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.
The visit to South Africa last week by Brazilian defense minister Celso Amorim has resulted in defense ties between the two countries being strengthened, with cooperation in the fields of training and technology, particularly regarding air-to-air missiles.
During his four-day visit to Africa between March 19 and 22, Amorim visited Angola, Mozambique and South Africa.
Whilst in South Africa he stopped by Denel Dynamics’ facilities in Centurion, where the company is developing the fifth generation A-Darter short-range air-to-air missile (AAM) in conjunction with Brazil.
In Brazil, A-Darter development is managed by the Brazilian Air Force’s Combat Aircraft Programme Coordinating Committee (Copac). Currently, Brazil has nine personnel at the company’s headquarters on the outskirts of Pretoria, which have the task of monitoring the project, the Brazilian defense ministry said.
The A-Darter Missile. Credit: defenceWEb
The A-Darter is in its final stage of development, a stage that includes the preparation of manufacturing equipment. Components for the 12 km range missile are manufactured in South Africa and Brazil, with extensive technology transfer and integration between the industries of the two countries.
Brazilian participation in the project involves Avibras, Mectron and Opto Eletronica. Mectron makes all Brazil’s missiles (MAA-1/B Piranha air-to-air missile, MAR-1 anti-radar missile and MSS-1.2 anti-armour missile).
Avibras is assisting with development of the A-Darter’s rocket motor and Opto Eletronica is participating in the development of the A-Darter’s seeker head. On the South African side, responsibility lies with state-owned company Denel, through its subsidiary Denel Dynamics.
According to Brazilian and South African engineers working on the project, the missile’s development will be completed in the second half of 2015, the Brazilian defense ministry said.
Testing has already been done on SAAF Gripen C/Ds, which should accelerate the integration of the weapon onto Brazilian Gripen NGs when these are delivered from 2018.
Since 2006, when the contract for the missile’s development was signed, Brazil has sent 64 military and civilian professionals to South Africa, mostly engineers, to participate directly in the project. “This is the kind of South-South cooperation that we seek”, said Amorim during his visit to Denel, where he saw the prototype of the A-Darter.
The A-Darter missile was specifically mentioned during a bilateral meeting held between Amorim and South African defense minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula on March 20 in Pretoria, where it was hailed as an example of successful partnership.
“The South-South cooperation is a priority in our foreign policy,” said Mapisa-Nqakula, who also stressed the importance of sharing information and conducting joint military exercises.
In a statement to the press, the ministers mentioned the willingness of Brazil and South Africa to strengthen the relationship between the defence industries of both countries. One possibility in this field is the joint development of a new air-to-air missile with a range of up to 100 km.
The Brazilian defence ministry said that South Africa and Brazil maintain strong defence ties, including officer training and joint military exercises.
Amorim said that Brazil and South Africa are “ideal partners in defense,” as they have similar geopolitical visions, an independent political stance in the world, are at similar stages of development, and also have common challenges and needs in the technological field.
The bilateral defense relationship between Brazil and South Africa was formalised in 2003 with the signing of the Agreement on Cooperation in Defence Related Matters by former ministers of defense from both countries.
Further evidence of defense cooperation will be when the Brazilian and Indian navies steam into Simon’s Town in October for the trilateral maritime exercise Ibsamar.
South Africa will also participate in exercise Atlasur with the Argentinean, Uruguayan and Brazilian navies.
Republished with the permission of our partner defenceWeb:
During the visit of the Second Line of Defense team to New River on February 10, 2014, we had a chance to sit down with Lt. Col. Ennis to discuss his experience with the Osprey, and preparing for operational innovations, such as CASEVAC.
We also discussed his preparation for working with the CH-53K program.
Lt. Col. Ennis During SLD Interview at New River, February 10, 2014. Credit: SLD
Lt. Col. Ennis has been with the Osprey program for a considerable period of time, from 2003. He was part of VMX-22 and worked with the introduction of the Osprey into USMC operations. He is becoming the government’s flight test director.
He will be bringing his Osprey experience to the K test program and he noted that one area where the MV-22 is very good and the CH-53 is not is with regard to brownout situations.
The Osprey has a good capability to land in a brownout situation whereas the CH-53Es currently would rather encounter the enemy than deal with a brownout situation.
They would rather land right next to a compound that has a known enemy as opposed to land in open desert.
He also described his experience of going from test pilot to operational experience in Afghanistan and its importance to the evolution of the aircraft itself.
They are a lot of things the test community is working on that are not necessarily the focus of the actual fleet which is deployed.
This gap needs to be closed.
During his time in Afghanistan last year, he was involved in shaping a MEDEVAC role for the Osprey.
Clearly, the advantage of the Osprey over current Army rotorcraft is the ability to operate over a much broader range without the significant Forward Operating Base infrastructure required by the Army medevac approach.
He described that in a situation where there are many troops and FOBs, the current US Army approach works well and operates largely in a 40 nautical mile radius.
When forces are dispersed and one does not have a large support infrastructure, the situation is different and the Osprey can perform the MEDEVAC mission over a much larger area without a significant FOB infrastructure.
We put Ospreys in two different locations to cover an operating area. The two can cover the area in between if they pick up from one location and drop to the other.
We went out to something like 160 nautical miles because if you can fly between point A and point B, it is basically a big ellipse which works out to a distance of 160 nautical miles.
The Osprey can be fitted nicely with the MEDEVAC gear as well.
If you put every litter in the back it can hold 12 patients, but that is not ideal.
You would prefer six so that you can have the medical staff and support gear spaced out.
Normally, you would strap the gurneys to the floor, rather than use litters, because at that point you can work all around the patients.
Outfitted for a MEDEVAC operation the seats fold up and the litters stack up against the walls.
Notably, the USMC prepared for the possible use of the Osprey in the MEDEVAC role for the very beginning of its deployment history.
Chief Petty Officer Richard B. Guerrero, a Chief Hospital Corpsmen with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 (Reinforced), 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, cares for a patient aboard an MV-22B Osprey during an emergency medical evacuation June 25, 2009. The Sailor sustained head and hip injuries and was experiencing chest pains after falling while aboard USS Bataan (LHD 5). This is the first time the Osprey has been used to conduct an emergency evacuation from a U.S. Naval ship. (Official USMC photo)
Now, the possibility should become a reality to transform the capabilities for MEDEVAC operations intra-theater.
Editor’s Note: For the Video Above:
02/23/2014: U.S. Marines and Navy Corpsmen with 2nd Marine Aircraft (Forward) conduct a casualty evacuation (CASEVAC) rehearsal from Helmand Province, Afghanistan on March 31, 2013. The rehearsal was executed in order to train and prepare Marines and Sailors for a real CASEVAC scenario.
The Osprey provides significant advantages versus helos for medevac missions. The Ospreys reach and range allow it to operate from a single base and cover territory, which several Forward Operating Bases would be needed to execute the same mission. And the LZ flexibility of the plane provides greater security than does a helo.
Credit:2nd MAW Forward:3/31/13
An earlier piece focused on how the Marines have been preparing for this role since the initial deployment of the aircraft:
Already in 2008, the Marines had incorporated the MV-22 into battlefield medical evacuation. The manual adds the training for the MV-22 to the range of capabilities, which can support the medical evacuation mission.
Tilt-rotor aircraft that takes off and lands vertically but flies like a plane. This aircraft is designed to eventually replace the CH-46.
– When configured for litter racks, able to carry 12 litters or 24 ambulatory casualties.
NOTE: The Marine Corps does not have dedicated CASEVAC aircraft. Any of its aircraft can be utilized as a “lift of opportunity” upon completion of its primary mission.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS: Field Medical Training Battalion Camp Lejeune
In short, you get the new technology into play, use it, and train to the mission.
That is key method whereby innovation occurs for a combat force.
The story below highlights the first medical evacuation conducted by the Osprey from Sea:
MV-22 Ospreys Conduct First-Ever Medical Evacuation 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit Courtesy Story Thursday, June 6, 2009
USS BATAAN, at Sea — The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit made history by using two MV-22B Ospreys, assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, to conduct a ship-to-shore emergency medical evacuation of a Sailor from USS Bataan, June 25.
This is the first time the aircraft has been used to conduct such a mission from the sea.
At approximately 4:30 p.m., two Ospreys were returning to Bataan after a routine mission when the pilots were notified of an emergency situation. The aircraft were ordered to return to the ship at maximum speed.
After landing aboard Bataan, the patient and team of medical personnel were brought aboard the aircraft and lifted off at 4:50 p.m. from Bataan’s flight deck. The aircraft travelled 147 nautical miles in 37 minutes to a regional airport where an ambulance was used to transfer the Sailor to a hospital for further treatment.
The Sailor sustained head and hip injuries as well as chest pains after falling. The Sailor is in stable condition in the U.S. Central Command area awaiting further transfer.
“Everybody from the ship made this very easy for us,” said Maj. Brett A. Hart, assistant operations officer for VMM 263 and one of the pilots on the mission. “It was an all-hands effort and everybody gave their utmost to ensure the safety of this Sailor.”
Hart, who has had experience in conducting MEDEVACS in other aircraft like the CH-46E Sea Knight, said the biggest difference with using the Osprey was the rapid speed with which the mission was executed.
“By virtue of having this aircraft, we were able to do it much faster and farther,” he said. “This is a fine example of why we have an aircraft like this.”
The 22nd MEU deployed, May 15, aboard ships from the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and is currently deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations.
The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit is a multi-purpose force of more than 2,200 Marines and Sailors. Led by Col. Gareth F. Brandl, the 22nd MEU is composed of its Ground Combat Element, Battalion Landing Team, 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment; Aviation Combat Element, VMM-263; Logistics Combat Element, Combat Logistics Battalion 22; and its Command Element.
Earlier I wrote about the role of European firms in the augmentation of allied Pacific defense capabilities.
In American discussions of the re-shaping of Pacific defense, naturally the primary focus is upon the American role and contribution. Lost in such a focus often is how the Asian allies are shaping their defense and security futures and shaping those futures in part by building upon evolving European systems.
European defense industry plays a growing role in Asian defense and security.
And they are doing so by offering core products of interest in the region and being congruent with core demands of the 21st century Asian customers.
The larger Asian customers clearly wish to expand their capabilities to produce their “own” equipment. What this means in a global age is that industrial partnerships between European and Asian firms are a key part of the growing European presence. This means as well that “re-export” of European systems from Asia will be part of the 21st century reality of the global market.
During my visit to Australia in early March 2014, I had a chance to talk with the CEO of Thales Australia, Chris Jenkins. We focused on the Thales engagement in Australia and highlighted the Thales business model in the country.
Thales, Australia produces the simulator for the Wedgetail system. This is the first software upgradeable combat aircraft of the 21st century generation of AE and W aircraft. Credit: Thales, Australia.
The basic dynamic for Thales in Australia has been as follows: transfer of technology from Europe to Australia, the shaping of indigenous capabilities which grow the ability to support and upgrade the product, and the export FROM Australia of maturing products into the global market served by Thales, with Thales providing a global support framework within which to insert exports from Australia.
According to the Thales website, Jenkins has a long history of working in Australia and with Department of Defence there.
Chris Jenkins is a defense industry leader, a passionate believer in local skills, and a strong advocate for Australian manufacturing.
He has held senior roles in Thales locally and internationally for over 17 years, playing a crucial role in transforming the company from five separate businesses into one of Australia’s largest suppliers of mission critical products and services.
His appointment as Thales Australia CEO in January 2008 followed two years as Vice President Operations, and before that three years as CEO of a Thales consortium in the Netherlands, delivering that country’s national public transport smartcard program.
Prior to this, Chris was Managing Director of Thales Underwater Systems in Australia from 1999 to 2003. He previously held senior marketing, sales and project director roles in the business, and was also a key player in its creation as a Thales/GEC joint venture in 1996.
Chris started in the defense industry as a mechanical engineer with Racal in 1981, Plessey in 1983, and then GEC Marconi in 1990 heading up its Underwater Systems business in Australia.
Chris is currently Chairman of the Board of Directors for the International Centre for Complex Project Management and Chairman of the AIG Defence Council. He is also a member of the AIG NSW Executive and the AIG National Executive.
He was a member of the Prime Minister’s Manufacturing Taskforce and is a member of the Manufacturing Leaders Group.
In the discussion with Jenkins, he highlighted the sonar business as an example of the Thales approach in Australia.The business started with the transfer of French technology to Australia in the early 1980s. The technology was used by the Australians to support their submarine program, and as the sonar systems were integrated into Aussie platforms, a team was created to support the technology, which basically meant, an ability to upgrade the system and to develop intellectual property along the way to shape the course of the modernization of the capability.
As indigenous capability was forged, the evolving technology was Australian and available for export, and has been done so in the UK Astute submarine program as well as in support of oil and gas platform support systems.
Thales started with a small team of French engineers working in Australia to transfer sonar technology and by the 1990s had nearly 500 people, mostly Australians, working on the program and exporting from Australia.
As Jenkins put it:
Australia is a long way away from major defense industrial centers in the West.
This means that indigenous support is crucial to the effectiveness of any program sold and then developed within Australia.
It is not just a ‘nice to have’ capability; it is crucial to the success of any technology imported into Australia.
This means as well that implanting the technology and supporting it leads to the real possibility of further development of the technology for global export.
We generate local engineering expertise through transfer of knowledge in the country. Then we generate the right solutions and agile responses to the nation’s evolving needs.
In the sonar related business areas, according to Jenkins, Thales has exported $300 million (Australian) dollars worth of sonar systems and $150 million (Australian) dollars worth of mine sweeping equipment.
Thales produces world class acoustic sweeps in Australia. Photo Credit: Thales, Australia
This has meant that the further development of Australian-based sonar systems is paid for in part by exports and not simply by Australian defense programs.
According to Jenkins:
If you look at our sonar transducers, we’ve exported them to France for a wide variety of applications. Our mine-hunting sonars are exported into the wider Thales organization both into the UK and France. The mine-sweeping gear we jointly developed with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). We have a very close and important knowledge relationship with the DTSO.
And we have sold the minesweeping systems to a number of navies, including the US Navy, and the UK, South Korean and Japanese navies.
A very large number of navies have bought our minesweeping gear. It’s quite a breakthrough technology.
Jenkins focused throughout the interview on the importance of the sustainment of a product. By sustainment, he meant both maintainability and upgradeability of the product.
“It is about keeping the technology at the level the end user needs to meet whatever challenges the platform is meeting in its operational life.”
Thales has designed the next generation vehicle in Australian protected mobility vehicles. Meeting the needs of a defense force constantly challenged by Improvised Explosive Devices, mines or small arms ambushes, its our aim to provide a highly mobile, light protected vehicle to meet today’s and tomorrow’s operational needs. Credit Text and Photo: Thales, Australia
He underscored that the approach taken with regard to sonars has been followed in other business areas in Australia, such as air traffic management, protected mobility vehicles and simulation.
He discussed as well the vehicles area as one where Thales has played a significant role for the Australian Army.
The Bushmaster vehicle was designed in Australia, and we worked with the Australian Army to evolve the system over time as needs were identified.
We have exported a number of these vehicles to the Netherlands and Jamaica, and are currently pursuing other export opportunities.
Jenkins highlighted the basic approach being followed by the company in Australia as follows:
Thales was one of the first international investors to really embrace the idea of intellectual property exchange into Australia, with the expertise then further developed through training within Australia itself.
We built upon this approach with the acquisition of ADI Limited, which gave the company an important offering into Australian defense.
We concluded the discussion by focusing on the emergent role of unmanned maritime vehicles in the mine sweeping mission.
We see the emergence of robotic vehicles at sea as a key element of the changing business area for mine sweeping technologies, and are positioning ourselves to be in the forefront of the relevant technologies.
On the Thales portfolio in Australia see the following:
The search for the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370 only underscored how vast and difficult an area to operate in the Pacific is.
The Indians have enhanced the reach of the navy to operate into the Pacific more effectively.
Part of this enhanced capability is the acquisition and operation of the new P-8 maritime surveillances system, which will become a broader capability as the Australians and the US engage in ways to share data among a fleet of P-8s, as appropriate to the needs of national sovereignty.
The Indian P-8 during the search. Credit: India Strategic
In a piece just published by our partner India Strategic, the search for the Malaysian airliner is discussed with the tragic conclusions.
Kuala Lumpur. The Malaysian Government has confirmed with terrible finality that the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370 crashed in southern Indian Ocean, hours after it took off from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing on March 8.
Prime Minister Najib Razak announced March 24 that the conclusion was based on data provided by global satellite company INMARSAT, whose analysis indicated that the Boeing 700-200 flew some 2000 km south west of Malaysia , deep into the southern Indian Ocean .
The INMARSAT presentation was led by officials of the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB).
Mr Razak expressed “deep sadness and regret” adding that families of those on board had been informed.
There were no answers to the many WHYs but many aviation experts observe that the course of the Kuala Lumpur-Beijing flight towards tragedy was set by human hands for possible suicide or mass murder of the 239 passengers and crew on board.
Nonetheless, till the Flight Data Recorder, commonly known as the Black Box, is recovered, it would be near impossible to ascertain what exactly happened in the cockpit of the aircraft and was the diversion voluntary or forced.
The information though may still not be conclusive as the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder in the Black Box work in a loop, erasing data after a fixed time while loading new data. The aircraft flew for about seven hours, and data available may only be of the last two hours.
The Boeing 777-200, a sophisticated and reliable aircraft, took a V-turn South-West deep towards the Indian Ocean, and just before the diversion, someone or somehow, the transponders of the aircraft were switched off. It appears though while it descended for a short while, it flew back to the normal height of around 30,000 feet that the jets take to optimize fuel consumption, and continued flying till it plunged into the waters.
P-8i SAR track during the search. Credit: India Strategic
Said Razak: They (AAIB representatives) informed me that INMARSAT, the UK company that provided the satellite data which indicated the northern and southern corridors, has been performing further calculations on the data. Using a type of analysis never before used in an investigation of this sort, they have been able to shed more light on MH370’s flight path.”
“Based on their new analysis, INMARSAT and the AAIB have concluded that MH370 flew along the southern corridor, and that its last position was in the middle of the Indian Ocean, west of Perth,” he said.
INMARSAT runs a sophisticated network of satellites for navigating shipping and aviation industry. It did an analysis of the pings – or satellite signals that could not have been switched off from the cockpit – picked up from the aircraft and formally briefed the Malaysian Prime Minister March 24 of the terrible conclusion.
Mr Razak said that the position of the crash point “is a remote location, far from any possible landing sites,” and so it had to be assumed that there were no survivors.
“It is therefore with deep sadness and regret that I must inform you that, according to this new data, Flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean.”
Notably, Australian aircraft have sighted debris, some in orange color and possibly that of the escape chutes, along with three other large pieces in the suspected area of crash. GPS locaters and flares have been dropped there and ships from US and Australia were on way to pick the debris, some of which should be picked up by March 25 despite the extreme weather conditions.
Vessels from China, Japan and South Korea were also reportedly in the vicinity.
A total of 26 countries including India have been involved in the search in different areas of the Indian Ocean as designated and coordinated by Malaysia.
The Indian Navy sent its most sophisticated aircraft, a Boeing P8-I Long Range Maritime Patrol (LRMR) aircraft while the Indian Air Force (IAF) sent a C 130J Super Hercules to Subong in Malaysia, from where they took flights in designated area 950 and 1300 nm away since March 23rd.
Most of the passengers on board the ill-fated airliner were Chinese. There were five Indians on board, including parents of an expatriate son who is married to a Chinese lady and working in China. They were going to meet the young couple.
The image of the Marines fighting in Guadalcanal or the US carriers fighting their way through the Japanese fleet in the Pacific are core images for war in the Pacific burnt deeply in the memory of Americans.
The challenges are different this time around but a new generation of Pacific warriors is being trained and shaped for missions central for Pacific defense and for the protection of US interests and the security of Americans living in the homeland.
There are clear links between tradition and the future such as when one visits the headquarters of the USMC in the Pacific.
The HQ building is named for HM Smith or “Howling Mad” Smith of Guadalcanal fame. Now those Marines working in the HQ building look out onto a Pacific with threats from both the PRC and North Korea facing them, and various challenges across the spectrum of warfare throughout a region very large, and very complex.
U.S. Marine Sgt. Robert W. Walker, center, explains the capabilities of the miniature deployable assistance water purification system to U.S. Marine Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling at a disaster site in Biang, Brunei Darussalam, June 19 as part of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief and Military Medicine Exercise (AHMX). The disaster site is the location of the field training exercise portion of the multilateral exercise, which provides a platform for regional partner nations to address shared security challenges, strengthen defense cooperation, enhance interoperability and promote stability in the region. Robling is the commanding general of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific. Walker is an engineer equipment electrical systems technician with 9th Engineer Support Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force. 6/19/13
The recent search for the missing Malaysian airliner reminds us of the vastness of the Pacific and the challenges of operating in such a vast region. Covering a territory which covers so much of the earth’s surface and with thousands of islands present a tapestry of operational complexity.
This is no place for amateurs.
As Admiral Nimitz confronted the last century’s challenges he concluded a core lesson for this century’s Pacific warriors:
“Having confronted the Imperial Japanese Navy’s skill, energy, persistence, and courage, Nimitz identified the key to victory: ‘training, TRAINING and M-O-R-E T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G.’ as quoted in Neptunes’s Inferno, The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal (James D. Hornfischer)”
The US and its core allies are shaping new capabilities to deal with the various threats and challenges in the Pacific in the time of the Asian century. Flexibility in operations and agility in inserting force with a proper calibration of effect will be enhanced as new systems come on line in the years ahead: the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) combination JSTRS and AWACS platform (remember the E-10 we did not buy) Wedgetail, the KC-30A (remember the advanced tanker developed for the USAF being operated by the RAAF and soon by the Singapore Air Force, 11 to be clear), the F-35 (where there are as many allied aircraft as US aircraft coming to the region), the USS Ford, the USS America, new missiles, the Osprey in the hands of the US and its allies, etc.
Aircraft from the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, Japan Air Self-Defense Force, and Royal Australian Air Force fly in formation over the Pacific Ocean in support of exercise Cope North 2013, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Feb. 5, 2013. During this event, the aviators trained on war-fighting integration tactics. Cope North is a multilateral aerial and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercise, held annually, designed to increase the combat readiness and interoperability of the U.S. military, JASDF, and RAAF. (Courtesy photo/Jim Haseltine/Released)
But these systems will have the proper effect only in the hands of skilled warriors.
And in this century this will mean not only the US training effectively but doing so from the ground up with its core allies and partners.
Recently, in an interview with members of the PACAF staff the growing salience of multinational exercises and training for the core competencies of the USAF and the joint force was underscored with regard to Red Flag 2014:
Our role as a facilitator is growing in broadening the engagement opportunities for allies to work together.
A good image of the change is that an Aussie Wedgetail was doing Command and Control for US, Japanese and South Korean jets at the recent Red Flag exercise.
And, for the first time, South Korean jets crossed through Japanese air space to come to fly with the participants in Red Flag.
Indeed, the ability of allies to work together in such a manner is a key part of the deterrence in depth strategy necessary to ensure the peace in a challenging Pacific region.
As Lt. General Robling, the Commanding General for the USMC in the Pacific put it in a recent interview:
It’s not about just building relationships in the region. It is about collective security in the region.
To build out collective security requires in part for us to engage in process of building out partner capacity, and working convergent capacities to shape effective and mutually beneficial relationships underlying the evolution of collective security.
Our working relationship with Australia is a case in point. Even though they, they see themselves as an island continent, they’ve really got to defend themselves much more forward than just waiting for threats to arrive.. And with the size of their force, they wouldn’t be able to do that by themselves. They would have to be a part of a, a collective security effort and ally with the US and other allies in the region in order to get more effective forward operating defense capability.
That’s why it’s important for us that they are buying JSF. That’s why it’s important that they have a Wedgetail. By having the two, they will combine an amazing airborne command and control capability with features of the JSF that can, that can increase their regional reach.
With the JSF, that can, that can take its sensors and pull in a lot of things that are happening from, a significant distance into a Wedgetail that’s flying off the coast of Australia. It makes perfect sense for them.
And when you have other countries like Japan buying the same types of military hardware, Singapore buying the same types of military hardware, the U.S. that’s forward deployed with similar hardware, it makes for a collective security capability that has a lot of depth.
I like the term deterrence and depth because that’s exactly what it is. It’s not about defense and depth. It’s about deterring and, and influencing others behavior so they, they comply with international norms.
The equipment is crucial; the technology is essential; sustainability over the vast distances of the Pacific a sine qua non of operational success.
But convergent modernization works only if there is in Admiral Nimitz’s words: “Training, training and more training.”
A Japanese landing craft air cushion (LCAC) lands on Red Beach as part of the initial offload for Exercise Dawn Blitz here, Camp Pendleton, CA, May 31, 2013. Credit: 11th MEU.
This point was emphasized throughout during a recent visit to MARFORPAC, PACAF and in Australia. It is clearly understood by the US forces in the region and our allies that collaborative efforts and effective joint forces do not happen by chance; you train to gain your tactical and strategic advantages.
There are two significant components of a nation’s military force that must be understood and focused on at the highest levels of a nation’s national military command. It is very simple to say and hard to execute; technology has to be available but it also had to be successfully understood and employed.
Just the word “available” carries with it significant operational challenges.
Simple numerical comparisons, and Orders of Battle, are useful and helpful to understand a strategic balance but can ignore important quantitative and qualitative factors.
For example, just counting force comparisons of total inventories can leave out essential considerations of regional deployments and U.S. alliance responsibilities. In addition, static comparisons may ignore the technological imperative affecting both the quality and quality of continuous weapon systems modernization initiatives.
On the human factor side, the measure of “successfully understood and employed” is the greatest challenge until actual combat. A nation has various cultural factors that impact on the selection process of their warriors. The best military is always built on the principle of meritocracy, promotion “up or out” is not just a slogan but one of the most important factors in building the critical intangible question;
Can a force at all ranks fight and win?
Out of a nation’s youth, there needs to be a selection process, then a basic training process progressing to combat training and comprehension of tactics and then continuous proficiency training. This really has not changed since armies came into existence and it always takes moral courage and good judgment by leaders who are not afraid of leaving many behind.
Embrace allies and always assume a reactive enemy can help in the effort to develop the necessary technology to try and mitigate any advantages. But with the worldwide proliferation of weapons even a second or third world nation might have state-of-the art systems. This enhances the importance of competence and preparation.
(From left) U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Paul McGillicuddy, Pacific Air Forces chief of staff, Japan Air Self-Defense Force Maj. Gen. Yutaka Masuko, Director of Defense Operations, Plans and Communications Directorate at the Air Defense Command Headquarters, Maj. Gen. Kevin Pottinger, Individual Mobility Augmentee to the Pacific Air Forces vice commander, and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Rear Adm. Ryo Sakai, Commander of Escort Flotilla 1 at Self-Defense Fleet, and U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Daniel Karbler, 94th Army Air Missile Defense commanding general, plan together during Integrated Air and Missile Defense Wargame V on Feb. 14, 2014, in the 613th Air Operations Center at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii. The exercise provided opportunities to simulate integrated engagements between joint U.S. forces and Japan Self-Defense Forces, while aiming to promote missile defense interoperability. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Nathan Allen)
A country’s military may have figured out all of the above but is going down a warfighting path that is often referred as asymmetric. “Asymmetric” is often thrown as an insightful debating point when it is just a simple way of saying at all times be cautious of the famous intelligence community dictum, avoid “mirror imaging” Of course asymmetric works both ways for opponents. One side maybe “asymmetric” and totally misdirected in terms of what is required for mission success. The problem is that mistakes will only be found out for real when the first round goes down range.
The other debating point often used is “disruptive technology” often a proposed deus ex machina that can be raised to take counsel of ones fears. The atomic bomb was a major “disruptive technology.” Being very specific the world wide scientific community has many, many papers in prestigious journals that capture trends of research that can lead to the next generation of “disruptive technology.” But briefing slides only kill audiences; they are not effective in battle.
Caution about the next disruptive technology is well taken, but it is often well-known globally, and it is more a race to actually putting the system into play and figuring out how to use it. This is why the cautious weapons testers holding back warriors get their hands on new platforms and figuring out what the path to upgrading them can be a clear problem.
Technologies are not disruptive in and of themselves.
Their effectiveness to become disruptively decisive will depend on the skill of the force.
A member of the Japan Air Self Defense Force observes Royal Australian Air Force KC-30A crews refuel RAAF F/A-18’s while participating in Cope North 13 near Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, Feb. 13, 2013. Cope North is an annual air combat tactics, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercise designed to increase the readiness and interoperability of the U.S. Air Force, Japan Air Self-Defense Force and Royal Australian Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Matthew Bruch/Released). 2/12/13
If we were waiting for the weapons testers, the Osprey revolution underway in the USMC would be an idea, not a reality.
Across the Pacific the US has coined a term the Air/Sea Battle, but it is not just a set of briefing slides. It is about real warriors figuring out how to get the kind of innovation and integration in the joint forces which can position the US and its allies to shape an effective Pacific defense strategy.
As Navy Captain Pat Connelly, currently the liaison from PACFLT to PACAF, underscored in a recent interview:
Basically, the Air Force and the Navy have been working at supporting one another for a long time. Air-Sea Battle is really just the next phase in codifying and further developing what we are already doing.
We are looking to enhance cross-domain synergy and to do a better job in coordinating and integrating the sensors and shooters which the US Army, USAF, USN and USMC can bring to bear on defense problems, and to work more effectively with allies contributing capabilities as well to the broader Pacific defense challenges.
It is Admiral Nimitz who must be listened to and not the “cubicle commandoes” in the DC “word tanks” to define the reality of air-sea battle. We report regularly on the words and actions of the military and civilians in the Pacific of all ranks in many nations that can give Americans the true picture of the state of the art of the 21st century Pacific warriors because that is who they are.
As Putin and his soldiers redraw the map of Europe, it is useful to remember that the Cold War was won in part by the US military and civilian leadership working with our closest allies in Europe in the effort to reshape US and allied forces to put in place a military approach which took the effectiveness of the Soviet military right off of the table.
It was clear to the last great military leader of the Soviet Union, Marshal Ogarkov, that the new air-land battle doctrine, equipment and training made the legacy Soviet forces a diminishing asset and argued for his own scientific-technological revolution to get ahead of the curve.
Fortunately, with the Farewell Affair built around a partnership between President’s Reagan and Mitterrand, the Soviets lost inside access to the evolution of US and allied military technologies. Their ability to compete severely reduced, the military underpinnings of credible Soviet military dominance in Europe was ending.
This is a lesson, which the PRC might well need to learn as well.
A remarkable US Army leader towards the end of his life indicated the crucial role which the reshaping of the US and allied militaries under the influence of Air-Land battle played in reshaping the strategic balance in Europe.
General Starry later told Army historians that in his view the three most important differences between the 1976 and 1982 versions of FM 100-5 were that the later version included a set of operational concepts that put us back on the nuclear and chemical battlefield, thus ensuring that an enemy’s surprise or first use of such weaponry would not enable him to win the war thereby; that it recognized and addressed the importance of attacking the enemy’s second and following echelons; and that it dealt with the balance between firepower and maneuver.
Re-shaping the doctrine, re-equipping the force, working a close cross-modernization process with allies, and “training, training and more training” reshaped the NATO forces facing the Warsaw Pact and contributed to the erosion of the Soviet Union.
The Pacific today is as demanding as the 1980s for challenges and dynamics of change.
As Putin has made clear by his latest actions, history is on the move once more. The challenge is to prepare, be ready and to provide for the kind of deterrence, which informs adversaries in advance that staring down the United States and its allies is not worth the effort.
2014-03-25 The global interdependence of the 21st century poses significant challenges when states are forced to handle disruptions, and when competitors to shape outcomes to their advantage use disruptions.
Energy security is clearly a key part of global interdependence, and managing energy security is a key challenge facing 21st century global players.
The crisis in Ukraine certainly brought home the dependence, which Europe has on energy supplies from Russia; in particular, German options in response to the crisis and to shape effective responses to Russian actions have been severely constrained by dependence upon Russia for energy needs.
This provides Russia with greater room for maneuver in pursuing its interests and shaping its options.
Russia has been abetted as well by its rising influence in the Middle East with the ebbing of the “Arab Spring” and significant uncertainties about stability in the region with its impact on the role of oil and gas exports from the region as well.
If the United States and Europe really wishes to get Putin’s attention, it would be about going after the revenue the Russians receive from over-dependence of the West on Russian energy sources. And President Obama would move ahead with the new pipeline with Canada and accelerate an effort to exploit oil shale and other capabilities for greater energy independence. Germany could as well address its non-existent energy independence policies.
Europe and the United States have also been affected by the two powers inability to address refinery capacity. The decline in refinery capacity in both – largely for environmentally charged reasons – has put both in a situation where an ability to surge stockpiles has been significantly reduced over time.
Over the past decade, most refining capacity addition has taken place in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East. This creates a favorable economic situation for liquid energy importers but not so much from a security point of view, whereby Europe and the US are in growing vulnerabilities to supply disruptions. Put in other terms, both regions rely more heavily upon the imports of liquid fuel from overseas refineries.
In turn, this enhances the importance of global maritime shipping, an area also under threat from instabilities in areas such as the South China Sea and the Malaccan Straits.
However challenging for Europe and the United States, Australia is in a significantly worse position.
As an island continent at the bottom of the Asia Pacific region, Australia is heavily dependent upon liquid energy imports and with a rapidly disappearing domestic refinery production capacity, these imports necessarily are with regard to refined end products as well.
Graph taken from the report Australia;s Liquid Fuel Security, 2013.
In reports produced in 2013 and 2014, Air Marshal (Retired) John Blackburn has highlighted the challenges for Australia and the importance for Australia to reshape its energy approach to avoid an inevitable crisis flowing from its situation of energy dependence. The rest of this article is drawn from Blackburn’s reports.
The combination of diminishing refinery capacity along with over-reliance on a stable flow of imports from Asia, the Middle East and North America, has led to a situation where no country would wish to be: Australia currently possess the equivalent of only 23 days of actual consumption of liquid fuels in country at any one time.
This means that the country is subject to significant disruption. Beyond the question of the disruption of supply from an unstable Middle East, there is the direct impact of any disruptions in Asia itself. As of 2011, Singapore provided 51% of Australia imports of petroleum products.
The threat from disruption of shipping lanes in the Asia Pacific region is a major one.
In times of significant economic turbulence, the security of shipping lanes is also an issue for consideration. Piracy, accidents, natural disasters, threats from state or non-state actors and closure of shipping lanes in times of tension or conflict – they all have the potential to impact the free flow of shipping and the timely delivery of oil supplies to Australia.
Defense planning has for decades included scenarios of defending the sea-air gap to the north of Australia. In such contingency operations, imported oil and petroleum supplies could be adversely impacted. In particular, Defense operations in the north of Australia would rely on the shipment of processed fuels into ports across the north of the country as there is not sufficient transport capacity in-country to transport the required amounts of fuels by land.
The shipping lanes to these ports would run through the potential area of operations and would therefore be at risk. It is concerning to note the Defence Minister’s recent speech to the Lowy Foundation: “Fuel supply is a critical factor in sustainability … While the fuel supply chain can meet current requirements, its resilience under the stress of major operations is much less certain.”
Ports In States with no refineries (South Australia, Northern Territory, Tasmania and NSW [by 2014]) all liquid fuels must be imported. Ports can be subject to disruption from a range of incidents including accidents, equipment failures, industrial action, natural disasters and terrorist attacks. For example, the primary fuel port in South Australia is at Port Adelaide; a single, narrow, shipping channel services the port. A blockage of that channel as the result of a shipping accident/incident, could result in significant and prolonged disruption to fuel supplies for Adelaide and a large part of the state.
Such a disruption would be beyond the ability of market forces to respond, given the inability to transport sufficient fuel stocks overland to South Australia. Similarly, the
Darwin Port Facilities could be a limiting factor as they would be the single point of entry for fuels to support domestic demands and potentially a significantly higher demand for Defense operations in times of contingency operations.
Such a situation makes it clear why Australian defense forces are concerned about the air and maritime transit points into and out of Australia, and why maritime security in the region is a very high priority for the Australian defense and security forces.
The defense and security of crucial infrastructure is a crucial requirement facing modern nations, whether it is energy or cyber security. To achieve a better situation for Australia, Blackburn proposes ways whereby Australia can put itself in a situation whereby a reasonable supply of energy stocks can be generated within Australia to allow for effective risk management when facing regional or global instability or threat situations.
The goal identified in the reports is to achieve by 2030 a 30% solution whereby
30% of our transport supply would be secure from source through to delivery. This would ensure basic services could function in Australia in the event of a major and sustained liquid fuel supply disruption.
To achieve 30% liquid fuel security at least cost we would need to implement a balanced portfolio of initiatives that:
Reduce the demand for liquid fuels;
Develop additional alternative fuel sources to complement the existing oil produced in Australia;
Ensure sufficient refining and processing capacity is maintained in Australia to process the secure liquid fuel sources; and
Ensure liquid fuel stockholdings levels in Australia do not drop below the level necessary to support a secure supply chain.
The 30% could, for example, comprise 10% from Australian-sourced oil and 20% from Australian-sourced alternative fuels.
These alternative fuels could include:
Biofuels;
Gas (LPG/LNG39/CNG);
Gas-to-liquid from conventional and nonconventional sources;
Coal-to-liquid fuels (in the longer-term); and
We could also support the increased use of electric transport options.
While this approach sounds relatively straightforward, it would not be easy to achieve.
Blackburn is following his own recommendations as he drives an electric car (a Nissan Leaf) and has installed solar panels on the top of his house.
2014-03-23 During the Williams Foundation seminar held in March 11, 2014 in Canberra, the RAAF’s exchange pilot who became a proficient F-22 pilot, RAAF Fighter Pilot Matthew Harper, explained what it was like to become a 5th generation pilot.
Not surprisingly, Harper has an impressive background.
He has over 2000 hours flying fighters (including the F-22, the F-18F and F-18A).
His fifth generation experience is equally impressive. He has nearly four years flying the F-22A. He was an F-22 mission commander, an F-22A instructor pilot and an F-22A SEFE.
He became an F-22 pilot because of the decision of the then COS of the USAF (“Buzz” Mosley) and the then Secretary of the USAF (Mike Wynne) to put other service and coalition partners into F-22 squadrons to learn what the leap to 5th generation was all about.
And a leap it is.
The term 4th to 5th generation suggests a gradual step grade function, much like the evolution of airpower over the past 50 years.
Fifth generation is not a step grade; it is a leap into a whole new way of doing air combat and combat operations.
Harper went out of his way to describe the “unlearning” process that is necessary from operating his Super Hornet to flying the F-22.
Buying fourth generation aircraft is not a holding pattern for the future; it is being left behind in a different historical epoch.
It is about as dramatic as doing cavalry charges with horses and Blitzkrieg warfare; something that did not work out very well for Poland in 1939.
For Harper, the systems in the fifth generation aircraft, which take a giant leap forward with the F-35, provide the pilot with a decision making role, not an overburdened “look at your screens” and sort out what to do role.
He summarized the impact that he saw with three key examples:
First, within the first 30 minutes of sitting down in the simulator, he grasped that his ability to dominate the air space with the F-22 was clear.
Second, the abilities of the pilots are significantly augmented with fifth generation capabilities. He cited a recent example where a USAF pilot with only 350 total flight hours flew in Red Flag and dominated his airspace. For Harper, this would be virtually impossible to imagine in any other plane.
Third, he cited the experience of a USAF F-15C pilot who told him:
“I have more SA with only 20 hours on the F-22A than I ever had with over 1500 hours on the F-15C.”
The overarching point of the presentation was that the fifth generation experience was about disruptive change, not evolution. You needed to get into the fifth generation platform to experience the change and learn how to shape tactics and concepts of operations relevant to 21st century operations, rather than perfecting your 20th century piloting skills.
He went out of his way to compare the Super Hornet to the F-22A with a core focus on how the former was NO WAY the later. Whereas the F-22A was an SA and information dominance machine, the Super Hornet was a classic aircraft which had the limitations of any airplane not built from the ground up to be an information dominance aircraft for the 21st century battlespace.
While the Super Hornet is a significant upgrade from the Hornet, it is not and never will be able to deliver what a fifth generation aircraft can deliver: integrated data fusion and re-shaping the pilot and squadron roles in prosecuting air dominance and support to the joint force in the battlespace.
In short, the leap ahead is crucial; and reworking the culture of the RAAF will be necessary to leverage the disruptive technology built into fifth generation aircraft.
BACK in the late 1960s the aircraft chosen as the nation’s key strike weapon into the new millennium — the F-111 swing-wing fighter/bomber — was derided as the “flying Opera House’’ or the “widow maker” due to cost blowouts, delivery delays and serious technical problems that caused several fatal crashes.
When it finally retired from service with the Royal Australian Air Force in December 2010 the much-loved American-built “pig”, as it was affectionately known due to its long snout and ability to operate down low in the weeds, had become a national icon with a reputation as a peacemaker par excellence.
The aircraft did not fire a single shot in anger during four decades, but its mere presence kept the neighbours on their best behaviour. For example when tensions started to rise during the 1999 East Timor crisis, the mere mention of the word “F-111’’ was enough to guarantee that cool heads prevailed in Jakarta.
Why the JSF … to keep Australia at the top of the regional air combat pecking order and to allow our fighter pilots like Matt Harper, pictured, to guard our northern sea-air approaches. Source: News Limited
Fast forward to 2013 and the RAAF’s next generation strike jet, the F-35 Lightning 2 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was suffering from an almost identical image problem due to cost blowouts, delivery delays and serious technical problems.
According to the man charged with overseeing the massive $500 billion project for the Pentagon, United States air force (USAF) Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, the F-35 will now be delivered to the RAAF on-time in 2018 for the “bargain” price of about $90 million per jet.
The Abbott Government is expected to approve the purchase of up to 86 of the so-called fifth generation “stealth” aircraft for up to $16 billion (lifetime cost) before June this year.
To put Australia’s order into perspective the US military will buy 2443 including 1763 conventional ‘A’ models for the air force, 360 ‘B’ or vertical landing versions for the US Marine Corps and 360 ‘C’ or carrier models for the US Navy. The total production run with foreign sales will exceed 3100 planes.
The fact the US Congress did not take one cent from the program during the budget sequestration crisis indicates that the Americans are fully committed to the JSF as the mainstay of its national defence for the next 30 years or more.
Put simply there is only one other aircraft on the planet with the capabilities of the JSF — its big brother the F-22 Raptor…..
US Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Chip Berke is the only pilot to fly both the F-22 and F-35 stealth jets.
Speaking at a Williams Foundation seminar in Canberra this month he said the F-35 had no peer when it came to the new generation buzz words used by the modern-day fighter pilot — “information dominance”.
He said the old Top Gun fighter pilot mantra that “speed is life, more is better” had been replaced by “information is life, more is better”.
“Information is far more valuable than speed,” he said.
“The F-35 has no peer in terms of information dominance and the sharing of that information.”
RAAF Squadron Leader Matt Harper described himself as the luckiest fighter pilot in Australia after he was selected to spend four years on exchange with the USAF flying the F-22 Raptor out of Alaska.
He said the ground-up stealth capability of the F-22 and the JSF made the aircraft and their pilots virtually “unstoppable”.
“It reduces the adversaries situational awareness to almost zero and provides an exponential increase in survivability,” he said.
RAAF Fighter Pilot Harper, who is one of two pilots chosen to become the RAAF’s first JSF instructors, said he had flown countless Raptor missions against conventional aircraft and ground threats where the adversary had no idea he was even in their airspace let alone about to destroy them…..
