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.
2014-04-20 Marines with the Infantry Officer’s Course conducted a long-range raid on San Clemente Island, Calif., March 24.
The Marines were lifted approximately 70 miles off the coast of southern California by Third Marine Aircraft Wing and East Coast aircraft.
The Marines also used new technology to plan before boots hit the ground.
The exercise was conducted by the Infantry Officer Course paired with VMX-22 and the Ospreys were accompanied by a specially configured Osprey with an airborne communication gateway with a Wi-Fi network that linked the tables carried by the squads riding in the Ospreys.
The Cat Bird, the F-35 surrogate sensor aircraft, sent real time information about the objective area to the Marines in route to the objective area.
The information shared were maps and images as well as text messaging among the ground force element aboard the Ospreys.
The F-35s went in and provided the capability to eliminate the ground missile threats and allowed a distributed company to be inserted to do their job.
In other words, the Osprey carried the force; the F-35 surrogate provided the cover which could insert the force more effectively.
To better understand the approach and the way ahead in USMC innovation, we have interviewed the CO of VMX-22, Col. Michael Orr and will be following up with the head of the Infantry Officer Course (IOC) as well.
The full interviews will be published later this month.
Col. Orr underscored that the organizational innovation of the VMX-22 working with the IOC was a key element in shaping an approach to technological innovation in shaping an insertion force operating at greater distance than before.
According to Col. Orr, a key question being addressed by the series of exercises is the following:
“What technology is out there today, that could easily and inexpensively solve some of our connectivity challenges?
What smartphone and tablet technology can be leveraged as part of the connectivity approach to re-shape situational awareness for the ground force?”
The technological evolution – which is in effect a combat cloud empowering the force – carries with it changes in decision making as well.
According to Col. Orr: “We are acting on the concept of pushing situational awareness to a lower tactical level than we have ever done before. We are empowering decision makers at a much lower level while shaping a robust ground and air picture for the force overall. You would be amazed at the art of the possible as we move forward along these lines. And we are just beginning to understand what can be done.”
Orr added that “We take an air picture which traditionally would be used at an air operations center for the USMC or a CAOC and push it down to the users at the Lt. or Platoon, Squad level of decision maker. I come from a connected work as an aviator. What we are trying to do is to take the situational awareness picture down to a junior level.”
Credit: Marine Corps Air Station Miramar / 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing
4/9/14
For earlier pieces on Talon Reach see the following:
2014-04-19 Clearly, the seizure of Crimea is not the end of the Ukrainian crisis. The seizure has direct complications for the rest of Ukraine and for the Mediterranean.
Unfortunately, a good deal of European response reminds one of the 1930s where guilt over Versailles led to acceptance of Nazi rhetoric about German territory for Germans.
Now Putin is playing a similar rhetorical game, and much European reaction is the same as before.
The context is different; the global situation is different; but the rhetoric is eerily similar.
The Euro crisis has led to a internal dynamic which will limit the growth and expansion of the EU as a global entity; and a redrawing of the Euro zone.
In this context, Putin sees his own map rewriting opportunity.
An armed man standing in front of a tank is believed to be pro-Russian as he’s wearing the black ribbon of St. George, a symbol widely associated with pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. REUTERS/Maks Levin
In a relatively rare European piece, Amanda Paul, a policy analyst at the European Centre in Brussels and an expert on Turkey and the Mediterranean underscores how dangerous the current situation is and notably, the inability of the EU to respond with either soft or hard power, and clearly this is a crisis that requires a blend of the two.
Having already had Crimea occupied and annexed by Russia, Ukraine’s government is struggling to hold the rest of the country together as Russia uses covert actions and propaganda to drive unrest, violence and fear. Meanwhile the international community seems incapable of doing little more than making toothless statements of concern and placing weak sanctions which have so far been totally ineffective in deterring Russian President, Vladimir Putin from further aggression.
Earlier this week the Ukrainian authorities deployed an anti-terrorist operation following several days of unrest as pro-Russian armed groups carried out coordinated attacks taking-over police stations and government buildings in towns and cities across eastern Ukraine. The operation is expected to last several days but success is far from guaranteed. The threat of Moscow ordering its forces massed at the border into Ukraine in response for Kyiv’s using force against the separatists’ is a real risk as there is a real possibility it could be used by Moscow as a green light to invade to “protect” Russian speaking citizens.
However, Moscow’s approach is not proving to increase Russia’s popularity in the East. The vast majority of Ukraine’s southeastern citizens have remained indifferent or opposed to unification with Russia. In a poll taken on 9 April in Donetsk 65.7% stated they wanted to live in a unified Ukraine while only 18.2% said they would like to join Russia.
While Russia’s leadership continues to claim it has nothing to do with the unrest and is “deeply concerned”, Moscow is not pulling the wool over anybody’s eyes. The world is fully aware that Russia is pulling the strings; that Special Forces are on the ground (little green men as the Ukrainian’s call them), deliberately provoking tensions.
If this escalation continues there is a high risk that it will spread further; that the forthcoming 25 May Ukrainian Presidential elections will be derailed or the instability may prevent polling in the East/South East and Russia will declare the election result as illegitimate and Ukraine will sink further into crisis. It is crucially important that the presidential elections go ahead. The new President would have democratic legitimacy, thereby burying Russian claims that Ukraine has no legitimate or constitutional leadership.
Paul goes on to comment on how she sees the EU response to date and its impact:
The level and pace of response from the EU is not only frustrating and disappointing for Ukrainian’s, it is also frustrating for those member states that feel the time has come to move to level three sanctions that could include trade restrictions, an arms and other measures targeted at Russia’s elite,. Yet because EU decision-making is based on unanimity, that often equates to the lowest common denominator.
Some EU member states continue to resist placing tough economic sanctions fearing repercussions on their own economies at a time of economic hardship or fear that Moscow – as has been rumored – may try to nationalize EU business in Russia. In Ukraine, reality has hit home and there is now broad realization that they are on their own…..
I am tired of hearing it is not the fault of the West. Yes it is not the fault of the West that Putin is at the helm in Russia.
Nor is it the West’s fault he seems to have a gruesome grand strategy for Ukraine and Russia’s near abroad more generally.
However, it is the fault of the West that their response to the most serious challenge to the world order and security of Europe since the end of the Cold War has been so wishy-washy and inadequate.
2014-04-18 Perhaps not surprisingly, one of the best sources of good analysis of the impact of the Russian annexation of Crimea on European and global affairs is the Polish Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW).
A number of recent analyses are recommended to further understanding of the dynamics of change unleashed by the Russian mapmakers.
The German reaction to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict – shock and disbelief
The crisis in Ukraine and the Russian intervention have brought about a situation in which it is necessary for Germany to make decisions and take action. No one in Berlin was prepared for this nor did anyone want this to occur….
The authors describe the deep divide in Germany on the way forward, and although they do not say this, given the central role Germany plays in Europe and NATO, an ability to clearly deal with Russia firmly on Ukraine opens up even greater fissures in dealing with Russian map rewriting tendencies elsewhere.
The Putin doctrine: The formation of a conceptual framework for Russian dominance in the post-Soviet area
This (Putin) doctrine is effectively an outline of the conceptual foundation for Russian dominance in the post-Soviet area.
It offers a justification for the efforts to restore the unity of the ‘Russian nation’ (or more broadly, the Russian-speaking community), within a bloc pursuing close integration (the Eurasian Economic Union), or even within a single state encompassing at least parts of that area.
As such, it poses a challenge for the West, which Moscow sees as the main opponent of Russia’s plans to build a new order in Europe (Eurasia) that would undermine the post-Cold War order.
Ukraine closer to losing the eastern part of the country
In recent days separatists have taken control of government buildings and police in several cities of the Donetsk region; in at least two of them (Sloviansk and Kramatorsk), the separatists have been backed by armed forces of the Russian Spetsnaz without insignia. In almost all these places, the separatists’ actions have been accompanied by either passivity or the open support of the local police, and acceptance on the part of the residents. In response, on 13 April the government in Kyiv decided to take action using limited force in Sloviansk, but this action ended in failure, and after a few hours the Ukrainian forces were withdrawn. A small-scale action on 15 April did lead to the recovery of Kramatorsk airport by Ukrainian forces.
The separatists’ actions in eastern Ukraine were clearly professionally prepared and carried out as a special operation. In addition to support from Russia, another key factor determining the separatists’ success so far has been the support of a significant part of the local power elite, including some oligarchs, the structures of the Party of Regions and the Communists, as well as members of Viktor Yanukovych’s family, who in recent weeks have earmarked substantial funds to destabilise the situation in the eastern regions.
The government in Kyiv announced a counter-terrorism operation and the involvement of the army, but have refrained from using the latter on a larger scale. On the one hand, the centre’s indecision and lack of effective action is the result of a lack of consensus within the ruling elite on how to solve the crisis, and on the other hand results from pressure from the EU and the US on the Ukrainian authorities not to escalate the situation, i.e. by the use of armed force.
Although Kyiv has still not fully lost control of the situation in the eastern part of the country, in the next few days the separatists are likely to extend their activities to other regions of eastern and southern Ukraine. Russia’s idea is to put pressure on both the West and the Ukrainian government to adopt its conditions for resolving the crisis (including the adoption of federalism) – a crisis which has been artificially created by some local elites, and by Russia itself.
Pro-Russian ‘separatism’: a tool to compel Ukraine to federalization
On 6 April groups of pro-Russian activists held demonstrations in Donetsk, Kharkov and Lugansk, which ended with the seizure of government buildings.
These demonstrations were no more numerous than those of the previous few weeks (numbering from a few hundred to two thousand attendees), but this time the protesters encountered almost no resistance from security forces.
The separatists in each region appointed a “new political representation” which was supposed to prepare to hold a ‘referendum’ on self-determination.
The Ukrainian government has accused Moscow of provoking the events in the eastern regions of the country.
For its part, Russia urged Kyiv not to use force against the separatists, and stressed the need for international talks on a new constitutional system for Ukraine.
The result of this was Ukraine’s agreement to hold joint negotiations next week with Russia, together with the EU and US.
The government in Kyiv has managed to clear some of the occupied buildings, by the use of force in Kharkov, and as a result of negotiations in Lugansk and Donetsk, but they still have no control over the situation in the latter two cities, and the situation is still very tense there.
All indications are that the events in eastern Ukraine are part of the implementation of a scenario prepared in Moscow, the aim of which is to prevent the presidential elections being held on 25 May, and to force the federalisation of Ukraine by granting significant autonomy to the eastern and southern regions.
The events of recent days would not have been possible without Russian support for the weak separatist forces in the region, which on their own cannot count on massive public support.
In turn, the passive attitude of the police indicates that the government in Kyiv is not able to fully control the regional police forces, and that some of the local elites are playing their own political games against Kyiv.
Putin challenges Brussels to a gas duel
And in a reminder to Westerners who have really avoided opportunities to expand Western energy independence, Szymon Kardaś in an article published on 4/16/14 analyzes the Putin approach to putting the screws to Europe. Something that will only be enhanced as he expands Russian reach in the Arctic.
On 10 April, President Vladimir Putin sent a letter to 18 European countries (recipients of Russian gas transported via Ukrainian territory), in which he called for urgent consultations with Russia on the crisis in the Ukrainian economy and the security of gas transit through Ukraine. However, he threatened that the lack of a positive response would force Russia – in compliance with the gas contract signed in 2009 – to introduce a prepayment system for gas deliveries to Ukraine which, if Kyiv cannot meet them, may result in interruptions in gas supplies to European customers (as, according to Vladimir Putin, Ukraine could siphon off gas assigned to importers in Europe for itself).
The Kremlin’s diplomatic gambit is not only a propaganda gesture. Russia is also trying to take advantage of the crisis to implement the key objectives of its gas policy regarding Ukraine: to take control over that country’s gas infrastructure and maintain its position as the dominant gas supplier. It is possible that in the face of the problems in EU/Russian gas relations which have built up over recent years (such as the implementation of the Third Energy Package, and the European Commission’s antitrust proceedings against Gazprom), Russia intends to use the Ukrainian crisis as an instrument to force the EU into strategic concessions which would lead to a substantial revision of EU/Russian energy cooperation. Although Putin’s letter does not prejudge the suspension of gas supplies to Ukraine, it is very likely that Russia will not hesitate to do so if the European partners prove unwilling, at least partially, to take Russia’s demands into account.
Editor’s Note: The counter-reaction to the Russian seizure of Crimea is of course the focus of Russian propaganda, but not in the old Soviet style, but in a 21st century lighter style.
For example, Sweden has been meeting with its Nordic partners to work on Baltic security and such an effort, of course, is not necessary because, well just because.
Set to the music of Abba, this Russian parody reminds the Swedes that they are weak militarily because their defense minister wears a skirt (Just making fun of course!)
For related pieces on the resurgence of Russia see the following:
2014-04-17 We have focused on the Russian intervention in Crimea as part of an overall resurgence strategy crafted by Putin.
A key part of that strategy is shaping one’s alliance to manage a way ahead and to deflect pressure from the West.
Clearly, this is happening in shaping a proactive strategy to deflect Western pressure.
In a recent piece written by Andrew Rettman and published in the EU Observer, the author identifies actions which the Russians have taken to deflect any EU sanctions.
In an interview with the EU Observer, the Russian Ambassador to the EU makes it clear that Russia has mobilized its allies to support its actions in Crimea. China, Cyprus and others are supporting Russia so that Russian actions in Crimea are part of the way ahead, not an historical mistake from the Russian point of view. Credit Image: Bigstock
Rettman identifies two projects with China which the Russians are highlighting and accelerating as if they are a response to the crisis.
The first is the “Power of Siberia” pipeline.
The Russian ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov told the EU Observer the following:
Describing the pipeline as a “mega-project”, he said it will pump 60 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas a year from the Kovykta and Tchayandinskoe gas fields to Russia’s far east, with a branch line to deliver up to 38 bcm a year to China.
He noted that Gazprom and China’s CNPC have a “legally binding” agreement from 2013 and that exploitation of the Tchayandinskoe field should start in 2019.
“One important issue is still pending – that of price. Gazprom and CNPC are negotiating on this subject, and their positions are gradually drawing closer together,” he said.
“The project is aimed primarily at delivery of gas to Russian regions and at developing industry of the Russian Far East. The export of gas is considered in this context as a factor which improves (significantly, one should admit) the economics of the project, but not as a prerequisite for its realisation,” he added.
The second is a port project in Crimea.
Chizhov told the EU Observer that this project is a major one, and going ahead despite the change of hands of ownership of Crimea.
Chizhov said Moscow and Beijing are also going ahead with plans for Chinese firms to build a 25-metre deep port in Crimea as part of “a new transport corridor from Asia to Europe – ‘The Economic Belt of the Great Silk Route’.”
He indicated that Russia’s annexation of Crimea – dubbed illegal by the UN – has done nothing to stop the port investment, worth $3 billion in the “first stage” alone.
The Russian diplomat said the main concern is environmental rather than political.
To be blunt: environmental concerns are greater than any political reactions from Brussels or Washington!
And lest one assume EU unity, enter the alliance with Cyprus as a perturbator.
Cypriot foreign minister Ioannis Kasoulides told German daily Die Welt on Wednesday that EU countries should be free to opt out from the measures.
He said an EU-Russia economic war “would destroy Cyprus’ economy”.
“There are very strong economic ties between Cyprus and Russia. If sanctions are really necessary, then every member state should decide for itself whether to take part,” he noted.
And as for the economic expansion project of Russia with regard to former states of the Soviet Union, the crimean inclusion is not seen as a barrier to expansion.
According to Chizov:
The Ukraine crisis has also done nothing to slow Russia’s plan to launch a “Eurasian Union” with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan next year.
“The Eurasian Economic Union is due to be launched on 1 January 2015 regardless of the situation in Ukraine or any other country not involved at this stage in the integration process … Negotiations on accession of Armenia are expected to be completed soon and those with Kyrgyzstan are also under way,” he said.
And in a related development, Russia is reported willing to sell S-400 air defense systems to China as well.
Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has given a green light to sell the country’s newest S-400 air defense guided missile system to China, which Russian media claim will give Beijing an edge in the airspace of the Taiwan Strait and over islands in the East China Sea at the center of a dispute with Japan, reports the military news website of Huanqiu.com, the Chinese-language website of China’s Global Times.
Beijing has been interested in acquiring the guided missile system since 2011. Two years ago, Russia talked with several countries interested in buying the system but was forced to suspend negotiations in order to ensure its supply to the Russian military, the general manager of a Russian national defense export company told Russian newspaper Kommersant in January this year. Export sales of the system may not begin until 2016.
Talk of a potential deal with China drew concerns from Russian security officials who worried that it may not only affect the supply of the system to Russia’s own military but also that China could back-engineer the technology to produce its own systems. The system’s manufacturer Almaz-Antei has eased the former concerns by delivering the first batch of the system. Moscow also announced a plan in January to build three new plants for the contractor in order to build more air defense and anti-guided missile systems. An intellectual property rights agreement that China and Russia signed with regard to the arms trade has also come into effect.
Though in what volume China wishes to acquire the S-400 system is unclear, Kommersant’s source said China wants enough systems to equip two to four battalions. The People’s Liberation Army has already obtained an air defense guided missile system and another command system from Russian and deployed them in the defense of Beijing and Shanghai, according to the paper, which estimated that the country would be able to control the airspace over Taiwan and the disputed Diaoyutai islands (Diaoyu to China, Senkaku to Japan).
After spending a week in Hawaii with the MARFORPAC staff, and the PACAF staff and the commander, and then two weeks in Australia for visits to airbases and to the Williams Foundation seminar on the evolution of air combat capabilities, I concluded my trip to the region by a meeting with Lt. General Robling, the Commander of MARFORPAC.
Shortly, the Marines will start their first rotational training in Australia. Naturally, Australia was on his mind in discussing the future.
Question: What our closest allies and we are actually doing is actually building deterrence in depth structure for Pacific Defense and part of that is clearly creating converging capabilities. Is that a fair judgment?
Lt. General Robling: It is to me. It’s not about just building relationships in the region. It is about collective security in the region.
Building collective security requires, in part, a process of building partner capacity, and working convergent capacities to shape effective and mutually beneficial relationships which underlie the evolution of collective security.
Our working relationship with Australia is a case in point.
Even though they see themselves… rightly… as an island continent, they’ve really got to be part of the entire region’s ability to respond to crisis, both natural and manmade. To do this, they can’t stay continent bound, and must engage forward in the greater Asia Pacific region.
By becoming part of a collective Pacific security apparatus, they get the added benefit of defending their nation away from their borders. The Australian military is small in comparison to the US, but it is a lethal and technologically sophisticated force.
Cutaway of Canberra Class Ship. Credit: Royal Australian Navy. The Australians are adding amphibious ship capabilities to their joint force.
In the face of a large-scale threat, they, like the US and others in the region, wouldn’t be able to defend by themselves. They would have to be a part of a larger collective security effort and ally with the US or other likeminded nations in the region in order to get more effective and less costly defense capabilities pushed farther forward.
This is one reason why their buying the JSF and the “Wedgetail” is so important. These two platforms are amazing force multipliers that bring to the region superior Command and Control and networked strike capabilities. These capabilities will be both additive and complementary to the capabilities other nations bring to collective security in the region.
The JSF with its superior networked sensor suite can collect a lot of information from sources at significant distances, and partner with the capabilities of the “Wedgetail” to help disseminate that information to air, sea, and land forces who need the information.
These capabilities and others make perfect sense for Australia and the greater Asia Pacific’s collective security requirements. In addition, other countries like Japan and Singapore can likewise contribute to this collective security because they too are buying the same types or similar military capabilities.
I like the term deterrence in depth because that’s exactly what it is. It’s not always about defense in depth.
It’s about deterring and influencing others behavior so they can contribute to the region’s stability, both economically and militarily, in an environment where everyone conforms to the rule of law and international norms.
Question: I was asked by a senior Australian official to discuss potential sweet spots between the modernization of the Aussie and American forces. Clearly, one of those is between the evolving USN-USMC modernization efforts and those of the Australians.
And with the changes in the training ranges in Guam and around Guam plus those in Australia, there is a clear area within which the Aussies, Americans and other regional powers can shape that sweet spot in practical terms. Obviously, the Pacific fleet of F-35s can be built from an operational point of view within those training ranges as well.
This makes the Aussie-US relationship not just about training on Australian soil for the Marines but about a much broader dynamic relationship in the re-set of Pacific defense capabilities.
How do you see the relationship?
Lt. General Robling: Your point is very well taken. The President and the Australian Prime Minister in 2011 made an agreement to bolster this partnership. It was about two allies that can benefit further from a stronger more cohesive relationship.
I believe expanding what we do together in the northern training ranges is the next step in furthering this relationship. The training ranges offer us a venue for training together in very high end and sometimes complex scenarios. Due to their remote location, this training is away from encroaching civilian populations, thereby allowing us to train without negatively impacting or encroaching on their daily lives. We all win.
Training over distance is difficult in very many places around the world, and especially in the Asia Pacific region.
In fact, the northern ranges in Australia are ideal for that type of combined training. Complementary to these ranges will be the Joint Training Ranges we are looking to develop on some of the Marianas Islands in and around Guam, Saipan and Tinian. In these ranges, we hope to have the ability to train across a broad spectrum of military operations from small unit maneuver to higher end air-to-air, combined arms, electronic warfare, and missile defense. This training will enable us to shape new joint and coalition approaches to defense while strengthening the collective security in the region.
Question: When I talked with the PACAF staff and, specifically, General Carlisle, it is clear that a change is underway. The US is shifting from thickening bilateral spoke relationships to working new multilateral relationships among those powers with which we have bilateral treaty relationships.
USS Bataan (April 25, 2013)–Sailors and Marines attached to the multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5), Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) 2, and the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade (2d MEB), joined together with coalition partners for a sunrise ceremony in commemoration of Australian and New Zealand Army Corps Day on the ship’s hangar bay as a part of Bold Alligator 2013. The ceremony was held in honor of a national day of remembrance in Australia that marks the anniversary of military actions during World War I. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Co (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Edward Guttierrez III/RELEASED)
Lt. General Robling: The growth of the Asian economy overall and especially those of our allies and friends has allowed many countries to enhance their security capabilities by buying more technologically advanced equipment.
It is not just about the US and what we bring to the region anymore.
Multi-lateral training and security agreements create a natural transition to working collective security in a way we never considered before.
Question: As new hardware comes into the region, the exercises then allow you to work through joint and coalition concepts of operations and to be able to insert change effectively within a deterrence in depth strategy?
Lt. General Robling: You make a great point. The enhanced capabilities our partners are building through both training and hardware procurement will enable each of them to address individual security challenges while also providing us opportunities for partnerships that will naturally create a deterrence that covers large expanses of this large region.
The focus is not just on separate ground, naval and air forces.
The “AEGIS as my Wingman” concept is a great example of what platforms like JSF and AEGIS can do to individually become more capable by taking advantage of the synergy brought by each taking advantage of the other’s capabilities.
This is exciting because it forces us to think of new ways to collect, disseminate, and then execute operations in ways we have never considered before.
And because the information will be accessible to our partners who are on the network, you can distribute the information to several partners simultaneously, making the collective defense and deterrence in depth concepts even more important to collective security.
I would argue that the commanders of the AEGIS ships haven’t even thought about their role as wingman for fifth generation aircraft, but they will once the JSF is fully operationally and able to link its considerable capabilities with the significant capabilities of their ships.
Question: Your point is clearly that the process is not simply a one-way street with regard to allies in the region. It is about crosscutting modernizations, in which allies are bringing significant capabilities to the party. It is a challenge to re-set the working relationship to shape an approach like the Australian policy maker has in mind, namely to find sweet spots between allies modernization and those of the United States.
This is a challenge which requires a rethink from a bilateral arena where the US is providing capabilities for bilateral defense to one in which cross-cutting modernizations are being forged into deterrence in depth for Pacific defense.
How do you view the allied contribution?
Lt. General Robling: I think that sums up nicely the way ahead. Let me provide you with an Air Force example.
The U.S. Air Force has completely dominated the world with its ability to command and control large formations of technologically superior aircraft in any given battle space. In fact, their ability to provide a Combatant Commander with not just air supremacy but air dominance has been unmatched.
Now, they will be able to partner with some of our friends and allies that are buying strike aircraft like the JSF and command and control platforms like “Wedgetail”. Air supremacy now doesn’t have to come from US assets alone.
Question: My next to final question is about HA/DR or humanitarian assistance and disaster relief challenges. These are part of the challenges in the region but also part of the ongoing efforts to reshape the USN-USMC team to be more effective as a force in the region. How do you view the role of HA/DR within the operational context?
Lt. General Robling: Recently, I had a discussion with a think tank in Australia. After I spoke, one individual asked me if was talking out of both sides of my mouth by emphasizing the Marine Corps capabilities to fight and win on the battlefield, while at the same time emphasizing how important we are to responding to HA/DR disasters in the region.
I simply pointed out that we have only one US Marine Corps; one USN-USMC team. They’re all steely-eyed trained killers, but because of the way we train, equip and organize, we are just very, very good at responding to disasters, and doing so in a way better than anyone else can. I also emphasized that not one of those Marines carries a military occupational specialty code that relates to HA/DR.
Question: My final question is about the impact of the distributed laydown and exercises on equipment needs.
It is clear that as the USAF focuses upon distributed its assets within the region to maximize its effectiveness, that C-17s become a priority asset, not easily available to the US Army or USMC. This must mean for the USMC that the demand on amphibious shipping and MSC, on the one hand, and the KC-130J tanking and lift fleet goes up.
How do you view the impact of the demand signal in this area?
Lt. General Robling: The demand signal goes up every year while the cost of using the lift goes up every year as well. This has me very concerned.
Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific, Lt. Gen. Terry Robling speaks with a U.S. Marine Corps honor guard following a commemoration ceremony here. The general commemorated ANZAC Day by laying down a wreath here on behalf of the United States Marines serving in the region. Other leaders and military component commanders also attended the ceremony. ANZAC Day is a national day of remembrance for the Australian and New Zealand service members who have fought in wars since World War I. Credit; US Pacific Command, 4/25/13
The truth of the matter is the Asia Pacific region is 52% of the globes surface and there are over 25,000 islands in the region. The distances and times necessary to respond to a crisis are significant. The size of the AOR is illustrated in part by the challenge of finding the missing Malaysian airliner.
If you don’t have the inherent capability like the KC-130J aircraft to get your equipment and people into places rapidly, you can quickly become irrelevant. General Hawk Carlisle uses a term in his engagement strategy which is “places; not bases”.
America doesn’t want forward bases. This means you have to have the lift to get to places quickly, be able to operate in an expeditionary environment when you get there, and then leave when you are done.
Strengthening our current partnerships and making new ones will go a long way in helping us be successful at this strategy. We have to be invited in before we can help. If you don’t have pre-positioned equipment already in these countries, then you have to move it in somehow.
And, right now, we’re moving in either via naval shipping, black bottom shipping, or when we really need it there quickly, via KC-130J aircraft or available C-17 aircraft. Right now, we are the only force in the Pacific that can get to a crisis quickly, and the only force that operates as an integrated air, sea and ground organization.
This takes us full circle back to the Australians. They are working to more effectively to integrate their air, ground and naval forces and, as a result, our ability to find and cultivate “ a mutual sweet spot” with them will go up over the next decade.
Editor’s Note: A measure of the evolving possibilities was the presence of two USMC aviators at the recent Williams Foundation seminar on the evolution of air combat capabilities. As Vice Air Marshall (Retired) John Blackburn, an organizer of the conference put it with regard to the presence of Marines in the conference and the coming deployment to Australia:
Having the Marines come onboard in Australia is important as well. It’s really good to see how a truly a joint force is doing its job.
One of the challenges we’ll face in Australia is making sure that the Army, Air Force, and Navy work together in an even more integrated way to produce a better combat outcome.
And it’s one of the key challenges for the Air Force is going to be to communicate that the JSF it’s not just a shiny expensive airplane.
This is a transformation point, a trigger.
It can change the way not on the Air Force works but all the three services work together.
The Marines are a great example of working the different elements of a joint force.
For earlier pieces on MARFORPAC and Pacific defense see the following:
2014-04-16 Clearly, the Arctic is a major area of interest for the major Arctic powers as well as global economic powers like Japan and China, who are not one of the five powers with direct claims.
The gradual melting of Arctic ice is creating the beginnings of a very different strategic situation affecting the Pacific states, Russia, the United States, Canada and Europe. The operational geography for trade, exploitation of raw materials, and military forces is becoming altered by that most powerful of forces – nature.
The opening of the Arctic is an event somewhat parallel to the building of the Suez or Panama Canal. The two great canals of the 19th and early 20th centuries changed the face of the United States and of Europe. The new significance of the northern routes could well do the same for Russia.
Transpoloar sea route. From http://www.thearcticinstitute.org
The impact of the Suez Canal was considerable in changing the 19th century. As one analyst of the geography of transportation has put it: The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 “brought a new era of European influence in Pacific Asia by reducing the journey from Asia to Europe by about 6,000 kilometers. The region became commercially accessible and colonial trade expanded as a result of increased interactions because of a reduced friction of distance. Great Britain, the maritime power of the time, benefited substantially from this improved access.”[i]
With regard to the Panama Canal, the East and West coasts of the United States became part of the same country in a fundamental way. And the United States transition to becoming a global power was facilitated by the opening of the “big ditch” as well. The Panama Canal shortens the maritime distances between them by a factor of 13,000 kilometers.
It will take awhile for the full impact of the opening of the Arctic to be realized, but the country whose destiny will be most altered will be Russia, an emerging maritime country.
Yes you read that correctly, the great landlocked power, will emerge as an important maritime player and with it different roles for Canada, the United States, Asia and Europe.
To get a sense of what is involved one needs to look at a map from the top of the world down.
As the sea lanes in the Arctic-bordered regions become capable of longer periods of transit, the Northern sea routes or the Northwest passage becomes a link at the top of the world which can connect Europe and the Northern Pacific in ways that rival the traditional transit routes Southward through the world’s great canals.
But it is not simply about transit. It is about access to raw materials as well.
The Arctic holds significant oil, natural gas, rare earth minerals and other commodities vital to global economic development. Exploitation is challenging and costly; but the long-term trajectory is very clear: the region will be a central economic zone for the global economy.
A helicopter view of NS 50 Let Pobedy nuclear-powered icebreaker sailing toward the North Pole. (RIA Novosti / Vladimir Astapkovich)
The two trends – transport and raw material extraction – will become combined. For example, for states like Japan and South Korea, which have no landward reach to raw materials as does China, these states will now have an alternative path to acquire raw materials and have than transited to their factories. Rather than simply relying on the Middle East, for example, South Korea and Japan can work with Russia and others to gain access to Liquid Natural Gas and then have that product transported directly to their ports.
Russia is at the center of these developments.
The Russian European ports can look forward to be directly connected with the Pacific ports and with it the growth of infrastructure, ports, facilities and shipping, along the way.
This transforms the Russian defense and security challenge to one of securing the trade and resource development belt. It also will see a significant upsurge over the next thirty years of traffic, commercial and military, through the area.
It will be in Russia’s interest to build air and naval assets, which can provide for the various needs for defense and security in the region.
Search and rescue, communications, maritime domain awareness, significant ISR capabilities, bomber coverage, submarine and surface fleet coverage and related efforts will become prioritized.
A new Arctic activism by Russia may well be part of the resurgence of Russia seen in recent Ukrainian developments.
A recent piece on RT (previously known as Russia Today), the international multilingual Russian-based TV network created in 2005 underscores a Russian perspective on the heating up of the Arctic competition.
But actions often speak louder than words. As the icecaps are melting, a military race is also building up in the region.
The US Navy recently debuted a revised roadmap focused on expanding America’s muscle in the world’s coldest ocean over the next decade, increasing the number of personnel trained in Arctic operations, advancing technical equipment and surveillance needs.
The ultimate goal appears to be establishing international order under US leadership.
“They want to be a leader and they see themselves as a driving force in the future planning of the Arctic,” Canadian journalist Ed Struzhik told RT.
Earlier this year, NATO countries participated in a Norwegian-led Cold Response exercise in the Arctic, rehearsing high intensity operations with 16,000 troops deployed in extreme conditions. Non-NATO participants, Sweden and Switzerland, also took part.
“The United States is anxious to militarize the Arctic Ocean. It has to do it via its relations with Canada and it is also seeking to do it via NATO, through the participation of Norway and Denmark in NATO. And now it is calling upon Sweden and Finland to essentially join NATO with a view to establishing a NATO agenda in the Arctic,” Michel Chossudovsky, from the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal, revealed.
Meanwhile, Canada has been staging its own independent drills with hundreds of soldiers participating in cold-weather winter warfare exercises.
Not to be left out, last year Russia announced the resumption of a constant armed presence in the Arctic, which was abandoned by the military after the fall of the USSR.
The Russian Navy’s task group headed by the country’s most powerful battleship and the flagship of the Northern Fleet, cruiser Peter the Great (Pyotr Veliky)went on a long-distance cruise in the Subarctic along the Northern Sea Route, which became a flagship mission in the region.
The group was accompanied by four nuclear icebreakers facilitating the passage through areas with particularly thick ice.
Now the once deactivated infrastructure will resume operation, with Russian strategic bombers patrolling the Arctic on a regular basis.
Last month, Russia’s Airborne Troops parachute-landed on drifting ice flows in the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole in a first-ever daredevil training search-and-rescue operation.
Moscow has been calling for tighter security along the country’s arctic frontiers and along its maritime transportation routes in the polar region…..
After highlighting that international cooperation in the Arctic was the best way to proceed for the use of Arctic resources, the piece then noted the following:
Back in 2012, Russia’s former envoy to NATO and current Vice Prime Minister, Dmitry Rogozin, said that by the middle of the 21st century the fight for resources between various states will become “uncivilized.”
In about 40 years, Russia may lose its sovereignty if it fails to clearly set out its national interests in the Arctic, Rogozin said.
“It’s crucially important for us to set goals for our national interests in this region. If we don’t do that, we will lose the battle for resources which means we’ll also lose in a big battle for the right to have sovereignty and independence,” Rogozin stated at a Marine Board meeting in Moscow.
(For the article and the video accompanying the article see the following:
But the Arctic is clearly not a pure hard or soft power domain.
The area needs significant cooperation to work.
This does not imply that military means are not part of the equation in assisting in core ISR, C2, Search and Rescue and other tasks.
Nor that having military means when others do not can clearly be useful when interpreting the map and interests in the fluid and dynamic region at the top of the world.
For additional pieces on Second Line of Defense see the following:
[i] Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Claude Comotois, and Brian Slack, The Geography of Transport Systems (London: Routledge, 2009), Second Edition, Kindle Edition, Location 1590
In the United States, the Korean War is sometimes referred to as “The Forgotten War,” sandwiched as it was between World War II and the Vietnam War.
In South Korea, however, that conflict remains top-of-mind, as evidenced by the City of Osan’s announcement on Wednesday that it is acquiring the site of the first battle of that war in which U.S. Troops fought and died to build a Memorial Park on that site in their honor.
On June 25, 1950 North Korea invaded its neighbor, with ten divisions rolling south and meeting little resistance. The United States, with few assets in the region as the military downsizing post-WW II was well underway, turned to the 21st Infantry Regiment, then serving in occupied Japan. The regiment sent a small advance force to Korea by air.
An American soldier (Robert L. Witzig) with a 2.36-inch bazooka prepares to take aim at a North Korean tank during the Battle of Osan. On his right is Kenneth R. Shadrick, who would later be reported as the first American killed in the Korean War. Credit: US Army
Major General William F. Dean ordered Lt. Col. Charles Bradford Smith to “block the road as far north as possible” with a hastily thrown together unit including Company B and C of the 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry. They were joined with A Battery of the 52nd Field Artillery Battalion for a combined force of 406 infantrymen and 134 artillerymen, now known as Task Force Smith.
Smith established a defensive position in the low hills surrounding the main road headed south from Seoul to Osan. On July 5, 1950 they met the invading force spearheaded by 33 Soviet-made T34 tanks, considered the best in the world at that time. The WW II era anti-tank weapons used by U.S. troops failed to stop the advancing armor. Next, 5,000 North Korean soldiers joined the assault. The outcome was predictable – heavy U.S. casualties and a forced withdrawal.
The story doesn’t end there.
Their bravery slowed the North Korean advance by eight hours, buying valuable time for organizing an effective defensive stand that included the balance of the 21st Infantry Regiment, which arrived in Korea by ship.
And today, the memory of that battle is very much alive in South Korea.
Last summer, the City of Osan opened the UN Forces First Battle Memorial Museum to honor the men of Task Force Smith.
The museum’s website, www.tfsmemorial.com , is itself a great tribute to Task Force Smith.
In addition to a history of the battle, it includes the names of the 540 U.S. soldiers who fought there and the pictures of many of these men prior to the battle. The just announced Memorial Park will have a grove of 540 pine trees in their honor.
The greatest memorial to Task Force Smith, and to the U.S. and international soldiers who followed in their footsteps, is South Korea itself.
Today that nation is home to the world’s 12th largest economy. Its Gross Domestic Product per Capita is $33,000. Compare this to North Korea, where the Gross Domestic Product per Capita is just $1,800.
South Korea is not just an economic success; it is a geopolitical success – a stable democracy in a strategic part of the world and a loyal U.S. ally.
More than 300,000 South Korean troops fought alongside U.S. forces in Vietnam. Its military backed the U.S. in Operation Desert Storm. During the Second Gulf War, 18,000 South Korean soldiers volunteered to serve in Iraq and more than 3,000 did serve. And in Afghanistan, 5,000 South Korean troops were part of the international coalition to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
It’s notable that Mayor Kwak Sang-Wook of Osan said recently that one of the primary reasons for building the memorial park is so that generations of Korean school children can have the opportunity to learn about the war, and especially about the incredible sacrifice made on their behalf by soldiers from a distant land.
The Battle of Osan lasted just eight hours, but its impact continues to be felt today, more than 60 years after the last shot was fired.
Editor’s Note: The combat history narrated above is combined from several contemporary accounts of true courage in the Korean War.
The author recommends reading what he considers one of the best books every written about the American way of war which is based on the Korean War experience: T.R Fehrenbach’s, This Kind of War.
Because of the sinking on Wednesday morning of a South Koren ferry carrying 470 passengers, the City postponed the official announcement until next Wednesday.
The new F-35 pilot-training program at Luke Air Force Base in Glendale is developing aviators for an era of warfare the world has yet to experience.
Future fights will be contested on the digital frontier, according to military analysts who have studied the supersonic stealth fighter jets.
Unlike conventional warfare, next-generation battles will rely on cutting-edge technology linking networks of allied weapons systems that together can locate and destroy targets many miles away. Planes, ships, missiles and troops from various countries will be able to talk to each other and plot tactics literally on the fly.
“The F-35 will achieve its greatness as a coalition leader where information dominance is key,” said Michael W. Wynne, who previously served as secretary of the Air Force and as a former executive for the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin.
If the stealth F-35 Lightning II jets perform as envisioned, the next generation of pilots might never see targets with their own eyes and might never fly close enough to adversaries to become involved in one-on-one dogfights.
The planes are designed to engage in electronic warfare using sophisticated airborne computer systems that tie in to their sensors and communications systems. They require more than 8 million lines of software code to integrate their systems. The stealth F-22 Raptor fighters that became fully operational in 2005 require 2.2 million lines of code.
As a result, F-35 pilots will be able to fly undetected past enemy radar and defense systems to identify targets on the ground, sea or air, according to analysts.
Pilots from the U.S. and allied countries flying F-35s 25 to 30 miles apart will be able to stitch together real-time maps that all of them will be able to use. They also will be able to direct their own missiles — or weapons from other planes, ships, submarines or ground stations — to targets they’ve selected while airborne.
The idea is that pilots will become battle managers — and that kids who grew up using iPhones will fill those jobs…..
