A Deadly Alliance

06/26/2011

06/26/2011 By Douglas Farah

Senior Fellow, Financial Investigations and Transparency

International Assessment and Strategy Center

Adjunct Fellow, Americas Program, CSIS

http://www.ndu.edu/press/emerging-alliances.html

Introduction

Terrorist-Criminal Pipelines and Criminalized States: Emerging Alliances for the 21st Century

06/21/2011 – On July 1, 2010 the U.S attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed an indictment that outlined the rapid expansion of the operations of transnational criminal organizations and their growing, often short-term strategic alliances with terrorist groups. These little-understood transcontinental alliances pose new security threats to the United States, as well as much of Latin America, West Africa and Europe.

Heroin (Credit: Bigstock)
Heroin (Credit: Bigstock)

The indictment showed drug trafficking organizations in Colombia and Venezuela, including the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-FARC, a designated terrorist organization by the United States and European Union, had agreed to move several multi-ton loads of cocaine through Liberia en route to Europe.

 

The head of Liberian security forces, who is also the son of the president, negotiated the transshipment deals with a Colombian, a Russian and three West Africans. According to the indictment, two of the loads, one of 4,000 kilos and one of 1,500 kilos, were to be flown to Monrovia from Venezuela and Panama, respectively. A third load of 500 kilos was to arrive aboard a Venezuelan ship. In exchange for transshipment rights the drug traffickers agreed to pay in both cash and product.

What the drug traffickers did not know was that the head of the security forces they were dealing with was acting as an informant for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and had secretly recorded all the conversations, leaving the clearest body of evidence to date of the growing ties between established designated Latin American terrorist organizations/drug cartels and emerging West African criminal syndicates that move the cocaine northward to lucrative and growing markets in Europe and the former Soviet Union.[1] The West African criminal syndicates, in turn, are often allied and cooperate in illicit smuggling operations with operatives of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a radical Islamist group that has declared its allegiance to Osama bin Laden and its alliance with al Qaeda.[2]

The group has, in recent years, relied primarily on kidnappings for ransom to finance its activities, and is estimated by U.S. and European officials to have an annual budget of about $10 million.

An ongoing relationship with the FARC and other drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) from Latin America to protect cocaine shipments into Europe would exponentially increase AQIM’s revenue stream, and with it, the operational capacity. Other cases, discussed below, show that AQIM would transport cocaine to Spain for the price of $2,000 a kilo. Had the proposed arrangement been in place for the 1,500-kilo load passing through Liberia, the terrorist group would have reaped $3 million in one operation. Had it been the 4,000-kilo load, the profit of $8 million would have almost equaled the current annual budget.

AQIM’s stated goal is to overthrow the Algerian state, and, on a broader level, to follow al Qaeda’s strategy of attacking the West, particularly Europe. The ability to significantly increase its operating budget would facilitate recruiting, the purchase of weapons and the ability to carry out larger and more sophisticated attacks across a broader theater. It would also empower AQIM to share resources with its parent al Qaeda structure and other radical Islamist groups in Africa and elsewhere, increasing the overall operational capacity to attack the United States and related targets.

(Credit: Bigstock)(Credit: Bigstock)

The central aspect that binds these disparate organizations and networks that in aggregate make up the bulk of non-state armed actors, is the informal (meaning outside legitimate state control and competence) “pipeline” or series of overlapping pipelines that these operations need to move products, money, weapons, personnel and goods. These pipelines are perhaps best understood as a series of recombinant chains whose links can couple and de-couple as necessary to meet the best interests of the networks involved. Non-state armed actors in this paper are defined as:

  • Terrorist groups, either motivated by religion, politics or ethnic forces;
  • Transnational criminal organizations, both structured and disaggregated;
  • Militias that control “black hole” or “stateless” sectors of one or more national territories;
  • Insurgencies, which have more well-defined and specific political aims within a particular national territory, but may operate from outside of that national territory.

Each of these groups has different operational characteristics that must be understood in order to understand the challenges that they pose.[3] It is also important to note that these distinctions are far blurrier in practice, with few groups falling neatly into one category or even two. Insurgencies in Colombia and Peru are also designated terrorist groups by the United States and other governments, and engage in parts of the transnational criminal structure. These emerging hybrid structures change quickly and the pace of change has accelerated in the era of instantaneous communication, the Internet and the criminalization of religious and political groups.

What links terrorist and criminal organizations together are the shadow facilitators who understand how to exploit the seams in the international legal and economic structure, and who work with both terrorist and criminal organizations. Both groups use the same pipelines and the same illicit structures, and exploit the same state weaknesses. Of the 43 Foreign Terrorist Organizations listed by the State Department, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says 19 have clearly established ties to drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and many more are suspected of having such ties.[4]

While the groups that overlap in different pipeline structures are not necessarily allies, and in fact occasionally are enemies, they often make alliances of convenience that are short-lived and shifting. Even violent drug cartels, which regularly engage in bloody turf battles, also frequently engage in truces and alliances, although most end as soon as they are no longer mutually beneficial or the balance of power shifts among them.

An example of the changing balance of power is that of Los Zetas, a group of special operations soldiers in Mexico who became hit men for the Gulf Cartel before branching out and becoming a separate organization, often now in direct conflict with their former bosses of the Gulf organization.

Another case that illustrates the breadth of the emerging alliances between criminal and terrorist groups is Operation Titan, executed by Colombian and U.S. officials in 2008 and still ongoing. Colombian and U.S. officials, after a 2-year investigation, dismantled a drug trafficking organization that stretched from Colombia to Panama, Mexico, the United States, Europe and the Middle East. Most of the drugs originated with the FARC in Colombia, and some of the proceeds were traced through a Lebanese expatriate network, to funding Hezbollah.[5]

Colombian and U.S. officials allege that one of the key money launderers in the structure, Chekry Harb, AKA “Taliban” acted as the central go-between among Latin American DTOs and Middle Eastern radical groups, primarily Hezbollah. Among the groups participating together in Harb’s operation in Colombia were members of the Northern Valley Cartel, right-wing paramilitary groups and Marxist FARC.

This mixture of enemies and competitors working through a common facilitator or in loose alliance for mutual benefit is a pattern that is becoming more common, and one that significantly complicates the ability of law enforcement and intelligence operatives to combat these groups, as multiple recent transcontinental cases demonstrate.

In late 2010 the DEA used confidential informants in Mali to pose as FARC representatives seeking to move cocaine through the Sahel region. Three men claiming to belong to AQIM said the radical Islamists would protect the cocaine shipments, leading to the first indictment ever of al Qaeda affiliates on narco-terrorism charges.[6] Those claiming to be AQIM associates were willing to transport hundreds of kilos of cocaine across the Sahara desert to Spain for the price of $2,000 per kilo.[7] That case came just four months after the Malian military found a Boeing 727 abandoned in the desert after offloading an estimated 20 tons of cocaine, clear evidence that large shipments are possible. The flight originated in Venezuela.[8]

In another indication of cross pollination among criminal organizations, in late 2010, Ecuadoran counter-drug officials announced the dismantling of a particularly violent gang of cocaine trafficking — led by Nigerians who were operating out of a neighborhood near the international airport in the capital of Quito. According to Ecuadoran officials, the gang, in addition to controlling the sale of cocaine in one of Quito’s main night districts, was recruiting “mules” or drug carriers to carry several kilos at a time to their allied network, based in Amsterdam, to be distributed throughout Europe. The Nigerian presence was detected because they brought a new level of violence to the drug game in Quito, such as beheading competitors. They were allegedly acquiring the drugs from Colombian drug trafficking organizations.[9]

Because of the clandestine nature of the criminal and terrorist activities, designed to be as opaque as possible, we must start from the assumption that, whatever is known of specific operations along the criminal-terrorist pipeline represents merely a snapshot of events, not a definitive record, and it is often out of date by the time it is understood.

Both the actors and the territory or portion of the pipelines they control are constantly in flux, meaning that tracking them in a meaningful way is difficult at best. As shown by the inter and intra-cartel warfare in Mexico, smaller sub-groups can either overthrow the existing order inside their own structures or break off and form entirely new structures. At that time they can break existing alliances and enter into new ones, depending on the advantages of a specific time, place and operation.


[1] Benjamin Weiser and William K. Rashbaum, “Liberian Officials Worked With U.S. Agency to Block Drug Traffic,” New York Times, June 2, 2010.

[2] For a history of AQIM see: “Al Qaeda Group Backs al Qaeda,” BBC News, October 23, 2003, accessed January 16 at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3207363.stmp. For an understanding of the relationship among the different ethnic groups, particularly the Tuareg, and AQIM, see: Terrorism Monitor, “Tuareg Rebels Joining Fight Against AQIM?” Jamestown Foundation, Vol. 8, Issue 40, November 4, 2010.

[3] These typologies were developed and discussed more completely, including the national security implications of their growth, in the following document: Richard Shultz, Douglas Farah and Itamara V. Lochard, “Armed Groups: A Tier-One Security Priority,” USAF Institute for National Security Studies, Occasional Paper 57, September 2004.

[4] DEA Chief of Operations Michael Braun at a July 18, 2008 speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, accessible at: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=411

[5] While much of Operation Titan remains classified, there has been significant open source reporting, in part because the Colombian government announced the most important arrests. See: Chris Kraul and Sebastian Rotella, “Colombian Cocaine Ring Linked to Hezbollah,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 22, 2008; and “Por Lavar Activos de Narcos y Paramilitares, Capturados Integrantes de Organización Internacional,” Fiscalía General de la Republica (Colombia), Oct. 21, 2008.

[6] “Manhattan U.S. Attorney Charges Three al Qaeda Associates with Conspiring to Transport Cocaine through Africa for the FARC,” PR Newswire, December 18, 2009, accessed January 6, 2011 at: http://www.prnewswire.com . The exact nature of the affiliation of the three indicted men claiming to represent AQIM has been in dispute, but other reports support the contention that the FARC and AQIM engage, through intermediaries, in a relationship that allows FARC-owned cocaine to transit the Sahel region with the protection of AQIM. See: Robin Yapp, “South American Drug Gangs Funding al Qaeda Terrorists, The Telegraph (Great Britain), December 29, 2010.

[7] Philip Sherwell, “Cocaine, Kidnapping and the al-Qaeda Cash Squeeze,” Sunday Telegraph, March 7, 2010.

[8] Jamie Doward, “Drug Seizures in West Africa Prompt Fears of Terrorist Links,” The Observer, November 29, 2009.

[9] “Quito y Buenos Aires, Ciudades preferidas para narcos nigerianos,” El Universo (Guayaquil, Ecuador), January 3, 2011.

Lieutenant General David Deptula (USAF, Retired)

06/24/2011

Lt. General Deptula (Credit: SLD)Lieutenant General David A. Deptula (Ret.) is a battle-tested defense innovator.

Currently, Deptula is the Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

A highly decorated military leader, he transitioned from the U.S. Air Force (USAF) in 2010 after more than 34 years of distinguished service

He is a world-recognized leader and pioneer in conceptualizing, planning, and executing national security operations from humanitarian relief to major combat operations.

Accomplished historic achievements and several “firsts” in the command of joint forces, planning and execution of aerospace power, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and improved international relationships.

He has taken part in operations, planning, and joint warfighting at unit, major command, service headquarters and combatant command levels, and also served on two congressional commissions charged with outlining America’s future defense posture.

General Deptula has significant experience in combat and leadership in several major joint contingency operations.

He was the principal attack planner for the Desert Storm coalition air campaign in 1991.

He has twice been a Combined/Joint Task Force Commander – in 1998/1999 for Operation Northern Watch where he flew 82 combat missions as a general officer, and for Operation Deep Freeze conducting operations in Antarctica.

In 2001, he served as Director of the Combined Air Operations Center for Operation Enduring Freedom, where he orchestrated air operations over Afghanistan during the period of decisive combat.

In 2005, he was the Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC) for Operation Unified Assistance, the South Asia tsunami relief effort, and in 2006 he was the standing JFACC for Pacific Command.

Deptula was the first Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), Headquarters Air Force.

Responsible for policy formulation, planning, and leadership of AF ISR and remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), he transformed those enterprises setting a standard emulated by services and nations around the world.

He has piloted more than 3,000 flying hours (400 in combat) to include multiple operational fighter command assignments in the F-15.

 

Secretary Michael W. Wynne

Mr. Wynne (Credit: Wynne)Mr. Wynne was a political appointee in the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2008, being confirmed as the 21st Secretary of the Air Force

Earlier he held the post of Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in the office of the Secretary of Defense.

Wynne has an accomplished record and continues to hold significant and very active roles in several private and non-profit organizations, including: the Stevens Institute; the Systems Engineering Research Center; George Mason University; VT Systems Inc; Wide Area Systems Corp; Sapphire Energy; Battelle Memorial Institute; MITRE Corp, and Rand Corp.  He currently is President of Applied Controls Associates, Inc., and director for both the Air Force Academy Endowment Board, and the Falcon Foundation.

He is a West Point graduate and holds an MBA from the University of Colorado, and a Master’s in Engineering (MSEE) from the Air Force Institute of Technology.  He also graduated from Harvard Business School’s Program for Management.

Secretary Wynne visiting Normandy during a visit to Paris while Secretary of the Air Force. With him is Robert Dooley, then USAF Attache in France.

He served in the Air Force for seven years, finishing as Assistant Professor of Astronautics, and Air Force Academy Research Department Director.

He also spent 20 years with General Dynamics working in aircraft, armored vehicles, and at corporate, concluding as Space Division President.

When it was sold to Lockheed Martin Corp, he became General Manager, and then returned to GD as Corporate Senior Vice President.

Wynne also spent time as partner in the Nextgen Investment Fund, and as chairman of two internet-based technology companies prior to his appointment in 2001.

He introduced the concept of cyberspace to the Air Force in 2005, accelerating the debate for civil. military, and intelligence uses.

Since then he has become a well recognized and leading force for change in dealing with cyber issues, arguing that cyber defense requires a fundamental shift in approach for it to be achieved.

He also motivated the services in the field of hybrid vehicles, and led investment in alternative fuel sources for base energy support and aviation fuels (JP-8). He led the largest implementation ever of ‘lean six sigma’ in the Air Force (AFSO-21).

Creating the 5th Generation Force: Secretary Wynne and Lt. Col. Berke Meet and Discuss from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

He has published numerous articles, and been a contributor on such diverse subjects as cyber war, air power, energy, and defense budgeting.

He is married, with four grown daughters, and lives in Virginia.

What is not widely realized is how Wynne provided a broad ranging and significant impulse to innovation in the Department of Defense.

We have published a number of pieces which highlight the range of innovation which Wynne has encouraged and inspired.

“Democratizing the Battlefield”: The Rover Experience

Understanding Concurrency: Secretary Wynne Discusses with the 33rd Fighter Wing

Keeping a Promise: Secretary Wynne Visits the FACO in Italy

Michael W. Wynne: “I Hate Logistics”

The Wynne Legacy: Generating and Diffusing Innovation

Innovation in the USAF: A Look Back by Dr. Mark Lewis

Innovation Inside the Bureaucracy

 

F-35, Maintenance and the Challenge of Service Standardization

06/20/2011
Working on BF-4 (Credit: Lockheed Martin)

An Interview with Master Gunnery Sergeant McKay and Major Margolis

06/20/2011 – In late April 2011, Second Line of Defense sat down with Master Gunnery Sergeant Thomas McKay and Major Margolis of HQMC Aviation Logistics Support Branch.  The focus was upon the strategic opportunities inherent the F-35 program to re-shape maintenance approaches and the adaptations the program will face as it adapts to the different Service maintenance cultures.

The technology associated with the program – the computer based logistics system, the diagnostic technologies built into the aircraft and global sourcing – provide a baseline from which the maintenance paradigm can be recast.  But the technology is an enabler but requires the Services to adapt their mental furniture.  McKay underscored that standardization of maintenance practices and norms.

To facilitate the opportunity to shape a new paradigm, the idea was discussed of using the Eglin JSF training facility as a location to build a cadre of commonality.  Why not have a maintenance Top Gun school based at Eglin?  Why not have special patches for the cadre of experts re-shaping the maintenance paradigm?

SLD: What are some of the cultural changes associated with the new maintenance approach?

Maj. Margolis: Ownership of parts.  The challenge will to fence or to unfence a particular group of spares at a base or a squadron or what have you from the global spares chain.

SLD: The challenge is to shift from a physical location of spares, which implies ownership to having custody within the global availability of parts?

Maj. Margolis: A physical location. It’s moving from the notion that it’s not mine per say. “My” parts located at my base are now open to support the global spares.  And this may well reduce the total cost of the system.

SLD: The other piece of this is global deployment.  If U.S. planes are operating in Japan and the Japanese buy F-35s then spares availability for both fleets goes up by being able to share parts, and one can see those parts within the digital system.

Maj. Margolis: That makes complete sense.  And I know the program officers working through this because it is easier-said-than-done. When you’re transferring a part from Country A to Country B even though the aircraft is sitting right next to each other during an exercise in country X, things like customs, clearance, and your trade rules, and laws, have to be sorted through. I know the program office is working through all those, but conceptually, it makes sense to you that you should be able to transfer a part from Country A to Country B, if that’s the only part that’s there.  It makes sense from a global support perspective.

SLD: It’s really a cultural revolution; you are going to have to think very, very differently to get the kind of outcome you want.  And the outcome you’re going to get is less cost, greater availability worldwide, and for the U.S. and its allies having greater capability forward deployed for less cost.  This is a huge gain for us, potentially, but not if we don’t restructure how we think and how we work.

MGySgt McKay: When I first got into the program a couple of years ago, the Nirvana was a USMC jet can land in an Air Force-Navy Base that has F-35s and be repaired, and fly home.  The reality is that nobody else wants to play in that world; the Air Force and the Navy have no desire to play the game that way.  Even the Marines at some point along the way have a real problem with somebody else fixing their toys and calling it good.

There is no standardization of maintenance practices among the services, let alone internationally. You’re talking an entirely different nightmare of, “I’m over-flying some other country, you need to land for whatever emergency, and need to get fixed.”  Traditionally, you send a maintenance crew from very far away to fix that one aircraft, takes days, and then you fly home.  Where if it was already resident on the base, why couldn’t you fix it right there with what you’ve got?

SLD: In this case, the technology is playing the role of the forcing function for change in the maintenance approaches?

MGySgt McKay: Absolutely. If they fix F-35s, they fix F-35s; it’s pretty standard schooling internationally.  We do it currently with commercial aircraft.

SLD: Exactly.  And that is the point; it’s more of a commercial standard procedure, than a mil spec procedure.

MGySgt McKay: We can’t even get our own bases inside of the Marine Corps to have that same type of agreement, without a couple of very high ranking individuals talking back and forth to each other to say, yes, you people are authorized to fix my jet.  And yes, you’ll do that and you’ll test it.  And then, my pilot will get in that jet to fly home.

We don’t do it today, anywhere even though that was the Nirvana of, “Hey, F-35 everywhere, everybody can fix it worldwide.”  When I first got into the program, that was the thing that everybody was first playing, was, “Hey, everybody can fix this jet anywhere.”  It will be one great big F-35 family.  Not so much in reality without standardization of maintenance practices.

Working on BF-4 (Credit: Lockheed Martin)Working on BF-4 (Credit: Lockheed Martin)

SLD: But clearly the technology can drive change. The problem with maintaining the maintenance stovepipes, as they exist now, is that the technology and the plane doesn’t require them.  It is as if Southwest Airlines with a common fleet of 737s would have three different maintenance cultures.  This makes no sense. Deployment differences among the services are real and adjustments to the culture needs to be made to provide for such differences but simply to ignore commonality is costly, ineffective and reduces core combat capability significantly going forward.

MGySgt McKay: Absolutely. If we can have the services drive towards even common terminology, this would be good.  For example, the USAF and the USMC do not have a common understanding of what being expeditionary means, and the maintenance challenges associated with expeditionary are different for the two services.

If we could get the services to agree on common terms and explanations of exactly what those mean.  Differences in services, absolutely, there should be were appropriate but working through expeditionary logistics is a good place to start, at least, so we’re talking on the same sheet of music.

SLD: Why not use the common maintenance training facility at the JSF training compound at Eglin? One could build a cadre of cross-service folks who could shape that dictionary or build that language because you’re trying to do the cross-service training, cross-service maintenance.

Maybe one should be thinking about adding a core-competence to that schoolhouse of an elite corps of instructors who are actually bargaining through some of the language.  And of course, you have the advantage of having the maintainers from the different nations there and the different pilots, which are actually informed by some cultural reality as opposed to just making it up.  Does that make sense?

MGySgt McKay: It absolutely does.  And I believe the pilot portion is much more integrated than the maintainer side.  Because the core structure is broken out into modules, you can insert modules as you see fit for you service.

They can rebuild or they can build that courseware to fit a service need.  The pilots like combat integration.  USMC pilots like the fact that they fly with the Navy and will fly with the Air Force; maintainers, not so much.  You haven’t broken that paradigm at all. And breaking that paradigm will be crucial to taking advantage of what the F-35 program offers.

SLD: So you see this is as kind of a forcing function for greater standardization for maintenance?

MGySgt McKay: If the training will get us to a point where we’re integrated enough, then commonalities can make us close to the same expertise. Professionalism is professionalism; you take you car to Chevy or Dodge you expect it to be maintained at a certain level.  The commercial airlines do the same thing.  Whether it’s Brazil or Texas, you hope that every time you get on an airplane that it was professionally repaired.

No service wants to loose their uniqueness, absolutely.  We are different from the Navy and the Air Force and we want to keep that.  But, to be better, for some things, we have to absolutely get in bed with the other services and have commonality where appropriate.  And maintenance for the F-35 is clearly one of those areas.

Sustainability: The Missing Factor in the U.S. Defense Debate

By Dr. Robbin Laird

06/20/2011 – The U.S. defense debate is being framed as defined by constrained fiscal choices and program cuts.  Also, the real need for a strategic review for the post-Afghan military is pressing.

But rampant so-called “contingency” operations are sucking up operational money and draining procurement capabilities to shape a new more capable and cost-effective force.

Missing from the debate is the central impact of much higher sustainability delivered by newer platforms.  And the debate is shaped by thinking in terms of platform-centric initial procurement cost rather than thinking in terms of fleet performance and sustainability capabilities.

If sustainability does not become central to re-shaping the U.S. military, future U.S. President’s will have less and less capability available to them over time.  The U.S. military will look like today’s U.S. Coast Guard, which can surge to one crises but watch others unfold with very limited engagement.

If future President’s wanted to have one-theater deployable forces, the current trajectory will get them there.

This does not have to happen.

But a cultural change in the mindset of political and military leaders is crucial to have change you can believe in.  New systems bought for properly sourced fleets with new digital maintainability capabilities are central to building a future force.  And this force will be more capable and operate at much reduced operating cost.

(Credit: SLD)(Credit: SLD)

Digital systems allow many changes to occur throughout the military.  We have already seen these changes in the commercial sector, and it is difficult to believe that the military cannot mimic such changes.

First, there is a significant reduction in the touch labor required to maintain modern vehicles or planes.  The computer chips provide sensors and information, which allows a significant migration of knowledge to the machine, rather than relying upon armies of maintainers.

Second, the machines can tell when maintenance needs to be done.  Rather than having a manpower intense scheduled maintenance regime, the platform tells you when it needs to be maintained.

Third, firms like Fed Ex manage fleets.  They buy with a fleet in mind and with as much commonality as possible.  This allows them to drive down cost by supporting more assets with common maintenance procedures and operations.

Fourth, commercial aerospace firms build their products with maintainability as a key driver.  And they can use incentivized-based systems such as fly by hour to gain savings, which they can then invest in evolving the systems, which they build to optimize operational savings.

Fifth, the commercial standard is clearly to manage a supply chain to build and sustain a fleet.  The global supply chain to produce modern products is assembled by manufacturers to deliver a viable and cost effective product.  The same supply chain is used to deliver support.  Having a core firm to manage both is a cost driver both for support as well as gaining information about planned product improvements.

Commercial best practices are built upon the management of a single supply chain for both manufacturing and sustainment.  This allows the company to understand the performance of parts in the field and allows the company to then use that information to enhance the reliability of parts manufactured for the final assembly line.  It allows as well for parts simplification and improvements

Sustainability is a combination of logistics and maintainability considerations combined.  Designing a more sustainable product, which can operate fleet wide, should be one of the very core procurement principles.

But it does not even exist on the playing field.  The questionable notion of life-cycle costs is used but has little or no real meaning as key drivers of life cycle costs are often outside of the domain of a platform considered by itself or fleet wide.

Additionally, one needs to buy fleetwide.  Savings will come from pooling resources, something that cannot happen if you buy a gaggle of aircraft, rather than operating a common fleet.  Just ask Fed Ex what commonality for their fleet delivers in terms of performance and savings.

(Credit: SLD)(Credit: SLD)

A 21st century sustainability focus for the military requires a cultural revolution.  And even more so for the politicians and civil servants who frame procurement choices.  Even though no platform fights alone, you would not know that from U.S. procurement strategy.  Support costs should not be the last item to be considered; rather they are the bedrock for sound procurement decisions.

As any consumer knows, buying a less expensive tool or toy can be penny wise and pound-foolish.  We need to bring Ben Franklin into the DOD to shape procurement strategy.  Efficiencies pursued with little or no regard to sustainability and capability are hardly credible.

The fifth generation aircraft versus legacy aircraft “discussion” is a case in point.  Even though the Indians have recently concluded that 40-year airframes are not a good foundation for building future airpower, DOD continues to buy such aircraft.  And does so with little or no regard to the impact of the maintenance revolution on their strategic choices.  Apparently, touch labor is free as well as the depots.

The Cultural Revolution associated with the 5th generation aircraft promises significant labor savings, which translates into personnel reductions.

The cost of maintaining 4th generation aircraft is an oft-overlooked aspect of looking at cost of keeping the old and introducing the new. Higher sustainability means a reduce maintenance activity; and the fact that each maintenance action requires fewer maintainers on the 5th generation aircraft than on older legacy aircraft.

The integrated sensors and data systems on the aircraft provide significant abilities to repair when needed and to ramp up sortie generation rates.

The technology inherent in the aircraft allows dramatic reductions in training costs as well.  Each key touch labor player on a legacy aircraft needs to trained and maintained.  With chips and software being used for significant diagnostic work, the new maintainers manage data and know where to go on the plane as needed and when needed.

The new aircraft are built with significant reductions in many parts, which currently need to be maintained.  A key case in point is hydraulic systems.  The F-35 has 80% less hydraulic systems than legacy aircraft.  And with these reductions come easy of entry into the aircraft to maintain the rest.  Fewer parts; less trouble; fewer maintainers; quicker turnaround time; higher sortie generation rates.  What is there not to like here?

Fleet considerations are significant for the F-35 as well.  Inherent in the technology is the ability to do US and allied fleet wide maintenance. As General (retired) Cameron put it in an interview:

The real beauty of the F-35 program is the fact that you can look out across the entire fleet, all the international partners, all the domestic partners, and tell immediately if there are systemic fleet wide issues.  The program can share assets to ensure a surge capability to wherever it’s needed and can share the robust supply chain that’s already established on the F-35 production line. Our experiences with the F-16 highlight another major advantage of the F-35 approach.   The F-16 has been a highly successful program.  However, configuration management has been a challenge because it has been handled at the individual service level. Therefore, there are roughly 130 configurations of the F-16.  The operators, when prosecuting the air battle, have to know the precise configuration of each F-16 in order to know what capabilities it brings to the fight.  The sustainment of the F-16 is even more challenging with spares not being interchangeable among F-16 variants. The F-35 is a common configuration so interoperability is the key in both operations and sustainment.

But this will not happen without a cultural revolution.

In a recent interview with MGySgt Thomas McKay, Aircraft Maintenance Chief, HQMC Aviation Logistics, the challenge to shape a cultural revolution was underscored:

Q: The other piece of this is global deployment.  If US planes are operating in Japan and the Japanese buy F-35s then spares availability for both fleets goes up by being able to share parts, and one can see those parts within the digital system.

Margolis:  That makes complete sense.  And I know the program officers working through this because it is easier-said-than-done. When you’re transferring a part from Country A to Country B even though the aircraft is sitting right next to each other during an exercise in country X, things like customs, clearance, and your trade rules, and laws, have to be sorted through. I know the program office is working through all those, but conceptually, it makes sense to you that you should be able to transfer a part from Country A to Country B, if that’s the only part that’s there.  It makes sense from a global support perspective.

Q: It’s really a cultural revolution; you are going to have to think very, very differently to get the kind of outcome you want.  And the outcome you’re going to get is less cost, greater availability worldwide, and for the U.S. and its allies having greater capability forward deployed for less cost.  This is a huge gain for us, potentially, but not if we don’t restructure how we think and how we work.

McKay: When I first got into the program a couple of years ago, the Nirvana was a USMC jet can land in an Air Force-Navy Base that has F-35s and be repaired, and fly home.  The reality is that nobody else wants to play in that world; the Air Force and the Navy have no desire to play the game that way.  Even the Marines at some point along the way have a real problem with somebody else fixing their toys and calling it good.

There is no standardization of maintenance practices among the services, let alone internationally. You’re talking an entirely different nightmare of, “I’m over-flying some other country, you need to land for whatever emergency, and need to get fixed.”  Traditionally, you send a maintenance crew from very far away to fix that one aircraft, takes days, and then you fly home.  Where if it was already resident on the base, why couldn’t you fix it right there with what you’ve got?

Q: In this case, the technology is playing the role of the forcing function for change in the maintenance approaches?

McKay: Absolutely. If they fix F-35s, they fix F-35s; it’s pretty standard schooling internationally.  We do it currently with commercial aircraft.

But there is a solution waiting to happen.

Q: Why not use the common maintenance training facility at the JSF training compound at Eglin? One could build a cadre of cross-service folks who could shape that dictionary or build that language because you’re trying to do the cross-service training, cross-service maintenance.

Maybe one should be thinking about adding a core-competence to that schoolhouse of an elite corps of instructors who are actually bargaining through some of the language.  And of course, you have the advantage of having the maintainers from the different nations there and the different pilots, which are actually informed by some cultural reality as opposed to just making it up.  Does that make sense?

McKay: It absolutely does.  And I believe the pilot portion is much more integrated than the maintainer side.  Because the core structure is broken out into modules, you can insert modules as you see fit for you service.

They can rebuild or they can build that courseware to fit a service need.  The pilots like combat integration.  USMC pilots like the fact that they fly with the Navy and will fly with the Air Force; maintainers, not so much.  You haven’t broken that paradigm at all. And breaking that paradigm will be crucial to taking advantage of what the F-35 program offers.

In short, the sustainability revolution is a core part of shaping a more capabilities at less operational cost. Where is Ben Franklin when we need him?

21st Century Air Capabilities

06/18/2011
The Three "M"s (Credit: SLD)

By Dr. Robbin Laird

06/18/2011 – 21st century air capabilities are built around the three “M”s.  The aircraft need to be multi-mission and manufactured to be significantly more maintainable than 20th century aircraft.

The Three "M"s (Credit: SLD)The Three “M”s (Credit: SLD)

In today’s world, the acquisition of aircraft in financially stringent environments favors multi-mission platforms.  The U.S. and allied air forces are buying less aircraft and a smaller variety of aircraft.  The expectation is that the aircraft purchased will do more than their core specialty.

There is an expectation that if I buy an airlifter it will do more than airlift.  It will be able to refuel, it will be able to deliver in the air lethal and non-lethal weapons out of the back of the aircraft, it will be able to become a C2 aircraft if needed, etc.

An example of the multi-mission dynamic can be seen with regard to the A400M and the insertion of Special Forces.  As Peter Scoffhman noted in an earlier interview:

But the advantage of the A400M is that its ramp can carry a six metric ton payload and for airdropping as a part of a package a payload of four and a half metric tons can be dropped.

So in terms of a special forces insertion with a concurrent drop of equipment, you now have a situation where paratroops   can jump at the same time out the side doors and a metric four and half ton load can be dropped from the ramp.  This, of course, gives them tremendous flexibility.  And just while we’re talking Special Forces, there was a requirement for the high-altitude delivery of Special Forces.  As an example of this civil airliners cruise at about 34-35,000 feet.  But, the A400M is designed to fly one mile higher, at 40,000 feet, then open the ramp, and enable Special Forces to jump with all of their specialist kit.  At the moment, there is no other aircraft capable of doing that.

The second M is maintainability.  We have had a special focus in our publications on what we call manufacturing for maintainability.  New platforms are built with a significant amount of attention to how to enhance their ability to be maintained over time.  When platforms were built thirty years ago, logistics support was an afterthought.  No it is a core element of determining successful outcomes to the manufacturing process.

The website includes several pieces on this important issue.

One example is provided by the Eurcopter manufacturing approach.

In an interview with Alain Rolland of Eurocopter, and in response to the question of the Eurocopter approach to shaping the manufacturing for sustainability challenge, he responded as follows:

Let me approach the question from the standpoint of the Super Puma. The Puma class helicopters were very useful to the oil and gas business for a certain number of years.  Intense helicopter activity in term of oil and gas, really started at the end of the 70s, beginning of the 80s.And at the time, basically we were the only helo provider, especially with the Super Puma to really do this kind of business.  There was no real competitor. As a matter of fact, Super Puma was there at the right time, with the right specification. We could have simply sought to exploit our advantage; but we focused on continuous improvement, in large part because of the evolving business model.The oil and gas people are very demanding: they want high reliability and safety. They drove us to optimize maintenance.

And that became translated into power by the hour contracts, a business model which naturally leverages reliability increases and maintenance cost reduction. We have to deliver a certain rate of availability at fixed price.So we gained from enhanced reliability; when we designed Super Puma Mark 2 we made sure we designed and built a more maintainable and reliable product.The shift from the earlier Puma to the Super Puma allowed us to have many parts simplifications.  In the earlier Puma, you have three ball bearings and two pinions bolted together.  With the Super Puma we only make one part, which either eliminates or integrates the older parts. Simplification which leads directly to enhanced reliability and safety all generated by an improved manufacturing process.

Another example is the A400M.  As Richard Thompson underscored:

With every new generation of aircraft, one of the key drivers is to reduce the maintenance burden.  The cost associated with maintenance and the downtime that the platform will suffer throughout its life in terms of periods dedicated to scheduled or for that matter unscheduled maintenance are important considerations when developing a new aircraft.

The concept of integrating logistic support essentially means that when you start to design the aircraft to meet an operational requirement, you have sitting alongside the designer’s maintainability engineers who are also contributing to that design.  They are contributing with a view to ensure that you can have easy access to that particular part of the plane that you can remove the component or check the component easily, replace it with another one easily, and that you can have access to certain parts of the plane that need to have access to.

A product like A400M not only benefits from that approach, but also benefits from the fact that it’s based on an architecture of an advanced commercial aircraft.

Sustainability is a core requirement for 21st century air forces and air operations. Sustainability is a combination of logistics and maintainability considerations combined.  Designing a more sustainable product, which can operate fleet wide, should be one of the very core procurement principles.

But it does not even exist on the playing field.  The questionable notion of life-cycle costs is used but has little or nor real meaning as key drivers of life cycle costs are often outside of the domain of a platform considered by itself or fleet wide.

At the heart of the sustainability argument is that you do not keep buying Pumas when Super Pumas are built 30 years later and are significantly more affordable to fly.  They are more affordable to fly because they are built in a manner, which could not be done thirty years ago.  Building new is central to any sustainable strategy.

The point was driven home in an interview with Pierre Maret of Eurcopter:

So we reduce the interfaces, which significantly reduces reliability problems.  To do that, it was necessary to integrate bearing suppliers technology and to develop a special heat treatment such as deep nitriding technology.You do this in order to increase the hardness and practical strengths of the parts, both for raceway and tooth for the gears. And the technology of the bearing supplier is now integrated into our business process. Moreover, in order to increase the reliability and safety specs, this heat treatment allows being able to run after total loss of lubrication in the gearbox.  So thanks to this heat treatment, it’s possible to run with a long time without oil.

Additionally, one needs to buy Fleetwide.  Savings will come from pooling resources, something that cannot happen if you buy a gaggle of aircraft, rather than operating a common fleet.  Just ask Fed Ex what commonality for their fleet delivers in terms of performance and savings.

The final M is manufacturability.  Briefing slides and simulations are not the same thing as a finished good of high quality and of high reliability.  Here you need a trained workforce, good engineering practices and an ability to deliver a product of high quality and standards.  It is challenging to build new systems and not every manufacturer is created equal.

A core element of today’s manufacturing systems is the challenge of managing extended supply chains.  And these supply chains are subject to disruptions and the need to manage those disruptions.

As Alain Rolland of Eurocopter put it:

We have disruptions each year.  We develop market intelligence with regard to market alternatives in light of the most probable supply chain disruptions.  The Strategic Procurement Directorate has the responsibility to assess the probability and location of supply disruptions.

Either we are going to help the supplier get through difficult times or seek a new supplier.  It is complex and costly.

And another senior Eurocopter manager underscored that managing the supply chain is challenging indeed.

It is very complex to manage a broad portfolio of suppliers and products and to manage the connections among the various IT systems.  We have to manage the manufacturing bill of parts within the supply chain; this can be a small or large production runs; we have to manage the manufacturing bill of materials to provide for the parts on time and in proper quantity.

Another challenge is to streamline the quantity of parts managed in the supply chain.

Given Eurocopter’s significant role in global production of helicopters, the approach of the company to managing a robust and diverse supply chain is clearly important in understanding the approach of a core manufacturing company.  The approach is also significant in understanding how having one core company managing the supply chain for manufacturing and sustainment is central to efficiencies.

In short, the Three M’s – Multi-Mission, Maintainability and Manufacturability – are key elements of shaping 21st century air capabilities.  Flexibility, agility, reliability and performance are highly interactive elements for building viable platforms and systems for the years ahead.

(Please see 21st Century Air Capabilities https://sldinfo.com/?p=20246)

Assessing the Evolution of the Global Market

By Dr. Robbin Laird

06/19/2011 – The opportunity to discuss the potential impacts of Indian and Brazilian fighter competitions on the next phase of global development presented itself when I crossed paths with Reuben Johnson at the Airbus Military Trade Media event in mid-May

SLD: I’m talking to Reuben Johnson, one of the world’s leading experts on global military aviation. Johnson is a defense and aerospace correspondent for Jane’s and for the Weekly Standard and for Aviation Week Show News.

Let us start by talking about the impact of the Indian fighter competition.

Johnson: There are strategic implications because the Bush Administration worked a long time on the partnership with India. But this came down to, I think, fundamentally people not understanding local politics and prioritizing different issues in India.

SLD: From the standpoint of the customer, so to speak.

Johnson: In the case if India, and what you have is a very simple equation.  You have a defense minister who’s basically almost a communist and very, very left wing and sort of a visceral distrust and dislike of anything American.  You have an industry that wants as much industrial participation as they can possibly get because that’s the name of the game in India is feeding this huge machine called Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.  And there is some sort of remaining apprehension about American embargos.  The Indians have seen what’s happened in the past and having seen what happened with Pakistan.

And then the Air Force if you tell them they have so much money, they’ll figure out how much each airplane cost and divide the money.  If you tell them they’re going to buy so many airplanes, they’re going to buy the most expensive airplane they can get.  So they pick the two most expensive airplanes, both of which offer some fairly generous industrial participation programs in India and also no problems with release of source code and other technology.

Gripen NG Demonstrator with Iris-T, Meteor and GBU10 (Credit: http://air-attack.com/images/single/829/Gripen-NG-Demonstrator-with-Iris-T-Meteor-and-GBU10.html)

SLD: Is this similar in the Brazil?

Johnson: When it comes to Brazil, the chief criteria have been what does industry get out of this thing?  And the Brazilians will tell you flat out that Embraer is the jewel in the crown, the most popular airplane they have now, the best – their big success story are these, the E-Jets, the E-170 to 195 family.

And they will tell you, they will say, “If we did have – if we had not done the AMX program with the Italians way back when, we would not have learned enough about aircraft structural design to be able to do the E-Jets.”  If we hadn’t done the E-Jets, we wouldn’t be doing the KC-390, the tanker cargo airplane they’re doing. Industrial participation is crucial.

SLD: So any combat aircraft purchase is part of the next phase of development and manufacturing in Brazil?

Johnson: What that means development; it does not mean getting a CD from Boeing with a bunch of drawings that says go build this.  It’s actually participating in the design and development of the aircraft locally.

As the VP for all military programs at Embraer says: “The way you get technology transfer,” he says, “is by on the job doing.”  That’s exactly how he says it.  But what he means is that if you’re not sitting there designing an aircraft, not sitting at a drawing board, you’re not actually doing the actual developmental work, you don’t really learn anything.

The Brazilians will tell you that the F-18 is an old design, it’s already developed, there’s nothing there, yes we can get some piece part work from Boeing that really doesn’t advance the state of our industry very much.  The Rafale is also basically an already designed airplane, it’s been sold in small numbers.  But the Gripen NG, it’s a prototype; the program is there to develop.

And, by the way, it’s cheap enough that if you produced it in Brazil, you could sell it to every other country in the region.  And you could sell it to other places.  There are countries in the world, say for example Viet Nam who would be interested in a Brazilian produced Gripen, but not by a Gripen made in Sweden.  But they would buy a Gripen made in South America because Brazil has this image of being one of the leaders of the BRICS, which is kind of open to everybody non-aligned.

And if the Gripen goes out of production, the only people left making a fighter that costs under a hundred million dollars will be the Chinese. And if you look at the deal that SAAB made with Thailand, what do they get?  They have the fighters, they have the ground base command and control and EW.  And they have the AEW and C aircraft, all from one company Saab, one stop shopping.  No American content, so no stuff about the export controls and you can’t have this, you can’t have that, you won’t say this, and you won’t say that.

The Brazilians want to become exporters.  And Saab really likes that.

Super Tucano in Flight (Credit: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/elbit-avionics-for-colombias-super-tucanos-02473/)

SLD: The U.S. is out of the Indian competition and if it does not win in Brazil, then is the United States out of the 2nd and 3rd world combat aviation market?

Johnson: We forgot the F-16 experience. We did the Henry Ford thing; you can have any color you want as long as it’s black.  These are all the things it does and by the way, this is how much cheaper it is than everybody else.

And we got into trouble because we started to build unique configurations, and now you’re overhead costs are rising and then you’ve got all these other problems.  As long as you can pump these things out and say this is what you’ve got, and by the way, if you look at the cost per flight hour numbers, they’re staggering.

The maximum cost per flight hour of the Gripen, with what the South Africans are paying is around $5,000.  Other places it’s less, it’s between $3,500 and $4,000 per flight hour.  The cost per flight hour on the Eurofighter, if you ask the Germans, is 40,000 Euros.  And if you ask the RAF, because they’re doing more things with the aircraft, and they count their numbers differently, they’ll tell you the cost per flight hour is 96,000 pounds.

Now, we’re talking about magnitude, we’re on the scale, this little Gripen is down here and this thing is way up here.

SLD: So the Brazil deal is really a crucial one to make this a buyable export?

Johnson: Yes, because they’re out of India, Brazil is very important. And the Brazilians want to learn enough about designing an airplane so that ten years down the road they can design a fighter for Brazil that’s a next generation thing that’s all their own, that they’ve done on their own.

SLD: Let us discuss the new Embraer lift aircraft (the KC-390).  What is your assessment of its prospects?

Johnson: I will tell you right now and I have seen in my lifetime many, many, many, many briefings by aerospace companies about what they think the market is.  Embraer is by far the smartest company I’ve ever seen about looking at a market and saying, okay over the next X number of years there’s going to be so many opportunities to sell X-type of aircraft.  And we think realistically we can get this percentage of it and that works out to so many numbers.

They’re not like American companies that no matter what you ask them, they always say that they can get 50% of anything.  Which is just not realistic.  They’re very smart about that, they’ve been very smart about the way they develop the airplane.  As I said, they built it on top of the – of the E-jets, the structure, the design.  They’ve been very smart about how they looked at the engines of the aircraft.  I think it’s going to be a great airplane and it’s going to be the airplane everybody needs.  Everybody who has IL-76’s, old C-130s will be a potential customer.

SLD: What about the Super T in the U.S. market?

Johnson: We’re doing the same thing with Super Tucano that we did with Leopard 2.  Remember the famous competition between the M-1 and Leopard 2?  And the Leopard 2 won, but no, we’re not going to buy a German tank, it has to be something build in America, so we built the M-1.   Now the M-1’s great it does all these things but why bother having a competition?  Okay?  You’re either going to buy the Super Tucano or you’re not.

The Embraer guys are really smart.  And I say – I asked them, I said, “How many of these aircraft do you think can be sold in the next 10 years?”  And they said, “300 aircraft in the next 10 years.”  And I said, “You mean you think you guys can sell 300 aircraft in the next 10 years.”  They said, “No, no, no, we think the market worldwide for aircraft in the next 10 years, it’s 300 total.”  So you’re talking about getting a portion of that yourselves?  Yes, that’s right.  Even if you can get 100% of 300 aircraft it’s not enough to amortize the non-recruiting engineering costs of an AT-6. I mean, that’s  the reality.

An Update on the A330MRTT Tanker: May 2011

06/17/2011

06/17/2011: Antonio Caramazana, Head of Airbus Military Derivatives Program, provided an update on the A330MRTT Tanker at the Airbus Trade Media event in mid-May 2011.

The 2010 update can be found in an earlier article on the website https://www.sldinfo.com/?p=9376.  In this article, the basic capabilities of the tanker were highlighted and will not be repeated here. But several key elements of the tanker program presented this May deserve being highlighted in looking forward to the future of the tanker program.

First, the real estate on the aircraft was emphasized.  Because the fuel is carried in the wings, the transport capabilities of the aircraft are significant.  One can carry 300 troops or u to 45000 kg (99000lbs) of payload or carry up to 130 stretchers.Something that was not emphasized is that this space could be for “lease” for other military purposes.  Because the tanker can be configured to be refuelable, a crew rest area could be built so that the tanker can stay up for a significant period of time. https://www.sldinfo.com/?p=1289

If it stays up for a significant period of time other military equipment, such as mission systems could be installed and used in the deployed fleet.  This means for some countries that they would not systems like the P-8 and could simply buy a larger tanker fleet.  India comes to mind in this regard.Second, the A330MRTT remains the multi-mission tanker of choice, the Boeing 767 being a specialized tanker asset.  Saudi Arabia is to acquire 6, the UAE 3, Australia 5 and the United Kingdom 14 tankers, with the UK doing so through the FSTA route.

The Australians, the Saudis and the UAE are all buying a refuelable tanker.  And the Saudis and UAE are basically buying a variant of the Aussie tanker.“Basically, the Saudi tanker is exactly the same Australian MRTT configuration, so the Delta for the certification from Australia into the Saudi is considered very small, we plan to complete before August this year. In the case of the UAE it’s basically the Australian Technical certificate, and we are using small modifications to match with UAE radio communication systems, and data link system.  We are scheduled for the technical certificate of UAE version in December.”He argued that the system is achieving significant maturity as it is delivered to Australia this year.  He discussed various aspects of the testing and maturity of the systems onboard the tanker, and this data is well laid out in the briefing slides, which are included here.

[slidepress gallery=’an-update-on-the-a330mrtt-tanker’]

Photo Credit: Airbus Military

Third, he indicated synergy between the commercial production of the A330 and the A330MRTT, which would provide for a robust supply chain and reduced maintenance costs over the life of the product. “When you compare it to the 767, the A330 is more coherent, more capable, and it’s in full operation. We are delivering from Toulouse, 100 aircraft a year. So this means that the aircraft is still selling very well. Currently, there are 1300 aircraft produced and in delivery. This means that this aircraft can be in operation in the commercial area for another 20 to 30 years; and this will provide to the military customers, as well, the flexibility and the affordability of operations, training, and having spares provided over the next thirty years.”

Fourth, the industrial approach starts with launching a platform in Spain with the possibility of completing the project in the customer country.“In terms of industrial solution, the way in which we have strategized the program is to do the prototypes in Spain, and do the remaining platforms in country. For this particular case, we have converted the first MRTT Australian prototype in Madrid, and then the following four aircraft are being converted in Australia. Actually, the aircraft number 2 and aircraft number 3 have been already finished, fully converted in Australia; and aircraft number 4 in about to be finished.”He added with regard to the Aussie program “aircraft number four is being in the final stages of conversion at Qantas. The first flight is expected in August. The conversion process is, by now, very standardized. Aircraft number 5 will be flown this coming summer into Australia, for it’s final conversion in June of next year.”