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.
2014-07-14 According to a press release dated today from Airbus Defence and Space:
Airbus Defence and Space has successfully completed the first paratrooping trials of the A400M new generation airlifter.
Spanish Army troops took part in a series of jumps at drop zones in France and Spain.
The 11-flight test program, which also included free fall jumps from the ramp, culminated in the successful dispatch of 20 troops – ten from each of the left and right-hand doors – in a single run at 1,500ft. Further tests are planned.
The A400M can carry up to 116 fully-equipped paratroops.
Airbus A400M conducts paratrooping trials. Credit: Airbus Military
Both Francis Tusa and Murielle Delaporte have provided further insight into the evolving para capabilities of the A400M.
It was always a serious criticism that there was going to be a serious gap between the RAF retiring its C-130Js and the arrival of full capabilities of the A400M, with this impacting seriously on key areas such as Special Forces operations.
Well, this would seem to be a far smaller set of fears with the pace of clearance. Indeed, one experienced UK hack spoke what others were thinking: “Looks like A400M will enter service with more paradrop options than the J will have when it exits service”.
Almost certainly an exaggeration, but it goes to show how rapidly Airbus Military have been expanding the envelope.
Partly, the teaming of UK and French authorities in this area seems to have allowed a range of concurrent – and fully mutually inked– activities to be undertaken.
To go back to the “core” fact: rather than a 2020–22 time frame for many, key tactical air operational capabilities, A400M will see 75–80% of these in mid-2014.
That is a massive acceleration of capabilities.
Murielle Delaporte highlighted the air drop and paratrooper role in her piece in the widely read French weekly news magazine VALEURS ACTUELLES.
Delaporte highlighted the fact that the plane can reduce speed to 110 knots to provide for an airdrop which decreases the surface area for dispersing the force. This in turn allows the force to more rapidly consolidated the force now on the ground.
She noted that :
The advantage for the mission is obviously the possibility of dropping more soldiers in the same place at the same time and even increase their operational capacity and protection.
The Atlas is considered particularly innovative in skydiving, since it allows almost double the number of the latter, while halving the time jump.
And for the airdropping of pallets of equipment, the Atlas has a rail system integrated on the modular cargo floor which facilitates configuration changes and allows a multiplicity of combinations of passenger and equipment.
Various tests were also conducted this year with success in Fonsorbes and Cazaux with light pallets (from 15 to 320 kilos) laterally and dropped heavy loads (up to 4 tonns) by the rear ramp.
Pallets can again be distributed to very high or very low altitude (15 feet, five meters!).
2014-07-12 While the press focuses on the F-35B landing vertically (amazing press out there!), Lt. Col. “OD” Bachman and the squadron is moving from Eglin to MCAS Beaufort where the F-35B partners will train as well in the future.
Italians, British and other nations who acquire the B will come to Beaufort to train.
We visited the Warlords last September with Secretary Wynne, and talked on a earlier visit with “OD” as well.
OD Bachmann after 200th F-35 Sortie in August 2012. Credit Photo: Second Line of Defense
The squadron is being shaped for its inclusion into the Marine Corps air role via its working relationship with MAWTS. According to one MAWTS officer and F-35 pilot, the advantage of MAWTS and VMFA 121 working together is crucial for the evolution of the way ahead.
We have developed the infrastructure and process for the standardization of the F-35B within the USMC. We can do this by working directly with the only operational fleet squadron. We can take that forward to future squadrons as they are stood up. We build out a standardized approach.
And we can introduce the rest of the USMC who participates in the exercises at MAWTS about the capabilities of the F-35 and how those capabilities can change how the MAGTF can operate. We can show battalion Marines on the ground how this aircraft is going to enhance their operational capabilities.
The current planes are operating with Block 2A software and the Block 2B software arrives later this year for the preparation for the IOC in 2015. What this means is that the plane operating today with MAWTS is more limited than what will come later in the year. While Block 2B is largely a software upgrade, there are some planned hardware mods as well.
Credit Photos: Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort- Combat Camera
About 180 Marines will make the transition from Eglin Air Force Base down in the Florida panhandle back to Beaufort to be part of the F35B program.
The VMFAT-501 Warlords were previously stationed at MCAS Beaufort from 1963 to 1997 under its former title as “Marine Fighter Squadron 451.”
“A humbling experience to be so welcomed here in Beaufort and being the first chapter of the F35 in the state of South Carolina in Beaufort…a lot of pressure to succeed! We’re really planning on making sure the F35 is successful for the Marine Corps and successful in our hometown of Beaufort, South Carolina,” Lieutenana Colonel Ty Bachmann said.
The F35B is the world’s first Supersonic aircraft with the capability of short take off vertical landing, or STOVL.
“So not only can we cruise at supersonic speed, our stealth encoding allows us to get closer to the enemy without him knowing and then recovery back aboard ship for the Marine Corps or at austere landing sights,” Bachmann said.
It’s been years of hard work from campaigning for the fighter jet to building this hangar. That amounts to more jobs and money poured into the local economy.
“To take care of parking the aircraft, working on the aircraft, that all requires a huge amount of labor, given the longevity of this program, it’s going to be here for a long time,” Major General Robert Hedelund, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing said.
Beaufort is slated to receive at least two training squadrons and two operational ones. VM-FAT 501 will eventually receive 25 F35B jets with a total of 300 Marines dedicated to the program.
Beaufort will be the only training ground for the F35B which won’t just be used for America’s national defense.
“This has been developed for an international community, the joint part of this aircraft is allowing it to do surveillance as well as sort of air to air attack and ground attack as well so it’s a multi-purpose aircraft which makes it the most useful aircraft that we as the UK can look to purchase,” Beth Kitchen, Senior Engineering Officer, VMFAT-501 UK Detachment said.
The first F35B is scheduled to arrive in Beaufort within the next two weeks.
After 17 years away from Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, the Warlords have come home.
In a ceremony Friday, officials from the air station and Beaufort County welcomed personnel from VMFAT-501, the F-35B training squadron that will begin flying at the air station in October.
Known as the Warlords, VMFAT-501 is a reactivated version of VMFA-451, an attack squadron stationed at MCAS Beaufort from 1963 until its deactivation in 1997.
The squadron was reactivated under the VMFAT-501 name in 2010 to begin F-35B training at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
Beaufort County Council Chairman Paul Sommerville said Friday’s ceremony was “welcoming back an old friend.” A Beaufort County native, Sommerville reminisced in his remarks to the audience about the squadron flying F-4 Phantoms over Beaufort.
“The old joke was that you could never hang anything on the wall,” he said. “The pilots liked to hit the afterburner flying over town.”
The celebration drew between 2,500 and 3,000 people, said Jaime Dailey-Vergara, spokeswoman for the Beaufort Chamber of Commerce.
“The crowd was a great testament to the support our community has for our military families,” she said.
About half of the 300 Marines in the unit were on hand for the welcoming ceremony, while the other half will maintain operations in Florida, said Lt. Col. Joseph Bachmann, the squadron’s commanding officer…..
While many members of the new squadron were present, the F-35Bs haven’t yet arrived. Bachmann said the first Joint Strike Fighter is expected to be delivered sometime next week.
The ceremony was in a hangar that VMFAT-501 will use for F-35B maintenance.
Maj. Gen. Robert Hedelund, commander of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, of which the air station is a part, presented Bachmann with an artist’s rendering of the hangar as the ceremony ended.
Bachmann said after the ceremony that he and his squadron were excited to be back on a Marine base after spending the last four years at an Air Force installation. Asked about noise from the new jets, Bachmann said it would be comparable to the F-18s that now fly at MCAS Beaufort.
“It’s no different than the noise from the current jets,” he said. “It might be a different sound, but it’s not a higher decibel. We plan on being good stewards of the community.”
Sommerville said he didn’t expect complaints about jet noise to rise after the F-35Bs begin flying.
“There’s always going to be some noise, but there’s no reason to think noise complaints will go up,” he said. “We’ll always deal with it, whatever it is.”
Bachmann said he expects the squadron to have 25 jets at full strength. Two attack squadrons and one other training squadron will also call the air station home alongside VMFAT-501…..
The ISIS are bent on the destruction of Iraqi Christians, and the Kurds are coming to their aide. Indeed, the Kurds have demonstrated a level of tolerance in Iraq not evident by other ethnic groups within Iraq itself.
The action of the Kurds in Iraq, and the obvious moral imperative to protect a minority being attacked by Islamic extremists simply because they practice another religion requires U.S. action, rather than standing aside and pondering the abstract future.
To give one a sense of the stake one need go no further than to read the June 29, 2014 statement by a coalition of Christian organizations representing their members who are living in Iraq and under threat of being overrun and massacred by ISIS.
This group called out to the world for life saving help:
We the undersigned members of Middle East Christians Committee (MECHRIC) and other Middle Eastern Christian Organizations convened on the Capitol Hill on June 26th 2014 to highlight the plight of Christians in the Middle East have been deeply troubled by the anarchic crisis caused by the invasion and occupation of Mosul and Nineveh Plain and some Iraqi cities by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
This is particularly grave news for the vulnerable and the already oppressed Christian community that now credibly fears it will be targeted for extermination by such Islamic extremists who are branded for being inhuman and brutal.
Bethnahrin Patriotic Union Iraq
Federation of Syriac Associations in Turkey
Universal Syriac Union Party Lebanon
European Syriac Union
Bethnahrin Women Union
Suryoyo American Association
Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Popular Council
Iraqi Christians Advocacy and Empowerment Institute
Assyrian American National Federation
World Maronite Union
To gain a sense of what is going on in Iraq, we recently had a chance to interview Joseph Kassab concerning the current situation of Iraqi Christians and the positive role which Kurds are playing to try to shape a more secular Iraq.
We have included a biography of Mr. Kassab at the end of this article, but his ties in the country provide him with a regular flow of updated information and it is about that situation which we discussed with him.
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.
This is our interview:
SLD: Mr. Kassab are you getting reports from various individuals on the ground on what’s happening? Can you could describe what you think is happening?
Mr. Joseph Kassab: Well, I was just talking this morning to some regions on the ground in the impacted area, and from Nineveh Plain where ISIS, or ISIL is getting some real power there. And it seems to me and the way I heard it from them it is done, already. No more Christians are [in Mosul], and if there are any, we believe that there are less than 50 families there.
I was also told especially that women could not leave homes. Unfortunately, two days ago, two or three days ago, two nuns and three orphans, they were asked to leave but. the ISIS people spotted them, they kidnapped them, and they took them, and nobody knows where they are. We are appealing to the U.S. administration and our friends in the Senate and the Congress, and also the Department of State, and the Pentagon to see whether they could help us finding these people. Their families are U.S. citizens, and here in the states. So we have a dilemma in our hands.
Joseph Kassab talks with Senator Cruz about the Iraqi Christian plight
As far as the combat situation people are on the edge, there was a fight early last week near the Christian Al Hamdanya District (Qaraqush) in the heart of Nineveh Plain between the ISIS and the Kurds who are creating a wall of defense to stop ISIS. It looks like ISIS, has a strong interest in Nineveh Plain Let me explain why.
First of all, it is the size of Lebanon, and a very plain area, not mountainous. It is to the southwest of Kurdistan. And it is a highly contested area, and a significant dispute between the Kurds and Arabs to annex this particular area. It is highly undeveloped because nobody knows who it’s going to belong today, and it’s up to the Kurds.
The majority of those living there are minorities and 60 to 70 percent of them are Christians. The Kurds want it and the Arabs and specially ISIS want it because it’s floating on a lake of oil, and is also a very geographic strategic and fertile location.
Question: The history of Kurdistan is that the Kurd people are very protective of all minorities. They have a reputation of being kind — a very kind people and also fierce warriors, and protective of all minorities. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Kassab; Yes, 100 percent it is. And that’s why they want to incorporate with Kurdistan because they know they can and will protect the Christians. They are taking a lot of Christian refugees right away because they’re very, very nice, and they’re doing a lot of work to help them with the humanitarian, aid, and food, for the Christians whom they are taking into Kurdistan.
And I’ve been talking to the leadership,
I know them all and they’re very, very supportive.
I met with them several times with their people, and they always say that they’re more than willing to help the minorities, especially the Christians. Because they believe in one thing that they’re — what the Christians going through at this time, it is also what they went through during the ‘70s and the ‘60s.
(For a powerful overview of what the Kurds went through in this period see the following:
SLD: We have read that tragic history and you are so right.
Mr. Kassab: As a matter of fact, if you remember, they were hit with chemical weapons. So they feel for the Christians. But just as importantly, the Christians at one time when Kurds were fighting for their lives the Christians joined the military police squadron of security people and joined them in fighting for democracy and independence. So that’s why the Kurds like us, because we are trustworthy and supportive of democracy.
SLD: But if you were looking at a situation like this where the current Iraq government is obviously not your favorite government, you have to look at how do you protect your interests.
And the proposition on the table is it’s the right thing to do to work with the Kurds and the Christians is also strategically relevant because by helping these two people, and protecting their interests, you can do two things. You can deal with ISIS, the threat from radical Islam.
And on the other hand, you can actually influence the government or whatever comes next. In other words, it allows you to do the right thing, but it also allows you to put a piece on the chessboard that allows you to influence an uncertain situation.
Mr. Kassab: We’re talking with our friends in the Congress, and some of the National Security Council. And what we talked about is what we should do to save the Christians of Iraq and the minorities, and others that see democracy take hold in Iraq.
And last Thursday and Friday, I was in Washington DC, I had a meeting with maybe seven or eight U.S. Senators on both sides of the aisle, also the Speaker of the House’s office. I went to Congress to help us in saving the Christians of Iraq.
My message was that the only way at this time to save the minorities or the Christians of Iraq, in Northern Iraq, is to empower the Kurds in order to provide this defense for our people.
So they ask me how, so I suggested to them, that since we cannot have boots on the ground, I suggested to them that maybe we should empower them by giving them Intel and equipment in order to fight back against ISIS.
People are contemplating action; they are reaching out to the Kurds based on that. The Kurds are reciprocating, they are happy to see that, but we haven’t seen anything significant yet.
But hopefully we will see that very soon, the U.S. administration will take action.
SLD: Please tell the world about your understanding of ISIS;
Mr. Kassab: Now, who is ISIS? This is something we need to know who ISIS is first. And a lot of reports, they’re misinforming us who ISIS is. I, myself, I can read and write, and understand the language or the dialect of Iraqi people when they speak.
The ISIS people, sometimes I hear them speaking on the videos, none of them, there are people who make fun of them because when they speak, it is not in the Iraqi dialect.
So they are definitely foreigners, that’s number one.
Number two: many stay mute. They don’t say anything.
Do you know why? Because they are Iraqis!
And do you know where they’re coming from? I’ll tell you where they’re coming from. They’re coming from the Iraqi desert tribes, and they are armed, and they are very angry at the el-Maliki government. Some of them are previous officers and generals of Sadam’s advanced army that was disbanded by the CPA administrator in 2003. They are very mad and angry at everyone except their comrades.
Now they are joining the ISIS because they see ISIS has the power and because it’s extremely brutal. And what’s brutal can achieve a lot of things.
SLD: There is a broad strategic point, which is if the Administration gets serious about this and actually looks at how to do something other than to tell us that everyone should get along.
And obviously, they’re going to have to come to terms with Turkey, they’re obviously going to have to come to terms with Turkey and Kurdish issue if the U.S. is going to do what you just described.
Joseph Kassab with Kurdish President Barzani in Washington.
Mr. Kassab: The Kurds, in the last, let’s five or ten years, they became very, very strong friends with the Turks. And let me explain. I was in Turkey several times; I had meetings with the high ranking officials in Turkey, including the Prime Minister himself, and the Foreign Minister at an interfaith conference in Istanbul in 2012.
All of them assured me they are willing to help the minorities in their country, and that’s exactly what they plan to do at this time, there’s a big reform on that and also with regard to the minorities in Iraq. They’re saying that in order to do that, we need to empower the Kurds in order to support your people.
So we are all on the same page. When I met with the Prime Minister of Kurdistan after he told me bluntly that the Kurds are doing business with Turkey at this time for over 20 billion dollars a year of trade.
They took me to some of these people to the border area, and I saw myself — how should I put it? A convoy of trucks around a thousand of them waiting to take to go to Kurdistan, to take merchandise and take it to Kurdistan.
So that in fact, yes there is a strong relationship, a strong friendship, and strong commerce between the Kurds and the Turks. Turkey is ready to help the Kurds if the Kurds need the help in fighting ISIS because the Turks don’t like ISIS.
SLD: One critical issue is the oil pipeline through Kurdistan into Turkey, so it is not just the trucks, but also the oil, and then it goes to a port and goes on the open market. You mentioned that the Nineveh Plain is floating on a sea of oil.
Can it be part of the strategy to saved Christians first and foremost, but s also to stop ISIS from grabbing resources that will keep them fueled with huge financial resources?
Mr. Kassab: The ISIS now, they have already taken over some refineries and some oil rigs in Iraq, in Northern Iraq, and Mosel, and they are selling the oil for cash, and cash is a fuel for international terrorism as you know. I don’t know whom they’re selling it to, but they are selling it for cash.
Let me explain something very important for you, you should know this area. Three years ago, I was going from Kurdistan on my way to Europe. The flight was around 3:00 or 4:00 in the early morning the plane took off and I looked through the window, and I saw fire everywhere.
I asked the stewardess what is this? What’s going on here? Is the area on fire or something?
She laughed at me and she said no, sir. These are oilrigs.
These are oilrigs in Kurdistan? She said yes, sir. And they are doing it whether the Iraqis like it or don’t like it.
Biography of Joseph Kassab
He was born in Telkaif- Nineveh, Northern Iraq in 1952 to a Chaldean Catholic family. In 1975 earned his undergraduate degree with excellence from College of Science-University of Baghdad.
This qualified him for graduate studies program at College of Medicine-University of Baghdad to again become the first on his class and earn in 1979 Master of Science degree in Medical Microbiology and Immunology under the auspices of the Royal College of Medicine-UK .
He was then hired as assistant professor at the same college, but the regime in Iraq demanded that he joins the ruling party, when he refused he was threatened and his position was downgraded. When the threats continued and the intimidations intensified he decided to flee Iraq and join in Rome, Italy his two brothers, a pharmacist and an engineer who earlier faced similar challenges to seek asylum. Later on in 1980 they were resettled in the U.S as refugees.
In the U.S, Joseph continued his education by acquiring Graduate Certificate (GC) in Community Education Leadership from Wayne State University, under the auspices of the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) in Washington D.C
He also pursued an intensive curriculum in political science at Wayne State University.
While doing all of this he worked for 25 years as Bio-medical researcher and instructor at Wayne State University’s School of Medicine.
He is currently the Chief Science Officer of Nano-Engineering and Consulting Co.
From 2005-2012, he served as the Executive Director of the Chaldean Federation of America (CFA) (www.chaldeanfederation.org) where he has dealt with a number of issues affecting Iraqi Christians in Iraq. He started his advocacy, consultancy, and humanitarian work on the plight of the Christians of Iraq and the Middle East since his arrival in the United States in 1980.
Photos and graphics provided by Joseph Kassab
For a chance to comment on this article and to read a brief discussion of policy options please go to the following:
2014-07-10 An Interview with Air Vice -Marshal John Blackburn AO (Retd).
In an interview with Murielle Delaporte in May 2014, Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn assesses the evolution of military logistics in Australia, which unique geographic circumstances are a challenge all in itself.
Expeditionary by nature, the Australian Defence Force has been careful to limit its vulnerabilities by taking specific decisions, such as investing in strategic capabilities and diversifying its supply chain.
However, there is now a change in the game with the increased globalization of the latter both commercially and militarily.
The change of technology brought in, in the case of Australia, with the acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter, means a switch in business model and therefore in logistics concept of operations.
As AVM Blackburn stresses, « in terms of military planning, we have been relying on contingency planning for operations essentially based on individual military platforms, as opposed to assess the right military capabilities for the desired military effect.
The key message is anticipation… ».
And logistics is a big part of that anticipation’s puzzle the former Deputy Chief of the Royal Air Force is concerned about.
The ongoing changing nature of logistics also means, for AVM Blackburn, a change of culture so that logisticians keep « making things work » the way they always manage to, but with less systemic risks involved…
Expeditionary by Necessity
Australia has a unique geography, i.e. a vast territory with a small and very distributed population and infrastructure base, which means that any military training or manoeuver we do in the country requires long legs and is by nature expeditionary.
We have to take our supplies with us in order to maintain our thin line of supply.
The support of operations in the Northern part of Australia, where population and infrastructure are scarce, mostly originates from the South Eastern part of the country.
So we do have an operating model that prepares us for deployment. Australia’s unique geography and circumstances have indeed prepared us to some extent to expeditionary projection force.
In addition, in the past decade, we have had a lot of experience of deployment overseas, particularly in the Middle East. We used our own logistic system, but also plugged into those of our Allies, particularly the American system.
It is quite different than when we try to be self-supporting, like we did in East Timor. In Afghanistan, we are part of a bigger force and it is a very different model.
On 12 and15 May 2014, No. 292 Squadron conducted Air Sea Rescue Kit (ASRK) training off the South Australian coast as part of the AP-3C conversion. Air Sea Rescue Kits are used to supply survivors in the water with two life rafts and supplies for several days. No. 292 Squadron conducted this essential training with the assistance of the South Australian Water Police.
Although we do need substantive lines of supply through the Middle East, it was easier to send forces over there than to bring back the repairables to Australia.
In the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, we acquired strategic lift vectors – we have six C17As now – and we are acquiring a regionally significant amphibious ship capability. We have some autonomy and the ability to deploy rapidly thanks to a pretty reasonable lift mix for a small force: we have C130Js, KC30 tankers, soon the MRTT once the boom will be certified, and we are acquiring C27s for tactical lift.
But the ability to sustain our deployment is where the supply chain comes into factor and is what we are concerned about.
Stockholding and maintaining a diversity of supply have been one way to cope with geographic isolation, but we learned some key lessons:
Our stockholding policy needs to be performance-based as opposed to “Best-Endeavor-based”
Preparedness, based on certain levels of readiness and sustainability levels, is what drives our stockholdings.
However, budget constraints mean that you sometimes compromise these levels of stockholdings, and therefore end up relying more on the supply chain to respond.
We are in a similar situation regarding our energy supply. For example, Australia’s combined dependency on crude and fuel imports for transport and defense purposes has grown from around 60% in 2000 to over 90% today.
While our ‘just in time’ oil and liquid fuel supply chains work well under normal circumstances or during small scale or short duration interruptions, the resilience of the supply chains and associated infrastructure under a wider range of plausible scenarios has not been assessed.
Indeed, there are no fuel stockholdings in government and our Government does not mandate stockholdings in the industry (in contrast to EU countries), which means that our civilian infrastructure is not in a position to support the military.
Fuel contracts to support the Northern part of the country is “best endeavors only”, which means that there is no penalty for failing to deliver.
We have in addition very little resilience, as imports are only shipped through a supply infrastructure that has single points of failure.
It has become worse in the last decade because we are almost fully dependent on oil refineries in Asia and, as logisticians are already busy with their own supply chain issues, sustainability and supply are assumed.
We already had a warning, while operating in East Timor, where we were left with only a few days of fuel in the country during that operation[1].
We cannot of course be fully autonomous given the reality of our supply chains. We operate on a scenario-based viability period, and our readiness defines our sustainability levels and our stockholding. But the challenge lies in the fact that if you can set a level and measure whether you can maintain it at any point in time, how do you predict your future preparedness levels
Supply’s diversity must go hand to hand with interoperability requirements
We have made a conscious decision to maintain diversity in our supply base, which comes from the United States, the United Kingdom – given our traditional ties – and increasingly from Continental Europe, with for instance the acquisition of the Airbus Helicopter’s (former Eurocopter’s) Tiger attack helicopter and the MRH90 Troop Transport Helicopters and Alenia’s C27.
Europe as a whole accounts for about 37% of our aircraft platform types, while the USA represents roughly the remaining 63%.
One of the lessons we learned from such a diversification is that when purchasing foreign military equipment, we have to specify interoperability standards from the outset.
We need to ensure we have the right data links and that we achieve interoperability across the force, as we are too small of a force to have the American and European sourced platforms working separately from each other.
We are encountering data-link issues with the Tiger in particular which, because it is linked to a proprietary ground station link, cannot be directly interoperable with our other air platforms.
Our domestic organization has improved in terms of warehousing.
However, a lot of commercial activity is « just in time », which is fine commercially, but in a defense organization, you need to have a bit of « just in case »…
If you outsource without a good contracting mechanism, it can end up in « just in time » only.
In the 90’s, we did a lot of externalization, as the Australian armed forces were being downsized. As the RAAF went from 23 000 down to 12 500, we outsourced so much that we lost our engineering and logistics capabilities.
It took us ten years – and a few incidents along the way because of a lack of depth of supervision – to recover it.
The same goes in our military health capability, which is largely civilianized today, depriving us from an adequate surge capability in the case of high demand military operations.
At the end of the day, short term commercial rationalization without understanding the systemic risks at stake amounts to short-term thinking; we unfortunately have been guilty of that in some cases.
The Changing Nature of Logistics
The traditional challenges we met in the past in the supply chain are nothing truly unique, although our geographic position does not help, since you need very long supply chains in the South Pacific.
But, even though imperfect, we had in the past a logistics system allowing us to support ourselves to a greater degree. We ran into the same issues as everybody else: we have for instance always been concerned about ammunition supply or our weapons production capability, since, no matter how large the amount you manage to carry with you, everybody wants them at the same time once in operation.
The challenge we are now up against, though, is facing the logistics system changes associated with the coming of the next generation equipment.
There are two major issues at stake which we need to address:
What are the implications of a changing model for logistics support as exemplified by the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and its global supply chain approach? The commonality of spares across the supply chain means that you do not necessarily own all the parts yourself.
It is a neat economic concept, but because it is not built yet, there is no evidence of how it is going to work in a contingency.
How do you build an information system to support the new logistics support model and interface with an old style of supply chain management?
Integration does not seem realistic, but interoperability is the key word in this case.
The builder builds a platform/product, but it is not their responsibility to make the overall defense system work.
Tech. Sgt. Matthew Burch and Staff Sgt. Jason Westberry, from the 58th Aircraft Maintenance Unit, review post operations tasks on their Portable Maintenance Aid after the fourth F-35 Lightning II taxied into its new home at Eglin. The Airmen are among the first Department of Defense maintainers trained by Lockheed Martin logistics support personnel in the joint strike fighter’s recovery and inspection procedures. Both aircraft in the photo arrived here Aug. 31 in a four-ship formation with Lockheed Martin pilots flying the F-35As and F-16 escorts piloted by the wing. (Credit: USAF)
The maintenance aspects of the contract are competed. What is changing right now is the construct of owning your spares and defining a contract and support service in-country, while you are part of a global supply chain.
In the case of the JSF, Lockheed Martin is in charge of a global supply chain based on shared spares. The fighter is part of a much bigger supply chain managed by a system called ALIS (autonomous logistics information system).
The system is managed as a global entity, not as an « Australian stovepipe ». So what you are talking about is a change in the concept of support logistics, as a result of the change in technology.
How do you interface with a legacy logistics system such as that in Australia is still unclear.
Will we have to manage each of these lines as separate supply chains with their own information system?
How do we aggregate that to make it work is the second question…
So we have to do some systems analysis and risk assessment in terms of our defense preparedness.
Until recently, you used to have much more control; it was a slow and imperfect system, but you had control over it and you knew what you had; stocks were yours and you could measure the pace of replenishment.
The IT systems were designed for that and fit the Australian needs.
We cannot turn back to the old ways of doing business, so we have to be interoperable.
There are advantages, and we could probably not afford the JSF otherwise, so the question is how do you plug into legacy systems, which were never designed to operate that way at all and what is the impact on our preparedness and supply chain’s availability assessment. We have to think of it as a “Fifth Generation” logistics system trying to operate with a Third generation logistics infrastructure!
The JSF is not only a Fifth Generation platform, it is also a Fifth Generation logistics system. Managing the supply chain is paradoxically at risk of becoming more complex and more compartmentalized by fleet than in the past.
We also depend more on the manufacturers, while having, in the case of Australia, little control over the security of our shipping lines, which has become totally commercial.
Without a national shipping line or a national airline, we are totally at the mercy of commercial transportation.
So the way to understand maritime security is twofold: one is the threat and the other one is the existence of potential choke points, such as the Malacca Strait. The impact of regional conflicts on the supply chain needs to be analyzed and we need to improve our overall understanding of how the supply chain functions. Our attitude tends to be to trust the market to adjust and fix everything.
The resilience of these supply chains needs to be assessed, as distances and potential disruptions are a big issue, while the possibility of an unfriendly neighbor in the future is not to be disregarded.
« Making it work »
What we have been trying to look at in the Kokoda Foundation’s defence Logistics study that I undertook with my coauthor Dr. Gary Waters, is what are the underlying reasons behind the logistics system problems and do we have a risk-avoidance strategy for the future?
Is there anything we can do about it? Our conclusion is somewhat simplistic: the logisticians have always been doing a very good job at making things work, in spite of the limitations of the existing logistics system: professional pride, professional skills.
The culture of any logistician I have ever come across is « to make it work somehow ».
But in doing so, with this « can do » attitude, they sometimes manage to disguise or repress the weaknesses in the system or the systemic design issues.
As a consequence, outside of the logisticians, very few people understand the essentiality of the predictability of the function, or where the vulnerabilities or risks are.
Understanding risk and capability limitations is not always appreciated. In the last five years, we had a very difficult situation where our Defence Forces were unable to deploy our key naval capabilities in support of an operation.
A Navy Seahawk helicopter from 816 Squadron comes in for a landing onboard HMAS Parramatta while in Jervis Bay.
Because of multiple problems, barely two out of a fleet of six platforms were operational-ready.
Instead of the blaming game that followed, identifying the common problems is what will bring change. As mentioned earlier, in the 90’s, we almost reduced our forces in half. That was a significant down-sizing of the Defence Force and the people in charge of that process focused on the operational capability, the platforms. In the RAAF, we cut into and outsourced a lot of our logistics and engineering skillsets that went to the industry.
As a result we nearly killed the logistics and engineering categories in the Air Force.
The subsequent result was a significant increase in risk in terms of airworthiness and safety.
This occurred under an archaic concept called the “teeth to tail ratio”, where we devalued the importance and essential of the supporting or enabling functions in our Defence Force.
Another problem in Australia is related to culture and control: the services Chiefs in our case are responsible for capabilities and can make decisions over platforms. When you look at the support side, there is no lead capability manager for that function, even though it is a critical enabler. The logistics Chief is a two-star joint coordinator, but he does not have the same authority as the single service chiefs. As a result, the logistics leadership is viewed as being fragmented.
Capabilities have been acquired, without checking what is vital in terms of the logistics necessary to support it as an end to end system. Since we do not give logistics the same level of priority as a ship or an airplane, it gets managed in an ad hoc way with a large overhead induced by having to coordinate across a large organization without the authority. When you do that, the results are predictable: you do not have a concept of operations based on a business architecture based on logistics, you do not get priority in the authorization system, so things get delayed, because there was no leading voice to say « this is critical ».
There is an example of a critical joint project called JP2077 Phase 2D, which was supposed to be the logistics IT integrator able to integrate the stovepipes in the logistic systems. This project has been delayed year after year, because its critical impact is not widely understood. Because of a fragmented system, we are about to introduce our new amphibious capabilities and the new JSF fleet, without an integrated logistics information system.
Our logistics support for operations is good, but we lack the ability to rethink, redesign and anticipate the significant changes in logistics we will face in the next decade. The new approach brought in with the JSF acquisition raises fundamental questions: how to integrate profound changes in business models as a result of changing technologies, as well as how to adapt defense and increase interoperability. It is not solely a change in a technical interface, it is a shift of business model.
Anticipation is key, as well as an increased cooperation among allies in order to find common standards and approaches aimed at reducing our supply chain vulnerabilities.
The globalization of the supply chains implies that we are all likely to experience the same problems.
[1] The International Force for East Timor (INTERFET) was commanded by Major GeneralPeter Cosgrove and led by Australia in accordance with United Nations resolutions to address the humanitarian and security crisis which took place in East Timor in 1999 and 2000. Australia continued to support the UN peacekeeping operation with between 1500 and 2000 personnel, landing craft and Black Hawks and remained the largest contributor of personnel to the peacekeeping mission till the end of the mission in 2012.
Editor’s Note: This article was first published in the Summer 2014 issue of SOUTIEN, LOGISTIQUE DEFENSE SECURITE
The Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connector (UHAC) begins to rotate on the beach, July 9, at Marine Corps Training Area Bellows on Oahu, Hawaii during a Marine Corps Advanced Warfighting Experiment.
The AWE is the culmination of a decade of progressive experimentation conducted by the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab (MCWL) where they are testing potential future technologies, solutions and concepts to future Marine Air Ground Task Force challenges.
The AWE is taking part during the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise 2014. Lt. Col. Don Gordon, the current technology officer at MCWL, said the UHAC is one of those experimental technologies that displays a possible capability of being able to insert Marines in areas where current technology wouldn’t be able to insert them based on current systems that are fielded.
The UHAC prototype is a ship-to-shore connector and is half the size of the intended machine. Currently, the UHAC travels at four knots using a track system with floatation-like pads that propels itself through different terrain.
According to an article by By Lance Cpl. Erik Estrada published on March 18, 2014:
Members of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab arrived here to test a model version of the Ultra Heavy-lift Amphibious Connector (UHAC) March 3.
The UHAC is an amphibious craft that has three times the lift capacity and greater coastal access than the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC.)
“It’s promising because it allows a greater lift and it’s exciting to see,” said Capt. James Pineiro, the Ground Combat Element branch head, at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory.
Less than half the size of the actual UHAC, the Warfighting Laboratory was here to see their project in action for the first time after years of planning.
If the concept model goes through, the UHAC could work side by side with the LCAC, which currently does all the ship-to-shore transportation of everything from High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) to tanks.
“The full-scale model should be able to carry at least three tanks and a HMMVW,” said Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Perera, the lab’s Infantry Weapons Project Officer. “It’s going to save a lot of time and fuel for the Marine Corps as well.”
Although the concept model doesn’t appear to be armored well, the final production is planned to have armor plating and .50-caliber machine guns, which Perera says are needed on the UHAC to be able to protect itself.
“The UHAC’s goal is to have more combat power and breach the land further than the LCAC,” said Pineiro.
“All this is part of the ‘next effort’ that the Office of Naval Research and the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab are looking at for connectors, which bring more combat vehicles and power to shore quickly,” said Mr. Geoffrey Main, Program Manager at the Office of Naval Research. “The UHAC full scale should climb a 12 to 16 foot wall when it is completed. It can go over everything short of a 16 to 18 foot seawall.”
According to Main, this would mark a big improvement, since the LCAC can only go over a three to four foot wall.
Main was around at the beginning when Navatek, Ltd., a ship-building company from Honolulu, came to the Office of Naval Research and proposed the UHAC project in 2008. MCWL liked the idea and began to proceed with the project.
“Initially it was for another program,” said Main. “We saw it was compatible with the well deck and that it would provide three times the capability of the LCAC, but yet, in the same space as the LCAC.”
In the upcoming exercise Rim of the Pacific 2014, the half-scale UHAC is slated for an Advanced Warfighting Experiment (AWE) where it will disembark from a ship and make its way onto shore. This will give the Navy and Marine Corps forces a closer look at the UHAC and its abilities.
Although the UHAC is still an experiment, members of the MCWL believe if it passes its experimentation process and makes it to the fleet, it would help the Marines and Sailors tremendously.
“Not only does it provide more combat power much more quickly, but access to beaches and littoral environments” said Main. “[It allows] a lot more options ashore, which is extremely valuable … because our adversaries are developing ever better capabilities to repel a landing. The best defense against that is having many (options).”
And according to Jeremy Bender in a piece on Business Insider published on July 10, 2014:
The Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, in conjunction with the Office of Naval Research, is currently testing a beast of an amphibious lander.
The Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connector (UHAC) has been developed as a replacement to the current Landing Craft Air Cushioned (LCAC). The UHAC would be used to bring ashore troops, equipment, and vehicles. It can even land multiple tanks at once.
The UHAC began testing on July 9 at the Marine Corps Training Area Bellows on Oahu, Hawaii and it is taking part in the Rim of the Pacific Exercise 2014 which is currently underway until August 1. We have highlighted some of the amazing capabilities of the UHAC below.
The current iteration of the UHAC is only half the size of the expected final version, although it is still massive: 42 feet long, 26 feet wide, and 17 feet high.
At full capacity, the UHAC should be able to carry three main battle tanks ashore from a range of 200 nautical miles.
Altogether, the UHAC can carry payloads up to 190 tons, almost three times as much as the LCAC.
Unlike the LCAC, the UHAC can continue moving while onshore across mud flats, tidal marsh areas, and even over sea walls of up to 10 feet in height. This movement is due to the UHAC’s treads, which are composed of low pressure captive air cells held within foam casings.
But the vehicle is limited to speeds up 20 knots, half that of the LCAC, due to drag from its foam treads.
Recent tests have seen progress for two key elements of the evolving missile defense system deployed by the United States and key allies.
The first set of tests involve key elements for the new Ground Based Interceptor to be deployed in Alaska.
And the second set of tests involve the key elements in working THAAD-Aegis integration and the joint overall capability of those systems.
GBI-Related Tests
Last week, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) successfully destroyed a dummy warhead in the exosphere (more than 500 kilometers above the earth’s surface) over the Pacific Ocean in Flight Test Ground (FTG)-06b, confirming that a joint government-industry team had overcome the problems that led to failures of the latest variant of the U.S. Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) “kill vehicle” in previous tests conducted in 2010.
In addition to hitting the target, the test met such other goals as sustaining a long flight time and achieving high-velocity closing speeds.
On the afternoon of June 22, the MDA launched a 14-meter simulated ground-launched LV-2 intermediate-range ballistic missile target made by Lockheed Martin Corp from the Army’s Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll, part of the Marshall Islands.
After the target’s three rocket boosters had burned away and the target entered the exosphere several minutes later, sea-based military operators launched an unarmed Raytheon-built EKV aboard an Orbital Sciences Corporation booster rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base located on California’s’ Santa Barbara County coast, located almost 8,000 kilometers from the Marshall Islands.
Northrop Grumman Corp oversaw the effort to integrate data from many sensors based on ships (including the Boeing-developed Sea-based X-band Radar and the Aegis Army Navy Joint Electronics naval (AN/SPY-1) radar, developed by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, on a warship near the Marshall Islands) in space, and from other sources to allow the MDA to track the target and plot an intercept solution for the EKV.
After separating from the booster rocket at a speed of over Mach 20, the unarmed kill vehicle homed in on the target, then flying at about 4 miles per second, using its heat signature and destroyed the target through the kinetic energy released by the impact of the collision in a “hit-to-kill” operation.
GMD flight test June 22, 2014. Credit: The US MIssile Defense Agency
This successful test, along with the successful January 2013 non-intercept flight test of the 1.5-meter long EKV that confirmed progress in overcoming problems experienced in the earlier tests of 2010, should give the Obama administration the confirmation it needs to execute its March 2013 decision deploy a 14 additional Ground-Based Mid-Course Interceptors (GBIs) in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska by 2017.
These new GBIs would augment the 26 interceptors already deployed (four more are at Vandenberg AFB and the MDA has a few spare GBIs for testing and replacement).
The administration had delayed implementing this decision pending validation that the Capability Enhancement-II (CE-II) variant of the EKV had overcome its earlier difficulties, which included a faulty inertial navigation unit, susceptibility to high-speed vibrations, and quality problems with sub-contractors.
The GBIs are the core component of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the sole element of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) designed to protect the U.S. homeland against long-range ballistic missiles launched from North Korea, Iran, or other rogue states that might acquire a few WMD-armed intercontinental-range ballistic missiles or manage to place shorter-range systems in the Northern Hemisphere, such as on a ship in the Atlantic Ocean).
The GMD consists of command-and-control facilities, a communications terminal, and a 20,000-mile fiber-optic communications network that link with BMD sensors.
The Mulit-Layer BMD System: The Aegis, SM-3, Patriot and THAAD
Although their mixed test record should make one pause about relying on them alone to protect North America from long-range ballistic missile strikes, the United States has fortunately been developing a multi-layer BMD system, which also includes the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, the PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) system, and various versions of the Standard Missile (SM)-3 interceptors BMDS.
The MDA’s partners include the U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing, the Joint Functional Component Command, Integrated Missile Defense, the U.S. Northern Command, and the U.S. Navy and Army, as well as a few foreign countries.
Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital ATK and Raytheon have all helped develop and manufacture key elements of this increasingly integrated system.
In addition to the infrequent GBI tests, the MDA and its partners have conducted a series of tests in the past year that confirm the growing capabilities of the SM-3 interceptor, launched from warships having advanced Aegis BMDS battle management radars, to hit a variety of targets under various conditions.
The Aegis/SM-3 combination is being deployed on many naval platforms, and is being developed as a land-based system as well.
Last September, the MDA detected, tracked, and intercepted two medium-range ballistic missiles that were flying simultaneously over the Pacific Ocean.
An Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control (AN/TPY-2) radar detected the two launches and then helped an Aegis warship track the missile’s flight path using its on-board AN/SPY-1 radar and then launch a SM-3 Block 1A interceptor that hit one target.
Meanwhile, another AN/TPY-2 radar supporting THAAD system missiles monitored the targets so that the THAAD could launch an interceptor to destroy the other target.
The test demonstrated the ability of THAAD and AN/TPY-2 (a billboard-size, high-resolution mobile X-band mounted on a truck chassis capable of providing long-range acquisition, precision track, and discrimination of short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles) to work effectively with the longer-range Aegis technology to provide a layered missile defense framework against multiple missile threats.
Later that month, the MDA used the ship-based Aegis BMD system to intercept a separating short-range ballistic missile target in outer space, its highest intercept ever.
The MDA said that the separating missile, “was the most difficult target engaged to date.”
The success allowed commanders to expand the area the Aegis/SM-3 system can protect.
A U.S. warship employed its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar to track the missile and then launched two SM-3 Block IBs to intercept it, the first instance a U.S. Navy ship has launched two SM-3 interceptors at once—something that might happen often in combat since it raises the probability of hitting a target.
Meanwhile, the exercise also tested the latest version of the Navy’s second-generation Aegis weapons system (BMD 4.0.2), designed to counter more sophisticated ballistic missiles and at longer ranges.
In October 2013, the USS Lake Erie used the Aegis BMD 4.0.2 Weapon System to detect, track, and then destroy a warhead released by a “medium-range” ballistic missile (with a range of 625 to 1,875 miles).
The Aegis and SM-3 Block IB systems proved able to “discriminate” the warhead from the surrounding missile debris. This Flight Test-Standard Missile-22 (FTM-22) was the 28th successful intercept in 34 flight test attempts for the Aegis BMD program since flight testing began in 2002.
All SM-3 guided missiles use Aerojet Rocketdyne-produced MK 72 boosters and MK 104 dual-thrust rocket motors for first- and second-stage propulsion of their warheads, which destroy their targets through the kinetic force of the impact (equivalent of a 10-ton truck traveling at 600 mph).
The SM-3 Block IB under development has an enhanced two-color infrared seeker, an improved throttleable divert and attitude control system for more precise propulsion, and a more advanced signal processor to take advantage of the new capabilities of the upgraded Aegis.
The even more advanced SM-3 Block IIA version, planned for deployment around 2018, will have larger rocket motors and more rocket fuel, permitting the interceptor to achieve a greater maximum velocity, a longer flight time, and a greater distance than that of the SM-3 Block IA and IB versions. It could also carry a larger-diameter kinetic warhead and defend a larger geographic area. The initial SM-3 Block IIA flight test is scheduled for 2015, with a transition for full production around 2018.
Besides its expected deployment on U.S. and Japanese warships, the United States plans to place some of the Block IIA ashore on Poland and perhaps elsewhere. One logical place for additional deployment would be in the United States.
The Aegis/SM-3 Block IB and then Block IIA combination could supplement the GBIs pending the development of a more capable next-generation kill vehicle, which might require a decade to fully develop, test, and deploy in large numbers.
Editor’s Note: For interviews of key members of the Pacific-based THAAD missile defense team working with Aegis see the following:
In the video above, 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.
Debate over the type of response America should demonstrate against the fanatical Islamic killers called ISIS is cloudy, confused and murky in DC.
This is especially true inside the Obama Administration.
Vice President Biden early on wanted a three part geographic division of Iraq, Sunni, Shia, and Kurds.
While Ambassadors’ Susan Power, now at UN, and Susan Rice, now NSC Director, along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initiated a war in Libya called Odyssey Dawn, which they justified, by the ever evolving Obama Doctrine of the “responsibility to protect” or in DC speak R2P.
However, right now –today– the President heading the advice from his team’s previously offered insights could initiate truly significant U.S. combat action to save lives while also degrading the combat capability of ISIS.
Protecting Kurdistan and saving Christians could be a brilliant military move.
Time is short but fortunately a Navy Marine Combat Force, to challenge ISIS with both airpower and an insertion force of US Marines are now ready on station in the Persian Gulf.
First to arrive was the USS George H.W. Bush with escort ships the Destroyer USS Truxton, and the guided missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea.
The Bush has been joined by a Navy/Marine Amphibious Group; USS Bataan including the USS Mesa Verde and USS Gunston Hall with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) embarked.
The 22nd MEU is a battalion sized force of Maries with indigenous air assets the MV-22s, MH-53, MH-60 and AV-8 Harrier.
Additionally, one of the unheralded contributions of the Navy/Marine team being combat ready at all times is at sea support from our Military Sealift Command (MSC).
That fleet’s ready professionalism was expressed in a recent interview with MSC Commander Rear Admiral T.K. Shannon USN.
We asked the Admiral about the recent movement of the Bush to be able to support national options with regard to Iraq and how that affected MSC.
The Admiral commented: “when I saw the Bush start to move I called my Commodore in the region “How are you postured?” and he said, “I have the assets I need.”
SUEZ CANAL (March 13, 2014) The amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19) transits the Suez Canal. Mesa Verde is part of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and, with the embarked 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (22nd MEU), is deployed in support of maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility.
The politics of action, the “what to do?” about ISIS in Iraq, is still apparently paralyzing the debate at the highest levels of the National Command Authority.
The current con-ops of ISR Drones with a courageous yet limited force of U.S. combat advisers on the ground is a very minimalist approach to a rapidly metastasizing the problem of the massacre of innocents.
Some on the left will always simply say, “Enough!” and their end point is simple, do nothing; America should stand down. History has proven that one should never underestimate the left’s ability to walk away from strategic moral choices. Never forget that their direct lineage from the anti-war left turning a blind eye on Vietnamese boat people and the Cambodian Killing Fields after the fall of South Vietnam
The right can make a simple point; why should the US fight harder for something that those more directly affected are willing to fight for, especially considering all the money and US military sacrifice?
However, fast breaking events in Iraq are now putting both the American left and right into a moral conundrum without much time left.
In an interview with a spokesman for Christians in peril in Iraq “The Iraq Dynamic: Working with Kurds to Save Iraqi Christians” Mr. Joseph Kassab rings the symbolic “fire bell in the night.”
In his words: “As far as the combat situation people are on the edge, there was a fight early last week near the Christian Al Hamdanya District (Qaraqush) in the heart of Nineveh Plain between the ISIS and the Kurds who are creating a wall of defense to stop ISIS. It looks like ISIS, has a strong interest in Nineveh Plain “
SLD Interview question: The history of Kurdistan is that the Kurd people are very protective of all minorities.
They have a reputation of being kind – a very kind people and also fierce warriors, and protective of all minorities. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Kassab; Yes, 100 percent it is. And that’s why they want to incorporate with Kurdistan because they know they can and will protect the Christians.
They are taking a lot of Christian refugees right away because they’re very, very nice, and they’re doing a lot of work to help them with the humanitarian, aid, and food, for the Christians whom they are taking into Kurdistan.
Securing a safe haven for Christians in Kurdistan takes any argument away about US being involved in picking sides in a fanatical religious war going back over a thousand years. The Kurds and Christian are united against ISIS and Kurdistan can be the area of Iraq that a winning combat stand can be made against truly fanatical killers.
Time is running out while the world watches, just read breaking news from Catholic News International while this article is being published:
“The situation was already bleak but now it has got a whole deal worse. For the first time the ever, the bishops have raised the doomsday scenario of an Iraq emptied of Christians” John Pontifex, spokesperson for the UK branch of the organization says Church In
Need has been in close contact with the bishops of Iraq. Bishops there have watched their people flee from the cities. Their churches have been torn to the ground and innocent men, women and even children, Christian and Muslim, being brutally killed.
The good news for US is that four years ago Secretary Gates and many others were contemplating cutting USN/USMC Amphibious forces and so far they failed.
During that time words were written that remain true today.
The ability to station and supply a Navy Marine Team anywhere around the globe, ready for immediate combat, demonstrates, yet again, why the US Navy Fleets of Carrier Battle Groups and ARG/MEUs are invaluable assets for American military power projection.
Once the US and its allies draw down ground combat elements, air power can help keep the fanatical killers at bay to some extent. But ultimately, air power only goes so far. We owe it to our Iraqi and Afghan allied forces and their Nation’s civilians to have available in close proximity a rapid reaction force. Such a force needs to combine combat and humanitarian relief in a 21st century hybrid insertion of boots on the ground in all rugged terrain, which is a hallmark of the evolving capabilities of the amphib force.
Since we are getting ready to drawdown in Iraq and to leave Afghanistan, what about those villagers and people in enclaves that trust us? A MEU is a 9/11 force in readiness that can make sure that we can demonstrate that we have not forgotten the Vietnam result or the Cambodian Holocaust.
Insertion of an offshore MEU to defend a village or evacuate threatened allies to safe havens is a lasting debt. And this obligation becomes part of our staying power in a region, which will remain central to the U.S. even after significant removal of ground forces. The MEU allows us to have available a combat blocking force on the ground as an enemy begins to mass and concentrate forces and have a lift as necessary to relocate them to safe havens.
A MEU backed by a Carrier Battle Group (CBG) can easily bring enough firepower and Marines on the ground and lift so innocents are not massacred. This debt of honor backed by an ever ready Navy/Marines afloat and AF Air Power on station can and should last as a key element of the regional calculation.
The next Congress should view a strong and agile military power projection force of a MEU, CBG and expeditionary USAF assets as a legacy force for good. U.S. power projection in the Gulf can and will save lives and demonstrate the presence of tools to support friendly forces and elements in the region.
If not, we would see once gain an old cliché coming into play: even worse than being America’s enemy is being our ally in an unpopular war.
This article has been re-posted as well on the following website:
When we wrote our book on the evolution of Pacific challenges and strategy with Richard Weitz, we focused on the core necessity to shape a modular and scalable force to provide for the kind of forward presence, which the US needed to operate in the 21st century.
For us, the Military Sealift Command is a crucial element within this approach, and as such, we started with MSC as a key building block.
In an earlier interview with the former head of MSC, Admiral Buzby highlighted the central and innovative role of MSC within the USN and USMC shaping a 21st century strategy.
Historically, we get cast offs the Navy. We get 20 or 30-year-old ships held together with baling wire and keep them going for another decade. We also purpose-built new and that becoming more the norm days.
But we’re finding ourselves suddenly the very leading doctrinally, with new with new concepts, with new con-ops to not just follow, but to develop ourselves.
That’s requiring of reorganization within MSC community re-evaluate how we various missions how we produce required readiness; a very dynamic exciting for what been a steady state outfit a long time.
We had a chance to continue our look at the evolving MSC role with the new head of MSC, Admiral T.K. Shannon.
The focus on innovation within MSC and working with the USN-USMC team in shaping new approaches was a key focus throughout the interview, which was conducted at the Admiral’s offices at the Washington Naval Yard on June 23, 2014.
The Admiral has a strong naval background, and served in various parts of the USN surface fleet as a consumer of MSC support but in his words, “I always wanted to be on the other end of the probe taking oil.” As a former carrier strike group commander, he certainly has brought to the job a deep knowledge of the needs of the customer, and notably those in time a global stretch for the USN-USMC team.
In an interview, which the Admiral conducted earlier with Stars and Stripes, he highlighted the role of MSC in the following manner:
“I see the M in military sealift Command growing. And when I say the M, I don’t mean doubling the number of active-duty naval officers on our staff. I see the type of work we are involved in growing in that military element.”
The MLP working with LMSR during the June tests. Credit: USN
Clearly, what the Admiral has in mind is the role of MSC in sustaining the USN-USMC team in its littoral operations. “We have a fantastic amphibious warfare capability within our Navy. But these new classes of ship under construction (e.g., the Mobile Landing Platform) are going to be involved in operations that lean towards the littoral environment where amphibious warfare takes place.”
From the visit to the USS America and discusses with Captain Hall, it is clear that the USN anticipates MSC providing important support roles for the 21st century concept of an amphibious task force.
For example, the USS America has no well deck for launching amphibious vehicles but the MLP will be able to do so in a significant way.
And recent testing of a pairing of a the USNS Montford Point with a Large, Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) demonstrated such a capacity.
On June 18, 2014, the USNS Montford Point and the USNS Bob Hope remained alongside with 16 mooring lines in a skin to skin configuration at anchor, overnight and during operations for a total of 36 hours to transfer and deliver to sea vehicles and LCACs.
Such at sea constant MSC fleet advancement of synergistic innovative replenishment efforts highlight a central proposition which the Admiral discussed with us.
We don’t have enough amphibious warfare ships to operate forward in the way we would like to.
The operational tempo and pace of our amphibious force is quite high.
I think we’re in a position where we have to look for creative and alternative uses of Military Sealift Command assets.
He underscored that the CNO focused on the requirement for the USN-USMC team to fight forward, and clearly with the shortfall in amphibious ships, the support role for MSC is going up.
Another key challenge is to meet the logistics demands of the disaggregated amphibious ready group which has been enabled by Osprey reach, speed and range, but which means the ships are further apart and need to be sustained as such.
Re-thinking the seabase to support operations. Credit: USN
In addition to the MLP, the Admiral highlighted the roles of the T-AKE ships and the JHSV. The T-AKE ships are rapidly becoming the workhorses for the MSC and given the price point on the vessels of around $500 million per ship represent great value for the fleet.
And with the demonstration of an ability for the Osprey to land on the T-AKE ships in Bold Alligator 2012, the possibility of an expanded pairing between Osprey and T-AKE might be on offer even as a emergency divert lily pad if needed.
The Admiral noted: “If we make the hangar door four feet wider and make it two feet higher on the T-AKE, you can store an Osprey in there, so that you could then have one in the hangar and one on the deck of a T-AKE ship.”
The pace and tempo of USN fleet ops at a time of hull shorfalls highlights the key role for the MSC.
As the Admiral noted:
I think one thing where we help out a lot is, it seems like we have to be in many different places right now.
For example, we might have to be off of the coast of Libya perhaps, or the coast of Somalia perhaps, or elsewhere in Africa dealing with a HA/DR mission.
The hulls we’re bringing to the show, whether it’s TAKEs, MLPs, the follow-on dual afloat forward staging bases, and the 10 joint high-speed vessels, I think we really complement our amphibious warfare ships, especially when they have to split apart for operations and presence.
We asked the Admiral about the recent movement of the Bush to be able to support national options with regard to Iraq and how that affected MSC.
The Admiral commented: “when I saw the Bush start to move I called my Commodore in the region “How are you postured?” and he said, “I have the assets I need.”
We published earlier a piece on the Bush and noted that it was “ready on arrival.” Obviously, there is an MSC equivalent, for reach is really about sustainable reach and presence.
MV-22 Osprey Landing Aboard the USNS Robert E. Peary during the Bold Alligator exercise. Shaping an ability to move systems around on platforms, and islands or on Allied bases will be a key to shaping a new Pacific strategy.Credit: USN
There is a key allied component to the MSC role as well which is often not highlighted. When we visited the first T-AKE ship to land an Osprey, the captain highlighted the allied role, which his ship had played in Odyssey Dawn.
According to Captain Little: “I would have to look up the exact statistics, but during our last deployment we provided underway replenishment to 70 different navy ships, including allied ships involved in Operation Odyssey Dawn. I believe we provided underway replenishment to about 20 different NATO ships during the Operation.”
The Admiral highlighted the mutual support role, which allies are providing.
The US has discussions and agreements with Asian allies, Canada, and the UK to provide mutual support under specific circumstances, so that South Korea, and Japan for example might provide tanking support to the fleet.
As Japan had done earlier by putting their oilier on station in the Indian Ocean during Operation Enduring Freedom.
The Admiral when commanding Carrier Strike Group One had refueled from the Japanese ship and was very complementary on the Japanese at sea nautical skills.
Canada is in extremis because of the age and condition of its tankers, and discussions are under way for the US to help Canada bridge its transition until new tankers are available to the Canadian navy.
We are about to sign an agreement with them, where we will provide them with some licensed engineers to participate in operating their ships.
The Protector on the West Coast, and the Preserver on the East Coast are both 40+ years old.
They just had a terrible fire on the Protector. In fact, we participated in towing that back to British Columbia for them.
We are engaged with dialog right now. The Canadian Navy has approached our Navy about providing them some supplemental capabilities.
A key part of the discussion focused on re-thinking how the MSC fleet operates with the USN-USMC in working an end-to-end supply chain from land to sea and back again.
AAV Launch from the MLP during the June tests. Credit: USN
A key element in being forward deployed is to have as high an ops tempo as possible. This depends upon understanding how to deliver parts to the point of need in support of ongoing operations.
This requires shaping IT systems and operational reach for sustained logistical support.
It is what we do from the ships on the ocean that matters. Focus upon improving the flow of supplies from those ships operating globally is a key focus of attention for us.
We are working much more closely with USMC logisticians to figure out how to better integrate their needs with our capacity to have the right supplies on board to meet those needs.
For example, if an LCAC breaks down on a mobile landing platform, wouldn’t it be cool if the high-usage parts for repair were right there or within easy reach?
And the ability to manage the fleet from an end-to-end supply chain was a work in progress. An example of new ways ahead was suggested by the Admiral with regard to the Joint High Speed Vessel and how to manage loading operations.
Recently the Spearhead was operating in an exercise in Latin America.
The ship came pier side to take on a load.
The loadmaster was then faced with the challenge of fitting the load into the ship with regard to weight and balance to ensure effective operations.
Why not do like they do in the commercial shipping industry with regard to container ships and prepare a stability load plan before hand and send it electronically for the loadmaster to use as an aide to his effort.
We need to look at a virtual capability, much like the commercial container ship market. They know what’s in every box around the planet.
Our experience on MSC ships has certainly reinforced the quality of the mariners on board.
The Admiral throughout the interview drove this point home repeatedly. For example, the Admiral noted that he was recently on a T-AKE ship where the Chief Engineer had been at sea for 35 years and as Chief Engineer for 24 of those 35 years.
And the operational tempo of the fleet is possible only because of the significant at sea time of the civilian mariners who operate MSC ships.
An LCAC launched from an MLP during the June tests. Credit: USN
A final topic was the lingering concerns with the tanker fleet. The US has had to obtain a grandfather clause to operate its tanker fleet, which is almost solely made up of that dinosaur of oil tankers, the single hull tanker.
Indeed, the Admiral noted that recently MSC was denied port entry because of the single hull tanker.
It remains a mystery to us why building a double hull tanker fleet in an age of growing environmental sensitiveness and hi fleet ops tempo is not a priority.
In short, the Admiral provided a clear sense of the way ahead for the MSC and certainly reinforced the notion that MSC had moved from the back to the front of enabling the USN-USMC team for 21st century operations.
For earlier MSC and MSC related articles see the following:
