed by the fighter combat managers in their cockpits.”

Another example of complexity is in the execution of ever-more-stringent Rules of Engagement for pilots in combat; this can only demand more training, not less. Politicians and strategists can invent a wide range of engagements for the military – which our young men and women are required to execute as flawlessly as possible – yet funding for training is not seen as a crucial correlate for such missions.

Both the US Navy and US Air Force are working hard to integrate missile defenses within their overall air engagements as well. The integration of Army Air Defense systems with those of the USAF and the USN takes money, time and training.

The Navy’s requirement is for more Aegis-equipped ships with SM-3 interceptors, while the Army needs more Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries. They both need more Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control (AN/TPY-2) systems, which can be used either to supply fire-control data to ship-based Aegis missile defense systems or to provide the fire-control radar for the THAAD system.

And the USMC is undergoing a fundamental transition whereby under the influence of the Osprey it has become a global force, which can engage at much greater distance from the area of interest. The USN-USMC team is revolutionizing its amphibious fleet with the addition not only of the Osprey but the coming of the F-35B starting this year.

And both the USN and USMC need more funding for ships. The USS Ford is a significant shift from the Nimitz and fits 21^st century requirements much more effectively and there is a clear need to move from first of class to continuing to build out a ship which will deliver cost effective capabilities over time.

The same is true for the USS America which is a large deck amphibious ship which will carry the 21^st century USMC into harm’s way and more of this class of ship can be built enabling the USN-USMC team to play a more effective common role.

The USMC is being spread over the Pacific and needs more connectors, such as the KC-130J.

A 21^st century strategy is being put in place by the US military but it is not adequately being resourced.

It is fine to talk about a Pivot to the Pacific, but this costs money, and the Administration needs to provide leadership for the transition which it has called for.

Instead of proposing a series of domestic initiatives that the new Republican-led Congress is unlikely to enact, the President could have offered some concrete defense initiatives that would have won their backing.

Hopefully the administration can reverse course in its new National Security Strategy and DoD budget request, but Congress should be sure to raise them in its review of these documents as well as its confirmation hearings next month for Defense Secretary-designate Ashton Carter.

And the new Congress needs itself to demonstrate leadership and address any strategic shortfalls which the Administration is unwilling to address as well.

The Entry into Service of the A400M into the French Air Force: Rolling Out its Operational Capabilities

Posted on January 25, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

01/25/2015

2015-01-25 The French Air Force (FAF) is the lead Air Force in putting the A400M into service.

The FAF has put together a comprehensive approach to doing so, and has carefully considered the operational context within which the aircraft will be used.

The FAF has built from the ground up an approach, which is designed to leverage the multi-national character of the program.

And although the FAF does not use the term, clearly they have an enterprise concept in mind for the A400M, whereby the sustainment and operational sides will be closely integrated within the FAF and with those partners willing and able to do so.

In an interview last June with Lt. Col. Paul Creuset, then the commander of the MEST (Multinational Entry to Service Team), Murielle Delaporte discussed the preparation by the FAF for the entry into service of the A400M.

The MEST was dissolved as the A400M went into service in the Fall of 2014.

Lt. Col. Creuset is now head of the EMATT or équipe de marque avions de transport tactique.

Her full interview has appeared in the latest issue of in Opérationnels SLDS.

Delaporte is the co-founder of Second Line of Defense, and the publisher and editor-in-chief of Opérationnels SLDS.

In this piece, we will highlight some of the key highlights from that interview.

It is clear throughout the interview and throughout the French experience that the FAF has been preparing for a very different type of airlifter than those, which they have previously flown earlier.

And as such, they have built from the ground up a different approach to receive the aircraft, and to standup the initial squadron or to shape the way ahead with the aircraft in terms of concepts of operations as well as maintainability of the fleet.

At the heart of the perceived differences associated with the aircraft, ranging from digital systems, to a new cockpit, to new composite materials to maintain.

Also important is to prepare for the shift from the initial logistical operations to what the French refer to as tactical operations.

What is highlighted by the logistical versus tactual operational distinction is the clear understanding that the A400M is not simply a bus transporting personnel and equipment.

It is a key element in the evolving role of airlift, which is to insert and support force within the battlespace.

As we noted earlier:

Air lifters have moved from being buses or trucks carrying materials and troops from point A to point B to becoming key elements of a networked battlespace.

And with the revolution in airdropping, the entire approach to support of forces, both dispersed and on the go, has changed entirely.

The MEST was established to prepare for the arrival of the A400M.

It is clear from the interview that the FAF was preparing for a different type of airlifter than in the past and saw the need to put together a “dream team” of players with different operational backgrounds, in order to ensure that past understandings of air lift would not rubber stamp the approach to the new aircraft.

According to Lt. Col. Creuset, the “dream team” included a variety of personnel from varied backgrounds, including Transall and Hercules pilots, CASA pilots, pilots experienced with Airbus commercial aircraft, and a Rafale pilot who was familiar with the kind of connectivity with which the Rafale operates.

“We are not preparing for a Transall Plus.”

And the MEST worked closely with the British as well as the Germans in preparing the ground for the future.

The Lt. Col. noted that the FAF has an agreement with the Royal Air Force’s Air Warfare Center and this relationship has been tapped into to shape a way ahead.

“We can profit from their experience and they can profit from ours.”

This theme is clearly a key part of the entire approach to standing up and looking forward to the operational use by a multinational fleet, from the French perspective.

Not surprisingly, Lt. Col Creuset like General Soulet, the Commander of the Air Forces, emphasized the key role of the European Air Transport Command (EATC) in shaping a way ahead as well.

Lt. Col. Creuset noted: “the French approach is to favor a broad global approach to the A400M compared to simply bilateral agreements.” Clearly, the EATC is crucial to both shaping and executing such an approach.

The EATC is becoming an engine for interoperability.

The idea is to enhance elements of commonality to the maximum extent possible via the EATC and to give them a number of responsibilities in order to make it easy for a German crew or a French crew or that of another nationality to have a similar concept of operations.

And the EATC can also open step by step the maintenance sector (MCO) for clearly maintenance is a keystone of the entire effort.

After having put the aircraft into operation, a key effort for the FAF is to shape its tactical capabilities.

Here several key capabilities will be introduced in the period ahead and are the major focus of attention to Lt. Col. Creuset in the period ahead. Among these capabilities are the tanking of and the tanking by the A400Ms; the introduction of advanced self-protection systems, the introduction of MEDEVAC capabilities, etc.

Looking back on the MEST experience, the Lt. Col. concluded: “The MEST allowed us to optimize the time and efficacy of putting the aircraft into service.”

The FAF has underscored that the multi-national aspect of the program is a core foundation for shaping common concepts of operations and laying the foundation for common support structures as well.

A total of nine aircraft have now been delivered and the aircraft is in service with four nations.

The 14 photos in this slideshow highlight the following:

First production Airbus Military A400M in French Air Force colors
A400M Air to Air Refueling
A400M and French Patrol
A400M Flares
Airbus Military A400M successfully performs unpaved runway trials
A400M initial airdrop trial 2014
Airbus A330 MRTT tanker aircraft refuels Airbus A400M
A400M drops 24 x 1t containers. Copyright DGA / Nicolas Audouin
First German A400M during its maiden flight
Gen Dato Sri Roslan after inspecting the first Airbus A400M for Royal Malaysian Air Force
First UK Royal Air Force A400M
First Flight A400M German Air Force
A400M for the Turkish Air Force
Airbus A400M successfully demonstrates tanker capability

Credit Photos: Airbus Defence and Space

The cover of the new issue of Opérationnels SLDS where this interview is published in full:

OPS_23_Page_01

For a PDF of this article and the previous article on the entry into service of the A400M with the French Air Force, please download the following:

The Perspective of the French Air Force on the Entry Into Service of the A400M

The Evolution of Iraqi Kurdistan: The Perspective of Amatzia Baram.

Posted on January 25, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

2015-01-25 In a new report by Dr. Amatzia Baram published by the Geopolitical Information Service, the question of the emergence and impact of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan is the focus of attention.

The war with ISIS has given Iraqi Kurdistan the opportunity to demonstrate its strength, order and cohesiveness.

What the Kurds have achieved in Iraq is permanent.

Iraqi Kurdistan will never again be subservient to Baghdad.

This leaves not only Iraq, but the government of Turkey concerned about what a new Kurdish political entity might mean.

According to an overview on the report published on World Review:

2015 could witness the birth of a globally recognised and economically independent Iraqi Kurdistan, writes Professor Dr Amatzia Baram.

This would see Kurdistan as the first of the Middle East countries to redraw the Middle East map since the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement and the League of Nations mandate in the early 1920s.

Iraqi Kurdistan, with its multiethnic population of mainly Muslims but also Yazidis, the Yarsan and Christians, functions as a state in all but name – despite facing terror from ISIS and political pressure from Baghdad.

The Iraqi Kurds now have the support of the United States, and the Kurdish fighting force – the pershmurga – have come into their own. Kurdistan has what looks like a stable regional government and an active, well-financed economy.

But Turkish leaders, particularly, are increasingly uncertain over how to deal with the Kurdish issue. Ankara’s relationship with the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq, while essentially good, has become more complex than before.

Kurdistan is also close to countries hostile to its ambitions – and an independent Kurdistan could shake the foundations of the Middle East.

Kurdistan flags sold on the streets or Erbil, the capital of the kurdistan region in iraq. Credit:DPA

But 2014 was a year of transition – when the relentless onslaught of ISIS put the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq close to annihilation.

By mid-December, 2014, the Kurds had pushed ISIS out of the region and broke a months-old ISIS siege and campaign of genocidal slaughter of the Yazidis community. This was Kurdistan’s most visible symbol in 2014 of the fightback.

Mosul – Iraq’s second biggest city – remains in ISIS hands as does Tikrit.

The peshmerga’s impressive military achievement could not have happened without US air-to-ground support and a US and French injection of weapons to the Kurds.

By late December 2014 the Kurds were close to securing a stretch of land south of the Turkish border connecting the Kurdish region in Iraq with Kurdish territories on the Syrian side of the border.

While this is still a very far cry from a mega-Kurdish state which would unite all the Kurds of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria, this is still a meaningful strategic gain for the Kurds of Iraq.

This comes on top of another major Kurdish achievement: keeping ISIS out of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

The military victory over ISIS and the crash of world oil prices are providing the Kurds with unprecedented strength in their negotiations with Baghdad.

In December 2014, Baghdad agreed to allow the Kurds to export oil daily from Kirkuk and the KRG territory through a new 280km (174 mile) KRG-Mediterranean pipeline. This has given the Kurds, for the first time, a legal direct outlet to global markets. Baghdad also agreed to resume payments of oil revenues to the KRG which it had stopped in April 2014.

In addition Baghdad agreed to pay US$1 billion annually for pershmerga expenses, another important pre-ISIS demand.

Another Kurdish demand – ongoing since 2003 – to include oil-rich Kirkuk in to the KRG, is closer to fulfillment.

The Kurds of Iraq have managed not only to keep afloat but also to make important inroads in their international relations.

The fear that the Kurds would be routed by ISIS forced the US to intervene militarily on their side.

While the US is still unsure whether the Shia-led government of Baghdad is willing and capable of reaching a de-centralization agreement with the Sunnis and detaching itself to some extent from Tehran, Washington believes that the Kurds are allies and trusts them more than they trust Baghdad.

Relations with Turkey have remained strong. The KRG is careful not to antagonise Ankara and Ankara responds in kind.

Both the Kurds and the Turks are interested in the continuous flow of oil. At a time when world oil prices are plummeting Erbil, Ankara and Baghdad are keen on seeing as much KRG and Kirkuk oil going to the world markets.

Kurdish-Iranian relations, too, are good. By sending Iranian troops into Kurdistan to help fight ISIS, Iran gained meaningful influence in the KRG.

The battle in and around the strategically located town of Kobane which raged from September 2014 onwards, and which is now slowly developing in favour of the Kurds, aroused admiration among the Iraqi Kurds for the Syrian Kurds. However, political relations between the two Kurdish communities are uneasy.

As a result of the ISIS offensive negotiations between the Kurds and the new Baghdad central government have become more productive than before. It may be said that the presence of ISIS has been a major benefit to the KRG.

Fulfillment of the Kurdish dream of independence seems distant but a partnership with a weakened Baghdad however looks promising.

For the report, please go to the following link:

http://www.geopolitical-info.com/en/geopolitics/the-rise-of-the-kurds-could-define-new-shape-of-middle-east

For earlier pieces on similar subjects published on Second Line of Defense see the following:

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/a-way-ahead-in-iraq-calibrating-a-response/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/president-obama-and-his-historic-opportunity-in-iraq/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/in-iraq-back-to-the-tribes/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/an-update-on-airpower-in-iraqi-and-syrian-operations/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/iraq-2014-crafting-strategic-maneuver-space/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/iraq-2014-is-not-iraq-2003-the-allied-dimension/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/seizing-the-moment-in-iraq-shaping-an-effective-way-ahead/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/iraq-2014-not-repeating-coin/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/revisiting-iraq-the-kurds-provide-an-option/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-iraq-dynamic-working-with-kurds-to-save-iraqi-christians/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-iraq-crisis-the-kurdish-opening/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/report-from-iraq-strategic-dynamics-in-play/

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/confronting-schrecklichkeit-in-iraq/

The Arrival of the CVN 78: The Ship’s Captain Talks About the Way Ahead

Posted on January 24, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

01/24/2015

2015-01-24 By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

The coming of the USS Gerald R. Ford sets in motion a very different type of large-deck carrier. The hull form of the Ford is a tribute to the very successful Nimitz-class hull design. That is where the comparisons basically end.

As the first CO of CVN 78 put it in an interview with Second Line of Defense at the Newport News shipyard on January 9. 2015:

“We share the same hull design in this class carrier with the Nimitz but everything else is either heavily modified or completely new.”

U.S. Navy Capt. John Meier, the commanding officer of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), joins the official party on stage at the christening ceremony for the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) Nov. 9, 2013, at Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Va. Credit: US Navy

In effect, the new carrier is built to provide an infrastructure for 21^st century warfighting, not just for the U.S. Navy, but for the joint and coalition force as well.

The ship is designed to operate more effectively with an evolving airwing, which will change over the 50+ year life of the carrier.

It has as well significantly greater C2 capabilities so that the carrier can play an expanded role in evolving 21^st century U.S. and alliance distributed operations which will be central to U.S. warfighting capabilities going forward.

The significant increase in electric power generation, three times greater than Nimitz, is designed to allow the electronic systems associated with defense, attack and C2 to grow over time as well.

A number of the changes associated with the ship are quite visible: the new launching and recovery systems, the weapons handling system and many other improvements.

For example, an important safety and damage control issue is independently generating steam in a modern galley, which precludes steam lines running through the ship. Another example is the special application of non-skid coatings, which means less upkeep.

All of these changes are significant and important.

But central to rethinking the role of the carrier is the revolution in C2 underway.

In the graphic below, the key elements of the infrastructure enabling the Ford to become a unique C2 asset for the maritime or joint or coalition force.

Ford C2

The super computers onboard the ship, with the power to support them as well as having significant power available for system cooling along with the deployment of future laser weapons is a crucial baseline for building out of C2 capabilities.

The next generation in active sensor technology in the dual band radars provides a solid foundation, not simply for the organic defense and strikes capability of the carrier, but for the battle fleet as a whole.

Significant increase in bandwidth is a fundamental requirement for an expanded C2 capability at sea which can support land, sea and air operations.

And the unique rapidly reconfigurable command suites on board allow for C2 to be provided for joint or coalition partners in a manner appropriate to the mission set.

As Rear Admiral Manazir, Director of Naval Air Warfare, put in the interview we did with him:

Reach not range is a key aspect of looking at the carrier airwing and its ability to work with joint and coalition forces. This is clearly enhanced with the F-35.

What you can do with a Carrier, given joint and coalition perspectives is the Carrier automatically extends your reach because you can put it anywhere you want. The mobility of the carrier is a key point.

You can put it up against the problem set the national command authority or the joint force commander wishes to address; and then you can move it to deal with an evolving target or operational set of challenges, again aligned with the commander’s intent, you can move the reach of the carrier wing as you redeploy it and connect with joint or coalition assets.

The carrier has a core ability to operate organically but its real impact comes from its synergy with the joint and coalition force, which will only go up as the global F-35 fleet emerges.

And this will get better with the coming of the USS Ford. What the Ford does is it optimizes the things that we think are the most important.

Some of those capabilities are clear:

Enhanced sortie generation capabilities or the number of times you can get airplanes into the mix to keep the reach out there
The power generation capability, so advanced systems can operate off of the ship.
The ability to take the information that is brought back through the airborne network into the ship and be able to disseminate it to decision makers is enhanced over the Nimitz class.
The enhanced reliability of the entire ship that should result in fewer yard visits, thus extending the ability to deploy more often.

The interview with the Captain highlighted a number of the key elements of change associated with the Ford, which will allow it to play a robust 21^st century warfighting role.

The Captain’s background suggests a robust capability to think through the kind of innovation the ship will foster.

He comes from the electronic attack community and then went through the demanding nuclear schools of the USN and became the Executive Officer of the USS Harry S. Truman and then the for his “deep draft” tour he was CO of the USS Gunston Hall.

Captain Meier

His increasing responsibility at sea from flying off the deck to Command provides a solid foundation for the kind of innovative and creative thinking that is necessary to put together operationally such a complex enterprise as a 21s Century large deck carrier and its air wing.

“Clearly, the ship is designed to enhance the sortie generation rate of the airwing.

But, less noticeable, is that the Ford is a vastly improved command and control platform as well.

The new phased array radars are going to be the most capable ones on the water. They will open up a window on new levels of C2 and new ways of fighting and communicating and controlling communication flows.”

Question: The new launch and recovery systems coupled with the new weapons handling systems will give you significant flexibility as the air wing evolves.

Could you give us your perspective on this?

Captain Meier: The EMALs system we will visit on board the ship and will allow us to provide for an ability to launch aircraft more smoothly and with less wear and tear on the airplanes and the pilots.

Coupled with the new advanced arresting gear, we will be able to launch and recover a variety of types of aircraft, including future designs that haven’t been developed.

What the arresting gear and the catapult do is they give you better energy absorption, meaning you can launch heavier, faster aircraft than are on the drawing boards today.

You can also launch and recover lighter aircraft than currently fielded.. The legacy landing systems are essentially at their limits in terms of weights of aircraft and maintainability.”

Question: What you’re basically saying is the Navy is enhancing its ability to be able to launch different types of aircraft because you’re not constrained by a catapult system that has to be resized for each aircraft coming out of the launch.

So you can mix and match packages appropriate to mission set.

Could you comment on this development?

Captain Meier: Your point is absolutely right on.

That also goes to not just launch and recovery of aircraft, but the types of ordinance that’ll be happening 30, 40, 50 years from now as well will change dramatically.

We anticipate directed energy weapons being onboard the ship, and a significant evolution of the weapons carried by the carrier.

The new weapons handling system is designed to be able to handle the weapons of the future as well.

You have a great capacity for diversity of weapons, and the advanced weapon elevators themselves are located on the ship to facilitate faster movement and loading of the weapons. That’s the underlying principle of the advanced weapon elevators.

The elevators carry more weight and they go faster, twice the speed and twice the weight essentially of the legacy weapons elevators.

They’re located in the flight deck, which puts them positionally where the crew will spend a lot less time from an ergonomics perspective pushing the ordnance around.

The ordnance comes up right near the aircraft and facilitates more efficient weapons loading.

Question: Could you discuss the power generation capability of the ship and its impacts?

Captain Meier: We’ve got three times the electrical power generated onboard Ford compared to Nimitz. Nimitz is pretty much at the edge of her envelope for available electrical energy.

We’ve got tons of room for growth.

We have excess power, the excess electrical capacity for weapons systems that we don’t know about yet like lasers, direct energies, all those sorts of things are in the art of the possible in the period ahead.

Question: The power generation and cooling, and the computer-based capabilities of the ship coupled with the new radars clearly create a foundation for the evolution of C2.

But what is not widely realized, and we certainly did not before coming onboard the ship, is the impact of what you call flexible infrastructure.

Could you explain what this is and what its impact might well be?

Captain Meier: Flexible infrastructure is a part of the ship built with reconfigurable work areas. Imagine this part of the ship as offices with movable walls where you could set up workspaces how you want them to operate for the task. And you have electrical power in this space to use as you wish.

These spaces can be configured appropriate to a particular C2 scenario whether for the USN, the joint or coalition force onboard the ship.

Question: This ship is built with 21^st century engineering, design and manufacturing tools.

Obviously, first of class is always more expensive than what later members of the class cost, and with the Ford when the first is built you have the design tools in place as well.

Could you comment on how one should look at the use of the new design and manufacturing tools to create the USS Gerald R. Ford?

Captain Meier: The manufacturing changes are substantial. When we talk about modeling and simulation, we have a simulator, which can model, down to the level of people walking across the flight deck, whether it’s moving ordnance or aircraft.

That’s the level of detail that we have in some of that modeling. One of the other great products of the ship has developed and the Navy’s purchased is the 3D model which is essentially designed in a computer to provide a complete 3D model of the ship and its operations.

So you could in the computer design even with 3D goggles.

You can move assets around to determine where best to place it or better position it.

There are many components or large sized components that may need to be removed so, from a design perspective, a ship has designed removable paths and you can do all of that.

The models will also be used to drive change plans down the road. And they are also important in doing maintenance on the ships.

Question: Clearly, the ship has a lot of up front design and infrastructure built in to make it a more cost effective ship to operate from a maintenance point of view. Could you give us a sense of the importance of this build-into the ship?

Captain Meier: By design there are fewer components and the components that we have are generally designed for the life of the ship.

Many of the components here will last the life of the ship.

The design of having fewer components and more robustly designed components clearly will enhance maintainability.

And with other changes built into the ship, we will reduce the required crew size as well, with 700 fewer Sailors being required to operate an even more complex warship than the Nimitz.

This would not have been possible without 21^st century design and manufacturing techniques.

Editor’s Note: The first video is credited to Huntington Ingalls.

The second is credited to NAVAIR. It is dated Nov 18, 2011 and shows Navy test pilot Lt. Chris Tabert taking off in F-35C test aircraft CF-3 Nov. 18, 2011 the first launch of the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter from the Navy’s new electromagnetic aircraft launch system, set to install on future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78).

For earlier pieces on the Second Line of Defense visit to CVN 78 see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/crafting-the-gerald-r-ford-flight-deck-enlarging-the-operational-space/

https://sldinfo.com/shaping-flexible-c2-at-sea-the-role-of-flexible-infrastructure/

https://sldinfo.com/the-second-line-of-defense-visit-to-the-uss-gerald-ford/

The photos in the slideshow above were shot during the visit and are credited to Second Line of Defense.

The second photo shows Captain Meier in his stateroom aboard the ship. The third photo shows the captain and Construction superintendent Hicks near an EMALs catapult, and was shot after Hicks had explained to us in detail the nature of the EMALS and arrested landing gear system and its projected impact on operations.
The fourth and fifth photos are external shots of the USS Ford prior to boarding the ship.
The sixth shot is a view from the bridge of the significantly expanded launch area aboard the deck. Moving the island as well as removing one aviation elevator from the deck have facilitated the expanded flight deck.
Photos 7-9, provide views of the island including the new radar locations.
The tenth photo shows the flight deck.
The 11^th photo shows a station for providing jet fuel.
The 12^th through 15^th photo shows a finished area of the ship, namely the galley. Even though there will be 600 less sailors aboard the ship, the galley will serve a large crew.
The final two shots are of the hanger aboard the ship.

The Introduction of the A400M into the French Air Force: A Catalyst for Change

Posted on January 23, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

01/23/2015

2015-01-23 The A400M has entered into service with the French Air Force concurrent with a change in the French Air Force (FAF) command structure and the growing importance of the European Air Transport Command (EATC).

This means that the training, and operational approach of the new French command and the evolution of the EATC will shape the approach to further developing and using the aircraft.

In an interview during her visit to the Bordeaux-Mérignac Air Base in June 2014, Murielle Delaporte interviewed General Serge Soulet, the Commander of the Air Forces, which is a newly readiness command. Her full interview appears in the latest issue of Opérationnels SLDS.

Delaporte is the co-founder of Second Line of Defense, and the publisher and editor-in-chief of Opérationnels SLDS.

In this piece, we will highlight some of the key highlights from that interview.

The new command headed by General Soulet is the Unified Command of the New Generation or the CFA NG.

It provides support for the standing up, and deployment of the French Air Force world-wide.

It is a unique French command drawing together preparation, training and support for the force at home and abroad.

As such, the command is looking at the entire chain of custody for the support to operations of French Air Force platforms.

It is from this perspective that the A400M is being introduced into the FAF and its relationship to the entire lift and combat fleet.

An additional aspect of contextual significance is the emergence of the multinational EATC.

According to the EATC itself, the role is to enhance synergy and capabilities among the member nations airlift and tanking fleets.

The Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany have put major parts of their air transport- and air-to-air refueling fleets under the operational control (OPCON) of the EATC.

On 22 November 2012 Luxembourg officially joined the EATC, Spain followed on 03 July 2014, finally Italy on 04 December 2014.

Now the missions of almost 200 aircraft are planned, tasked and controlled out of Eindhoven.

In addition to that the EATC runs a nationally defined level of responsibility for aircrew training, coordination of training and exercise objectives as well as the harmonization of appropriate air transport regulations of the participating nations.

The overall objective is to manage the scarce resource air transport as effectively and efficiently as possible.

As Delaporte notes, the introduction of the A400M is both cause and consequence of the EATC.

The A400M as a multinational project allows EATC members to shape ways to work more effectively together and the EATC provides a framework within which multinational cooperation can be enhanced within the role out of the A400M itself, notably with the first users of the aircraft, namely, France, Germany and Spain.

General Soulet. Credit: French Air Force

In the interview, General Soulet highlights several key aspects of the A400M roll out.

First, he notes that the Multinational Entry into Service or MEST team played a key role in preparing for the introduction of the aircraft into the FAF.

The French team forged into a MEST worked closely with Airbus Military in training and preparing for the introduction into service of the A400M in 2014.

Second, similar to the position of Air Commodore Warren McDonald who argued that the introduction of the KC-30A has meant that the RAAF has had one foot in operations and another in program development, General Soulet underscores that the A400M will mature as it operates.

This is true because new capabilities are being added to the aircraft over time, and that the maturation of the aircraft requires building in over time the findings from real world operational experience.

Third, a major change facing the FAF or any air force using the A400M, is to unlearn some past experience.

He argues that the A400M essentially changes the nature of the game inherited from the Transall or the C-130.

He argues as well that the aircraft is not simply a logistical asset, but a tactical one in terms of its ability to operate close to the forces engaged in the battlespace.

But this capability to do so will not happen in a day, it will take some time to develop.

Notably, the self-protection systems being added to the aircraft as well as operational experience will be crucial to sorting out the best way to use the A400M in operational insertion and support of force.

“Because of the capability of the A400M, the distinction between logistical and tactical missions is attenuated; it is not simply a cargo aircraft.

The Airbus A400M new generation airlifter has successfully demonstrated its ability to airdrop multiple containers of the kind typically used in military and humanitarian operations. In tests conducted at Cazaux, France, the aircraft dropped 24 x 1 tonne Container Delivery Systems (CDS) in a single pass. The 48 x 48 inch containers are loaded in two rows inside the cargo hold and released by gravity. This test demonstrates the maximum capacity of the A400M for this type of container and is a key contractual requirement for the A400M. Credit: DGA 10/10/14

The A-400M can operate close to the operational forces. It can operate in an environment significantly degraded and to operate in a certain level of threat as well.”

Fourth, the introduction of the A400M will lead as well to working through how to use the other airlift assets.

The FAF will closely study how to best use the A400M and with that address the question of the modernization of its other lift assets as well.

“The A400M will not be a 100% replacement of all other airlift needs….We will determine the best employment strategy for the legacy and new airlift assets.”

Fifth, the multinational aspect of the program is crucial from his point of view. The existence of the EATC means that common standards and concepts of operations for the A400M can evolve over time. He made it clear in the interview that he does not want to see a divergence in capabilities of a common aircraft as happened between France and Germany with the Transall.

The EATC can play a key role in reaching what he sees as a core objective from deploying a common A400M fleet: “We want to use the same aircraft in the same manner with the same norms and a similar concept of operations.”

For a look at the EATC approach to the A400M see the following:

http://eatc-mil.com/48/A400M

The EATC will become the biggest future user of the A400M, about 110 to 120 aircraft will in a few years fly on EATC OPCON.

That’ s because the national EATC assigned squadrons fly most on EATC orchestrated and conducted assets for air transport (AT), aeromedical evacuation (AE) and air-to-air refueling (AAR).

Moreover the EATC has an interest and strong will to combine the nations needs to set up international agreed future concepts for the A400M in order to reach out for one European military air transport backbone, one international understanding: The best interoperability for future missions and the benefit for the Participating Nations is the EATC Commander’ s guideline to make the EATC a true enabler in the field of European military AT.

http://eatc-mil.com/105/The-EATC-involvement-in-A400M-matters

The cover of the new issue of Opérationnels SLDS where this interview is published in full:

Crafting the Gerald R. Ford Flight Deck: Enlarging the Operational Space

Posted on January 22, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

01/22/2015

2015-01-22 When visiting the Gerald R. Ford and making the trek to the bridge, one notices quickly that the deck space in front of the island is significantly expanded over a Nimitz class carrier.

We talked with the Captain and a construction engineer about the changes on our visit to the ship at Newport News on January 9, 2015.

The key point was that with the island moved back further on the flight deck and with one less aircraft elevator, the Gerald R. Ford ends up with an additional 8000 square feet of operational space on the flight deck.

The operational tempo is facilitated as well by the new weapons loading systems with the weapons coming to the flight deck fully assembled and ready for loading.

A design rendering of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) which highlights the flight deck. U.S. Navy photo illustration courtesy of Newport News Shipbuilding, # 100512-ZZ999-201. Washington, 12 May 2010.

The Captain highlighted that the approach was to end up with something similar to the NASCAR pit stop approach aboard the deck where the planes are prepared to launch with weaponization on the deck more rapidly than on the Nimitz class carrier.

In other words, the additional real estate is being worked with a shift in the concepts of operations whereby the strike fleet can be launched with more effective weaponization support.

And with the Electro-Magnetic Launch System (EMALS) and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), the flight deck can expand the range of aircraft managed on the flight deck as well.

The shift from steam and hydraulics to electro-magnetic pulse and the implementation of an advanced arresting gear is designed to enable a long-term transformation of the embarked airwing.

As the Captain put it:

With EMALS and AAG you do not launch aircraft any faster. You cannot really recover aircraft any faster. You are still limited to about a 45 second interval between aircraft.

But what they do facilitate is an expansion of the operational capability of landing aircraft.

You can work with lighter or heavier aircraft and perhaps lower the wind requirements for take off and landing and provide a means for the aircraft to prolong service life by reducing wear and tear on landing and take off.

And most importantly, the combination of the new systems will allows us to get a weaponized aircraft off of the deck faster.

The flight deck as seen from the island bridge on January 9, 2015. Credit: Second Line of Defense — The flight deck as seen from the bridge on January 9, 2015. Credit: Second Line of Defense

Another aspect of change comes from the refueling station changes.

According to the Captain:

In flight deck refueling on the Nimitz class, everything comes from outside.

We run hoses all the way across to the different areas and you cannot taxi over the hoses when they are full of fuel.

We have gotten rid of these choke points by building in pit stop deck refueling stations.

Editor’s Note: According to a November 9, 2013 article on Defense Update:

The US Navy required the carrier to support higher sortie rate of around 160 exits a day with surges to a maximum of 220 sorties a day in times of crisis and intense air warfare activity.

To support the increased rate, more flight deck was cleared by reducing the number of lifts to three, and using a shorter but taller island (it stands 20 feet [six meter] taller than previous aircraft carriers’ islands.)

The island is positioned 140 feet further aft and three feet further outboard than the island of the Nimitz’s class, thus clearing more deck area for aircraft operations and support.

The route of weapons to the aircraft stops on the flight deck has been replanned to accommodate higher re-arming rates, and in turn higher potential sortie rates.

Moving the island creates deck space for a centralized re-arming and re-fueling location.

The new path that ordnance follows does not cross any areas of aircraft movement, thereby reducing traffic problems in the hangars and on the flight deck. This reduces the number of times that an aircraft will have to be moved after landing before it can be launched again.

Fewer aircraft movements require, in turn, fewer deck hands to accomplish them, reducing the size of the ship’s crew. The ship is designed to require 800 fewer sailors to operate, and for 400 fewer personnel to embark with an air wing on the ship, in total, around 4,300 hands, compared to the average 5,500 hands operating a Nimitz class carrier.

The flight deck of CVN 78 has been completely redesigned and rearranged. The end result is a 25 percent increase in the ability to launch and recover aircraft missions. In order to accomplish this, the carrier has three aircraft elevators instead of four, and the island is positioned 140 feet (42.6 m’) further aft.

The ﬂow of weapons has been signiﬁcantly upgraded, with the installation of new electromagnetic hoist system replacing cables.

Also see the following earlier stories:

https://sldinfo.com/shaping-flexible-c2-at-sea-the-role-of-flexible-infrastructure/

https://sldinfo.com/the-second-line-of-defense-visit-to-the-uss-gerald-ford/