The Baseline F-35

05/04/2012

The F-35 represents a new approach to the development, production, system and sustainment of a fleet of combat aircraft.

Additionally, the F-35 takes an innovative approach to collaborative upgrades over the airframe and global fleet’s life cycle.

Too often an understanding of the basic aircraft rolling out of production right now is lost in the shuffle. With one exception, the jets in assembly at Lockheed Martin’s F-35 facility in Fort Worth are not test aircraft.

They are production aircraft are the immediate forerunners of the IOC USMC aircraft.

Put another way, what will the F-35B as a flying sensor system be able to do right out of the box?

And one must remember that the upgrading capability is built into the aircraft, or put another way the aircraft both as platform and FLEET is inherently upgradeable.

But not fully grasped is that the first F-35s are already superior aircraft to any plane they are designed to replace.

This report looks at the capabilities of the baseline aircraft, and is built around an interview with a senior Lockheed engineer.

It also reflects extensive leg work by the Second Line of Defense team talking with partners, industry, the USN, USMC and USAF personnel involved in shaping the F-35 program. Although there are many words flying about concerning the F-35, very few folks have actually talked to pilots, maintainers and others involved in the operations and performance of current aircraft. We certainly have and have spent many weeks, and travelled many miles doing so.

After the interview, several Lockheed White papers published on the Website are brought together to further explain and examine the key elements of the aircraft as a weapon system.

This report looks at the PLATFORM; the most transformational aspect of the program comes from the fleet consequences from operating the plane across all U.S. services as well as the partners. These aspects of transformation will be addressed in a later report, but have been written about in various articles already on the website and owes much to the visionary leadership of Secretary Wynne, Lt. General (retired) Deptula and other members of the SLD team.

The F-35 Cockpit: Enabling the Pilot as a Tactical Decision Maker

04/18/2012
Dr. Michael L. Skaff created this briefing.
Skaff described his background in a recent interview as follows: I was an F-16 pilot out of the Air Force Academy. I was prior enlisted, and I’ve been with Lockheed Martin for about 23 years working on the F-35 cockpit since ’95. I flew out of MacDill, Shaw, and Luke during the Cold War.
For a full discussion with Skaff regarding the baseline F-35 please see

[slidepress gallery=’the-f-35-cockpit’]
  • The second slide highlights the key elements of the basic F-35 cockpit.
The highlights of the F-35 cockpit are:
  1. PCD -a large Panoramic Cockpit Display (PCD) which is a 20 x 8  inch contiguous piece of glass. The
    pilot interacts with this display through touch, cursor hooking, and voice
    recognition.
  2. HMD – the pilot wears a Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) in lieu of a physical
  3. Head-up Display (HUD). A virtual HUD (vHUD) is projected onto the visor.
    The vHUD is presented to each eye and is 40 deg wide by 30 degrees tall.
  4. Audio & Voice – stereo wiring is used in the headset in order to facilitate
    full 3-D audio as a software upgrade. A Voice Recognition System (VRS) is
    used for “housekeeping” chores.
  5. STOVL- the Short Takeoff and Vertical (STOVL) mode has been designed for safety
    and simplicity. The STOVL mode is extremely safe and easily trained to. In
    actual flight test non-STOVL pilots have been able to master it in solo on
    their first flight.
  6. JPATS – the F-35 cockpit is designed to accommodate the full JPATS flying
    population from a 245lb man to a 104lb woman.
  7. Escape- a Martin-Baker Mk-16 ejection seat provides for safe ejection. In the
    B-model, when in STOVL mode, the seat is automatically triggered to
    improve safety beyond the human’s ability to react.
  • The third slide focus upon the philosophy behind building the F-35 cockpit. The Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI) design philosophy is “return the pilot to the role of tactician.” Managing workload and providing the tools, which will build and maintain situation awareness, accomplish this.

But more than that, information dominance is the design result. The F-35 is a complete weapon system and multiple F-35s are more than the sum of the air vehicles. When a flight or division of F-35s enters battlespace they become the dominant factor.

  • The fourth slide looks at the design philosophy for the controls and displays in the cockpit.The PVI was designed by pilot for pilots. This design
    approach views the pilot at the center of the of the air vehicle. From this point of view two control and feedback loops exist: 1) the internal loop and 2) the external loop. The external loop is the one featured in “Top Gun.” This is the
    fly and fight loop, but the internal loop is equally important. The internal loop is all about getting the air vehicle safely into and out of battlespace.  This is required in order to fly and fight.
  • The fifth slide provides a visual of the F-35 cockpit display.The PCD is the first thing, which the casual observer notices about the F-35 cockpit.The PCD is a contiguous 20 x 8 inch surface which is
    composed of two physical 10 x 8 inch displays for redundancy. This display space may be configured based on pilot needs into 12 windows of various and content, location, and size. The larger windows are referred to as portals. There are
    four portals.

The small windows at along the bottom are secondary windows and there are 8 of them. The entire surface may be controlled through touch, cursor hooking, or voice control. Upon closer inspection of the cockpit most recognize the paucity of switches and instruments. In fact, many pilots say this is the most naked cockpit in history (this is not true, the Wright flyer had fewerswitches).During the initial design everything was removed from the cockpit volume and had to earn its way back into the cockpit based on “combat value added.” Combat value means it must contribute directly to lethality, survivability, and be cost effective. Cost effective is “bang for the buck.”

  • The sixth slide shows the JSF conceptual display. The initial implementation of the PCD was one physical display of 16 x 9 inches. This design had three portals and 6 secondary windows. The design worked, but pilots asked for another portal.
  • The seventh and slides show the F-35 panoramic cockpit display.  The current F-35 looks like this. In this example, the pilot has configured the PCD into 4 portals with 6 secondary windows. There are 5 portal configurations, which the pilot can program, prior during mission planning. Once airborne, it is extremely easy to use the touchscreen to re-configure PCD.
  • For the eighth slide, we see three portals and 4 secondary windows.Portal one, on the left, is a large Tactical Situation Display (TSD). It is onto the format that fusion presents its view of battlespace. All F-35s share this view and contribute to its content. This is also the primary location that the pilot interactswith the air vehicle to sort and target. The two portals on the right are showing sensor data. In this case the Electro-optical Targeting System (EOTS) and the Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR).
  • The ninth and tenth slides focus upon the mission reconfigurable aspect of the cockpit. The Mission Reconfigurable Cockpit (MRC) was a Contract Research and Development (CRaD) program, which Lockheed had, back in the early 90’s.  During this program Lockheed explored advanced fighter cockpit concepts.

Among these were vHUD, touch, voice recognition, and accommodation. The results of this research became the foundation of the F-35 cockpit 10 years later. The MRC contract allowed Lockheed Martin to explore the under pinnings of information dominance.The greatest challenge is how to bridge the gulf between information overload and information dominance.

Think of it this way: when you look at a populated spreadsheet you see data.  Data is important, but it is extremely difficult to understand by just looking at it. If you graph the data the meaning and importance becomes obvious.  We’ll call this information.  We can act on information unless there is too much of it. We need to cull out which information is of most importance for the immediate task at hand.  We call this INFORMATION DOMINANCE.  Information dominance is what makes the F-35 unlike any other weapon system.

  • The eleventh slide highlights the joint attack strike technology.  The follow on contract to the MRC CRaD was called Joint Attack Strike Technology Onboard/offboard (J/OBOB). This research assumed that the 5th generation tactical fighters would be connected. They could literally have an IP address and receive intelligence feeds while airborne. This really complicated the issue of information dominance.  It’s like a Google search which returns ten thousand results.  You suspect the desired result is out there, but how do you get to it.

The remaining slides look at the role of the helmet within the cockpit system.

  • The twelfth slide shows the Helmet Mounted Display. The vHUD being projected onto the visor is new technology and will change tactical employment. The jump from 3rd gen fighters to 4th gen brought a full head-up display.

The HUD was a paradigm shift, which dramatically improved lethality and survivability. In similar fashion the jump to 5th gen with a vHUD is a paradigm shift and has the potential to revolutionize employment. A physical HUD projects into about 1200 square degrees of battlespace directly in front of the aircraft. The HMD with vHUD opens the view
into over 41000 square degrees.  This is the full sphere surrounding the aircraft.

  • The thirteenth slide provides an example of the vHUD when the pilot looks directly forward where a physical HUD would be. F-35 pilots report that in about 10 minutes they become accustomed to the vHUD. The pilots recognize the potential improvements in lethality and survivability of the HMD.
  • The final slide provides an example of off axis symbology. In general, Lockheed only take key flight parameters and tactical symbology off axis. In the future Lockheed will investigate off axis attitude awareness symbology. The mil standards don’t yet address HMDs and off axis symbolgy. Lockheed will work with the Services to improve and update The standard as well as the HMD symbology.

With an Accuracy of 100 Yards or Less

03/26/2012
C-130J releasing multiple high-velocity container delivery systems (HVCDS) at an accuracy of 100 yards, as part of a training exercise conducted by the Air Force’s 317th Operation Support Squadron Feb. 24 at Fort Hood, Texas.

With an Accuracy of 100 Yards or Less from SldInfo.com on Vimeo.

Operating in the Heartland of the Tailban Insurgency

03/06/2012
03/04/2012: As the US engagement in Afghanistan winds down, and the approach to the future is sorted out, Second Marine Division (Forward) has provided interviews with the commanding general of 2nd Marine Division (Forward) which highlight the challenges and successes the Marines and sailors of the division made during their tenure as the ground combat element of the Marine Air Ground Task Force and Regional Command (Southwest) during the last year.

Here Brig. Gen. Lewis Craparotta discusses the progress made in Sangin, the most highly contested area in Helmand province.

Credit: 2nd Marine Division: 02/15/12
Brigadier General Craparotta is currently serving as Commanding General, 2D Marine Division (Forward). He is a native of South Windsor, Connecticut and graduated from the University of Vermont in December 1982 with a BA in Political Science. He was commissioned in May 1983. He has attended The Basic School, the Infantry Officer Course, Amphibious Warfare School, Army Command and General Staff College, and the Naval War College. He has also completed the Marine Corps Aerial Observer Course, Army Airborne School and the Armed Forces Staff College.

His service outside the Operating Forces includes duty as a tactics instructor at The Basic School from October 1986 to April 1987 and as an instructor at IOC from April 1987 through June 1990. From July 1991 to July 1992 he was assigned as an advisor to the Royal Saudi Marines and served in this capacity in Jubail, Saudi Arabia. Between August 1996 and June 1999 he was assigned to Headquarters, Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR) in Stuttgart, Germany. From July 2004 through May 2006 he was assigned to the Joint Staff.


As General Amos, USMC Commandant, noted late last year:
The number of Marines in Helmand province will drop “markedly” in 2012, and the role of those who stay will shift from countering the insurgency to training and advising Afghan security forces.

The change suggests an early exit from Afghanistan for the Marine Corps even as the prospects for solidifying their recent successes are uncertain.

“Am I OK with that?

The answer is `yes,’” Amos said. “We can’t stay in Afghanistan forever.”

“Will it work? I don’t know. But I know we’ll do our part.”

Kazakhstan-China Security Ties

02/26/2012

By Dr. Richard Weitz

02/26/12 – China and Kazakhstan have generally achieved a harmonious relationship in which the two countries can engage in mutually beneficial economic, energy, diplomatic, and security partnerships that produce a “win-win” outcome for both parties.

For centuries, Kazakhstan’s leaders perceived China as their main security threat, inducing them to ally with Russia as a great power balancer. During the Cold War, Kazakhstan served as a forward base for potential Soviet military operations against the People’s Republic of China (PRC). After the USSR’s collapse, the initial focus of Astana and Beijing, after establishing diplomatic relations in 1992, was to delineate their new 1,600km (1,000 miles) common border.

Kazakhstan’s close ties with Russia have constrained Sino-Kazakhstani cooperation. (Credit Image: Bigstock)
Kazakhstan’s close ties with Russia have constrained Sino-Kazakhstani cooperation. (Credit Image: Bigstock)

The two national governments progressively resolved their frontier differences in their joint communiqué of November 23, 1999, their bilateral protocol on border demarcation on May 10, 2002, and their comprehensive border agreement of December 20, 2006. The two governments also signed a bilateral accord to govern the use and protection of their cross-border rivers on September 12, 2001. In 2002, the Kazakhstani and Chinese governments signed a “Good Neighbor Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation,” an “Agreement on Cooperation Against Terrorism, Separatism, and Extremism” and an “Agreement Between the Chinese Government and the Kazakhstani Government on Preventing Dangerous Military Activities.”

In May 2004, the two countries established a China-Kazakhstan Cooperation Committee, which has served as a major governmental mechanism for developing their bilateral relationship. The Kazakhstani and Chinese presidents typically meet several times a year in bilateral and multilateral gatherings; other senior government officials often meet more frequently.

At these, Chinese and Kazakhstani leaders have taken care to express their support for the other country’s security, internal stability, and territorial integrity. While PRC leaders fear secessionist movements and religious extremism among its national minorities, Kazakhstani leaders worry about imported religious extremism and militancy.

In line with Chinese preferences, Central Asian governments regularly profess solidarity with Beijing’s counterterrorist concerns, which center on the Uighur-based East Turkestan Islamic Movement.

For example, when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Astana in June 2004, the two governments issued a joint declaration that stated: “The two sides are determined to continue to take effective measures and work together in cracking down on all forms of terrorism, including the terrorist force of the ‘Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement’ in order to safeguard the peace and stability in the two countries and this part of the world.” In addition, the communiqué affirmed that, “The two sides maintain that the crackdown on the terrorist force of the ‘East Turkestan Islamic Movement’ is an important part of the international fight against terrorism.”

The Chinese government has employed primarily diplomatic initiatives and direct security assistance to bolster Central Asian governments against mutual terrorist threats. By 2004, Beijing had signed bilateral counter-terrorism agreements with all four of its Central Asian neighbors. They include provisions for joint law enforcement operations, bilateral police training, and enhanced intelligence sharing.

To bolster ties with these governments as well as enhance their counterterrorist capabilities, Beijing has supplied Central Asian governments with defense equipment, military training, and intelligence information regarding terrorist threats.

The National Security Committee of Kazakhstan and the Public Security Ministry of China regularly conduct joint anti-terrorist exercises in border regions. Kazakhstani and PRC law enforcement agencies also collaborate against trafficking in narcotics and weapons. China’s defense academies now enroll Kazakhstani military personnel in their classes.

One unique factor differentiating China’s relations with Kazakhstan from those with the other Central Asian countries is their large overlapping ethnic groups.

About 180,000 ethnic Uighurs reside in eastern Kazakhstan. In addition, as many as one million ethnic Kazakhs live in China, especially in Xinjiang.  Many ethnic Kazakhs have moved to Kazakhstan during the past decade as the country’s independence and reconciliation with China has generated new opportunities for travel between the two countries.

A major Chinese concern in relations with Kazakhstan is securing Astana’s support for Beijing’s efforts to curb “separatism” among China’s Uighur population. Central Asians often sympathize with the Uighurs’ separatist aspirations, especially since ethnic Uighur activists may have been inspired by the Central Asians’ own successful drives for independence and share the same Muslim faith as do many Central Asians.

Nevertheless, Kazakhstan and other Central Asian governments, while allowing Uighurs to practice limited degrees of political activity, do not permit Uighurs to engage in unauthorized activities in China and have deported Uighurs accused of terrorism by the Chinese.  At Beijing’s urging, Chinese pressure forced the dissolution of the independent associations of Uighurs that had existed in Kazakhstan as well as the closure of the Institute of Uighur Studies that had been based at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Almaty.

Joint Kazakhstani-Chinese declarations also normally include a clause affirming the mainland’s position regarding Taiwan — that Beijing is the only legitimate government of China and that Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory. The communiqué issued when Hu visited Astana in August 2007, for instance, states that, “On the Taiwan issue, the Kazakh government reiterated its steadfastness in upholding the one-China policy and throws its support behind China for all efforts it has made to realize national reunification, recognizing that the Taiwan issue is China’s internal affair.”

When Taiwan held a referendum on March 22, 2008 on Taiwan’s joining the United Nations as a separate country, the Kazakh Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared Astana’s opposition to Taiwan’s independence aspirations and any attempt to create “two Chinas.”

In 2008, when various international groups have called on foreign government leaders to boycott the Summer Olympics in Beijing, or at least the opening ceremonies, to signal disproval of China’s policies regarding Darfur, Tibet, or other issues, the Chinese government solicited the endorsement of friendly governments of Beijing’s plans for the Olympics. The governments of Central Asia, including Kazakhstan, obliged. After Kazakhstani Prime Minister Karim Masimov met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in April 2008, they issued a communiqué declaring that, “Kazakhstan supports China’s efforts in the preparations of the Beijing Olympics and will enhance coordination with China on strengthening the Olympic security work to ensure the successful and smooth holding of the Beijing Olympics.”

Kazakhstan’s close ties with Russia have constrained Sino-Kazakhstani cooperation.

On the one hand, much Russia-China trade go through Kazakhstan. On the other hand, Russia has sought to prevent the newly implemented Russia-Kazakhstan-Belarus Customs Union from serving as a backdoor for the smuggling of cheap Chinese goods into Russia. Moscow has therefore pressed Kazakhstan to tighten controls at the Kazakhstani-Chinese border before Russia and Kazakhstan eliminated their joint border checkpoints. Some Kazakhstanis complain that they can no longer buy cheap Chinese imports but must now spend more to buy often inferior quality goods from Russia and Belarus. Vladimir Putin’s proposed Eurasian Union, which the Kazakhstani government has said they would join, could erect further economic and perhaps other barriers between China and Kazakhstan.

China’s soft power resources in Kazakhstan are also weaker than those of Russia. The continuing dominance of Russian culture, the Russian media, and the Russian language has also limited Chinese influence in Kazakhstan. Although some 3,000 Kazakhstani students are studying in Chinese universities and colleges, the number of Chinese speakers in Kazakhstan is miniscule compared to the many Kazakhs who are fluent in Russian.  Chinese is not one of the languages supported by the Kazakhstani government’s trilateral (Kazakh-Russian-English) language competency program.

China’s recent advancement into Kazakhstan’s economy has brought benefits to Kazakhstan, but it has also raised questions over increasing Chinese influence and its implications. Kazakhstani residents located near China complain about the expanding water use by the growing Chinese population in border regions, which has been reducing fresh water river flows to Central Asian communities located further from the rivers’ sources. Many Kazakhstanis do not believe that they have greatly benefited from China’s economic activities in their region, citing PRC managers’ tendency to hire Chinese workers even when operating in foreign countries.

Although many Kazakhstanis welcome China’s increasing involvement in their economy, especially as a supplier of cheap consumer goods and a potential market for Kazakh products, they also fear Chinese long-term ambitions in their country. A widespread worry is that demographic imbalances—Kazakhstan has the lowest population density in Central Asia—could entice Chinese immigration that would eventually lead to China’s de facto annexations of Kazakh territory. A related anxiety is that PRC’s growing wealth will result in Chinese ownership of important sectors of Kazakhstan’s economy.

These concerns became most evident in 1999, when the media criticized the decision by the national legislature to ratify what many Kazakhstani residents deemed as excessively generous concessions to Beijing regarding where to demarcate the China-Kazakhstan border. Popular concerns about “peaceful Sinification” of Kazakhstan’s under-populated regions compelled Kazakhstani authorities to re-impose visa requirements on Chinese nationals seeking to enter Kazakhstan. Concerns also have arisen in Kazakhstan about the bilateral trade imbalance—with Kazakhstanis urging the Chinese to buy (and help develop) Kazakhstan’s non-resource sectors.

Yet, Kazakhstan’s leaders likely admire their Chinese counterparts’ ability to achieve both high rates of economic growth and preserve their authoritarian political system. They also see ties with China as a useful counterweight to Moscow’s still dominant presence in their region.

Furthermore, Kazakhstanis anticipate that enormous size and commercial prowess of the Chinese will invariably give them a prominent place in their national economies, so most of their policies aim to channel the Chinese presence rather than constrain it. As Nazarbayev observed about China in his March 2006 annual address to the Kazakh parliament and nation, “There is no alternative to mutually advantageous ties with that dynamically developing country.”

The relationship between China and Kazakhstan is clearly a “win-win” for both sides.

Mutual benefits derive from their cooperation in trade, transport, energy, and telecommunications. The Kazakhstani government is keen to maintain balanced relations between China, Russia, Europe, and the United States to avoid domination by any single actor.

PRC leaders have also been restrained about antagonizing Russia by appearing to threaten Moscow’s interests in Central Asia. In many cases, these coincide or at least do not conflict with China’s core regional interests. Yet, this harmony also results from Kazakhstan and the rest of Central Asia’s being of lower strategic priority to Beijing than does Moscow. The PRC’s expanding interest in securing Central Asian energy and economic opportunities could lead Beijing to reconsider its policy of regional deference.

Featured Image: Credit Bigstock

Kazakhstan and the Proposed Eurasian Union

02/20/2012

By Dr. Richard Weitz

02/20/12 – A central agenda item of Vladimir Putin’s reelection campaign is his call for a “Eurasia Union” among the former Soviet republics.

Although denying any effort to simply restore the Soviet Union, Putin emphasizes the value of consolidating the former republics into something like the European Union. The republics would coordinate their foreign, economic, and other policies—presumably under Moscow’s leadership—to enhance their (Moscow’s) global influence. The intent appears to build on the new trilateral Customs Union between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan by expanding its members, functions, and powers. Putin’s Press Secretary, Dmitry Peskov, told the influential Kommersant newspaper that the Eurasian Union would be one of his “key priorities” during Putin’s next term as president.

Kazakhstan can best promote its interests within any Eurasian Union by ensuring that the structure does not impede its economic and other ties with non-members, including other Eurasian countries but also China, EU members, and the United States. (Credit: Bigstock)Kazakhstan can best promote its interests within any Eurasian Union by ensuring that the structure does not impede its economic and other ties with non-members, including other Eurasian countries but also China, EU members, and the United States. (Credit: Bigstock)

The Kazakhstani government has endorsed the initiative, but major obstacles stand in the way of Putin’s project. The prospects of a new Eurasian Union emerging anytime soon in the former Soviet Union appear small.

Soon after making his September 24 declaration to run again seek the Russian presidency, Putin called for a Eurasian Union in a rare lengthy article published in the October 4, 2011 issue of Russia’s Izvestia newspaper. Putin disclaimed any intent to try to recreate the USSR, noting “it would be naive to try to restore or copy something that belongs to the past.”

But he added that “a close integration based on new values and economic and political foundation is a demand of the present time.”  Putin called for building on the valuable “inheritance from the Soviet Union,” which he described as “an infrastructure, specialised production facilities, and a common linguistic, scientific and cultural space,” in pursuit of the “joint interests” of the former Soviet republics.  Putin further wrote that his goal was “an ambitious task of reaching a new, higher level of integration” and that he wants to create “a powerful supranational union capable of becoming one of the poles in the modern world.”  He compared his proposed union with “other key players and regional structures, such as the European Union, the United States, China and the Asia Pacific Economic Community.”

Putin evidently wants Russia to again lead a multinational bloc of tightly bound former Soviet republics. Putin is a well-known fan of the Soviet Union. He has publicly described his dismay at being in Germany without guidance as the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe collapsed. In a nationwide television speech in April 2005, Putin famously described the collapse of the USSR as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.”

On November 22, 2011, President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko signed an agreement to integrate their economies in the form of the Eurasian Union, which would coordinate their economic and currency policy and adopt unified visa and migration rules, on the basis of World Trade Organization principles. They agreed to create a Eurasian Economic Commission to manage the integration of the three countries, which have a combined population of 170 million people. The three already have established a single economic space within the framework of their new Customs Union, which became effective on January 1, 2012. The Eurasian Union would not arise before 2015.

President Nazarbayev indicated that at some point the integration might lead to the adoption of a common monetary unit. “First of all, we should prove for ourselves expediency and parity of our economic space. After that, a question of a single currency will arise,” Nazarbayev said. “I believe that none of the national currencies, including such a powerful one as the rouble is suitable for this role. It should be a different name and it should be a different currency.”

Nazarbayev stressed that the considering a single currency was premature at their early stage of integration, arguing that, “Integration begins by the creation of a free trade zone, then a customs union, then a common economic space. An economic union is built afterwards and a unit of account like ECU (European Currency Unit) in Europe is introduced,” Nazarbayev said. “It is necessary to create all this, and then to think about a single currency.”

The prospects of a Eurasian Union in the near future seem unlikely. It has taken the Russian Federation a decade to launch its Customs Union with the limited membership of Belarus and Kazakhstan. Policy differences among CIS members have repeatedly undermined the viability of the Moscow-backed multinational institutions in the former Soviet Union.

For example, the former Soviet republics have disagreed over the appropriate prices for Russian energy and Russia’s restrictions on labor mobility.  Plans to establish a free trade zone have been repeatedly postponed due to the disparities among its members in terms of economic policies and attributes. It took a decade to negotiate and implement the Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan Customs Union.

If Putin genuinely envisions a European Union-type alignment as a model, it would imply the need to create a single currency and an independent bureaucracy to administer and enforce the agreed rules and common economic policies. It took Europeans decades to transfer considerable, if strictly limited, powers to the EU bodies in Brussels, which has required harmonizing many national powers and laws. The different growth rates and other economic characteristics of the member states will prove as disruptive to the proposed Eurasian Union as it has been in the European Union.

Many of the former Soviet republics trade more with European or Asian countries than they do with each other.

Similar divergences are evident in the desire of some but not all members to move closer to seemingly rival Western institutions like the European Union and NATO.

The wave of color revolutions a few years ago has widened divergences among the members’ political systems, with certain countries seeking to establish European-style liberal democracies and other regimes committed to preserving their authoritarian status quo. There are also serious rivalries among former Soviet republics for regional leadership–such as that between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan–that will likely act as an impediment to the establishment of joint economic and other policies.

Furthermore, Putin’s proposed Eurasian Union faces serious competition from the existing multinational institutions currently operating in the former Soviet space—the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and other multinational institutions. The proposed Eurasian Union would need to define relations with them. Putin’s team has said that the Eurasian Union would not duplicate or replace existing collective bodies, but it is unclear how the Eurasian Union would work with, or around, the other structures. Despite decades of coexistence and overlapping membership, NATO has still not worked out an effective modus vivendi with the European Union.

Perhaps most importantly, many of the former Soviet republics have serious reservations about forming any sort of alignment with Moscow given their unhappy history of Soviet and Russian domination. The former Soviet republics, even those whose leaders did not initially seek independence, jealously guard their sovereignty and autonomy. Although Kazakhstan has endorsed Putin’s union proposal, the governments of Georgia and Ukraine have already said they have no plans to join it.

Despite strong pressure from Putin to join the Customs Union, Ukraine has thus far striven to move closer to the EU instead. Moldova and Georgia are also negotiating free trade agreements with the EU, while Armenia and Azerbaijan might soon follow them.  Many of the other former Soviet republics are eager to develop their relations with China or the West to balance their ties with Moscow. There are also serious rivalries among former Soviet republics for regional leadership–such as that between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan–that will likely act as an impediment to the establishment of joint economic policy let alone a common currency.

In this regard, the union proposal seems aimed at reining in those former Soviet states that have so far remained outside Moscow’s control, such as Ukraine. Even though Ukraine is now headed by a government more friendly to Moscow, Ukrainian leaders are wavering whether they should join the Customs Union or try to move closer to the EU. Putin has already indicated that Kyiv cannot pursue both goals. Since March 2007, the EU and Ukraine have been negotiating a free trade agreement as part of a new Association Agreement to replace the present Partnership and Cooperation Agreement established in 1998. Putin told Ukrainian Prime Minister Nikolai Azarov that joining the Customs Union will give Ukraine some $6.5 billion to $9 billion in direct benefits through expanded industrial opportunities.

Russia has considerable leverage over Ukraine due to the deep interdependencies between the two national economies.

Most of Ukraine’s high-tech exports go to Russia. Like Moscow, the EU insists that closer integration will contribute to economic growth for Ukraine given that the EU is Ukraine’s primary commercial partner, the EU accounts for one third of Ukraine’s external trade, and Ukraine will benefit from the political association. Conversely, Putin has warned that a free agreement between Ukraine and the EU would require Russia to take protective measures such as raising trade barriers between their two countries.

To overcome these centrifugal tendencies without coercion, Russia has to make itself a more attractive partner. In principle, Moscow could garner more support for its integration programs by sharing more influence within collective institutions and adopting a more conciliatory approach on disputes with its neighbors. In practice, Russia probably has to achieve greater success in its domestic modernization and other reform efforts to become a more attractive economic partner that could trade more goods from these countries and generate more mutual investment.

Kazakhstan can best promote its interests within any Eurasian Union by ensuring that the structure does not impede its economic and other ties with non-members, including other Eurasian countries but also China, EU members, and the United States.

In the interim, Kazakhstan would be wise to focus on securing its accession into the World Trade Organization, whose external tariffs are likely to be lower than that of any Eurasian Union.

A Retrospective on the USMC in Helmand Province: “Disrupting and Dismantling a Facilitation Node”

02/19/2012

02/19/2012:

As the US engagement in Afghanistan winds down, and approach to the future is sorted out, Second Marine Division (Forward) has provided interviews with the commanding general of 2nd Marine Division (Forward) which highlight the challenges and successes the Marines and sailors of the division made during their tenure as the ground combat element of the Marine Air Ground Task Force and Regional Command (Southwest) during the last year.

Here Brig. Gen. Lewis Craparotta discusses the closure of insurgent smuggling routes in southern Helmand. Craparotta also delves into disruption and clearing operations, which took place prior to the insurgents’ spring offensive during the early months of 2011

Brigadier General Craparotta is currently serving as Commanding General, 2D Marine Division (Forward). He is a native of South Windsor, Connecticut and graduated from the University of Vermont in December 1982 with a BA in Political Science. He was commissioned in May 1983. He has attended The Basic School, the Infantry Officer Course, Amphibious Warfare School, Army Command and General Staff College, and the Naval War College. He has also completed the Marine Corps Aerial Observer Course, Army Airborne School and the Armed Forces Staff College.

His service in the Operating Forces includes: Platoon Commander and Company Executive Officer with 1st Battalion, 7th Marines (June 1984 – September 1986); Company Commander and Operations Officer with 1st Battalion, 9th Marines (August 1992-September 1994); Executive Officer for 1st Battalion, 1st Marines (October 1994 – January 1995); S-4 Officer for 1st Marine Regiment (January 1995 – June 1995); Division Inspector for 1st Marine Division (August 1999 – August 2000); Executive Officer for 1st Marine Regiment (September 2000 – April 2001); Commanding Officer for 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines (April 2001 – June 2003); Commanding Officer for 1st Marine Regiment (June 2006 – June 2009); Assistant Division Commander, 2D Marine Division (July 2009 – July 2010).

His service outside the Operating Forces includes duty as a tactics instructor at The Basic School from October 1986 to April 1987 and as an instructor at IOC from April 1987 through June 1990. From July 1991 to July 1992 he was assigned as an advisor to the Royal Saudi Marines and served in this capacity in Jubail, Saudi Arabia. Between August 1996 and June 1999 he was assigned to Headquarters, Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR) in Stuttgart, Germany. From July 2004 through May 2006 he was assigned to the Joint Staff.

https://slsp.manpower.usmc.mil/gosa/biographies/rptBiography.asp?PERSON_ID=2268&PERSON_TYPE=General

As General Amos, USMC Commandant, noted late last year:

The number of Marines in Helmand province will drop “markedly” in 2012, and the role of those who stay will shift from countering the insurgency to training and advising Afghan security forces.

The change suggests an early exit from Afghanistan for the Marine Corps even as the prospects for solidifying their recent successes are uncertain.

“Am I OK with that? The answer is `yes,’” Amos said. “We can’t stay in Afghanistan forever.”

“Will it work? I don’t know. But I know we’ll do our part.”

http://newsone.com/nation/abanjoko/marines-to-wind-down-afghan-combat-in-2012/

2nd Marine Division

02/15/12

 

Manufacturing the F-35

02/16/2012

02/16/2012: Earlier, we interviewed Frank Dougherty, Vice President, F-35 Production Operations provided an update on F-35 manufacturability.  Dougherty has extensive experience with both the F-22 and the F-16, and has significant domain competence in what it takes to build a combat aircraft.

This slideshow highlights production going on in the factory.

[slidepress gallery=’manufacturing-the-f-35′]

Credit: SLD 2012

SLD: There is as well a significant misunderstanding outside of the program of the very different approach to designing, testing and building the F-35 versus earlier aircraft. This program was set up is radically different from the beginning to essentially have a surge production capacity.  Is that a fair statement of kind of a disconnect from a certain template of understanding what this is all about?  It’s a very different template than a Legacy Aircraft.

Doughterty: I think with the way entering development tools have developed over the years, we’ve gone from having to do hard mock-ups, hard tooling, put together a aircraft.  Stretch out actually mock-up harnesses, and then develop which way you’re going to build those, and build physical prototype models that came through.Now with the new electronic way you design an aircraft in a scope, and proven out over F-22 and moving into F-35, all of that hard mock-up, and hard physical build up that you had to do just to verify links, and runs of all the different tubes and harnesses, and such that go through the aircraft, has been eliminated that you can essentially design that in electronically, and the very first units you build, you build the way you build the production aircraft.
You actually design it, and route it, and everything else electronically, so when we translate that to installing it in an aircraft, we’re doing it on the very first model is the way we’ll do it in production.

SLD: The digital thread production model?

Dougherty: Yes.

SLD: And also not widely understood is how so much of this approach has come from innovation in the commercial aerospace sector. Builders of the 787 and A350 certainly have pioneered a lot of this.  And even the 330 tankers are an example.  To develop the tanker, Airbus had to redo the entire 330 as a digital aircraft in order to actually come up with an effective name of building a tanker.  And that’s kind of a footnote to how wider the difference is from when the A330 was originally designed 30 years ago.

Dougherty: I think so. And in fact, I was responsible for building F 22s, prior to coming here.  And of course, that was the first Fifth Gen Fighter, but it was really designed around performance, not around manufacturability.But we learned a lot from that period, and learned a lot from what we do on F 22, and were able to design in, into that digital thread, design in manufacturability, and be able to set up tooling, and methods and sequences.

From the very beginning, we knew how the aircraft would go together.  We knew where the issues would be, and we were able to proof that out on the very first SDD Jets.  So as we transformed into delivery production, we were ready to build a aircraft the way it needed to be, and that’s very different from the experience I had back in the old days when I built F-16s in the line out here, and at even the very beginning of the F-22.We had some dramatic changes we had to make early in that because we were really just learning how to use those digital tools to translate those, but we’ve taken all those lessons learned now, incorporated them into our design, and built an F-35, and had dramatically different results right out of the chute.

SLD: How important is manufacturability for risk of being successful global program export, and ability to build a global fleet aircraft?

Dougherty: It’s really the key to affordability.  From the very beginning, it was designed with the intent that we would be able to build one a day, and deliver one a day.  And so it was designed, so it would go together, so it would be compartmentalized, so the work could be broken down into those segments, and so the aircraft could progress through, and quickly come together, and when it came off the end there wasn’t a lot of tweaks, and adjustment changes to make.

The aircraft was ready to go put gas in it, load software in it, and fly it, and that is different from with the more handcrafted F-22s that we knew we weren’t going to build, but a few hundreds of those.  That was really designed for performance, and optimized for the performance of the aircraft after it was delivered.  This one obviously has the performance characteristics in there, but we were really leaned towards the manufacturability, and affordability available to put out one a day.

https://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-f-35-manufacturability/