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.
2014-09-01 The Aussies have come a long way to join in the fight against ISIS.
The Australian Prime Minister has made it clear in no uncertain terms how he views ISIS.
PM Tony Abbott has referred to the the jihadist group a “death cult” involved in ethnic cleansing.
Aussie help … a loadmaster conducts a final check of the C-130 Hercules before it dropped aid supplies over northern Iraq. Picture: Supplied.
“As things stand, doing nothing means leaving millions of people exposed to death, forced conversion and ethnic cleansing,” Abbott said.
“I refuse to call this hideous movement ‘Islamic State’ because it’s not a state; it is a death cult,” added the prime minister.
“In good conscience, Australia cannot leave the Iraqi people to face this horror, this pure evil, alone or ask others to do in the name of human decency what we won’t do ourselves.
“It is right to do what we prudently and proportionately can to alleviate this suffering, to prevent its spread and to deal with its perpetrators.”
Backing up his words, the RAAF has been flying missions to provide humanitarian relief to the human targets of ISIS.
“Royal Australian Air Force C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster aircraft will join aircraft from other nations including Canada, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and the United States to conduct this important task.”
The announcement came as Australia joined the US military in dropping humanitarian aid to the besieged Iraqi town of Amerli, where thousands of Shia Turkomen have been cut off by jihadist rebels from receiving food, water and medical supplies.
Australian Defence Force chief Mark Binskin said at a press conference that 15 pallets of food, water and hygiene packs – enough for 2,600 people for a day – were dropped by a C-130 earlier Sunday.
He added that the delivery by Australia of arms and munitions “from Eastern Bloc countries” to the Kurdish peshmerga would take place “in the coming days”, and in their case would involve handovers on the ground rather than airdrops.
“We want to make sure that we know where the arms… and the munitions go when we deliver, so at this stage there won’t be a drop. We’ll be landing and handing them over to officials from the peshmerga,” Air Marshal Binskin said.
Albania, Croatia and Denmark have also committed to providing Kurdish forces with arms and equipment, the US said Wednesday.
Abbott said there was a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Iraq and Australia was working with other countries to alleviate it and “address the security threat posed by ISIL”.
This has led to the RAAF already coming under fire in Iraq from ISIS forces.
AN AUSTRALIAN C-130 Hercules transport aircraft came under fire from Islamic militants during a humanitarian mission over Iraq.
News Corp Australia can reveal the aircraft was lucky not to be hit when fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) attacked it — as it swooped in low to drop aid packages to civilians in the town of Amirli in northern Iraq — with heavy machine guns and small arms last weekend.
The drop took place at night so the rebels would have been firing by noise rather than sight as the darkened planes flew below 300 metres to make the delivery of 15 bundles of water, biscuits and hygiene packs.
US fighter jets flying top cover for the mission responded to the enemy attack with maximum force after being guided to the ISIS fighters by a high flying US Air Force J-Star spy plane fitted with powerful ground attack radars.
“The top cover provided by American aircraft was very effective,” a source close to the operation told News Corp Australia.
The biggest risk to Australian aircraft comes from man portable shoulder fired missiles, but a lucky shot from a rifle could potentially bring down an aircraft. Military aircraft are fitted with effective missile counter measures…..
The RAAF has about 400 ADGs based in Number One and Number Two Airfield Defence Squadrons with a mixture of full-time and high-readiness reserve personnel.
Unlike regular troops, the ADG mission is to defend rather than to take ground.
That means operating in small teams of between four and 10 with similar tactics to special-forces units.
2014-08-31 In our special report on Australian defense modernization, we argued that Australia was building a force with reach, range and sustainability.
Obviously, air power is the central lynchpin of such a force.
Australian humanitarian aid for Iraq being unloaded from a Globemaster C-17A on August 12, 2014. Credit: AFP
And the first peg in building out such a capability was the acquisition of C-17s, and reportedly the Aussies are negotiating to buy two more.
Because of the C-17s, Australia can participate in the aid effort in Iraq.
According to a piece published on August 31, 2014, ABC Australia highlighted the participation of the Australian C-17 in the aid effort:
A Royal Australian Air Force planes have dropped humanitarian aid into the besieged Shiite town of Amerli in north-eastern Iraq ahead of delivering weapons to fighters battling Islamic State (IS) militants.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed the air drops of humanitarian aid after earlier announcing RAAF aircraft based in Dubai would deliver munitions and arms from Eastern Europe to outgunned Kurdish Peshmerga forces fighting the Sunni militants.
Mr Abbott said Australia would join the US, Canada, Italy, France and the United Kingdom in supplying weaponry and aid to communities under threat by IS over coming days.
“Australia has participated in a humanitarian air drop to the besieged town of Amerli in northern Iraq… we have done so at the request of the Obama Administration and with the permission of the Iraqi Government,” he said.
“I can announce that in coming days, an Australian C-17 aircraft will be involved in air lifting equipment and supplies to Erbil in the Kurdish part of Iraq.
“I can also say that we stand ready to participate in further humanitarian air drops in Iraq should these be required.”
There is no role envisaged for combat troops on the ground and none of us want to get involved in another Middle Eastern war but it is important to do what reasonably can be done to avert potential genocide Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
Chief of Defence Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin said the Australian humanitarian mission on Sunday morning delivered 15 pallets of food, water and hygiene packs, enough for 2,600 people for a day.
The food came from the World Food Program and the hygiene packs were from AusAid and marked “Aid from Australia”. The aircraft since has returned safely to the base.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has announced Australian Air Force planes will carry weapons into Iraq to help Kurdish fighters battle Islamic State (IS) militants.
Mr Abbott said C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster aircraft based in Dubai would be used to fly munitions and arms into the country’s north to help Iraqis in the fight against IS.
In a statement on Sunday, the US state and defence departments said Australia joined the US, Canada, Italy, France and the United Kingdom in dropping humanitarian aid to residents in the Shiite town of Amerli.
Amerli residents are facing major shortages of food and water after being surrounded by IS for more than two months.
In a statement, Mr Abbott said the Iraq crisis represented a “humanitarian catastrophe”.
This is a coalition effort with the US, the UK, France and the Aussies at the center.
In this photo, a US air drop is in route. Master Sgt. Stephen Brown, 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron loadmaster, waits for a humanitarian air drop of 40 container delivery system bundles filled with fresh drinking water over the area of Amirli, Iraq, Aug. 31, 2014. Lights are dimmed or shut off completely to lower visibility to threats from the ground. The airdrop included two C-17s and two C-130 Hercules delivering 10,545 gallons of fresh drinking water and 7,056 Halal Meals Ready to Eat. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Shawn Nickel)
2014-08-31 Information War is of growing significance in determining the outcomes of conflicts and their global impacts.
Because most of what we know is second hand, and the internet and images are proliferating rapidly and manipulated by those who wish to shape a message, fighting in the world of images and words is an increasingly important part of 21st century conflict.
IW is a key non-kinetic element to prevailing in conflict.
In this powerful speech by Israel’s Finance Minister Yair Lapid, which was delivered at Platform 17 in Berlin on August 20, 2014 in Memory of Holocaust Victims, the Minister addresses the IW challenge.
The key point is remembering the Holocaust Victims; both Jewish and Non-Jewish is important.
But fighting evil in the modern world even more so.
What follows are excerpts from the presentation which highlight the IW challenge:
Our moral test is not taking place in a sterile laboratory or upon the philosophers’ page.
In the past weeks the moral test put before us has taken place during intense fighting.
Thousands of rockets were fired at our citizens and armed terrorists dug tunnels next to kindergartens with the aim of killing or kidnapping our children.
Anyone who criticizes us must ask themselves one question: “What would you do if someone came to your child’s school with a gun in their hand and started shooting?”
Hamas, as opposed to us, wants to kill Jews. Young or old, men or women, soldiers or civilians. They see no difference, because for them we are not people. We are Jews and that is reason enough to murder us.
Our moral test, even under these circumstances, is to continue to distinguish between enemies and innocents. Every time a child in Gaza dies it breaks my heart. They are not Hamas, they are not the enemy, they are just children.
There for Israel is the first country in military history that informs its enemy in advance where and when it will attack, so as to avoid civilian causalities. Israel is the only country that transfers food and medication to its enemy while the fighting continues. Israel is the only country where pilots abandon their mission because they see civilians on the ground. And despite it all, children die, and children are not supposed to die.
Here in Europe, and elsewhere in the world, people sit in their comfortable homes, watching the evening news, and tell us that we are failing the test. Why? Because in Gaza people suffer more. They don’t understand – or don’t want to understand – that the suffering of Gaza is the main tool of evil. When we explain to them, time after time, that Hamas uses the children of Gaza as human shields, that Hamas intentionally places them in the firing line, to ensure they die, that Hamas sacrifices the lives of the young to win its propaganda war, people refuse to believe it. Why? Because they cannot believe that human beings – human beings who look like them and sound like them – are capable of behaving that way. Because good people always refuse to recognize the totality of evil until it’s too late.
Time after time we ask ourselves why people in the world prefer to blame us when the facts so clearly indicate otherwise. Across the world fanatic Muslims are massacring other Muslims. In Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Nigeria more children are killed in a week than they die in Gaza in a decade. Every week, women are raped, homosexuals are hung and Christians are beheaded. The world watches, offers its polite condemnation, and returns obsessively to condemning Israel for fighting for our lives.
Some of the criticism stems from anti-Semitism. It has raised its ugly head once more. To those people we say: we will fight you everywhere. The days when Jews ran away from you are over. We will not be silent in the face of anti-Semitism and we expect every government, in every country, to stand shoulder to shoulder with us and fight this evil with us.
Other critics, perhaps more enlightened in their own eyes, prefer to blame only us for what happens in Gaza because they know we are the only ones who listen. They prefer to focus their anger upon us not in spite of but because we are committed to the same human values which Hamas rejects – compassion for the weak, rationality, protection of gay people, of women rights, of the freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Let us not fool ourselves. Evil is here. It is around us. It seeks to hurt us.
Fundamentalist Islam is an ultimate evil, and like the evil which came before it learnt how to use all our tools against us: Our TV cameras, our international organizations, our commissions of inquiry and our legal system. Just as terror uses rockets and suicide bombers, it uses our inability to accept that someone would sacrifice the children of their people just to get a supportive headline or an eye-catching photograph.
Standing here, in this place, I want to say clearly – that the leaders of Hamas, an anti-western, anti-Semitic terrorist organization cannot be safe while they continue to target innocent civilians. Just as every European leader would do, just as the United States did with Osama Bin Laden, so we will pursue every leader of Hamas.
This is the evil which we all face and Israel stands at the front. Europe must know, if we will fail to stop them, they will come for you. We must do everything to avoid suffering and the death of innocents but we stand in the right place from which to say to the entire world: We will not board the train again. We will protect ourselves from total evil.
It is less than four weeks to go until Scotland’s Independence Referendum.
It will take place on September 18th.
The wide differences in the public opinion polls about voting intentions are sending conflicting messages, especially about the size of the pro-union vote, which is still apparently in the lead.
The future of the 307 year old political union between Scotland and England is at stake.
And the result of the referendum could have a large impact on British defense capabilities since the Scottish nationalists have promised the removal of the British Trident nuclear submarine base from Scotland.
A very high turn out is predicted.
There is no precedent for this referendum, and public opinion polling is not necessarily a good indicator of how people will actually vote on the day.
The Scots played a considerable role in the British Empire after the Act of Union.
Though it was the failure of Scottish colonial ambitions in the Americas which were a major cause of Scotland’s acceptance of the Union in the first place.
The Crowns of England and Scotland were united when James VI, King of Scots, acceded to the thrones of England and Ireland after the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603.
King of Scotland from 1567 and England (as James I) from 1603. The son of Mary Queen of Scots and her second husband, Lord Darnley, he succeeded to the Scottish throne on the enforced abdication of his mother and assumed power in 1583. He established a strong centralized authority for what became the United Kingdom.
But it was the catastrophic investment during the 1690s in a failed Scottish colonial scheme on the gulf of Darien on the isthmus of Panama which wiped out over a quarter of the financial capital of Scotland.
The colony of “Caledonia” in Darien had been a complete failure, succumbing to poor planning, weak leadership, tropical diseases, as well as English and Spanish opposition. In the aftermath the English parliament voted on the Act of Union in 1706.
The Scottish parliament, after much English bribery, as well as clandestine activity by spies and agents provocateurs, voted for its own Act of Union the following year and subsequently voted itself out of existence.
Thereafter a single “United Kingdom” was established named “Great Britain.”
Ironically Brazil owns the preservation of its territorial unity in the 1820s to the audacious naval actions of a Scottish mercenary sailor and adventurer, Admiral Lord Thomas Cochrane, later the 10th Earl of Dundonald.
After founding the Chilean navy, assured the victory of the naval forces of Dom Pedro 1st, who had declared Brazil’s independence, by defeating the Portuguese in Bahia, Maranhao and Belem.
He later led the naval action in defense of Greek Independence.
Like many Scots, Lord Cochrane, was impecunious, liberal, audacious, very scientifically advanced, and also (or so the Brazilians thought) very greedy.
A hero of the Napoleonic Wars, he was called “le Loup des Mers” (the “sea wolf”) by his French opponents.
A liberal politician he was expelled from the British Navy in 1814 as a result of conviction in a London stock exchange sandal (he was reinstated as an admiral in the Royal Navy in 1832).
Made Marques of Maranhao by Dom Pedro, Lord Cochrane’s naval exploits formed the bases for C.S. Forester’s Horatio Hornblower novels of naval adventure, as well Patrick O’Brian’s stories of Jack Aubrey’s naval exploits.
In no small part it is thanks to the Scottish Lord Cochrane, that although Brazil has many problems, territorial integrity is not one of them.
But now modern Scots may well reverse the course of the Kingdom founded more than 300 years ago.
Maintenance, years of training, planning for missions, paperwork — all just to pilot one of the faster, deadlier machines ever created by human hands.
Seems like a real hassle, right?
Fortunately for everyone who isn’t a fighter pilot, John Kristensen, a Danish Air Force pilot who flew missions in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2003, brought along his GoPro for a flight in an F-16 Fighting Falcon over Greenland.
The resulting video is stunning, as he races past icebergs, glaciers, ice floes, snow-covered plains, and fjords.
There’s a lot that’s frozen on the Greenland ice sheet, it turns out.
But more broadly, there is the defense challenge, which is a Danish, NATO, and a US challenge.
Greenlanders live in the more temperate coastal areas; the rest of its two million sq km are covered in ice.
The US has had a presence in Greenland and took primary responsibility for the defense of Greenland throughout the Cold War. Yet the uncertainties of US policy, more generally and in the Arctic, as well as the dynamics of the Danish-Greenland relationship create an open-ended problem of how the security and defense of Greenland will be conducted in the period of the Arctic opening.
In an excellent overview to the challenge for the development and defense of Greenland, Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, the head of the Centre for Military Studies, provided a way to conceptualize the problem.
The problem really is about the development of Greenland, the role of the local government in that development, the relationship between Denmark and Greenland in combining greater autonomy for Greenland while providing for defense and security and what role the US will have in the overall process.
Although no Danish combat aircraft are usually based in Greenland, the Flyvevåbnet’s F-16 fighters have, in the past flown non-stop from a base in Greenland (Søndre Strømfjord) to Ålborg, their home base in Denmark. Obviously, if ever required to back up Danish claims, the F-16s – or armed helicopters – could reinforce Greenland.
In other words, the challenge will be to sort out in PRACTICAL terms how Greenland will be defended in the presence of greater outside powers influence through the mining companies, the dynamics of change between Denmark and Greenland, and the uncertainty about US policies and capabilities for Greenland defense and Arctic operations.
As part of the evolving defense effort, Greenland has worked with the Danish Air Force in leveraging Danish F-16s.
In connection with the Defense future tasks in the Arctic g F-16s will be flying on the west coast this week. The flight is part of the activities in connection with the ongoing analysis concerning the strengthening of the Danish Defense’s role in the Arctic.
An analysis has been initiated by the Danish Government and Greenland.
The overall purpose of the flight is to test F-16s as a sensor platform during a search and rescue operation (SAR) in Greenland, whereby the aircraft can quickly create a surveillance picture in the operation area, and forward this to the Arctic Command in Nuuk.
The flight has two underlying goals, to practice surveillance and image building on the West Coast as part of a SAR operation, and to test the logistical aspects of Kangerlussuaq and Thule. The flight will take place from Tuesday – Thursday with a day as buffer.
The flight is part of a series of trials and tests during 2014 and 2015 will be implemented as part of the large Arctic analysis, which includes a number of upcoming activities at sea and on land in and around Greenland.
For our look at the Arctic, fighters and what might constitute an “Arctic-enabled” fighter see the following:
2014-08-28 Earlier, in our discussion with Major Summa, the executive officer of VFMA-121, the first operational U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) F-35 Squadron, the aviator emphasized the impact commonality was already having.
Working with the other service pilots provides an important window on where we want to go with the concepts of operations of the aircraft.
We have different backgrounds — Harrier, F-18s, F-16s, F-22s and F-15s — but we understand that, given the commonality of the aircraft, these different backgrounds suggest common ways ahead.
We are all able to contribute to the way ahead for a common aircraft.
But this is just the beginning of the possibilities of what F-35 fleet commonalities will able to provide, if leveraged effectively.
Major Summa in front of the Squadron building. Credit: SLD
To discuss further the potential impact of F-35 commonality, we spoke with Louis Kratz, the former DoD logistics official and now vice president of logistics and sustainment with Lockheed Martin, in an interview in late July 2014.
According to Kratz, commonality enables force integration, not simply interoperability:
When the program that we recognize today as the F-35 was first conceived, there was a national and international recognition of the need for rapid coalition response capabilities.
And that drove both the air system and the sustainment system designed to enable that capability.
The joint and coalition force was not only looking for interoperability; we were looking for force integration.
To enable the operational and national security capability for force integration, a common aircraft was designed.
Because of the different variants, the aircraft today is about 30 percent common on the airframe side, but the avionics, propulsion system and air vehicle systems are all common.
And, particularly, the high-cost repairable parts for the core combat systems are common across all three variants.
Question: There are obviously different ways one can build out the maintenance system over time, but what does commonality in the core parts enable for the maintainers?
Louis Kratz:
Really, two core capabilities emerge.
First, a common parts pool can be created and leveraged by maintainers.
Second, maintainers of the global fleet, including all three variants, can share experiences and help shape the global maintenance regimes.
Question: And the potential impact on coalition operations of a common parts system and approach?
Louis Kratz:
“Starting” common is not going to deliver the major national security capability we are looking for from commonality, namely force integration.
But “staying” common as the program evolves will.
This allows you to “plug and play” with your coalition partners, from the U.S. to our partners, or foreign partners working with non-U.S. coalition partners.
We have unique identification numbers for all the high value parts. We know the exact number, the exact configuration of each aircraft. And that is as designed, as built, as delivered and as maintained.
That allows us to ensure that when we deploy aircraft, we as a nation and as an allied coalition know the exact maintenance requirements, spare parts and test equipment required for each particular aircraft that’s deployed as part of that response.
And because of that, we can rely on each other for maintenance and sparing, and thereby reduce both the amount of gear we have to take with us, and the time it takes to respond.
Question: This means that when you design an initial coalition operation you have the possibility of shaping the support plan as well for that operation?
Louis Kratz:
Staying common can allow for such an approach.
Question: Let us talk a little bit about what having coalition commonality parts could allow the U.S. to do overseas as we start to build logistic sustainment centers.
How does this inherent commonality potentially translate to coalition sustainment centers?
Louis Kratz:
The Joint Program Office (JPO) has been quite clear that they’re evaluating potential maintenance and supply centers in Asia and Europe.
And we, at Lockheed Martin, are supporting their efforts, but they will make that final determination.
Historically, when a nation bought a U.S. produced aircraft, they also received maintenance set up capability, intermediate maintenance capability, tons of test equipment and anything else special for them that they needed, or they believed they needed, for the aircraft. As a result, commonality was diminished across the allied users, leading to an interoperable fleet, but not an integrated one.
For the F-35 to ensure that we maintain an integrated combat capability across multiple mission sets, the JPO will select regional centers for depot maintenance, or component repair.
That allows you to optimize the global fleet so that you have a smaller spares pool.
In turn, the regional location of those maintenance or supply centers allows you to respond quickly to your operational customers in that region.
The 22 buildings F-35 Facility at Cameri. The facility is designed as a FACO and a s multinational support center for deployed F-35s.Credit: Italian Ministry of Defense
Question: So this would then allow integrated combat power built around the F-35 to deploy or to operate anywhere in the world? And I think from this point of view, it is important to understand this is not just about the U.S. showing up to do an operation, but coalition partners working more effectively if they see a need to do so, with ourselves then in reserve or backup role.
Louis Kratz:
If we stay common, that is true, and will give us a capability we collectively have never had before.
Question: When we are talking about sustainability for the F-35 fleet built on commonality, we are not just talking about maintenance of existing configurations; we are also talking about the approach to upgrades as well?
Louis Kratz:
We are.
When we talk about upgrades in the CNI or any of the integrated avionics, those upgrades will largely by software driven.
The system was designed from the beginning to allow you to have that capability with growth, number one.
And then number two, the ability to upgrade against a certain threat environment through software that can be pushed to the jets, and to the associated training systems and maintenance systems simultaneously.
We have never had that capability before.
Frank Kendall greeted by Italian Air Force COS Preziosa at the Cameri Facility: Credit: Italian MOD
And what that allows one to do for a nation, or a coalition, you’re going into a particular operation, and for whatever reason, we’ve uncovered that the adversary has a new threat associated with that.
We can push the update to the jet, and the maintenance team simultaneously, quite frankly, from anywhere in the world. And that system then becomes immediately operationally relevant without a massive mod or upgrade program.
Compare that with the current situation with regard to what we do today with fielded aircraft.
With fielded aircraft, we take an integrated aircraft, and hardware/software suite, and we break it up into parts, both the hardware and the software; we farm that out to various maintenance units, and supply places.
And it is not very long before there are changes introduced both hardware and software that then mitigates the commonality, which, in turn, makes it impossible to send a single upgrade for an integrated fleet.
And then that results in more time, more money to do the upgrade to begin with, and then second, non-responsive to the threat environment, particularly if you’re in an expeditionary mode.
Question: Clearly though another advantage of a global fleet is that specific allies can develop a capability to deal with a specific new threat and there solution set then available as desired by the other members of the F-35 global enterprise?
Louis Kratz:
If certain nations need certain capabilities on their aircraft, we have the flexibility to address that, and we have the flexibility to know that they can develop that capability without diminishing the core commonality that we need in order to pull together rainbow operations.
Question: One challenge the USMC has faced in becoming transformed by the Osprey into the only tiltrotor assault force in the world was the challenge of overcoming the perception of the Osprey as a replacement for the CH-46; but really was a whole new capability.
Clearly, the USMC F-35 community feels that there is a similar challenge with the F-35; it does not replace the Harrier and the F-18. In fact, when we asked a USMC pilot about the VFMA-121 squadron with regard to the mix of Harrier and F-18 pilots in the squadron, he forcefully responded:We only have F-35 pilots in this squadron.
Clearly, the challenge of understanding that the F-35 is NOT a replacement aircraft is a challenge as well for the approach that you are describing.
Louis Kratz:
It is a central challenge.
If we as a coalition attempt to support this aircraft the way we have all the others, then this aircraft will end up like all the others, that is to say non-common, non-integrated.
This will happen if we break it up into parts, both hardware and software.
If we do work to maintain the commonality, the impact on coalition operations will be dramatic and allow a unique capability to emerge.
Let’s talk about a hypothetical example.
A coalition operation has been set in motion, and the common jet is showing up to execute the mission.
In prior efforts, everybody brought their jets, everybody brought their maintainers, everybody brought their supply kits, and they brought their test equipment.
With the F-35, not only will you have sustainment commonality, but also maintainers who can pool their experience.
With a shared maintenance concept, the maintenance actions, enabling IT system and the maintenance training can be drawn upon to deploy potentially a rainbow wing.
And only one nation may be asked to bring the support equipment and the maintainers, as opposed to all nations.
And the operating partners will have the confidence that their jets can be maintained by another nation’s flight line with the same confidence that they would have as on their own flight line.
The configuration control of the jet, test equipment, the spare parts and the maintenance training can be drawn upon for such an outcome.
This is a 21st century approach to an aircraft not designed to replace legacy aircraft limited to interoperability; but to build upon commonality to enable combat integration.
United Kingdom Royal Air Force Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler, became the first international student-pilot to fly a sortie in the F-35B Lightning II March 19, 2013 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. (U.S. Air Force photo/Maj. Karen Roganov)
The approach discussed by Kratz is being tested out in various war games to examine how a rainbow wing concept could be shaped and implemented.
According to Joe Randall of Lockheed Martin:
The U.S. Air Force is holding a series of war games that include coalition partners to examine how to shape the maintenance approach to leverage commonality.
In the scenario being tested, the U.S. deploys jets to a regional crisis and examines ways in which combat integration is facilitated by allied capabilities inherent in a common F-35 fleet.
It is clear that there is a disruptive cultural change associated with this, not unlike the Osprey experience.
Randall underscored that a number of experienced maintainers are involved in the war games, and there comes an a-ha moment when the J in JSF comes to the forefront.
We’re working with NCOs, E7s, E8s and mid-level officers who have years, and years, and years of experience of maintaining legacy aircraft.
And the cultural paradigms are a little bit difficult to break down, but eventually, there is a light that goes on.
And there is that ah-ha moment.
And people understand that we ought to be exploiting and leveraging the commonality inherent in the F-35.
For our initial book on the impact of F-35 maintenance on a shift in culture see the following:
When visiting Yuma Marine Corps Air Station in July 2014, we were able to discuss the next evolution of the maintenance regime, namely a squadron maintained by its own organic assets.
VMFA-121 is the first F-35 squadron and the first with organic maintenance.
Staff Sgt. Jason Lunion, F-35B maintainer, with VMFA-121. Credit: SLD
A squadron with organic maintenance simply means that the Marines are manning the maintenance squadron with inputs from technical representatives, but because it is the first operational squadron obviously the Marines need to prepare for overseas deployment and to prepare to support the aircraft in forward positions.
Notably, the squadron has already deployed for movement to the United Kingdom for the Royal Tattoo and Farnbourgh Air Shows but was stopped at Pax River while DOD made its decisions on the go ahead with F-35 fleet engines, a process that concluded favorably but too late to permit the squadron jets to fly across the Atlantic.
They had to fly back across the United States to Yuma on the day we were visiting the squadron.
And the flight to England was viewed as part of the overall progress to the IOC of the aircraft next Summer.
As part of that progress, the maintainers from the squadron accompanied the jets and were prepared to support the plane fully in operation.
In the work up for RIAT/Farnborough, VMFA-121 conducted the first ever engine change away from home station at Pax River.
Installation went quicker/smoother than was predicted, and helped VMFA-121 move closer towards having a combat/expeditionary IOC deployment capability in 2015.
We had a chance to discuss the progress with a powertrain maintainer on the F-35 working at VMFA-121.
Staff Sargent Jason Lunion has been a maintainer since 1999 and his first squadron CO (for VMFA-223) was Lt. General Davis who is now the Deputy Commandant of Aviation.
He most immediately comes from working on engines with the Harrier but has wide range of experience, as one would expect for members of the first squadron with organic maintenance for the USMC in supporting the F-35.
The F-35 is the first low observable aircraft to be operated by the maritime services, and requires some changes in how the maintainers support the aircraft, and notably at sea.
2014-08-28 According to a press release today from Airbus Defence and Space:
The Airbus A400M new generation airlifter has performed successfully air-to-air refueling tests with a F/A-18 Hornet fighter.
The tanker test campaign was developed in five flights in which the A400M performed 33 dry contacts and dispensed 18.6 tons of fuel to an F/A-18 Hornet in 35 wet contacts.
With a basic fuel capacity of 50.8 tons, which can be increased by the use of extra cargo hold tanks, the A400M is the most capable tactical tanker in the market.
The standard A400M aircraft has full provisions for Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) operations already installed as standard and only requires the rapid installation of the optional air-to-air refueling kit to become a tanker.
Designed from the outset to be a dual-role transport and tanker aircraft, the A400M provides air forces with a cost-effective way to acquire an air-to-air refueling capability in addition to a versatile logistic and tactical airlifter.
A400M Tanking F-18. Credit: Airbus Defence and Space
Earlier, we looked at the potential synergy between the A400M and the A330MRTT in an articled entitled: The A400M Refueling Tests with A330 Tanker: A Task Force for the the 21st Century?
An Airbus Military A400M new generation airlifter has successfully performed simulated refueling contacts with an Airbus Military A330 MRTT Multi Role Tanker Transport.
The A400M made some 30 contacts with the hose and drogue of the A330 MRTT´s Fuselage Refueling Unit (FRU). No fuel was passed in these tests, which consisted of “dry contacts”. The A330 MRTT that took part in the tests is one of the aircraft to be delivered to the UK Royal Air Force, where it is known as Voyager, as part of the Future Strategic Transport Aircraft (FSTA) program.
The FRU is typically used to refuel large aircraft such as the A400M and the tests demonstrated the stability of both aircraft when flying in close formation and when refueling.
Earlier, SLD did an interview with a senior Airbus Military Executive with regard to the possibilities of working the two planes into a joint task force element.
SLD: Could we talk about potential synergies between the A400M and the A330MRTT? The fact that the tanker holds the fuel in its wings, frees up the space inside the aircraft for cargo or passengers.
Conceivably, this could allow flexibility in shaping a tanker-lift task force?
Pablo Quesada: Indeed, but not only in terms of the A400M providing lift and the A330MRTT providing the tanking.
The A400M can be a tanker as well, which can allow an interesting combination of tactical and strategic refueling capabilities over a long distance, which can then operate at low altitudes via the A400M to refuel tactical assets.
In terms of complementarity with the A400M; the A400M is easily configured to refuel a wide range of types from helicopters to fighters, and by taking advantage of the great stability it provides in flight, it is a very effective tanker for lower altitude refueling to the last tactical mile – from a forward operating base, for instance.
In terms of transport, the complementarity of the A400M and A330MRTT is also clear.
The A400M is a superb transport aircraft, which combines tactical and strategic capabilities in a single aircraft.
It could be effectively used in long-range deployment missions either with refueling or with stopovers. But the combination of the operation of the A330MRTT with its true multiple capabilities, plus the tactical capabilities of the A400M will provide a very effective insertion force for either humanitarian or military operations.
Although, either one of them in isolation is also able to fulfill the kind of missions that you are mentioning, the combination of the tactical features of the A400M or the strategic and global reach of the A330 MRTT, could allow one to craft an extremely capable task force.
New Delhi. Some years ago, Boeing offered assistance to India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in building the much-needed wind tunnel for aerospace projects as part of the offsets for the company’s C 17 Globemaster III aircraft sales to the Indian Air Force (IAF).
The offer was initially appreciated but found unacceptable, thanks to an accompanying note that prescribed many DO NOTs and restrictions.
DRDO Chief Dr Avinash Chander told India Strategic that the US Government, which would have dictated the restrictions to Boeing, would apparently not have weighed the inadequacy of the offer.
The informal talk I had with Dr Chander was just before the high level visits of US Secretaries of State, Commerce and Defense over the past few weeks in the run up to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s coming visit to Washington in September.
The three top US officials have spoken highly of the need to strengthen Indo-US relations, and specifically, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who was here Aug 7-9, said: “We can do more to forge a defense industrial partnership, one that would transform our nations’ defense cooperation from simply buying and selling to co-production, co-development and freer exchange of technology.”
Indian officials have welcomed the US sentiment, and pointed out that India already has a policy of encouraging defense industrial production in India under the ‘Make’ category, and that the new Government of Prime Minister Modi is insisting on this with vigor.
European officials, including that of Airbus, and French diplomats say that India needs to indicate its requirements and the response from Europe should be positive. In fact, top officials of Airbus managed to meet Mr Modi just before his electoral victory to offer cooperation in defense industrial ventures in India.
India is interested in western technology both from Europe and the US.
The French Dassault has won the Indian MMRCA tender for its Rafale aircraft while Airbus Defence and Space has won the order for six midair refuelers called Airbus A330 MRTT.
But the flavor of the day is about Indo-US strategic, defense and nuclear relations, and both New Delhi and Washington are serious about sorting out any differences and moving forward to build on the spirit envisaged by the George Bush administration in 2005 that led to the Indo-US Nuclear deal.
In an address to New Delhi’s strategic community at an Observer Research Foundation (ORF) function on the final day of his visit, Mr. Hagel said that the two countries could build on their Defence Technology and Trade Initaitve (DTTI) agreement to “transform” their bilateral relations.
He welcomed proposals from India in this regard, and observed: “The fundamentals of the U.S.-India partnership are strong. The question is whether India and the United States can achieve the enormous potential for this partnership – whether we can transform our potential into results. Following my conversations yesterday, I’m more confident than ever that we can.”
An official statement by the Ministry of Defence after Mr Hagel’s meetings with Prime Minister Modi and Defence Minister Arun jaitley said: “With co-development and co-production of Defence products in mind, India and the United States have agreed to take the (two-year old) Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) forward.”
The statement also noted that Mr Jaitley had pointed out to the visiting dignitary that “the development of our own indigenous capabilities is a major objective that guides our present policies. In this direction, we have taken steps to raise the FDI cap in the defense sector. We look forward to work closely with the US in this regard.”
In the meeting, both sides took note of the progress made over the years in deepening defense ties. Both the sides reaffirmed their desire to further enhance bilateral defense cooperation, especially in technology and discussed ways for strengthening this partnership. Stressing on indigenization of the Defence industries.
Mr Jaitley would also be visiting the US, and top-level meetings at the Pentagon have been arranged to follow up the dialogue here.
Sec Def Hagel Meeting in India. Credit Photo: India Strategic
The US Defense Secretary was apparently supportive of the Indian requests for technology, and told the strategic community at ORF that he was making an “unprecedented offer” to India to jointly develop a next generation of anti-tank missiles.
The Indian Army has been interested in Raytheon-Lockheed Martin’s Javelin missile but with coproduction, and that was earlier not agreeable to Washington.
Mr Hagel noted that the two countries had concluded deals worth over USD 9 billion already and a few, including for Boeing Chinook and Apache helicopters are on the table. He pointed out that Boeing C 17 strategic airlifter and Lockheed Martin’s C 130J Super Hercules had given tremendous advantages to the Indian Air Force.
From the US side, he pointed out, he had brought along the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Licensing at the Pentagon Frank Kendall, with clear instructions to speed up cooperation with India.
He made some other significant offers also, saying that the challenge is not about the shortage of proposals but “to seize the opportunities.”
“One such opportunity is a plan for both nations to jointly develop a next generation anti-tank missile. And this is an unprecedented offer that we have made only to India and no one else,” he emphasized.
The US Defense Secretary also called for limits on bureaucratic red tape.
As for the Wind Tunnel, perhaps it would come up again for discussions, and then, hopefully for action and fructification. It has not been on the two countries agenda for quite some time although delivery of the 10 C 17s ordered so far is due to be completed by end-2014.
On mutual diplomatic relations, Mr Hagel agreed that the two countries would not agree on every thing but pointed out that as India looks east and the US looks at rebalancing its interests in the Indo-Pacific region, the interests of the two countries “are aligned more closely than ever.”
He also urged closer cooperation between India and Japan in this perspective, adding that both Washington and New Delhi could maintain positive ties with Beijing.
Editor’s Note: India will be the operators of C-17s next to the United States.
