Robbin Laird, Author at Second Line of Defense

The Weapons Enterprise in Airpower Transition: The Royal Air Force Case

Posted on April 3, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

04/03/2015

2015-03-19 By Robbin Laird

The RAF is undergoing two fighter aircraft transitions at the same time.

On the one hand, the Tornado is being retired and the Typhoon is subsuming its missions. On the other hand, the F-35B is coming to the fleet and will be working with Typhoon for the period ahead.

These are three very different aircraft built in different periods of aviation history.

The venerable Tornado has seen a significant evolution over its time; from its initial use as an ultra low-level nuclear and unguided weapons bomber to an ISR-enabled precision strike and close support aircraft.

The Typhoon entered the RAF more than a decade ago as a classic air superiority fighter, but is now being asked to expand its effects and to subsume the Tornado missions.

The F-35B is entering the fleet as the Typhoon is making this transition.

This will mean that the RAF will be managing a double transition – Typhoon becoming multi-role and the F-35B operating off of land or ships to provide the fifth generation capability to the evolving RAF strike force.

The Complex Weapons Enterprise

A key enabler of the double transition is the weapons carried by the aircraft which allow for synergy of effects.

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) set in motion in the past decade an approach to shaping a weapons enterprise which is now bearing fruit and proving to be a key enabler of the double transition.

While the platform is clearly important, the MoD has acknowledged that there is no point in placing an aircraft in jeopardy if it can’t deliver the effects desired. As such, complex weapons have become a key part of UK integrated air power.

“Team Complex Weapons” has been described as follows on the MBDA website:

Team CW defines an approach to delivering the UK’s Complex Weapons requirements in an affordable manner that also ensures a viable industrial capacity with MOD being the architects of the sector strategy.

The first implementation of this approach is through the MOD–MBDA Portfolio Management Agreement, which has been independently evaluated as offering £1.2Bn of benefit to MOD over the course of the next 10 years.

This Agreement aims to transform the way in which CW business is conducted by MOD with its main supplier. At the heart of this is a joint approach to the delivery of the required capability based on an open exchange of information and flexibility in the means of delivery. It is therefore anticipated that the Agreement will be consistent with the future direction of acquisition reform within MOD and is well positioned to respond positively to the conclusions of the SDSR.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/innovation/team-complex-weapons/

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 — 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

At the Farnbourgh Air Show in 2010, I attended a media briefing held by MBDA which provided a good overview on the Team CW approach.

The business model is of interest, not only for shaping a key ally’s approach to shaping future capability but in terms of being a potential harbinger for how MOD will handle efforts to maintain capabilities in the face of fiscal stringencies.

Lord Drayson in his formulation of the defense industrial strategy forged a number of initiatives, one of which was Team CW. The idea was to bring MOD into closer partnership with its weapons providers and supply chain to shape evolving capabilities in the industry with an eye to enhanced efficiencies but at the same time ensuring UK operational sovereignty in this key area of future military capability.

The baseline agreement was signed in June 2006 between MBDA, QinetiQ, Roxel and Thales UK as well as other members of the weapons supply chain to work with MOD in shaping development of future weapons. The idea has been to share risk, guide investment and clarify early for MOD what procurement choices are optimal for its point of view.

At the heart of the concept is to try to bridge the gap between industry and MOD in reducing risk and enhancing effective procurement. Obviously there are a number of challenges ranging for Intellectual Property ownership, investment sharing between government and diversity of private sector competitors to the question of the relationship between Team CW, MOD and the companies, such as Raytheon who are outside of the arrangement.

https://sldinfo.com/the-team-complex-weapons-business-model/

In other words, a key element of this double transition is enabled by the UK complex weapons enterprise. The UK MoD has created a close working relationship with industry to provide for the complex weapons necessary to enable the strike force.

And the fruits of this effort can be seen in the ability of weapons generated from this effort to empower the entire suite of fighters – Tornados, Typhoons, and Lightning IIs – to be able to reinforce their interactive capabilities.

The Tornado to Typhoon Transition

In this piece, I want to focus primarily upon the Tornado to Typhoon transition and the nature of that transition.

Adding a fifth generation capability is more than just a weapons issue, but the weapons dynamic is a key part of the overall integrative effort but will be the focus of attention in a later piece.

Group Captain Paul Godfrey, OBE has extensive experience of a range of combat aircraft through Harrier, F-16 and Typhoon. A Harrier weapons instructor, he was the first non-US national to fly the F-16 CJ operationally in the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) role whilst on exchange with the USAF and has spent the last 10 years in the Typhoon program with two flying tours including 4th/5th generation fighter training with the F-22.

After his current tour working on the Initial Operating Capability of the UK F-35B, he will become Station Commander RAF Lossiemouth, where two Typhoon squadrons are now located and a third will stand up in 2015. According to Group Captain Godfrey, a key impact of missile modernization on Typhoon will be to expand the effects of Typhoon operations.

“There is a clear need to expand the effects of Typhoon operations and here the enhancement of its weapons package will be an important improvement.”

The fast-approaching retirement of the Tornado is driving the weapons modernization program for the Typhoon. To enable Typhoon to assume Tornado’s roles, it is being reconfigured to provide an enhanced ground attack capability over and above the platform’s Enhanced Paveway II-only integration that was used by the RAF during the Libyan campaign.

First, Paveway 4 is being integrated followed by MBDA’s Storm Shadow and Dual-Mode Brimstone missiles, which have been deemed as the crucial elements of the Tornado to Typhoon transition. Thereafter the Typhoon’s capability will be supplemented with the turbo-jet powered long-range development of Brimstone, SPEAR 3, which will also be used on the F-35. This will close out the second phase of the RAF’s transition strategy.

Interestingly, the integration of the Storm Shadow on Typhoon is being driven in part by Saudi Arabia which wants its Typhoons to have a cruise missile carrying capability, and when married with its new air tanking capability can enhance the strike range of its Typhoon force.

The Dual-Mode Brimstone is designed to operate against maneuvering surface targets on land or sea.

It is a low collateral, close air support and anti-Fast Inshore Attack Craft weapon that has been combat proven by the RAF off Tornado in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. Clearly, it will greatly enhance the capability of the Typhoon.

Both Videos have been provided by the RAF and the first shows the Brimstone fired by a Tornado against an ISIS command vehicle; and the second video shows the Brimstone taking out a Libyan tank which was part of Qaddafi’s forces.

Importantly, in unison with its expanding air-to-ground capability, Typhoon’s air-to-air capability is also being enhanced with the integration of the new Meteor BVR missile, which allows for a broader range of offensive and defensive operations. The Meteor is a software upgradeable air-to-air missile with significant range and capability, which is being integrated on several other fourth generation aircraft – including Rafale and Gripen – as well as the fifth generation F-35s.

To gain a further sense of the transitional dynamics, I had a chance to talk with a retired RAF Tornado squadron leader who has been involved as well in the dynamics of Typhoon transition. This material was provided on background so the pilot will not be cited by name, but the key points of the discussion can be highlighted for an operator’s perspective is really central to understanding any significant airpower transition, which this one certainly is.

A key element of the transition, which was emphasized in the discussion, is not only the question of migration of missiles but of pilots.

As the Tornado force shrinks, Tornado pilots that move to the Typhoon are taking with them their mindset of how to support land forces, plus their hard-earned air-to-ground weapon experience honed over some 25 years of continuous combat operations.

“This cross-fertilization of ideas will allow the Typhoon force to do the roles that Tornado has always done. The only reason they can’t go all the way at the moment is because not all the weapons have been integrated onto the platform. Once the Typhoon weapon integration roadmap is complete, the Tornado can be taken out of service with the knowledge that the Typhoon force can accomplish everything Tornado can now and much, much more.”

He also emphasized the cross development of Tornado with Brimstone, which is a key weapon currently in used with great effect in Iraq.

As the Tornado’s precision weapon suite has increased, it has been able to play a more valuable close air support role. This change was first implemented in early Iraq operations, but changes brought about by lessons learned in Kosovo ensured that Tornado came of age.

“Brimstone started off as a fire-and-forget millimetric wave-only missile that was designed to destroy armor within a designated kill box. With the development of Dual-Mode Brimstone, which combines a semi-active laser seeker and a millimetric wave radar into a single missile, we are able to very accurately destroy mobile and fast maneuvering targets, as opposed to dropping multiple dumb bombs from altitude where the chances of hitting such a target are slim. The complex weapons that we’ve now put on Tornado have given that platform a new lease of life.”

Another key aspect of the weapons transition is that the Tornado crews are now able to employ a high load-out of mix-and-match weapons depending upon the operation and the expected target sets.

“The beauty of Tornado and its extensive weapon load-out is you can carry three Paveway 4s and three Dual-Mode Brimstones, or one Paveway 4 and six Dual-Mode Brimstones, or nine Dual-Mode Brimstones.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, our preferred weapon load-out is to carry two Paveway 4s and three Dual-Mode Brimstones.

Typhoon Carrying Meteor Missile. Credit: BAE Systems

That way, you are equipped to engage effectively whichever target set presents itself.

While we have the Paveway 4 to take out static targets that require a 500-pound effect, the weapon of choice in Afghanistan and now in Iraq is the Dual-Mode Brimstone because there are so many moving targets and targets with collateral damage concerns that demand a small warhead.

Dual-Mode Brimstone-armed Tornados are therefore in great demand, especially so given that even the Americans are having real problems hitting such targets.

It was the same in Libya, where Tornado was the only platform allowed to go “down town” Misrata and Benghazi, and actually hit targets in the urban environment because of its 98% first shot hit rate.

This means that the Tornado force is not only the backbone of the Royal Air Force, but it delivers a unique capability on coalition operations too.

What the RAF is doing in the Tornado to Typhoon transition is bringing these skillsets and capabilities to the Typhoon now, and then expanding its capabilities further with the addition of Meteor and SPEAR 3. In other words, the Typhoon will possess game-changing capabilities that will guarantee its relevance even when the fifth generation Lightning II joins the UK’s combat air force mix.”

In short, the weapons enterprise is a key part of the Tornado to Typhoon transition which, in turn, will be further enabled by radar and other platform upgrades occurring in the Typhoon modernization program.

And while this transition is unfolding, the F-35 is also coming to the RAF and its closest airpower partner in that transition, the USMC.

Also, see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/what-do-the-eurofighter-and-f-35-have-in-common-the-meteor-missile/

https://sldinfo.com/the-f-35-and-legacy-aircraft-re-norming-airpower-and-the-meteor-example/

https://sldinfo.com/building-a-21st-century-weapon-the-case-of-the-meteor-missile/

Talon Reach Long Range Raids

Posted on March 29, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

03/29/2015

2015-03-29 We have written a number of articles highlighting the coming together of new infantry tactics, with aviation enablers and C2 innovations to deliver new capabilities to the Marines.

This capability can be launched from the sea base or from a land base.

As such the convergence of C2, ISR, Osprey and KC-130J joint ops enable Marine infantry to perform long range raids or force insertion.

In the two videos below to Marine officers involved in the 2013 exercise explain the approach.

Credit Videos: Marine Corps Air Station Combat Camera

Evolving the Amphibious Fleet: The Coming of LX(R)

Posted on March 27, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

03/27/2015

2015-03-27 By Robbin Laird

The supply side of the amphibious fleet has gone down over the past two decades.

The amphibious ship fleet inventory has been reduced by 50% over the past twenty years and will operate in the range of 28-33 ships in the foreseeable future.

The demand side on the amphibious fleet is growing and significant.

At the same time, the number of core amphibious ships is not going to significantly increase in the foreseeable future.

And this gap is opening at a time when the role of the fleet is being recast under the influence of significant impacts of technology, training, and concepts of operations changes as well.

The coming of the Osprey has dramatically affected the concepts of operations of the fleet. The operating concept has evolved and the core ships in an amphibious task force operate further away from one another as the Osprey can connect the fleet with its range and speed of operation. The concept of amphibious assault is being refined to allow for the USN-USMC team to aggregate force and to operate at initially greater distances to project power into the objective area.

With the coming of the F-35B to the large deck amphibious ships, another evolution is on the way.

The combat capability delivered from the amphibious task force goes up along with the ability to extend the range of the C2 and ISR capabilities organic to the fleet.

Enhanced C2 is crucial for the amphibious fleet in augmenting its capabilities.

(Feb. 9, 2012) An MV-22 Osprey assigned to the Fighting Griffins of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 266 makes a historic first landing aboard the Military Sealift Command dry cargo and ammunition ship USNS Robert E. Peary (T-AKE 5). The Osprey landed aboard Robert E. Peary while conducting an experimental resupply of Marines during exercise Bold Alligator 2012. Credit; USN

As one Marine Corps source put it:

“Independent operations demand robust C4I capability to enable Command and Control across the warfighting functions and the expanding battlespace.

Fifth generation aircraft, unmanned air system payloads, and cyber engagement are rapidly expanding in capability and will require significant network, communication and spectrum agility.”

New ship types are being added which are also providing options for thinking differently with regard to operating the amphibious task force.

The Mobile Landing Platform adds a very flexible ship to enable at-sea offload of heavy equipment from Maritime Prepositioning Ships to landing craft for maneuver ashore in support of operations.

The Maritime Prepositioning Force’s T-AKE ship is a 42,000 ton supply ship which, with its elevators and ability to offload pinpoint supplies and deliver them to objectives ashore via the Opsrey.

And that capability will provide significant enhancements to the operational flexibility of the fleet as well.

The shortfall is significant as well, notably with the distributed operations unfolding in the Pacific and the significant distances involved for operations.

As Lt. General Robling, then head of the Marines in the Pacific put it:

Distance means that I need to have assets forward deployed and operational.

This means for the USMC, an ability to train with partners and allies in what you have called the strategic quadrangle.

This means an ability to have enough capable amphibious ships forward deployed to operate with those partners and allies.

Sebasing is a key element of providing persistent presence.

And amphibious ships are real part of a whole sea-basing capability and engagement capability. The amphibious requirement in the Pacific goes well beyond our support to South Korea. It is a key element in building partnership capacity and overcoming presence gaps and needs. This is why we need more platforms and more capable platforms of the sort we are building now.

Many of our partners in the region do not want us to be the Uncle that visited and never returned home. They want us engaged and present but not permanently based in their countries.

This means that seabasing and its augmentation is a fundamental requirement. When we add strategic lift aircraft, high-speed vessels or super ferries to the ARG-MEU lift equation we extend our strategic reach and significantly enhance our ability to enhance partnership capacity.

As the Navy and Marine Corps look to modernize the amphibious fleet, the team is looking at ways to provide cost effective relevant solutions moving ahead.

This means building ships which FIT the evolving concepts of operations and anticipated aviation assets, and modernization plans.

It is also the case of trying to leverage the lessons learned from the shipbuilding side of the house as well with regard to harvesting the best shipbuilding experience and leveraging that moving forward.

This is clearly the case with USMC-USN thinking with regard to the plans for replacing the 12 aging Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry (LSD-41/49) class amphibious ships, the first of which will reach age 40 in 2025.

The plan to replace these ships would be with a new class of 11 amphibious ships – the LX(R) – with the first bought in 2020.

The Navy wants to procure the first four LX(R)s in FY2020, FY2022, FY2024, and FY2026, and the remaining seven ships at a rate of one per year during the period FY2028-FY2034.

SUEZ CANAL (March 13, 2014) The amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) transits the Suez Canal. Mesa Verde is part of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and, with the embarked 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (22nd MEU), is deployed in support of maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. — SUEZ CANAL (March 13, 2014) The amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) transits the Suez Canal. Mesa Verde recently deployed with five MV-22s onboard.

And you have already seen the basic ship – namely the LPD-17.

The approach is to build the same hull and baseline configuration of the LX(R) based on the successful hull design of the LPD-17 class.

The ship had its difficulties at first, but those difficulties have been dealt with and the class is being built without any substantial problems.

Why not leverage the know how of building that ship with transitioning to a new build configuration of a successful ship class?

To discuss the approach to LX(R), I visited Quantico and sat down with Jim Strock, Director of Seabasing Integration, at the USMC Combat Development and Integration Command at Quantico.

Question: How did the Navy and Marine Corps end up with the current approach to building the LX(R)?

Strock: We went through the complete LXR analysis of alternatives between the summer of 2012 and the summer of 2014.

That AOA looked at replacing the LSD’s in kind with a similar sized and capable ship.

It looked at new construction designs, it looked at foreign commercial designs and it looked at the LPD 17 hull form and derivatives of that hull form.

In April of 2014, the analysis of alternatives was signed off. In October of 2014, the SECNAV, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition (ASN RD&A), the current commandant, the future commandant and the CNO signed off a decision memo agreeing to use the LPD 17 hull form to replace the dock landing ship, the LSD, and so we are now in the throes of the detailed requirements development.

Clearly, there will be some differences between the configuration of today’s LPD-17 and the LXR. And that is what the requirements development process will yield.

Question: When I visited the LPD-24 with regard to the rethink leaning forward to LXR, clearly the mast is going to change, and the team is looking to augment aviation support as well.

Could you provide some thoughts on what is envisaged?

Strock: We are looking at how to leverage the LPD 17 ship design to provide more effective operational capability. The Marine Corps position is that we will as a baseline ensure that we will not lose any of the current LPD-17 functionality and design towards enhancements. Clearly, how that functionality will be achieved is through certain changes within the ship.

Command and control is of course of increasing importance, given that the LPD-17 class often operates independently, which was not anticipated when the ship was built. Enhancements are being looked at fleet-wide as C2 is of growing salience to the deployed amphibious fleet, especially with the F-35 coming to the fleet as well.

The LPD 17 has robust medical spaces onboard so we preserved all of that. We probably will take a slight reduction in troop berthing compared to the LPD 17, but the number we settle at is far greater than what the LSD has today. The super structure, stealth mast construct will probably not be used for a variety of reasons to include that stealth mast is difficult to maintain. It will be replaced most likely by a conventional type mast.

From where we sit, today’s LSD’s are 15 to 16,000 ton ships in dead-weight tonnage. The LPD 17 is a 25,000 ton ship so your vehicle stowage capacity goes from 11 to 12,000 to 20,000 square feet. Your berthing of 408 on an LSD is going to go to 550 or greater with the LXR. Your cargo cube will be dramatically better as well.

Inside the ship, there may be changes to the propulsion and engineering plants, but that’s up to the ship designers to decide as part of a wide variety of cost reduction initiatives aimed at providing Marines a very capable ship at an affordable price.

For the Marine on the flight deck or the Marine in the well deck or the Marine in medical spaces that will be relatively transparent changes.

The basic interior configurations will be the same but they’re pretty doggone good.

You’ve been onboard and seen that the passageways are so wide and generous that two Marines carrying all their stuff can actually walk down the passageway without bumping into each other.

The most important reason that we want the LPD 17 hull form for the LSD replacement is to give us a credible ship to conduct independent operations. Today’s ARG-MEUs are operating either split or disaggregated.

What is the difference?

With regard to split, the three ships will operate within the same Area of Operation (AOR); disaggregated they will be operating in adjacent AORs.

Hence, the importance for that ship to operate independently, to have the right balance of C2, aviation, medical, vehicle square, cargo cube, vertical and surface interface capabilities to enable Marines to operate across the full range of military operations.

That’s very important.

Question: I would like to raise a final question.

When I interviewed the Captain of the USS Arlington he was adamant on the need for enhanced C2 for his ship.

Clearly, with the Osprey and F-35B combination, and the innovations in Command and Control going on at 2^nd MEB, there is a clear need to provide for enhanced C2 within the amphibious fleet.

What is the thinking with regard to this requirement and challenge?

Strock: We publish annually, signed off at the 3 star level, the Afloat MAGTF C4 Required Capabilities letter, about an inch thick.

It lays out all of the afloat MAGTF C4I requirements that we need on those ships. That letter goes up to N95, and from there we go shoulder to shoulder with N95 when dealing with Navy’s budgeteers, because the Navy has Navy Blue C4 requirements on that ship as well. We work through a collaborative process called the Enhanced Naval Afloat Baseline as we build a unified resourcing plan for shipboard amphibious command and control capabilities.

In other words, do we have a deliberate, planned way ahead to incrementally build and install and fund the necessary upgrades across the entire amphibious fleet?

We do, but it will take time. For some system installations you’d have to wait until the ship goes into a 6 to 8 month yard period to have those systems installed. Do we know what needs to go on those ships? Yes. Have we worked with the OPNAV staff to plan for funding and installing those capabilities? ? Yes.

Equally important is that we’re using the same approach for planning the operational deployment of the F-35 on board amphibious ships. N95 created a formal F35 Ship Integration Council as a forum to deliberately address F-35 requirements and impacts on the fleet.

In short, we have been stressing the need to make sure at the very least when the new ships are built they are built with necessary space and weight margins to accommodate evolving C2 systems.

Also they need to be built with the necessary backbone, fiber-optic and other C2 backbones into the ship to accommodate the innovations on the way.

What actual box sits on the communications rack 10 years from now? You probably don’t want to buy that today, but you have the space and weight and backbone reservations built into the ship. Just call it open architecture, and then the requirements documentation that we have that are working through the resource sponsors, we don’t want to get into a trap that we had with LPD 17 when the San Antonio got delivered where some of the C2 systems were already outdated.

The landing force operations center, remember, used to have the desks with the clear glass tops and you had this big cathode ray tube below the glass and you are looking in this outdated TV screen with green letters. That is what the San Antonio was equipped with.

Why?

It was about seven years flash to bang between contract award and ship delivery, and by the time the ship got delivered the landing force operation center had been overtaken by an entirely different electronic environment

For two of the baseline documents explaining the USN-USMC approach to seabasing and expeditionary warfare see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SEABASING+ANNUAL+REPORT+FOR+POM17+23Dec14+Low+Rez.pdf

https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EF21_USMC_Capstone_Concept.pdf

For previous articles on amphibious-related issues see the following:

https://sldinfo.com/shaping-a-21st-century-presence-and-assault-force-visiting-the-uss-america-military-sealift-command-and-second-marine-air-wing/

https://sldinfo.com/the-uss-america-redefining-amphibious-assault/

https://sldinfo.com/the-mobile-landing-platform-tests-its-amphibious-support-capabilities/

https://sldinfo.com/leveraging-amphibious-capabilities-to-shape-more-effective-global-presence/

https://sldinfo.com/the-amphibious-ready-group-arg-and-libya/

https://sldinfo.com/general-“dog”-davis-on-the-evolving-amphibious-ready-group/

https://sldinfo.com/meeting-the-challenges-of-the-demand-side-of-the-distributed-laydown-in-the-pacific/

https://sldinfo.com/admiral-buzby-on-the-evolving-capabilities-of-a-usn-usmc-msc-enabled-fleet/

https://sldinfo.com/building-a-new-ship-fred-harris-discusses-the-mobile-landing-platform/

https://sldinfo.com/the-seabasing-revolution-rear-admiral-buzby-discusses-the-latest-addition-to-the-msc-fleet/

https://sldinfo.com/adding-capability-to-the-evolving-seabase-the-coming-of-the-usns-montford-point/

https://sldinfo.com/admiral-shannon-discusses-the-evolving-roles-of-the-military-sealift-command/

http://breakingdefense.com/2012/03/bold-alligator-a-glimpse-of-marine-navy-future/

https://sldinfo.com/the-usmc-combat-development-command-discusses-the-joint-high-speed-vessel-and-its-roles/

https://sldinfo.com/augmenting-the-capability-of-the-amphib-a-key-element-in-the-evolution-of-the-seabase/

https://sldinfo.com/the-osprey-and-the-usns-robert-e-peary-in-bold-alligator/

https://sldinfo.com/mv-22-operates-with-the-msc-in-the-pacific/

https://sldinfo.com/tak-ing-the-supply-ship-to-a-whole-other-level/

Earlier this year, I visited the USS Arlington to get a view on how the USN-USMC team was looking to leverage the LPD-17 hull design to shape its new LXR class of ships.

The slideshow highlights some photos from that visit.

And here were the comments of the commander of LPD-24 (Commander Baker) during the Bold Alligator 2014 Exercise:

The discussions aboard the Dutch ship, naturally turned to C2 because of its role in the exercise.

But it is clear from Odyssey Dawn and the role of the USS Kearsarge and its role in that operation, that C2 enhancements are crucial for the amphibious fleet.

With a large deck amphib, like the USS America entering the fleet, and ships like the USS Arlington operating at much greater distances from other ships in the ARG-MEU, C2 is more importance now for the Gator Navy as that force transforms into an amphibious task force.

Commander Baker, CO of the USS Arlington. Photo: Second Line of Defense

Commodore Baker was asked about this growing demand signal for enhanced C2:

We have a much more robust C2 suite than a traditional LPDs.

What does constrain me is the actually sailors we billet on board.

We have the capability to do the LHD or LHA can do, and we are prone to deploy more independently over time as we do disaggregated ops.

Question: C2 limits for the amphibious ships is butting up against the demand to use the sea base differently in doing insertion operations

How are you addressing this?

Commodore Baker:

The sky is the limit.

There are initiatives we are doing to upgrade skill sets.

We have sent to schools to get skill sets to increase our capability.

We have not tapped fully the capabilities of the ship expanding the C2 capabilities of the ship.

In short, the exercise involves working with an evolving C2 capability to manage forces operating throughout key objective areas.

The presence of the Osprey allows the US and its allies to operate against longer range objective areas as well as other objective areas reachable by rotorcraft and reinforced by landing forces.

The sea base is characterized by logistical integrity meaning the insertion forces can be supported by the sea base, and it is not necessary to build forward operating bases or to land significant supplies ashore in order to prosecute missions.

The ISIS threat reminds us that leaving equipment behind — which is required for land-centric forces — can lead to the arming of one’s next adversaries.

It is a force tailored to crisis management, as opposed to having to rely on bringing significant forces ashore along with their gear in order to mount operations.

The Izumo Commissioning by the MSDF: Contributing to Regional Defense and Security

Posted on March 27, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

2015-03-27 The Japanese are deploying their largest warship in the post-war period.

The ship is focused on carrying helicopters but will be operate the Osprey as well.

The ship is about 250 meters and displaces 19,500 tons.

According to an article published in The Asahi Shimbun on March 25, 2015 about the commissioning of the Izumo:

The Maritime Self-Defense Force on March 25 officially commissioned the largest ship in its fleet, a massive destroyer that gives it the capability of detecting highly advanced Chinese submarines.

Defense Minister Gen Nakatani attended a ceremony in Yokohama’s Isogo Ward for the official launching of the Izumo as a ship flying the MSDF flag.

“This heightens our ability to deal with Chinese submarines that have become more difficult to detect,” an MSDF officer said.

The Izumo measures 248 meters in length, leading some, including media in China and South Korea, to describe it as a “semi-aircraft carrier.” It is 51 meters longer than the destroyer Hyuga, which was the largest ship in the MSDF fleet until now.

Jane’s Fighting Ships, a respected reference book on the world’s warships released annually in Britain, describes the Izumo as a helicopter carrier.

The Izumo has five landing spots on its flight deck for reconnaissance helicopters that can locate submarines. It can carry up to nine helicopters at a time, five more than the Hyuga.

The Osprey transport aircraft that the Ground SDF will deploy in the fiscal year beginning in April can also land on the Izumo.

The Izumo joined the MSDF’s Escort Flotilla 1, which is based in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture.

Construction on the ship began in fiscal 2010, and total costs were about 120 billion yen ($1 billion).

Although much of the global press buzz on the new “aircraft carrier,” the real news is that the Japanese and South Koreans, two of the premier shipbuilders in the world, are now building amphibious ships.

Photo taken March 25, 2015, from a Kyodo News helicopter shows the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force's largest ever helicopter-carrying destroyer, the Izumo, at the port of Yokohama, Japan. Source: Kyodo via AP Photo — Photo taken March 25, 2015, from a Kyodo News helicopter shows the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force’s largest ever helicopter-carrying destroyer, the Izumo, at the port of Yokohama, Japan. Source: Kyodo via AP Photo

And in South Korea’s case, they have transferred technology to the United States in building Military Sealift Command ships.

And an article published earlier this year by The Asahi Shimbun highlighted the capabilities of the ship and downplayed the aircraft carrier focus of the Chinese and others in Asia.

The Maritime Self-Defense Force’s newest ship has a flight deck its entire length and is nearly the size of the Shokaku and Zuikaku aircraft carriers that took part in the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, yet Japan insists it is not an aircraft carrier.

With a length of about 250 meters and standard displacement of 19,500 tons, the Izumo is the biggest ship in the fleet. Up to nine helicopters can land on its deck at the same time.

Even so, the Defense Ministry and MSDF insist the Izumo, which was launched last summer, is simply a destroyer capable of carrying helicopters.

Media in China and South Korea played up the launching, calling the Izumo a “semi-aircraft carrier” and evidence of a rightward tilt in Japan’s policies.

Military journalist Shinichi Kiyotani said: “Under international standards, it is nothing less than an aircraft carrier. The government is gradually expanding its interpretation because it is afraid it could become a political problem.”

For its part, Jane’s Fighting Ships, a reference book on all the world’s warships released annually in Britain, describes the Izumo as a helicopter carrier.

The Izumo is scheduled to replace the destroyer Shirane based at the MSDF base in Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture, in spring 2015. The Shirane has a standard displacement of 5,200 tons.

The MSDF already has two other helicopter-carrying destroyers with standard displacements in excess of 10,000 tons: the Hyuga and the Ise. Another ship on the same scale as the Izumo is also under construction, meaning the MSDF will eventually maintain four of the large ships.

The Mid-Term Defense Program approved by the Abe Cabinet in December placed the four helicopter-carrying destroyers as the core vessels of the nation’s escort flotillas.

Some ships are defined by their duty, such as submarines and transport ships. However, all large surface ships whose primary mission is combat-related are defined as destroyers.

Katsutoshi Kawano, the chief of staff of the MSDF, said, “Under regulations, there is no other way to refer to the ship but as a destroyer.”

The government issued a statement in 1988 on deploying of aircraft carriers. The document stated that the SDF would not possess intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers or attack aircraft carriers.

With Japan maintaining an exclusive defensive posture, aircraft carriers like those used by the U.S. Navy, which are capable of projecting force against both sea and land targets with their fighter jets, were not considered conducive to that policy.

Defense Ministry officials said there are no plans for the Izumo to carry fighter jets. Rather, they insisted the Izumo is a multipurpose ship that will be used to deal with natural disasters or international emergency rescue operations.

To address concerns the Izumo can handle vertical landing fighter jets, such as the F-35B, a high-ranking Defense Ministry official said, “While retrofitting might be possible, it would be impossible realistically since it would require huge amounts of time and money, including the purchase of the jets and the training of the necessary personnel…..”

It seems clear that the coming of the Osprey is part of the Izumo’s future and as the USN-USMC team works through the role of the Osprey in coalition concepts of operations, they will work closely with Japan without a doubt.

For a video from NHK which highlights the commissioning of the Izumo and highlight its role including the coming of the Osprey see the following link:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/japanindepth/20150325.html

NATO at a Testpoint in History: NATO Leaders Address the NATO Transformation Seminar

Posted on March 27, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

2015-03-26 By Murielle Delaporte

“The effects of twenty-first century accelerative change can be seen throughout the international system and across a range of threats: nuclear, conventional, and hybrid.

It is clear that the international community is at a crossroads where emerging crises test the resilience of security institutions and the post-Cold War architecture of security to unpredictable and ambiguous ways,” reads NATO Allied Command Transformation’s briefing paper for the annual NATO Transformation Seminar being held in Washington, D.C. this week.

Indeed as the Alliance implements the Wales Summit recommendations and prepares the upcoming Warsaw Summit in 2016, the threats coming from both the East and the South “will not go away”, said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg yesterday in the opening panel of the three-day Seminar and his first public address as NATO Secretary General in the United States.

Their effects are to be felt for years to come and the Alliance does not “have the luxury to choose between crisis management or collective security, but has to do both.”

NTS_Logo_ver3-300x225

For Jens Stoltenberg, NATO is indeed undergoing its third major shift since its establishment after WWII :

“During the Cold War, the challenge was clear and predictable; then followed a paradigm shift with 25 years of out of area engagements ; we now face a third major shift in the security landscape in which we must in particular adapt to hybrid warfare.”

Very concrete positive steps taken by NATO have been highlighted by both Secretary General Jens Stolteberg and SACT General Palomeros during the first morning panel and subsequent press conference, among which are the following:

The doubling of the NATO Response Force with the USA – whose financial commitment to the Alliance still amounts to two-third of the latter’s overall budget – playing a major role by sending more assets in Eastern Europe. Air policing missions and the establishment of NATO Command units in six European countries also reflect the reality of Europe and the United States coming together to deter and resist against a more assertive use of force by Russia;

Regional stabilization by supporting key partners, such as Afghanistan (with the extension of the deployment of 10 000 US troops), Jordan (in the fight against the spread of terrorism), or Georgia (where a package, including a training center, is being implemented);

The upcoming Trident Juncture 2015 exercise which will “gather by the Fall 30,000 people and take place in Spain, Italy and Portugal,” underlined General Palomeros.

“Having 28 nations acting as one takes time, but once the consensus is reached, it sends a powerful signal”, the General Secretary concluded, warning however that “we cannot get more with less.”

The key is “to be prepared for the unexpected” with better strategic awareness and to “act quickly.”

This can be achieved through political will and technological innovation.

Enhancing cyber resilience and training – including for high intensity conflict – are indeed two of the top priorities set in this process of adaptation aiming at “improving resilience and agility beyond 2020 …”

For SACT General Palomeros, the Alliance indeed needs to rid itself of the “peace dividends mindset” which has negatively impacted the modernization, as well as the readiness of some components of NATO forces, such as logistic support.

Increasing the pace of transformation is therefore even more important in the face of the evolving security threats.

This is true for at least three reasons:

More states and non-state actors feel unconstrained by international law ;
The occurrence of multiple crisis threatens NATO’s decision-making process planning ;
More disruptive A2/AD technologies(1) are being developed posing a mid to long term threat.

Indeed, the threat environment has become “more complex and fast-moving, with a cyberattack occurring in seconds, a missile attack in minutes, and green men moving in a matter of hours,” summed up Jens Stoltenberg.

“Reaching 2020 is the first milestone, (…) but NATO needs to go beyond, because the future will not work for us,” stressed General Palomeros.

Credits:

Photo: NATO (http://www.act.nato.int/nato-transformation-seminar)
Video: General Palomeros, Youtube

Footnote

(1) See for intance on this issue: https://www.usnwc.edu/Lucent/OpenPdf.aspx?id=95

SEE ALSO

Editor’s Note: The most recent piece by Secretary Wynne which address the airpower dimension of evolving coalition capabilities.

Secretary Wynne’s views dovetail very much with those General Palomeros.

The emphasis on coalition warfare will be the norm and driven by two factors.

The first is the relative equality of the technology across the coalition, as well as the role of bases provided by coalition partners.

The second is the lack of sufficient investment by any of the coalition partners to shape an overall dominant national force structure.

The U.S. and its allies will need to reach out to other nations to have a completely capable dominant force structure.

http://sldinfo.wpstage.net/the-evolving-challenges-for-coalition-airpower-secretary-wynne-looks-at-the-way-ahead/

Why Putin’s Showdown with the West Worsen

Posted on March 25, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

03/25/2015

2015-03-23 By Vitaliy N. Katsenelson

My father, Naum Katsenelson, painted this watercolor, “Dolls Become Humans,” two years after we came to the United States in 1993.

This is the only “thematic” picture my father ever painted.

If you look at the picture carefully you’ll see the silhouette of Lenin in the clouds (representing the past). On the far left there is a Stalin doll and a line of people going to prison. Across from Stalin on the right there is a doll of Brezhnev (you’ll recognize him by his large, distinct eyebrows). On the building on the right there is an image of Gorbachev.

Look carefully at the faces in the foreground (representing the present and the future): as they get closer to you they become more humanized – transforming from dolls into humans. The man in front of the woman draped in the American flag is my father; the boy with the Star of David on his chest is me.

This was an aspirational picture.

In 1993 the Soviet Union fell apart. Russia’s future looked bright – although it was in chaos, it was a democracy. The dolls here are an analogy for robots, suggesting uniformity of thought. As I was composing this I called my father and asked him if he’d paint the same picture today. He said, “No. Today’s picture would look very different.”

I spent three months aggravating over the following article.

It was one of the most emotionally taxing things I ever wrote. A few days ago my wife looked at me and said, “When are you going to be done with it; this article is bringing you down.” She was right. Today I want to share with you Chopin’s Prelude No. 4 Op. 28 in E minor. It perfectly describes of how I felt when I wrote this article. …. I grew up hating America. I lived in the Soviet Union and was a child of the cold war. That hate went away in 1989, though, when the Berlin Wall fell and the cold war ended.

By the time I left Russia in 1991, the year the Soviet Union collapsed, America was a country that Russians looked up to and wanted to emulate.

Twenty-three years later, a new version of cold war is back, though we Americans haven’t realized it yet.

After Russia invaded Crimea and staged its referendum, I thought Vladimir Putin’s foreign excursions were over. Taking back Crimea violated plenty of international laws, but let’s be honest. Though major powers like the U.S. and Russia write the international laws, they are not really expected to abide by those laws if they find them not to be in their best interests. Those laws are for everyone else. I am not condoning such behavior, but I can clearly see how Russians could justify taking Crimea back – after all, it used to belong to Russia.

I was perplexed by how the Russian people could possibly support and not be outraged by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

But I live in Denver, and I read mostly U.S. and European newspapers. I wanted to see what was going on in Russia and Ukraine from the Russian perspective, so I went on a seven-day news diet: I watched only Russian TV – Channel One Russia, the state-owned broadcaster, which I hadn’t seen in more than 20 years – and read Pravda, the Russian newspaper whose name means “Truth.”

Here is what I learned:

If Russia did not reclaim Crimea, once the new, illegitimate government came to power in Ukraine, the Russian navy would have been kicked out and the U.S. navy would have started using Crimean ports as navy bases.

There are no Russian troops in Ukraine, nor were there ever any there. If any Russian soldiers were found there (and there were), those soldiers were on leave. They went to Ukraine to support their Russian brothers and sisters who are being abused by Ukrainian nationalists. (They may have borrowed a tank or two, or a highly specialized Russian-made missile system that is capable of shooting down planes, but for some reason those details are not mentioned much in the Russian media.) On November 12, NATO reported that Russian tanks had entered Ukraine. The Russian government vehemently denied it, blaming NATO for being anti-Russian.

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was not downed by Russia or separatists. It was shot down by an air-to-air missile fired by Ukraine or a NATO plane engaged in military exercises in Ukraine at the time. The U.S. has the satellite imagery but is afraid of the truth and chooses not to share it with the world.

Ukraine was destabilized by the U.S., which spent $5 billion on this project. As proof, TV news showed a video of Senator John McCain giving a speech to antigovernment protesters in Kiev’s Maidan Square. It was followed by a video of Vice President Joe Biden visiting Ukraine during the tumult. I wasn’t sure what his role was, but it was implied that he had something to do with the unrest.

Speaking of Joe Biden, I learned that his son just joined the board of Ukraine’s largest natural gas company, which will benefit significantly from a destabilized Ukraine.

Ukraine is a zoo of a country, deeply corrupt and overrun by Russian-haters and neo-Nazis (Banderovtsi – Ukrainian nationalists who were responsible for killing Russians and Jews during World War II).

Candidates for the recent parliamentary election in Ukraine included Darth Vader (not kidding), as well as a gay ex-prostitute who claims to be a working man’s man but lives in a multimillion-dollar mansion.

I have to confess, it is hard not to develop a lot of self-doubt about your previously held views when you watch Russian TV for a week.

But then you have to remind yourself that Putin’s Russia doesn’t have a free press. The free press that briefly existed after the Soviet Union collapsed is gone – Putin killed it. The government controls most TV channels, radio and newspapers. What Russians see on TV, read in print and listen to on the radio is direct propaganda from the Kremlin.

Before I go further, let’s visit the definition of propaganda with the help of the Oxford English Dictionary:

“The systematic dissemination of information, especially in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view.”

I always thought of the Internet as an unstoppable democratic force that would always let the truth slip out through the cracks in even the most determined wall of propaganda.

I was wrong.

After watching Russian TV, you would not want to read the Western press, because you’d be convinced it was lying. More important, Russian TV is so potent that you would not even want to watch anything else, because you would be convinced that you were in possession of indisputable facts.

Russian’s propaganda works by forcing your right brain (the emotional one) to overpower your left brain (the logical one), while clogging all your logical filters. Here is an example: Russian TV shows footage of schools in eastern Ukraine bombed by the Ukrainian army. Anyone’s heart would bleed, seeing these gruesome images. It is impossible not to feel hatred toward people who would perpetrate such an atrocity on their own population. It was explained to viewers that the Ukrainian army continued its offensive despite a cease-fire agreement.

Of course if you watched Ukrainian TV, you would have seen similar images of death and despair on the other side. In fact, if you read Ukrainian newspapers, you will learn that the Ukrainian army is fighting a well-armed army, not rebels with Molotovs and handguns, but an organized force fully armed by the Russian army.

What viewers were not shown was that the cease-fire had been broken before the fighting resumed. The fact that Putin helped to instigate this war was never mentioned. Facts are not something Russian TV is concerned about. As emotional images and a lot of disinformation pump up your right brain, it overpowers the left, which capitulates and stops questioning the information presented.

What I also learned is that you don’t have to lie to lie. Let me give you an example. I could not figure out how the Russian media came up with the $5 billion that “America spent destabilizing Ukraine.” But then I found a video of a U.S. undersecretary of State giving an 8.5-minute speech; at the 7.5-minute mark, she said, “Since Ukrainian independence in 1991 … [the U.S. has] invested more than $5 billion to help Ukraine.” The $5 billion figure was correct. However, it was not given to Ukraine in three months to destabilize a democratically elected, corrupt pro-Russian government but over the course of 23 years. Yes, you don’t have to lie to lie; you just have to omit important facts – something Russian TV is very good at.

Another example of a right-brain attack on the left brain is “the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine.” Most lies are built around kernels of truth, and this one is no different. Ukraine was home to the Banderovtsi, Ukrainian nationalists who were responsible for killing tens of thousands of Jews and Russians during World War II.

Putin justified the invasion of Crimea by claiming that he was protecting the Russian population from neo-Nazis. Russian TV creates the impression that the whole of Ukraine is overrun by Nazis. As my father puts it, “Ukrainians who lived side by side with Russians did not just become Nazis overnight.”

Though there may be some neo-Nazis in Ukraine, the current government is liberal and pro-Western. Svoboda – the party whose members are known for their neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic rhetoric – did not get even 5 percent of the votes in the October election, the minimum needed to gain a significant presence in parliament. Meanwhile the TV goes on showing images of Nazis killing Russians and Jews during World War II and drawing parallels between Nazi Germany and Ukraine today.

What also makes things more difficult in Russia is that, unlike Americans, who by default don’t trust their politicians – yes, even their presidents – Russians still have the czarist mentality that idolizes its leaders. Stalin was able to cultivate this to an enormous degree – most Russians thought of him as a father figure. My father was 20 when Stalin died in 1953, and he told me that he, like everyone around him, cried.

I keep thinking about what Lord Acton said: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The Putin we scorn today was not always like this; he did a lot of good things during his first term. The two that stand out the most are getting rid of the organized crime that was killing Russia and instituting a pro-business flat tax system. The amount of power Russians give their presidents, however, will, with time, change the blood flow to anyone’s head. Come to think of it, even Mother Teresa would not have stood a chance in Russia.

A few weeks ago Putin turned 62, and thousands of people took to the streets to celebrate his birthday. (Most Americans, including this one, don’t even know the month of Barack Obama’s birthday.)

In my misspent youth, I took a marketing class at the University of Colorado. I remember very little from that class except this: For your message to be remembered, a consumer has to hear it at least six times. Putin’s propaganda folks must have taken the same class, because Russian citizens get to hear how great their president is at least six times a day.

We Americans look at Putin and see an evil KGB guy who roams around the country without a shirt on. Russians are shown a very different picture. They see a hard-working president who cares deeply about them. Every news program dedicates at least one fifth of its airtime to showcasing Putin’s greatness, not in your face but in subtle ways. A typical clip would have him meeting with a cabinet minister. The minister would give his report, and Putin, looking very serious indeed, would lecture the minister on what needed to be done. Putin is always candid, direct and tough with his ministers.

I’ve listened to a few of Putin’s speeches, and I have to admit that his oratory skills are excellent, of a J.F.K. or Reagan caliber. He doesn’t give a speech; he talks. His language is accessible and full of zingers. He is very calm and logical.

Russians look at the Putin presidency and ask themselves a very pragmatic question: Am I better off now, with him, than I was before he came into power? For most the answer is yes. What most Russians don’t see is that oil prices over the past 14 years went from $14 to more than $100 a barrel. They are completely responsible for the revival of Russia’s one-trick petrochemical economy. In other words, they should consider why their economy has done better the past decade, and why it may not do as well going forward. Unless Putin was the one who jump-started China’s insatiable demand for oil and other commodities that drove prices higher, he has had very little to do with Russia’s recent “prosperity.”

I place prosperity in quotes because if you take oil and gas riches away from Russia (lower prices can do that with ease), it is in a worse place today than it was 14 years ago. High oil prices have ruined Russia. They have driven its currency up, making its other products less competitive in international markets. Also, capital gravitates toward higher returns; thus oil has sucked capital from other industries, hollowing out the economy. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia had a chance to broaden its economy; it had one of the most educated workforces in the world. Sadly, it squandered that opportunity. Name one noncommodity product that is exported from Russia. There aren’t many; I can think only of vodka and military equipment.

But most Russians don’t look at things that way. For most of them, their lives are better now: No more lines for toilet paper, and the stores are full of food. Their personal liberties (such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press) have been taken away from them, but many have so much trust in their president that they don’t mind, whereas others are simply complacent.

Today we see three factors that influence oil prices and are working against Russia: Supply is going up with U.S. shale drilling; demand growth will likely decline if the Chinese economy continues to cool; and the dollar is getting stronger, not because the U.S. doing great but just because the rest of the world is doing worse. If oil prices continue to decline, this will expose the true state of the Russian economy.

When I visited Russia in 2008, I sensed an anti-American sentiment. NATO – which in Russia is perceived as a predominantly American entity – had expanded too close to Russian borders. Georgia tried to join NATO, but Russia put a quick end to that. Russians felt they extended a friendly hand to the U.S. after 9/11, but in response America was arraying missiles around its borders. (The U.S. says they are defensive, not offensive; Russians don’t see the distinction. They are probably right.)

The true colors of this new cold war came to light recently. In August 2008, according to Henry Paulson, the U.S. Treasury secretary at the time, “top level” Russian officials approached the Chinese during the Olympics in Beijing and proposed “that together they might sell big chunks of their GSE [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] holdings to force the U.S. to use its emergency authorities to prop up these companies.”

This incident took place just weeks before the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The U.S. economy was inches from revisiting the Stone Age. The proposed Russian-Chinese maneuver could have made such an outcome more likely. The Federal Reserve would have had to step in and buy Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt, and the dollar would have taken a dive, worsening the plunge in the U.S. economy. Our friend Putin wanted to bring the U.S. economy down without firing a single shot, just as he annexed Crimea from Ukraine.

Today anti-American sentiment is much greater in Russia. European sanctions are seen as entirely unjustified. Here is why: Crimea had a “democratic referendum,” and the Ukrainian conflict is believed to be not of Russia’s doing but rather an American attempt to destabilize Russia and bring Ukraine into NATO. In his annual speech at the Valdai conference last month, Putin said America had pushed an unwilling Europe into imposing sanctions on Russia. America is perceived as an imperialistic bully that, because of its economic and military power, puts its own self-interest above everyone else’s, and international law.

Putin uses anti-Americanism as a shiny object to detract attention from the weak Russian economy and other internal problems. In the short run, sanctions provide a convenient excuse for the weakening Russian economy and declining ruble. They have boosted Putin’s popularity (at least so far). As the Russian economy gets worse, anti-American sentiment will only rise.

This new version of the cold war has little in common with the one I grew up in. There are no ideological differences, and there is no arms race (at least not yet, and let’s be honest: Today neither country can afford one, especially Russia). At the core of it, we don’t like what Russia is doing to its neighbors, and Russia doesn’t like what we do to the rest of the (non-EU) world.

The criticisms of U.S. foreign policy voiced by Putin in his latest Valdai speech are shared by many Americans: The U.S. is culpable in the unresolved, open-ended Afghanistan adventure; the Iraq War; the almost-bombing of Syria, which may have destabilized the region further; and the creation of the Islamic State, which is in large part a by-product of all of the above. Yet Putin’s abominable Ukrainian excursion and the thousands of lives lost were never mentioned.

But there is also something less tangible that is influencing Russia’s behavior: a bruised ego. During the good old Soviet Union days, Russia was a superpower. It mattered. When it spoke, the world listened. The Russian people had a great sense of pride in their Rodina (Mother Russia). Today, if Russia did not have nuclear weapons, we’d pay much less attention to it than we do. Pick a developing country without oil whose president you can name. (Okay, we Americans can’t name the president of almost any other country, but you get the point.)

Anti-Americanism and Putin’s popularity will both rise as the Russian economy weakens. For instance, Putin took his own people hostage when he imposed sanctions on imports of European food. The impact on Europe will not be significant (the Russian economy is not very large in comparison to the European Union), but Russia is very dependent on these imports. In the U.S. consumers spend about 13 percent of their earnings on food, but in Russia that number is almost three times larger. Therefore, food inflation hurts Russians much more. Yet as food inflation spiked, so did Putin’s popularity and anti-Americanism. Even declining oil prices will be explained as a anti-Russian manipulation by the U.S.

Unfortunately, the only thing Russia has going for it today is its nuclear weapons. Russia has started to remind us of its military recently. According to NATO, the alliance “has conducted over 100 intercepts of Russian aircraft in 2014 to date, which is about three times more than were conducted in 2013.”

Every article needs a conclusion, but this one doesn’t have one. I am not sure what this new cold war means for the world. Will Russia start invading other neighboring countries? Will it test NATO resolve by invading Baltic countries that are part of NATO? I don’t know. Economic instability will eventually lead to political crises. We have plenty of economic instability going on around the world.

I’ll leave you with this thought: On March 7, 1936, the German army violated the Treaty of Versailles and entered into the Rhineland. Here is what Hitler later said:

“The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance.”

Those two days determined what Germany would do next – build out its army and start World War II.

Comparing Putin with Hitler, as one of my Russian friends put it, is “absolutely abominable” because it diminishes Hitler’s atrocities and overstates by a mile what Putin has accomplished to date. Yet it feels as if we are at a Putin-of-1936 moment. Will he turn into a Putin of 1939 and invade other countries? I don’t know.

But the events of the past nine months have shown Putin’s willingness to defy international law and seize the advantage on the ground, betting – correctly so far – that the West won’t call his bluff.

As Garry Kasparov put it, while the West is playing chess, responding tactically to each turn of events, Putin is playing high-stakes poker.

We ignore Putin at our own peril.

This article was republished with the permission of the author.

Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA, is Chief Investment Officer at Investment Management Associates in Denver, Colo.

Italian International Defense Missions: An Update from Defense Minister Pinotti

Posted on March 24, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

03/24/2015

2015-03-24 The Italian military provides an important capability for Italy to respond to international crises but which are under pressure from economic stringencies.

In testimony before the Italian parliament, Italian Defense Minister Pinotti highlighted the Italian efforts.

According to a story on the Italian Ministry of Defence website published on March 19, 2015, her testimony was highlighted.

Minister Pinotti testified before the Joint Senate and Lower House Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee today on the state of current missions and international aid aimed at supporting peace establishment and stabilization.

A minute’s silence in memory of the victims of yesterday’s Tunis terrorist attack opened the Parliamentary Hearing

Enhanced air and naval posture in the Mediterranean Sea, suspension of Italian activities in Libya, end of the employment of Vessel Protection Detachments onboard Italian merchant vessels and of Italy’s participation in NATO Operation Ocean Shield.

These were some of the main developments illustrated by Minister Pinotti during the Parliamentary hearing on International Missions.

Having underscored that North Africa is “our priority concern”, the Minister dwelt on yesterday’s attack in Tunisia: Given the escalation of terrorist threats, the need emerged to strengthen our air and naval posture in the Central Mediterranean area, to protect our different national interests which today are exposed to growing risks originating from the presence of terrorist organizations, and ensure consistent levels of maritime security.

All these aspects are integrated within the framework of operation Safe Seas.

Faced with the gradual worsening of the security scenario in Libya, and continued institutional chaos, Minister Pinotti announced that our activities on the Libyan territory are suspended, adding that Italy is ready to play a prominent role within the framework of a possible future initiative of the international community aimed at stabilizing and reconstructing institutions in Libya.

As she testified about the ISIS threat in Libya and in the Near and Middle East region, the Defence Minister highlighted that the international community, including a large number of Arab and Islamic countries, is working to contain ISIS expansion in both Iraq and Syria.

While confirming the size of the Italian commitment in the Anti-ISIS Coalition – 525 military during the first 9 months of the year- the Minister made an announcement: “We are in the initial planning stage to contribute a Carabinieri Corps contingent whose task could be to supervise, with a leadership role, the establishment of Iraqi Military Police units.”

As regards the arc of crisis in Eastern Europe, Roberta Pinotti explained that the international community is actively engaged in managing the crisis, by both facilitating diplomatic negotiations between the parties and working to contain the conflict. Also in this case, Italy is playing its part, she added, and explained that we have taken over air policing activities in the Balkans –conducted on a rotational basis by NATO countries- since last January, having committed seven aircraft.

Regarding our presence in Afghanistan, the Minister explained that NATO Resolute Support Mission will be completed by the end of 2015: We will significantly reduce our presence over the second part of the year.

Italian commitment in the fight against piracy will also change. Italy will continue to be part of Operation Atalanta, but it will stop providing Vessel Protection Detachments for embarkation on Italy-flagged merchant vessels, as well as Italy’s participation in NATO Operation Ocean Shield. The decision was taken considering the recent positive trend showing a significant decrease in pirate attacks, as well as the finalization of merchant vessels’ defense procedures. The Government – the Minister said- acknowledged the last Parliamentary decisions, in particular as regards the request to re-asses our participation in counter-piracy activities on the basis of developments in the issue of the two Italian marines detained in India.

Italy’s commitment in various missions will be reduced or suspended, in line with announcements made to the Parliament in September 2014, aimed at rationalizing expenditures.

http://www.difesa.it/EN/Primo_Piano/Pagine/audiz.aspx

French Forces Respond to the Humanitarian Crisis in Vanuatu

Posted on March 24, 2015 | by Robbin Laird

2015-03-24 French forces along with several allied air and naval forces are joining in to aid the population of Vanuatu in the wake of a major natural disaster.

The FAF based in Tahiti have sent CASA-235s to deliver aid to Vanuatu.

The aircraft are bringing aid and personnel to assist in reconstruction.

un-casa-de-polynesie-vient-en-renfort-aux-sinistres-du-cyclone-de-pam_article_demi_colonne

According to a story on the French Air Force website published March 20, 2015:

“The CASA aircraft have delivered three tons of freight including makeshift shelters and various tools to assist in the operation.

The aircraft are assisting the the armed forces of New Caledonia as well in the effort

The French frigate Vendémiaire has two helos on board, a Puma from Squadron 52 of the BA 186 and an Alouette 3 from fleet 22S.

The helos are delivering cargo into remote areas and providing medical support to the populations.

And four French nationals were evacuated to New Caledonia.”

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/fanc-poursuite-de-la-mobilisation-pour-le-vanuatu

Translation provided by Second Line of Defense.

carte-de-la-nouvelle-caledonie_article_pleine_colonne