In an effort to be in compliance with GDPR we are providing you with the latest documentation about how we collect, use, share and secure your information, we want to make you aware of our updated privacy policy here
Enter your name and email address below to receive our newsletter.
Today, the 18th September 2014, Scotland votes in a referendum on Independence.
The public opinion polls agree on only one thing: The outcome is too close to call.
The “No” to independence camp is slightly in the lead.
But between 6% to 10% say they are still undecided. A turnout over 90% of the 4.29 million electorate is predicted, including first time voters between the ages of 16 and 17.
The stakes are immense.
One third of the land mass of what is today the United Kingdom could cease to be British territory. The 307 year union of Scotland and England could end.
Panic has set in among the leaders of the three main political parties in London. They have all rushed to Scotland over the past week.
Which currency for an independent Scotland? Credit: Wall Street Journal
David Cameron, the British Prime Minster, speaking in Aberdeen before a carefully selected audience of party supporters, made a last ditch plea to Scots; “Do not break the family apart…If Scotland votes Yes, the UK will split, and we will go our separate ways forever.”
Cameron has warned Scots against a “painful divorce.”
But most commentators agree that the declarations of the three Westminster political leaders had no impact at all in Scotland.
The “No” to independence campaign has been headed by the Scottish Labour Party member of parliament, and former chancellor of the exchequer, Alistair Darling.
He was barely on speaking terms with Gordon Brown, the former British Prime Minister. He has waged a negative campaign. He has warned of the economic consequence of independence. He is angry with Alex Salmond, the leader of the “Yes” campaign, and the First Minister of Scotland, for sanctioning what he calls “mob behaviour.”
But in the final hours of the campaign it is Gordon Brown who became by far the most passionate defender of the union.
The current Prime Minister David Cameron, whose father was born at Blairmore House in Aberdeenshire, is perceived by many Scots to be the very epitome of an Eton and Oxford educated English upper-class “toff,” and his belated intervention in the Scottish independence debate only underscores part of the problem:
How out of touch the London political establishment has become from grass-root politics, and how successfully Alex Salmond has captured popular dissatisfaction in Scotland with Westminster.
An Independent Scotland is certainly a viable option.
It would have 90% of Britain’s North Sea oil revenues.
The UK would lose significant revenue with the emergence of an independent Scotland. Credit Graphic: New York Times
The structure of the economy of an independent Scotland would have 21.4% of its gross value added composed of revenues from oil, mining and agriculture. (For the UK, excluding Scotland, the percentage of gross value added from oil, mining and agriculture would be a mere 1.1%).
The independence debate has focused on the currency (whether Scotland could continue using the pound sterling as Alex Salmond proposes), over differing projections of future oil and gas production, over the future of the national heath service and education (which is currently free in Scotland), and over defence policy, where Salmond has pledged the removal of the Britain’s nuclear armed Trident submarines from their Scottish base on the Clyde.
As the opinion polls have narrowed over the past weeks outside observers have weighed in. Former US treasury secretary, Alan Greenspan, called the oil projections “implausible” and a monetary union “inconceivable.”
Former World Bank president, Robert Zoellick and George Soros also support a “No” vote.
The First Minister of Catalonia, Artur Mas, not surprisingly, is a supporter of Scottish Independence.
Even Glasgow born Harvard History Professor Niall Fergusson arrived to lecture the Scots: “This Thursday residents of the land of my birth are essentially voting on whether or not to become Denmark.”
In an “open letter to the people of Scotland 14 former British Armed Forces chiefs have insisted that a “No” vote is “critical to our security.” They warn that the Royal Navy’s base at Faslane on the Clyde, home base for nuclear Trident submarine force, is at “the very heart of Britain’s maritime defence.”
Business leaders, Bankers, and defence contractors, have also warned about the negative impact of independence on investment, prices, and on employment.
But why did unionist support in Scotland wither?
Roughly three weeks from now, the Scottish people will decide for themselves whether they wish to end the 307 year union that has bound them to the United Kingdom. The vote could have a significant even decisive impact on the UK nuclear deterrent and English defense policy.
The end of empire after WW2 certainly contributed. Scots found much business, employment, and opportunities, in the former colonies, as well as in the British armed forces.
But a large part of the responsibility must be placed on Margaret Thatcher and developments during the 1980s.
Scotland’s once great shipbuilding and coal industries terminally declined, and with them the trade union based working class “British” solidarity.
These transformations were inevitable, but Thatcher encouraged them.
And in the working class housing estates the resentment against Thatcher remains very strong indeed.
The conservative party in Scotland now has only one member of parliament at Westminster. Once strongly Labour Party supporters have in recent years joined the Scottish National Party, or they have ceased to vote at all in general elections.
The emergence of an independent Scotland in a volatile European situation will provide an interesting input to the direct defense of Europe, the future of NATO and the future of the European Union and the common currency.
They form a large segment of Scottish population whose voting preferences the public opinion pollsters cannot easily predict, and they are being intensely courted as a consequence by the “Yes” to independence campaign.
The Labour party currently holds 41 of the 59 Scottish seat in Parliament.
An Independent Scotland would remove these and make a future labour party government implausible in the rest of what would be the non-UK.
Labour party leader Ed Miliband is panicked at the prospect, so that together with David Cameron and the Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg, he has signed a last minute pledge to give the Scottish parliament more “devolved” powers in the event of a “No” vote, a promise that has already provoked a backlash among English conservatives.
The debate in Scotland has been passionate, and noisy, and discussions have engaged the whole Scottish population in all parts of the country.
On the fringes some supporters of the union have been intimidated.
But the truth is that if the UK ends as a result of the referendum vote in Scotland today, and it will be a very close call, the London politicians (with a lot off help from the late Margaret Thatcher) have only themselves to blame.
2014-09-16 The arrival of the USS America in San Diego marks the completion of a two-month transit around South America from Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss.
America is the first ship of its class, replacing the Tarawa-class of amphibious assault ships. As the next generation “big-deck” amphibious assault ship,
America is optimized for aviation, capable of supporting current and future aircraft such as the MV-22 Osprey and F-35B Joint Strike Fighter.
The ship is scheduled to be ceremoniously commissioned Oct. 11 in San Francisco.
“Throughout this maiden transit, the crew has far exceeded what the expectations typically are for a ship in this phase,” said Capt. Robert Hall Jr., America’s commanding officer.
“From (community service) projects to meaningful exchanges with various countries, everyone on this journey has contributed to something much greater than the ship. They have contributed to the strong bond that exists between the U.S. Navy and navies throughout South America.” ”
The future amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) fires its portside 40-mm saluting battery, during a 21-gun salute evolution as the ship arrives in its homeport of San Diego for the first time. USS America, 9/15/14
The increased size of the hanger bay means we won’t be limited by space on the flight deck,” said the ship’s air boss, Captain Chris Mills.
The USS America was built with the MV-22 tile rotor Osprey and the new F-35 Strike Fighter in mind.
“Plain and simple, our mission is to get Marines on the beach, but with the F-35 strike capability and the long distance of the Osprey, we can put those Marines hundreds of miles inland without having to fight through a contested shore landing,” Mills said
The Osprey has obviously been a game changer, where today, the ARG-MEU can “disaggregate” and operate over a three-ship distributed 1,000-mile operational area.
Having the communications and ISR to operate over a greater area, and to have sustainment for a disaggregated fleet is a major challenge facing the future of the USN-USMC team.
A major change in the ship can be seen below the flight deck, and these changes are what allow the assault force enabled by new USMC aviation capabilities to operate at greater range and ops tempo.
The ship has three synergistic decks, which work together to support flight deck operations. Unlike a traditional large deck amphibious ship where maintenance has to be done topside, maintenance is done in a hangar deck below the flight deck.
And below that deck is the intermediate area, where large workspaces exist to support operations with weapons, logistics and sustainment activities.
This graphic focuses upon the USS America deck synergy and the workflow thereby facilitated. Credit: Second Line of Defense
In an interview with the ship’s Captain, Robert Hall, just prior to the departure in mid-July from the Ingalls Huntington shipyard in Pascagoula Mississippi, the CO highlighted some of the ship’s capabilities:
The ship has several capabilities, which allow us to stay on station longer than a traditional LHA and to much better support the Ospreys and the F-35Bs which will be the hallmark of USMC aviation to enable long range amphibious assault. These aircraft are larger than their predecessors.
They need more space for maintenance and this ship provides it.
We have two high-hat areas to support the maintenance, one of them located behind the aft flight deck elevator to allow movement through the hangar.
We have significantly greater capacity to store spare parts, ordnance and fuel as well. We can carry more than twice as much JP-5 than a traditional LHA.
The ship has three synergistic decks, which allow for a significant enhancement of the logistical or sustainment punch of the amphibious strike force.
According to Captain Hall:
I like the synergistic description.
The flight deck is about the size of a legacy LHA. But that is where the comparison ends. By removing the well deck, we have a hangar deck with significant capacity to both repair aircraft and to move them to the flight deck to enhance ops tempo.
With the Ospreys, we will be able to get the Marines into an objective area rapidly and at significant distances. And when the F-35B comes the support to the amphibious strike force is significantly enhanced.
And we will be able to operate at much greater range from the objective area.
With the concern about littoral defenses, this ship allows us the option to operate off shore to affect events in the littoral.
This is a major advantage for a 21st century USN-USMC team in meeting the challenges of 21stcentury littoral operations.
The USS America will provide a significant boost to the ability to both maintain and to provide operational tempo to support the force.
And in an additional interview with Major David Schreiner, the ship integration officer within Headquarters USMC Aviation, the Marine Corps officer highlighted how the ship will do this and how it fits into evolving thinking about the future of the amphibious task force.
According to Major Schreiner, one of the key elements of maintaining the Osprey is the need to open the nacelles and to work on them. On current LHAs, this can only be done topside, but with the new ship, it will be possible to maintain the Ospreys completely in the Hangar deck.
The traditional LHA was sized primarily for rotorcraft operations; the new one is sized for the Osprey and the F-35B.
VMX-22 operated aboard the USS America working on ship integration with the Osprey. Credit: USS America
According to Major Schreiner, “the footprint of the new aviation assets are about 30-40% larger than the rotorcraft and fast jets they are replacing. With the change in operational capabilities and concepts comes the need to provide for a new logistics capability for the force as well.”
The logistics demands from the Ospreys on the traditional LHAs required work topside, which affects flight deck operations as well as facing daylight limitations within which the work needed to be done.
What we found with the MV-22 was that it needed some extra space.
It needed some space in the hangar for assault maintenance.
What we found in the legacy amphibious ships that we were unable to do that efficiently down below, so the workaround for the Marines, the only workaround is to do those modifications topside which are extremely time consuming and it is a delicate balance on doing them during a period of daylight where they could effectively see and then balance it out with flight operations.
To get the needed changes, the ship designers of the USS America look to the hangar deck and the intermediate areas. The hangar deck has no well deck and that provides extra space as well as overhead cranes and storage areas for parts.
The ops tempo for the assault force is enhanced as well.
(Slideshow above shows the USS America in Chile).
According to Major Schreiner:
The idea was is not only to provide enough space to incorporate for the growth in airframes and the logistics footprints but also to provide for operational maneuver space down below as well.
We can cycle planes from the hangar to the flight deck to enhance sortie generation rates for the helos, the Ospeys and the F-35Bs in whatever package is appropriate to the mission.
Working the synergy among the three decks will be crucial to shaping the workflow to support operational tempo.
Your next aircraft for the flight deck can be positioned down below for a quick elevator run thereby enabling a larger volume of flights off the deck.
You could then work into the deck cycle and elevator run to bring up those extra aircraft as a way not only to provide backups but to provide extra sorties for the flight deck.
Synergy and workflow are really the two outcomes which come from a ship designed for 21st century assault assets.
Instead of having to do all the maintenance topside you have the spaces down below from the heavy maintenance with the use of upright cranes and the work centers that are collocated right on the hangar bay with the supporting equipment work centers, the control work centers, and just below it on the intermediate deck below.
You have all your supply centers and then you have your intermediate level maintenance as well for that sensitive calibration, for the more complex repairs.
This creates a cycle or synergy where you have supervisors that the work centers are collocated with the maintenance that’s being done on the hangar.
You have maintenance actions being produced.
They are brought in; they are logged into the system, they are evaluated, they can go downstairs and they can either be fixed on the spot, calibrated, the part could be reworked or the supply system being right there, a new part in the supply could be issued back up, turned.
There will be very little waste of time between different parts of the ship all supervised, brought back up, and repaired on the plane.
Brazilian helicopter lands on the USS America during the visit to Brazil. Credit: USS America
Clearly, this workflow will be a work in progress as the crew and the Marines shape ways to work the decks to optimize what can come off of the flight deck.
Aircraft maintenance and operations at sea are extremely hard; extremely hard on the actual airframes and they are extremely hard on the maintainers that are doing the work because the reality of it is that in a 24 hour cycle, half the time is spent conducting flight operations topside where there is very little space to do maintenance.
It is just too congested.
It is too busy and so by default you have to wait till flight operations stop which limits you in your maintenance to periods usually in darkness where it is hard or reduce cycle say 12 hours to do the maintenance in order to turn those aircraft around.
By having access to hangar bay, you have a safe space, you have a well-lighted space; you have room to safely move and now you are able to do concurrent maintenance actions.
I’m not saying that you couldn’t do that on a legacy class but you can just do this on a much greater scale and with greater efficiency on the AMERICA so you are able to make the timely inputs, the timely maintenance actions ultimately to keep the available assets up.
For operators and maintainers, the intermediate area below the hangar deck is a major change as well.
Marines will have access to world class or corner space standard test batches for calibration, they can do everything at sea can be done in a corner space or a land environment. From a warship capability is amazing and the goal is to increase the repairable capability on the ship rather than waiting for parts to be sent to the ship.
Transit time loss is a big deal; sometimes we have to go halfway around the world for a part because there is no way to beat the geographic distance.
The only way you can do that with a part is to have a spare in the supply system.
Now you have an aircraft that either has to have a cannibalization of a part to keep it flying or you have to wait and you have your downtime on an aircraft.
The goal of the I level is to be able to actually be able to repair aircraft with parts on board. And with the increased storage capacity this clearly will happen.
The USS America will make a significant contribution to the amphibious strike force, but no platform fights alone.
It will be a key element or even flag ship of evolving approaches.
When one marries the new MSC assets –T-AKE and USNS Montford Point assets – to the LPD-17 and the USS America, the USN-USMC team will have a very flexible assault force, with significant vehicle space, berthing space for embarked Marines and shaping the future mix and match capabilities of the modular force.
To illustrate the impact of such a task force on berthing of embarked Marines, in addition to berthing on the USS America, one could carry 680 Marines aboard an LPD-17, 100 aboard a T-AKE ship and 250 aboard a Montford Point, and that is with current capabilities which be modified as modular capabilities evolve against operational needs, requirements and funding.
In short, the USS America is part of the evolving amphibious strike task force, and will work synergistically with other new or legacy assets in providing capabilities necessary for 21st century operations.
Editor’s Note: The slideshow above shows the remembrance of 9/11 while the new warship was in transit.
The USS America is itself a remembrance of 9/11.
It provides a new amphibious strike capability available to the National Command Authority to support US interests where those threats may reside.
With its Ospreys and with the coming of the F-35B, this ship can direct its assault not just against a beach but deep inland against those who wish to threaten US interests.
We salute those who made this ship possible and whose vision is now being translated into reality.
To those who wish to come from far away and threaten our way of life, we can find you and will hunt you down. That is the message the US military sends in remembrance of those who died on September 11, 2001.
The slideshow shows various members of the USS America remembering 9/11 while in transit at sea starting with Captain Hall, the CO of the ship.
“Over the last eight weeks, AMERICA has hosted a Vice President, seven different U.S. Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers, Four-Star Admirals and Generals and countless other distinguished guests.
“The crew has gone ashore in Colombia, Cuba, Brazil, Chile and Peru and has represented our country extremely well.”
The video below shows the ship as it began its journey to San Diego:
And for a video which highlights the arrival in San Diego and provides an overview of the ship see the following report from a local San Diego TV station:
2014-09-12 Paramount Group has signed a joint venture agreement with Azerbaijan’s AirTechServices Corporation to form Paramount Aerospace Azerbaijan, which will offer manufacturing capabilities for the modernization and enhancement of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.
The new company was announced in Baku yesterday during the Azerbaijan Defence Expo (ADEX). Paramount said the partnership has created a strong force which positions it as a leader in cutting edge aerospace technologies in the region giving it the advantage of manufacturing, upgrading and integrating various capabilities across a range of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft platforms, including Mi-17 and Mi-24 helicopters and Su-25 and MiG-29 aircraft.
The joint venture agreement was signed by the Chairman of the Board of AirTechServices, Fuad Seyidaliyev, and the Executive Chairman of Paramount Group, Ivor Ichikowitz.
“Paramount Group has a long association with Azerbaijan. Our partnership has started out in land systems and this relationship has strengthened as the country developed into the fast-growing economic powerhouse that it is today. It is very exciting that we can build on this foundation to establish advanced aerospace capabilities in Azerbaijan,” Ichikowitz said.
Mi-24 Supported by Paramount Group. Credit: defenceWeb
“Through Paramount Aerospace Azerbaijan it is our intention to transfer skills, technology and advanced aerospace capability to Azerbaijan and the wider region. It is our intention to develop manufacturing facilities, establish research and development facilities, and create a strong partnership that will be extremely beneficial to the industries of both our countries.”
Seyidaliyev said that, “Our joint venture brings together leaders in aerospace innovation in a strong and unique partnership which will deliver world class technologies and solutions, from sophisticated aerospace technologies, to the modernization and upgrade capabilities of fighter and rotary wing aircraft for the specific requirements of Defence forces in the region. There are great synergies between our organizations that will bring huge benefits to our customers.”
Paramount Aerospace Azerbaijan will present a wide range of aerospace capabilities and technologies to the CIS market, Paramount said. The Group has provided targeting sights and missiles for Azerbaijani helicopters and offers helicopter composite rotor blades, missiles, helmet-mounted sights, sensor turrets, avionics, weapons and self protection systems for helicopters. Paramount offers weapons, avionics, upgrades and system integration for fixed wing aircraft.
Armored vehicles
The creation of the new company is another example of Paramount’s close ties with Azerbaijan. Also at ADEX, the Group announced that it had handed over another six Marauder armored vehicles to the Ministry of Defence Industries of Azerbaijan.
These form part of a second tranche of 60 armored vehicles for Azerbaijan, with Paramount having previously delivered a first batch of 30 vehicles to that country’s armed forces. In 2012 the Azerbaijan Ministry of Defence Industries (MDI) ordered 30 Marauder and 30 Matador mine protected vehicles, following the establishment of a joint production facility in the country and the production of an initial 15 Matador and 15 Marauders under a joint production agreement set up in 2009.
“This is a very important milestone in our relationship with the Ministry of Defence Industries of Azerbaijan. We are continuing to strengthen the ties between Azerbaijan and South Africa. The Defence and aerospace industry is one of the most strategic areas of cooperation between nation states. We believe that this collaboration and our investment will continue to support industrial development and boost the high-tech Defence and aerospace industry,” Ichikowitz said.
“With our joint facility having been in operation for the past six years we have a thoroughly streamlined production line that allows for scalability in servicing the local market and region. We are actively looking to introduce other land systems solutions to our production line such as the Mbombe 6×6 Infantry Combat Vehicle and Maverick 4×4 Internal Security Vehicle.
“We believe that this will allow the Ministry of Defence Industry and Paramount Group to continue the development of human capital whilst ensuring we best service the Government of Azerbaijan and region with the latest in armored vehicle technology.”
The Marauder is an IED and mine protected vehicle designed to operate in built-up and confined urban settings. It can carry of crew of ten and be configured as either a troop carrier or combat vehicle. The Marauder is fitted with a double-skinned hull throughout the cabin and crew compartment to protect it against kinetic attack up to STANAG 4569 Level III.
Matador carries a crew of 14 and was conceived for long-range military or peacekeeping operations with the ability to handle rugged and demanding terrains. It has a top speed of 100 km/h and will protect its crew from 14 kg TNT detonated directly underneath the hull or 21 kg of TNT if detonated under any wheel.
Paramount is building a factory to produce armored vehicles in Kazakhstan and this should be ready to start production towards the end of this year. In December 2013 Kazakh Defence Minister Adilbek Dzhaksybekov announced the launch of the project in the capital Astana, which will see the production of 120 to 360 military and non-military vehicles a year.
According to the Kazakh ministry of Defence, the project involves Paramount, Kazakhstan Engineering and Kazakhstan Engineering Distribution. The three companies signed an agreement in November 2013 over military vehicle production and maintenance.
Work at the facility will include hull fabrication, vehicle assembly and quality control. The facility could produce wheeled armored fighting vehicles as well as commercial vehicles such as buses will be manufactured for both local and export markets.
September has come this year with some delayed rainfall and a tidal wave of diplomatic engagements for the Prime Minister, Mr Narendra Modi.
Within a month, Modi would have blitzed through summits with Japanese PM Shinzo Abe, Australia PM Tony Abbott and US President Barack Obama. Modi will also welcome Chinese President Xi Jinping to Delhi, which is in a special category by itself.
Less noticed, but equally important will be the visit by President Pranab Mukherjee to Vietnam.
During the first weeks of Modi’s tenure, he made plain his intention to concentrate on the South Asian region.
Through September’s big power diplomacy, Modi plans to put in place the broad strategic direction to his foreign policy.
Japan
Japan plays a big role in India’s strategic calculus.
The transformed India-Japan relationship has been a decade in the making.
With the clear direction Modi appears to be setting, there is a new sizzle to the high-stakes Asian geopolitics.
It comes at a time when China’s expansionist outlook contrasts with the US’s fading footprint.
Moscow’s economic miscalculations might, for the first time, make Russia second fiddle to China.
On the other hand, rising powers in Asia – from India to Vietnam, Indonesia and Japan (even South Korea and Australia, though they still shelter under the American umbrella) are becoming rich and powerful almost in tandem. And all of them are working harder than ever to ensure that China remains one of Asia’s giants, not its sole spokesman.
MJ Akbar, author and BJP spokesperson, places the focus of Narendra Modi’s foreign policy squarely in the Indo-Pacific. “The Pacific, overlapping the Indian Ocean, is far closer to us than the Mediterranean or the Atlantic. Our popular, and policy, reflexes so far have been so embedded in attitudes formed during the British Raj that we have stopped thinking of the Pacific as the bridgehead to anywhere. Japan, China, Australia and America are Pacific mercantile and military powers. This quadrilateral is at the top of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy.”
Japan is important to India’s transformation to a modern, technologically savvy nation.
Japan’s presence in India can ensure a couple of things – higher value Indian manufacturing, higher quality infrastructure and the creation of an alternative supply chain system in Asia.
At present, the supply chain is geared to China, which creates strategic constraints for most nations in Asia.
If India can emerge as the next manufacturing hub, particularly for products higher up in the value chain, it gives Asia an alternative.
There is little point in India positing itself as a balancing power to China if it cannot provide the necessary economic heft to this strategic policy.
South Asia and Southeast Asia
Another crucial aspect of India’s determined turn to the east is to work towards integrating South Asia with Southeast Asia in a network of connectivity. India by itself is building the trilateral highway through Myanmar to Thailand, which should be completed by 2016.
In addition, working together with Japan and US, the “trilateral” plan to undertake a longer term connectivity plan through Southeast Asia.
This would have to run east-west to balance out the north-south connectivity plans by China.
China however, is thinking ahead. China recently announced its intention to upgrade its FTA with ASEAN, greater interconnectivity between China and Southeast Asian states through road, rail, water, air, telecommunication, and energy connections including the offer to fund these connections. So India will have to play a smarter game.
India’s strategic advantage in the Asia- Pacific is the fact that it’s growing military and security capability is not deemed to be threatening by anybody.
Therefore, a better strategy with ASEAN/Southeast Asia should be in pushing defense and security cooperation. India already has a strong defense relationship going with Singapore.
Reluctance in India-Japan Military Cooperation and US-2
In the past decade, India and Japan have worked hard on their security cooperation. In 2008, the two countries signed a rare agreement on security (one of the very few that Japan has in the world). The Indian Navy and Japanese maritime forces have been exercising together both off the coast of Japan and, for the first time, in Malabar exercises that involve the US.
The logical corollary is the imperative of developing India’s defense industry to provide the economic ballast to its strategic outreach. During his visit to Tokyo, apart from signing agreements to boost India’s physical infrastructure, India and Japan made forward progress on the US-2, an air amphibian aircraft by Japanese company Shinmaywa that the Indian Navy wants for island connectivity.
India is interested in buying 15 of these aircraft with transfer of technology to build the majority of them in India.
The Japanese-Indian Summit reinforced their working relationship in a time when Japan is expanding its Pacific role. Credit: India Strategic
For that, Japan has been invited to invest and transfer technology for that to happen in India. For Japan and India, this is an important deal in more ways than one. Japan is taking baby steps to becoming a “normal” nation, and it is perhaps natural that it should happen with Indian cooperation.
Unlike most countries in Southeast Asia, India does not have unhappy memories of Japan’s brutal imperial past. So the trepidation in ASEAN about Japan’s military awakening is not shared in India.
While the US-2 is an accomplished piece of work, Japan wants to sell it as a civilian aircraft, without the military components. India and Japan have been trying to find a way out, and one of the things being considered is to allow somebody like Israel to retrofit the avionics for the US-2.
According to many in the Indian defense establishment, that might solve many problems including the fact that Japanese avionics technology is easily trumped by others.
US-2 is also favored by the Indian Navy as it has the same Rolls-Royce AE 2100 turboprop engines that propel the Indian Air Force’s newly-acquired C-130J Super Hercules aircraft. Common maintenance and reduced costs – four engines per aircraft for both – are attractive factors for both the Ministries of Defence and Finance.
Notably, Japan and India have already signaled they would want to work together in the highly militarized Indian Ocean.
Japan has secured Djibouti as a base on the eastern seaboard, which is also India’s stamping ground. With Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India has its own sweet spot at the mouth of Indian Ocean. With Sri Lanka, Mauritius and Maldives, India has set up a quadrilateral cooperative group to be its core in the Indian Ocean.
Defence planners believe the US-2 deal could facilitate that. Increasing defense cooperation with Japan would not necessarily initiate an arms race in the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, the US- 2’s features, such as its short takeoff capability and ability to land on tides as high as three meters would be a bonus for India.
India-Japan Nuclear Cooperation
The failure to seal the nuclear deal is less India’s fault than Japan’s, showing that Japan too has to do a lot of work internally before they can take themselves beyond check-book diplomacy.
Japan’s block on the deal affects US companies like Westinghouse and GE, even the French AREVA, who are all lining up to sell nuclear reactors to India. It, however, has no impact on Russia, which is actually building nuclear reactors in India. Nor will it affect the South Koreans, who are presenting a clear challenge to the Japanese in the global nuclear supplies market, and with whom India already has concluded a nuclear agreement.
However, signaling deep interest in developing better defense-security cooperation, India and Japan also upgraded their official dialogue to the 2+2 format modeled on the US-Japan relationship. The “2+2” format, officially called the Security Consultative Committee, is the core of US-Japan relations.
“Two plus two” refers to the two chief representatives, one the top diplomat (the US Secretary of State and the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs), and one the Defence Chief (the US Secretary of Defence and the Japanese Minister of Defence) on each side.
India and Japan are not treaty allies in the manner of US, but the upgraded defense and foreign policy dialogue signals a greater willingness to talk over the horizon.
Incidentally, Japan has also upgraded its Russia relationship to the “2+2” format, showing that Japan, like India and many other Asian powers, is hedging its bets.
Akbar says, “India and Japan may have stronger bonds than India and China, but the three Asian giants know that they have much to gain by maximizing complementary strengths and minimizing conflict zones.
It is this matrix that can turn the 21st into an Asian century.
This is the rationale and objective of India’s “Look East” policy; and if you look far enough into the east, across the Pacific, you can see America.”
India and Australia sign Nuclear Deal
Modi landed back from Japan to welcome Tony Abbott, PM of Australia, with whom India signed a long-in-the-making nuclear cooperation agreement. In about three years, India should be able to source high-grade uranium from Australia, making it India’s prime resources partner in this part of the world.
But in addition, India and Australia are branching out to embrace a deeper security relationship.
Welcoming the deal, PM Modi told journalists, “The signing of the civil nuclear cooperation agreement is a historic milestone in our relationship. It is a reflection of a new level of mutual trust and confidence in our relationship and will open a new chapter in our bilateral cooperation. It will support India’s efforts to fuel its growth with clean energy and minimize the carbon footprint of its growth.”
We will hold our first bilateral naval exercise in 2015 and intend to enhance our exercises in the coming years. Our two countries can contribute to a variety of objectives in the Indian Ocean Region.”
India and China
The gorilla in the room is undoubtedly China, which has expressed discomfort at Japan’s and Australian efforts towards India.
When Xi Jinping arrives here in mid- September, India will have to play a more sophisticated game. How Modi deals with Abe, Xi and Obama will be keenly watched across the globe.
Modi wants to establish a new paradigm for ties with China, but he also understands that as long as the border is disputed, these can be only halfway measures.
He is keen for China to invest in Indian infrastructure but we cannot let them into many sectors. Modi’s challenge will be to devise ways of attracting Chinese investment without choking the life out of Indian industry or deterring Japanese and US investments.
Nonetheless, Chinese media has speculated that Xi might make more generous offers to India on investment and manufacturing in India.
However, India will be keeping an eye out for China’s aggressive approach, much in evidence lately.
South China Sea
On the territorial disputes in South China Sea, India has taken the official position that it’s for the parties to the dispute to sort it out between themselves. But India has just renewed a lease for two oil blocks in the South China Sea, off the Vietnam coast, areas that China claims for itself in the nine-dash line. Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj made her first visit to Vietnam in late August, and President Pranab Mukerjee plans to visit soon.
China’s Defence Minister, General Chang Wanquan, recently told his US counterpart Chuck Hagel that China would not be the first to launch an attack over the dispute either in the South or East China Sea. “China has indisputable sovereignty over the Diaoyu (Senkaku according to Japan) Islands,” General Chang said. He added that on the issue of what he called “territorial sovereignty,” China would “make no compromise, no concession, no treaty.”
He continued, “The Chinese military can assemble as soon as summoned, fight any battle and win.” India cannot afford to gloss over these official statements.
India and the US
Modi will round off September’s hectic diplomacy with a visit to Washington DC to build a relationship with Obama on the embers of a decade of visa denial to Modi. The US remains India’s most important partner, and to prepare for Modi’s visit, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel visited India in August to promise a boost in cooperation. Though there have been question marks in the recent years, it looks like Obama’s interest in India will endure.
Modi will be looking to ramp up ties with DC after years of neglect.
Defense looks to be an obvious area, but here India’s best bet with the US would be to coordinate approaches to India’s west. While the Asia-Pacific is India’s opportunity, the Gulf and Middle East is a challenge. US-India coordination would be mutually useful.
This piece was republished with the permission of our partner India Strategic.
The Indian Navy Shivalik-class stealth multi-role frigate INS Sahyadri (F 49) transits Pearl Harbor as it arrives at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. Victoria is in Hawaii to participate in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise 2014.
Credit Video: USN
According to India Strategic:
New Delhi. INS Sahyadri, one of India’s latest indigenously designed guided missile stealth frigate, has reached Pearl Harbor for the multilateral RIMPAC (Rim of Pacific) exercise with the US and other navies.
This is the first time that an Indian warship is in the US waters for an exercise. The Indian Air Force (IAF) and Indian Army have though interacted with the respective US forces both there as well as in India to enhance wargaming perspective.
The deteriorating situation facing millions of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East was focused of a bipartisan and ecumenical conference which started yesterday in Washington DC.
The three-day event (September 9-11) sponsored by In Defense of Christians (IDC), a non-profit organization, featurex speakers from all over the globe. 1,000 attendees representing over 20 states are attending at this event according to the organization.
The theme of this summit is “Protecting and preserving Christianity, Where it all began” and gather Members of Congress and their staff, policy makers, diplomats, human rights activists, and, historical event in the United States, Christian Patriarchs from the Middle East especially Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Rai, Syriac Patriarch Ignatius Youssef III and Aram I Keshishian from the Armenian Apostolic Church.
For the president of IDC, Toufic Baaklini,
“For too long, Westerners have stood by, silent or unaware, while Christians and other groups in the Middle East have endured discrimination, persecution, and religious clensing.” Therefore, objectives of this summit are to “empower the Middle Eastern Christian Diaspora and energize the American people to stand in solidarity the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East.”
Indeed, IDC believes that America’s foreign policy apparatus, especially the State Department, too often projects indifference on the question of persecuted religious minorities in the region, especially Christians.
69771fade1.05.0
During the press conference, Pr. Robert P. George, has described a narrative internalized by Christians who explained part of the West silent:
“Christians are only the persecutor not the persecute, only the victimizer not the victims. For that raison, Christians not claims their faith, stay quiet while their sisters and brothers suffer.”
For its part, Washington Archibishop Donald Wuerl enjoined people to unity: “come together and stand together… united in our Christian belief.”
Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), argued that situation in Iraq must be adressed by the United Nations, and that the Iraqi central government has to protect effectively minorities (Christians, Turkmens, Yazidis…).
Currently, Kurds are the only bulwark against IS forces who execute an “assault on civilization itself”. “The U.S. needs to help the region’s Kurds, who have taken in thousands of Christian refugees. The phenomenon that makes this so dangerous is that we have an eighth century mentality with 21st century weapons,” Fortenberry said.
In a presentation, Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s center for Religious Freedom, denounced a “Cultural Genocide.”
In conclusion, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) proposed to create an international body, such as in the case of the Ex-Yougoslavia, Sierra-Leone and Rwanda, to prosecute the ISIS as war criminals.
Today, September 10th, attendees will be in the U.S. Congress for a meeting and sensitization with Congressmen.
Earlier we discussed the situation of the Christian in Iraq with one of the organizers of the conference, Joseph Kassab:
An important aspect of understanding the current situation is to understand the terrain and its occupants. At play in the struggle between ISIS and the Kurds is the Nineveh Plains. And in the midst of this struggle the fate of Iraqi Christians is being determined.
According to Kassab:
The Nineveh Plains are a highly contested area; they are not mountainous but very open and thereby provide an invasion area for the ISIS.
It is also highly undeveloped because it is so contested.
In this area are many minorities and among those minorities maybe 60-70% of them are Christians.
The area is also floating on a lake of oil and makes the area very desirable to control; the Kurds want it; and the Arabs want it. It is a very strategic location.
The ISIS is clearly targeting the Christians for ideological reasons; when you want to establish a medieval theocracy you want to create the politics of ethnic elimination of your “enemies.” The U.S. stands for secularism in Iraq; ISIS is on a clear direct collision course with U.S. preferences and policies.
There are many stories and incidents coming from Iraq of ISIS pursuit of and persecution of Christians.
With a fluid and dynamic situation in Iraq and Syria, and under the pressure of ISIS successes, the international community has woken up to the need to help the Kurds survive and prevail in the fight with ISIS.
And with the Kurds clearly willing to include various minorities being beheaded, destroyed or threatened by ISIS, the Kurds are becoming a political force of note as well in shaping any post-ISIS Iraq.
Clearly, arms will be transferred to the Kurds by various means, but what this article does is to identify what is publicly available with regard to the supply of arms and support to the Kurds from the international community.
The purpose of these operations is to rebalance the situation in terms of weaponry, with Peshmergas facing Islamic State’s modern weapons, mainly American, looted in Iraqi army bases, and the Kurds operating with mainly decades-old Soviet weapons.
As the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Deputy Prime Ministre Qubad Talabani stated, “Our weaponry cannot be compared to the weaponry that ISIS has, but we have the heart, the spirit, the bravery, and we have the dedication required to win this fight.”
One American defense analyst has noted that an ironic aspect of the COIN strategy pursued in Iraq is that “the US Army has become the unwitting supply master for the Isis.”
France and United States are two key players.
For the later, deliveries are limited to small arms, their ammunitions and mortars rounds ammunitions, a Defense official told to Fox News “The Department of Defense has not provided direct arms to the Kurds and has no plans to do so in the future.”
In parallel, the U.S. has sent about 400 military advisers, in addition of other troops dedicated to the protection of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and applied more than hundred aerial bombing in support of the Peshmergas.
Delivery was made by the CIA, which is better positioned to supply the Peshmergas with Russian-made guns like AK-47s.
In early August, France was the first European state sending arms to supply Kurds, without details about the type of armaments.
One of Kurdish peshmerga stands guard on the edge of the city of Kirkuk. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
But, in regards of the same previous cases, Libya in 2011 and Syria in winter and spring 2013, France delivered assault rifles, shoulder-fired rocket launchers, ammunitions for light weapons and for .50 machine gun’s caliber as well as some non lethal equipment like night-vision goggles, body-armor or radios.
An official source told the French newspaper Le Monde, that the French delivering contain “weapons immediately usable, which do not require training or maintenance.”
The United Kingdom, the other normally active European military power, has chosen an intermediate way, and has delivered nonlethal supplies and helped to transport ammunitions provided by other states.
The last operation included two RAF C-130 Hercules to deliver nine tons of 7.62mm ammunition as well as nonlethal equipment (body armor, helmets and sleeping bags).
But the Brits seem to move their stance, as Prime Minister David Cameron offered last Thursday to expand assistance; Britain could begin to supply weapons directly to Kurdish forces.
Denmark follows the same path, and will fly one C-130 Hercules carrying 55-person military team with emergency aid and weapons directly to Northern Iraq.
No details were given about the type of weapons carried
The European Union has indicated support for arming the Kurds.
As the Council Conclusions stated,
“The Council also welcomes the decision by individual Member States to respond positively to the call by the Kurdish regional authorities to provide urgently military material. Such responses will be done according to the capabilities and national laws of the Member States, and with the consent of the Iraqi national authorities. The EU will assess how to prevent ISIL benefitting from oil sales and condemns those funding the ISIL in contravention of UNSCR 1267 and subsequent resolutions. The Ministers invite the European External Action Service to ensure a stronger presence in Erbil.”
The position of the German diplomacy was stronger, as government allowed, for the first time since the end of World War II, to sent weapons into an ongoing conflict.
For more details about Germany, see a previous article:
The first tranche of Czech Republic supply has been approved by the government and planned for September 14th, declared Lubomir Zaoralek, Czech Foreign Minister.
From old reserves that military does not need longer, Czech Republic will send 10 million rounds of ammunition for AK-47 assault rifles, 8 million rounds for machine guns, 5,000 rounds for bazookas and 5,000 hand grenades.
“The cost of the first delivery is over 40 million korunas [or $2 million], but it is gratuitous on our part,” added Zaoralek. U.S. high-capacity planes will assure transportation, the total weight being over 500 tons.
In August, the Czech Foreign Minister had already noted that government would consider the possibility to use private firms rather the state warehouses for this task.
And, of course, Iran with a major stake in Iraq is trying to play an expanded role.
Indeed, during a news conference (August 26th) with Iranian Foreign Minster Mohammed Zarif, KRG President Massoud Barzani stated “The Islamic Republic of Iran was the first state to help us…and it provided us with weapons and equipment.”
Officials said that is a turning point in long tense relations between Kurdistan and Iran.
Zarif added “The Iraqi people require assistance, including defense assistance, but no soldiers. We do not have any soldiers in Iraq, we don’t intend to send soldiers to Iraq.”
However, some sources explain that there was an Iranian military presence in a number of different sectors of Iraq, part in advisory role, part in active fighting role, e.g. the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Pasdaran), M-60 tanks of the regular Iranian Army appeared to join them in Northern Iraq.
In short, the situation in Iraq and Syria is clearly in play.
And an important factor is the conflict between ISIS and the Kurds and the role of outside powers in aiding the Kurds and working to defeat ISIS.
This is a very fluid and explosive situation.
Julien Canin has received a French law degree and a master’s degree from the Universite Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium).
He has worked with both the French Political Party UMP on foreign and defense issues and with the Ministry of Defense recently at the Eurosatory conference.
Julien following Iraqi developments for us and will provide additional reports in the future.
2014-09-08 In a recent Air and Space Power Journal, William Bell has argued that the adversary missile developments have become a revolution in military affairs in their own right.
Certainly the last four years of US military service war games have shown strong indications that missiles not only have evolved into a game changer but also will present formidable challenges at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels.
The very existence of a game-changing RMA missile threat has altered many a US war-game-planning mission analysis and/or “decision calculus” in reference to such factors as whether to operate the US desired forces (who), in a contested area (where), and at a time during which their operations are most necessary (when).
In short, war-game results indicate an increased trend toward threat missile “risk avoidance” with that weapon’s ranges defining the boundary of some of our operations. It seems certain that many of our potential adversaries believe their missiles are game changers based on the number of resources dedicated to further development.
Clearly, the Russians, the Chinese and their client states hope that this state of affairs is a static one, or a long term game changer. But there is always the reactive enemy, in this case the US and its allies.
Reworking the relationship between missile defense and offensive strikes is a key game changer of its own. Most visibly has been the role of the Iron Dome and F-16s operating against threats in Gaza to the survival of Israel. And such an operational experience is part of shaping the offensive-defensive enterprise which is composed of more effective interlinking of defensive assets with strike assets in shaping an ability to deflect, deter and destroy adversary strike capabilities.
The Honorable Mike Wynne 21st USAF Secretary expressed what is now known as The Wynne Doctrine—“If you are in a fair fight someone failed in planning.”
Many successful battlefield commanders in history practiced the Wynne Doctrine.
Israel certainly needs too because they can never afford to lose and knows it cold.
The Israeli military launches a missile Nov. 15 from the Iron Dome air defense system, designed to intercept and destroy incoming short-range rockets and artillery shells, in the southern city of Beer Sheva following the firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip. (Menahem Kahana / AFP)
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) must be vigilant and prepared at all times. In doing so the IDF has invented and perfected one of the most powerful deterrence and warfighting capabilities on the 21st Century battlefield, their Iron Dome.
The Iron Dome is currently defending all under its protection and is proven to be very effective in stopping deadly rockets, mortar and artillery shells.
The current combat proof of concept has important consequences for many countries.
Once such a sensor/shooter system is linked to longer range Air Defense Artillery (ADA) kinetic interceptors such as the IDF Arrow 2 and 3 or if America learns how it works. the US Army can network US THAAD/Patriot batteries in our own version.
In addition to today’s lifesaving combat applications Israeli scientists and engineers can take justified pride that through their direct actions they will be responsible for mitigating threats by nasty deadly countries blustering with their rockets.
As the Iron Dome capability proliferates, the world will actually be a safer place because countries thinking of making a conventional missile attack will have a significant warfighting dilemma as the effectiveness of their weapons getting through will be in question.
North Korea especially along the DMZ, Iran against Israel and China against Japan and Taiwan come to mind as real world examples.
The South Koreans are talking with the Israelis about the Iron Dome and working towards the deployment of THAAD on their territory.
Not surprisingly, both the Russians and Chinese are working hard to put in play the concept that defending yourself in an escalatory action, notably forgetting the modernization of their strike forces which is causing in the words of Bell, an RMA based on the evolution of adversary missile forces.
Earlier this summer the Russians put forth strenuous objections to the deployment of THAAD.
Russia voiced concerns over THAAD deployment. While previously South Korean officials maintained that they want to provide protection from possible missile attacks domestically, on Wednesday South Korean acting Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin said he would not object to Korea hosting the American system, as long as Seoul does not pay for it.
“We expect the leadership of the Republic of Korea to thoroughly weigh possible consequences of such a move, including for the security of their own country,” the Russian Foreign Ministry warned in a statement on Thursday.
“In fact there is a prospect of expansion of America’s global anti-missile defense system into South Korean soil. Such a development will inevitably impact the strategic situation in the region and may trigger an arms race in North Eastern Asia,” the ministry added.
And the PRC has been even more adamant and working hard to defeat the deployment of THAADS to South Korea. For example, in May 2014, the Chinese Foreign Ministry highlighted the “threat” to regional stability if THAAD were deployed.
China on Wednesday opposed deployment of a US missile defense system in the Republic of Korea (ROK), calling it “inconducive” to regional stability and strategic balance.
“China’s stance on the missile defense system has been consistent and clear,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a daily news briefing when asked to comment on reports that Washington had invited Seoul to join its missile defense system.
“We hope the US side will take into consideration reasonable concerns of countries in the region.”
According to reports, the ROK expressed interest in buying Lockheed Martin’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, designed to intercept ballistic missiles in midair.
China firmly safeguards the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula, and is firmly committed to the denuclearization of the peninsula and peaceful settlement of relevant issues via dialogue and consultation, Qin said.
China will never ever allow chaos or war near its doorway, said Qin, urging all parties to take concerted efforts, take into consideration the whole situation on the peninsula, and stop doing anything that might escalate tensions.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has called for South Korean President Park Geun-Hye to dismiss a U.S. request to deploy its advanced missile-defense system in South Korea, a diplomatic source here said.
During a summit in Seoul on July 3, Xi asked Park to be cautious in responding Washington’s move to install its missile defense system, known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in South Korea, according to the source.
But given the progress in adversary missile systems and the hopes that adversaries have to make such progress permanent and an RMA game changer, the US and its Allies are hardly going to sit on their hands.
And here there are really only a couple of choices on offer.
The first would be to build a robust deep strike force, which can reduce Russian and Chinese missiles to ruble in an early pre-emptive, and recurring set of strikes.
Some version of this is necessary even to deal with shaping a response force. Such an approach could be built upon a battle exercised capability which some visionary AF fighter pilots have demonstrated:
The first sign of the coming U.S. air raid was when the enemy radar and air-defense missile sites began exploding.
The strikers were Air Force F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, flying unseen and faster than the speed of sound, 50,000 feet over the battlefield
The second would be to enhance the depth of the ability to defend by more effectively integrating defenses and combing those with relevant forward based sensors and strike forces to deflect and destroy strike assets directed against U.S. and allied forces to provide for either a pause or a concurrent deeper strike to attenuate the threat and its ongoing capabilities.
The unacceptable option, which is not how the US fights plans and trains, is to simply to accept Bell’s proposition regarding the state of play created by adversary missile and strike modernization.
Rather all US and alied forces in the Pacific are working hard to enhance integrated defenses.
The existence of Aegis with SM-3 and Patriot ADA IRBM kill chain capability along deployment of THAAD to the region is an important part of the work in progress.
Earlier this year we interviewed the Army commander at the tip of the spear in the missile defense innovation process.
Missile defense is more than just one platform or system. It is a classic case of what you call no platform fights alone. It is a system of systems.
We combine Aegis, with THAAD with short-range defense systems, etc.
For example, at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, the 94th AAMDC and the 613 AOC coordinate air and missile defense fot the Pacific Theater. The Navy and the Air Force all come together and conduct that coordination in terms of how we protect and coordinate our defense so that we are maximizing our capabilities.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system (Photo/Lockheed Martin)
It is not just a single system standing alone or operating independently.
It is the inter-dependence and the inter-operability of all these systems to all three of the branches that are actively engaged in missile and air defense.
In my unit, we are looking aggressively at how to cross link with Aegis, for example.
I have been extremely fortunate that Brigadier General Garland, who is the commander of the 36th Wing here has emphasized: “Welcome to Guam. What do you need?”
He has put his wing and their resources at our disposal to execute our mission so when we first came in, we were welcomed with open arms by our Air Force brethren and we are now part of their family.
We interact with the wing commander and the wing vice-commander routinely, several times a week, talking about these missile defense issues.
Additionally, we are integrated into Wing exercises to practice coordinated actions before, during and after TBM engagements.
And we clearly do not want the Aegis and the THAAD firing against the same inbounds just because then we are wasting ammunition on two very capable missiles when they can be used elsewhere.
This is where the jointness of this whole process must come into play.
As we get to this “purple force” concept where all of us are working under a joint task force or a joint commander, it becomes extremely important that we actually do that cross coordination.
I believe that missile defense is only going to become more important as we continue to rebalance to the Pacific strategy that has been directed on us.
I think you are going to end up seeing more and more emphasis on the continued growth of our cooperative joint-ness between the Navy (Aegis ships), the Air Force (Defensive Counter Air) and the Army (Air and Missile Defense).
(From left) U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Paul McGillicuddy, Pacific Air Forces chief of staff, Japan Air Self-Defense Force Maj. Gen. Yutaka Masuko, Director of Defense Operations, Plans and Communications Directorate at the Air Defense Command Headquarters, Maj. Gen. Kevin Pottinger, Individual Mobility Augmentee to the Pacific Air Forces vice commander, and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Rear Adm. Ryo Sakai, Commander of Escort Flotilla 1 at Self-Defense Fleet, and U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Daniel Karbler, 94th Army Air Missile Defense commanding general, plan together during Integrated Air and Missile Defense Wargame V on Feb. 14, 2014, in the 613th Air Operations Center at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii. The exercise provided opportunities to simulate integrated engagements between joint U.S. forces and Japan Self-Defense Forces, while aiming to promote missile defense interoperability. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Nathan Allen)
Later we interviewed the head of Army Air Defense Artillery in the Pacific who further explained the approach. In an interview with the Commanding General of the 94th AAMDC, BG Daniel Karbler, highlighted the modernization approach and its significance:
There are three ways to deal with an incoming missile defense.
There is passive defense, but there is only so much hardening and dispersal one can do without degrading your combat capability, and their many soft targets which cannot be hardened.
You can use air strikes to take out the adversary’s missile strike force, but you may not wish to do that right away or have not fully mobilized your capability.
The role of having active defense or an interceptor force is to buy time for [Lieutenant] General [Jan-Marc] Jouas (7th USAF Commander in the Pacific) or General [Hawk] Carlisle (the PACAF Commander) to more effectively determine how to use their airpower.
It also allows the National Command Authority to determine the most effective way ahead with an adversary willing to strike US or allied forces and territory with missiles.
And during that interview another participant in the meeting explained the role of THAAD in the evolution of capability.
In a theme echoed throughout my visit to PACOM, Navy Commander Steve DeMoss, the deputy for PACOM’s Space and Integrated Air and Missile Defense Division, underscored that:
The deployment of THAAD to Guam provides a significant capability all by itself and has been a force multiplier in the region.
It is defending U.S. territory, U.S. citizens, and strategic U.S. bases… it provides PACOM greater flexibility with Aegis ships and other PACOM forces that had previously served that mission.
The work we are doing on cross-linking Aegis with THAAD will allow us to think creatively about combining the mobile defense capability of Aegis with the land-based deployed capabilities of THAAD and Patriot.
The impact of THAAD and PATRIOT to free up the Aegis is a significant contribution to Air-Sea battle.
Given the evolving threats from North Korea to South Korea and the PRC throughout the Pacific as well as continuing Russian pressure as well, it is hardly surprising that the US and its allies are not standing idly by and letting their adversaries conducted a one-sided RMA.
In fact in an interview earlier this year with General “Hawk” Carlisle, PACAF and about to become the Air Combat Commander, the General underscored the way ahead:
The PACCOM Commander has put me in charge of how we are going to do integrated air and missile defense for the Pacific theater, which represents 52% of the world’s surface. This is clearly a major challenge and is clearly both a joint and coalition operation.
General Carlisle focused on the way ahead to achieve the overall integrated air and missile defense mission designed to achieve the objectives outlined by BG Karbler.
We are pursuing an approach that combines better integration of the sensors with the shooters with command and control.
Command and control are two words.
The way ahead is clearly a distributed force integrated through command and control whereby one develops distributed mission tactical orders (with well understood playbooks) reflecting the commander’s directions and then to have the ability to control the assets to ensure that the sensors and shooters accomplish their mission.
Shaping an integrated enterprise is not a futuristic mission for the integration of Patriots, Aegis and THAAD is already a work in progress, but General Carlisle sees the approach getting better over time as new systems come to the Pacific, including a fleet of allied and US F-35s.
We need to get better at attack operations to take out the shooter.
How do we do that better?
It is clear that an F-35 fleet coupled with the new long range strike systems will play a key role in that function.
We also need to shape game changers in terms of the missiles used to intercept missiles.
The current generation is expensive and we need to drive down the cost point for interceptors.
SM-6 is coming which is an important asset but DOD is working hard on ways to drive down the cost of future interceptors.
And we are working the passive defense piece of the puzzle as well including hardening, concealment, dispersal of assets, rapid runway repair and support for a fluid force operating in a distributed manner.
Editor’s Note: For an early Naval War College mindset that is also wedded to one sided RMA see:
Shaping a New Sensor-Shooter Relationship in Japan with Aegis, Patriot and THAAD will significantly expand the capabilities of all (Credit Photo: Raytheon and its PAC-3)
12/23/2013: The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), U.S. Army Soldiers from the 94th and 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command (AAMDC); U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and airmen from the 613th Air and Space Operations Center successfully conducted the largest, most complex missile defense flight test ever attempted resulting in the simultaneous engagement of five ballistic missile and cruise missile targets.
Credit:Missile Defense Agency:10/24/12
According to an MDA press release:
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), U.S. Army soldiers from the 94th and 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command (AAMDC); U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS FITZGERALD (DDG 62); and airmen from the 613th Air and Space Operations Center successfully conducted the largest, most complex missile defense flight test ever attempted resulting in the simultaneous engagement of five ballistic missile and cruise missile targets.
An integrated air and ballistic missile defense architecture used multiple sensors and missile defense systems to engage multiple targets at the same time. All targets were successfully launched and initial indications are that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system successfully intercepted its first Medium Range Ballistic target in history, and PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) near simultaneously destroyed a Short Range Ballistic Missile and a low flying cruise missile target over water.
The live-fire demonstration, conducted at U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site, Hickam AFB, and surrounding areas in the western Pacific, stressed the performance of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), THAAD, and PATRIOT weapon systems.
An Extended Long Range Air Launch Target (E-LRALT) missile was airdropped over the broad ocean area north of Wake Island from a U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft, staged from Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii. The AN/TPY-2 X-band radar, located with the THAAD system on Meck Island, tracked the E-LRALT and a THAAD interceptor successfully intercepted the Medium-Range Ballistic Missile. THAAD was operated by Soldiers from the 32nd AAMDC.
Another short-range ballistic missile was launched from a mobile launch platform located in the broad ocean area northeast of Kwajalein Atoll. The PATRIOT system, manned by soldiers of the 94th AAMDC, detected, tracked and successfully intercepted the target with a PAC-3 interceptor.
The USS FITZGERALD successfully engaged a low flying cruise missile over water.
The Aegis system also tracked and launched an SM-3 Block 1A interceptor against a Short-Range Ballistic Missile. However, despite indication of a nominal flight of the SM-3 Block 1A interceptor, there was no indication of an intercept of the SRBM.
FTI-01 was a combined developmental and operational test. Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen from multiple Combatant Commands operated the systems and were provided a unique opportunity to refine operational doctrine and tactics. Program officials continue to assess and evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.
President Obama was in Estonia yesterday (September 3) where he met with the nervous presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, in late March, made a plea to NATO: Put 10,000 troops in Poland permanently.
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, rejected the idea of a long term stationing of NATO troops in Eastern Europe. Donald Tusk is a hawk on the Ukraine and Russia.
Putin evidently calculates that he can ignore Angela Merkel and Barack Obama rhetorical protests while he moves relentlessly to carve out more of Ukraine. Putin is also calculating that the Alliance will act too slowly by its own self-vetoing processes to make a difference.
In December he will become the President of the European Council.
Today (September 4th) Obama will attend the biannual NATO summit meeting at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, South Wales.
The NATO heads of state are planning to discuss the continuing crisis in the Ukraine, the Middle East, and Afghanistan.
But foremost on all their minds will be Russian President Vladimir Putin.
They will have to decide how they return NATO to its original role: The territorial defense of Europe from potential state-on-state aggression by Moscow.
It will not be easy.
European leaders and President Obama differ considerably in their responses to Putin. France has in play its billion dollar sale of warships to Russia. Norway maintains its deal with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, to supply US $4.25 worth of oil rigs to the Russian Arctic.
The fate of the Mistral deal remains unclear at the moment. According to Russia’s RIA news agency:
France has suspended delivery of the first of two Mistral helicopter carrier ships to Russia, due to events in eastern Ukraine.
“The situation is serious. Russia’s recent actions in the east of Ukraine contravene the fundamental principles of European security,” said a statement from the office of President Francois Hollande.
“The president of the Republic has concluded that despite the prospect of ceasefire, which has yet to be confirmed and put in place, the conditions under which France could authorise the delivery of the first helicopter carrier are not in place.”
The office informed AFP that the suspension would be next reviewed before November.
“Legally, nothing has changed and the contract is still in force, and the first vessel is still due for delivery on November 1. But a political decision has been taken. The President is saying that if nothing changes, he cannot allow the delivery to go through,” one of Hollande’s representatives told Russia’s RIA news agency.
While the US provides 66.6% of NATO’s military expenditures, the UK contributes 6.1%, France 6.6%, Germany 5.3%. The perception of weakness feeds a dangerous narrative with geo-political consequences.
Putin evidently calculates that he can ignore Angela Merkel and Barack Obama rhetorical protests while he moves relentlessly to carve out more of Ukraine for “Greater Russia,” potentially establishing a land bridge within Ukraine between Russia and Russian annexed Crimea.
Creating facts on the ground he is gambling on long term Russian strategic gains, and that Europe will in the end avoid confrontation.
Dimtry Rogozin, the Russian deputy prime minister, tweeted images of Putin and Obama. Putin is show petting a Leopard. Obama is shown cuddling a fluffy puppy dog.
It is Putin as “Macho Man.”
He enjoys over 80% support in Russia. NATO will probably agree to establish a joint expeditionary force of some 10,000 troops.
Having put the marker down, NATO needs to create this capability now and move it into operation. And it will have to be part of an overall strategy to deal with challenges such as the 150,000 troops Russia mobilized in its emergency war games along the frontiers of the Baltic States and Ukraine in February.
But creating such a force is not an answer to the nationalism, irredentism, and stealthy military aggression being deployed in the Ukraine by Russia.
Gideon Rachman writing in “The Financial Times” warns: “The perception of declining western power now threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The only way for North Americans and Europeans to stop that happening is to work together with greater determination and purpose to combat the crises burning out of control on the fringes of Europe and the Middle East.
That work needs to begin at this week’s NATO summit.”
Putin is calculating this is a very tall order and that the Alliance will act too slowly by its own self-vetoing processes to make a difference.
