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.
2/10/18: The inaugural Sub-Regional Defence Ministers’ Meeting on Counter-Terrorism was held in Perth, between 1 and 2 February 2018.
The Perth Meeting is a new forum, which brings together ministers from Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand to strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation in our region.
Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne, said this meeting is an opportunity to discuss the important contribution made by defense organisations to whole-of-government and law enforcement-led efforts to combat terrorism.
02/10/2018:The Cyber Defence Unit was set up as part of the Estonian Defence League to bring technical expertise from the civilian world into the Estonian defence forces to be deployed should a cyber emergency arise.
2018-02-10 The UK Chief of Defence Staff has reinforced a commitment to stronger defence ties with Australia after a series of meetings with senior Australian officials.
According to an article on the UK Ministry of Defence website published February 7, 2018:
During a visit to the country, Sir Stuart Peach met his Australian counterpart, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin AC, to discuss how both countries’ Armed Forces can work together on a number of fronts.
Sir Stuart also met with the Australian Minister of Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne, to discuss an aligned approach to both global and regional issues, such as North Korea, Iraq, Syria and countering terrorism.
Chief of Defence Staff Sir Stuart Peach and Australian Minister for Defence Marise Payne. Copyright @MarisePayne
Both nations are already part of the Five Eyes defence relationship and work together on tackling shared threats, but are seeking to build upon this further.
Whilst in Canberra, Sir Stuart laid a wreath at the tomb of the unknown Australian soldier in the Australian War Memorial and met the Director, Dr Brendan Nelson.
The Chief of Defence Staff Sir Stuart Peach said:
“From the First World War right up to the fight against Daesh, the UK and Australia have stood shoulder to shoulder as the strongest of allies. We work together on a range of regional and global challenges, advocating and defending the rules-based international system and promoting rule of law as the basis of peace and security.
“Our strong defence and security relationship reflects a modern and dynamic partnership. We learn from each other as our soldiers train together, we collaborate in defence science and technology and I have no doubt our partnership will continue to go from strength to strength as we face upcoming global challenges together.”
02/10/2018: Marines with Battalion Landing Team, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, conduct Tactical Recovery of Aircraft Personnel training at Camp Hansen, Okinawa, Japan, Dec. 14, 2017.
TRAP is a vital capability for the 31st MEU and allows the Aviation Combat Element to tactfully recover aircraft and put Marines and the machinery they use back in the fight quickly.
The Marines of BLT 1/1 were able to successfully rescue the aircraft pilot and bring him back to safety.
2018-02-10 Recently, the UK Minister of Defence procurement officially opened a new Atlas hangar which is large enough to contain three of the RAF’s new Atlas transport aircraft at the same time.
The hangar is part of a significant infrastructure build by the UK Ministry of Defence to support new generation air combat equipment.
In an article published by the UK Ministry of Defence on February 1, 2018, the event was highlighted:
The Atlas maintenance, repair and overhaul facility, which covers 24,000 metres squared and is 28 metres high, is now fitted out and fully operational in support of RAF transport operations all over the world.
Minister for Defence Procurement Guto Bebb said:
“From deploying troops and armoured vehicles to a war zone, to getting vital support to humanitarian disasters, our Atlas fleet plays a global role and it needs a home to match.
“This huge hangar provides exactly that, and will see Brize Norton ready our Atlas fleet for action wherever they are needed in the world.”
The hangar was built under Defence Infrastructure Organisation contracts and has cost approximately £70 million including fit-out work, with activity on the facility ramping up since late 2016 when it was handed to Defence Equipment and Support, the MOD’s procurement organisation.
The hangar is designed to make Atlas maintenance easier, safer and more efficient. The internal layout is the result of extensive feedback from support delivery teams and has been designed to be highly adaptable with easy access to specialist tools and equipment.
Support for the UK’s Atlas fleet is enabled through a £410 million agreement between DE&S and Airbus Defence and Space – part of the UK’s ongoing commitment to the Atlas programme which is sustaining 8,000 jobs across the national supply chain.
RAF Atlas aircraft, a familiar sight in the skies above RAF Brize Norton where they are based, recently formed part of the UK’s relief response to Hurricane Irma in the Caribbean where they made shuttle flights from Barbados to destinations across the region to deliver key support, including to the British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos and Anguilla.
Defence Equipment and Support Director Air Support, Adrian Baguley, said:
“The Atlas programme is delivering a world-class fleet for the RAF, offering the UK next-generation transport and airlift abilities for operations all over the world.
“Expert support on the ground in the UK is an essential part of that capability and this new facility will ensure that work continues for decades to come.”
The aircraft can carry up to 37 tonnes over a range of 2,000 nautical miles. It is able to deploy troops and equipment between and within theatres of operation either by parachute or by landing on short, potentially unprepared airstrips.
Atlas can also carry armoured vehicles, drastically reducing the time it takes for a deploying force to be ready to fight. For humanitarian roles, it is capable of deploying mobile cranes, excavators and large dump trucks for disaster relief operations– for example clearing earthquake sites.
Wing Commander Ed Horne, the Officer Commanding 70 Squadron RAF which operates the UK’s Atlas aircraft said:
“This new hangar provides us with a world-class maintenance facility to match the world-beating capability of the Atlas aircraft.”
The UK has ordered 22 Atlas aircraft for the RAF, 18 of which have been delivered. The entire fleet is due to be delivered by 2022.
The photos in the slideshow show the new hangar and the event officially opening the facility and are credited to the UK MoD.
This year is the 100th Anniversary of the founding of the RAF.
A key theme is building an integrated air combat force and at Brize Norton, the RAF is working fleet integration of the new kids on the block, the A330MRTT tanker and the A400M with the C-130s and C-17s in the fleet.
Shaping an integrated ssupport fleet is a keystone to significant change going forward for the RAF as an extended defence force for the United Kingdom.
2018-02-08 At the current Singapore Air Show, one key development being highlighted is the possibility of the latest variant of the F-16 being built in India.
According to an article by Gurdip Singh published on February 7, 2018 by Business World:
Lockheed Martin sees decades of business opportunities to make the latest and most advanced 4th generation multi-role F-16V fighter jets in India for its air force and exports, a top official of the American defence firm said today.
The F-16V, where the V suffix is for its Viper nickname, is claimed by the company to be the latest and most advanced combat-proven jet of the family in the market.
“If selected, we expect the production of F-16V from India to go on for decades. There are opportunities out there for delivering F-16s,” Joe LaMarca, vice president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company said here.
“If we are successful in India, that would provide that opportunities (for exports) to countries that would want that plane,” he added.
“If Lockheed Martin sets up production in India, any future orders from outside will be met through the jets made in India,” LaMarca said, adding that it has been the offer from the company to India….
Earlier, we took a look at the potential impact of an F-16 purchase on the Indian Air Force as well as Indian military aerospace.
2017-10-17 By Robbin Laird
The Indian Air Force is about to launch competition to add new fighter aircraft.
This would be in addition, to the acquisition of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft, already in place.
The Indian Chief of Staff of the Air Force has indicated that the IAF will buy additional Rafales but also add a new a single engine jet to modernize its fighter force.
The frontrunners in the single engine competition are Saab’s Gripen and Lockheed Martin’s F-16.
Such a competition is not simply a platform competition, but a capability one as well in terms of the industrial and combat ecosystems associated with each aircraft.
There are clear differences, not the least of which the F-16 is combat proven and being upgraded by several F-16 users, and the Gripen is not combat proven and is being upgraded almost completely by the Swedish Air Force.
If the Gripen were to be selected by the IAF, the Indians would undoubtedly pay the lion’s share of upgrades in the future.
The F-16 being offered is what Lockheed and USAF are calling the Block 70, which has significant upgrades in terms of avionics, sensors and radars.
Not only is the aircraft being significantly modified in terms of what the aircraft is capable of doing in the battlespace, but also in terms of how the pilot workload is being changed by the new systems onboard.
New data management, sensors, processing and displays allow for significantly enhanced workload efficiencies for the Block 70 F-16 pilot
The differences between what an F-16 and a Gripen means for the future of the IAF goes far beyond a platform discussion.
It is really the strategic impact of the global F-16 enterprise and its ties to the evolving F-35 renorming air combat enterprise versus the Gripen as a Swedish air platform, which is flown by a very small number of air forces globally, and certainly not cutting edge ones.
For the Indian Air Force the choice is rather stark if one takes an enterprise or global combat learning curve point of view.
The F-16 is flown by a great number of Air Forces and key parts are built worldwide. This means that India is not tied to the United States and its operational or manufacturing experience.
Rather, the F-16 built in India could leverage a global enterprise as well as expand its global working relationships.
In contrast, purchasing the Gripen does tie the Indians tightly to Sweden and the partnerships they have had, many of them American, in building their combat aircraft
For example, the UAE Air Force flies both the most advanced F-16 to date, the Block 60, as well as French combat aircraft. The Indians flying Rafales and F-16s might well find a working relationship with the UAE in shaping interactive concepts of operations or the development of mutually beneficial technology to enable their air combat forces.
The “Made in India” part of the F-16 engagement would clearly be about opening the Indian air combat aperture to a variety of F-16 global partners.
The SAAB “Made in India” would be more about literally making a Swedish Aircraft in India for Indians with little prospect of amortized modernization cost by other Gripen partners or the Swedes for that matter.
And that brings up the impact of USAF modernization as well.
The USAF is structurally modernizing a significant part of its F-16 fleet with the so-called SLEP program that adds 50% additional service life up to and beyond 12,000 flight hours.
At the same time, they are introducing an advanced Northrop Grumman radar, the APG-83.
The radar on the F-16 Block 70 and the spill over effects from the F-35 program as well are important considerations when buying a Block 70.
The migration of the radar on the Block 70 F-16. Credit Graphic: Lockheed Martin
The software on the Block 70 radar has more than 95% in common with the APG-81, the AESA radar that’s on the F-35.
And the hardware is 75-80% in common.
Collectively, there is about 85-90% in common between the Northrop radar on the F-35 and the F-16 Block 70.
And this obviously has a significant impact upon both the path and cost of modernization.
The U.S. and the F-35 partners will invest significantly in the evolution of the F-35 radar, which will have an impact as well on the Block 70 radar modernization as well.
This radar, the latest of four fighter aircraft based electronically scanned array fire control radars from Northrop Grumman, shares much in common with the F-35 radars as well, which means that when it comes to the evolution of the sensor-EW-command functions provided by advanced AESA radars.
The Indians would be benefiting from USAF combat learning with the new systems and as well as those global partners engaged in a similar modernization effort.
Beyond the USAF, this may well have been part of the decision making process with air forces in Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and currently being contemplated by Greece that have led to several hundred F-16 upgrades with this radar.
And it is clear that the impact the F-35 will be significant upon the evolution of air combat, something I have labeled, the renorming of airpower.
An Indian Block 70 clearly would be a beneficiary of this evolving air combat learning process as new radars and sensors enter the air combat force, with the new Northrop Grumman radars as an open ended evolving combat capability.
Put in blunt terms, the IAF could choose a platform qua platform in terms of its organic capabilities at the time of acquisition or it could buy a enterprise enabled platform which is part of a global enterprise, with several key air combat forces world wide, and flying with key elements of the ongoing air combat revolution driven by the F-35.
Made in India could be part of engaging in the global enterprise or it could be narrowed down to assembling a combat aircraft in India itself as the focus of effort.
Being part of a global F-16 force has many other advantages.
There are many F-16 pilots worldwide; there are a variety of training centers; and if the IAF needed more aircraft in a crisis they could go to an F-16 partner and find ways to lease aircraft as needed as well.
101472random1.05.0
With a global inventory, there is always a possible of a rapid plus up.
It would be difficult to do this while attempting to dip into the global pool of Swedish, Thai, South African or Brazilian Gripens.
The enterprise advantage clearly seems to go to the F-16 and this advantage would seem as well to have been augmented by the different partnering arrangements, which Lockheed and SAAB have taken.
SAAB is partnering in India with a company with no experience in aerospace, namely the Adani Group.
It is a partner that would clearly help with the Made In India part with regard to investments domestically.
As the Adani Group website highlights:
The Adani Group is one of India’s leading business houses with revenue of over $11 billion.
Founded in 1988, Adani has grown to become a global integrated infrastructure player with businesses in key industry verticals – resources, logistics, energy and agro. The integrated model is well adapted to the infrastructure challenges of the emerging economies.
Adani Group’s growth and vision has always been in sync with the idea of Nation Building. We live in the same communities where we operate and take our responsibility towards contributing to the betterment of the society very seriously. Through Adani Foundation, we ensure development and progress is sustainable and inclusive; not just for the people living in these areas, but the environment on the whole. At Adani, we believe in delivering benefits that transcend our immediate stakeholders.
What is not so clear is what such a business brings to the question of force modernization and accelerated introduction of combat aircraft?
This appears to be a significant differentiator between Lockheed and Saab as the Government of India moves forward with this challenging and ambitious project.
Recently, I had a chance to discuss the F-16 opportunity with India with the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics head of F-16 and F-22 business development, Randall Howard, during a visit to Fort Worth to view and discuss the final assembly line for the F-35.
Howard has had many years of experience working with allies in acquiring and operating advanced aircraft with allies, notably both with the F-16 and the F-35. He spent 20 years with the USAF and now 10 years with Lockheed Martin working with allies on air combat issues.
According to Howard, the F-16 line is closing at Fort Worth, with the last F-16 produced at Fort Worth being for the Iraqis. Now a “hot line” is being established at the Lockheed Martin facility in Greenville, South Carolina which will build up to 19 new F-16s for Bahrain’s Air Force.
This means that the F-16 partners will see new work generated as well.
“Key elements of the F-16 are built by the partners, in Greece, South Korea and Israel and the Bahrain program and the standup of the new facility in Greenville substantiates the continuing customer demand for the F-16 and will drive new demand for our partners.”
Howard pointed out that this meant that India would benefit from the new standup as well as the working relationship with F-16 industrial partners in moving the sole production line to India itself, if the F-16 were chosen by the IAF.
The performance of the F-16 certainly is not in question; nor the existence of a significant F-16 global user base.
“The success of the F-16 is unmatched as a program in terms of bringing countries together, shaping relationships which have delivered significant combat capability, and an unparalleled track record on delivering bombs on target for the past three decades in the US and partner air forces.”
We then discussed the different ecosystems so to speak of the Gripen versus the F-16.
“One of the difference between F-16 and our global competitors is economies of scale that drive industrial business case realities.
“Where competitors have fielded a few hundred aircraft globally, the global F-16 community includes more than 25 countries flying approximately 3,200 of those 4588 F-16s that were produced; 3200 of them are flying today.”
“The U.S. Air Force and other allied Air Forces are upgrading their F-16s and many of these aircraft are being service life extended out to 12,000 hours and are going to be flown for 30 more years.
“This means that there is a clear opportunity for industry to be part of that modernization process, which would clearly be available to India as well.
“Our recent joint announcement with TATA during the Paris Air Show provides an exceptionally strong, experienced, and proven team capable of delivering on the challenges of establishing F-16 global production in India and building a defense ecosystem that supports the global demand.”
The F-16 is also part of entire upswing in the capabilities of legacy aircraft as new systems are added which have an additive impact on the combat capabilities of the legacy aircraft as well as change the workload and work processes of the combat crew as well.
If one looks at the Canadian Aurora variant of the P-3, or the KC-130J, as examples, new capabilities have been added to what looks like a legacy airplane but it does not perform in the same manner at all.
This clearly applies to the F-16 as well – it may look like a legacy F-16 but it has only aerodynamics and some core combat performance characteristics of the airframe in common.
Otherwise, it is evolving into an enhanced 4th generation combat capability integratable with fifth generation renorming combat aircraft.
And the process of evolution will continue.
Given the USAF’s commitment as well as the global partners who are still and will continue to use the aircraft modernization and upgrades are guaranteed as part of any Indian F-16 experience.
As part of the USAF F-16 SLEP program, they are enhancing the expected operational life of the air frame as well.
“It is certified at 8,000 equivalent hours.
“The USAF has contracted Lockheed Martin to evolve the airframe to a 12,000 equivalent hour capability.
“We’re “productionizing” the airframe changes.
“We’re going to build these new Block 70s for Bahrain and the customers that come behind them, to be able to operate through to 12,000 hours.
“This delivers about 50% more service life than any other aircraft in its class.”
In short, the F-16 provides India with a strategic opportunity not just to add new platforms, but to shape a more effective global engagement in the innovations underway by the U.S. and its partners in evolving air combat capabilities.
Editor’s Note: See our earlier piece by Danny Lam on the F-16 and India.
We highlighted the following with regard to Dr. Lam’s piece on the F-16 for India:
Editor’s Note: One does not have to agree with everything, which Lam has argued in this article, but there clearly are three key takeaways, which are very significant for India.
First, what are the benefits of having a manufacturing line for the most widely used 4th generation aircraft?
How can one leverage a global user base and support or supply such a user base?
Second, how will the Indian armed forces connect their platforms?
For the Indian Air Force this is absolutely critical given their propensity to buy a wide variety of platforms.
Third, given the experience Indians have in the software business, how can this be transferred to the defense business, notably in terms of shaping a combat cloud for the armed forces?
How will India shape a connected combat force which can overmatch the Chinese forces?
Fourth, if India can build real competence on connecting its disparate air combat force, there clearly will be markets globally for such a competence and again if one is building an aircraft which is already the largest 4th generation deployed air combat aircraft, then that simply opens up significant market opportunities.
Editor’s Note: The slideshow highlights photos of aF-16 Aerial Demonstration Team during the opening ceremonies of Aero India 2017 at Air Force Station Yelahanka, India Feb. 14. (U.S. Air Force photo by Capt. Mark Lazane)
Also, see our first article on the subject of F-16s for India:
The US Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. David L. Goldfein departed New Delhi Sunday following meetings with US Embassy leadership as well as Republic of India military leadership to discuss strengthening the strategic military-to-military partnership with India.
On Wednesday, Gen. Goldfein met with US Ambassador to the Republic of India, Hon. Kenneth I. Juster. During their meeting they discussed matters related to furthering the partnership between the US and India.
On Thursday, Goldfein had meetings with Air Chief Marshal Birender Dhanoa, Republic of India Chief of the Air Staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba, Republic of India Chief of the Naval Staff, Gen. Bipin Rawat, Republic of India Chief of the Army Staff, and Hon. Sanjay Mitra, Republic of India Defense Secretary.
During these meetings, Gen Goldfein emphasized the USAF’s commitment to strengthening its relationship with the Indian Armed Forces and discussed ways that the U.S. and India can deepen the relationship between their two air forces through bilateral engagements, exchanges and exercises.
On Friday, Goldfein met with India Air Force leadership and air crews from the C-130J 77 Squadron and C-17 81 Squadron at Hindon Air Force Station. During his visit he was briefed on the squadrons’ missions and accomplishments including evacuation operations in Yemen.
Additionally on Friday, Goldfein traveled to Jodhpur Air Force Station to meet with Air Marshal Devendra Rawat, Southwestern Air Command Senior Air Staff Officer and learn about the Indian Air Force’s TEJAS Mk-1 fighter and discuss bilateral opportunities between their air forces.
Finally on Saturday, the Indian Air Force provided Gen Goldfein with a familiarization flight aboard the TEJAS fighter and met with fighter pilots from the 31st Fighter Squadron at Jodhpur. He also visited with the leadership and Airmen at Agra Air Station. While at Agra he was briefed on the unit’s mission and discussed how the two air forces could increase partnership opportunities.
Following his meetings, Goldfein said, “India is a leading power and strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific region. From our Presidents, to our Defense Secretary and Minister, to our Air Force Chiefs, we’re working together and looking for opportunities to enhance the inter-operability of our two forces as major defense partners in the Indo-Pacific region ”
During Gen. Goldfein’s visit to India, he also met with U.S. service members stationed in New Delhi.
Gen. Goldfein’s visit to India is part of an Indo-Pacific tour to advance mil-to-mil relationships in the region, and enhance and strengthen U.S. alliances and partnerships throughout the Indo-Pacific region. Gen. Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy Commander, Pacific Air Forces, and Ms. Heidi Grant, Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force, International Affairs also traveled to India with Gen. Goldfein.
Competition between public and controlled information is as old as life.
From the beginning of time, there were information hoarder / controllers and disseminators / distributors. Information science tells us that 99% of information is public and only a tiny portion is significantly restricted.
The explosion and spread of technologies from the 19th century onwards have favored disseminators. Tool and techniques to collect and archive primary data like voice recorders, cameras, etc. are now ubiquitous.
Communications networks have expanded both coverage and bandwidth to a level unimaginable at the dawn of the industrial age.
What remains slow changing and scarce are those with the skill and can make sense of the raw data, search, manipulate, and organize it to elicit facts and actionable intelligence from a body of information “out there.”
Automation of these functions is presently one of the fastest growing technology areas, i.e. rather than manually review surveillance videos, automation techniques like facial recognition allow near instant identification and tracking of persons.
This is now branded as “artificial intelligence.”
Collection of large amounts of data is a capability that security agencies, particularly in totalitarian regimes, have seized on and developed world class transnational systems for their purposes.
The amount of data collected on most individuals in developed economies far exceed what the best cold war era agencies like STASI could have dreamed of.
Making sense of this vast trove of data, is another matter.
Traditionally, intelligence bureaucracies relied on professionals to collect, archive, analyze, and make sense of the data.
The US have long maintained a lead in this area from the first days of the Office of Strategic Services to present in areas like signal intelligence and its cognates like encryption, analysis, etc.
The US is a world leader in high tech means to collect data that began with difficult to intercept aircraft like the U-2, the ultra-fast SR-71, and then satellites like Corona that obtained data no other nation have.
Over time, the SIGINT capability of the US and allies grew into an infrastructure that ensured information dominance and was a key enabler for American world leadership.
Well into the 1980s, interpretation of photo and satellite images were laboriously done by trained operators.
AI now allows rapid processing and interpretation of these images to enable near real time “actionable intelligence.”
The same technologies are now widely available commercially and are inherently dual use.
Allied leadership in intelligence is now being challenged by the rise of new, open source intelligence systems that have the traditional advantage of open vs. closed systems: rapid dissemination of technology and knowhow, triangulation and bracketing, or falsification aided by a large distributed pool of experts, novel new applications and use of non-traditional technologies and methods, etc.
There have always been those who are so good at exploiting public, open source information, like the legendary Mark Hibbs, the former editor of the newsletter Nuclearonics Week, who routinely outdid the Intelligence Community (IC), or should we say, Government Intelligence bureaucracy (GIB).
What changed in the 21st Century is developments have enabled the wholesale creation of Mark Hibbs like capabilities operating in the open source domain.
The absolute advantage of the Intelligence Community in high tech method and means, resources, and traditional tradecraft is more and more being matched, and occasionally overmatchedby modest open source operations.
Simulation and modeling technologies in the hands of skilled operators enable interpretation of public information in a manner that formerly was the preserve of a small core of government experts.
For example, the Fukushima Daiichi reactor meltdown was recognized by nuclear scientists who tracked public information on the radionuclides and radiation releases, plugged it into their simulator, and concluded there was a meltdown well before TEPCO announced their findings.
Readily available commercial simulators for finite element analysis can build simulation models of rockets, and by plugging in publically available photos or commercial satellite images, obtain solid estimates of the performance parameters of DPRK missile launches comparable to what US surveillance satellite images could do in the 1970s.
The GIB have on more than a few occasions, been soundly beaten by the open-source community.
Most recently, the analysis of North Korea’s intentions and motivations for their WMD programs have been stymied by the inability to depart from the longstanding IC consensus that it is a traditional defensive deterrent for regime survival.
That interpretation fitted nicely into the cold war era model and perception of nuclear weapons as WMDs that cannot be used without causing a civilization or world ending calamity.
Data points about PRC’s nuclear posture and the DPRK nuclear program’s rapid progress since the rise of Kim Jong Un, sharply diverged from the dominant model’s predictions.
IC terminology remained value and assumption laden: calling PRC and DPRK’s nuclear arsenal “deterrents” when it could have been termed “arsenal” that left open the question of intention and motives.
The IC, trapped in their cold war era world view, was slow to change their models in the face of conflicting data.
PRC’s objection to THAAD in ROK is consistent with their need to preserve an offensive tactical nuclear first strike strategy against allied bases in the NE Asia region — a dramatic departure from the PRC “party line” on their nuclear “deterrent”.
Similarly, North Korea’s rapid development of a nuclear arsenal of the breadth, depth, and intercontinental capabilities is far in excess of any imaginable need for regime survival or to deter an attack on DPRK.
The idea that North Korea under Kim Jong Un is motivated to win an offensive war and complete the task of expulsion of the US from the Korean peninsula, unify Koreas on their terms, and seek trillions of “compensation” from their enemies was revealed by old fashioned desk research of open source material.
Analysis of this material with a historical perspective is all it takes to recognize a different dynamic than traditional nuclear deterrence theories assumed. If one came in with an open mind.
The proposition that North Korea is in it “for the money”, or war for profit, have been arbitrarily dismissed and disregarded by the professional IC until recently even though it was patently clear from open source analysis of their behavioral patterns since 1992.
DPRK’s Foreign Minister Ri’s speech to the UN in September 2017 that explicitly state this goal – extortion – was, until recently, dismissed by many “experts”.
A profit minded North Korea is unlikely to be deterred nor are allied dominance in nuclear weapons necessarily usable for this kind of threat.
Failure to predict DPRK’s rapid rise as a nuclear armed state and their motivations and intentions is a clarion call to the IC that radical changes are required to modernize, vastly expand the capabilities and skills of the establishment.
The old “killer apps” that allowed Allied IC to dominate are still useful, but have seen their relative advantages decline.
Searching for new “killer apps” and bringing them to market quickly need to be as high a priority as the Corona program.
The history of Corona inform us that its success was the product of a small group of top officials under President Eisenhower whose steely determination, aggressive risk taking, and stomach for failure after failure was essential.
12 successive launch failures was the price before success.
One wonder whether the risk adverse GIB today have the mojo to take such risks today without a major culture and organization shakeup. Who will be this generation’s Billy Mitchell (who pioneered Air power), or William Donovan (founded OSS), or Andrew Marshall (ONA)?
The Trump Administration have so far updated the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and is about to release a new Nuclear Strategy. Updating the National Intelligence Strategy to align with these new perspectives, and undertaking the transformation of the GIB to restore America’s edge is an urgent priority.
George Tenant recalled fondly how Corona’s founders and pioneers: “They dreamed the impossible. They dared the impossible. And they did the impossible—day in and day out.”
