The Year In Defense

The Year in

defense 2008 Edition

AFRICOM JSF Update Missile Defense World Submarine Survey

Beans, bullets, and boots. Bits and bytes. They don’t just fall fro

© 2008. Science Applications International Corporation. All rights reserved. The SAIC logo and the phrase “From Science to Solutions” are registered trademarks of Science Applications International Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.

saic on temp.indd 1

2/26/08 4:25:55 PM

all from the sky.

Supporting Warfighters’ needs. We take it personally. SAIC is driven to keep the Warfighter supplied. Our integrated logistics systems automatically sense and respond to current stock levels, helping transport supplies when they’re needed. Our RFID system enables asset visibility so you know where the supplies are, whether in stock or in transit. Whether it’s beans, bullets, and boots; bits and bytes; or parts and tools, SAIC systems engineering and integration helps Warfighters get what they need, when they need it, where they need it. For more information, visit www.saic.com

saic on temp.indd 2

A 2/26/08 4:26:10 PM

The SureFire M951 Millennium Universal WeaponLight System is designed with one thing in mind, winning fights. It’s cut from aluminum, features a shock-isolation system to protect the lamp from the rigors of battle and recoil, and includes both a plug-in remote tape switch and a pushbutton switch for redundancy. The M951 produces 65 lumens of brilliant white light with one hour of runtime.

M951 (KIT02)

Includes Picatinny rail mount and IR filter

M951KIT02 NSN: 6240-01-532-4184

RFI READY

ORDER ONLINE AT WWW.ADSTACTICAL.COM

ADS is a premier provider of SureFire Products. Contact us for more information or order our Tactical Products Catalog online. 800.948.9433 • WWW.ADSTACTICAL.COM

WORLDWIDE DLA PRIME VENDOR • DOD EMALL • GSA CONTRACT HOLDER

ads on temp.indd 1

1/30/08 3:44:22 PM

Editors’ Foreword The Government Accountability Office reported on Oct. 30, 2007, that costs had approached $400 billion since 2003 for U.S. efforts in the Global War on Terrorism. Because the Department of Defense, the Bush administration, and Congress responded late in 2007 with an emergency appropriation of more than $94 billion, the total figure now nears $500 billion. This staggering amount represents the kind of information that U.S. citizens may hear on television or read in newspapers and subsequently discuss at the office. But it is only one news story out of a year of challenges faced and successes achieved by the U.S. armed forces. While the “surge” seems to be working, American public opinion is turning against the war, and with the U.S. economy stagnating and inflation rising, every dollar going to the defense budget is likely to be contested in future years. This comes at a time when equipment that is being used at several times its normal rate must be replaced or repaired, aging aircraft being one such example. In addition to fighting the present war against mainly low-tech insurgents, the United States must also be prepared to defend itself and its interests against nations that could more easily be considered peer competitors. From the enormous, wartime fiscal appropriation, today’s service members are receiving, if sometimes belatedly, the best mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, superior communications technology, advanced weapons, network and computer systems, and aircraft that Americans, DoD, and industry can provide. While budget constraints will be of increasing concern in the future, the goal must be to continue to supply our warfighters with the best of what they need to get the job done.



ed fwd.indd 3

3/1/08 6:45:20 PM

www.egginc.com 301.258.6566

MEETING THE DEMANDS OF TODAY AND THE CHALLENGES OF TOMORROW Photos courtesy of Air Force Link, DefenseLink and NASA

eg&g on temp.indd 1

12/27/07 11:22:06 AM

Contents Interview: Alan R. Shaffer................................................................................10 Director, Defense Research & Engineering By Charles Oldham

Top 2007 DoD Contracts Cover Missile Defense, IT, Radios, and Aircraft..........................................................................................18 By Michael A. Robinson

The 2008 Defense Budget............................................................................. 26 By Craig Collins

U.S. Army Year in Review............................................................................... 34 By Scott R. Gourley

U.S. Air Force Year in Review......................................................................... 44 By Robert F. Dorr

U.S. Coast Guard Year in Review.................................................................. 52 By Dr. Joe DiRenzo III and Chris Doane

U.S. Marine Corps Year in Review................................................................ 60 By J.R. Wilson

U.S. Navy Year in Review............................................................................... 66 By Norman Friedman

The Year in Special Operations 2007...........................................................76 By John D. Gresham

New Requirements, Old Realities................................................................... 84 World aerospace developments 2007 By Eric Tegler

Land Forces Developments............................................................................. 90 By Scott R. Gourley

World Naval Developments 2007................................................................ 98 By Norman Friedman



005-007 TOC.indd 5

3/1/08 6:37:08 PM

Our Products make a DIFFERENCE Our Solutions SAVE LIVES

Special dhb onOps.indd temp.indd 1 1

2/1/0811:31:50 3:28:48AM PM 2/8/08

Enter the Dragon............................................................................................ 106 China takes center stage in international – and military – affairs By Craig Collins

The Army Boosts Web-based Tools..............................................................116 Joint networked forces provide awareness, and link sensors, shooters, and commanders By Clarence A. Robinson, Jr.

MRAP Procurement/Deployment................................................................. 124 By Scott R. Gourley

The Missile Defense Shield Expands........................................................... 132 Technology upgrades make a limited system more capable, moving toward intercepts in every stage By Clarence A. Robinson, Jr.

The (More or Less Bright) Future of the Submarine in the World’s Navies................................................................ 138 By Arthur D. Baker III

The Highs and Lows of Joint Programs........................................................ 146 By J.R. Wilson

Update: Joint Strike Fighter........................................................................... 150 By J.R. Wilson

The Air Force Copes with Fighter Issues...................................................... 158 By Robert F. Dorr

Exporting Freedom and Security:................................................................. 162 American Arms Transfer Programs By Dwight Jon Zimmerman

Soldier’s Home: Shelter for the 21st Century Warfighter...................................................... 168 By Dwight Jon Zimmerman

U.S. Africa Command................................................................................... 178 Bolstering security across the continent By Lee Ewing

Products & Services....................................................................................... 187



005-007 TOC.indd 7

2/27/08 4:58:39 PM

TESSCO Delivers Public Safety Wireless Technology

Wireless Networking

Wireless Video Surveillance

Two-Way Radio Accessories

Network Security

Mobile Data & Asset Tracking

Disaster Preparedness

Founded in traditional two-way communications, TESSCO led the way into the cellular world, supplying the buildout of the nation’s first cellular system. Today, TESSCO is the only supplier of everything from two-way to the latest wireless broadband data technologies over 34,000 wireless products from 350 manufacturers. Wireless Video Surveillance I Wireless Networking Solutions I Two-Way Radios & Accessories Network Security I Disaster Preparedness I Tools & Test Equipment

Delivering Public Safety Wireless Technology 866.352.9655 | www.tessco.com/go/gov

Schedule Holder

tessco on temp.indd 1

2/25/08 5:07:06 PM

The Year in

defense 2008 Edition

North American Headquarters 701 North West Shore Blvd. Tampa, FL 33609 Tel. (813) 639-1900 Fax (813) 639-4344

European Headquarters 5 Ella Mews, Hampstead, London NW3 2NH UK Tel. 44 (0) 207-428-7000 Fax 44 (0) 207-284-2118

Asian-Pacific Headquarters Lvl. 21, Tower 2, 201 Sussex Str. Sydney NSW 2000, Australia Tel. 61 (2) 9006-3370 Fax 61 (2) 8580-5047

Publishers Ross W. Jobson and Peter M. Antell Editorial Director Charles Oldham [email protected]

Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Roberts [email protected]

Editors Rhonda Carpenter Ana E. Lopez

Assistant General Manager Robin Jobson [email protected]

Assistant Editors Iwalani Kahikina Michael J. Tully

Business Development Edward J. Matthews [email protected] Ed Veprovsky [email protected]

Art Director Robin K. McDowall Project Designer Rebecca Laborde Design & Production Daniel Mrgan Lorena Noya Production Assistant Kenia Y. Perez Writers Arthur D. Baker III, Craig Collins Dr. Joe DiRenzo III, Chris Doane Robert F. Dorr, Lee Ewing Norman Friedman, Scott R. Gourley John D. Gresham Clarence A. Robinson, Jr. Michael A. Robinson Eric Tegler, J.R. Wilson Dwight Jon Zimmerman

Project Manager Darren Lewis Advertising Account Executives Jim Huston, Dustin “Doc” Lawson Mark Logsdon, Tom Novak Jay Powers, David Sanis Adrian F. Silva, Matt Sublette Controller Robert John Thorne Assistant to the Publisher Alexis Vars Director of Information Systems John Madden [email protected] Administrative Assistants Heidi Reis, Aisha Shazer

©Copyright Faircount LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction of editorial content in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. Faircount LLC. does not assume responsibility for the advertisements, nor any representation made therein, nor the quality or deliverability of the products themselves. Reproduction of articles and photographs, in whole or in part, contained herein is prohibited without expressed written consent of the publisher, with the exception of reprinting for news media use. Printed in the United States of America. Various images and text in this publication in no way are used to imply an endorsement by the Department of Defense or the U.S. government for any claims or representations therein. None of the advertising contained herein implies endorsement by the Department of Defense or the U.S. government of any private entity or enterprise.



masthead.indd 9

3/1/08 6:16:08 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Interview: Alan R. Shaffer Director, Defense Research & Engineering By Charles Oldham

The Year in Defense: What are your goals for the Office of Defense Research & Engineering? Alan R. Shaffer: It’s actually very interesting … One of the things you do Alan R. Shaffer as you go through life is you learn from Director, Defense Research & Engineering people you work with. I thought John Young’s goals were very, very good. His vision statement for defense research and engineering was very good, and that was to develop technology to defeat any adversary on any battlefield. So my goal is to go ahead and do everything we can to present capability options for our warfighters in more than in just traditional systems. We want to be able to protect the Internet; we want to be able to protect the young soldier; we want to give our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines different capabilities to deal with the situation like they’re in in Iraq. We want to really focus on any battlefield, and that could be a traditional battlefield, urban operations or even cyber operations, and against any adversary. That could be a nation-state or a non-nation-state. So that’s the first big goal. The second goal is to accelerate the transition of technology from our laboratories to our young kids – our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. The third thing is to put in place

10

010-017 Interview.indd 10

2/29/08 8:57:01 AM

Alan R. Shaffer interview

“The value of a lot of things is not technology you can touch. How do you put a value on the Internet? How do you put a value on economic free trade and banking? We can’t reach out and touch that, yet it’s transforming the world.” programs and processes to help America develop scientists and engineers for future national security needs. We need a lot of scientists and engineers in the department. This is more than a Department of Defense issue. We, America, need scientists and engineers in the future. I wanted to ask you about the Joint Unmanned System Common Control (JUSCC). Obviously, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) are important. There are many different types and users. And they operate at all sorts of different altitudes with all sorts of operators at different levels, from the squad on up to the strategic level. Can you speak a little about that? That’s a very small ACTD and I’d prefer to really look toward the future … we’re trying to do everything we can to cut across technology to integrate different types of sensors with different types of command and control systems to give us better control of any battle space. Be that on the ocean or in the skies. And if some of that happens to work out and can apply to the FAA’s problem, great. But again, it’s a matter of where technology is taking us: focusing on integrating communications with sensors, with command and control systems. Today DoD has identified six strategic research areas: Bioengineering Sciences, Human Performance Sciences, Information Dominance, Multifunction Materials, Nanoscience, and Propulsion and Energetic Sciences. How do you think these research areas illustrate how the world and the security environment have changed over the past decade? Oh, absolutely, and furthermore, those six strategic research areas, we have actually gone back and are in the process of updating them further based on a memo that my boss, Mr. [John J.] Young [now under secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics] sent to Secretary Gates in August [2007]. And I’m not going to talk about the six specific research areas, but I’m going to take it to a broader perspective and then give you some specifics. Between 2008 and 2009, we have moved roughly between $3 and $4 billion of the department’s science and technology investment, mostly from what would be considered the traditional sciences – the things that you just cited, traditional platforms, weapons – into what we’re calling now non-kinetic capabilities. And that’s reflective of where science is going. We’ve made specific large investments in human social, culture, behavioral modeling. Because we want to understand other cultures better to give us more

options other than just flat-out warfare. If you look at Gen. [David H.] Petraeus and what he is doing in Iraq, it very much follows the same line of reasoning. By changing our doctrine and tactics, and going out and getting in contact and getting to know other people, the surge is reducing or having an effect on the amount of violence in Iraq is going down. All of that precipitated by having a better understanding of the people you’re out operating with. The department had not invested in the human social, culture, behavioral modeling – really, think of it as advanced anthropological studies. … We’re going into that starting in ’08 with roughly $3 million across the five future years’ defense programs, so six years. That’s a big deal, because if we can understand an adversary better, we might be able to get the outcome we want without having to go into a shooting war. We’re investing a great deal of money, primarily through DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] and the services, in automatic language translators. Again, the same type of thing – if you can make yourself understood and communicate better with the adversary, good things will happen. We’re investing in information technology, information protection much more than we have in the past. We’re investing in network sciences. Because … if you take a look at where the world has gone – the Internet explosion, networks – you can’t really control that, nor should we try to. But we should give our young people the tools to be able to operate with that type of free flow of information, anywhere in the world. So we’re focusing on network sciences, also in our science and technology programs, to provide the power of the network to our young men and women to an area where you may not have a fixed infrastructure. We’re also working on network sciences to provide gateways across different networks. So we may have an air network right now that was developed for all the air combatants to talk, but that network may not communicate seamlessly with the ground network. We’re funding research and development to very easily develop bridges that will allow all of networks to communicate and pass information. That’s a big deal. So, the six strategic initiatives/research areas that you showed, I think are actually illustrative of where our program is going. That’s been a huge shift from what we use to call “the kinetic:” Things you could reach out and touch and feel to the non-kinetic science and technology. To a layman, the kinetic seems so much easier. Right? Oh it is. It’s simple. We all grew up – those of us with graying hair – in a world where you’d make an investment and you’d go out and bend metal. I would go out and buy a

11

010-017 Interview.indd 11

3/1/08 6:34:55 PM

kbr on temp.indd 1

1/25/08 11:46:10 AM

Alan R. Shaffer interview

How do you put a value net on information free exchange like you’re getting in “Wikis” in the commercial market? We have to develop technology to support the young men and women who’ve grown up in a world that’s materially different than the world we grew up in. car. It’s pretty easy to understand the value of something you can reach and touch. The world is moving on. The value of a lot of things is not technology you can touch, but how do you put a value on the Internet? How do you put a value on economic free trade and banking? We can’t reach out and touch that, but yet it’s transforming the world. How do you put a value net on information free exchange like you’re getting in “Wikis” in the commercial market? We have to develop technology to support the young men and women who’ve grown up in a world that’s materially different than the world we grew up in. Imagine growing up in a repressed country. What’s the value of being able to go on the Internet and see things that you would not necessarily be able to see in the past? I think it’s huge. You mentioned language translation and the successes of research efforts. It does seem that it’s progressing fairly well. We have made a huge investment, as I said, and its nearing $100 million on being able to do automatic translation. Now the interesting thing is: translating the printed word is pretty easy to get the context. We’re up between 90 to 95 percent accuracy, the last I saw at DARPA, with the printed word. The real hard thing is getting the nuance from the spoken word, and we still have quite a bit of work to go there. You can have simple voiceto-voice translators that can do things like “Halt.” “What is your name?” “Where do you want to go?” But when you get down to the substance and nuance of language, that’s a hard problem. I’m glad DARPA is working on it. They’re making huge strides. We’re not going to have a fully reliable operational system for a couple of years. But I’m glad we have places like DARPA working on those types of problems. They’re making progress. All the strides in communications, night vision, sights, etc., have a downside: batteries. One writer pointed out recently that ground troops carry more weight in batteries than ammunition. Could you talk about that and the work to reduce that load? Yes, and by the way, in many cases, that quote you had was absolutely correct. If we have people we’re sending out for several days, they can carry anywhere upward of 40 to 50 pounds of batteries. That’s because we have such an insatiable demand for power now as we’re networking

and outfitting all of our soldiers with advanced sensors and communications gear and computers. All of which is very necessary, but we’ve got to do better in batteries. So, about four or five years ago, we had something called the Energy, Power, and Technology Initiative. It is a cross service [program] with DARPA, the Army, Navy, and Air Force involved investing in advanced things like lithium ion batteries. I am told that they have about doubled the energy density of what we had several years ago with the standard batteries. But we’re also investing under this particular program in some advanced things; some advanced fuel cells, methanol and conversion fuel cells. The real beauty of fuel cells are: A) They can recharged with just some more of whatever your fuel of choice is. B) They last a tremendously long time and they’re very lightweight. With one technology we put out and had developed and prototyped through a commercial firm, we were able to reduce the weight of batteries by about a factor of four. That’s a big deal, huge, in the order of several hundred million dollars investment in energy and power technologies. And that will continue. I don’t foresee, in the near future, the power demands getting less extreme for our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. I see it getting more extreme. We don’t have this solved. By the way, we love good ideas from industry and furthermore, as part of the whole initiative for power and energy, we are hosting our first DDR&E Grand Challenge or prize program. This … follows DARPA’s Grand Challenge program for the robotic vehicle. The Wearable Power prize is looking to develop a combination of advanced batteries or energy efficient systems to allow our young soldiers to go out and operate for an extended period of time with a very low level of weight. We’re kind of excited about that, because what we saw with DARPA’s Grand Challenge was a huge number of teams. I think the first grand challenge in DARPA had well over 100 teams. We’ve had over 130 teams sign up for the Wearable Power prize competition. Other than the basic parameters, I suppose it’s blue skies as far as what you could come up with? Is that part of the idea, that you give people the requirements you’re looking for and let them go invent? Yes. Do you see yourself doing this regularly for different needs or requirements? Seeing what sort of creative thinking there might be out there?

13

010-017 Interview.indd 13

2/27/08 6:08:24 PM

THE EAGLE IS EVERYWHERE.™

Pratt & Whitney designs and builds the most advanced military engines in the world. These engines provide reliable and affordable power for cutting-edge Lightning II and Raptor fifth-generation fighters. In fact, 27 nations count on Pratt & Whitney engines so they can accomplish their missions. From design to maintenance, we power freedom every day. The Eagle is everywhere.

www.pw.utc.com

prattwfull on temp.indd 1

1/23/08 11:39:04 AM

Alan R. Shaffer interview

“Think about it: 130-plus separate teams coming in for an almost impossible challenge in power and energy, and wearable batteries. I think that’s a tremendous opportunity for people and [wise] use of taxpayers’ dollars.” Yes. A couple of years ago, Congress very much liked the DARPA Grand Challenge and expanded the authorities so that all services can conduct grand challenges. This Wearable Power prize is the first one to be conducted outside of DARPA. But we really are following a lot of DARPA’s leads, how they developed the program and how they conducted and operated the program. [We are] looking at other things for the future for everything from clearing a room to detecting people in enclosed areas, but you’re right: The sky is the limit. One of the great things about America, we have some incredibly innovated people and we want to take advantage of [that innovation]. Someone once referred to America as a nation of inventors. Perhaps that spirit is still here. From what we’ve seen with the DARPA Grand Challenge, and now with our Wearable Power prize, we think it absolutely is. Think about it: 130-plus separate teams coming in for an almost impossible challenge in power and energy, and wearable batteries. I think that’s a tremendous opportunity for people and [wise] use of taxpayers’ dollars. Because what we’re doing is going out and harnessing or trying to harness the intellectual capacity of people in our country. And it’s still possible for somebody out there to come up with an idea that no one’s ever thought of. Isn’t it possible? No, it’s probable. There’re a lot of smart people out there. It seems there are a number of what you would call “green programs” under way. I guess in many ways these things are tied together: the talk about peak oil and looking for alternative fuels and also the environment because of carbon dioxide causing climate change. There are a lot of interrelated things and it does seem there are a number of green programs under way that look into things like High-Efficiency Solar Cells or energy conservation. Could you talk about a couple of those? Sure. Let me fit it into a broad context. In 2005, the department spent $10.9 billion for energy. In 2007, we reduced our usage by about 6 percent and spent $13.2 billion. We spent roughly $2.5 billion more for less energy because of the increase in cost. Although further, we don’t do things specifically for climate change. We recognize we need to be good stewards

of the environment. So, we’ve had an energy security task force looking at a number of different things. One of the ones I’m most proud of is a little program called the fuel efficiency demonstration program being run out of the U.S. Army TARDEC, which is the TankAutomotive, Research, Development and Engineering Center in Warren, Mich. They sent out a broad agency announcement for anybody who wanted to come in and bid on a design for a very High-Efficiency Lightweight Tactical vehicle. They got 40 different bids responding to the request for information. That’s pretty cool. Then you start to think about going back to industry: How do we make things lighter? How do we use better engines? How do we make greater efficiency with some of our fuel/ground systems? I talked a little about the fuel cell, but the methanol fuel cell we funded, again through the Army, has the potential of reducing the weight of batteries by a factor of four. The Air Force is looking at different types of designs of UAVs, where conceptually, you could fly on one tank of gas for a week. That’s pretty cool. That thing is in design. And by the way, we’d have a large enough payload that you’d be able to go up there and serve as a network gateway, or a communications site, or do reconnaissance. The Navy is [researching] a number of thermal energy, electric sites, very much like Iceland, but the Navy also has very active research and development programs in converting ocean temperature differences to electricity. You can do that; it’s basically like running a heat exchange engine. In any ocean, there’s what’s called the thermocline, where you have a huge change in temperature over a short region. If you mix that temperature difference, that produces energy and … you can back out electricity. We’re looking at putting a pilot of that at both Diego Garcia and Guam. That’s a big deal. We also have – and this is in support of actual warfighter needs – been developing systems that we can forward-deploy with our ground troops to reduce the energy needs for fuel by as much as 90 percent under low-to-medium loads. So, we don’t have to send as many convoys out. That was called the Tactical Highly Efficient Power System. That’s gone into what’s known as the Net Zero Joint Capability Technology Demonstration. The idea of Net Zero, or Net Zero Plus, is to provide everything you need to operate for a 30period with no refueling, no diesel for forward-deployed electricity. That’s a big deal.

15

010-017 Interview.indd 15

3/1/08 6:35:36 PM

HSBOOZCVOUDPN

]

BSDEJWFSTJmFEDPN $PPLFWJMMF
5O

8JUI
(SBOOZ
#VOUhT
UIFSFhT
BMXBZT
NPSF
JO
UIF
NJY


$IFDL
PVU
PUIFS
HSFBU
JUFNT
ZPV
DBO
BEE
UP
ZPVS
PSEFST iÜ iÜ iÜ

#JPEFHSBEBCMF
DVUMFSZ 'SP[FO
CJTDVJUT 1JFT
QFDBO
DIFTT

GVEHF




/POGBU
%SZ
.JML $SFNF
$BLFT
$IPDPMBUF

7BOJMMB

0BUNFBM
DPPLJF 3FHVMBS
1BODBLF #VUUFSNJML
1BODBLF %FWJMhT
'PPE (JOHFSCSFBE

'PS
B
DPNQMFUF
QSPEVDU
MJTU
DIFDL
PVU
HSBOOZCVOUDPN
PS
FNBJM
NKBDLTPO!BSDEJWFSTJmFEDPN
PS
DBMM


arc on temp.indd 1

1/28/08 10:30:50 AM

Alan R. Shaffer interview

“Because what we’re doing is going out and harnessing or trying to harness the intellectual capacity of people in our country.” Isn’t that ambitious? Well, we may not get there. Say we only get two weeks. It’s still pretty cool. One worry, both in the military and civilian research worlds, is what looks to be an inadequate supply of future scientists and engineers. How concerned are you with this problem, and what sort of initiatives are in the works to address the problem? First … whenever you have a challenge, you have an opportunity. A couple of years ago, we started a program called National Defense Education program. That funding is up to just shy of $100 million a year in 2009. And it’s about $70 million in 2008. We have a couple of different projects under that program. But the one that I like to highlight the most is called SMART – Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation. SMART is a program that allows us to go out and fund undergraduate science and engineering degrees for young kids who can get clearances and provide them jobs when they graduate from college. We’ve had SMART in place for a couple of years. We’ve had just under 100 graduates of the SMART program. But this year, in 2008, we had over 1,000 applicants for roughly 100 positions. So now we’re starting to get the word out and we’re funding really top-notch young men and women to come in [with] science and engineering [degrees] for the future for the department. So you’re right, we’re seeing this exodus [of] scientists and engineers in the next 10-15 years. But with that exodus, will leave some openings and we’re trying to get the very best young scientists and engineers we can to backfill in back of that. So that, I think, is a very good initiative. Another initiative we have kicked off this year is our overall basic research funding. This is actually championed by Secretary of Defense Gates. We increased our basic research funding across the department from about $1.4 billion in 2008 to about $1.7 billion in our 2009 budget request. That’s a 16 percent increase above zero real growth for our investment from the Department of Defense, primarily in universities across the country, to work on science and technology problems that are relevant to the Department of Defense. That type of infusion of interest will typically generate more scientists and engineers. That, to me, is kind of exciting. It seems with scientists that they are always having to search for funding. Being able to get that sort of research funded, you’re bound to be able to draw in really bright minds. The real beauty with what Secretary Gates has allowed us to do to structure the program and what we have done with this increase in research money is we’re going after what is known as single investigator research programs: Giving a faculty member dollars for between four and five years and enough money to conduct research with a couple of graduate students. So we’re going to be funding graduate students to go through and get their masters and Ph.D.s at the same time as having the best university faculty, pretty much put on retainer for a four- to five-year period to work on problems that are relevant to the Department of Defense. We’re anticipating seeing some pretty huge payoffs in those things we intend to fund. That’s a good news story.

17

010-017 Interview.indd 17

2/29/08 9:00:50 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Navy photo

An SM-3 standard missile is launched from the Aegis combat system on board the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Decatur (DDG 73) during a Missile Defense Agency ballistic missile flight test on June 22, 2007, while under way in the Pacific Ocean. Minutes later, the SM-3 intercepted a separating ballistic missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, Hawaii. This was the first time such a test was conducted from a ballistic missile defense-equipped U.S. Navy destroyer. Missile defense programs received $8.85 billion in the budget.

18

Programs & Contracts.indd 18

2/27/08 2:16:52 PM

PROGRAMS & CONTRACTS

Top 2007 DoD Contracts Cover Missile Defense, IT, Radios, and Aircraft By Michael A. Robinson

A

decision by China to shoot down an aging weather satellite had a significant impact on the Bush administration’s Fiscal Year 2008 defense budget – not so much in funding itself but in picking up bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Indeed, after the president battled with Congress in the fall of 2007 regarding his overall budget for the nation and funding for the war in Iraq, he picked up additional money to protect U.S. satellites and knock out those launched by other countries. Consider that a joint House-Senate Conference Committee provided the president with $100 million in extra funding for space situational awareness. The figure represented a 50 percent increase from the president’s original request of $200 million. The president picked up an additional $10 million, or 19 percent extra, for counter-space systems that would warn military officials of threats to U.S. satellites as well as help destroy attackers. The Department of Defense (DoD) received $459.3 billion in FY08 funding, 4.6 percent less than the president originally requested. At press time, Congress had still to approve roughly an additional $107 billion in supplemental spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress had approved in December about $70 billion, and this amount allowed the Army and Marine Corps to defer furloughing civilian employees. All through the fall and into the winter, congressional Democrats attempted to tie the Pentagon’s supplemental funding to a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Repeatedly the president, backed by his veto power and his allies on Capitol Hill, thwarted Democrats in both houses. Funding for key weapons systems in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 includes: • $8.85 billion for missile defense, the largest figure in the budget for weapons systems. That’s a one-year decline of 6.2 percent in funding for initiatives that will continue the production and fielding of ground-based interceptors; development of mobile ground-based interceptors; support the continued production and fielding of forward-based radars; and production and delivery of mobile sea-based interceptors.

• $6.14 billion, an 18.7 percent increase from 2007 levels, for the Joint Strike Fighter, the highly lethal F-35. This joint program will facilitate the development of affordable aircraft and related systems, with transition of key technologies and common components to support future requirements while reducing cost and risk, the Pentagon says. • $4.6 billion for the F-22 Raptor, up 15 percent. Pentagon planners say the F-22 will penetrate enemy airspace and achieve first-look, first-kill capability against multiple targets. Designed to enhance U.S. air superiority, the F-22 eventually will replace the F-15. • $3.66 billion for the Future Combat System, up 8 percent. This is the Army’s principal modernization program. A Pentagon budget document describes the program as “a complex acquisition program that involves developing and integrating a family of 14 manned and unmanned ground vehicles, air vehicles, sensors, and munitions that are linked by an information network.” • $3.46 billion, up 2.7 percent, for the DDG 1000 destroyer. Armed with an array of weapons, the DDG 1000 will provide offensive, distributed, and precision firepower at long ranges in support of forces ashore, the Pentagon says. The ship will incorporate full-spectrum signature reduction, active and passive self-defense systems, and cutting-edge survivability features. The Navy also plans to incorporate technologies developed under the DDG 1000 program into the entire family of new surface combat ships. • $3.08 billion for the CVN-21 Carrier Replacement program, which received an increase of 117 percent. CVN-21-class ships will include new technologies such as an integrated topside island that includes new multifunction radar, a new propulsion plant, monitoring improvements, manpower reduction technologies, and flight-deck enhancements to generate more missions. Although the administration’s budget documents highlight the areas that are expected to receive funding in the fiscal year, by definition they do not detail actual Pentagon contracts. That can only be done on a historical basis, after a defense or other agency signs a particular contract.

19

Programs & Contracts.indd 19

2/27/08 2:17:00 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Air Force photograph by Tech Sgt Justin D. Pyle

An F-22 Raptor from Langley Air Force Base, Va., performs for thousands during an air show at Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, Calif., April 1, 2007. The F-22 Raptor program received $5.05 billion to continue procurement of the superfighter.

For that reason, only an examination of the contracts issued in 2007 will be accurate. Each contract totaling more than $5 million is publicly announced and the press releases remain archived at www.defenselink.mil. To give the reader a look at the largest contracts issued in 2007, a reporter read every press release issued that year. Here is a look at the 2007 top 10 defense contracts: 1. $12.2 billion. The largest defense contract issued in 2007 also turned out to be among the more controversial. That’s because six major companies filed a protest regarding the large and complex ENCORE II defense information program. Issued by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the ENCORE II contract is designed to provide high-level, enterprisewide information technology policy, communications engineering, and

integration management. DISA wants members of the various military agencies to have access to critical information via the Web. ENCORE II stems from the Pentagon’s new paradigm for net-centric operations. Specifically, it’s part of a program known as Net-Centric Enterprise Services designed to unite the various military agencies with collaborative information sharing for better decision-making and improved mission effectives. Ultimately, the Pentagon wants to have a Global Information Grid that would function like a private, Internet, yielding business, intelligence, and warfighting (information) program. Furthermore, program managers operate their own Web site: www.disa.mil/nces. Under the ENCORE II contract, six companies received contracts covering some 20 task areas that include a wide range of hardware and

20

Programs & Contracts.indd 20

2/27/08 2:24:39 PM

When it’s go time This soldier is connected to a self-healing, self-forming “smart” network developed by experts in systems integration at General Dynamics. A secure, global network that seamlessly links commanders at the core with warfighters on the edge, delivering true, on-the-move connectivity and automatically routing vital bandwidth to soldiers who need it most.

...I just know it works.

But that’s the last thing on this soldier’s mind. All he’s thinking about is getting the information he needs. Fast. To win the battle. To keep his buddies safe. To stay alive.

His needs are what drive innovation at General Dynamics. Everyday. To constantly evolve technologies that give him the edge. To rapidly field new capabilities that outpace emerging threats. To deliver trusted solutions and a decisive advantage to those like him, whenever and wherever it matters most. www.gdc4s.com

Trusted. Core to Edge. © 2008 General Dynamics. All rights reserved.

1-22-08-Year-n-Def-ad-Rubbl.indd 1 gendyn on temp.indd 1

1/22/08 4:18:52 PM 1/23/08 10:37:34 AM

8F¨SF
QSPVE
UP
TFSWF UIPTF
XIP
TFSWF Since 1905, Boar’s Head has been dedicated to producing only the finest quality meats and cheeses. Sure, you’ll find Boar’s Head in fine delicatessens and select supermarkets across the country, but you’ll also find us in many Military commissaries throughout the United States.

They give their best. It’s only fair that they receive it.

boarshead on temp.indd 1

1/7/08 10:10:41 AM

U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. David Richards

PROGRAMS & CONTRACTS

software, Web services, computer telephony, telecommunications support, market research, and prototyping, as well as knowledge engineering for law enforcement and counterintelligence activities. The six companies are Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.; CACI, Inc.; Electronic Data Systems Corporation; Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc., Science Applications International Corporation; and Systems Research and Applications, Corp. As originally written, the contract covered five years plus options for another five, taking the award period to March 2017. However, last May, Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC), Unisys, Northrop Grumman, and IBM Business Consulting Services filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the contract. CSC and Unisys alleged DISA failed to evaluate the bids properly. Those two companies, along with Northrop Grumman, worked on the original ENCORE information technology program that ended in 2006. DISA public affairs said agency officials “are working our way through the GAO’s corrective actions, which means we are still in source selection.” 2. $6.2 billion. The Navy granted two companies contracts to provide interim softwaredefined, single-channel, hand-held radios to the U.S. military. The contract will help consolidate handheld radio purchases across participating services to significantly reduce unit costs. Ultimately the contract could be even more valuable. That’s because each of the companies also received four one-year options that, if exercised, would bring the combined contract amounts to roughly $16 billion. DoD officials said the contracts were competitively procured through the Commerce Business Daily Web site and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems e-Commerce Web site, with two offers received. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity, the Pentagon said. The larger contract, with a one-year value of $3.5 billion, went to Thales Communications, Inc., of Clarksburg, Md. The firm is a is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Thales Group of companies, an international electronics and systems group, serving defense, aerospace, services, and security markets. Thales Group employs 70,000 people throughout the world and generated revenues of $12.7 billion in 2006. Thales Communications says it is a global leader in the development of battle-proven, software-defined, tactical radio equipment, and solutions. The company provides critical

Hawker Beechcraft Corp. won a $3 billion contract for lots 14-20 of the T-6A trainer.

communication capabilities for size-, weight-, and power-constrained environments in the tactical, naval/maritime, and homeland security/public safety domains around the world. U.S. pilots shot down in Iraq have used Thales radios to be rescued. Valued at $2.74 billion, the second radio contract went to the Harris Corp., of Rochester, N.Y. Its parent company is an international communications and information technology company serving government and commercial markets in more than 150 countries. Headquartered in Melbourne, Fla., the parent company has annual revenue of more than $4 billion and 16,000 employees. 3. $5.3 billion. These multiple-award contracts for wide-ranging services are similar to those announced by the U.S. Navy in 2006. Although the dollar amount is virtually the same, the number of contractors involved in this year’s multi-command program rose by 56 percent to 391. Agencies involved in the competition for services contract are the Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Naval Supply Systems Command, Military Sealift Command, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Strategic Systems Programs, and the Marine Corps.

The awards have a two-year base period with one five-year award term and one additional three-year award term. These contracts add to an existing 892 previously awarded under the SeaPort Enhanced acquisition program for services procurements. Pentagon officials said these contracts were competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 399 offers received and eight submissions denied. In all, the contracts cover some 22 service-support areas. Some of these include: • Interoperability, Test and Evaluation, and Trials • Human Factors, Performance, and Usability Engineering • Prototyping, Pre-production, ModelMaking, and Fabrication • Measurement Facilities, Range, and Instrumentation • Information Technology • In-Service Engineering, Fleet Introduction, Installation, and Checkout • Network Software, Engineering, Development, and Programming A comprehensive list of the contractors involved would run to several paragraphs. Some of them, chosen at random, include: • Applied Technology, Inc., King George, Va.

23

Programs & Contracts.indd 23

2/27/08 2:24:53 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

• Blackhawk Consulting Group, LLC, Bellevue, Wash. • CellExchange Federal, Inc., Cambridge, Mass. • eScience & Technology Solutions, Inc, Charleston, S.C. • Geomorph Information Systems, LLC, San Diego, Calif. • Micro Systems Integration, Inc., Pawcatuck, Conn. • NextGen Aeronautics, Torrance, Calif. • OMEGA Training Group, Inc., Columbus, Ga. • XtremeConcepts Systems, Arlington, Va. • Zapata Engineering, Charlotte, N.C. 4. $5.05 billion. The Fort Worth, Texas, operations of Lockheed Martin Corp., received a contract modification for the F-22, a super-fighter known as the Raptor. DoD officials said the modification made definite the multi-year aircraft advanced buy, economic ordering quantity, and full rate-production contract for 60 aircraft included in what are known as lots 7-9. This brings the number of Raptors on order to 183, which currently is expected to be the total number produced. Lockheed Martin will complete the work by June 2012, defense officials said, adding that the contract agency is Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. “The multi-year contract allows us to generate savings for the taxpayer and continue to deliver the most capable aircraft in the world to the men and women defending our nation,” said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics executive vice president and F-22 program general manager. “We have worked with our industry partners and the Air Force to make this a win-win for everyone.” According to Lockheed Martin, the Raptor is the world’s only operational fifth-generation fighter. The aircraft, which replaces the aging fleet of F-15s will have a 40-year life cycle. 5. $3.91 billion. Actually, this figure comprises the total for three separate but related contracts granted to an Alaskan utility company for work at three facilities in the nation’s largest state. The Defense Logistics Agency announced the contracts for the agency involved, the Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va. All three contracts awarded to Doyon Utilities, LLC, of Fairbanks, Alaska, cover a 50-year period. The government solicited some 503 proposals, including those through the Internet, and received seven responses. Under the contracts, Doyon Utilities will take ownership of 12 water, sewer, heat, and electricity systems at Fort Richardson in Anchorage, Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, and Fort Greely in Delta Junction. Doyon Utilities is a new joint venture between Doyon Properties, Inc., and Fairbanks Water and Sewer, Inc., according to the Anchorage Daily News. In turn, Doyon Properties is the commercial property management subsidiary of the Alaska Native Corporation Doyon, Ltd. The Doyon parent company says it is one of the 13 Native regional corporations established by Congress under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. With the land entitlement of 12.5 million acres, Doyon is the largest private landowner in Alaska and is one of the larger private landowners in North America. Besides utilities work and property management, the company’s other operating units include tourism,

natural resources, facilities and services management, and drilling. 6. $3 billion. The Air Force granted Hawker Beechcraft Corp., of Wichita, Kan., a contract modification to be used as a framework to procure lots 14-20 for the T-6A aircraft. Those planes will be used to train Air Force and Navy pilots. Hawker Beechcraft said it won the highly competitive Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) by offering what it says is the safest, most capable, and most affordable trainer in the field. The aircraft offers an unparalleled training experience to the widest variety of pilots of any trainer in the world, the company said. To date, more than 435 T-6A aircraft have been delivered to various services, and the fleet has accumulated more than 625,000 hours training pilots. Overall, the JPATS program calls for nearly 800 deliveries through the year 2017, with additional international sales also expected, Hawker Beechcraft said. For U.S. services, the T-6A is replacing the Air Force T-37B and the Navy T-34C, both of which were developed in the 1950s. The Hellenic Air Force of Greece and the NATO Flying Training in Canada program use the aircraft as a primary trainer as well as for weapons and navigation. This contract also provides for procurement of related items such as ground-based training systems, field service support, and aircraft change modifications. 7. $2.5 billion. Technically speaking, the figure entails a dozen contracts granted to several companies. However, all the contracts were related to military medical needs and were announced on the same day by the same contracting agency and the awards had sequential numbers identifying them. Interestingly, the contracts illustrate that, while major weapons programs generate more publicity, the U.S. military spends billions a year on personnel – on feeding, clothing, housing, and training them, and also keeping them healthy. In this instance, the contracts cover all the armed services under the Pentagon, federal civilian agencies, the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and other non-DoD organizations. The bulk of the contracts for a wide range of medical and surgical needs went to two companies. Owens & Minor, of Glen Ellen, Va., received six of the contracts for an award total of approximately $1.4 billion. Owens & Minor is a supply-chain solutions company and says it is the nation’s leading distributor of name-brand medical and surgical supplies. It operates an extensive distribution network, and serves more than 4,000 acute-care hospital customers nationwide. Based in McGraw Park, Ill., Cardinal Health 200, Inc., received four contracts totaling about $904.2 million. Cardinal Health says its products and services help hospitals, physician offices, and pharmacies reduce costs, and improve safety, productivity, and profitability, while delivering better care to patients. American Medical Depot of Opa Locka, Fla., and Midwest Medical Supply Co., of Earth City, Mo., each received medical supplies contracts totaling $100 million. All 12 of the contracts came from the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia, Pa.

24

Programs & Contracts.indd 24

2/27/08 2:17:32 PM

PROGRAMS & CONTRACTS

8. $2.44 billion (estimated). Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., of Fort Worth, Texas, received an advanced acquisition contract related to six F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) for the Air Force and six Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Air Systems for the Marine Corps. Specifically, the award covers long-lead components, parts, and materials associated with the lot 2, low-rate initial production. In addition, the contract provides for associated, ancillary mission equipment, sustainment support, special tooling, special test equipment, and technical and financial data. The F-35 features an advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, avionics, propulsion systems, stealth, and heavy firepower. About 75 percent of the work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas; about 15 percent in El Segundo, Calif., and the rest in Samlesbury, U.K. Besides the U.S., eight nations are involved in the development phase – Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Together, these allies have announced roughly $4.5 billion worth of support. A single-engine, single-seat aircraft, the F-35 will replace several aging classes of planes for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. 9. $2.4 billion. The new LHA-6 amphibious assault ship will figure prominently in the Navy’s future fleet. Relying on gas-powered turbine propulsion, the ship will support the Marine Corps’ F-35B short takeoff and landing joint strike fighter and the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. In place of a well deck, the LHA-6 will have an extended hangar deck with two overhead cranes. Designed to replace the LHA-1 Tarawa class of amphibious assault ships, the LHA-6 will be the nucleus of an expeditionary strike group and also will form part of the future maritime prepositioning force (MPF). Pentagon planners say the future MPF will be crucial for the Navy’s “seabasing” concept. Seabasing refers to the ability to conduct and support Marine landings from ships at sea. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, of Pascagoula, Miss., received a fixed-price incentive modification to a previously awarded contract for the ship’s detail design and construction. About 5 percent of the work will occur in New Orleans, with the remainder scheduled for Pascagoula, also on the Gulf Coast. DoD officials said work on the ship will be completed in 2012. 10. $2.35 billion. The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) is used to monitor global environmental conditions as well as collect and disseminate data related to weather, atmosphere, oceans, land, and the near-space environment. As such, it will reduce the number of polar-orbiting systems from four U.S. satellite groups to three and will combine activities under a single national program. In addition, NPOESS increases the timeliness and accuracy of forecasts for severe weather. The craft also includes a far-reaching program of sensor development and satellite transition and evolution to provide complete coverage of meteorological conditions for civil, military, and scientific purposes, officials say. Northrop Grumman Space Technology, of Redondo Beach, Calif., received a cost-plus-award-fee contract modification with multiple incentives for NPOESS. DoD officials explained the modification incorporates engineering changes directed under a June 2006 memorandum. Key features of the modification are: two engineering, manufacturing development satellites with a production option for two additional satellites, and the revised fee structure emphasizes incentives for cost, schedule, and technical performance. Under the program, the sensor suite has been reworked to conform to the specifications contained in the memorandum. Five sensors were removed from the manifest “to reduce risk,” according to a DoD press release on the contract. Work is scheduled to be completed in September 2016.

:( 9(%8,/7 21/<21(7+,1* )257+( *29(510(17 &21),'(1&( 7UDLQLQJUDQJHV&LYLOZRUNV6HFXUHIDFLOLWLHV /HYHHDVVHVVPHQWDQGGHVLJQ+17%KDV VLJQLoFDQWH[SHULHQFHZLWKJRYHUQPHQW DJHQFLHVDQGDOPRVWHYHU\EUDQFKRIWKH PLOLWDU\:HVROYHSUREOHPVFUHDWLYHO\ :HZRUNFROODERUDWLYHO\:HKROGRXUVHOYHV DFFRXQWDEOH7KLVLVKRZZHSXWPRUHWKDQ \HDUVRIWHFKQLFDOH[SHUWLVHWRZRUNRQWKH PRVWFRPSOH[LQIUDVWUXFWXUHFKDOOHQJHV

7KH+17%&RPSDQLHV (QJLQHHUV$UFKLWHFWV3ODQQHUV

25

Programs & Contracts.indd 25

  ZZZKQWEFRPIHGHUDO

2/27/08 2:18:10 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

The 2008 Defense Budget By Craig Collins

T

he 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) Appropriations Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on Nov. 13, 2007, provides $460 billion for DoD – $449 in non-emergency funding for the “base” defense budget exclusive of war costs, along with $11.6 billion in emergency funding to accelerate the procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, a type of vehicle that is being rushed to Iraq and Afghanistan to better protect U.S. troops from improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. While the Defense Appropriations Act did not fund any of the $196.4 billion requested by the administration to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, a later omnibus bill – the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law on Dec. 26 – provides $70 billion in emergency wartime spending, along with $3.7 billion in emergency spending for veterans’ health care. The omnibus bill also contained additional funding for national defense, primarily in military construction, veterans affairs, and energy and water appropriations, bringing the total 2008 base defense budget to about $505 billion. As of January 2008, when the 110th Congress convened in Washington to begin its first session, the legislature’s emergency wartime appropriations – still $126 billion short of the administration’s request – promised to be the most contentious issue facing the administration, Congress, and the Pentagon; in order for the military services to continue even the most basic in-theater operations, another supplemental appropriation must be passed before Sept. 30, 2008, the end of the current fiscal year. Meanwhile, analysts have found plenty to debate in the base budget, which generally breaks down as follows: Military Personnel. A total of $105.3 billion. This account funds the basic pay and benefits, both cash (i.e., bonuses and special pays) and non-cash (health care,

retirement pay, housing, and other benefits) for military service members. Roughly, this amount is apportioned among the service branches as follows: Army: $31.5 billion Navy: $23.3 billion Marines: $10.3 billion Air Force: $24.4 billion Operations & Maintenance (O&M). $140 billion. This account covers the costs of ongoing “infrastructure” expenditures such as base operations, food, fuel, uniforms, and weapons maintenance, but also includes many activities directly involved in the day-to-day operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including training programs and the purchase of parts for combat vehicles. Procurement. $98.3 billion. The acquisition programs for military hardware – vehicles, ships, aircraft, weapons, and ammunition – are funded from this account. Research and Development (R&D). $77.1 billion for the investigation of new weapons and force-protection systems. Other DoD programs. $26.3 billion for other programs, the most significant of which – accounting for almost 90 percent of this category – is the Defense Health program. Revolving and Management Funds/Other Related Agencies. $2.7 billion for several funds, such as the Defense Working Capital Funds, along with $988 million for other agency funds such as the Intelligence Community Management Account.

The People While the adequacy and prioritization of 2008 appropriations for operations and personnel are still being debated – more on that later – there’s overall consensus that Congress took concrete steps toward easing the

26

Budget.indd 26

2/27/08 12:34:23 PM

BUDGET

U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Micky M. Bazaldua

A Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle is driven onto a commercial vessel at the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston, S.C., at the end of November 2007. U.S. Transportation Command coordinated movement of the vehicles to the U.S. Central Command area of operations. Congress approved $11.6 billion in emergency funding to procure MRAP vehicles.

burden on military personnel, and especially the ground forces whose resources have been stressed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some highlights include: • The law fully funds the administration’s proposal to increase the permanent active duty-end strength of the U.S. military by 92,000 troops: 65,000 additional Army personnel and 27,000 more Marines. 2008 is the first year in a four-year, $100-billionplan to grow the Army and Marine Corps. • The law provides service members with a 3.5 percent pay raise, a half-percent higher than requested by the White House. • Defense appropriators in Congress paid particular attention to the needs of National Guard and Reserve troops who have played such an important role in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Congress provided an unrequested $980 million procurement for the Guard and Reserves – funds that have been desperately needed to replace worn and outdated

equipment. Congress also included other provisions that made life easier for Guard and Reserve personnel: extending the time available for using the Reserve G.I. Bill for education benefits, for example, and lowering the age at which reservists can retire in relation to their days of active-duty status. • Congress rejected the administration’s proposal to increase patient fees and drug co-payments to help cover the cost of DoD’s health care program for military retirees, Tricare-forLife – a move supported by the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA). According to MOAA’s Government Relations Director, U.S. Air Force Col. Steve Strobridge (Ret.), the group’s opposition had more to do with the way it was implemented – in a tiered arrangement that would, for some officers, double or triple their out-of-pocket costs – rather than disagreement over the general principle of increasing fees. “We think there ought to be some standards in the law for adjusting military health fees,” says

27

Budget.indd 27

3/1/08 6:17:15 PM

nucsafe on temp.indd 1

2/26/08 1:46:08 PM

USAF photo by TSgt Ben Bloker

BUDGET

Lt. Col. James Hecker, commander, 27th Fighter Squadron, banks his F-22 Raptor during a training sortie off the coast of Langley Air Force Base, Va., Aug. 12, 2005. The 27th FS currently has five permanently assigned Raptors. The crash of an F-15 Eagle in November 2007 added emphasis to F-22 supporters’ argument for procurement of more Raptors.

Strobridge. “We would be comfortable with putting something in the law that says the maximum you could raise the fees in any year is the same percentage by which you raise military compensation.” • Retirement benefits, both for the military’s disabled retirees and the spouses of service members who die of serviceconnected causes, were increased in provisions that ended or began to phase out a statutory ban on “concurrent receipt” of benefits from both the military and the Department of Veterans Affairs. • $399.9 million for family advocacy programs, a $167.3 million increase over the administration’s request. Given such numbers, it is hard to argue Congress hasn’t been generous to individual service members. What’s less clear is whether spending on personnel and O&M is where it should be overall in order for the DoD to remain fiscally healthy and meet strategic needs. For example, end-strength increases in Army and Marine Corps personnel, compelled by several years of grinding combat and counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, have been accompanied by significant reductions in Navy and Air Force personnel during the past several years. This makes intuitive sense; soldiers and Marines have shouldered much of the burden in the current war. However, this year’s base budget, overall $50 billion more than last year’s, contains substantial cuts in the personnel and O&M accounts, which alarms some analysts. Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington-based research and analysis organization, lamented the appropriations bill in a Dec. 11 editorial entitled “Nothing New in This.”

“This is not the first time,” Wheeler wrote, “both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress raided the most fundamentally important part of the Pentagon budget to pay for politically driven junk.” By “junk,” Wheeler means the expensive procurement and research programs that draw advocacy and lobbying from constituencies. To Mackenzie Eaglen, senior national security policy analyst at another Washington-based think tank, the Heritage Foundation, the recent cuts by the Air Force – which is essentially reducing personnel to pay for a larger, more modern fleet of aircraft – are evidence of budgetary constraint. “The Air Force is basically trying to pay, or tried to pay, its modernization bills with personnel and other readiness accounts, and that includes training.” The wartime appropriations pattern adopted by Congress in recent years – a base budget request followed by supplemental or emergency supplemental appropriations – leads Eaglen to believe this year’s cuts in personnel and O&M are temporary, a view shared by Steven Kosiak, the vice president for budget studies at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis. Says Kosiak: “Very often Congress will take some money out of O&M, perhaps for training or things like that, but … it’s certainly happened in the past that they do that with the understanding that the money will be made up for when the next supplemental comes around.” While Kosiak doesn’t perceive a crisis in overall readiness spending, he does think it’s possible for the military to run into trouble if it continues its current rate of entitlement spending – an amount heavily weighted toward retirees, who represent only about 20 percent of military personnel. As Kosiak points out in his analysis of the president’s budget request, published in

29

Budget.indd 29

3/1/08 6:17:55 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

early 2007, peacetime O&M funding per active-duty troop is now 72 percent more than the level provided in FY 1990 – a trend many consider unsustainable. “Most of the academic literature in this area suggests we could get substantially more bang for the buck in terms of recruitment and retention if we were to spend our compensation dollars differently,” Kosiak says, “and focus them more on cash rather than deferred non-cash benefits like health care for retirees. That’s an important issue because it’s very costly for DoD, and it has severe long-term budget implications.”

The Hardware Procurement appropriations have increased substantially since last year, by more than 20 percent, and the research and development budget, at $77.1 billion, is, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the highest in DoD’s history. According to Kosiak, procurement funding has now nearly doubled since 1997, the low point of the post-Cold War “procurement holiday.” Despite going along for the most part with the administration’s procurement numbers, lawmakers in both houses of Congress, in nearly every committee and conference report issued throughout the legislative process, expressed their exasperation with out-of-control costs, construction delays, and programs that consume billions of dollars and then fail. A handful of acquisition programs were singled out by lawmakers for particular concern, including: • The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. Decried in the report accompanying Senate appropriators’ markup as “a case study in how not to acquire ships,” the LCS – a next-generation surface combatant with “plug and play” modules, designed for coastal operations – has been dogged by spiraling costs. The administration requested $910 million for the purchase of three LCS ships, but the Navy subsequently canceled the contract for the third and fourth prototype ships. The 2008 appropriation provides $339.5 million, enough to fund the construction of one ship. • The Army’s principle modernization program, the Future Combat System (FCS), a network of manned and unmanned next-generation ground vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, sensors, and munitions systems. In 2007, the General Accounting Office (GAO) claimed the cost of the program had already risen 79 percent more than its original 2003 estimate of $91.4 billion – and the GAO expects costs to rise even further. The 2008 appropriation cuts more than $300 million from the administration’s $3.7 billion request. In the report that accompanies the bill, House and Senate conferees suggested the Army should focus on “technology spinouts” from the FCS program that can be used with current hardware to improve situational awareness. Given the fact, however – as Kosiak points out in his analysis of the budget request – that Army vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan are being operated at five times their normal peacetime rate, it’s not clear how long such spinouts could continue to be useful. • The Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH), an Army project to replace the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. After a prototype built by Bell Helicopter Textron lost power in flight and was forced to perform an emergency landing in February, the Army asked Bell to temporarily halt the program because of time and cost overruns. The administration’s request for $468.3 million for the ARH was zeroed out in July 2007 by the House Appropriations Committee, but the House-Senate Conference Committee later decided to keep the program alive, allocating $242.3 million for 16 helicopters.

Congressional appropriators were more generous to the military’s tactical aircraft programs, such as the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F/A-18E/F Hornet, the EA-18, the C-130J, and the C-17. In addition to the $3.15 billion lawmakers allocated to purchase 20 F-22 stealth fighters, some members of Congress recommended that the Air Force consider producing more F-22s than called for in the current plan for 183 aircraft. The case for more F-22s was apparently bolstered on Nov. 3, 2007, when the Air Force grounded its entire fleet of 676 F-15 tactical fighters – an aircraft that began production in 1975 – after an F-15 broke apart during a training flight. The Air Force has since cleared many of the grounded F-15s for flight. Appropriators also added $200 million to the $1.8 billion request for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter – the costliest U.S. arms acquisition yet, at a planned $300 billion through 2034 – for “production enhancements” designed to drive overall costs down, such as funneling more contract work to small businesses, as well as $480 million in unrequested funds to continue developing an alternative engine for the F-35. Despite their criticism of the Navy’s LCS program, legislators seemed determined to bolster the Navy fleet, providing an unrequested $938 million to fund advance procurement work on five additional ships: three TAKE ammunition/dry-cargo carriers; one LPD-17 amphibious warfare ship; and one Virginia-class submarine – facilitating a construction rate of two submarines annually by FY 2012, if not earlier. Although most variations between the appropriation and the president’s budget were marginal, some congressional cuts indicated a clear difference of opinion. Appropriators cut about 3 percent from the administration’s $10.3 billion request for ballistic missile defense programs, for example, including an $85 million cut from the administration’s $310 million request to begin the deployment of a ballistic missile defense site in Europe. Congress provided none of the $10 million requested for the Space Test Bed, part of an effort to develop a space-based missile defense system. It also cut the administration’s $30 million request for the Reliable Replacement Warhead – a controversial program aimed to produce a new nuclear warhead by 2012 – in half. Another stark disagreement between Congress and the administration arose over the Conventional Trident Modification program, part of the “Prompt Global Strike” initiative. Congress provided none of the $175.4 million requested to convert existing Trident II missiles into conventional weapons, instead allocating $100 million to develop a weapon that could strike distant targets quickly and precisely. The appropriators’ concern – shared by, among others, Russian President Vladimir Putin – was that a modified Trident missile could too easily be mistaken for a nuclear warhead and trigger a nuclear conflict. Overall, Congress attempted to exert greater control over the acquisitions process, in both its appropriations and authorization bills. The appropriations bill allocates $48 million to hire more auditors and inspectors to oversee Pentagon contracts. The later authorization bill – pocket-vetoed by Bush for other reasons – attempted to tackle DoD’s acquisitions problems from several angles. In a move designed to increase competition and bring down costs, for example, authorizers banned, after 2010, the use of lead systems integrators – large defense contractors who, amid a decline in the number of military acquisitions professionals within the department, became the prime contractors and virtual overseers of vast, multi-part contracts. In addition, lawmakers imposed stricter controls over contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and required budget justifications and independent reviews and audits for contracted services.

30

Budget.indd 30

2/27/08 12:35:54 PM

3098_YID_08 annual

BUDGET

1/25/08

11:00 AM

PELICAN

Page 1

™

GSA# GS-07F-0214J GSA# GS-02F-0190S

WAR SPENDING: A Legislative Battle The amount requested by the Bush administration and the Pentagon to conduct military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the 2008 fiscal year – a total of $196.4 billion – proved to be perhaps the most divisive and bitterly disputed issue in Congress throughout the past year. Although Democrats took control of both legislative chambers in the 2006 elections, they repeatedly fell short, in their war-funding measures, of the 60 percent majority required to overcome a promised presidential veto of any defense spending bill that included policy changes in the wars’ conduct: for example, timelines for troop withdrawals, or a revocation of the congressional authorization of military action in Iraq. The last serious effort to do so, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, would have provided $50 billion in emergency wartime spending, but placed several restrictions and conditions on the president’s authority – essentially requiring Bush to begin redeploying most of the troops in Iraq, with a goal of full withdrawal by Dec. 15, 2008. The bill passed the House but fell seven votes short of the 60 percent majority it needed to clear the Senate. While the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act, signed into law on Nov. 13, 2007, did not directly address the supplemental request, it did provide $11.6 billion to accelerate the production of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. An additional $70 billion in unconditional war funding was included in the omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, along with $3.7 billion in emergency funding for veterans’ health care. Shortly before passage of the bill, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates decried the way Congress was financing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Funding the war in fits and starts is requiring us to make short-term plans and short-term decisions, to forego needed actions, and to put at-risk critical procurement, training, and other activities important to deploy a ready and effective force,” he said. At year’s end, war funding remained the most crucial issue facing the White House, the Pentagon, and Congress; without an additional supplemental appropriation, war funding was likely to run out by mid-summer at the latest. The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act – the bill that sets general spending and policy guidelines for the Department of Defense – was finally signed by Bush on Jan. 26, 2008, and authorized $189.4 billion in emergency war spending for the fiscal year. However, House and Senate appropriators, who actually write the checks, indicated they would not complete their discussions of a second installment for another month. On Feb. 7, John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, announced his panel would bring its recommendations to House leaders in early March, and that they were likely to include the same conditions as last year’s response: establishing a target date for troop withdrawals and mandating standards for troop readiness. Given Bush’s clear warning of a veto for such provisions, the status of this second installment is anything but certain. By the beginning of February 2008, about $102 billion of the administration’s $196.4 billion request remained unfunded.

HOMELAND SECURITY

JUST GOT A LITTLE MORE

SECURE

At Pelican, we sweat the details so you can focus on the mission. Our watertight, dustproof Protector Case™ has been thrown from attack helicopters and submerged for special ops to safely deliver sensitive gear where it's needed most: right up front. Travel light with heavy protection. Open core cell and solid wall construction makes for a light weight but incredibly strong design. The Double-Throw Latches have a 400 lb. threshold each but open with a light pull. The Automatic Pressure Equalization Valve makes the case even easier to open by balancing the pressure inside after altitude changes. For a custom fit, Pick ‘N’ Pluck™ foam, padded divider sets, and special panel frames (for installing electronic interfaces) are available. With 38 sizes in our line, you’ll find that perfect case for your gear. Call us or go to pelican.com/yid to learn more about the Pelican Protector Case™. 23215 EARLY AVE, TORRANCE, CA 90505 866.803.2363 (TOLL FREE) • 310.326.4700 FAX 310.326.3311 WWW.PELICAN.COM/YID All trademarks and logos displayed herein are registered and unregistered trademarks of Pelican Products, Inc. and others.

31

Budget.indd 31

3098

2/27/08 12:36:04 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

The Big Picture Acquisition reform isn’t a new idea to the military, but its renewed emphasis in the 2008 appropriations bill points to larger budget issues that will be passed on to future administrations. For one thing, it indicates a general lack of agility in redirecting the military’s priorities, which analysts from all over the political spectrum say are imperfectly matched to the national security threats facing the United States in the 21st century. The most obvious example is aircraft procurement. “Far more goes to aviation or aviation-related procurement,” says Kosiak, “than goes to ships or tanks or other vehicles … We spend a lot on shortrange aviation, probably more than we should, and not enough on longrange aviation.” Why such emphasis on short-range tactical fighters like the F-22 and F-35? To Wheeler, it is a provocative question. “The thing that’s remarkable to me is how much is in that [appropriations] bill that has absolutely nothing to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he says. “By way of example, I would simply ask you: Just how many sorties has the F-22 flown over those two countries? The answer is zero … in each of the military services, the procurement and R&D budget is chock-full of ideas irrelevant to 21st century warfare.” To Wheeler, the F-22 falls into the category of what he calls “politically driven junk. “The Lockheed and Air Force public statements about the F-22, and continuing to buy it, are almost wholly devoted toward pork considerations,” says Wheeler. “They talk almost exclusively about the new jobs it will mean, rather than identifying some meaningful air-to-air threat the F-22 would address.” Actually, many advocates of the F-22 point to next-generation aircraft being developed by Russia, India and China – whose J-12 fighter Wheeler calls “a warmed-over Israeli Lavi” – a reference to a failed 1980s-era Israeli aircraft program. Whatever the capabilities of the J-12, and they are largely speculative in the West, the most recent generation of Russian fighters, such as Sukhoi’s “Flanker” variants, have been shown to be equal or superior to U.S. F-15s and F-16s, assuming they are flown by capable pilots. In addition, some analysts point to the age of U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy fighters, which first flew in the early-to-mid 1970s, and the fact that they must be replaced, preferably by a design less than 30 years old. But the F-22 is, like any government acquisition, a political process: In November of 2007, when six Republican senators – Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah; Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia; John Thune of South Dakota; and James Inhofe of Oklahoma – wrote to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England to urge the release of internal Pentagon reports recommending more F-22 procurement, it was hard not to notice that four of them represented constituencies with a direct interest in the F-22’s manufacture: Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, which conducts depot maintenance on the F-22, is the state’s largest singlesite employer, and the plane’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, is one of Georgia’s largest employers. Few would deny the influence of pork-barrel politics on any government budget, but Kosiak thinks it’s more complicated than that. To him, much of the Pentagon’s misalignment with contemporary security needs can be attributable to inertia. Every policy statement from the White House and the Pentagon, including DoD’s most recent Quadrennial Defense Review, advocates the idea of modernizing the military to meet new threats, but it never seems to happen in the way leaders envision or hope for. “In a world where you have on the one hand the momentum of existing programs, one generation

after the next after the next, and force structure that’s been around for decades and decades,” says Kosiak, “and on the other hand you have no consensus on what the newest [force structure) should be … our traditional sort of orientation and budget allocations tend to keep us moving in that direction.” For example, says Kosiak, there isn’t much agreement, even among the U.S. defense community, about what the term “Global War on Terrorism” means, which makes it easier to let current projects ride than to argue a case for reorientation. One fact that supports Kosiak’s inertia hypothesis, he says, is the resource allocations among the service branches since the end of the Cold War. “Notwithstanding the fact that we’ve been through arguably three different kinds of strategic phases or periods over the past few decades, our budget allocations have stayed basically the same,” he says. “My own sense is that we’re still oriented too much toward conventional military operations, against sort of mid-level powers or rogue states like Iraq and Korea and Iran, and even in those cases, we’re probably focused too much on short-range aviation.” To Eaglen, budget priority questions are important, but shouldn’t obscure the fact that, in her opinion, the nation isn’t spending enough on national defense overall. “The argument that the Pentagon should spend smarter, and not more, is timeless, and it will never go away no matter what we’re spending on national security,” she says. “But generally speaking, I think actually the department is on track with what they’re purchasing today – I would argue that they’re just purchasing too little of everything, and therefore there’s no economy of scale, and so everything is more expensive as a result.” Eaglen agrees with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, who in October 2007, publicly expressed concerns that the long counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have so depleted the armed forces that the Army and Marine Corps will not be ready to confront an additional threat and that the military budget should be set at a minimum of 4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) – as opposed to the 3.3 percent it consumes today. Eaglen says the 4-percent figure “would meet the military’s requirements to protect the nation while allowing sustained long-term economic growth.” Wheeler, however, is a vocal critic of the 4-percent argument – it’s essentially, he says, tying the military budget to the number of the nation’s McDonald’s franchises. “Percent of GDP is a totally meaningless measure of what the defense budget should be,” he says. “The size of the defense budget should be based on the threat. The threat is al Qaeda.” Indeed, al-Qaeda and the war on terrorism promise to hang heavily over the budget process in the coming years. The base budget/ supplemental appropriation pattern of funding the nation’s military activities has created a sticky situation that will be difficult for the next administration – and probably future administrations – to sort out. “We’re way past the point now where you can separate the budget between what’s war-related and what isn’t,” says Kosiak. “We basically have a long-term defense plan that looks less costly than it really is, and the reason is because we’re funding stuff related to the long-term plan in what are supposedly temporary emergency supplementals. If we were to take [the supplementals] away in the future, DoD would have to increase its base budget to cover the costs. Even if we were to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan entirely, DoD would either have to cut back its long-term force structure and readiness plans, or we’d have to start adding money to the base budget. So that’s a big issue, and one that any future administration is going to have to figure out.”

32

Budget.indd 32

2/27/08 12:36:12 PM

The Year in Defense

M-Gator A1™

You spoke, we listened. The new, rugged M-Gator A1 has a bigger engine, more speed, two-post foldable OPS, reconfigurable cargo box, a standard litter carrier, additional cargo tie downs and many other features designed around your demands for safety and power.

War Assembly Plant (Des Moines), MG-1 tractor production, 1943.

Meet the Newest Member Of the John Deere Battalion.

M-GATOR A1 additions/modifications: • 854cc liquid-cooled diesel engine • 0-20 mph • Increased torque • 2 radiators for better cooling • 2 post OPS that fold down into cargo box for transport • Retractable seat belts • 8 external tie-down points on cargo box • Litter carrier standard

R-Gator™

The R-Gator military unmanned ground vehicle is enhanced with proprietary robot technology. So, on its own, it can act as an unmanned scout, “point man,” perimeter guard, supply carrier and more. R-GATOR • Unmanned -Recon on- or off-road -Perimeter patrolling -Casualty evacuation • Wired for future payloads • New robust, interactive user interface • Autonomous shuttling to/from supply points to free up your people • Regular vehicle driving capabilities

www.JohnDeere/M-Gator.com

www.JohnDeere/R-Gator.com

John Deere’s green and yellow color scheme, the leaping deer symbol and JOHN DEERE are trademarks of Deere & Company.

08-2714

deere on temp.indd 1

Vertis QCA 1300 19th Street, Suite 200 East Moline, IL 61244

Cyan

Magenta

Yellow

Black

08-2714 2/6/08

11:02:46 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Jonathan Doti

U.S. Army

Year in Review By Scott R. Gourley

I

n their Feb. 14, 2007, U.S. Army “Posture Statement,” submitted to the committees and subcommittees of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives 1st Session, 110th Congress, the secretary of the Army and chief of staff of the Army provided the political decision-makers with a snapshot of the service accomplishments, status, and strategic direction at that moment in time. “America remains at war,” it read, adding, “This is one of the most dangerous times in our history. We retain the confidence of the nation as we engage in a long struggle against global terrorism and the conditions that give it life and sustain it. Since 9/11, well over 700,000 active and reserve soldiers have deployed overseas in support of the war on terror.” It continued, “Today, almost 600,000 soldiers are on active duty, serving in nearly 80 countries worldwide. While fighting, we are continuing to prepare our soldiers, leaders,

34

Army YiR.indd 34

2/27/08 8:57:26 AM

U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Michael L. Casteel

Army Year in Review

families, civilians, and forces for the challenges they will face. Our commitment to current and future readiness in the face of uncertainty is driving how we are transforming, modernizing, and realigning our entire global infrastructure of bases, depots, arsenals, and equipment sets.” While the senior service leaders attempted to convey the myriad challenges of maintaining current and future readiness in time of war, the fact is that the U.S. Army is not a static organization and a snapshot cannot do justice to the Herculean efforts mandated by those tactical and strategic realities. For example, the year began with the service making the very difficult choice of halting development on two out of four classes of Future Combat Systems (FCS) Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). According to a Jan. 9 announcement, the service took the action “to correspond better with future jointforce requirements and budgetary constraints. The Army is balancing competing priorities: the costs of war and reset, and the need to modernize the force. Consequently, the service will continue to improve Raven and Shadow Unmanned Aerial Systems, develop two of four classes of Future Combat Systems Unmanned Aerial Systems, and field the Extended-Range/Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Systems.” At the same time that future force planners were looking at modernizing tomorrow’s force, others were looking at the immediate implementation of current force adjustments for ongoing combat operations. Just two days after the UAS announcement, the secretary of defense directed an increase in forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Reflecting the findings of the president’s Iraq-strategy review, the Department of Defense (DoD) announcement translated to a potential increase in Army troop presence in Iraq of more than 20,000 personnel by May. The “plus-up,” part of a strategy commonly known as “the surge,” would give commanders in Iraq the capability to employ up to 20 brigades to assist in achieving stability and security. The strategy would also mandate that some units already in theater would have their tours extended while other units would deploy earlier than previously scheduled. No year can be viewed or reviewed in a vacuum. And, in fact, the surge of early 2007 stemmed from the situation in late 2006, during the height of the ethnosectarian violence that had escalated in the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. At that time, senior military and political leaders had concluded that the coalition was failing to achieve its objectives, with a subsequent request for additional forces that began to flow in January 2007. Perhaps reflective of these force generation challenges, on Jan. 11 the defense secretary also announced that the active-duty Army would grow by 65,000 personnel during the next five years, making

Opposite: U.S. Army Spc. Mariusz J. Dybka, 4th Platoon, Delta Company, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division out of Fort Carson, Colo., provides security while fellow soldiers search homes for weapons in the area of Dora in southern Baghdad, Iraq, Aug. 1, 2007. Above: U.S. Army Spc. Jorge Aquillon, of 2nd Battalion, 82nd Aviation Brigade (Long Range Surveillance Detachment), prepares to fire his .50caliber machine gun at Taliban forces near the village of Allah Say, Afghanistan, Aug. 21, 2007.

35

Army YiR.indd 35

2/27/08 8:57:49 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

DoD photo by Spc. James B. Smith Jr., U.S. Army

Spc. Jeremy Squirres, with Alpha Company, 101st Military Intelligence Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, prepares a Shadow 200 unmanned aerial vehicle for launch at Forward Operating Base Warhorse, Sept. 22, 2004. Alpha Company, 101st MI, operates and maintains the unmanned aerial vehicles for missions in Baqubah, Iraq. While the Army will continue to develop the Shadow, it was forced to halt development of two new unmanned aerial systems due to budget constraints.

permanent a temporary increase of 30,000 and then further expanding on that at a rate of 7,000 per year, to expand the force from an official endstrength of 512,400 to 547,000. Ten days after that, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, President George W. Bush’s choice for command of Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), supported the new strategy for Iraq, stressing that the additional U.S. forces involved in the surge would be essential in accomplishing the mission there. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Petraeus, who had been nominated on Jan. 17 to be promoted to general and take over command of MNF-I from Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., (Casey, who played a key role in calling for the troop surge, was also nominated to become the Army’s chief of staff), said, “If we are to carry out the Multi-National Force-Iraq mission in accordance with the new strategy, the additional forces that have been directed to move to Iraq will be essential, as will greatly increased support by our government’s other agencies, additional resources for reconstruction and economic initiatives, and a number of other actions

critical to what must be a broad, comprehensive, multifaceted approach to the challenges in Iraq.” While some observers claimed that the expanded commitments would strain and possibly “break” the Army, Casey clarified the situation just a week and a half later during his own confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I see in Iraq every day a splendid Army,” Casey said. “I know that [current Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker] has problems with the forces yet to deploy and with some of the strategic elements that will deploy later, but from what I see in Iraq, the Army is far from broken. “I’m a soldier. My roots are in the Army, and I know the pride of wearing this uniform,” Casey said. “Service as Army chief of staff is not a reward. It’s a duty. It’s about service, and it’s about personal commitment to the men and women of the United States Army.” In addition to these personnel debates, early 2007 also witnessed Army organizational changes, including the Army’s designation of military

36

Army YiR.indd 36

3/1/08 6:19:06 PM

Wherever the U.S. military goes, we go too.

Satellite networks Wireless networks Baseband networks Network control software Media asset management software Network monitoring services Field support services Depot management Logistics engineering Information assurance engineering and more...

Communications are vital to mission success. That’s why we work side-by-side with the U.S. military to provide end-to-end communications systems and services that help warfighters operate, even in the harshest conditions. From software and hardware to experts in the field, DataPath delivers – with experience, innovation and speed. For more information, visit www.datapath.com or e-mail us at [email protected].

Copyright 2007 DataPath, Inc. All rights reserved

datapath on temp.indd 1

2/25/08 5:32:30 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

DoD photo by Helene C. Stikkel

Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Richard A. Cody, right, responds to a reporter’s question as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs William Winkenwerder looks on during a Pentagon press briefing Feb. 21, 2007, on outpatient care facilities and administrative processes at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., and the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md. Winkenwerder announced improvements to be made for the wounded soldiers treated there.

Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) as an Army service component command to the U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) and as a major subordinate command of the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC). The announcement reflected far more than a mere name change. Because AMC serves as the Army’s designated single logistics integrator, assignment of SDDC to AMC enhances this role by leveraging deployment and distribution commonalities, while also facilitating the joint distribution process consistent with joint logistics concepts under USTRANSCOM. Along with personnel and organizational changes, other planners continued to keep their vision on future challenges and future uncertainties. In the case of the U.S. Army, many of those future challenges will be met through the cornerstone Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.

In late January 2007, the Army conducted a week-long exercise FCS event, dubbed “Experiment 1.1,” in which available FCS technologies and equipment were placed into soldiers’ hands. Exercise descriptions noted that “a platoon of 36 soldiers participated in the exercise, which involved a mock urban assault recently carried out by U.S. forces in Iraq. The soldiers attacked the target and then cleared out several buildings that were infested with insurgents. But unlike today’s soldiers, the troops using FCS equipment were empowered by the FCS network; consequently, they had a suite of new networked capabilities that reduced soldier risk, increased soldier awareness and battlefield understanding, and enhanced overall mission effectiveness.” But early 2007 also brought the service some unexpected bad news. Specifically, February found many service members shocked by reports of

38

Army YiR.indd 38

2/27/08 8:58:15 AM

serco on temp.indd 1

1/28/08 9:30:03 AM

efw on temp.indd 1

1/7/08 5:43:19 PM

DoD photo by Cherie A. Thurlby

Army Year in Review

COMBAT LIFESAVER ✔ Unequivocally the Most Durable First Responder Medical bag in use by U.S. Government Agencies ✔ Original, Patented Design ✔ Designed by a 24-year Recon Veteran

The TC3® V1 was developed Specifically for the U.S. Army Medics and CLS.

®

U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of Multi National Force-Iraq, flies in a UH-60 helicopter to Camp Fallujah, Iraq, April 19, 2007. We at Recon

sub-standard maintenance on some of the facilities and claims of shortfalls in some outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C. Immediate command attention was directed to solving the problems, with the related resignation of the secretary of the Army and the relief of the medical center commander. In accepting the first resignation, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates observed, “From what I have learned, the problems at Walter Reed appear to be problems of leadership,” he said. “The Walter Reed doctors, nurses, and other staff are among the best and the most caring in the world. They deserve our continued deepest thanks and strongest support.” Other Army leadership changes in the spring of 2007 reflected the positive handoff of service responsibilities between military professionals. The best example occurred on April 10,

Mountaineer LLC, from the initial design of the TC3® to the present, have taken great pride in delivering a quality piece of equipment to the Medics and Combat Lifesavers serving abroad. We look forward to continually providing highquality products for our First Responders.

41

Army YiR.indd 41

www.ReconMountaineer.com eMail: [email protected] Phone: 760.207.0056

Recon Mountaineer® LLC is a registered Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise and a SDVOB. Copyright Recon Mountaineer® LLC 2002–2007 DAM

2/27/08 8:58:32 AM

Core to edge - addressing information assurance from the inside out. General Dynamics C4 Systems covers it all, from embedded security to multiple security level architectures to leading-edge voice and data encryption solutions. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. We’ve been protecting the highest levels of information, at home and abroad, for over 40 years. Core to edge. www.gdc4s.com/informationassurance

© 2008 General rights reserved. General AM Dynamics reserves TTX 160 DEFENSE AD Dynamics. 2006 All 1/10/07 11:44 Page 1 the right to make changes in its products and specifications at any time and without notice.

I N T E R M1 Core2Edge_YID_200801.indd

O D A L

H E A V Y

R A I L C A R S

D U T Y

•

F L A T C A R S

M U L T I L E V E L S • G E N E R A L • B O X C A R S • G O N D O L A S

The Railcar Pooling Experts ®

042_gdttx.indd 1

S E R V I C E F L A T C A R 1/2/08 S • C E N T E R B E A M S

2:56:42 PM

ttx.com

2/25/08 5:41:05 PM

Army Year in Review

when Casey officially became the 36th chief of staff of the Army, assuming the position from Schoomaker. Guest speakers at the ceremony included Gates and the new Acting Secretary of the Army, Pete Geren, both of whom praised Schoomaker for his accomplishments and the positive changes he made to the Army after being called from retirement in 2003 to assume the top uniformed Army position. In his farewell remarks, Schoomaker observed, “While technology has changed our Army, there can be little doubt that when you look into the eyes of our warriors today, as I have in the last four years, I see the same patriotism that George Washington must have seen at Valley Forge. I have looked into the eyes of today’s warriors and I am proud to report [that] they continue to exceed every expectation for courage, dedication, and selfless service – they are the heart of all we do, they are our future, and they demonstrate strength, compassion, and warrior ethos.” Just one day later, Gates announced that all soldiers in the U.S. Central Command area of operations would serve 15-month tours in the region beginning immediately. Calling it an “interim change,” Gates noted that, upon taking office in December 2006, he had learned that even sustaining the level of deployed Army forces needed before surging five brigades into Iraq would require active-duty units to flow into Iraq before they had spent a full 12 months at home. He said this reality had been a significant factor in his decision to recommend to Bush that defense officials make the previously noted increases in the size of the Army and Marine Corps during the next five years. While semantics likely had little meaning to those warfighters who were extended in theater, late spring also saw an evolution of terminology, as what was once dubbed “the long war” gave way to “an era of persistent conflict.” But regardless of the names used, the Army continued to shoulder its responsibilities. That selfless sacrifice was noted on June 14 in the Army’s 232-year “birthday message” from Geren, Casey, and Sgt. Maj. of the Army Kenneth O. Preston: “Today’s soldiers symbolize the nobility of selfless service. Today’s soldiers are motivated by an unwavering belief that they will be victorious on the field of battle, because we have fought this way since 1775 and always will. Today’s soldiers are imbued with the Army values and live the warrior ethos.” One month later, Geren, who had been nominated by Bush to be secretary of the Army on May 24, became the 20th secretary of the Army, following confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Perhaps the greatest example of an Army balancing current and future capabilities emerged in the summer of 2007, when soldiers of the 2nd Infantry Division’s 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, took both land warrior and mounted warrior systems when they deployed into Iraq. Designed to eliminate the so-called “fog of war,” the dismounted and mounted state-of-the-art modular fighting systems combine computers, lasers, geolocation, and radios with soldiers’ mission equipment to substantially improve situational awareness, mobility, sustainability, survivability, and lethality. By late summer, a new term was being used by service observers, involving the “balance” of America’s Army. For example, in his welcoming remarks at the formal arrival ceremonies of Geren on Aug. 30, Casey observed, “Our force is stretched and out of balance. The tempo of our

deployments are not sustainable, our equipment usage is five times the normal rate and continuously operating in harsh environments.” The event also provided the opportunity for the chief of staff and service secretary to express their shared commitment to Army families who shoulder the domestic burdens associated with the further enhanced operational tempo stemming from the surge strategy. Petraeus gave an early assessment of that strategy in his Sept. 10 testimony before Congress regarding the security situation in Iraq. Among his opening remarks, the MNF-I commander noted, “As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena. Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006….” Meanwhile, other training and materiel milestones continued in parallel with these combat operations. An example of the former included the 2007 mandate that all basic combat training graduates be combat life saver certified, likely extending the so-called “golden hour” for wounded warriors who can now be treated much more extensively before the arrival of medical personnel. An example of the latter was the milestone marked on Sept. 25, when the Army’s Program Executive Office Soldier outfitted it’s one-millionth customer with a Rapid Fielding Initiative kit of personal warfighter equipment. At the other end of the spectrum of ground combat hardware from personal fighting equipment, the first of the new joint service Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles began arriving in theater in October and November, providing both Army and Marine Corps warriors with greatly increased survivability against evolving battlefield threats. December witnessed another significant U.S. Army organizational change, with the announcement that the service would establish a new Logistics Branch on Jan. 1, 2008. According to the announcement, logistics is the newest branch of the Army for commissioned officers, established by general order of the secretary of the Army. Ordnance, quartermaster and transportation officers from the ranks of captain through colonel will be united into the logistics branch. This change will occur across all components of the Army. “Establishment of the logistics branch fully supports the needs of the modular Army,” said Lt. Gen. Ann Dunwoody, deputy chief of staff, G-4. “It promotes the development of multi-skilled logisticians, capable of anticipating requirements, planning, integrating, and executing all types of deployment and sustainment activities that enable our nation’s forces to initiate and sustain full-spectrum operations. As a result of Army transformation and modularity, Army logistics has shifted from a functional to a multifunctional focus. The reduction of functional logistics commands and the increase of multifunctional logistics commands at all levels make this a natural evolution for Army logisticians. “The nature of the Global War on Terror has drastically changed the way logisticians operate on the modern battlefield,” the announcement concluded. “The logistics branch will develop expeditionary and campaign quality logisticians needed for future missions.” As in past years, 2007 ended with continuing uncertainty over what those future missions might entail. But it is clear that, regardless of the mission in 2008 and beyond, the U.S. Army will be ready to shoulder the responsibilities with exactly the same courage and commitment shown since 1775.

43

Army YiR.indd 43

2/27/08 8:58:41 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Master Sgt. Thomas Meneguin

U.S. Air Force

Year in Review By Robert F. Dorr

E

xpert and experienced, America’s airmen are performing superbly in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world. With their talents, technical skills, and technology, members of the United States Air Force are very good at what they do. It should follow, logically, that the Air Force is functioning like a welloiled machine. It isn’t. A recent cut in personnel, carried out reluctantly to save money, didn’t actually save much. Formidable warplanes like the F-15 Eagle reign supreme on the aerial battlefield but are now so old that sheer structural fatigue may cause some to break apart and drop from the sky. Restricted by Congress from retiring some aircraft while restricted by the White House from purchasing others – for example, the 381 F-22 Raptors blue-suiters say they need rather than the 183 allowed under administration policy – the Air Force’s top leaders say candidly that they are in a fullblown crisis.

The service’s civilian chief has gone a step further. “The United States Air Force is broken,” said Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne just after testifying on Capitol Hill last November. In testimony, Wynne warned that efforts to replace the Air Force’s aging fleet are failing and that the age of a typical Air Force aircraft will increase from 23.9 years today to 26.5 years by 2012 – as compared with just nine years during the Vietnam era. Wynne warned that future adversaries will “kick our butts” if his service doesn’t modernize faster. He said that unless action is taken quickly, geriatric U.S. warplanes will “simply rust out, age out, and fall out of the sky.” He was delivering his message when one did. Last Nov. 2, an F-15C Eagle of the Missouri Air National Guard’s 110th Fighter Squadron, 131st Fighter Wing, went down. Its pilot ejected and suffered a broken arm and shoulder injuries. Early reports point to a massive in-flight structural failure, with the aircraft disintegrating

44

af yir.indd 44

2/27/08 2:05:07 PM

U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Patrick Dixon

Air force year in review

Opposite: Two F-22 Raptors from Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., participate in a recent training exercise. Above: A surprised Capt. George Collings greets his father, Maj. Gen. Michael Collings, the senior U.S. defense representative to Egypt, on the flight line, Oct. 29. Gen. Collings flew into Aviano Air Base, Italy, to present Capt. Collings with the Distinguished Flying Cross for his airmanship while supporting ground troops as an F-16 pilot with the 510th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron based out of Balad Air Base, Iraq.

aft of the cockpit. The Air Force grounded all versions of the F-15, some 720 airframes, a step that halted some operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A colleague of Wynne’s who did not want to be named said age was the cause of the crash and said: “We told you so.” In the airlift community, many airmen are under the impression that an April 3, 2006, crash of a C-5B Galaxy of the 436th Airlift Wing near Dover Air Force Base, Del., which was survived by all 17 aboard, was caused by age and structural failure. In fact, it was not – the official cause was crew error – but concerns over age and fatigue life apply to Air Force platforms of all sizes and shapes. Air Force chief of staff Gen. T. Michael “Buzz” Moseley put it bluntly: “We just can’t predict what will break next on an F-15 or a KC135.” A series of F-15 groundings, coupled with technical delays with the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), could presage changes in what the Air Force’s leaders want and when they want it. So far, however, Wynne and Moseley haven’t wavered from the consistent position they’ve taken in speeches, testimony, and bull sessions with troops. They say they have three priorities:

• Fighting and winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; • Taking care of the troops; and • Recapitalizing a geriatric fleet of decrepit aircraft that are older than the men and women who fly them.

Fighting the War During a fierce battle in the Iraqi city of Najaf in September 2007, the tide was turned when an F-16C Fighting Falcon pilot dropped a laser-guided, 500-pound bomb that arrived with precision accuracy and killed two dozen members of a hostile Shiite militia. The F-16C pilot accomplished what half a dozen Army AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter pilots, criss-crossing the battle scene at low altitude and taking fire, could not: Air Force leaders labeled the event proof that airpower matters, even in an urban fight against irregulars, and cited it as an example of jointness at work. Capt. George Collings of the 510th Fighter Squadron “Buzzards” received the Distinguished Flying Cross for his airmanship. The outcome of the nation’s overseas conflicts, and even the question of whether Americans should be fighting a Shiite militia with

45

af yir.indd 45

2/27/08 10:08:12 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Miranda Moorer

An F-15 Eagle flies over the Pacific during Valiant Shield. Following the crash of an F-15 on Nov. 2, 2007, the entire F-15 fleet was grounded until completion of an investigation. Since then, a portion of the fleet returned to the air, but some Eagles may never fly again. links to the Baghdad government, will be decided way above the pay grade of even the top leaders at the Pentagon. But down at the working level, blue-suiters believe that the Air Force is making a pivotal contribution. They see an inseparable link between lessons being learned and needs for new equipment. Maj. Gen. Marshall Sabol, an airlift pilot and top strategist, remembers flying into Baghdad on a C-130H Hercules hauling only a single pallet of cargo. Tactical airlift has proven itself again and again in Iraq and Afghanistan, says Sabol, but this incident vindicates the Air Force’s controversial quest for a smaller, twin-engined joint cargo aircraft.

In addition to traditional functions, which range from helicopter rescue to unmanned aerial vehicle surveillance, thousands of Air Force members have become “battlefield airmen,” using skills previously associated with soldiers and Marines. In the recent past, most enlisted airmen saw an M16 rifle only once, during an afternoon at the firing range during basic training. Today, basic trainees have constant contact with M4 and M16A2 rifles, and learn to use other weapons such as the M2 .50-caliber “Ma Deuce” aircooled machine gun. Pulling what’s known in jargon as “in lieu of” duty, thousands of airmen are confronting the improvised explosive devices that account for 68 percent of U.S. casualties.

46

af yir.indd 46

2/27/08 10:08:24 AM

mtc on temp.indd 1

1/28/08 10:21:05 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

The Boeing Company via Robert F. Dorr

On the homeland defense front, since September 11, 2001, Air Force fighters have flown 600,000 sorties over North American air space.

Taking Care “People are our most precious resource,” said Moseley. And while no one can deny that military service calls for sacrifice, especially in wartime, the plain truth is that America’s professional military people are generally treated pretty well. No one would question that the public

supports its troops. Sales of bumper stickers bearing proud phrases like “I’m an Air Force Mom” or “Air Force Spoken Here” are brisk. In American communities, civilians react positively to the sight of a service member wearing the new airman battle uniform, or ABU, during a stop at Dunkin’ Donuts or the 7-Eleven. Current policy is to wear the ABU to work under most circumstances, rather than the service dress uniform. However, the Air Force is testing a new set of service-dress blues that Moseley said, “will make us look less like a bellhop in a hotel lobby and a lot more military.”

48

af yir.indd 48

2/27/08 10:08:36 AM

Air force year in review

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR, mandated that the U. S. Air Force have a new bomber in operation by 2018. This is a notional concept from Boeing of what a “2018 bomber” might look like.

specialties, however, gaps are evident: recruiting of medical professionals is lagging at 56.5 percent of the service’s goal. Even when staffing tables appear filled, “people issues” are proliferating simply because there aren’t enough people. Early this past winter, a staff historian visited Moseley to report a statistical milestone: The Air Force has shrunk to its smallest size since Pearl Harbor. America’s air arm boasted 354,000 troops on Dec. 7, 1941. Its personnel count last winter was 333,000 and was projected to fall to 316,000. People shortages are being felt on flight lines and back shops where noncommissioned officers often complain that they are carrying out duties meant for junior airmen. Personnel totals dropped because Air Force leaders sought to trade people for planes. In the end, it didn’t work. In the belief that cutting personnel costs would yield funds for aerial hardware, the service carried out a harsh “force reshaping” – a euphemism for a reduction in force – in 2005 and 2006. People were forced out of promising careers. Hit hardest were junior officers with prior enlisted service, such as a first lieutenant who thought she’d helped herself by winning a commission. “We gave up 40,000 people to protect our investment in equipment,” said Moseley, “and we’ve got no place to go now.” Moreover, a study completed after the reduction of personnel shows that it didn’t achieve the cash savings that constituted its only purpose. Wynne testified on Capitol Hill that it achieved only minuscule cost savings. To give expression to his concern for the welfare of the troops, Moseley introduced an airman’s creed to replace all the various specialized creeds that have been used in the past, and, as he put it, “to focus on the core of what an airman believes. “When you read it, reflect on the creed’s elements: warrior, heritage, honor, and valor,” Moseley said. He also stressed that now more than ever we need each and every airman to be combat-ready. Moseley often stresses the importance of a “warrior ethos” in a culture that previously preferred the concept of a citizen-soldier.

Recapitalizing the Force

Fiscal year 2008 brought a 3.5 percent pay raise and improvements in certain allowances. Airmen serving in the combat zones receive their pay taxfree, although the Air Force’s dedicated civilian career employees, unfairly, do not. Public funding for family-related benefits and professional military education is on the rise. After some initial speed bumps, the Pentagon is doing its part in caring for the nation’s combat wounded. Morale is high in the Air Force. War or no war, the service is meeting recruiting goals. According to official figures, between 2001 and 2006 the service recruited 160,603 airmen, or 101 percent of its target. In some

In their third category of top issues, Wynne and Moseley have five subcategories. “Our priorities for procurement are the following,” said Moseley. “The KC-X, the new air refueling tanker, is No. 1. CSAR-X, the new combat search and rescue helicopter, is No. 2. Our space-based early warning and communications satellites are No 3. The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter is No. 4. And the next generation long-range strike bomber is No. 5.” Recent problems with the fighter force, including groundings of F-15 Eagles over age and structural issues, could change this five-point list, but Air Force leaders have been consistent about these priorities for several years. In May 2007, Moseley made a round-trip to Europe aboard a KC135E Stratotanker with a fiscal year 1957 serial number. Age is a problem throughout the Air Force’s fleet of 10,856 aircraft, but nowhere more than with its 590 tankers (114 KC-135Es, 417 KC-135Rs and 59 KC-10A Extenders).

49

af yir.indd 49

2/27/08 10:08:47 AM

NOWHERE TO HIDE Be it Land, Sea or Air there’s no hiding place. Developed to meet the simultaneous 360° Multi-Mission requirement including RAM functionality of a Networked Battlefield environment, Giraffe ensures there’s nowhere to hide or escape.

SAAB MICROWAVE SYSTEMS www.saabgroup.com

Saab serves the global market with world-leading products, services and solutions ranging from military defence to civil security. Saab has operations and employees on all continents and constantly develops, adopts and improves new technology to meet customers’ changing needs.

saab on temp.indd 1

2/18/08 4:22:18 PM

Air force year in review

The KC-X program is the second attempt to replace the KC-135, following a botched sale-lease deal for Boeing 767-200s that preoccupied Pentagon leaders from 2001 to 2005, went seriously astray, and put at least two key aerospace figures into prison. When this story went to press, an evaluation team was sequestered at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. mulling the two competing aircraft in the KC-X competition for a new tanker. The candidates are the Boeing 767-200 (again) and the Airbus A330-200, which its maker calls the KC30B MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) by U.S. prime contractor Northrop Grumman. A KC-X source selection, rescheduled several times, was expected in February 2008 to be followed by orders for 179 aircraft, replacing the oldest KC-135s. Whichever aircraft is chosen in the KC-X competition, the Air Force will officially designate it the KC-45A. Valued at $40 billion, KC-X is a “winner-take-all” program that will yield one aircraft type only. Still, Moseley has said repeatedly that the Air Force may eventually purchase both tanker types. “I think down the road you’ll see us go to a mixed fleet,” Moseley said. This may occur due to simple necessity. Gen. Arthur Lichte (pronounced “light”), commander of Air Mobility Command, which will field the first KC-45As, echoed Moseley’s concerns about the age and structural condition of today’s tankers. “If we recapitalize our entire tanker fleet [of 531 KC-135s and 59 KC-10As],” Lichte said in a telephone interview, “and if we stay on our flight path without being diverted, the first KC-135R will be retired in 2018 [after the KC-135E fleet] and the last one around 2048.” However, Lichte added, “If these plans are thrown off course by funding perturbations or other factors, such as a protest in the current KC-X tanker contest, the first KC-135R may not be phased out until 2027 and the final one not until 2082.” At that point, the KC-135 will be 113 years old! “Asking pilots and boom operators to go out and fly such old aircraft is something no Air Force commander wants to do,” Lichte said. Lichte’s reference to protest refers to the increasing trend among contractors to file formal objections when they lose an aircraft competition. The concern is nowhere more evident than with what Moseley has repeatedly said that “my second priority,” the CSAR-X program for a $15-billion fleet of 141 combat search and rescue helicopters to replace 101 aging HH-60G Pave Hawks. CSAR-X seemed a simple proposition when it began in 2005 as a contest among the CH-47 Chinook, EH-101 Merlin, and Sikorsky S-92. Many observers thought the EH-101 would easily win the competition. Another version, given the U.S. designation VH-71A, was selected in 2005 as the next presidential “Marine One” in a 23-helicopter purchase that has been seriously delayed on cost and technical grounds. When the Chinook was announced the winner on Nov. 9, 2006, many were surprised, including Wynne and Moseley, who had no role in the decision. Critic Loren Thompson, analyst at Washington’s Lexington Institute, wrote in a scholarly paper that the Chinook is too loud, generates too much dust, heat, and downwash, and has other flaws. The CSAR-X losers filed protests. The Government Accountability Office upheld them. A year later, the same three helicopters were competing with the same three aircraft. Wynne said a new helicopter would now be chosen in February 2008. His Pentagon spokesman corrected him and said it wouldn’t happen till summer. Because of the delay, the Air Force requested that CSARX funds in the fiscal year 2008 defense appropriations bill be diverted for other urgent needs.

Equipment Needs Air Force leaders have had greater success with a new family of satellites for space operations. Funding has been adequate, although programs have moved slowly. When an SC-19 kinetic-kill interceptor launched from Songlin, China, destroying a target satellite in January 2007, Moseley used the occasion to stress the Air Force’s role as the dominant service branch in space and to urge preparedness. “There was a shock that the Russians put a satellite into orbit before us,” said Moseley, referring to last year’s 50th anniversary of Sputnik, the 184-pound object that became mankind’s first artificial satellite on Oct. 4, 1957. “Now, there’s a similar shock that the Chinese successfully shot down that satellite. It makes space … more dangerous than it was before.” For fiscal year 2008, Congress fully funded 12 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, six each for the Air Force and Marine Corps. But lawmakers also imposed a $266 million cut in JSF development funding. The F-35, first flown Dec. 15, 2006, and now the most expensive program in Pentagon history at $276 billion, is supposed to replace most A-10 Warthog and F-16 Fighting Falcon warplanes, and all of the nowretired F-117 Nighthawks. But the first F-35 was grounded for seven months in 2007 because of technical difficulties and the overseas support for a hoped-for production run of 4,000 aircraft may be declining: Australia and the Netherlands, once viewed as certain purchasers of the F-35, have experienced political change and may no longer want the plane. The Air Force’s replacement-training unit for the F-35A will be the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. The first F-35A combat group will be the 388th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, with initial operating capability having been pushed back from 2011 to 2013. The Air Force still plans to purchase 1,763 of the fighters, but for the time being, Moseley has backed away from a request for a small number of the short takeoff – and vertical landing – F-35B variant contemplated for the U.S. Marine Corps and the Royal Air Force. The manufacturer will assemble the F-35A in the 1-million-square-foot Fort Worth facility opened in 1941 and once used to assemble B-24 Liberators. Air Force leaders have been saying that the service plans called to develop a new bomber by 2018, as prescribed in the Pentagon’s 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. What they call the “2018 bomber” will harness existing technologies in aerodynamics, propulsion, and “netcentric” capabilities, and will be straightforward and practical in design, “a big truck,” as Moseley calls it. A far more advanced bomber, perhaps a hypersonic vehicle that might test treaty obligations on weaponizing space, is supposedly due in 2037. Moseley has dropped strong hints that some aircraft may already be flying, or are soon to fly, under a “black” program under which the plane’s existence is acknowledged only to a selected few in Congress. However, there is nothing in the planned fiscal year 2009 budget request for a new bomber aircraft. And if there is a “black” program being developed, it’s unclear whether the program addresses the modest goals of the 2018 bomber or the more ambitious technology of the “2037 bomber.” War, people, planes: Those are the top priorities. A tanker, a helicopter, satellites, the F–35, and a new bomber: Those are the items of equipment most needed. Serious problems with the fighter force could change all of that. Meanwhile, Air Force leaders must continue to guide the world’s finest air arm through one of its most difficult periods.

51

af yir.indd 51

2/27/08 10:09:13 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Coast Guard photo by PAC Tom Sperduto

The first National Security Cutter, Bertholf, performs sea trials in Mobile Bay, Ala., Feb. 8, 2008. After meeting all requirements the cutter will be homeported in Alameda, Calif.

52

uscg yir.indd 52

2/27/08 10:02:42 AM

COAST GUARD YEAR IN REVIEW

U.S. Coast Guard Year in Review By Dr. Joe DiRenzo III and Chris Doane

2007

was a year that the U.S. Coast Guard will not soon forget. During 2007, the Coast Guard achieved significant highs reaching career milestones in lives saved and cocaine seized. The service also faced lows with the death of a member and congressional-level complaints regarding attention to its oil spill response and marine safety missions. All in all, it was a very dynamic year for a service whose combined active duty, reserve, and civilian force would barely fill half of a professional football stadium. The Coast Guard celebrated the one-millionth person saved on the service’s birthday while simultaneously releasing a “Top 10 Rescue Videos” compilation on the widely popular YouTube Web site and a “Top 10 Coast Guard Rescues” list dating back to 1888. This success was highlighted by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff during the service’s birthday celebration at “Coast Guard City, U.S.A” Grand Haven, Mich. During his remarks, Chertoff noted, “When things are at their worst, America’s Coast Guard is at its best. What began as a revenue enforcement agency with a fleet of 10 cutters established by Alexander Hamilton more than 200 years ago has evolved into the world’s premier multi-mission, maritime, and military service. It’s fitting that we celebrate the Coast Guard’s 217th birthday this August 4th as we recognize its brave men and women for saving more than 1 million lives over the course of its long and storied history.” While the Coast Guard performed hundreds of search and rescue missions during 2007, one case is worthy of special mention. In May, the 300-foot-stern paddle cruise ship the Empress of the North (Majestic America Line of Seattle), operating with 281 passengers on board, hit a rock at the southern end of Hanus Reef in the Lynn Canal off the coast of Alaska. About 16.5 miles southwest of Juneau, the grounding occurred at approximately 2 a.m. The Coast Guard reacted as it always does, coordinating a multiagency response, which was both swift and sustained. Coast Guard and other Good Samaritan vessels, along with Coast Guard aircraft, arrived on scene and were able to safely evacuate all of the passengers without a single injury. In its counterdrug mission, the service achieved another milestone for cocaine seizures, with 355,755 pounds worth more than $4.7 billion seized. Interagency and international cooperation was cited as one of the big reasons for the success. During a press conference

on the service’s achievement, Adm. Thad W. Allen noted, “From piracy to rum runners to illegal migrant smugglers, the Coast Guard has been continuously guarding our coasts and securing our borders since 1790.” The commandant continued, “Today, drug smugglers are resorting to riskier, more desperate tactics in an attempt to evade detection and interdiction at sea. More and more, we are seeing that they can run, but cannot hide.” There were many seizures this year that contributed to the record, but two stand out. In March, the Coast Guard cutters Hamilton and Sherman teamed up to seize 42,845 pounds of cocaine found on the Panamanian-flagged motor vessel Gatun off the coast of Panama. This broke the service’s previous record of 30,109 pounds. In August, Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) units teamed together to seize a self-propelled, semi-submersible vessel loaded with an estimated $352 million of cocaine. Not quite a fullfledged submarine, the semi-submersible bust captured worldwide attention and underscored the lengths that smugglers are going to attempt delivery of their illegal cargos. These two seizures occurred in the Pacific, highlighting another major trend in narcotics smuggling, the use of the Pacific routes to traffic cocaine. A Coast Guard press release noted, “Smuggling contraband via the Galapagos Islands takes traffickers over 1,000 miles offshore and requires additional fuel and supplies over the course of the run. Drug trafficking organizations using this route rely on logistics support vessels as a means to refuel, equip, and act as lookouts for vessels engaged in illicit traffic. The Coast Guard has been able to render these support vessels useless through the use of fuel neutralization [see attached side bar] to prevent the vessels from using or transferring their excess fuel.” This rapid response to a change in drug smuggling methods emphasizes the service’s nimble, constantly updated and flexible approach to operations that enable it to achieve continued success across its mission set. The Coast Guard’s maritime security efforts saw several new initiatives in 2007. The service, in partnership with the U.S. Navy, commissioned two Maritime Force Protection Units (MFPUs) to provide enhanced security for ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Located in the SSBN homeports of Kings Bay, Ga., and Bangor, Wash., these

53

uscg yir.indd 53

3/1/08 6:20:12 PM

POC...DELIVERING NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT MAKE A

DIFFERENCE.

POC continues our commitment to develop advanced products and new technologies for the protection of our nation.

XRay Imaging/Optics

Real Time 3-D Display Systems

WPIC™ - Wireless Personal Information Carrier System IHC™ -Object Oriented Video Compression

WEARNET™ Wearable Personal Area Network

FAERITO® Digital Video/Audio/Data Recorder

OmniNetwork™ Omni Directional / Surveillance Network

small systems integrator of advanced technology

054_potele.indd 1

IED Detection

™

Physical Optics Corporation®

www.poc.com 20600 Gramercy Place, Torrance, CA 90501-1821 (USA) Ph: 310-320-3088 • Fax: 310-320-5961

2/25/08 5:50:16 PM

USCG photo by Petty Officer Chris Caskey

COAST GUARD YEAR IN REVIEW

Navy-funded, 150-person Coast Guard units will escort SSBNs as they transit in and out of homeport. Speaking before the MFPU Kings Bay commissioning in July, Coast Guard Atlantic Area Commander Vice Adm. D.B. Peterman noted, “Maritime Force Protection Unit Kings Bay will provide an invaluable service to the U.S. Navy and our nation through its unique ability to exercise the Coast Guard’s law enforcement authorities while enforcing a naval vessel protective zone. Maritime force protection is crucial if our nation’s strategic naval assets are to be able to safely operate in close proximity to vessel traffic in confined bodies of water.” The Coast Guard’s aviation was tasked with a new security mission in February when the service assumed the Rotary Wing Air Intercept (RWAI) mission from Customs and Border Protection for the National Capital Region (NCR). For this mission, the Coast Guard supports the North American Aerospace Defense Command’s Operation Noble Eagle air defense mission. This mission is conducted with Coast Guard HH-65C helicopters and crews. The Coast Guard is responsible for intercepting aircraft, which fly into the Air Defense Identification Zone surrounding the National Capital Region without following proper procedures. The Coast Guard also commissioned its Deployable Operations Group (DOG). This action placed all of the service’s deployable specialized forces (e.g., Maritime Safety and Security Teams, Tactical Law Enforcement Teams, Port Security Units, and National Strike Force Strike Teams) under a single centralized command. Through DOG, the Coast Guard can now rapidly select competency elements from these various teams to form and deploy force packages tailored for a specific mission. Within the world of Maritime Domain Awareness the service took another joint step forward in August 2007 when Allen, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner Jay Ahern, and then-Commander Submarine Group Trident Rear Adm. Frank Drennan cut the ribbon on the Coast Guard Joint Harbor Operation Center (JHOC) at Pier 36 in Seattle, Wash. The JHOC provides not only a command center for Coast Guard Sector Seattle and a home to the region’s Vessel Traffic System, but also an operations center where other stakeholders in maritime security, such as the Washington State Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, and local governments, can work jointly together in the daily execution of a multifaceted 24-hour-a-day security operation. The Coast Guard also improved maritime security along the nation’s northern border as the Ninth Coast Guard District and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) participated in a joint operation known as Shiprider 2007. The operation places Coast Guard and RCMP officers together on merchant vessels transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway, allowing the United States and Canada to leverage law enforcement resources. The purpose of the operation is to prevent cross-border criminal activity and to further strengthen both countries’ response capability in the St. Lawrence Seaway. Shiprider is unique in that it involves the cross-designation of peace officer status and powers to both USCG and RCMP participants. This enables the Coast Guard and RCMP to conduct seamless law enforcement operations across the border, assist one another in the enforcement of their respective laws, and provides the operational flexibility required to interdict suspect vessels across jurisdictions. In addition to the commercial vessel security boardings, Shiprider 2007 resulted in the seizure of 214 pounds of marijuana and 108 cases of contraband cigarettes, leading to nine arrests and the significant displacement of landside smuggling. More than $200,000 (Canadian) tax dollars were saved from the cigarette seizures and more than $420,000 (U.S.) in marijuana was seized.

Passengers from the cruise ship Empress of the North being offloaded onto the Coast Guard cutter Liberty and civilian vessels after running aground at approximately 2:00 a.m. on May 14, 2007, near Juneau, Alaska. The Liberty took on 130 of the 248 passengers before offloading them onto the Alaska State Ferry Columbia, which would transport them to the city of Juneau. In a tragic accident, the Coast Guard lost one of its Maritime Safety and Security Team (MSST) members in March. Petty Officer 3rd Class Ronald Gill was ejected from his boat during escort operations. Gill died from injuries sustained when he was struck by the boat’s propeller. He will be sorely missed and always remembered by his shipmates. Coast Guard operations continued to extend outside the United States in 2007. The service continued to partner with the international maritime security community through its International Port Security Liaison Officer Program. The program has Coast Guard officer and civilian personnel building relationships with maritime security entities around the globe as part of a layered security strategy to ensure the integrity of commercial shipping. In support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Coast Guard has six patrol boats, two law enforcement teams, and supporting forces totaling approximately 240 members in the Arabian Gulf as part of Patrol Forces Southwest Asia. In addition, the service has continued to deploy Redeployment Assistance Inspection Detachments to Iraq. These detachments work with redeploying units, mostly Army and Marine Corps, to ensure that their equipment is packed safely to prevent explosions or other hazards during shipment to the United States via Military Sealift Command vessels. The detachments are comprised of volunteers from both the active duty and reserve. In October, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard jointly unveiled a new national maritime strategy entitled, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower.” This document’s preamble describes the uniqueness of this effort: “Never before have the maritime forces of the United States – the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard – come together to create a unified maritime strategy. This strategy stresses an approach that integrates seapower with other elements of national power, as well as those of our friends and allies. It describes how seapower will be applied around the world to protect our way of life, as we join with other like-minded nations to protect and sustain the global, inter-connected system through which we prosper. Our commitment to protecting the homeland and winning our nation’s wars is matched by a corresponding commitment to preventing wars.” The document concludes: “‘A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower’

55

uscg yir.indd 55

2/27/08 10:03:03 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008 U.S. Coast Guard photo U.S. Coast Guard photo

Top and above: According to the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Coast Guardsmen from USCGC Hamilton (WHEC 715) and USCGC Sherman (WHEC 720) made a record maritime seizure of approximately 42,845 pounds of cocaine aboard the Panamanian-flagged motor vessel Gatun on March 18, 2007, off the coast of Isla de Coiba, Panama. A Coast Guard boarding team conducted a search and discovered the cocaine hidden in two containers aboard the ship. The interagency operation included teamwork among the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Coast Guard, and other Homeland Security and Department of Justice components as well as the Panamanian government.

binds our services more closely together than they have ever been before to advance the prosperity and security of our Nation. The demands of an uncertain world and enduring interests of the American people require nothing less.” The Coast Guard made great strides within its Deepwater recapitalization and modernization program. The first National Security Class (NSC) cutter, USCGC Bertholf (WMS 750), got under way for the first time under her own power to complete machinery trials. This was an important event as the program moved forward from some initial challenges. As Allen noted in a message to the Coast Guard family, “About a year ago, the Coast Guard’s $24 billion Deepwater capital acquisition program to replace and modernize virtually our entire fleet of offshore cutters, boats, aircraft, and command and control systems over 25 years, came under intense public scrutiny. The DHS inspector general, the Government Accountability Office, our congressional overseers, and others voiced concern with significant challenges we faced in performance, cost and schedule. At the time, we committed to taking strong, decisive action to improve Coast Guard management and oversight of this vital modernization program. “Much of the criticism last year centered around eight 110-foot patrol boats among a fleet of 49 boats kept well beyond their planned service life in a failed attempt to lengthen them to get additional years of service. These efforts did not to live up to their promise, and we have since rescinded our acceptance. We will replace continued on page 59

56

uscg yir.indd 56

3/1/08 6:21:01 PM

COAST GUARD YEAR IN REVIEW

U.S. Coast Guard Fuel Neutralization Program Drug trafficking organizations export more than 700 metric tons of cocaine annually from South America toward the United States. Although the means of smuggling this illegal contraband vary, the bulk of the cargo (more than 50 percent) is transported by small, high-speed craft that attempt to make rapid smuggling runs into Central America and Mexico. These “go-fast” boats first made their appearance in the early 1990s as cheap, effective, “one-shot” delivery methods into various spots in the Caribbean. As distances were relatively short in the Caribbean (approximately 500 miles from Colombia to Hispaniola), go-fasts originally operated independently, requiring little support in their transit. Aggressive law enforcement targeting of the go-fasts forced the narcotraffickers to radically alter their tactics. As short routes were closed through increased patrol and airborne use of force, go-fast routes were shifted further offshore to avoid law enforcement forces. Today the primary route for go-fast operations is located in the Pacific, with go-fasts transiting up to 1,000 miles offshore in an effort to escape detection and interception. As the go-fast is a small, short-range platform, this shift required the smugglers to devise a sophisticated logistics support network to enable the go-fasts to transit the longer and more difficult routes. The core of the smugglers’ logistics effort is the use of Logistics Supply Vessels (LSVs) designed specifically to provide fuel to go-fasts far offshore. Since 2001, the Coast Guard has encountered hundreds of Colombian fishing vessels operating well outside of the Colombian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) carrying excess gasoline inconsistent with their government authorized amount. Many gofasts have been interdicted while in the process of refueling from these vessels. In 2004, the government of Colombia and the U.S. Coast Guard agreed that Coast Guard boarding teams could take action against these vessels to enforce Colombian regulations against carrying excess fuel. The primary method of enforcement is the fuel neutralization program. Fuel neutralization has two phases. Upon boarding, the Coast Guard team “neutralizes” the excess fuel by use of a chemical developed by the Coast Guard Research and Development Center. An additive, similar to the non-toxic powder used to clean up oil spills, causes the fuel to “gel,” making it unusable by internal combustion engines (it will in fact destroy the engine if used by a go-fast). The effect is not permanent; 95 percent of the fuel can be recovered when the vessel returns to port and it is siphoned. In addition, tanks are marked with red neutralization labels to designate them as potential evidence. To ensure Colombian law enforcement action, the vessel is directed to return to port and information passed to the Colombian authorities who meet the vessel at the pier for subsequent prosecution. The fuel neutralization program has had considerable success in disrupting LSVs and the go-fast logistics pipeline. To date, six LSVs have been neutralized, disrupting an untold number of go-fast events and demonstrating a new and effective method of international cooperation with our Colombian law enforcement partners. Both the Coast Guard and Colombian government see fuel neutralization as part of the increased cooperation between the two nations in exercising their joint bilateral law enforcement agreement. This agreement has yielded tremendous results with record cocaine seizures in successive years. The fuel neutralization program will only add to this success. The views expressed herein are those of the author and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the commandant or of the U.S. Coast Guard.

57

uscg yir.indd 57

2/27/08 10:04:32 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Coast Guard photo courtesy of Lt. j.g. Peter Lang

Lt. j.g. Peter Lang, executive officer of the Coast Guard Cutter Maui (WPB 1304) and Petty Officer 3rd Class Frederick Woods, a machinery technician, conduct a security sweep of a tug in the North Arabian Gulf before it proceeds to Al Basrah Oil Terminal, Aug. 10, 2007. Maui was conducting Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in the gulf as a part of Combined Task Force 158. Coast Guard personnel and assets remain deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism.

58

uscg yir.indd 58

2/27/08 10:04:45 AM

COAST GUARD YEAR IN REVIEW

the remainder of our 110-foot patrol boats with a new fleet of 58 Fast Response Cutters (FRC), the first of which will begin to enter service in 2010. To speed project completion and increase competition in the market, we took the FRC project outside of the Deepwater contract last year and issued a request for proposals in record time. We are currently reviewing those proposals and look forward to announcing a new contract award this spring. In the interim, we have increased patrol days for some of the remaining patrol boats using the crews of the laid-up cutters and are in the process of procuring four additional new 87-foot patrol boats.” Allen added, “Improvements we’ve made in the Deepwater program outlined above are the direct result of aggressive oversight and management reforms implemented in the past year to put the program back on track. We changed the way we are doing business overall by improving the organizations, policies and processes that govern how we acquire ships, aircraft and equipment. We call this strategy for business transformation our “Blueprint for Acquisition Reform.” The Coast Guard’s marine safety mission came under intense congressional scrutiny in 2007. Maritime industry representatives complained that the service had shifted too much attention away from safety to focus on security. As a result, congressional hearings explored the idea of taking the marine safety program from the Coast Guard and placing it into a new agency. In testimony before Congress, Allen strongly resisted this idea, arguing, “The Coast Guard relies on the interconnected and complementary nature of its marine safety and security authorities. One of the Coast Guard’s greatest strengths is our multi-mission character, which allows us to provide the best service value to the American public. We must leverage our multi-mission structure and ethos through proper allocation of our own resources, while also partnering with industry, labor and other maritime stakeholders to ensure the safety and security of our waterways.” This scrutiny into the Coast Guard’s attention to the marine safety mission was exacerbated by complaints following the service’s response to an oil spill in San Francisco harbor. In November, the container ship Cosco Busan struck the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge in dense fog. As a result of the collision, the vessel spilled approximately 58,000 gallons of oil into the fast bay currents, which spread the oil rapidly, leading to significant environmental damage. For several hours after the spill, the Coast Guard continued to report a much smaller volume of oil spilled, causing wide speculation that this in turn affected the aggressiveness of the response. In less than 24 hours following the spill, Allen had received a letter from Sen. Barbara Boxer saying she was “very troubled by the Coast Guard’s delay in delivering accurate information to the public and the city of San Francisco.” Only time will tell how the service weathers this storm of inquiry into its marine safety efforts. But on the success side of the equation was the sentencing of a shipping company for its role in falsifying records. Ionia Management, a Greek company that manages a fleet of tanker vessels, was sentenced in December for its role in falsifying records to conceal the overboard dumping of waste oil from the tanker Kriton into international waters and its efforts to impede the investigation of the Coast Guard. The company was convicted in September in New Haven, Conn., on 13 counts of violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, three counts of falsifying records in a federal investigation, one count of obstruction of justice, and one count of conspiracy. The investigation was a joint success for the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency. Assistance was also provided by the Netherlands Royal Military Police, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and

Water Management, and Coast Guard. The case was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Environmental Crimes Section of the U.S. Department of Justice all participated. The service also continued its tradition of humanitarian and public service as Coast Guard medical personnel joined their counterparts in deploying aboard the hospital ship USNS Comfort on a four-month deployment to the Caribbean, South, and Central America. Working alongside 740 other medical specialists and support staff from the Navy, Army, Air Force, Public Health Service, Canadian Forces, and NonGovernment Organizations (NGOs) on missions such as Operation Smile and Project Hope, the joint team provided adult and pediatric primary care, dentistry, optometry, and veterinary services to dozens of countries within the U.S. Southern Command’s Area of Responsibility. The success of this mission was validated by the number of people served. According to official Southern Command data, the joint team on Comfort carried out 386,000 consults on 98, 638 patients, conducted 1,170 surgeries, provided 32,322 immunizations, and even crafted 24,242 eyeglasses. On the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw (WLBB 20)’s served as the “Christmas Tree Ship” delivering 1,000 Christmas trees to needy families at the Navy Pier in Chicago. A Coast Guard District Nine press release highlighted Mackinaw’s “continuing the tradition of its predecessor (WAGB-83), which resurrected the Christmas Tree Ship in 2000. The crew of the Mackinaw hauls a load of trees from the woods of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and Wisconsin for distribution to more than a thousand disadvantaged Chicago-area families.” The Mackinaw’s visit was supported by the efforts of the Chicago Christmas Ship Committee, which purchased the trees, representing a wide swath of boating stakeholders including the Coast Guard Auxiliary, International Shipmaster’s Association, and the Chicago Yachting Association. The original Christmas Tree Ship, the Rouse Simmons, (a three-masted wooden schooner) started the tradition in 1896, when Capt. Scheunemann docked his tree-laden schooner on the riverbank near the Clark Street Bridge. Unfortunately, in, 1912, the vessel went down in a horrible storm near Two Rivers, Wis. The Coast Guard was also responsible for Santa Claus visiting remote villages in Alaska, such as Larson Bay on Kodiak Island via helicopter. The Coast Guard has been transporting Santa by boat and helicopter to the remote villages of Kodiak Island for more than 30 years. The jolly old man also visited remote atolls and islands in the northern part of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), via a Coast Guard 110-foot patrol boat – CGC Washington. The gifts are donated by Coast Guard members and the Guam Navy Officers Spouses Association. 2007 was clearly a dynamic year of ups and downs for the Coast Guard. One can only wait and see what 2008 has in store for the nation’s smallest military service. About the authors: Dr. Joe DiRenzo III and Chris Doane are both retired Coast Guard officers who are visiting senior fellows at the Joint Forces Staff College. Both are also Homeland Security mentors with Northcentral University in Prescott, Ariz. They have written and lectured extensively on maritime security and maritime history in both national and international publications.

59

uscg yir.indd 59

2/27/08 10:04:55 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Marine Corps Year in Review By J.R. Wilson

T

he Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has affected the U.S. Marine Corps more than any other military service, forcing changes in tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs), training, equipment, deployments, size, structure, and concept of operations (CONOPS). The GWOT also played a major role in the creation of the first Marine Corps Forces, Special Operations Command (MARSOC) and subsequent Marine role in the joint services Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Each year of the war has seen new changes for the Corps. And 2007 was no different, from the acquisition of MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles – far heavier vehicles than typical for the Corps, much less MARSOC – to the deployment of the first MV-22 Osprey Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM-263) directly to the combat zone in Iraq. The war also has put the Marines – who are essentially a fast force projection from the sea capability – into static, far inland roles traditionally handled by the Army. Even so, Marine Commandant Gen. James T. Conway is proud of the success the Corps has had in western Iraq’s Al Anbar province, once the focal point for Sunni insurgents but now, as the Marine province of responsibility, showing vast improvement in three key areas – security, economics and regional politics. “What we have seen in Al Anbar is just amazing and we couldn’t be happier with the reduced numbers of attacks and casualties, and the ability to do so much more with the Sunnis than ever before because they are now fed up with al Qaeda,” Conway said, adding nearly all of the Marines deployed to Central Command are in Al Anbar, with the remainder helping to train the Iraqi Army or providing security and administrative support at the U.S. Embassy and Marine headquarters in Baghdad. “We also have about 500 Marines in Afghanistan doing individual augment duties and security for the

embassy there, but the majority are on training teams with the Afghan National Army. And we think they will be there for some time to come.” In providing training and low-level support to host nation forces, the Marines have seen increasingly less direct combat. “Overall casualty numbers are way down because the Iraqis have, in large measure, taken over the policing and military function,” Conway said. “The neighborhood watch in Al Anbar are the first to line up against any threat, glean intel and, because they are tribal sons, are probably the next to go into the police force. Then comes the bona fide Iraqi police, then the Iraqi army and last, in an emergent event, would be the U.S. Marines. So we haven’t seen that much conflict since sometime before Thanksgiving. “The [Iraqi] leadership in Baghdad has pulled Iraqi brigades from Al Anbar to go elsewhere and we have to grow new units to take their place. We need training teams to do that, so we have a fixed requirement to continue to grow our teams because we want to replace those units. We’d like to have those training teams replaced by [U.S.] Army teams in the future.” The assignment to Al Anbar is considered a stellar success for the Marines – but training another country’s military in a far inland desert locale remains an alien task in the 233-year history of the Corps. And Conway hopes the Marines soon will be able to return – at least in part – to a more traditional posture. “We have virtually halved our presence in the Pacific for now and a lot of those are operational units who will be rotated into Iraq,” he said. “The combatant commanders [COCOMs] in AFRICOM, SOUTHCOM, EUCOM, would like more involvement, but it is time, space, and troop availability that does not allow us

60

USMC YiR.indd 60

2/27/08 1:25:32 PM

U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Samuel D. Corum

Marine Corps Year in Review

A U.S. Marine with Regimental Combat Team 6 patrols the streets of Fallujah, Iraq, Aug. 9, 2007, while fellow Marines, Iraqi army soldiers, and Iraqi police officers distribute food to locals. Regimental Combat Team 6 was deployed with Multi-National Force-West in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in the Al Anbar province of Iraq.

enough time at home to commit an operational unit to exercises like that or to the types of things they would like to see happening with regard to their theater engagement programs.” That pressure will be partially relieved by the Defense Deparment’s decision to grow the Corps by about 27,000 new recruits and an expanded re-enlistment program. “We were at about 22 percent [re-enlistment] on an annual basis, which is what we wanted. But to grow the force, we set an objective of about 33 percent, which was a huge jump in retention. We only got to 31 percent [in 2007], which is still a huge increase in just one year. We also changed the recruiters’ numbers three times – upward – and they went out and found them,” Conway said. The Individual Ready Reserve also is contributing to the need for additional troops, although there is a cap of 2,800 on active duty at any one time. Conway said some retired Marines also are now back in Afghanistan helping to train that nation’s army. Another 400-500 Marines are deployed to the Horn of Africa, primarily providing security for a Joint Task Force operating out of Camp Lemonier, an abandoned French Foreign Legion post in Djibouti on the Gulf of Aden just north of Somalia on Africa’s east coast.

“That’s a volatile region, overall, and a lot of [the Marine effort] is security, right at a critical choke point in what I think is a peremptory effort in this Global War on Terror,” Conway said. His goal is to use the increased personnel authorization to either reduce the amount of time deployed or increase the time between deployments. “The objective with the new numbers is to get to 1-to-2 – seven months deployed, 14 months home – which will help us get out and do more training and exercising, including routine Corps competencies, and spend more time with our families. We’ll have to use our time wisely, but we think we can go a long ways toward satisfying both those requirements,” Conway said, adding the current rotation cycle for most operational Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan is 1-to-1 – seven months deployed, seven home. “Until such time as we get that relief, I can guarantee you that seven months [home] is getting used up getting the new battalion ready to go in and face the element.” But the commandant’s goals extend beyond Marines in uniform to include vastly increased efforts for their families and to assist those who have been wounded, whether still on active duty or not. “We have relied for years in a garrison environment on spouses helping us with the requirements back home when the units are gone. That will work for awhile, but not with the kind of campaigning we are seeing now. We were

61

USMC YiR.indd 61

2/27/08 1:25:55 PM

MIL - SPEC RUGGEDIZED MONITORS (1000:1 Dimming Ratio)

AsV, mrAp, CrOWs, JlTV, fADs, VOss MIL-STD 461 CONTACT us fOr All mObile AppliCATiONs

480-515-1110

DSE_YID07-HALFPGAD.indd 1

062_dselb.indd 1

MIL-STD 1275

Zero Color shift

MIL-STD 810F

MIL-STD-3009

W W W . D i G i T A l s Y s . C O M

12/20/2007 11:00:32 AM

2/26/08 5:25:34 PM

U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Joe Kane

Marine Corps Year in Review

An MV-22 Osprey is refueled before a night mission in central Iraq, Feb. 2, 2008.

putting about $5 million a year toward our family service programs and now have been authorized for $130 million a year as long as the need exists, as long as this long war continues and we are committed to the degree that we are,” he said. “That is good news to the families – that we recognize their contributions and their plight, and are going to tangibly do some things about it. We’ve gone out to all our bases and told them to tell us what they need to benefit their families. This isn’t new construction, but we are talking about daycare centers and bike paths and opportunities for the kids. We also are going to be using some of that money to hire family readiness officers where in the past we used civilians.” Also high on his list of Corps accomplishments in 2007 was the stand up of the Wounded Warrior Regiment in March, greatly enhancing care of the wounded by building an organization with which Marines already would be familiar. “We created a regimental headquarters at Quantico and battalion headquarters at Camp Pendleton [Calif.] and Camp Lejeune [N.C.]. The battalions have responsibility for tracking Marines on active duty; they then are in constant contact with or under the employ of that battalion. The regiment goes after those Marines who have been wounded and are no longer on active duty but still may need help,” Conway explained. “They have a 24-hour call center – more a command center, really – working to contact these people or for those Marines to call them. We’ve got visiting nurses and caregivers who seek them out on a routine basis. It

is a much better latticework of organization that these Marines are familiar with, for the most part, based on their experiences on active duty. It has really expanded even beyond our original visualization and reached out to the various agencies, public and private, that can assist our Marines.” One of the biggest structural changes for the Marine Corps was the stand up of MARSOC, which celebrated its third anniversary in February (2008). MARSOC had gotten off to a rocky start when its first deployment to Afghanistan resulted in the Marine special operators being ambushed and then accused of over-responding to the March 2007 attack. They were pulled out of theater shortly afterward and a court of inquiry convened in January 2008 to examine the incident. “We did take them out of theater sooner than we would have liked, but are now on our third deployment into theater since that event. And when I ask how MARSOC is doing there, our generals are all smiles, saying they are having a lot of engagements that are almost all one-sided,” Conway said. “The biggest lesson we learned was to ensure everyone understands the command and control procedures in place with the combined and coalition forces you’re working with,” added MARSOC Commander Maj. Gen. D.H. Hejlik. “We really shored up that portion of the training for the command element of the MSOC [Marine Special Operations Company) as they go forward, because it’s a little different when you work with coalition or combined forces, even within U.S. forces. So for the second company going out, that became part of their deployment certification exercise. And that has paid us huge benefits, not only for us but for the units they’ve worked with.”

63

USMC YiR.indd 63

2/27/08 1:26:17 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Among major MARSOC highlights in 2007 was the first formal assessment and selection of 43 new candidates who entered special operator training. “We also activated the schoolhouse – the Marine Special Operations School – which, in ‘07, probably was one of our top accomplishments, with the greatest impact on our next 10 years or so. They are responsible for assessment and selection, doctrine and policy, and have started standing up our individual training course, which will be operational in October 2008,” he said. “Our strength right now is about 70 percent, which is right on our build plan to be fully operationally capable in October.” Despite its small size, MARSOC was exceptionally busy during 2007, with three deployments to SOUTHCOM (Latin America), three to EUCOM (Europe and Africa), 10 to CENTCOM (Southwest Asia and Africa), and two to PACOM (Pacific). Those represent about a 50 percent increase from 2006, but far less than what is expected for 2008. “Those are all advisor-group teams, who have been deployed pretty heavily, but their workload will almost triple in 2008,” Hejlik said. “They do

foreign internal defense, joint-combined exercises training, some counternarcotics training – those are the big ones – and work with Special Forces or special-type units in the host countries. “MARSOC right now is exactly where we want to be, filling a demand on the battlefield, working toward a non-conventional warfare capability. In the next five years, we want MARSOC to have a persistent, consistent engagement throughout the geographic COCOMs [GCCs]. That’s crucial because it is all Phase Zero-type operations – shaping the environment, making sure [host nation] military and police forces, their socioeconomic, political and diplomatic development allow them to stand on their own. We bring that to the battlefield.” While the first 10 Ospreys were deployed to combat, rather than to Africa or aboard ship with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), Conway said multiple assignments are in its future. “We had logged tens of thousands of safe hours in the aircraft and felt it was time for it to prove itself. And that deployment is going very, very well.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communications Specialist 3rd Class Marcos T. Hernandez

Marine Combat Training Class 07-07 students prepare for a midmorning patrol on Camp Pendleton, Calif., Dec. 2, 2006. The three-week-long course teaches non-infantry Marines the basic skills and knowledge necessary to be effective in combat. “Every Marine a Rifleman” remains a Marine Corps ethos.

64

USMC YiR.indd 64

2/27/08 1:26:36 PM

Marine Corps Year in Review

We’ve learned some lessons, including a couple of small parts that wore out more quickly in that environment than our desert testing here had indicated, but that was fixed,” he said. “We expect to see another squadron on a second deployment into Iraq, but we also need to get some aboard ship for six or seven months. We need to start expanding their use. We don’t know where the third deployment will go, but it needs to keep earning its place in our inventory.” Conway and his senior air staff also attended the 2007 rollout of the first short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which was designed primarily for the Marines but also will be deployed by some of the program’s international partners. It will replace the Corps’ aging AV-8B Harrier jumpjets and F/A-18 fighters. While a third carrier variant – the F-35C – will be built for the Navy, the two tightly linked services have been at odds over putting the STOVL F-35B on board carriers, with the Navy citing its different operational and maintenance needs. “We have been working that out with the Navy and exactly how that ought to be done. We had some of the same objections when we brought the Harrier online, but people soon were raving about the fast deck-cycle times because you could launch and recover downwind or upwind,” the commandant said. “We think the F-35B will integrate very nicely. What we’ve arrived at is not trying to anticipate what it will look like, but put one aboard ship and see; that’s the best way to determine what the difficulties might be. If it is something simple, like a little more metal in the blast deflector, I think we’ll work those out.” The Corps also will have fewer of the multipurpose aircraft than its current inventory of Harriers and F/A-18s, but Conway said he expects little change in air/ground task force CONOPS because the F-35B also will be more capable than either of those. Three other new Marine aircraft also are joining the fight. Conway said the C-130J Hercules Tactical Transport Aircraft began seeing increased service during 2007 and is doing even better than expected in theater operations. And the Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has replaced the old Pioneer UAV as the Marines’ primary surveillance and reconnaissance platform. “We’re also starting to see the four-bladed Cobra/Huey [attack helicopters] come online now. A total of 10, combined types, are now in service and the operators say it is a more capable aircraft and has fewer issues than expected. We need that additional power in the case of the Huey and the additional speed in the case of the Cobra,” he says. “They are planned as onefor-one replacements. We’ll build three more HMLA [Marine light/attack helicopter] squadrons, in which the Cobra is irreplaceable in a COIN [counter-insurgency] environment. And even those will be used hard and put away wet.” The Marines also received a far less complex, but perhaps no less important, addition to their ground arsenal in 2007. “An urgent-needs statement item that has finally gotten into theater in large numbers is a laser dazzler, which temporarily blinds the driver of an oncoming vehicle,” Conway said. “That driver will either stop and cover his eyes or come at you, in which case he is not intending anything good. So we have seen a fairly remarkable reduction in escalation-of-force incidents since the dazzlers have gotten into theater and started being used at our checkpoints.” And while Conway is looking forward to even more new technologies to help his combat units – from walking robots to help carry gear to a new extended-range landing craft to the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle that will replace the HMMWV (with much less weight than an MRAP) – he also remains concerned about getting the Corps back to its roots without losing the new mission capabilities it has gained. “As long as we are fighting this long war, we need to be there, in some form or fashion. The things we have evolved to that make us one of the world’s best counter-insurgency forces are things like paying more attention to the culture, who are the decision makers wherever we might go, what key languages are required. We have a lot of experimentation taking place to come up with things that will help accomplish the mission,” he said. “But in this static environment, in a counter-insurgency scenario, we are out of character right now with regard to the structure of our Corps. Growing is necessary and absolutely the right thing to do until we see our way through this thing. But in adding the weight associated with the MRAP and battalions with tens of vehicles where they had a handful before to get the job done, we quickly are outdistancing our capability as a lean, hard-hitting force. So we have people looking at what we need to take advantage of available transport and hit hard.”

✔ Unequivocally the Most Durable First Responder Medical bag in use by U.S. Government Agencies ✔ Original, Patented Design ✔ Designed by a 24-year Recon Veteran

®

We at Recon Mountaineer LLC, from 2002 to the present, have taken great pride in delivering the CTB®—also known as the Combat Trauma Bag—to the brave Navy Corpsman in support of the Marine Corps and their perspective Combat Lifesavers. We look forward to continually providing high-quality

65

USMC YiR.indd 65

COMBAT LIFESAVER

products for our First Responders. www.ReconMountaineer.com eMail: [email protected] Phone: 760.207.0056

Recon Mountaineer® LLC is a registered Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise and a SDVOB. Copyright Recon Mountaineer® LLC 2002–2007 DAM

2/27/08 1:26:54 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Navy

Year in Review By Norman Friedman

W

hen Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Michael G. Mullen was promoted in September 2007 to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, some suggested that he was attractive because of his advocacy of the “thousand-ship navy,” a maritime community of interest embracing all friendly navies. The admiral’s argument has been that all maritime powers share a common interest in maintaining the safety and freedom of the seas, because sea-based trade is the lifeblood of the world economy. This argument also is made in the new U.S. Navy–Marine Corps–Coast Guard maritime strategy document. Mullen’s successor as CNO is Adm. Gary Roughead. The new maritime strategy published this year is particularly important because it reminds decision-makers that the largely invisible sea is the basis for prosperity (which makes for a stable and peaceful world) and also for U.S. national mobility to engage in overseas trouble spots. Without sea power, U.S. engagement abroad will always require the consent of neighboring countries. With sea power, we can engage without local consent. This connection is not obvious outside navies. It becomes vital for the United States to make the importance of the sea and the potential of sea power clear in a largely non-naval-oriented world. The new strategy paper was needed because the United States is engaging in a new kind of war. In effect, it feeds into discussions of what U.S. national strategy should be. The national strategy argument is that the current problems of instability and terrorism are traceable to social and economic misery which can be relieved only through growing prosperity – that means through growing trade, much of it seaborne. Implications include the need for a strong international anti-piracy effort. What can the United States offer to a maritime coalition of the willing? Besides the obvious offers of advanced technology, perhaps the most valuable item is information –

ocean surveillance. No country in the world has the number of ships needed to patrol the seas. To a surprising extent, ocean surveillance can substitute for patrol operations, if it is backed by forces capable of reacting quickly. The U.S. Coast Guard’s Project Deepwater is designed around exactly this idea. Mullen’s initiative suggests that something like the Project Deepwater surveillance system can be extended and offered to friendly navies. One issue does have to be resolved. Much surveillance is done passively on the basis of electronic intercepts. That this is done is not particularly secret, but the means of interpreting what is picked up, and even the precision of what is picked up, certainly are very secret. How much of what is deduced form such sources should be spread to other navies? The U.S. government has been wrestling with this sort of question for some years. For the U.S. Navy, perhaps the most important event in 2007 was the selection of a contractor (Northrop Grumman) for the demonstration phase of the UCAS-D (Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstrator) program. UCAS-D is a carrier-borne unmanned aircraft, and the program includes carrier landings and takeoffs and aerial refueling. It is significant because such aircraft, and armed unmanned craft in general, can transform the fleet. No other technology offers such significant change – if it works. How important UCAS-D is to carriers depends on how the carriers’ role is viewed. From a strike point of view, the carrier and the aircraft are a way to deliver ordnance onto a target, just as, say, a cruiser armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles is. One difference is that the aircraft return to attack again, whereas the missile expends its airframe and its guidance system each time it is launched. That is why a carrier can devote a much higher percentage of its displacement to warheads than can a missile cruiser. Another difference is that it is infinitely easier to replenish air weapons at sea than to replenish missiles that

66

Navy YiR.indd 66

2/27/08 12:05:10 PM

Northrop Grumman image

Navy Year in Review

An artists’ conception from Northrop Grumman of an operational unmanned combat air system modeled on UCAS-D.

go into vertical launch tubes. The question, which the test program should help answer, is how important is the pilot? Can some or many missions be performed by an unmanned vehicle? How autonomous can or should such a vehicle be? Should it, for example, seek out targets? It cannot have anything like the intelligence of a real pilot. Can a distant operator be relied upon to choose targets, which the vehicle then attacks? To what extent can the vehicle participate in fighter operations? Should it? The new CVN21-class carrier (Gerald Ford, CVN 78) is sometimes described as having been specially adapted to UCAS operation with a rearranged flight deck (also described as making for faster turn-around). One perhaps unexpected issue in UCAS development has been flight-deck movement; much currently depends on the reactions of the pilot sitting in the cockpit. How well can a machine be adapted to the current cues? Should carriers operate with UCAS or with manned aircraft, so that alternative means of directing such aircraft around the flight deck be used? It may

be that UCAS require somewhat more deck space per aircraft, and even somewhat more deck personnel (but of course no pilots, who are much more expensive). With the demise of the carrier John F. Kennedy this year, the only remaining U.S. non-nuclear carrier is the older Kitty Hawk, home-ported in Japan. For years it was argued that, given the Japanese “nuclear allergy,” no nuclear carrier could be based there. Soon there will be no choice. Given the considerable size of the Japanese domestic nuclear power industry, that may be less of a problem than has been imagined. The first replacement LHA, LHA 6, was ordered this year for completion in 2012. Her design reflects the Marines’ view that future amphibious ships must be able to support strike aircraft as well as helicopters. Plans initially called for a “dual-tramway” ship with separate runways, in effect, for STOVL aircraft and for helicopters, but the Forrestal-size ship involved was rejected as unaffordable. Instead, LHA 6 has an enlarged flight deck that

67

Navy YiR.indd 67

2/27/08 12:05:26 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

can accomodate up to 23 STOVL F-35 Joint Strike Fighters or 42 medium helicopters. Like the most recent LHD, USS Makin Island, she is to have gas turbine rather than steam turbine propulsion, with electric drive. Unlike previous LHAs and LHDs, she has no well deck; presumably aircraft maintenance and magazines require that volume. Although the ship emphatically is not a small aircraft carrier, her considerable fighter capacity (the F-35 is much larger than the Harrier the Marines currently operate from their large-deck amphibious ships) offers a potential for air operations in moderaterisk areas, albeit at a far lower mission rate than

a full carrier. Compared to a full aircraft carrier, the most glaring limit on such a ship is the lack of airborne early warning. For some years a proposal for an airborne early warning derivative of the Marines’ MV-22 Osprey has been floated by BAE. At the other end of the scale, there is interest in placing ultra-lightweight torpedoes on board unmanned helicopters, and also in arming unmanned surface vehicles. In both cases, the impetus is the same. The Navy cannot build enough ships to cover wide areas. Somehow it has to enlarge the footprints of the ships it has. The

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, which is now in considerable trouble, was partly an attempt to do just that. From the first, the issue was numbers. Littoral waters are difficult largely because shipboard sensors, particularly sonars, cannot see very far in them. The classic solution was to multiply the number of ships. Hence, for example, the vast number of destroyers and escorts the U.S. Navy deployed during World War II. One motive for the LCS program was to use unmanned vehicles to deploy nets of remote sensors in any littoral area in which the U.S. fleet might plan to operate. Like their forebears, these sensors would have short ranges. However, because each sensor was not tied to a particular ship, there could be many more sensors than ships. An LCS would deploy the unmanned sensor-distribution craft, and it would monitor the product of the sensors to create a tactical picture. The picture would be so good that weapons, like the ultra-lightweight torpedo, could be delivered nearly on top of potential targets. Similarly, submarines can deploy unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) that act as force multipliers by greatly enlarging the area the submarine controls or monitors. For example, one might imagine using a submarine for covert minefield reconnaissance using her onboard sonar. Quite aside from how hazardous that would be, the submarine could cover only a very limited area. Outfitting the submarine with one or more UUVs makes it possible for her to cover a far wider area. That is aside from the practicality of the matter: the submarine could not safely penetrate a potential minefield to investigate it, but the small UUV certainly can. Successes in UUV operations have led the U.S. Navy to enlarge its program considerably during the past few years. LCS is in trouble because its origins extended beyond the unmanned vehicle idea. The U.S. Navy pointed out that the September 11 attacks against the United States in effect invalidated the existing national strategy, which was to concentrate force to deal with a single major war. Such concentration justified building more and more sophisticated ships, since large numbers

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Susan Cornell

Sailors take their final walk down the bow of USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) during the ship’s decommissioning ceremony. Kennedy served its country with more than 38 years of service and 18 official deployments. The decommissioning leaves Kitty Hawk as the last U.S. Navy conventionally powered aircraft carrier.

68

Navy YiR.indd 68

2/27/08 12:05:36 PM

john hopkins outlined.indd 1

2/25/08 6:03:57 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

were not needed. At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy consciously gave up numerous more or less modern surface warships in hopes of buying next-generation replacements, which would cost much less to operate. This hope produced the current Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000) – which is probably far too expensive to buy in anything remotely like the requisite numbers. In 2001, LCS was being advertised as a less expensive alternative to the huge destroyer. However, at that time it was really an undefined ship, intended to benefit from the transformational ideas that had been advanced by the late Adm. Arthur Cebrowski. As a former naval aviator, the admiral had favored small, very fast ships, perhaps modelled on trans-Atlantic racing yachts, which he called Streetfighters. He imagined them dominating littoral areas the way that fighter aircraft dominated the skies. Many naval officers found such ideas appalling, so they offered an alternative in the form of a frigate-sized ship: LCS. Such ships performed well in war games, but in 2001, the idea was largely unformed. Ironically, by this time Cebrowski, who had moved to become head of the Office of Force Transformation, was far less impressed by the value of speed in warships. In the Navy’s view, the September 11 attacks showed that the United States might well face several regional explosions more or less simultaneously. Instead of a very few forward-deployed forces, it had to be able to deploy numerous naval strike forces at much the same time. The fleet badly needed to grow. Since there was no way to buy many more carriers or large amphibious ships, any growth had to be in the form of surface combatants. The only even remotely

affordable ship on offer was the undefined LCS. A plan endorsed at the top of the Defense Department called for up to 70 such ships. This plan led to current naval interest in a 313-ship fleet. In the Navy’s view, numbers were needed now, not when a sophisticated study showed what LCS should be. Cebrowski’s earlier enthusiasm for speed ignited the naval staff. Yet at the same time, it was obvious that any new surface combatant would have to replace multiple classes of more specialized ships, such as minecraft and patrol craft. It would have to cross oceans to reach littoral areas, because the United States could not afford the sort of fleet train it had used in the past to maintain small combatants in forward areas. Thus LCS would have to do its multiple jobs with modular (replaceable) combat systems employing unmanned vehicles. It would be more like a small aircraft carrier (albeit not of aircraft) than the sort of fast missile boat that many imagined. That was the rub: Experience has shown that the best carriers are large, because it is best to mix and match aircraft as needed. Worse, LCS would be equipped with modules that did not exist at the time that a hull was conceived. This kind of concurrent development has always had horrific consequences in the past. This time it seems to be much the same. Two alternative LCS designs were chosen, both characterized more by their speed than by the internal volume needed for their modules (they did have innovative plug-and-play combat systems allowing them to wield alternative modules). Freedom (LCS 1) is a semi-planing hull by Lockheed Martin, based on a trans-Atlantic racing hull. Independence (LCS 2) is General Dynamics’ trimaran. At first, the Navy planned a swim-off to choose a single design. Then, in hopes of moving the program

OUR MISSION

YOUR SAFETY

PROVEN UNDER FIRE

MSA has been protecting U.S. soldiers since World War I.

Tactical commander Chris Joyner’s injuries from a roadside bomb could have taken his life were it not for his MSA Paraclete RAV (Releasable Assault Vest). The 10 minutes usually required to cut through body armor were saved by the quick release of his RAV, and put him into the care of medical help immediately. MSA’s RAV (Releasable Assault Vest) has:

• A patented “cut away” system that quickly removes a fully loaded vest in seconds

• Lightweight, durable, quality construction This vest and the MSA ACH Advanced Combat Helmet have saved lives.

1.800.MSA.2222 | www.MSAFRONTLINE.com/yearindefense.html

Navy YiR.indd 70

US ONLINE MSAFRONTLINE.COM aVISIT

2/27/08 12:05:56 PM

Lockheed Martin photo

Navy Year in Review

faster, it was said that both designs would go into production, squadrons of each type being built. Critics observed that logistical problems might be devastating, since the two designs have little in common. Under current procurement practice, which differs radically from that of the past, the contractor selects not only the hull form, but also whatever goes inside it, so that there are fewer and fewer standard naval systems. From the first, however, the real definition of LCS had been the unit cost needed to make mass production practicable: less than $250 million per hull. Anyone familiar with high-speed warships of the past, such as the U.S. missile hydrofoils, knows that such ships are never inexpensive. This year the current U.S. naval leadership was forced to relearn that lesson. At the beginning of the year, 55 LCS were planned, and the expected unit cost was $220 million. Reported cost overrun on Freedom was 86 percent (total $410 million); a second ship was cancelled. A cost review of Independence, which was not as far advanced, was under way; in March, her cost overrun was estimated at 50 percent (total $331 million). Secretary of the Navy Donald M. Winter lectured the builders and demanded more efficient practices. However, the problem is more likely that too much was demanded within a price set not by capability but by desired numbers; the Navy was unwilling to tailor requirements to what it could spend. Hungry builders were too willing to promise what could not be delivered. This is not exactly a new problem. During the 1970s, builders who had to make late changes to meet Navy requirements demanded payments, and the mess was solved only during the Reagan administration, by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman. It alerted him to the need to limit changes (which he successfully met by creative changes in administration). The builder was fortunate that the technology he was buying was stabilized well enough that prices could be predicted, and that he was buying enough ships that the yards could predict their own costs. Now the yards are building far less, so overhead is a much greater factor in their costs. The LCS disaster also reflects a profound change in the way ships are being bought. As noted, the contractor now chooses all the sub-systems in the ship. He is far more exposed to unpleasant cost surprises, because far less of the ship is government-furnished (i.e., standard) equipment. LCS required a revolutionary plugand-play, combat-direction system, and it cannot have helped that most of its other systems, such as the spaces for the modules, were ill-defined at design time.

LCS1 USS Freedom, fitting out at Marinette Marine Corp. Both LCS designs have experienced delays and cost overruns as contractors have tried to come to grips with this new type of vessel.

The only really developed module for LCS is for mine countermeasures; it passed its tests this year. However, the ship’s role – which means the sorts of modules needed – is unclear at best. Given its size, it will probably be needed for antisubmarine warfare (ASW). Although the shallow-water ASW module seems to be proceeding well, it is not so

clear how a ship without an integrated sonar can navigate blue-water ASW. Nor is it clear how the ship will conduct the maritime interdiction task, which is now a vital part of the Global War of Terrorism (and which will probably also be vital in the attempt to restrain the spread of weapons of mass destruction, many components of which

71

Navy YiR.indd 71

2/27/08 1:28:33 PM

YEAR IN DEFENSE 0108

1/25/08

9:43 AM

Page 1

MDH HEADSET Fits underneath most helmets including PASGT, MICH and ACH

TruLinkTM PORTABLE TRANSCEIVER For wireless, hands-free communication

TOUGH. RELIABLE. LVIS. ▲ ▲

Crew Communication System

designed and tested to meet the most demanding marine conditions net-centric VoIP platform

▲

NMEA 0183 connectivity

▲

gentex on temp.indd 1

•

complete, integrated intercom system with wired/wireless functionality

▲

GENTEX ELECTRO-ACOUSTIC PRODUCTS 2456 Brown Av e nu e

LVIS® CREW CONNECTION POINT Wired access and power to support ANR headwear and charge portable transceivers

robust protection against RFI/EMI

M a n ch e s t e r N H 0 3 1 0 3 U S A

•

T E L : 6 0 3 . 6 5 7. 1 2 0 0

•

FA X : 6 0 3 . 6 5 7. 1 2 0 1

LVIS® RADIO INTERFACE/ INTERCOM CONTROL Interconnects onboard radio systems, crew connection points, and portable transceivers

www.lvissystem.com/yid0802

1/25/08 10:24:17 AM

Navy Year in Review

go by sea). Another problem is that LCS was specifically banned from involvement in a vital offshore role, supporting troops. That was done to protect the new Zumwalt-class destroyer, whose main stated role is shore bombardment. Thus the only planned surface-to-surface armament of the LCS is a 57 mm gun and the Net Missile, a system conceived for the Army (it directs small missiles to targets defined by a tactical picture which, in the Army version, is obtained using a loitering missile). Congress has authorized two more LCS, but they have not been ordered due to cost problems. Navy plans call for three more in 2008 and six per year beginning in 2009. As of March 2007, the projected unit cost was $303 million, which senior congressmen were warning was unsustainable. After LCS 3 was cancelled, plans were scaled back to provide eight rather than 15 ships by 2010. Money programmed for the two 2007 ships duplicating the prototypes (LCS 3 and 4) was reallocated to the two prototypes. The prototypes are now considered Flight 0. Instead of placing both designs in production, the Navy announced in April that it would combine elements of both designs to create the production Flight 1 version, which would begin with the FY10 program. Numbers planned for FY08 and FY09 were to be cut. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England directed the Navy to seek funds for two (rather than six) LCS in 2009, three (rather than six) in 2010 and 2011, and four (rather than six) in 2012; one would be added in 2013 (for a total of six). With these changes, the 55-ship class would be completed in 2019 rather than 2016. Congress demanded that a Flight 1 design be selected in 2008, but critics suggest that this is too soon; there will not have been nearly enough experience with either prototype. In the fall of 2007, the Senate zeroed the program altogether, and the House voted to cut the FY08 program to a single ship. Attempts to save the program included a cut in mission modules from 110 (two alternatives per hull) to 64. This deep cut, however, seems to negate the argument that a limited number of LCS can replace larger numbers of more specialized units. Because the only module now available is the mine countermeasures one, skeptics may come to see LCS as little more than an exotic stand-off minehunter – a role that the U.S. Navy has historically underfunded. Some may argue that the module can be deployed more efficiently from other types of ship, such as large amphibious units with well decks. It is even possible that LCS itself may die while the modules and their unmanned vehicles thrive. After all, when naval aviation (which may be analogous) began, airplanes flew exclusively from battleships and cruisers. Aviators tried submarines and even destroyers. The failure of these platforms did not kill naval aviation, because it was obvious that the airplanes were the point, not the ships from which they flew. It took time to develop the right platform for those aircraft – and it may take time to develop the right platform for the new modules. Thus the Navy drew closer to the swim-off idea, but the hope of quickly producing large numbers of LCS faded. That is unfortunate, because the only existing combatants that can do some of the jobs envisaged for the LCS are being discarded: special-purpose minecraft and Perry-class frigates (whose air defense weapons have now been removed). Last fall the last four Osprey-class coastal mine hunters were decommissioned, leaving 14 Avenger-class ocean mine hunters.

Meanwhile the projected cost of the big destroyer, conceived before the need for large numbers became obvious, continued to grow. Despite congressional action allocating production to both potential surface-combatant builders, it is by no means clear that the new destroyer will ever be built, or at least will ever go beyond the two prototypes. Navy interest is shifting toward the next-generation missile cruiser, CG(X), which may be nuclear powered. CG(X) is important, because the Navy may be concentrating more on the ballistic missile defense role. Plans initially called for CG(X) to be based on the new destroyer, with more missiles and without the destroyer’s shore-bombardment gun. Reportedly, the Navy is less than enthusiastic about the tumble-home hull form chosen to keep down the radar cross-section of the destroyer. For example, it was claimed that in rough seas it would avoid capsizing only if its active stabilization system continued to work. The structure of the Zumwalt contract would make it very expensive to demand a new hull form at so late a date. Limiting the number of such ships would offer a way of switching to a more traditional hull form in CG(X). One argument for the switch would be that the degree of stealth sought in the destroyer is unlikely to be available as radar signal processing continues to improve. That is, stealth shaping in effect reduces the value of signal processing and so hides a ship, but better computers can recapture what stealth takes away. Because the ship’s stealth depends on her shape, which cannot change once she has been completed, the signal processors are likely to win this battle. Moreover, it is far less expensive to upgrade a radar in an airplane or a missile than to rebuild a ship. Problems with the new destroyer have led to repeated proposals, thus far unsuccessful, to cancel it in favor of further construction of Arleigh-Burke class destroyers. They would be inherently less stealthy than a Zumwalt, but that may not be as important as had been imagined. The Burke hull could be modified to accomodate some of the new technology conceived for the new destroyer, such as its new volume-search radar. Changing a few elements at a time rather than buying many innovative systems at the same time might make it easier to control costs. It must seem ironic that the rationale for the Zumwalt design was that unit cost of destroyers had to be cut below that of the Burke class in order to maintain the size of the U.S. surface fleet. Some increase in building cost was considered acceptable if operating cost was drastically reduced. Now it seems that neither goal will be met. Originally the new destroyer was seen as a direct replacement for the Spruance class, at a unit cost of about $750 million. When characteristics were firmed up, unit cost was estimated at $1.7 billion. Now the unit estimate is $4.2 billion, and most of the rise is blamed on demands for cutting-edge capabilities. It did not help that the Navy, following Defense Department guidance, abandoned its classic practice of conducting a preliminary or feasibility design to establish what the requirements it wrote would mean in a real ship. Had it done so, the sticker shock the new destroyer has occasioned would have been foreseen, and requirements probably cut back to make the ship affordable. Now that the design itself was done entirely under contract, changes – even reductions in requirements – are very expensive. Perhaps the new procurement technique was not particularly wise. The advantage of the preliminary design was that the effects of trade-offs could be estimated before any contract

73

Navy YiR.indd 73

2/27/08 12:06:20 PM

moogR on temp.indd 1

2/25/08 1:08:32 PM

Navy Year in Review

was signed, hence before changes had to be paid for. At one time, the Navy used this method for both ships and aircraft. Once a set of requirements had proven feasible, it could go to contractors to show their ingenuity in meeting or exceeding them within a reasonable price. That is the opposite of what happened this time. This process might also, incidentally, have avoided some of the problems currently faced by the LCS program, because it would have made for a far more realistic idea of what was actually being asked. Cost escalation is painful because the ongoing war in Afghanistan and Iraq has proven far more expensive than any had imagined. From an economic point of view, the U.S. government has chosen the Vietnam War rather than the Korean War or World War II model: It has not sold war bonds or raised taxes. Instead, it has relied on deficit financing. To minimize that, it has tried to limit military spending (though that may not be obvious to citizens who have seen the military budget expand). All three services have found themselves badly squeezed, particularly since they have tried to preserve programs needed to fight other kinds of wars. They may remember the way in which Vietnam sapped U.S. strength needed for the confrontation against the Soviets. The current equivalent would be forces needed to face large potential regional enemies like Iran and China. Both the Navy and the Air Force operate large fleets of increasingly elderly aircraft. Replacements may come later than expected. For example, the Joint Strike Fighter, which is extremely important to the Navy and to the Marines (and to many allies) will probably be deferred. The longer it is deferred, the better the chance that some of its missions will be taken over by unmanned aircraft. Although combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq is largely non-naval, naval forces are engaged in both places. U.S. Navy P-3C Orion patrol aircraft have proven extremely valuable as sensor platforms reporting to ground troops, so they have been used far more heavily than in the past, sometimes flying as much as four times the usual number of hours. Their structures were never designed to take that sort of beating. Much of the Orion fleet had to be grounded when large cracks were found in wing spars. It became clear that it would take several months to cure the problem. The P-3C is out of production, so new aircraft cannot be bought. Its successor P-8A (a modified Boeing 737) is several years away from production, and its schedule probably cannot easily be accelerated. Conventional naval contributions to the war in Iraq are the new naval riverine force and the international Arabian Sea blocking force, the latter interdicting the flow of Al Qaeda and Taliban personnel and arms from Pakistan. The new riverine squadrons replace a small U.S. Marine river force in Iraq. Riverine Squadron 1 (Rivron 1) completed its unit training in January, to be followed by two others. In fact, the navy’s contribution is considerably greater, because naval personnel are regularly rotated to Afghanistan and to Iraq, both at the unit level (for aircraft) and at the individual level, to replace Army, Air Force, and Marine personnel. This contrasts with the Vietnam War, in which only the Pacific Fleet was engaged. The reason then was that forces in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean were needed to face down the Soviets: Vietnam was part of, not separate from, the larger Cold War. This time there seems not to be any simultaneous war, hot or cold, to hold down other U.S. forces. However, as the Navy pointed out after September 11, there really are numerous threats that can explode into warfare. One possibility is that Al Qaeda or its friends will establish a presence elsewhere, perhaps in Africa or even in South America. Al Qaeda-like organizations already thrive in parts of Southeast Asia, which is why U.S. forces have been fighting alongside Filipinos. Readers of the literature about terrorism will remember plots hatched against Americans in places like Manila. Thus there is always a real possibility that U.S. naval forces will find themselves engaged outside the Middle East. This is apart from the usual threats, such as Iran. The personnel situation is difficult because sailors account for a large and growing part of a naval budget, which almost certainly cannot continue to grow. Much of the rationale for the Zumwalt and LCS classes was that they could be operated by significantly smaller crews. Much the same applies to the new San Antonio-class and the new carrier, with its more manpower-efficient nuclear powerplant. However, manpower costs keep rising. Shedding 37,000 sailors in 2007 saved virtually no money, because salaries and health care costs rose.

75

Navy YiR.indd 75

3/1/08 4:09:44 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Army Rangers with the 75th Ranger Regiment participate in a mass tactical airborne operation at Fryar Drop Zone, Fort Benning, Ga., for the opening event of Ranger Rendezvous 2007. Ranger Rendezvous occurs every two years to coincide with the regimental change of command and allows the Rangers to gather at one location to celebrate past achievements and build esprit de corps.

Photo by Staff Sgt. Jason B. Baker, USASOC PAO

76

SOCOM yir.indd 76

2/27/08 8:53:38 AM

SPECIAL OPERATIONS YEAR IN REVIEW

The Year in

Special Operations 2007 By John D. Gresham

USSOCOM is uniquely qualified to lead the GWOT for the Department of Defense (DoD). The types of missions and capabilities mandated by Congress for USSOCOM enable the unconventional, irregular, and adaptive actions that are best suited to engage the global asymmetric threat of terrorist organizations. USSOCOM is synchronizing DoD’s GWOT efforts, aggressively collaborating with other government agencies and our international partners to build a global network to combat terrorism. SOCOM 2007 Posture Statement

2007

has been another busy year for America’s Special Operation Force (SOF) professionals, with a renewed mission focus thanks to the “surge” in Iraq and the growing NATO effort in Afghanistan. Fully engaged and deployed worldwide, America’s SOF warriors have been in the lead of the emerging security situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq, though not without cost. Part of the price of being at the front of the line is taking the first enemy return fire, and being the targets of more attention than those following. That has meant casualties, in a community where every wound and loss is felt throughout, and is an expensive strategic loss to the nation. Nevertheless, 2007 has been both productive and interesting.

Leadership: Passing the Baton One of the most valued qualities about the American SOF community since September 11 has been the stability of its leadership, both at U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), and its various subordinate component commands. Despite fighting multiple battles around the world, undergoing complete transformation of their organizations and training, and weathering six years of time passing, the SOF community has been able to offer U.S. political leaders competent and consistent commanders and staffs to fight the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT).

That said, 2007 saw significant changes in SOF top commanders, which will have long-term effects in both the community and the prosecution of the GWOT. At the top of the ladder is the job of commander in chief of SOCOM, which this year changed hand from Gen. Bryan “Doug” Brown, who handed the job to his able deputy, Navy Adm. Eric Olsen. Olsen is the first SEAL and Naval Special Warfare Command (NAVSPECWARCOM) professional to ascend to four-star rank, and brings years of operational experience to the job of running SOCOM. In commenting on Olsen at their change-of-command ceremony in July, Brown said: “As we leave this stage, a new commander will be at the reigns of ‘the world’s gold standard for Special Ops,’ and he is the right guy. I have marveled at his intellect, his insight, his vision, his hard work, his patience, his courage to make the hard decision, and his understanding of all the parts of SOF. He is a wonderful joint SOF operator who also happens to be a SEAL.” Along with Olsen’s ascension to command of SOCOM, there were other significant leadership changes in the American SOF community. Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney moved up to be Olsen’s deputy commander at SOCOM. Previously, Kearney had been the SOF component commander at U.S. Central Command, where another well-known SOF warrior, Army Brig. Gen. John Mulholland replaced him. Then in October, the Honorable Michael Vickers took over duties as the assistant secretary of defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict.

77

SOCOM yir.indd 77

2/27/08 8:53:50 AM

amron on temp.indd 1

2/6/08 2:50:20 PM

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Markus Maier

SPECIAL OPERATIONS YEAR IN REVIEW

The largest Air Force CV-22 Osprey formation to date lifts off from a Kirtland Air Force Base taxiway May 1. The formation consisted of four Ospreys, three from Kirtland and one from the 8th Special Operations Squadron, Hurlburt Field, Fla. The Osprey is operated both by AFSOC and the Marine Corps.

Vickers is a former Army Special Forces (SF) soldier and CIA operations officer, and brings more than three decades of SOF, intelligence, and DoD experience to his new position. Down at SOCOM’s component commands, there also were changes. At NAVSPECWARCOM in San Diego, Rear Adm. Joseph McGuire, USN, handed over command to Navy Rear Adm. Joseph D. Kernan. Command at Air Force Special Operations Command also changed hands, with Lt. Gen. Donald C. Wurster, USAF, taking over from Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael W. Wooley. Finally, Army Lt. Gen. William “Gerry” Boykin, a living SOF legend, retired in a quiet ceremony at Fort Bragg, N.C., in June.

Growing the Community One benefit of the early successes in the GWOT by the SOF community has been the growing trust of the national leadership in their abilities to accomplish tasks, and to do so with discretion and reliability. With such trust has come the desire to expand SOCOM, both in terms of manpower and equipment, and to grow the total number of units the command has to offer to unified commanders out in the field. This requirement became formalized in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and is encompassed in the SOCOM 2007 Posture Statement.

This planned growth is planned for completion by 2013, and includes: • Increasing the number of U.S. Army Special Forces (SF) soldiers, by adding an additional battalion to each of the five active-duty SF Groups. • Raising the strength of the three battalions of the 75th Ranger Regiment from three to four companies, along with increasing the fire support and reconnaissance resources of Ranger units. • Growing the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR) with additional personnel, particularly aircrew. • Standing up an additional U.S. Army Special Operations Command support and sustainment battalion, along with growing the pool of activeduty Civil Affairs (CA) and Psychological Warfare Operations (PSYOPS) soldiers. • Improving the NAVSPECWARCOM recruiting and training pipeline, so that the total-end strength of the SEAL teams will increase by 20 percent, and the supporting boat and delivery vehicle teams by 13 percent. • Increasing the size of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) with additional combat controller and para-rescue forces, along with formation of the new 27th Special Operations Wing (SOW). • Standing up an AFSOC Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) squadron of 24 armed MQ-1 Predators at Creech AFB, Nev., along with a new intelligence squadron to process and distribute the data collected. There are

79

SOCOM yir.indd 79

2/27/08 8:54:09 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Navy photo

A Navy file photo of SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy, from Patchogue, N.Y., (left) and Sonar Technician (Surface) 2nd Class Matthew G. Axelson, of Cupertino, Calif., taken in Afghanistan. Both were assigned to SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team 1, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Murphy and Axelson were killed by enemy forces during a reconnaissance mission, Operation Red Wing, June 28, 2005. They were part of a four-man team tasked with finding a key Taliban leader in the mountainous terrain near Asadabad, Afghanistan, when they came under fire from a much larger enemy force with superior tactical position. Murphy became a posthumous recipient of the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions during the battle.

also studies being conducted to possibly equip the squadron with the larger armed MQ-9 Reaper UAV. • Procuring and issuing of large numbers of small to midsized UAVs, across all elements of deployed SOCOM units around the world. SOCOM has also provided liaison teams to support conventional force UAV system teams to support SOF operations in the field. • Completing the standup of the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC), especially with regard to facilities construction and support operations. • Continuing expansion and improvements to the Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) at Hurlburt Field, Fla. Created in 2000, JSOU was created to meet the unique SOF educational needs of special operators and non-SOF national security decision-makers. This growth, while large by historic SOF standards, is occurring over enough time to recruit, select, train, and equip the kinds and quality of people to maintain the high standards of the various SOF component communities. As summarized by Brown in congressional testimony early in 2007: “Assessment and selection is the critical initial process by which candidates with the necessary aptitude and attitude are identified for entry into the Special Operations community and is a common starting point for

SOF warriors. A relative few possess the essential combination of maturity, unfailing character, mental agility, physical strength, and endless internal drive necessary for selection and future success.” Along with growing SOCOM, there also are some major changes and drawdowns occurring as part of the QDR. AFSOC has begun to stand down its MH-53 Pave Low helicopter units, making way for the new CV-22 Ospreyequipped squadrons. In addition, USASOC has transferred its reserve CA and PSYOPS units to the Army Reserve Command, while retaining their schoolhouse and active-duty formations.

New Tools Along with changes to its unit and personnel bases, SOCOM has also been actively procuring a number of weapons and other systems to support the mission of the command. Some of these are SOF-specific, and are being procured under SOCOM’s unique Title 10 funding provisions. Some of the more notable SOCOM achievements this year include: • Rearming AFSOC’s fleet of AC-130U Spectre gunships with Mk 44 30mm cannon, by replacing the existing 25mm GAU-12 and 40mm Bofors guns. AFSOC is also looking at arming their gunships with small laser-guided

80

SOCOM yir.indd 80

2/27/08 1:29:42 PM

PUERTO PUERTO RICO: RICO: THE THE OFFSHORE OFFSHORE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE IN IN THE THE USA USA 3XHUWR5LFRD8QLTXH(QWUHSUHQHXULDO(QYLURQPHQW 3XHUWR5LFRD8QLTXH(QWUHSUHQHXULDO(QYLURQPHQW

PRIDCO, the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company is committed to help you launch technology operations in Puerto Rico through its specialized PRIDCO, theyour Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company is committed to help business teams offering:in Puerto Rico through its specialized you launchdevelopment your technology operations business development offering: ■ Complimentary site teams selection services. site selection ■ Complimentary Project management support. services. Project management support. ■ Recruitment assistance. Recruitment assistance. ■ Ready-to-occupy facilities. Ready-to-occupy facilities. ■ Extensive supplier and business service profiles. Extensive supplier and business ■ One stop customer service team.service profiles. ■ One stop customer service team.

3XHUWR5LFRLVWKHRIIVKRUHDGYDQWDJHLQWKH86$ 3XHUWR5LFRLVWKHRIIVKRUHDGYDQWDJHLQWKH86$ EHFDXVHRILWV EHFDXVHRILWV

a8QLTXH7DOHQW Over 10,000 science, engineering and technical degrees granted each year. a8QLTXH7DOHQW Bilingual (English and Spanish) workforce. Over 10,000 science, engineering and technical degrees granted each year. Bilingual (English and Spanish) workforce.

a86&LWL]HQVKLS The benefits and protections of operating within a U.S.A. jurisdiction (no a86&LWL]HQVKLS

International in Arms Regulation “ITAR” restrictions, customs,(no no The benefits Trade and protections of operating within a U.S.A. no jurisdiction currency exchange). International Trade in Arms Regulation “ITAR” restrictions, no customs, no currency exchange).

a6WUDWHJLF/RFDWLRQ Located at the intersection of trade routes from both North America and a6WUDWHJLF/RFDWLRQ Europe, America and the Caribbean. vastNorth air, sea and land Located to at Latin the intersection of trade routes fromItsboth America and transportation systems, makes theCaribbean. transportation hub of the Americas. Europe, to Latin America and it the Its vast air, sea and land transportation systems, makes it the transportation hub of the Americas.

a,QQRYDWLRQDQG,QIUDVWUXFWXUH Over $ 110M per year in federally – funded a,QQRYDWLRQDQG,QIUDVWUXFWXUH

research. Internet2 telecommunications research infrastructure. FCC – research. regulated competitive Over $ 110M per year in federally – funded Internet2 telecommunications environment. research infrastructure. FCC – regulated competitive telecommunications environment.

a3URILWVDQG&RPSHWLWLYHQHVV #1 cost competitive location in the United States according to KPMG’s 2004 a3URILWVDQG&RPSHWLWLYHQHVV Competitive Alternatives study. Unsurpassed federal tax benefits. #1 cost competitive location in the United States according to KPMG’s 2004 Competitive Alternatives study. Unsurpassed federal tax benefits.

*OREDO&RPSDQLHVOHDGLQJWKHZD\ *OREDO&RPSDQLHVOHDGLQJWKHZD\ LQ3XHUWR5LFR LQ3XHUWR5LFR

Lockheed Martin LockheedHewlett MartinPackard Pratt & Hewlett WhitneyPackard Pratt & Microsoft Whitney Microsoft Honeywell Aerospace Honeywell Aerospace Oracle Oracle Hamilton Sundstrand Hamilton Sundstrand

-RLQWKHJOREDOOHDGHUVFDOO35,'&2DW 35,'&2 WROHDUQKRZWRFDSWXUH7KH2IIVKRUH$GYDQWDJHLQWKH86$RUYLVLWZZZSULGFRFRP -RLQWKHJOREDOOHDGHUVFDOO35,'&2DW 35,'&2 WROHDUQKRZWRFDSWXUH7KH2IIVKRUH$GYDQWDJHLQWKH86$RUYLVLWZZZSULGFRFRP pridco on temp.indd 1

2/25/08 11:29:59 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Johansen Laurel Photo by Lance Cpl. Joseph R. Stahlman

Above: Iraqi special operations forces, advised by U.S. Special Forces, finish clearing a house during a combat operation to detain suspected terrorist leaders of an insurgent force in Baghdad, Iraq, Aug. 13, 2007. Left: Maj. Alfredo DuBois, then-commanding officer of Marine Special Operations Support Group, and a Gallup, N.M., native, salutes the newly established MSOSG colors during an activation ceremony at the William Pendleton Thompson Hill Parade Field at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, N.C.

Viper Strike munitions, based on the Brilliant Anti-armor Technology submunition used in the Army Tactical Missile System. • Vastly expanding SOCOM’s adoption and operational use of UAVs, from an AFSOC squadron of 24 armed MQ-1 Predators, to hundreds of man-portable systems like the MQ-11B Raven. SOCOM has also invested in SOF-specific UAV payloads, which can be “piggybacked” onto existing conventional force UAV systems to support operators “downrange.” • Maturing the CV-22 SOF tilt-rotor transport aircraft, with the Osprey schoolhouse at Kirtland AFB, N.M., fully on line, and production aircraft being delivered to operational squadrons. • Modernization of the Army’s SOF helicopter fleet to a common cockpit configuration, and modernizing the Chinook force to a single model (MH-47G) across the entire 160th SOAR. • Completion of the last of four conversions of Ohio-class (SSBN 726) ballistic-missile submarines, to cruise missile/SOF boats. These submarines, among the quietest ever built, can carry

82

SOCOM yir.indd 82

2/27/08 8:54:38 AM

SPECIAL OPERATIONS YEAR IN REVIEW

up to 154 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and berth 66 SOF personnel (SEALs, SF, etc.). They can also carry Dry Deck Shelters (DDSs), SEAL Delivery Vehicles (SDVs), or the Advanced SEAL Delivery System. Along with the above material acquisitions, AFSOC also took over a new base/range complex, at Cannon AFB, N.M., in October from Air Combat Command. AFSOC then stood up a new Special Operations Wing, the 27th, which will eventually have almost 100 aircraft assigned. These will be MC-130 Combat Talon/Spear tanker/transport aircraft, along with AC-130 Spectre gunships and the new CV-22 Osprey.

Achievements While SOCOM’s operations must, by necessity, be kept discreet and/or clandestine, there were a number of operational achievements that the various component commands can be pleased with. The largest commitment of SOCOM units and personnel went into Iraq, where they have been supporting the troop “surge” since early 2007. SOCOM forces have been at the forefront of the recent successes in Al Anbar, Baghdad, Karbala, and Diyala, and are integrating well with Gen. David Petreaus’ plans and personnel. Similarly, after a hard fall in 2006 facing down a resurgent Taliban using vast numbers of IEDs, SOCOM units supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan have been taking the fight back to the enemy. Late 2007 found SOCOM and NATO forces fighting hard in the northeastern provinces along the Pakistani/Afghan border. 2007 was also a year in which SOCOM continued its worldwide reach building rapport and professionalism with governments and militaries. In spite of combat commitments from the Horn of Africa to the Philippines, SOCOM has managed to keep SOF teams going out on missions under programs like Joint Cooperative Engagement and Training (JCET). In 2007, dozens of such missions did everything from teaching basic Foreign Internal Defense skills to conducting medical engagements in interior areas that rarely see a doctor or dentist. Services as simple as basic inoculations of children will help save thousands of young lives in years ahead, and leave a lasting positive memory of the United States. 2007 was also a year in which investments began to pay off. In October, the USS Ohio (SSGN 726) left Bangor, Wash., for the first patrol by one of the converted cruise missile/SOF submarines. Carrying a Dry Dock Shelter on her back, Ohio is planned to be forward deployed for a year, and will operate from Guam, where it will return every few months to resupply and exchange Blue/Gold crews, just like their ballistic missile cousins. Already, the SSGNs have conducted training operations with SEALs and other SOF professionals, and are rapidly becoming laboratories for new tactics, equipment, and ideas across the entire SOCOM enterprise. Finally, as a sign of SOCOM’s growing intellectual influence within DoD, the JSOU hosted its sixth annual education conference in July, with a theme of “Mobile Warriors – Mobile Learners.” Focused on eLearning technologies and techniques, presentations were delivered by all of the SOCOM service components, along with several talks from non-SOF communities, including the Stryker Brigade Training Center at Fort Lewis, Wash., and the Future Combat System Program Office.

Honors, Farewells, and Remembrances 2007 was also a year to look back, remember, and say goodbye. Perhaps the most notable passing was that of Gen. Wayne Downing, USA. Downing, commander of SOCOM from 1989 to 1991, died suddenly from a disease contracted on an inspection trip to Iraq in July. Also passing in 2007 was Gen. Robert “Barbed Wire Bob” Kingston, following a long illness. A quiet and beloved man who led a soldier’s life, Kingston was a lifetime SOF professional whose achievements included leading Rangers in Korea and setting into motion the study that created America’s modern-day special mission units. In May, Brown awarded the SOCOM Medal to Lt. Gen. William Tangney, USA, a former USASOC commanding general. The year also saw long-overdue formal recognition of Maj. Gen. Singlaub, USA. A pioneering World War II member of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), Singlaub was leader of a Jedburgh team in France, later rescuing Allied POWs in Asia, and led the clandestine Studies and Operations Group in Vietnam. His receipt of the prestigious Donavan award by the OSS Association in 2007 is just one of many such awards that are due this SOF icon in the years ahead. This year also saw the first award of a Medal of Honor to a SOF warrior, since the vicious firefight in Mogadishu in 1993. June 28, 2005, is easily the darkest day in the history of modern U.S. SOF: a SEAL team was trapped and destroyed in northern Afghanistan while on a reconnaissance mission. Outgunned and outnumbered, the text of the Medal of Honor citation for Lt. Michael Murphy tells the story of what happened next: When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Lieutenant Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into an open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his headquarters, Lieutenant Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his team. In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom. Sadly, the rescue failed when an MH-47 helicopter was shot down by RPGs trying to reach the team, killing eight SEALs and eight 160th SOAR soldiers. Nineteen American SOF warriors lost their lives that day, with only one survivor from the original SEAL team. In late October, the family and friends of Michael Murphy gathered in Washington, D.C., to celebrate his dedication and heroism, along with that of the other 18 men who died that terrible day. In a White House ceremony, Murphy’s parents accepted the Medal of Honor from President George W. Bush, in what became a two-day remembrance of their son. Additional ceremonies at Arlington Cemetery and the Navy Memorial in Washington, D.C., capped off the memorial observance, which was a reminder that freedom is never free, and that SOF warriors are out there all the time, paying the price for the rest of us.

83

SOCOM yir.indd 83

2/27/08 8:54:51 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

The Boeing Company photo by Kevin Flynn

New Requirements, Old Realities By Eric Tegler

World Aerospace Developments 2007

M

ilitary planners the world over were busily defining new requirements in 2007. But they could not overcome an old reality – the gap between what they wanted and what they would really get. For the U.S., there were two main questions: How to restore overall readiness while modernizing, and how to address a threat to its fundamental warfighting capability. While the troop surge in Iraq appeared to bring some stability, it continued to consume manpower and equipment at unsustainable rates. Early year approval for the recruitment of 90,000-plus additional troops for the Army and Marine Corps might keep America’s ground force from breaking, but its budgetary implications threatened to fracture already brittle replacement/ recapitalization funding. The Air Force has cut manpower to pay its modernization bills for years, and its Fiscal Year 2008 $153.9 billion budget request mirrored the ongoing strain on readiness. U.S. Air Force Budget Director Maj. Gen. Frank Faykes said in January that the service had “a crisis in modernization that we need to address.” He explained that the Air Force has trimmed flying hour accounts by 10 percent (to 14.4 flying hours/month for fighters, 15.5 for bombers) and funded depot repairs at 85 percent. Overall readiness was judged to have declined 17 percent since the Iraqi invasion, with 56 percent of Air Force units reporting ready for combat, down from 68 percent in 2004. The service believes it can, just, recapitalize with an additional $20 billion per year in funding during the next five to 10 years.

84

Aerospace.indd 84

2/27/08 10:11:31 AM

Photo courtesy of Team JSF

AEROSPACE PROCUREMENT

Opposite: The ea-18G Growler’s first production flight took place on Sept. 10, 2007, but older F/A-18A-D Hornets are exceeding fatigue hours and being retired. Above: The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has piqued international interest. The JSF boasts an advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, advanced avionics, and stealth. Production delays, however, may see international customers forced to buy a less advanced competitor sooner rather than waiting for the F-35.

Naval aviation is under similar pressure due to a decision to stabilize shipbuilding in the FY08 budget. The Navy is trying to reach a 313 ship force and that goal drove a reduction of planned airframe purchases from 199 to 188. Replacement aircraft are sorely needed as increased optempo has accelerated end of airframe fatigue life of older F/A-18A-D Hornets in particular. A total of 103 aircraft have been retired from the fleet since 2002, with 59 more to follow by 2015. Combined with the early retirement of F-14s, Navy officials say the service was short 50 strike fighters in 2006, a deficit that could reach 200 aircraft by 2017. U.S. Army equipment is wearing out in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan, prompting U.S. Army Aviation Director Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt to opine that the helicopter industry was reacting too slowly to the Pentagon’s need for war replacement aircraft. Mundt reported losing 130 aircraft (a combat brigade’s worth of helicopters) since 2001. “[Industry] create a good product but I sure need them a whole lot faster.” The Air Force focused on anti-ballistic missile defense, including its ground-based Midcourse Defense System (MDS), for which it is establishing

tracking/interceptor stations in Eastern Europe to counter Iranian/North Korean threats. But a successful late year MDS intercept test went nearly unheralded after China’s surprise Jan. 11 test of its new mobile anti-satellite weapon. U.S. reliance on overhead sensing for strategic and tactical operations cannot be over-stressed. China’s test spurred U.N. censure and concern in the Pentagon, which sees ASAT weapons as a fundamental threat to its ability to operate. In November, the Chinese claimed to have mobile vans, which could jam signals from U.S. global positioning satellites, thus blunting precision weapon accuracy. Iraq claimed similar capability in 2003, and while it proved ineffective, Chinese systems may be more of a threat. China’s economic ascension has been accompanied by a concomitant boost in defense spending, with a 14.3 percent estimated increase in its budget in 2006 alone. Much has apparently gone to pay raises for poorly remunerated soldiers, sailors, and airmen, but with Chinese expenditures estimated at more than 5 percent of its GDP, the trend is clear. Meanwhile, U.S. defense spending as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest point since World War II.

85

Aerospace.indd 85

2/27/08 10:12:07 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

The Boeing Company photo by Gina Vanatter

Last year, Canada took delivery of its first C-17, and the U.K. its sixth. Many in the United States are calling for more C-17s for the Air Force.

The Bush administration’s FY08 budget request lingered until November, when Congress finally took it up. Despite new democratic control, shipbuilding and aircraft programs (except Air Force/Army helicopter programs) appear to have come out with fewer cuts than expected. Missile defense cuts were modest as well. Flush with oil revenue, Russia modestly expanded aviation modernization. However, its returns from exports to China have dropped significantly. Between 1992 and 2006, China accounted for nearly half of Russia’s exports. But in 2006, China accounted for just 20 percent. A lack of significant Russian weapons systems advances and increasing resident research and development/production capabilities in China, India and elsewhere explain it. India remains a major potential defense aerospace buyer. In February, Russia agreed to settle $3 billion in Indian debt by undertaking a series of joint ventures that could give it the inside track on Indian defense programs. India will likely leverage its defense procurement demand to propel further international collaboration with the United States and other partners. European aerospace procurement and development lagged again in 2007. Its widening gap in tactical and strategic air and space capabilities and research and development stems from sheer reluctance to fund defense. Despite a late-year pledge of support and assistance in Afghanistan from

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, European governments recognize they are ceding geopolitical influence to the U.S., U.K., and other world powers while threatening the seriousness with which NATO can be taken. A September raid on a nascent Syrian nuclear facility by Israel marked the first truly sophisticated “cyber combat” strike using airborne assets, including Israeli Aircraft Industries’ Gulfstream V-based Special Electronic Mission and Conformal Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft. During the summer months, U.S. Navy carrier deployments to the Middle East became the first to emphasize non-kinetic effects in operations, with electronic warfare gaining importance equal to that yielded by 500-pound precision-guided bombs. Navy pilots also reported turning increasingly to strafing to destroy targets in Iraq. The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program began the year building on 2006 test flights. The services continued to mull the numbers and mix of variants they intend to buy amid calls for more STOVL F-35B purchases by the Marine Corps and cost growth concerns. In March, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated total JSF acquisition costs to have increased by $31.6 billion, hence the Department of Defense (DoD) would pay 12 percent more per aircraft than expected in FY04. The declining value of the U.S. dollar put further strain on the international program.

86

Aerospace.indd 86

2/27/08 10:12:18 AM

AEROSPACE PROCUREMENT

While the Navy will delay F-35C buys (cutting from eight to six in FY08, and from 36 to 18 in FY09) the Pentagon encouraged international partners to accelerate their buys to control costs. The F-35A wrestled with weight/schedule problems in April, but hit a serious snag in May when an in-flight electrical failure during a 360-degree roll forced the aircraft to land. Initially thought to be minor, the problem halted flight testing until early December 2007. The F-35C carrier variant passed its critical design review in July, but JSF delays resulted in Australia opting to buy 24 Boeing F/A-18Fs to bridge a gap brought on by the impending retirement of its F-111s. However, the election of a new government elected late in 2007 put the buy under threat. Australia’s defense force chief reiterated its commitment to JSF, but its problems have given renewed impetus to competition from the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen, Dassault Rafale, and Boeing Super Hornet now under review by Norway, Denmark, and others. The F-35B was rolled out and two test aircraft were trimmed from the flight-test program to save money in December, but Lockheed Martin did scoop a contract to develop a “partner” version of the Lightning for further foreign sales, a.k.a. the F-16. Funding for the alternate GE/Rolls-Royce engine was cut by the Pentagon but restored by Congress. The F-22 Raptor broadened its operational scope while Air Force officials pushed for more than the 183 aircraft authorized even as they acknowledged that the Raptor’s sensitive sensors may be overwhelmed in densely polluted electronic environments like Baghdad. The importance of the western Pacific was highlighted by the decision to send 27th FS F22s to Kadena Air Base for joint operations. But, the Raptor flight and its tankers were forced to turn back midway between Hawaii and Okinawa, allegedly because flight computers in all 12 aircraft reportedly crashed owing to navigational software that had not been programmed to account for the change in longitude at the international dateline. The deployment resumed and with it Japanese desire for the acquisition of F-22s. The U.S. government refused a March request from Australia for the sale of Raptors and in July turned down a Japanese request. Japan is mulling plans to develop its own fifth-generation fighter and an offer to provide it with electronically scanned radar-equipped Eurofighters. Late in the year, Japan and Australia prepared to jointly lobby to overturn the U.S. ban on exports of the F-22. Lockheed Martin rounded out 2006 with a $931.3 million order for 30 new F-16C/Ds for Greece and secured 2007 contracts for F-16 spares support for nine customers from Chile to Pakistan. It agreed to modernize 37 F-16s for Turkey under the country’s Peace Onyx III program. By fall, approval for the addition of APG-63(v)3 radars to 224 F-15Es had been given, with a further request for AESA radars for F-15Cs under consideration. A November Missouri ANG F-15 crash pointed to structural problems with the Eagle and resulted in three stand-downs of the A-D fleet, rendering just 45 percent of Air Force combat aircraft eligible for operations. Navy carriers were shifted to the Middle East to cover for the grounded F-15s. The Air Force continued to weigh options for its Long Range Strike bomber program, emphasizing range as key to reducing tanker demand. The service wants a platform available by 2018. Air Combat Command Chief Gen. Ronald Keys verbalized his desire to revive the B-52 standoff jammer program while dealing with production delays of new Northrop Grumman AESA radars for the B-2. The stealth bomber is also to get improved satellite communications. The KC-X tanker competition finally resumed, with both Northrop Grumman/Airbus and Boeing maneuvering to boost selection chances for their respective KC-30 and KC-767 options. Test program delays for the latter affected its Italian and Japanese customers.

Demand for the Air Force’s ISR/AEW&C fleet remained high, with the 763rd Reconnaissance Squadron earning distinction by continually deploying its RC-135s for 6,000 days since 1990. The E-8 JSTARS fleet will receive an engine upgrade, new secure IP-based communications, better Blue Force tracking, and maritime tracking software. The RC-135 and EC130 are gaining better cyber network attack and link capabilities through the Air Force’s Suter program. There were suggestions that E-8s be made the new platform for the MP-RTIP radar program, cancelled in 2006 with the E-10. With costs doubling, production delays, and a congressionally mandated review under way, the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining program was under threat of termination, with a decision expected early in 2008. The Air Force considered re-engining only C-5B/Cs, while modernizing avionics across the fleet. Along with anticipated Army/Marine personnel increases, C-5 problems are exacerbating the critical airlift shortage facing the service, and renewed calls to extend C-17 production echoed all year. Boeing has begun action to close the production line, but Congress is expected to fund its continuation. NATO has a requirement for C-17s, but Franco-German foot-dragging with an eye to Airbus’ A400M interests is delaying contract negotiations. The United Kingdom ordered its sixth C-17, for service in 2008, and Canada took its first aircraft. The C-130 avionics modernization program was cut after unanticipated cost growth, extending AMP upgrades only to 222 older aircraft. C-130J production continued to survive on modest orders from the U.K., Norway, Canada, Australia, and, potentially, India. The Army/Air Force Joint Cargo Aircraft program faltered after the June selection announcement of the L3/ Alenia C-27J. Losing competitor Raytheon/EADS (C-295) protested the decision and a GAO review halted work on the program until October when the agency upheld the source selection. The Navy announced that its F/A-18Fs had “fifth-generation capabilities” after gaining initial operational experience with AESA-equipped Super Hornets flown by VFA-213. The squadron (to deploy in 2008) is evaluating directed energy attacks using the radar though it has found, like its Air Force counterparts, that AESA capabilities are significantly increasing the workload for its back-seaters. Nevertheless, the AESA radar, two-seat F/A18F combination is proving fruitful for Boeing, which is a serious contender for India’s multi-role combat aircraft competition. JSF delays are spurring more Navy Super Hornet purchases as well. E/A-18G Growler testing proceeded on schedule as the S-3 Viking made its final Pacific deployment. The United States continued to watch for F-14 spares sales to Iran, impounding four Tomcats sold to museums in the 1990s. The Navy eagerly looked to imminent fielding of its E-2D Advanced Hawkeye airborne control aircraft while development of Boeing’s P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol airplane progressed. In July, Boeing announced a 10-unit sale of P-8s to Australia. Eurofighter officials simultaneously dealt with internal arguments about which country would lead its bid to sell Typhoons to India while hammering out agreement on upgrade packages to bolster the aircraft’s strike capability. Austria’s purchase of the fighter was reduced to 15 from the original 18, with the first aircraft delivered in July 2007. BAE Systems was at work on radar signature reduction while an RAF Typhoon made the first firing of an MBDA Advanced short-range air-to-air missile (ASRAAM). Norway and Denmark eyed the Eurofighter as a JSF alternative, and Saudi Arabia completed its purchase negotiations for 72 Typhoons through BAE. Eurofighter partners sought assurances from the U.K. that it wouldn’t use the Saudi purchase to cut its own order. By year-end, Britain was indeed leaning toward increasing

87

Aerospace.indd 87

2/27/08 10:12:26 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Photo by Geoffrey Lee, Planefocus Ltd

An Indian Air Force Su-30MKI and 17 (R) Squadron F2 Typhoon in formation over the East Anglian coast. Eurofighter is endeavoring to sell Typhoons to India.

Tranche 3 Typhoon capabilities while buying less than its contracted 88 units. Italy too was thinking it over. Dassault thought it had at last found an export customer for the Rafale, but its hopes were dashed when Morocco rejected the aircraft, probably in favor of the F-16. The F2 strike version debuted in combat in Afghanistan in March, and Rafales are to get AESA radars by 2012. Dassault was to refit Indian Mirage 2000s with MBDA’s ASRAAM and in December delivered the 601st and final 2000 to Greece. Saab looked to possible sales of its JAS39 Gripen to JSF fence-sitters and inked a deal to upgrade 31 Gripens to JAS39C/D standard for Sweden, which decided to cut its total buy from 204 to 100. Britain aimed to fly AESA radar on a GR4 Tornado by mid-year, with other updates of the fighter’s self-protection equipment, electro-optical suite and reconnaissance pods. The Russian Air Force took delivery of its first pair of Sukhoi Su-34 Flanker strike variants. Six more were to be built in 2007. Six Su-27s were upgraded to Su-27SM standard with another 24 to get the treatment by 2010. Six Su25SM Frogfoots and four Su-24M2 Fencers were upgraded. The MiG-35 version of the MiG-29 Fulcrum, which is to have AESA radar, improved laser designator, and electro-optical systems debuted. India agreed to purchase 18 additional Su-30 MKIs. Sukhoi’s T-50 fifth-generation fighter made its first flight in May though with Su-27 engines as funding for its new engines was unavailable. For financial support, Russia has invited India to participate in the program. A mix of 50 Tu-160 Blackjacks and Tu-95MS Bears were to be

refurbished in line with Russia’s aim to return to long range reconnaissance/ strategic missions. The Indian Air Force still needs 126 fighters for its MRCA program and won’t get its indigenous Tejas light fighter any time soon. Thus it looked abroad for Mirage 2000s. China experienced teething problems with its Chengdu FC-1, delaying Chinese Air Force and Pakistan deliveries. The Chengdu J-10, starting delivery, is judged to have capabilities similar to an F-16 and carries the capable PL-12 air-to-air missile. China has put more indigenous hardware, including engines and radar, on its J-11 version of the Su-27. It managed to get Russian clearance for re-export of the Klimov RD-93 engine to Pakistan to power the Chengdu JF-17 light fighter, despite Indian objections. Orders for Airbus’ A400M stand at 200 but, delays due to engine development issues hurt further interest in the airlifter. Helicopter airlift was in short supply, benefiting Boeing and Sikorsky, whose CH-47F and CH-53K programs, respectively, progressed. The Air Force’s choice for its CSAR-X competition, the CH-47F (144 units, $15 billion) was stymied by a March protest by losing bidders Sikorsky (H-92) and Lockheed (US101) upheld by the GAO. Congress cut funding for CSAR-X and its future remains unclear. Chinook production for the Army continues, however, and export sales (Australia) and interest looked promising. The Army’s Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program halted in May, and though Army officials produced a “get well” program with contractor Bell, Congress approved funding for only 12 ARH helos. DoD ordered 537 more

88

Aerospace.indd 88

2/27/08 10:12:38 AM

U.S Navy photo by Mass Communication Spec. Seaman Brandon Morris

AEROSPACE PROCUREMENT

A French Rafale M combat aircraft performs a catapult-assisted launch from the flight deck of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) in the Mediterranean Sea, July 23, 2007. Two French Rafales were the first French aircraft to land and launch on an American carrier in six years. Rafales saw their first combat action in Afghanistan in March, but Dassault’s efforts to sell the aircraft abroad have so far ended in failure.

Sikorsky H-60s of varying types for the Army and Navy through 2012, while further V-22 orders will depend in large part on the tilt-rotor’s performance in Iraq. Ten MV-22s deployed with VMM-263 aboard USS Wasp, carrying a legacy of 30 lives lost during the 25-year, $22 billion program. Should the V-22 perform well, its export prospects look favorable. European helicopter news was dominated by the NH90 transport helo, which, though gaining orders (Spain, France), experienced delays that drove its multi-national partners to devise new production/introduction plans. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) continue as the most dynamic aerospace growth sector. While Europe lagged in unmanned development, the United States aggressively pursued operations, standing up its first UAV wing encompassing 12 squadrons. Northrop Grumman and Boeing are known to have classified programs under way that are expected to produce large payload, long endurance designs. UAVs are proposed for the U.S. Air Force’s LRS program as future aerial tankers and transports. Army and Air Force UAVs racked up staggering flight time in Iraq as American forces

sought to control porous borders and defeat insurgents/IEDs. A U.S. Air Force proposal to take operational control of all UAVs flying above 3,500 feet was quashed after strong U.S. Navy and U.S. Army opposition. Airspace control remains a critical issue, with a single controlling entity an agreed necessity. The U.S. Navy’s MQ-8B Fire Scout made its first test flight and is scheduled for fleet introduction in 2008, possibly with a new radar and weapons. Northrop Grumman is developing an ISR version of its RQ4 Global Hawk (EuroHawk) for Germany and flew its new Block 20 Global Hawk in the spring. The RQ-4 was a candidate, with UAVs from Lockheed Martin/General Atomics and Boeing/General Dynamics, for the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance program. The Navy also commissioned Northrop Grumman to develop its aircraft carrier suitable X-47B demonstrator for its UCAS-D (formerly Joint UCAS) program. Israel unveiled its large Eitan/Heron II UCAV while BAE refined its Herti and stealthy Taranis UCAVs.

89

Aerospace.indd 89

2/27/08 10:12:51 AM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Land Forces Developments By Scott R. Gourley

I

n addition to the long-range planning of systems to enhance tomorrow’s warfighting capabilities, ongoing U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps ground operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq are prompting a range of near-term program developments in the land forces arena. Obviously, one of the best known of these recent developments involves the joint-service Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles that are already saving lives in theater. While MRAP represents an iconic response to an emerging battlefield threat, justifying its own chapter in this annual update, several other recent program developments also provide insight into the evolution of modern combat hardware.

Precision Fires The M777 series lightweight 155 mm howitzer provides one such example. Managed by a joint-service Marine Corps/Army program office located at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., the program has also made significant recent contributions as part of coalition operations against terrorism. The M777 was originally developed as a replacement for the heavy M198 series 155 mm towed howitzers used by both Army and Marine Corps artillery units. The new design, which is 7,000 pounds lighter than the M198, was mandated by the needs of lighter, rapid response forces in both services. Moreover, the new systems’ increased mobility was further optimized by emerging aerial emplacement platforms, including the Marine Corps’ MV-22-series Osprey. Following a 1997 research and development contract and subsequent 2002 low-rate production contract, the M777 production program was awarded as a multi-year contract to BAE Systems in March 2005. System fielding to the Marine Corps’ 11th Marine Regiment began in 2005, with the first M777 systems going to the Army’s 2nd Battalion, 11th Field Artillery (part of the Army’s 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team) in October 2006.

In addition to that joint-service U.S. force fielding, the same time frame witnessed the Marine Corps providing six of its new howitzers to Canadian Forces in Afghanistan where the guns have been used extensively in combat with great success. Along with the lighter weight and enhanced mobility, the M777 series is enhanced through a series of paralleltechnology packages that also shed light on the mandates of modern combat hardware. The M777A1, for example, incorporates a digital fire-control system by General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products of Burlington, Vt. Not only does the upgrade provide position and direction information at the gun position, a remote cable allows that same information to be provided to the gun crew while the system is being moved to a new position. A second upgrade, which carries the M777A2 designation, allows the weapon to program and fire the new “Excalibur” precision guided munition (PGM) manufactured by Raytheon Company, Tucson, Ariz. It is this PGM capability that highlights a critical aspect of combat operations in 2007. Specifically, in what groundservice planners call “scalable precision,” land forces can now conduct the urban fight with precision fires in a counterinsurgency (COIN) environment, while satisfying the mandates of minimized collateral damage. The availability and fielding of the 155 mm “Excalibur” provides COIN warfighters with an approximately 90-pound warhead option that can be delivered with precision in an urban setting. Spring 2007 saw the initial fielding of Excalibur into theater with service representatives noting that approximately a half dozen of the rounds had been fired in combat by midyear. The scalable precision of land forces is further expanded through the recent fielding of a Guided unitary warhead for the Multiple Launch Rocket System. The Lockheed Martin

90

Land Forces.indd 90

2/27/08 5:37:16 PM

Canadian Ministry of Defence photo by MCpl Yves Gemus

Land forces procurement

GMLRS Unitary rocket delivers a 200-pound PGM warhead to ranges of 70 km, a combined capability that has given the system the field moniker of “the 70-km sniper rifle.” Although initially introduced into theater in 2005, joint-service acceptance of the capability and system application significantly expanded during the past year. As of early June 2007, for example, the Army and Marine Corps were credited with having fired approximately 180 GMLRS Unitary rounds. The British Army has also fired the GMLRS in Afghanistan. In a program update provided at the beginning of August, service representatives reported that 273 missions had been fired in theater, with approximately 83 percent of those having been fired in an urban environment and 69 percent having been fired with troops in contact. In addition, the missions fired were split approximately 50/50 between support to U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army ground elements.

Combat Platforms Land force developments in 2007 also included several significant activities involving both single-service and joint-service combat vehicle platforms. The Army, for example, continued fielding its new M1128 Mobile Gun System (MGS) to its Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT). With a 105 mm direct-fire cannon mounted on top of a Stryker vehicle-family chassis, the MGS, manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems, can fire up to six rounds per minute and the system design allows operation by a threemember crew, rather than the traditional fourperson crew required to operate traditional main battle tanks. And main battle tanks themselves are still playing a role in current combat patrol activities in theater. An example of joint-service cooperation in the main battle tank arena surfaced in early 2007, when the Army announced that it would “transfer 80 M1A1 Abrams tanks over the next eight months to the Marine Corps to help them replace earlier models, which the Army has already upgraded.” According to the Army announcement, the agreement between the two services called for the first 25 M1A1s to be transferred to the Marine Corps by the end of March, with the remaining 55 transferred as they became available during the remainder of Fiscal Year 2007. Prior to this agreement, since 2004, the Army has reportedly transferred 144 M1A1s to

A gun crew of the 2 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (2 RCHA) fires its M777 artillery gun during a fire mission at Forward Operating Base Sperwan Ghar. Note the projectile leaving the end of the barrel. The M777 has been used extensively in Afghanistan with great success.

91

Land Forces.indd 91

2/27/08 5:37:32 PM

thales on temp.indd 1

1/31/08 5:13:00 PM

U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Antonieta Rico

Land forces procurement

U.S. Army Sgt. Christian Garcia pulls security in a street in Tarmiyah as a Mobile Gun System (MGS) Stryker vehicle rolls through the town May 19, 2007. The U.S. Army continued to field the MGS throughout 2007.

the Marine Corps, which then modifies the Abrams’ hulls and turrets for their unique operational requirements, such as forward deployments afloat via Marine expeditionary units. “The most outwardly apparent difference is the Marine Corps’ unique smoke-grenade launchers that are applied to the tanks,” said Marine Maj. Wendell B. Leimbach, Jr., acting program manager, tank systems, Marine Corps Systems Command. “Other unique modifications that are applied to USMC tanks include hull modifications that allow for the tank to use a deepwater fording kit, a unique thermal sight with a far-target location capability, and a tank infantry phone recently adopted by the Army.” Australia also received more of the 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks it has purchased as part of an overall modernization of its forces, but overall, main battle tank procurement, at least in the West, is stagnant, and efforts are being directed more at reset and modernization of existing vehicles. As U.S. land forces enter their seventh year of what was once called “The Long War” and has now evolved to an “Era of Persistent Conflict,” myriad activities also continue surrounding the reset or recapitalization of fielded combat-vehicle platforms.

One representative example of these activities can be seen in an early December 2007 announcement from BAE Systems in York, Penn., pointing to its receipt of “a contract modification totaling $709.4 million from the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command for the reset of Bradley Fighting Vehicles and associated components. “This modification is the largest, national-level reset award for Bradley Combat Systems to date,” it reads. “When combined with an earlier award of $234 million for long-lead materials and an option worth $57 million, this effort represents more than $1 billion for the reset of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Under the base contract, BAE Systems will reset 1,042 Bradley A3 and ODS Combat Systems returning from Iraq and reset additional A3 components. The contract also carries an option for a further 58 vehicles.” Bradleys that undergo the reset process not only have their useful life restored that was consumed during combat operations, but also receive the latest survivability enhancements and other improvements to greater protect Army warfighters in future conflicts. Significantly, the Bradley reset activities are being performed in a partnership between BAE Systems and Red River Army Depot (RRAD), in

93

Land Forces.indd 93

2/27/08 5:37:43 PM

UNI_Redefined08-1-2PgAD-YrInDefense:Layout 1

2/11/08

3:38 PM

Page 1

refocused

recommitted

on the pulse of government, our diverse customer base, and today’s unique and evolving needs.

to provide hassle-free ordering, enthusiastic support and responsive on-line services.

Office Furniture Group

Electronics Business Group

Recycling Business Group

resourced

reconnected

reenergized

seven unique business components offering more than 100 diverse products and services.

to our core mission, teaching federal inmates marketable skills which translate into real jobs and the prospect of success upon release.

to do what it takes to earn and grow relationships. Without your support, there would be no program!

Fleet Management Group

Services Business Group

relevant

unicor redefined it works!

UNICOR is truly an example of the good that government can do.

www.unicor.gov/defense Industrial Products Group

094_fprmrad on temp.indd 1

Clothing & Textiles Group

2/25/08 6:19:58 PM

Land forces procurement

Australian Department of Defense photo by Gunner Shannon Joyce

Two Abrams tanks from Darwin-based 1st Armoured Regiment move forward on the hunt for targets during a live-fire shoot for a Combat Training Centre Heavy Battlegroup activity at the Cultana Training Area in South Australia.

which initial disassembly and subsystem rebuild will be performed at RRAD, final disassembly and structural modifications will be completed by BAE Systems in Fayette County, Penn., and final assembly, integration, and test will be conducted at BAE Systems in York. The resetting of additional A3 components will be performed at RRAD and the original equipment manufacturers. Vehicle deliveries under this contract are scheduled to begin in June 2008. Along with cooperative- and service-platform upgrades and enhancements, the past year also encompassed a number of significant developments involving new joint-service land forces programs. As an example, in addition to the accelerated fielding of the previously noted MRAPs, 2007 activities encompassed significant program refinement on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). Officially described as “a multiservice initiative for a family of future light tactical vehicles,” JLTV first emerged in 2005 as a multi-service effort to resolve identified light vehicle fleet-capability gaps. With congressional support, a provisional Joint Project Office was formed in 2006 to develop the JLTV concept as a family of vehicles to meet current and future requirements. After what planners dubbed “extensive market

research and analyses” indicated there were no existing solutions available to meet the required protection, performance, and payload requirements for future light tactical vehicles, the JLTV concept surfaced as a Family of Vehicles (FoV) solution (including companion trailers) to provide the capabilities while minimizing system life cycle costs. This program terminology is quite telling, in that it ties new programs into logistics planning at the “front end” of their life. This underlying life cycle philosophy, which is highlighted elsewhere in this volume by service leaders at Defense Logistics Agency and elsewhere, has clearly become ubiquitous in all recent land force developments. On Dec. 5, 2007, JLTV successfully completed a Milestone A (MS A) Defense Acquisition Board review and received approval to enter the Technology Development (TD) phase as a pre-MDAP (pre-Major Defense Acquisition Program). As of this writing, release of the request for proposal for that program phase expected in early 2008.

Unique Capabilities/Unique Requirements The joint service cooperation and coordination that is key to several of the programs noted above does not mean that the land forces have abandoned

95

Land Forces.indd 95

2/27/08 5:37:57 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann photo

The ARTEC Consortium’s Boxer is one of the candidates for the British Army’s FRES program, which has evolved in weight and protection due to operational lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

some of their unique land force program requirements. The last year has seen both the Marine Corps and the Army continue to pursue several serviceunique development activities. As an example, February 2007 saw the delivery of the first four Lightweight Prime Mover (LWPM) vehicles to the Marine Corps. Produced by Lockheed Martin’s Tactical Wheeled Vehicle (TWV) program in Owego, N.Y., the LWPM reflects that service’s requirements for towing its M777 series lightweight 155 mm howitzers in unique Marine Corps operational settings. Company descriptions note that the LWPM rides on a height-adjustable chassis, which allows for unmatched all-terrain capability. Moreover, a superior weight-to-payload ratio enables the less than 10,000-pound vehicle to easily tow the 10,000-pound M777 series howitzer. The vehicle is air-transportable inside the C-130 Hercules tactical transport aircraft and can be externally carried by the CH-53E helicopter and the MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft. In addition, the design will also allow future production vehicles to

accept appliqué armor, which will significantly improve Marine safety and survivability. The Army also continues its own unique land force developments, with perhaps the best examples found in the cornerstone Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. Within FCS, August 2007 saw a land force development milestone with significant implications for a range of future combat platforms, when the U.S. Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) Power and Energy Systems Integration Laboratory (P&E SIL) in Santa Clara, Calif., began the formal testing on the first complete hybrid electric-propulsion system that will be installed in the eight tactical FCS Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) elements. The Army’s MGV platform designs feature an engine/generator powerpack in which the engine is not connected to any type of mechanical vehicle drive but instead is only used to charge the batteries that power the vehicles’ electric drive motors.

96

Land Forces.indd 96

2/27/08 5:38:08 PM

Land forces procurement At the completion of testing, the first propulsion system will be installed in a prototype FCS Non Line of Sight – Cannon (NLOS-C) hull. After installation of a 155 mm cannon turret, the prototype for the Army’s next-generation, self-propelled artillery system will be delivered to the FCS Army Evaluation Task Force, which is already operating at Fort Bliss, Texas.

The Move to “Medium” The traditional gap between light and heavy armored vehicles is being filled due to operational realities. The land force procurement plans of Western nations have been tangibly affected by the developments in Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO forces in Afghanistan have found that the ISAR mission demands a certain level of protection to vehicles, and the U.K., the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada are procuring more armored vehicles that are protected against IEDs and roadside ambushes. Australia has already equipped its special operations forces in Afghanistan with armored Bushmaster “Infantry Mobility Vehicles.” The British experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan has shown them that they need a middle ground between intimidating and expensive-to-operate tracked armored vehicles and lightweight utility vehicles. In addition to purchasing “Mastiff” MRAP vehicles based on the Cougar MRAP used by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, the British Army has also invested in more than 160 armored versions of the German Pinzgauer. Present-day experience has also affected future procurement. The British Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) program, for example, has seen the baseline vehicle move to a heavier weight as armor and protection requirements are increased. The United States’ FCS program has also seen some weight and size growth in vehicles that were originally envisioned to depend on speed, firepower, and situational awareness rather than protection. Reactive armor is also being added to a variety of vehicles, such as the U.S. Bradley, and the slat armor first seen on the U.S. Army’s Strykers has now migrated to the U.K.’s Mastiffs as well as Canada’s M113s and other vehicles. Active armor research and development is also seeing a new period of growth.

Tomorrow’s Vision Looking well into the future, 2007 wrapped up with another land force development that merits mention in any annual review. Sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the November 2007 “Urban Challenge” was the third in a series of DoD robotic vehicle competitions that began in 2004. Conducted at the former George Air Force Base in Victorville, Calif., the 2007 event was billed by planners as “build[ing] on the excitement of the first two Grand Challenges to accelerate the development of autonomous vehicles that will someday perform hazardous tasks on the battlefield with limited human involvement.” However, unlike the first two DARPA robotic challenge events, which just required autonomous navigation over set off-road distances, the third used the urban areas on the former airbase to present an environment in which the robotic vehicles had to conduct simulated battlefield supply missions on a 60-mile urban area course in less than six hours. In crafting the urban course, planners felt that they were replicating “the environment in which many of today’s battlefield missions are conducted.”

The Balancing Act Continues While the Urban Challenge event may lack near-term or midterm tactical application, it does highlight one significant aspect of U.S. land force developments. Specifically, it is part of an elaborate resources balancing act; a balancing act between identified immediate needs and projected futuristic needs; a balancing act between joint service or cooperative programs and single-service efforts; a balancing act between increased lethality and minimized collateral damage; and a balancing act between acquisition costs and life cycle costs. Clearly it is a challenging act to perform. But with land force warfighters’ lives at stake, it is a balance that will continue to be achieved.

97

Land Forces.indd 97

2/27/08 5:38:31 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

World Naval Developments 2007 By Norman Friedman

T

BAE Systems photo

he most spectacular naval development last year was probably the formal British decision to order two 65,000-ton carriers, to be named Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. Although the decision to buy two large ships to replace the three existing small carriers was included in the 1997 Strategic Defence Review, at the beginning of the current Labour Government, it was not formalized for years, and there was always a fair chance that the carriers would be abandoned. Even now it seems possible that, given the rising costs of engagement in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the carrier project will be abandoned or deferred. Skeptics point out that the last British large-deck carrier plan was officially sanctioned (and the name Queen Elizabeth chosen for the lead ship) before being scuttled as costs escalated. The current design is intended to operate the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the U.S.-led F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), but it can be modified to operate conventional aircraft instead. This capacity is important because France is likely to choose a version of the design for her own second carrier. The decision to go ahead with that ship seems to have been made just before the 2007 French presidential election, and winning candidate Nicolas Sarkozy endorsed it. Some British writers have pointed out that choosing a conventional ship rather than one limited to STOVL aircraft would give the ship the ability to work with American carriers, cross-decking their aircraft the way the Royal Navy did before it lost its large-deck carriers in the 1970s. Compared to a STOVL, a conventional airplane can carry a heavier load farther, which might be important in the sort of power projection operations major Western navies now conduct. Meanwhile, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force STOVL forces have been amalgamated as a single entity, although each force maintains its own squadrons. This unitary force is expected to equip the new carriers. One consequence of amalgamation has been the detachment of naval fighter squadrons to Afghanistan, so that the carriers often operate without their intended complements. Unfortunately, the Royal Navy’s Sea Harriers have been retired because their engines left them incapable of effective operation in “high and hot” areas like Afghanistan. That leaves the Royal Navy without much fighter air cover until JSF appears some time in the next decade. This gap is considered acceptable because no current air threat is perceived. Critics may suggest that reality can suddenly trump such prediction.

98

Naval Procurement.indd 98

2/27/08 4:49:38 PM

BAE Systems photo

Naval Procurement

To accompany the carrier, the Royal Navy has ordered six Daringclass air warfare destroyers armed with the European Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS). HMS Daring began trials in 2007. Her combat system is complex enough that the ship cannot be delivered before 2009. Plans originally called for eight or even 12 ships, to replace the 12 Type-42 destroyers. Numbers were cut to pay for the two carriers. Such economies are also hitting the British frigate force. Some have pointed out that the Royal Navy must meet commitments around the world, for example, mounting patrols in the Caribbean and in the Gulf area. In theory, it can maintain either a numerous low-end force or the focused high-end force represented by the carrier, the missile destroyers, and nuclear attack submarines. The Royal Navy is currently studying a future high-low mix, probably consisting of modified air warfare destroyers at one end and corvettes at the other, with an intermediate type in between. It has adopted similar policies in the past as a way of compromising between the need for global presence and the need for high-impact forces. In March, it was reported that Saudi Arabia wanted to buy two or three Darings, one of them perhaps to be taken over from the Royal Navy. Given reported problems in manning the current fleet, anything so ambitious seems unlikely. However, the Saudis may feel that dangling so large a potential order will stimulate the British naval industry to make attractive offers. The British submarine force is also being shrunk as a result of rising prices. This year HMS Astute, the first of a new class, was launched. Plans to maintain a 10-submarine force have given way to discussions of a seven-submarine force (four Astutes are on order). On the other hand, studies of successors to the current Vanguard-class strategic submarines are beginning. Much less heralded has been a dramatic expansion of the British amphibious fleet in recent years. In the past, the three small carriers were considered potential amphibious assets, replacing their STOVL fighters with helicopters. Now there is a dedicated helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean, which has proven effective at sea. The old dock-landing ships Fearless and Intrepid have been replaced with much larger and more capable ships, although the Royal Navy has not invested in air-cushion landing craft for them. Large ships have also replaced the old beaching ships (LSLs), and Ro-Ro ships have been built specially to support British operations. The French naval program seems likely to include a second carrier (see previous), but it is not clear how it can be financed, given other French programs. A third amphibious ship will probably replace the elderly training ship (and helicopter carrier) Jeanne d’Arc. The Horizon-class air-defense frigates are running sea trials, and work on the multipurpose FREMM class is proceeding. This year, Morocco decided to buy a FREMM. The French government also confirmed the contract to develop the next-generation Barracuda-class attack submarine. Italy’s new STOVL carrier Conte di Cavour began sea trials this year, and the two Italian Horizon-class, anti-air warfare destroyers were launched. The carrier has an interesting design, providing unusually large command spaces that can be configured for operations ranging from conventional carrier strike to amphibious support to humanitarian relief. Italy has signed an agreement with France for joint production of a new multi-purpose frigate (the French designation is FREMM), to be built in both land-attack and anti-submarine versions. The ship will be armed with the OTO-Melara 5-inch/64-gun, firing a new guided “Volcano” round. The German government commissioned the first of its five K130-class corvettes, which replace Cold War missile boats with something much more suitable to extended deployment. The F125 follow-on frigate program has been accelerated, reportedly to keep the substantial surface shipbuilding

Opposite: The Royal Navy’s first Type 45, HMS Daring, began sea trials, but the number of sister ships continues to fall. Above: HMS Astute, also the nameship of a new class, was launched in 2007, first of a class of four.

industry alive despite a decline in orders for MEKO-class export frigates. Four ships were ordered on June 26 for delivery in 2014; the program was originally intended to begin in 2013. The Royal Netherlands Navy has been discarding its Cold War frigates. With the completion of the program for air defense destroyers, Dutch naval industry protested that it could not survive until the next scheduled surface-ship procurement about 2010. To some extent it was rescued by the Indonesian Sigma-class order, and by orders for the two Rotterdam-class LPDs (both now complete, but the second not yet accepted). Now the Dutch government has announced plans for four large patrol vessels, in effect slow replacements for the frigates, as forecast in a 2005 report on the future of the navy. On the other hand, plans to buy U.S. Tomahawk land-attack missiles for the destroyers have been shelved, reportedly due to financial problems caused by Dutch participation in the war in Afghanistan.

99

Naval Procurement.indd 99

2/27/08 4:49:58 PM

homeland security

disaster response

infrastructure

engineering/ construction

THE U.S. MILITARY AND CONTI EXPECT THE BEST When you serve the best-trained military in the world, you’d better keep your skills sharp. That’s why we developed Conti University, an in-house, continuous training

sustainability

operation. It not only keeps us on the cutting edge, but also ensures that our core values — trust, quality and commitment — are at the heart of everything we do. We’re trained and ready. That’s our pledge to you.

CONTI FEDERAL SERVICES (formerly CONTI ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE) To learn how we can serve you, visit www.conticorp.com © 2007 Conti Federal Services, Inc.

contiR on temp.indd 1

1/25/08 11:30:21 AM

Australian Department of Defence

Naval Procurement

Denmark is continuing its innovative surface combatant program, three frigates having been ordered at the end of 2006 to support the two amphibious ships. They are to be armed with SM-2 missiles served, as in the Dutch and German air defense ships, by APAR and SMART-L radars. Portugal decided to buy German-Type 214 submarines to replace its old French units, although officially they are Type 209PNs. The Portuguese Joao Dedalo-class frigates have been sold to Uruguay. Belgium has sold its Wielingen-class frigates to Bulgaria, replacing them with ex-Dutch, M-class ships. There had been speculation that Belgium was abandoning its surface combatant fleet altogether. Turkey is building Milgem (an acronym for National Ship in Turkish) corvettes, the first named Heybeliada, being built by Istanbul Naval Shipyard, for completion in 2011. The class is to be complete by 2014. In April, Turkey issued a request for proposals for a 15,000-ton LPD capable of transporting a mechanized battalion. The elderly U.S.-supplied LSTs are also to be replaced. Turkey is also seeking six submarines, several companies having replied to a request for information.

Australia and New Zealand This fall, the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) announced its own major new construction program, just before a national election, which the opposition Labour Party won. It ordered two large-deck amphibious ships and three air warfare destroyers (with an option for a fourth), all from the Spanish Navantia yard. The amphibious ships are versions of the Spanish Strategic Projection Ship, which the Spanish Navy considers both a major amphibious unit and a carrier equivalent to its earlier STOVL carrier. Australia is currently a participant in the U.S.-led F-35 consortium, but the Royal Australian Air Force plans to buy the conventional version. If it can be persuaded to switch to the STOVL version, the big amphibious ships will be able to supply air support to the troops they deliver. The anti-air warfare destroyers are to be modified versions of the Spanish Aegis ships already in service. The RAN had chosen a design offered by the U.S. firm of Gibbs and Cox, effectively a smaller version of the U.S. Arleigh Burke, on the ground that it offered considerable growth potential. This choice was rejected at the Defense Department level, on the ground that it was preferable to buy a proven design. Since the contract allows for whatever changes the RAN wants, it is not clear exactly how proven the final design will be. Skeptics will remember that the Collins class was justified as an off-the-shelf purchase, but that subsequent modifications changed it enough to require considerable further work – which is still ongoing. Meanwhile, the RAN is modernizing its MEKO frigates with the locally developed, (CEA) active phased-array radar, controlling Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSMs). This change is likely to transform the ships from gunboats with very limited self-defense capability into rather sophisticated, albeit short-range, air defense ships.

Central Europe Bulgaria has had a requirement for new corvettes for some time. This year, the country apparently decided to buy the French Gowind, in effect a reduced version of the FREMM multipurpose frigate being built for France and Italy. Bulgaria would be a launch customer. Gowind is reportedly the likely choice of the Saudi government. At the end of the year, the Bulgarian government announced that it was buying the remaining Belgian Wielingen-

The Royal Australian Navy selected a variant of the Spanish F100 frigate as its Hobart-class anti-air warfare destroyer.

class frigates with the money, which would otherwise have gone on the Gowind program. That program slipped to 2010.

Asia India was scheduled to receive the rebuilt ex-Soviet carrier Admiral Gorshkov, renamed Vikramaditya, in 2008. As the delivery date approached, the Russians said that reconstruction was proving far more complex than had been expected, due in large part to the need to replace ruined wiring (the ship is about 20 years old, suffered a serious fire a few years ago, and has not been well maintained). Reportedly much of the yard force was transferred to a Russian national submarine project (presumably the Borey strategic submarine, an important prestige item). Late in 2007, the Russians slipped the delivery date to 2011 (and even that may not be met). They asked the Indians to pay about four times the agreed price. This repricing suggests that whatever the Indians have already paid has been spent on other items, such as the Borey project. Early in 2008 it seemed likely that the deal would still go through, because the existing Indian carrier Viraat is in poor condition (she was laid down more than 60 years ago, and completed

101

Naval Procurement.indd 101

2/27/08 4:50:14 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Bundesmarine photo

Magdeburg, second of the German Navy’s K130 class, commissioned in November 2007.

nearly half a century ago). The Indians plan to build a carrier of their own, but as of early 2008, she had not yet been laid down, and the completion date was uncertain (by September 2007 it had officially been moved back to 2012, and 2015 or later seemed likely). Plans ultimately call for a second indigenous carrier, so that India will operate three carriers (Viraat is likely to be modernized as a stop-gap). Meanwhile, the Russians are delivering the Su-30MKI aircraft the ex-Russian ship is to operate. They require either a catapult or a ski-jump, and probably cannot operate at all from Viraat. Whether the repricing will sour other Indian deals with the Russians remains to be seen. As of early 2008, much of the more advanced technology used by the Indian Navy is Russian, so a radical shift away from the Russians might be difficult. Meanwhile, long-standing reports that the Indians were paying the Russians to complete a pair of Akula-class (Project 971) submarines under construction at Komsomolsk-on-Amur have been confirmed. The Indians also state that their indigenous nuclear submarine project, the Advanced Technology Vessel, is finally progressing rapidly enough that they expect to build several units. Reportedly the new Indian nuclear submarines are to be armed partly with the Russian-Indian BrahMos supersonic rocket-ramjet missile derived from the Russian Yakhont. At the end of 2007, submarine trials

were being delayed because no suitable platform was available, and there was speculation that the planned initial platform was the first Akula. In addition to the nuclear submarines, India is continuing license production of additional diesel-electric units under a 30-year plan. Two French-designed Scorpenes are being built using foreign-supplied parts. Another four are planned, to be followed by 12 more submarines of Indian design. Four Chinese Jiangwei II-class (F22P) frigates are currently being built for the Pakistan Navy, to be delivered between 2009 and 2012. Work on the second ship began in February 2007. In April, Pakistan announced an intention to double its frigate force to 12 ships, requesting six U.S. Perry-class frigates and announcing that it might build Turkish Milgam-type corvettes under a new assistance agreement with that country. An attempt to buy Greek (ex-Dutch) Kortenaer-class frigates failed when the Greek Navy decided it could not release them, but Pakistan may buy the two ships of this type currently serving with the United Arab Emirates (the UAE wants to build new corvettes). Presumably the expansion program has become possible with U.S. aid; the Pakistan Navy wants to add its ships to the coalition blocking force in the Arabian Sea. Pakistan also hopes to buy three additional submarines, the alternatives being the German-Type 214 and the French Marlin (which was advertised at

102

Naval Procurement.indd 102

2/27/08 4:50:28 PM

Naval Procurement

Euronaval 2006 specifically as a potential Pakistani submarine). In October, the Pakistani press reported that the Marlin design had been rejected, and that the Type 214 was the front-runner, with the French Scorpene another possibility. Note that all previous new-construction submarines bought by Pakistan have been French, and that French-designed Agostas have been built in Pakistan. Bangladesh recommissioned its Korean-built frigate, which had been idled for five years by political problems (critics charged that it had been bought corruptly, and that the design and equipment were obsolete). Some minor improvements were made, and the ship was renamed Khalid bin Walid. The government is now seeking a German-built MEKO 200 frigate, and ultimately it wants a squadron of four frigates or corvettes. In the Far East, Japan commissioned Hyuga, the first of a pair of throughdeck helicopter destroyers reminiscent of the British through-deck cruisers, the small Invincible-class carriers, which kept British naval aviation alive after the demise of the large-deck carriers. At the time, it was often said that calling the ships cruisers, and displaying only their cruiser-like profiles, protected them from the wrath of politicians who detested real aircraft carriers – but were grateful enough for what they could do when war came in the Falklands in 1982. In the Japanese case, the Maritime Self-Defense Force (i.e., navy) has been trying to build a 20,000-ton STOVL carrier for years. Its proposals fail because carriers are seen as offensive weapons explicitly prohibited by the Japanese Constitution – and, more importantly, because building them would seem to other Asian governments to signal a revival of Japanese aggressiveness. The decision to build the two somewhat smaller ships seems to parallel a change in Japanese official attitudes. The apparently imminent threat of North Korean nuclear missiles led some policy-makers to point out that Japan might have to attack merely to defend herself. Thus the Air Self-Defense Force is being equipped with refueling aircraft to extend the range of Japanese fighter-bombers. Japan already has precision air-to-surface weapons, justified on the ground that they could help beat off anyone trying to invade. Too, the Japanese government passed a law allowing Japanese warships to support U.S. and coalition forces in the Arabian Sea, albeit never in combat operations. This law lapsed late in the year, but a new version is being passed. On the other hand, the opportunity to buy STOVL fighters for a light carrier passed when the Sea Harrier went out of production. Japan is not currently included in the Joint Strike Fighter program, and no other STOVL fighter is on the market. Meanwhile, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force successfully demonstrated the SM-3 anti-missile weapon onboard Aegis ships. Missile defense is particularly important to Japan in view of North Korean missile and nuclear programs. The South Korean destroyer and submarine programs are continuing. Previously announced programs include three Aegis destroyers (KDX-3, the first to complete in 2009) and six other air defense destroyers (KDX-2, the last to commission this year). In April, the Korean press reported that these strengths might be doubled. Plans also call for a new class of frigates (FFX) and a new class of missile-attack craft (PKX), both armed with the new Korean anti-ship missile and therefore capable of firing its announced land-attack version. The first of 42 PKX-class, fast patrol boats was launched this year; eight of the class will be armed with missiles. Reportedly, a second helicopter assault ship is to be ordered. The 2015-2020 Defense Reform Program shows six FFX plus another six KSS-II submarines (based on the German-Type 214) and a new KSS-III class. The additional KSS-IIs are being built due to a 2006 decision to delay the KSS-III class (an indigenous design), the first to appear

in 2018. In the fall of 2007, it was reported that the Koreans plan nine new destroyers (smaller than KDX-3), nine frigates, 32 corvettes, 36 diesel-electric submarines, and more than 100 smaller warships during the next 15 years, which would mean through 2022. China is still widely credited with a planned carrier program, but as of late 2007, it had not gone beyond occasional displays of more or less official models. The Chinese have announced considerable efforts to counter U.S. carriers, and they apparently see a growing force of Su-30 fighter-bombers armed with Russian-supplied AS-17 (Kh-31) and AS-18 (Kh-59) missiles as broadly equivalent to the Russian missile bombers of the Cold War. Whether the advent of such aircraft has ended their interest in carriers, for example to secure dominance of Asian waters, remains to be seen. If so, China would become the only major maritime power not to buy air-capable ships. China continues to build (“Jin”) Type 094-class strategic submarines armed with the JL-2 ballistic missile. The lead ship seems to carry 12 such weapons. It is not clear whether the missile is operational, as reports of tests are inconsistent. Two Type-051C destroyers armed with the Russian S-300 (SA-N-6) area defense missile system were completed this year. That the Chinese bought this weapon suggests that the vertically launched missiles on the two earlier ships equipped with phased-array radars are for point defense. Alternatively, the Chinese may be testing competing systems before committing to series production. At the least, the use of so many different

China continues to build “Jin” Type 094-class strategic missile submarines armed with the JL-2 ballistic missile.

103

Naval Procurement.indd 103

2/27/08 4:50:39 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

BAE Systems photo

service in Malaysia, it seems likely that Thailand will revive past interest in submarines. Brunei, which bought three frigates from BAE some years ago, this year finally decided that they did not meet specifications and rejected them. BAE is now trying to find a buyer, and presumably Brunei is seeking an alternative supplier. The problem seems to have been with the ships’ automated control system. Vietnam has ordered two Gepard-class frigates from Russia, with an option on two more to be built locally. The first was laid down in Russia for delivery in 2009.

Russia

Malaysia ordered two more frigates from BAE Systems as follow-on sisters to KD Lekiu (shown above) and KD Jebat.

systems, built into classes of no more than two ships each, suggests serious logistical problems if China goes to war. Chinese shipyards have certainly been active. In addition to the new classes of destroyers and frigates already seen is a new class of 13,500ton Type 071 amphibious ships with well decks. They look more like destroyers than like the rather boxy amphibious units of Western navies. Late in 2007, the Chinese equivalent to the U.S. aircushion landing craft (LCAC) was photographed. Each Type 071 can reportedly accommodate four of them, plus two helicopters. Meanwhile, some older surface combatants are being modified for bombardment, multiple rocket launchers replacing their anti-ship missiles. This change, and the emergence of the fast-landing ship and LCAC, can be read as indications that the Chinese are seriously considering invading Taiwan, perhaps after the period of world attention directed to the 2008 Olympics. Indonesia began a planned naval modernization by taking delivery of the first of four Dutch-built Sigma-type frigates or corvettes. Plans call for a fleet of 22 modern corvettes by 2024, replacing a motley collection of largely second-hand ships, including many from the old East German Navy. Indonesia has also been

seeking new submarines for some years. In June, it was reported that Indonesia was negotiating with Italy for two corvettes, to be the basis of a national force of 30 to 40, most to be built in Indonesia. This year, it was also reported that she was seeking Korean craft, to be paid for in part with light transport aircraft made in Indonesia. Yet another report had Indonesia negotiating with the Russian military export organization for Steregushchiyclass corvettes, whose hulls would be built in Spain and outfitted in Russia. As this report orginated with the Russians, it is less credible than the others. Its main significance may be as confirmation that the Indonesians really are shopping for ships. This year, Indonesia obtained an LPD from Korea to support a rapid-reaction force. In October, a deal for two (and possibly as many as eight) Amur-class submarines was reported. Malaysia ordered new frigates from BAE. The country is already buying German-designed corvettes, conceived as offshore patrol vessels but later upgraded. Korean reports (March 2007) that Malaysia had ordered an LPD for its rapidreaction battalion were described in Malaysia as premature. This spring, the fore and aft sections of the first Malaysian Scorpene-class submarine were jointed up in Cherbourg, marking the birth of a Malaysian submarine force. With these craft in

For some years, President Vladimir Putin has been trumpeting a Russian military renaissance, claiming that he will restore the glory of Soviet days. Events this year suggested that, although he now has considerable oil revenue to pay for such a progam, he cannot quite match the efforts of the past. That has not precluded considerable bombast, such as a claim that within 10 or 15 years, Russia will create six carrier battle groups. The first test of the renaissance was a program of new strategic submarines, the first of which, Yuriy Dolgorukiy, was laid down several years ago. The Russian Ministry of Defense announced that the new submarines would be armed with a solidfuel Bulava missile sharing many features of the Topol-M, which is to arm the Strategic Rocket Forces ashore. Domestric critics argued that the developers had little chance of success because of their total inexperience with naval weapons; better to continue development of the liquid-fueled weapons of the past. Bulava seems to have been hurried into the test phase to back official claims. This year, it suffered several failures, making only one successful flight. Meanwhile Sineva, a developed version of the existing liquid-fuelled missile, was tested successfully, and has officially (if perhaps prematurely) been accepted into service to rearm existing strategic submarines. In all, eight ships of the new Borey (Project 955)-class are planned, all of which are to be in service by 2017. The lead ship, which was apparently a modified attack submarine, is to carry 12 missiles, but all later units (the first two of which were laid down in 2004 and 2006) will carry 16. This year, the Russians revealed a new hybrid-propulsion submarine. Sarov is a modified Kilo (Project 877) with a small nuclear reactor providing air-independent propulsion at low speed. This concept was tested during the Soviet

104

Naval Procurement.indd 104

2/29/08 9:04:14 AM

Naval Procurement

period on board a Juliett-class missile submarine, and at about the same time it was being developed in Canada. It enjoyed no export success at that time. Now it is being advanced again as an alternative to the fuel cells favored by the Germans and the Stirling engine favored in Sweden. The first new blue-water surface combatant to emerge for several years, the frigate or large corvette Steregushchiy, appeared this year. It has a stealthy design, including a specially shaped mast inside which the ship’s main air-search radar revolves. These features also mark comparable Western ships. The first of a new class of nuclear attack submarines is still under construction. Claims that Amur, a developed version of the existing (and fairly old) Kilo-class dieselelectric submarine, would soon appear in quantity apparently have not yet proven true. As part of the attempt to revive Russian military prestige, a fleet has been sent into the Mediterranean for a cruise, including a visit to the Syrian port of Tartus, which has been offered as a fleet base. The Russian press has pointed out that these activities are far more cosmetic than significant, particularly since the major shipyard at Nikolaev (the only yard really fitted to maintain major Russian warships) was lost when Ukraine broke from the old Soviet Union.

Cobham Defense Electronic Systems is... Atlantic Microwave Atlantic Positioning Systems Cobham Defense Communications Ltd., Continental Microwave Kevlin Nurad REMEC Defense & Space Sivers Lab AB

the power of integration in

Middle East As part of a five-year military plan, the Israeli Navy is to receive a major surface combatant, the current favorite being the U.S. LCS. A second ship is to be included in the following five-year plan. This is the latest round in a series of attempts to define a follow-on to the three Eilat-class corvettes – and, incidentally, to define a role for the Israeli Navy. With the advent of long-range missile programs in a very hostile Iran, some Israelis have argued that they must move their national deterrent to sea, which would mean an increased (and more expensive) submarine role. Longer-range surface combatants might also enlarge Israeli defensive space, but that would mean more than single ships. A project for an Aegis corvette was killed in favor of a proposed large amphibious ship, which was then killed as impractical and not particularly survivable. Reportedly the two old Gal-class coastal submarines, which had been offered for sale, are now being refitted in Germany for continued Israeli service. Iran launched its “destroyer” Mowj this year. Sketchy details presented at a Latin American arms show suggest that it is an unlicensed copy of the Vosper Mk 5 corvettes operated by Iran for many years, but with diesel rather than mixed diesel-gas turbine propulsion.

ELECTRONIC WARFARE RADAR SYSTEMS GROUND AND MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE COMMUNICATION COMMERCIAL AVIATION SMART MUNITIONS AND MISSILES HOMELAND SECURITY SPACE SYSTEMS SEARCH AND SURVEILLANCE OVERHAUL AND REPAIR

Americas Brazil currently plans to buy two German-Type 214 submarines, one to be built in Germany and one in Brazil. The on-again off-again nuclear submarine program is apparently to be resurrected. Canada is finally to order the long-awaited multipurpose (replenishment, transport, and command) ship to replace the two big Protecteur-class under way replenishment ships. Because of the money going to the new program, plans to develop a Canadian amphibious force have been shelved at least until 2010. Skeptics may note that no such plans include any form of fire support, either surface or air, for the troops involved. The longawaited project to modernize the “City” class is beginning. In addition, formal planning for a future Single-Class Surface Combatant (i.e., a hull which could be completed for either AAW or ASW), began this year. Several earlier attempts to develop such a ship have fallen victim to limited Canadian defense resources. Venezuela continues to shop for weapons to combat what its government claims is U.S. enmity. This year brought sustained reports of deals to buy as many as nine Russian Kilo-class submarines (later the figure was cut to five, and there is some reason to see the entire deal as imaginary).

105

For more information, go to our Web site

www.cobhamdes.com A Cobham plc subsidiary

Naval Procurement.indd 105

2/27/08 4:51:09 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Enter the Dragon China takes center stage in international – and military – affairs By Craig Collins

106

China.indd 106

2/27/08 12:52:09 PM

China

O

n Jan. 11 of last year, about 500 miles above Earth, the People’s Republic of China indicated its unwillingness to accept the status quo in space: It fired a modified mediumrange ballistic missile carrying a kill vehicle that slammed into and destroyed a defunct Chinese weather satellite. The successful test of an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon caught much of the world by surprise. Absent an official explanation for China’s motivations – the Chinese Foreign Ministry did not officially confirm the test had even occurred until almost two weeks later – analysts across the world were forced to speculate as to China’s intentions. In his public statement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao offered little insight. “China has never participated and will never participate in any arms race in outer space,” he said. “This test was not directed at any country and does not constitute a threat to any country.” In the United States, Jianchao’s statement met with skepticism. When the National Defense University’s Institute for Strategic Studies convened a roundtable discussion on the matter in June, participants agreed that the implications of the test were clear: China had demonstrated a certain capability, and the nation that had the most to lose by that capability was the United States. The special report that followed the discussion, written by Dr. Phillip C. Saunders and U.S. Air Force Col. Charles D. Lutes, pointed out that China was aware of the U.S. military’s increasing dependence on space: “Because the direct-ascent ASAT system that China tested could threaten satellites in LEO [low-Earth orbit],” the authors wrote, “U.S. military capabilities for reconnaissance, remote sensing, surveillance, electronic surveillance, and meteorology could be at risk.” Amid condemnation of the test by several nations of the world, a report appeared in The New York Times, several days after the launch, that illustrated how complex, and sometimes incoherent, U.S.-Chinese relations had become: The U.S. military had known in advance that the Chinese were planning to test the ASAT missile, but declined to bring the matter up beforehand. The consensus among many military strategists – presumably including U.S. Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who had tried unsuccessfully to raise the subject of the anti-satellite program during a visit to China one month earlier – seemed to be that there were good reasons for not raising the issue. But the immediate result of the test – according to the U.S. Space Surveillance Network, more than 1,600 chunks of space

debris, softball-sized or larger, were tracked cluttering the lowEarth orbit – left many American critics wondering what the U.S. had to lose by trying to engage China in a discussion and perhaps preventing additional hazards to LEO spacecraft and satellites. In a sense, the January ASAT test – like the Soviet Sputnik launch, 50 years earlier – was a symbolic event. “There was a shock,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley, “that the Russians had put a satellite in orbit before us, and there’s a similar shock that the Chinese successfully shot down that satellite. It makes space astronomically more dangerous than it was before.” Unlike Sputnik, however, which was launched by a declared enemy with a stated policy of world revolution, the Chinese antisatellite missile has evoked little consensus among American strategists about what it means. China and the United States have a murkier relationship than the stark ideological SovietAmerican split: They are significant trading partners, with relations that have been normalized since the Carter administration. China, far from hiding behind an Iron Curtain, is engaged in a number of multilateral organizations both regionally and worldwide, including the World Trade Organization, AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation, and the Association of Southeast Nations Regional Forum. It is a signatory to such international agreements as the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Nevertheless, some analysts remain concerned that the shifting geopolitical terrain of the early 21st century – with China emerging as a major power in a world dominated, since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, by the United States – is signaling the onset of a new U.S.-Chinese Cold War. Is there a rational basis for this concern? It is a question that American policymakers and think tanks are examining extensively. One of the most influential of these examinations, released in April 2007, was authored by an independent 30-member China task force appointed by the Council on Foreign Relations: “U.S.-China Relations: An Affirmative Agenda, A Responsible Force.” The task force begins by examining the changes taking place internally within China today, and then evaluating what those changes mean for the U.S.-China relationship. As the task force points out, there is a lack of consensus within the United States about China in general, and this may be because China is so large, both geographically and demographically, and

107

China.indd 107

2/27/08 12:52:23 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, right, reviews Chinese troops with Chinese Minister of Defense Gen. Cao Gangchuan, left, during a military welcome ceremony honoring Gates in Beijing, China, Nov. 5, 2007.

The View from China Though the council’s report points out that American opinions of China have generally improved since the government’s brutal Tiananmen crackdown in 1989, it acknowledges that there are still a number of Americans who believe the strategic interests of China and the United States are inherently incompatible. The current policy of economic engagement, say critics, does not sufficiently protect the U.S. from an emerging China that, among other growing advantages, enjoys a large and growing trade surplus with the United States. Some believe, as former Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina

claimed in a 2000 Washington Post editorial, that engagement amounts to “appeasement.” Appeasement is a word that probably strikes many as too alarmist, but there is no denying a climate of uneasiness today in U.S.-China relations. Alan D. Romberg, a task force member who leads the East Asia Program at the Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington, D.C., a nonprofit think tank, said: “I think there exists between the United States and China fairly deep strategic suspicion. We have a suspicion about what they think is their legitimate interest and how they’re going to go about protecting and promoting it, and what it means for our role. And they have a strategic suspicion about our willingness to go along with a new stronger China that is indeed reflecting its strength in a variety of ways and through new influence.” The engine of China’s growing influence is its private-sector economy. Since 1978, market-based economic reforms have helped to lift hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. China is a key international trading partner, the world’s largest consumer of steel and concrete. Today it is the

Department of Defense photo by Cherie A. Thurlby

so complex, that “almost anything one might assert about China is ‘true.’” The report’s foreword, however, begins with one of very few statements on which most experts can agree: “No relationship will be as important to the 21st century as the one between the United States, the world’s great power, and China, the world’s rising power.”

108

China.indd 108

2/27/08 12:52:38 PM

Photographer: Brian Neely

Create a system that detects CBRNE threats and raises an alarm in seconds?

Barclay L. Senior Management Analyst AMERICAN SYSTEMS

‘I can do that. I own the company.’ Sensing, Communicating and Alerting Networks. The emerging threat of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) attack or accident demanded a solution. AMERICAN SYSTEMS, one of the largest employee-owned companies in the United States, delivered. Our innovative, customizable Sensing, Communicating, and Alerting Network (SCAN) system senses the threat and automatically notifies first responders, civilian and defense agencies, and the public. This net-centric, flexible, and scalable solution is designed with dualuse technology. While the system watches for CBRNE attacks, you can use it for non-emergency events and emergency training. Then, when it sounds the alert for real danger, you are prepared and ready for action. Visit www.AmericanSystems.com. When it has to be right the first time.

amersysR on temp.indd 1

1/31/08 5:25:40 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

DoD photo by Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen, U.S. Air Force

Chinese tanker soldiers with the People’s Liberation Army listen as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, provides his reactions and impressions to their demonstrations at Shenyang training base, China, March 24, 2007. The Chinese defense budget has increased dramatically over the past two decades, and the nation’s armed forces are being modernized as well.

second largest importer of petroleum, behind the United States. Counting all products, it is the world’s third largest importer and second largest exporter. Since 1988, China’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) has increased by an average of 8.5 percent a year, and while earlier estimates placed China on track to surpass the U.S. as the world’s largest economy by mid-century, a report released by the World Bank toward the end of 2007 adjusted China’s GDP downward by about 40 percent in terms of its real purchasing power. The implication: China’s economic growth is impressive, but its economy won’t approach the size of the United States’ any time soon. Such a sustained rate of economic growth, however, remains unprecedented in human history, and the tremendous speed and scope of changes – urbanization, privatization, industrialization, and globalization – have wrought seismic upheavals within Chinese society. As China has gained power and influence in Asia and the world, a number of variables have emerged to complicate this rise: environmental degradation serious enough to threaten China’s economic future; a widening rural/urban income gap and resulting social unrest; volatile religious and ethnic issues, especially in the western autonomous regions of Tibet and Xinjiang; and growing dissatisfaction with the corruption, especially at the local level, of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials.

This is the root of much tension within Chinese society: The one-party government has given unprecedented power to individuals to engage in business and grow the economy, but retains a tight grip on political power. For now, according to the task force report, the CCP seems to be relying on a combination of sustained economic growth, appeals to Chinese nationalism, and strict repression to protect its monopoly on power. According to Eric Hagt, director of the China Program at the Washington D.C.-based World Security Institute, China’s ability to continue on its path toward increasing regional and global power is largely dependent on how well it handles these domestic issues. “In China, you can see this increasing focus on internal issues, because its most pressing problems are internal,” said Hagt. “You have to deal with a fifth of the world’s population as a government. And some are saying that this is almost an international issue, because it includes so many different issues.” China has repeatedly bristled at input from other nations regarding its internal affairs, but one of the factors the CCP is banking on to help it retain power – sustained economic growth – necessarily involves the rest of the world. China’s foreign affairs have long been officially guided by the “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,” first articulated by Premier Zhou Enlai in 1953: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual

110

China.indd 110

2/27/08 12:52:54 PM

© POOL New/Reuters

China

Adm. Timothy Keating, U.S. commander in the Pacific, left, chats with China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi during their meeting at the Foreign Ministry Office in Beijing, Jan. 14, 2008. Keating was in China to strengthen military ties between the two countries.

nonaggression, noninterference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. Today, says the Council on Foreign Relations’ task force report, China’s current foreign policies are more pragmatically focused on three broad objectives: cooperating with the United States, while preventing the emergence of any coalition that might hinder China’s activities; maintaining a “zone of peace” around China that enables the country to grow the economy, while expanding its regional influence; and securing and diversifying its access to natural resources – particularly energy supplies. These practical concerns have led to another source of American discomfort: China’s expanding economic and political influence in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, and what it means for U.S. interests. Those who believe in the existence of a new Cold War say it is already being fought in these spheres, where China is purchasing influence with cash for resources – and, with trading partners such as Sudan and Iran, implicitly valuing oil over human rights. China hawks also point to what was

once described in an internal U.S. Department of Defense report, prepared for former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, as China’s “string of pearls” strategy: building ports and diplomatic ties along its oil route from the Middle East, including port facilities in Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, and Cambodia. The Pakistani port, near the Strait of Hormuz – because it is a deepwater port, capable of receiving naval ships – is cause for particular concern among analysts who suspect China of preparing to project military force to other parts of the world. Is China merely conducting a charm offensive, lying low under the principle of “peaceful development” until it is capable of rearranging the order of things in Asia and the world? For now, many analysts are unwilling to draw such a conclusion. “If you look at China’s policy, it’s non-interference. It’s peaceful coexistence. It’s harmonious society,” said Hagt, who spends about half of every year in Beijing studying Chinese policy discussions, both official and informal. “It’s a mentality of fitting in, not stirring the pot, calming fears of China’s rise. There’s little in there that suggests China is trying to export some

111

China.indd 111

2/27/08 12:53:06 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Apprentice Rialyn C. Rodrigo

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy Luhu (Type 052)-class guided missile destroyer Qingdao (DDG 113) lowers a small boat as it participates in a search and rescue exercise with U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Shoup (DDG 86) off the coast of Southern California on Sept. 20, 2006. China’s goals for its naval capability remain unknown to Western observers.

kind of ideal that would displace or challenge the United States. At most, I think China is simply trying to defend the baseline and say, ‘Absolute influence and dominance by the U.S. – economically, diplomatically, strategically – is something we need to change.’” Even if the Chinese government were intent on achieving regional primacy, Hagt says, it would be difficult to marshal all the nation’s constituencies toward that end. “I’m not sure China has a strong enough grip even on its own system to orchestrate that kind of challenge,” Hagt said. He pointed to the idea put forth by Albert Keidel, a China analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, that China’s governing system, because of its economic reforms, is more of a “corporate technocracy” than a totalitarian system. “There are many problems with the idea of a strong central government, directing everything,” Hagt said. “In many ways, China is run more like a corporation with interests and a bottom line that is directing the activities. There

are many military, commercial, and political centrifugal forces pulling in different directions, often working contrary to central policies. So I think the idea that China has some kind of major overarching strategy to lie low and then spring on the international community and the U.S. is real ambitions – when you peel away the arguments and look at the specifics, there’s not that much of a coordinated strategy among the different constituencies internally in China.” Romberg appears to agree that, for now, China is focusing narrowly on the objectives named in the task force’s report: improving U.S.-China relations, establishing a “zone of peace,” and securing access to natural resources. “I don’t think China is seeking to overturn the basic order of things in East Asia,” he said. “I think they want to make sure that their interests are recognized and respected, and from their own point of view protected. But I do think for now, and I would say for a considerable period of time to come, one ought not to assume that they are interested in chasing the U.S. out of the region.”

112

China.indd 112

2/27/08 12:53:17 PM

China

A Modern Military for a Modern Power One of the most formidable sources of unease with the growing power of China is the military modernization that its new economic might has enabled and recently accelerated. Since a strategic shift in 1985 toward a more defensive military posture, aimed in part at the bluewater defense of China’s coastal shores by its navy (the People’s Liberation Army Navy, or PLAN), the PLA – still the largest active-duty military in the world, with 2.3 million troops – has trimmed its ranks and turned its focus on quality, rather than quantity. After the 1991 Gulf War provided further proof that the PLA was oversized and outdated, then-President Jiang Zemin announced a “Revolution in Military Affairs,” with a goal of transforming the PLA into a force that could win “local wars under high-tech conditions.” China’s defense budget has increased dramatically during the past two decades, including an 18 percent increase in 2007 alone. Its focus on technology and informatization over manpower has compelled the acquisition of advanced weapons’ systems, including several Russian imports: Sovremenny-class surface destroyers; Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30 fighter aircraft; and Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines. China has acquired and improved upon the Russian S-300 surface-to-air missile systems, and is also producing its own fighter aircraft, the J-10 and J-11. Its other military imports include long-range target acquisition systems, including optical satellites and maritime unmanned vehicles. Such a dramatic, and rapid, military buildup has alarmed some in the world community, who fear that China will soon rise as a peer competitor of the United States, project power around the globe, and challenge the U.S. role in East Asia. The secrecy of China’s military establishment has fueled some of this anxiety: The PLAN continues to deny that it plans to build an aircraft carrier group to fulfill its blue-water capacity in the Strait of Taiwan and the South China Sea, though the government – or private companies closely tied to the government – have, since 1985, purchased four carriers in varying stages of construction from around the world. Rear Adm. Michael McDevitt, U.S. Navy (ret.), directs the Center for Strategic Studies at the CNA Corporation, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit research organization that operates the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Public Research. He has often said that the United States and China are the only two nations in the world who are working very hard to improve their relations across the board on the one hand, and preparing to go to war with each other on the other. And to McDevitt, the adversarial tone that sometimes afflicts U.S.-China relations is less about suspicion or mistrust than it is about what he calls “a natural and inherent contradiction in strategic problems. “Militaries inherently do worst-case planning,” said McDevitt. “And so both the PLA and the Department of Defense, if they’re executing their responsibilities correctly, have to take a look at things that, while probably not likely, are potentially disruptive to the national security they’re called upon to defend.” The modernization of the PLA is unsurprising, he says, when you consider China’s strategic problems: “They have to address a problem with Taiwan. They have to address a problem with unresolved territorial issues in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. They have to worry about the fact that, for the very first time in the long history of China, their economic well-being and development depends on maritime commerce. They have to worry about getting enough energy to keep the economy going, and most of the energy that comes to China travels by sea – at least the petroleum part of it does. They have to worry that the center of economic gravity of the country is on their eastern seaboard, which means that ... it would be very vulnerable to an attack from the sea.” Of course, McDevitt pointed out, the only naval or air forces in the world that could have much influence over these concerns belong to the United States. “Now put the shoe on the other foot,” McDevitt said. “What are the problems that we have to deal with? Well, we have an implied, if not a specific, defense obligation to Taiwan, so our policy is no unilateral change in the status quo. With that as a policy prescription, which includes no use of force, then what we have to worry about is: How would we militarily deter them from pulling the trigger on Taiwan? That’s one of our problems. We have a security obligation to Japan, which is very close to China. We have a long-standing policy in East Asia, for at least the last 60 years, that we try to maintain stability by military presence in the region.”

%80/3% #(%-)#!, (!:!2$3

!0# (!.$(%,$#(%-)#!, !,!2-$%4%#4/2

0VS
OFX
"1$
EFUFDUPS
JT
UIF
NPTU
WFSTBUJMF
QPSUBCMF
EFUFDUPS
BWBJMBCMF
*U

RVJDLMZ
BOE
TJNVMUBOFPVTMZ
EFUFDUT

B
XJEF
BSSBZ
PG
IB[BSEPVT
DIFNJDBM
BHFOUT
$POTUSVDUFE
UP
SVHHFE
NJMJUBSZ
TQFDJmDBUJPOT
JU
TUBSUT
RVJDLMZ
BOE
IBT
OP
iPOTIFMGw
DPTUT

!$6!.#%$ 30%#42/ 0(/4/-%429 4%#(./,/'9$%4%#43 s6OMITING!GENTS s(OMEMADE!GENTS s&LAMMABLE(YDROCARBONS s0RECURSORS s.ERVE!GENTS s"LISTER!GENTS s"LOOD!GENTS s4)#S4)-S

XXXQSPFOHJODPN 113


/&
UI
4U

'U
-BVEFSEBMF
'-

 


t

'"9

 FNBJM

DPOUBDU!QSPFOHJODPN

0ROENGIN9)$INDD

China.indd 113

0-

2/27/08 12:53:31 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

A Chinese Su-27 Flanker fighter makes a flyby when former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Peter Pace visited with members of the Chinese Air Force at Anshan Airfield, China, March 24, 2007. The Su-27, a Russian import, was part of China’s increased 2007 defense budget.

ask the question: ‘If we do end up in a war with the United States, say over Taiwan, we can’t outgun them. How do we even up the playing field?’ One way would be to try to take away our advantage in satellites, which are so critical to our functioning.” Romberg does not see China’s ASAT weapon as an immediate threat to the United States; it’s the longer-term implications, he said, that cause concern: “We’re going to create new capabilities for ourselves, new protections ... It isn’t as if they’ve done this new thing and now they’re in this new, great position. But it does concern people that they seem to be opening up a whole new area of activity that had been closed for a long time, and that could be destabilizing because it would spur other activity.” Determining a U.S. response to China’s military modernization involves two fundamental items of information, McDevitt said. “It’s the traditional military thing – you’ve got capabilities and intentions,” he said. “You can see military capabilities as they’re fielded, so over time you watch it, you understand what capabilities they have, for the most part. And always the big issue is: What are their intentions? How do they intend to use those capabilities? So that’s more speculative, particularly with China.” One reason for U.S. difficulties in reading China’s intentions may be, Hagt said, that the Chinese government itself, while focusing on what it views as immediate sovereignty issues such as Taiwan, may be uncertain about its long-term objectives for military modernization. “I think space and naval power are really the two areas that China is starting to reevaluate,” he says.

Department of Defense photo by Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen

McDevitt put it simply: “Solving our strategic problems potentially makes China more vulnerable. China solving their strategic problems weakens our interests. That’s the way I tend to think about it. I don’t think China has any malign or sinister ambitions, but we present a problem for them and they present a problem for us, and both our militaries are potentially hedging.” The most contentious issue, the only one over which the United States and China are both contemplating and consciously preparing for war, is Taiwan. Romberg describes the U.S. hedging strategy – maintaining air and naval capabilities in the Pacific – as being “not against the likelihood of conflict with China, but against uncertainty.” Viewed in this context, China’s attempt to strengthen control over shipping lanes from the Middle East and throughout its coastlines would be,” said McDevitt, “a rational strategic response to a problem that they perceive,” that is, U.S. attempts to disrupt China’s energy supply in the case of conflict over Taiwan. China’s recent improvements in the number, reliability, and accuracy of ballistic missiles deployed across the strait from Taiwan can also be viewed as a hedge against the likelihood that Taiwan – which it has always considered a renegade province – might declare independence. Similarly, the ASAT test of January 2007 was, while upsetting to many nations, understandable as part of a hedging strategy in space. “You’d have to say on one hand that it looked provocative, that it was something that hadn’t been done by anybody for a long time, and so why should they have done this?” said Romberg. “On the other hand, sitting in Beijing, you might

114

China.indd 114

2/27/08 12:53:42 PM

China

“There’s a fair amount of debate in China about what China’s sovereignty means. It’s traditionally been [focused on] territorial issues: Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang in the northwest, border dispute issues. But now China is looking at major ambitions – civilian, commercial, even military – in space, and also its economic interests abroad. It’s trying to secure its interests in the international energy markets, securing supplies for China ... And I think it’s a very difficult thing, because the western Pacific is largely patrolled by the U.S. I’m not sure its goals for its naval capability, as they’re growing, are clear for China.” The independent China Task Force appointed by the Council on Foreign Relations believes that in the longer term – as projected by the Pentagon in a 2005 report to Congress on China’s military – Chinese strategy will be influenced by its growing dependence on foreign oil, the presence of unstable regimes on its western and northeastern borders, and Beijing’s concerns about efforts by a U.S.-led coalition to constrain Chinese power. “Much of China’s military strategy,” stated the report, “remains opaque, as does its military planning and budget process. China has done much to try to spell out its intentions, but intentions cannot be made entirely clear because they are not fully formed except when action is called for.” Many U.S. analysts, including Romberg, believe it would be useful for the United States – given a number of shared interests in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the stabilization of North Korea – to strengthen military-to-military communications, as well as higher-level strategic dialogue that builds on the precedent set by former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who clearly articulated the U.S.-hedging strategy and challenged China to become a “responsible stakeholder” on Sept. 21, 2005. “It is not a silly question to ask, well, what is their goal in modernization? How far do they intend to take it? Why are they doing it? We need transparency,” said Romberg. “And so it

QSPKFDU!DPOUSPM

DPOTVMUJOH!'!TUBGGJOH!

FWNT

USBJOJOH

really requires a little more calm and distance in asking the question. But the question needs to be asked – and more importantly, the discussion needs to be held. Even if we are thinking about unhappy contingencies in the future, I think they become less likely to become reality if we have spent more time getting to know each other, getting to know what each other thinks, what our vision of each other is, and ourselves in terms of our own role in the world and in the region, and their role in the world and in the region, and where we see potential conflicts, we talk about them in a very frank way. I don’t think they want any more than anyone else wants war, which means they really don’t want it. And so I think it’s incumbent on us to take those steps necessary to try to reduce whatever possibilities do exist.” While the potential for learning China’s true intentions through such discussions may be questionable to those who point to a history of inscrutability – and the ASAT test of January 2007 is a prime example – many agree that such talks could still be useful. “That’s an admirable aspiration, and certainly Pacific Command, Adm. Keating, and the current secretary of defense, are very much interested in improving military-to-military contacts. But remember it takes two to tango,” said McDevitt. “My feeling is that it can’t hurt. We should do it because it’s to our advantage to get to know them and to understand how they think. Do I think it’s going to turn into ‘Kumbaya’ and we’ll all be friends because we can talk? I’m not that naïve ... This is very much a party army, and they’ll do what they’re told if the party decision-making process tells them this is what they have to do, whether they’re our good buddies or not. We certainly do want to talk to and learn more about them, understand their interests better, and they need to understand our interests better and our strategic imperatives. But will peace break out as a result of that? No. We need to remain strong, and I’m sure that’s the way they feel about it too.”

FOHJOFFSJOH

911/551/63:6!XXX/IPUGPPU2/DPN!|!GBTU.USBDLJOH!GBTUFS/

China.indd 115

2/27/08 12:53:56 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008 U.S. Army photo

The Honeywell-developed Future Combat Systems (FCS) Class I unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) can be carried in a backpack and provides dismounted soldiers with unprecedented reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition capability on the battlefield. During FCS Experiment 1.1, interoperability between FCS and current force systems was demonstrated when real-time video imagery taken from the Class I UAV was relayed into the cockpit of an AH-64D Apache helicopter during mock combat exercises conducted in February 2007.

116

Battlefield.indd 116

2/27/08 2:11:07 PM

Battlefield Systems

The Army Boosts Web-based Tools Joint networked forces provide awareness and link sensors, shooters, and commanders By Clarence A. Robinson, Jr.

U.S.

Army network-centric battlefield communications are capitalizing on rapid advances in Web-based commercial information technologies and services. These secure voice, data, and video battlefield networks empower U.S. combat forces. Moving information around rapidly to understand where the enemy is located and engaging hostile forces at a distance enhances lethality and survivability. The Army is rapidly shifting toward a service-oriented architecture, with everything transmitted over Internet protocol (IP). Using Web-based services creates a move from a systems view of the world to a services view, analogous to a utility such as electricity. This is a radical change in the way information management and technology is viewed by the Department of Defense (DoD) and military services. DoD and Army concepts are to exploit huge venture capital investments in industry’s frenzy to develop the Web 2.0 and a host of Internet products. These include military versions of numerous interactive social networking sites, such as www.myspace.com and www.facebook.com, as examples. These social networks enable users to generate content and collaborate with other users. Soldiers with wireless communications – hand-held devices and laptops – are already exploiting social networks from combat areas along with a growing use of battlefield text messaging. Another example of Web 2.0’s fast-changing services landscape involves the Web search engine Google™ and its foray into the wireless industry. The ubiquitous search engine company is seeking cell phone partners – carriers, software developers, and manufacturers. Not tied to specific cell phone products, Google anticipates creating software for mobile phone systems, making it easier to surf the Web over instruments functioning more like computers. Called Android, the cell phone partnership makes it easier to navigate the Web. OpenSocial is another Google

cooperative effort to create tools for social networking at sites such as MySpace. Google Maps also is an emerging feature already available on some cell phones. The search engine’s strategy could shake up the wireless industry, making applications and services as accessible over cell phones as on the Internet. Key potential partners include Motorola®, T-Mobile©, Qualcomm®, and Sprint Nextel©, with numerous other agreements pending. An accelerating use of information technologies and Webbased products also mandate enhanced security. The Army has made significant strides in information assurance to secure cyberspace, with expanded access to encryption software and robust identity management programs with two-factor authentication processes. Information assurance continues to be a priority, and a critical element of the larger emerging mission in cyberspace operations, senior Army officials declare. The Army, in collaboration with DoD and the Joint Chiefs, is aggressively addressing new and emerging threats to its networks and information by developing military cyberspace protection. The Army’s single portal – Army Knowledge Online (AKO), with more than 2 million users – is maturing with significant advances such as AKO Forward, providing better service to deployed soldiers. AKO also is migrating to become Defense Knowledge Online (DKO), heading toward a global collaborative environment for all of the military services and DoD. Senior Pentagon officials anticipate more than 5 million DKO portal users. In early 2008, the Army will begin forming a continental U.S. Signal Command, eventually with two brigades. Some 80 percent of Army soldiers now stationed overseas will be returning to the United States within the next few years, providing a vital requirement for this new organization. The Army also is forming a new staff position, director, Land Warfare Network (LandWarNet) Division, Army Campaign Plan & Transformation

117

Battlefield.indd 117

2/27/08 2:11:17 PM

WIN-T is… being fielded today. a self-forming and self-healing network. providing integrated network operations. a mobile, ad-hoc network. the U.S. Army’s current and future network. For more information please call 508-880-1759.

© 2007 General Dynamics. All rights reserved. Select photographs coutesy of the U.S. Department of Defense.

gdync4 on temp.indd 1

1/18/08 2:23:23 PM

Battlefield Systems

Caption

U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Adam M. Stump

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani directs a question about the Command Post of the Future (CPOF) to U.S. Army Capt. John Davis, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade tactical planner, during a briefing at Camp Speicher, Iraq, June 20, 2007. CPOF enables commanders to collaborate, draw on the “same” map and attend virtual meetings.

Offices operating within the G-3/5/7 (or operations, plans, and training respectively) Training and Doctrine Command. The Army’s deputy chief of staff for operations, or G-3, establishes the service’s priorities. This is one reason why a newly selected Signal Corps flag officer with operations and Army transformation experience is assigned as the LandWarNet director. A globally interconnected, end-to-end set of information capabilities, associated processes, and personnel comprise the Army’s LandWarNet. As the Army’s contribution to DoD’s Global Information Grid (GIG), LandWarNet collects, processes, stores, disseminates, and manages information on demand for warfighters, policymakers, and support personnel. LandWarNet encompasses all Army-owned, -leased, and leveragedDoD and joint communications and computing systems, software – including applications – and associated services. LandWarNet continues to evolve as new capabilities emerge for soldiers, leaders, and units. This network is a combination of infrastructure and enterprise services across the Army. It

provides for processing, storing, and transporting information over a seamless network. LandWarNet is the Army’s counterpart to the Air Force’s Constellation Net and the Navy’s FORCEnet GIG gateways. LandWarNet is at the core of the Army’s Future Force Systems, a broad range of capabilities with multiple military options for any situation, across the spectrum of conflict. This network is designed to link forces at all echelons to sensors, shooters, and commanders for enhanced knowledge and lethality. Byproducts include greater collaboration and shared situational understanding. The central focus of battlefield Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR), however, remains the commander. Army information superiority also requires greater reliance on all-source intelligence to define threats to LandWarNet capabilities and work toward a predictive analysis enabling information assurance resources to be deployed at the right place and time. As cyberspace is further defined and operational missions emerge, the Army is developing comprehensive plans to take

119

Battlefield.indd 119

2/27/08 2:11:28 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

aggressive actions in defending LandWarNet’s capabilities – collaborating with and supporting the DoD enterprise. The Army’s strategy is to provide a single always-on network with global connectivity and tailored battle-command software applications. This network offers decisive, real-time collaboration between commanders and staff, along with embedded training at the home station, training centers, or when deployed – live and virtual. A joint common operational picture tailored to the force and situation is another network advantage. Commander-centric, the network enhances force lethality, survivability, agility, versatility, and sustainability, Army officials point out. Lt. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sorenson, USA, served as the lead LandWarNet panel speaker during the Association of the United States Army’s (AUSA’s) 2007 convention in Washington, D.C. He is the Department of the Army’s chief information officer/G-6. The service plans to harness the explosion of commercial collaborative tools for information sharing, including social

U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Isaac A. Graham

U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Christopher Robbins, from Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 158th Infantry Regiment, Arizona National Guard, reads off the fire data from his computer at Forward Operating Base Kalagush in the Nuristan province of Afghanistan on June 23, 2007.

networking tools, he said. Information-sharing commercial tools are being converted for tactical applications. This collaboration is aligned with DoD’s information-sharing strategy to assure mission success through an agile enterprise with freedom of movement across the information environment. “The goals are to promote, encourage, and incentivize sharing, achieve an extended enterprise, and strengthen agility, in order to accommodate unanticipated partners and events,” Sorenson said. Through the Army’s best-ofbreed analysis of commercial products, the service is acquiring collaborative tools and equipment for the enterprise and for tactical applications. All of these tools are commercially available and are widely used over the Internet, he pointed out. “There is a proliferation of capabilities now throughout the globe in terms of collaboration systems. As an example, text-messaging revenue is forecast to grow to $72.5 billion by 2010, an increase from $39.5 billion in 2005. Collaborative systems are already in wide use all over the world. Many foreign nations and organizations grasp what this can do for them and we must make sure we also understand the power of this capability,” Sorenson observed. “Social networking enables collaborative communities of interest to share information, making sure what is going on can be known by everybody. Text messaging, which our soldiers are using now on the battlefield, enables the exchange of information. Our adversaries are exploiting these technologies and they live in a virtual world, not in a nation defined by boundaries,” Sorenson said. Unfortunately, in the past, various units developed collaboration tools often different enough to provide issues with databases as units were rotated to and from the combat zone. “Consequently, the Army completed an assessment of these capabilities and winnowed it to two types, selecting the Combined Information Data Network Exchange [CIDNE] and FusionNet, combining the two tools for data fusion,” he explained. CIDNE is a MultiNational Force – Iraq system providing process-oriented data collection and correlation tools for intelligence and information operations. FusionNet is an advanced warfighting knowledge management toolset that paints a clear operational picture for today’s combat soldier from the commander and his staff to soldiers patrolling the streets of Baghdad. Simultaneously, Adobe® Macromedia Breeze, a Web-conferencing program, was selected as a real-time collaboration feature for AKO/DKO, Sorenson revealed. Breeze’s interface is logically organized and easily customizable, with drop-down menus providing fast access to most features. Breeze includes all of the tools needed for online meetings, such as optional videoconferencing, application-sharing, and a whiteboard for brainstorming. “This is a vast improvement, not only at the tactical level but also at the enterprise level. Portals are also being established through AKO for a serviceoriented architecture foundation. SharePoint 2007 is also being placed on both AKO and DKO,” he said. SharePoint ® is a portal-based collaboration and document-management platform from Microsoft ©. It can be used to host Web sites, termed SharePoint portals, which can be used to access shared workspaces and documents, as well as specialized applications. Collaboration for the warfighter involves e-mail, the Web, instant messaging, audio and video teleconferencing, video streaming from a variety of sensor platforms, shared whiteboard, and applications, Sorenson said. These capabilities connect people across time and space, increase information sharing and access, and analyze and display data. After some software adjustments to decrease satellite communications latency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s) Command Post of the Future (CPOF) was deployed throughout the combat zone and “its

120

Battlefield.indd 120

2/27/08 2:11:57 PM

Battlefield Systems

U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Nathan Doza

U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Mathew Sullivan, a communications and computer systems control specialist from the 332nd Expeditionary Communications Squadron, monitors and maintains more than 300 communications circuits that are mapped through the technical control facility at Balad Air Base, Iraq, March 15, 2007. Sullivan was supporting more than 25,000 Air Force and Army communication lines from Internet access, secure intranet, e-mail, and phone lines.

collaboration capabilities are widely known and employed by forces there,” he noted. CPOF enables commanders to discuss and collaborate when processing information, share ideas, draw on the “same” map and attend virtual meetings, even from locations outside the country. Another Army collaboration system is the Information Dissemination ManagementTactical (IDM-T) “to bring the exchange of tactical information down to the individual soldier via a simple, Web-based unit homestation portal, pulling information from multiple lists and sites into a consolidated view. This system filters and searches for pertinent information and publishes the information directly to selected users. IDM-T is transitioning to the SharePoint 2007 portal open architecture through the Battle Command Common Services (BCCS) program. The aim of all collaboration tools and the enterprise is to provide information for soldiers, allowing them to act within seconds, not hours or days,” according to Sorenson. “The intent is

to provide a collaborative environment and make certain, at the database level, we can share data, drastically reducing the decision cycle.” The Distributed Common Ground System – Army (DCGS-A) is being deployed at all levels, making information available, whether units are fixed, mobile, or embedded. The end of 2007 made the DCGS-A, which encompasses some 11 C4ISR systems, available with a mobile capability. Lt. Gen. Charles Croom, USAF, director, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and commander, Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations, also participated in AUSA’s LandWarNet panel. “Information is America’s greatest weapon system,” he insisted. “To achieve net-centricity, the GIG must be a www-like enterprise in which people can discover information, orchestrate their own operational picture based on the situation at hand, and operate securely in a trusted manner. We must bring people together efficiently, help them do their jobs

121

Battlefield.indd 121

2/27/08 2:12:16 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

in ways never anticipated, and enable them to compose services to do things never envisioned,” Croom stated. DISA plays a crucial role in moving DoD toward net-centricity. “DISA envisions a world in which information is virtual and available on-demand with global reach. Information is protected by identity-based capabilities, allowing users to connect, be identified, and access needed information in [a] trusted manner. U.S. military forces will be able to deploy and be connected no matter where they are located, pull information needed for their missions, and be given timely, accurate information on any threats they face. It is a world with well-developed and available standards and no seams between the sustaining base and the tactical edge,” Croom said. The technology being employed is agile and adaptive. It uses machine-to-machine communications and wireless connectivity, allowing connection regardless of location. In this new era, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are equipped with information technology capabilities and state-ofthe-art services. DISA is working with the military services and defense agencies to bring coherence to the

network, to provide an infrastructure ensuring sufficient bandwidth, computing power, and storage are available and dynamically allocated to deliver information anywhere in the world missions dictate, the general continued. “This means a global communications network, with sufficient terrestrial and non-terrestrial bandwidth, configured, allocated, and managed end-to-end. “DoD’s data strategy focuses on making much more information available, often as a network service, so those who might need the information, but previously could not get it, have access. This strategy also aims to advance the department from defining interoperability through point-to-point interfaces to enabling ‘many-to-many’ exchanges typical of an interconnected environment,” Croom said. “The notion of unanticipated users having access to information means a change from a need-to-know access control model to a consumerdriven access control model. Our data must be an enterprise asset: visible, available, usable, and trusted on the network when and where needed, diligently working to ensure this data strategy is properly enforced.” Selected for brigadier general and awaiting promotion, Army Col. Brian Donahue is the

USMC photo by GYSGT Erik S. Hansen

At Camp Ripper, Kuwait, U.S. Marine Corps Cpl. Kevin Hoxworth sets up the Precision Lightweight Global positioning system Receiver (PLGR) for the Blue Force Tracking System, 7th Marines, Regiment S-3, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Blue Force Tracking has helped prevent fratricide and has increased situational awareness.

coordinator of the LandWarNet Division within the Army Staff’s G-3. Previously, the executive officer of the G-3 and the director of Army Transition, the colonel is developing a charter for this new organization involving all Army activities related to this network. Donahue is responsible for everything associated, from capabilities development to acquisition to deployment, bridging the gap in each of these phases of the program. His tasks include establishing the LandWarNet’s direction and managing the current to future force of the network. The division’s LandWarNet tasks involve generating the network’s capability from garrison and installations all the way to tactical front. “By the end of the year, we will have more than 90 percent of the Army’s combat power defined in terms of Brigade Combat Teams [BCTs], as we move from a forward-based Army to [a] continental U.S.-based Army. Our relevance will depend upon a rapid transition to war. This approach involves a lot of transformational tenets – deploy with no notice, fight upon arrival, and operations in austere environments. We must operationalize on the network to meet these tenants,” Donahue said. He described, as a loose confederation, the 10 to 15 Army networks existing today. “What we first must do is to define what we have, federate them, and move them toward an enterprise, which will include FCS as a component. We will have a general LandWarNet strategy in place within a year, but this is a continual process. The reason for establishing the directorate within the G-3/5/7 is to pull together all of these efforts. There are a lot of people trying to do the right thing and this directorate will try to pull those efforts together, ensuring we are all moving in the same direction,” he said. Several factors define LandWarNet. These include leader-centric communications on the move, global connectivity and collaboration, assured communications anytime and anywhere, and one joint, common picture. This is a joint network at its core. When fielded, the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T), Transformational Communications System, GIG Bandwidth Expansion (BE), and Network-Centric Enterprise Services will be integral parts of LandWarNet. Other innovations encompass the Joint Network Node (JNN), Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Blue Force Tracker (BFT), Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), Army Battle Command System (ABCS), and Joint Network Transport Capability-Spiral (JNTC-S).

122

Battlefield.indd 122

2/27/08 2:12:26 PM

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Aaron D. Allmon II

Battlefield Systems

An Army Kiowa Warrior helicopter conducts armed reconnaissance near Balad Air Base, Iraq. The aircraft provides target acquisition, command, and control; light attack; and defensive air-combat missions. Its advanced sensors, navigation, communications, and weapons make it ideal for missions. Note the mast-mounted sight, housing a thermal imaging system, low-light television, laser range finder, and target designator. The Kiowa’s highly accurate navigation system provides precise target location sent digitally to other aircraft and artillery, along with imagery for near-real-time situational awareness.

Although WIN-T’s full implementation is not scheduled until 2025, by 2015, the Army’s disparate systems providing communications for specific communities and applications will converge into a single integrating framework, creating a network of networks. LandWarNet meets Future Combat System (FCS) warfighter battle command requirements. This network will also accommodate the institutional processes supporting them. If the Army is to be fully FCS capable, it must begin now to implement these capabilities, spinning out information technologies and inserting them into today’s network, providing warfighters with enhanced capabilities as soon as they are available. The General Dynamics JNN provides soldiers with access to voice, video, and data communications, when operating out of sight of one another. This node is a joint-compatible communications package allowing the warfighter to use advanced networking capabilities, retain interoperability with current force systems, and to keep in step using a suite of voice, video, and data communication tools designed to meet the needs of division, brigade, and battalion command post structures. JNN is a rapidly deployable, early-entry system housed in an S-250 shelter and mounted on a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, or HMMWV, for roll-on/roll-off mobility. The Global War on Terrorism requires rapid development and acquisition processes, leveraging commercial off-the-shelf

technologies to equip and train soldiers with the best information technologies available. JNN terminals integrated into WIN-T, as a first increment, are now LandWarNet’s centerpiece for brigade combat teams and separate brigades. This technology provides units with satellite communications capabilities and increased bandwidth. This network is designed to support all operational phases along with constant and simultaneous support of multiple global priorities. It also forms the backbone of each commander’s Command and Control (C2) system, allowing commanders to lead from anywhere in their area of operations. LandWarNet supports the commander’s ability to make informed decisions, delegate authority, and synchronize warfighting functions. The soldier in harm’s way needs to know what is behind a door, around the corner, or over the next ridgeline. He needs to know who is in a car approaching a checkpoint. And he needs to know in real time where his buddies are located. LandWarNet will enable every soldier, down to company, squad, and team, to access live feeds from unmanned aerial systems, helicopters, fighters, and a wide variety of other sensors to know where his fellow soldiers are on the battlefield and communicate with them across whatever distance is required.

123

Battlefield.indd 123

2/27/08 2:12:36 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

MRAP

Procurement/Deployment By Scott R. Gourley

“The companies that have been awarded the MRAP contracts are ramping up their production capabilities ... I am pressing them very hard to see where they can cut the time scale as well as increase their production ... You have to look outside the normal bureaucratic way of doing things and so does industry – because lives are at stake.” – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, March 27, 2007

O

ne of the most significant military materiel trends during the last year involved the test, production, and initial Army and Marine Corps fielding of several models of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. With more than 1,500 vehicles already delivered into the operational theater by the end of 2007, and an objective to field an additional 13,000 MRAP platforms, the MRAP program represents one of the most rapidly proliferating tactical systems of the 21st century. Many observers see the foundations for the MRAP program in the initial tactical fielding of mine protection and route clearance vehicles like the “Buffalo” MPCV (Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle), IVMMD (Interim Vehicle Mounted Mine Detector), “Cougar” JERRV MMPV (Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicle Medium Mine Protected Vehicle), and RG-31 MMPV. For example, the Buffalo, designed and developed by Force Protection, Inc., entered U.S. Army prototype testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground during 2000-2001. Based on the success of that testing, the Army began ordering small quantities of the vehicles, with the initial systems coming off the production line in late 2003 and then immediately deploying into Afghanistan and Iraq. Measuring 323 inches in length, 102 inches in width, and 156 inches in height, the Buffalo can perform roles ranging from route/mine clearance to asset protection to command and control. Moreover, based on its size

and unique capabilities, the Buffalo was subsequently recognized as a unique category within the MRAPumbrella program. According to Col. Kevin Peterson, who serves as both U.S. Army project manager for MRAP as well as the deputy program manager for the joint service MRAP program office, today’s MRAP activities need to be viewed within a larger “superset” of “mine protected vehicles” noted above. In addition to the early fieldings of the Buffalo, Peterson explained that the Army began buying additional mine protected vehicles in 2005 for use in Army engineer formations. “Most of the vehicles came out of South Africa: the RG-31, what we call the JERRV, or the Cougar, which is built by FPI [Force Protection, Inc.]; the Husky; and the Buffalo. So we have substantial numbers of these vehicles that have been in our engineer formations in this conflict for over two years,” he said. “And what happened was, as the Marines decided to replace their up-armored Humvees or at least add this mine-protected type capability to their forces to perform not only route clearance but also utility missions, where we currently use tactical wheeled vehicles, that program was named MRAP,” he said. That umbrella-MRAP program formally surfaced in the fall of 2006, with the announcement that Marine Corps

124

MRAP.indd 124

2/27/08 12:30:03 PM

MRAP

U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Thomas J. Griffith

More than 30 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles sit in a lot in Al Taqaddum on Sept. 4, 2007, waiting for authorization from Headquarters Marine Corps to be transported to units throughout Al Anbar province. 2nd Supply Battalion, 2nd Marine Logistics Group (forward) makes sure the MRAPs are shipped to the right units and handles parts.

Systems Command intended “to issue a competitive solicitation for some or all of approximately 1,200 MRAP vehicles for the Marine Corps and other joint forces [actual end quantity subject to change based on ongoing discussions regarding quantities required by various Joint Forces Organizations]. All vehicles shall meet the following characteristics: protect the crew against 7.62 x 54 mm armor-piercing ammunition at 100 yards, protect the crew from overhead airburst and side protection against fragmentation from 155 mm shells, protect the crew from a 15pound anti-tank mine blast anywhere under the vehicle, protect the crew from a 30-pound anti-tank mine blast under any vehicle wheel, utilize a kerosene-based fuel to include diesel

and JP-8, equipped with a 24-volt electrical cranking system and a 24-volt electrical buss capable of powering various military systems.” The announcement went on to note that the initial 1,200 MRAP vehicles would be divided into two categories, with Category I vehicles envisioned for use in “urban combat operations to support operations in an urban environment and required to transport no less than six personnel” and Category II systems envisioned for “multi-mission operations to support convoy operations, troop transport, ambulatory, Explosive Ordnance Disposal [EOD], maneuver battalions, combat engineering and required to transport no less than 10 personnel.“

125

MRAP.indd 125

2/27/08 12:30:23 PM

Protecting the Future

G

KN Aerospace has been at the forefront of the specialized Bullet Resistant Glass market for over 20 years. Our products have a worldwide reputation for dependability and quality.

Product Features:

We serve automotive armorers and Original Equipment manufacturers. GKN Aerospace products can include any of the adjacent features throughout the complete range of protection levels from B2 to B7 and NATO standard STANAG 4569 level 1, 2, and 3. GKN Aerospace has a global reputation for its technologies and continues to invest in R & D to evaluate and develop solutions to real world threats from artillery fragments and improvised explosive devises (IED). A long standing commitment to the advancement of its patents, coatings, and proprietary processes in glass, acrylic and polycarbonate, GKN Aerospace ensures continued success in the design and development of new and existing products.

USA

Garden Grove

714-267-6938

Europe

High visible light & infra red light transmission Complex window framing Indium tin oxide film heating systems Anti-reflection coatings Night vision equipment compatibility Flat and curved configurations Heated windshields Laser eye protection Rebated edge for easy installing Lighter and thinner glass No spall inner layer Anti-scratch coatings

Markets We Serve:

Civilian/Diplomatic vehicles Government overseas agency Wheeled armoured infantry vehicles Military & commercial applications

Kings Norton

44-121-606-4100

www.gkntransparencysystems.com gkn on temp.indd 1

1/21/08 1:43:01 PM

DoD photo

MRAP

The Buffalo platforms would eventually be recognized as Category III MRAP systems as the program evolved. That program evolution also led to increasing system requirements. Peterson noted that the joint forces involvement mentioned in the September 2006 announcement led to the establishment of a Joint Program Office, (JPO) in November 2006 and a rapid growth in the initial 1,200 vehicle requirement. That requirement’s growth was clearly evident when the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) quickly validated a new requirement for 7,774 vehicles for all services, including 2,500 for the Army and 3,700 for the Marine Corps. It was based on the significantly higher early Marine Corps requirements that the Marines were initially assigned as the lead service on joint service MRAP effort. Acknowledging that the Army had “kind of struggled with what our ‘top end number’ would be,” Peterson said that many of the service examinations had revealed a total need for approximately 17,770 platforms. However, he added that the Army senior leadership had also mandated the incorporation of “off-ramps” or decision points within the evolving strategy that could be used to adjust that total requirement up or down. The combined joint service effort awarded nine MRAP contract awards at the end of January 2007. The Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts called for the almost immediate delivery of two vehicles from the first two categories for testing by the government (market surveys had revealed no competitors to the Category III Buffalo vehicle capabilities). Based on the results of that testing, final MRAP production awards were made in late April and May to Armor Holdings; BAE Systems; General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada; International Military & Government LLC (a wholly owned affiliate of Navistar International Corporation); and Force Protection, Inc. In a media roundtable held approximately two months later, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates highlighted the importance of the ramping-up of MRAP production and the need to accelerate subsequent vehicle deliveries to the field. “The companies that have been awarded the contracts are ramping up their production capabilities,” Gates observed. “It will take a period of time to be able to do that, several months, probably. I am pressing them very hard to see where they can cut the time scale as well as increase their production.”

He continued, “I was initially told that once the vehicles were manufactured, it would take about 30 days to fit them out with all of the communications and other gear that the government puts into them, and then another 30 days to ship them by sea. I basically said that I didn’t think that was acceptable. [So] they are looking at ways to cut that 30 days to ‘fit out’ [the MRAPs]. They have already cut it by probably a week, and they’re working hard to figure out how they can cut it further. They’re under a great deal of pressure from me to do that, and also in terms of how we can help them accelerate the production

MRAP vehicles are being deployed to the Joint Forces in theater following new 2007 contract awards for Category I and II vehicles between August and December.

127

MRAP.indd 127

2/27/08 12:30:35 PM

IED Effects Simulation – safety certified realism The global IED menace is rapidly increasing in size and sophistication.

RUAG has a long experience in the pyrotechnic based remotely operated

Training devices which simulate the explosive effects and psychological

battlefield effects simulator market. Its COPAS family of IED simulators,

stress of an IED attack are an essential part of modern military training.

being introduced in NATO forces, provides realistic, safety certified training

Training aids must be realistic, able to be initiated locally or remotely and

aids that really improve your forces ability to counter the IED treat.

safe to handle. Ideally, they should leave no after action ground signature.

RUAG COEL GmbH

RUAG Electronics

P.O. Box 1447 · 22880 Wedel · Germany Tel. +49 4103 9395-0 · [email protected]

Simulation & Training · P.O. Box · 3000 Bern 22 · Switzerland Tel. +41 313 766 600 · [email protected] · www.ruag.com

EXCELLENCE IN QUALITY – FOR YOUR SAFETY AND SECURITY

ruag on temp.indd 1

2/25/08 11:10:05 AM

U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Michael Connors

MRAP

Soldiers from Company B, 1-30th Infantry Regiment, 2nd BCT, 3rd Infantry Division, drive a new MRAP vehicle through an off-road confidence course at Camp Liberty, Iraq, Nov. 7, 2007. A number of different manufacturers are supplying a variety of MRAP vehicles to protect warfighters.

rate, whether we can help them in terms of the acquisition of specialty steels or axles or whatever might be an obstacle to getting these things produced as quickly as possible.” At the same time that government and industry teams were focusing on accelerating production and fielding, the last half of 2007 also saw orders for additional MRAP route-clearance/mine-protection vehicles. Representatives for the MRAP Joint Program Office note that these new 2007 contract orders included: Aug. 7, to GDLS-C for 600 Category I vehicles; Aug. 10, to Force Protection (FPI) for 25 Category 1 vehicles and 100 Category II vehicles; Oct. 18, to BAE for 89 Southern Operations Command Variant Category I vehicles; Oct. 19, to FPI for 553 Category I vehicles and 247 Category II vehicles; Oct. 19, to International Military and Government (IMG) for 1,000 Category I vehicles; Oct. 19, to BAE for 511 Category II vehicles (of those, 112 are ambulance variants); Dec. 18, to IMG for 1,500 Category I vehicles; Dec. 18, to FPI for 178 Category I vehicles and 180 Category II vehicles; Dec. 18, to BAE-TVS (formerly Armor Holdings) for 668 Category II vehicles; Dec. 18, to BAE for 600 Category II vehicles. Meanwhile, industry representatives have highlighted the production acceleration sought by Gates. An example of this can be found in the early November 2007 testimony

before the House Armed Services Committee by Archie Massicotte, president of IMG, LLC. Massicotte’s testimony focused on the company’s unique capacity to rapidly ramp up production of its International® MaxxPro™ MRAP vehicle. The Category I 4x4 vehicles measure 254 inches in length, 99 inches in width, and 120 inches in height (a 6x6 Category II version, called MaxxPro XL, measures 282 inches in length). In his testimony before the members of Congress, Massicotte said the company had delivered more than 400 MaxxPro MRAP vehicles within 165 days of its first contract award on May 31, 2007. “We delivered a total of 407 MaxxPro MRAP vehicles since receiving our first contract Memorial Day and we are on our way to 500 vehicles per month by February,” he said. “We have capacity for further growth.” As of early November, there were 95 MaxxPros in theater and more than two dozen International Field Service Reps on the ground supporting the vehicles. The end of the year also saw FPI highlighting its 2007 MRAP production achievements. Along with its sole source production of the Category III Buffalo vehicles, the company had created a joint venture with General Dynamics Land Systems, called Force Dynamics, LLC, to manufacture its Category I and Category II vehicles.

129

MRAP.indd 129

2/27/08 12:30:44 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

In early December, FPI announced that the previous month had seen another new set of production records. According to the company announcement, “Through their Force Dynamics joint venture, the companies produced 288 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Category I and Category II Cougar vehicles. Force Protection alone also produced nine Category III Buffalo vehicles in November, one more than the eight deliveries called for in its sole-sourced MRAP contract. To date, Force Dynamics is 68 vehicles ahead of schedule on all MRAP Category I and II delivery commitments for the year. In addition, Force Protection is two vehicles ahead of schedule on its sole-sourced Category III Buffalo contracts for the year.” “Throughout 2007, the refinement of our manufacturing processes and methods, combined with the efforts of our partner General Dynamics, has resulted in unprecedented strides in the

production, delivery, and sustainment of these proven battlefield solutions in a fraction of the time that is normally required,” said Force Protection CEO Gordon McGilton. “The joint venture continues to deliver on its promise to ramp up production of this lifesaving blast protection technology in support of our servicemen and women,” he said. “We will do everything we can in this effort, even beyond the current threat and MRAP program. Wherever free societies live and grow, they are susceptible to attacks from IEDs and land mines. Our vehicles meet that threat head-on.” “The MRAP program is important to Force Dynamics, and we stand ready to continue to support it,” added FPI Chief Operating Officer Raymond Pollard. “The vehicles we produce are designed and have been used for a variety of missions since their initial deployment in 2003. The Buffalo was initially

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Carmichael Yepez

Steelworker 3rd Class Mathew Round (left) and Builder 2nd Class Tom Nguyen, both assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB) 3, sit in the rear of a MRAP vehicle Nov. 30, 2007. Round and Nguyen are part of NMCB-3’s convoy security element. The MRAP, which is replacing the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), is the newest armored vehicle used by Seabees to conduct convoy security. MRAP vehicles have been used for a variety of missions by the various service branches.

130

MRAP.indd 130

2/27/08 12:31:00 PM

MRAP

considered a solution for route clearance operations in Afghanistan, but its role quickly expanded to missions in Iraq. The Marines initially used the Cougar in 2004 as a transport unit for first-response explosive ordnance disposal teams. Its role has expanded as all military branches now use it as the vehicle of choice for general troop transport and convoy escorts in dangerous areas of operation.” 2007 also witnessed a consolidation of MRAP manufacturers through corporate acquisition. Specifically, Stewart and Stevenson Tactical Vehicle Systems, a division of Armor Holdings, had been a recipient of one of the original firm fixed-price IDIQ contracts in January with subsequent delivery orders placed in July and December 2007. However, BAE Land Systems purchased Stewart and Stevenson, Armor Holdings in August 2007 and the manufacturer is currently doing business as BAE- TVS (Tactical Vehicle Systems). The acquisition means that BAE Systems is currently delivering Category I 4x4 and Category II 6x6 RG-33 series MRAPs as well as Category I and II 6x6 “Caiman” series MRAPs, with the latter featuring significant parts commonality with the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) truck family. As noted in the August–December 2007 contracts previously, BAE Systems is also the only original equipment manufacturer that is currently delivering specialized “variants” of the MRAP. Current variants of the RG-33 include both ambulance and Special Operations Forces (SOF) versions. Of note is the fact that the SOF MRAP variants are currently the only versions of the platforms to be equipped with remote weapon stations (RWS), with those subsystems currently being mounted on the vehicles at BAE Systems production facilities in York, Pa. In terms of other possible vehicle upgrades, JPO representatives note that the office is currently working on possibly upgrading the light system and auxiliary power on the vehicles. They add that spiral development and a process for improving and upgrading the vehicles as determined necessary has been a part of operations since the establishment of the JPO. The end of 2007 also saw several news reports that indicated a possible reduction in MRAP requirements by the Marine Corps. When asked about the impact of that reduction, JPO sources were careful to clarify, “There has been no official change in the overall approved acquisition objectives [AAO] for any of the services. The current overall AAO remains 15,374. Any changes will be determined by the Joint Requirement Oversight Council and announced accordingly.” They add that within that 15,374 total, the Army requirement currently stands at 10,000. In highlighting its vehicle delivery successes, a Department of Defense press spokesman announcement that the DoD was expected to top its end-of-year goal of delivering 1,500 MRAPs. The announcement came just one day after the Dec. 18, 2007, contract awards. Those awards, totaling 3,126 additional systems, bring the total number of vehicles under contract to 11,941, just shy of 10 times the quantity of systems outlined in the initial Marine Corps announcement of September 2006. When asked about success stories and the life-saving benefits of the 1,500 MRAPs that have already been fielded into theater, one JPO representative responded that there were “far too many to mention,” adding, “currently, over 1,000 vehicles have been fielded to warfighters and they are saving lives on a daily basis. We are on track to have over 1,500 vehicles in theater by Dec. 31, 2007. This impressive accomplishment is the result of total dedication and commitment from the many agencies, services, and individuals across the vast MRAP vehicle enterprise.”

In this trainer, the only thing missing is the desert heat.

For Soldiers, effective driver training is critical to mission success and survival. SAIC’s

Common Driver Trainer/Stryker Variant (CDT/SV) provides Stryker vehicle training—without the vehicle. Our new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) cab will help train Soldiers to drive the MRAP vehicle effectively. The MRAP vehicle is designed to survive IED attacks and ambushes. The cab looks and handles like the MRAP vehicle, down to the last control.

For more information on the CDT/SV and SAIC’s new MRAP cab, contact:

David Rees 407-243-3750 [email protected]

131 SAIC, Science Applications International Corporation, and the SAIC logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Science Applications International Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.

MRAP.indd 131

2/27/08 12:31:17 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

MDA photo

The USS Lake Erie (CG 70) cruiser’s Aegis ballistic missile defense system launches one of two Standard Missile-3 interceptors to destroy ballistic missile targets. Two minutes after the launches, each SM-3 hit-to-kill interceptor collided with and destroyed its target warhead outside the Earth’s atmosphere. The test took place more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean approximately 250 miles northwest of Kauai, Hawaii. MDA hopes to deploy up to 132 SM-3 missiles aboard Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers.

132

Ballistic Missile.indd 132

2/27/08 9:01:26 AM

MISSILE DEFENSE

The Missile Defense Shield Expands Technology upgrades make a limited system more capable, moving toward intercepts in every stage By Clarence A. Robinson, Jr.

P

erilous and growing ballistic missile threats are forcing the United States to rapidly deploy and operate an effective defensive system. A steady stream of technical advances are constantly integrated into this missile defense system. Designed to guard against intercontinental ballistic missile attacks, this defense also extends to protecting U.S. forces abroad and allies around the world. Combating terrorism is the top national defense priority. Nevertheless, missile defense is a close second and also is intertwined with thwarting terrorism. A number of terrorist organizations have or are seeking ballistic and cruise missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction. Twenty-seven nations have ballistic missiles, an increase from nine countries in 1972. These states include U.S. rivals and regimes with close ties to terrorist organizations hostile to America. Indeed, a growing number of U.S. intelligence analysts believe that without an effective missile defense this nation is a sitting duck, not only against intercontinental but also short-range ballistic and cruise missiles. Some weapons could be launched from harmless-appearing commercial vessels off the U.S. coastline. Short-range ballistic missiles might be jettisoned from innocuous-looking ships in U.S. waters and launched from the surface. With limited, depressed trajectory flight times, the missiles become difficult targets for any defense. Low-flying land-attack cruise missiles also could be launched from small vessels manned by terrorists. A limited U.S. defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) already is operational and continues to undergo rigorous testing against realistic targets. By the end of 2007, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) deployed 22 interceptors in each of two missile fields on Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. These weapons are capable of defeating long-range, nuclear-armed ICBM attacks launched from North Korea or Iran. When North Korea conducted ballistic missile launches in the summer of 2006, the United States had the capability to defend against long-range missile threats had it been necessary. Working closely with the U.S. Strategic Command, the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system was successfully taken out of development by MDA and handed over to warfighters for operation.

This activation helped refine procedures and provided lessons about system operations, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, MDA’s director. Alert activities included activating the ground-based midcourse defense, and deploying a missile defense capability in the Sea of Japan. Aegis vessels acting as long-range surveillance and tracking ships were stationed east and west of Japan during missile firings. While North Korea’s missile launches were less than successful, data collected from the sensors would have helped identify whether the long-range launch was a ballistic missile or a space-launch vehicle and would have provided tracking data to the system. Operational Command, Control and Battle Management (C2BM) situational awareness displays were monitored at various U.S. commands, Obering explained. “A forward-based X-band radar capability was accelerated and based in Japan for data collection. A Sea-Based X-Band Radar was also stationed off Hawaii and similarly used for data collection,” the general said. “Given the ability to bring Ballistic Missile Defense on line and prepare it for emergency use, there is strong confidence the system would have operated as designed had North Korea’s Taepo Dong-2 missile threatened the United States.” The next step, according to the Bush administration, is to take elements of the missile system passing demanding tests in the Pacific theater and deploy them in Europe to defend North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies against attacks from the Middle East. However, domestic and international politics impinge on this plan. Some in Congress want to curtail spending for European missile defense in the wake of strong Russian objections. This European missile defense system would protect against an emerging Iranian threat. This system would be limited in scope – a defense made up of 10 ground-based interceptors located in Poland, and an X-band tracking radar located in the Czech Republic. Poland’s new government, however, is re-examining interceptor basing and keeping its options open. Such a system could defend countries in Europe at risk to long-range attacks from the Middle East. Iran is pursuing technology to produce nuclear weapons and has ballistic missiles with increasing range to deliver warheads. In November 2006, Iran

133

Ballistic Missile.indd 133

2/27/08 2:00:28 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

The Boeing Company/Jim Shryne

A YAL-1A Airborne Laser (ABL) aircraft conducts initial ball rotation tests at the Western Test Range. ABL is MDA’s primary program for intercepting missiles in their boost phase.

conducted military exercises, launching ballistic missiles capable of striking Israel and Turkey, as well as U.S. troops based in the Persian Gulf. U.S. intelligence analysts believe Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States and all of Europe by 2015, unless steps are taken to prevent it. Iran declared it is developing missiles with a range of 1,200 miles, capable of striking NATO allies – Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and possibly Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia. The planned European missile defense system is not designed to defend against an attack from Russia. Nevertheless, it has stirred up a hornet’s nest of adverse reaction in Moscow. Spurning the U.S. missile defense initiative, Russia’s reaction involves flexing its strategic weapons muscle. “The BMD system we envision would be easily overwhelmed by Russia’s nuclear arsenal. This system is intended to deter countries threatening the United States with ballistic missile attacks, and the U.S. does not consider Russia such a country,” White House officials pointed out. Russians have been invited to join in a cooperative effort to defend their nation, Europe and the United States against an emerging threat affecting all of the nations involved. “For his part, Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered the use of radar facilities in Azerbaijan and southern Russia,” a U.S. official claimed. “These sites could be included as part of a wider threat monitoring system leading to an unprecedented level of strategic cooperation between our two countries.” Meanwhile, Russia continues building and fielding two new nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), the Bulava and Sineva. Both SLBMs can carry 10 warheads to a 5,000-mile range. Production also continues with the mobile SS-27 Topol-M ICBM, the land-based version of the Bulava.

By September 2007, the Missile Defense Agency conducted its 30th successful “hit-to-kill” test against re-entry vehicle targets in space during midcourse flight. As new technologies evolve, they are added to the BMD system, making it increasingly capable. These upgrades are moving the nation closer to the day when ballistic missiles can be intercepted at all ranges and in every stage of flight. One of the more important advances for the BMD program involves a multiple kill vehicle (MKV) development. MKV is designed to help defeat both incoming warheads and decoys deployed to overcome U.S. missile defenses. “MKV will allow us to engage multiple warheads and countermeasures with a single interceptor launch, and delivering this volume kill capability is important to the warfighter. This is one of our top priorities,” Obering explained. Successfully tested, MKV consists of two major subsystems: a carrier vehicle assesses the threat set, deploys and assigns kill vehicles, manages the engagement, and may also be used as a kill asset; and kill vehicles intercept lethal threat objects and credible decoys. “This technology leverages U.S. industrial-base experience to effectively counter [a] complex threat, which may include a cloud of decoys with warheads. MKV’s many-on-many engagement approach significantly increases the probability of successfully intercepting warheads and provides a quantum leap in capability, while lowering cost of midcourse engagements,” Obering emphasized. Developing and deploying the Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) is a longer-term goal to provide a persistent, near-real-time global detection, tracking and fire-control capability, Obering revealed. Two Northrop Grumman STSS research satellites were launched during 2007. Each spacecraft operates in a constellation of low-Earth-orbit

134

Ballistic Missile.indd 134

2/27/08 9:02:44 AM

MISSILE DEFENSE

satellites equipped with a set of infrared and visible sensors to detect and track ballistic missiles. STSS enables engaging targets in all phases of their trajectory and in any geographic location. The spacecraft’s sensors and processors are able to detect, track, and classify the type of booster; track the post-boost vehicle; track midcourse re-entry vehicles and penetration aids; discriminate lethal objects (warheads) from penetration aids; and perform hit assessments. The ground-based midcourse defense element of BMD uses an array of sensors, radars, and interceptors. The interceptor, a three-stage, solidfuel booster and exoatmospheric kinetic energy kill vehicle, directly impacts an incoming missile by ramming the warhead with a closing speed of approximately 15,000 miles per hour to destroy it. This “hit-to-kill” technology has been proven effective in a number of flight tests. MDA’s $8.9 billion fiscal year 2008 request is to develop, test and field a layered BMD system. Approximately $7.1 billion is for near-term efforts and $1.8 billion for longer-term programs, Obering said. Plans include fielding additional ground-based interceptors; enhancing early warning radars in Alaska, California, and the United Kingdom; integrating the Sea-Based X-Band Radar into the BMD system; deploying up to 132 sea-based Standard missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors on 18 Navy Aegis destroyers and cruisers; and increasing the C2BM network. Expanding this network means establishing three new C2BM suites at U.S. Strategic, Pacific, and Northern Commands. In addition, a U.S.-Japanese cooperative development follow-on SM-3 interceptor program is structured to give the Aegis system an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) intercept capability. This program also provides a robust sea-based terminal capability to defeat shorter-range threats, and a

modest experimental space test bed. Patriot Advanced capability-3 (PAC3) fire units are also being integrated by U.S. allies, many of whom face intermediate-, medium-, and short-range threats. MDA is continuing to provide boost-phase defenses in order to increase the depth of an integrated, layered system, Obering noted. The technologies expand opportunities to intercept and destroy enemy ballistic missiles when they are the most vulnerable. The Airborne Laser (ABL) is MDA’s primary boost-phase program; however, based on a Defense Science Board recommendation, the agency continues to develop a high-acceleration kinetic energy booster as an option. The ABL uses a megawatt-class Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) housed aboard a modified Boeing 747-400 freighter aircraft. COIL’s mission is to detect, track, target, and destroy ballistic missiles during their boost phase, or shortly after launch. This directed energy system is unique among airborne weapons, with a potential to attack at the speed of light at ranges of hundreds of miles. The ABL system harnesses six strategically placed infrared sensors to detect exhaust plumes of boosting missiles. Using a very large telescope located in the aircraft’s nose turret, the beam/fire control system focuses the megawatt-class laser beam onto a pressurized area of the boosting missile, holding it there until the concentrated energy destroys the missile. For BMD to work effectively, all of the separate elements must be integrated across several combatant commands. This capability allows mixing and matching sensors, weapons, and command centers to dramatically expand detection and target engagement over what can be achieved by the system’s elements operating individually. Combat commanders can use the C2BM infrastructure to enhance planning, synchronize globally dispersed missile defense assets, and manage weapon inventories.

Advertiser’s Feature

Innovation at its Best Point Blank Solutions, Inc. (PBSI), the largest American-owned soft body armor manufacturer, has long been a pioneer in body armor and ballistics technology. The Company’s innovative products ensure the survival of thousands of Law Enforcement officers and Military personnel. PBSI operates a state-of-the-art, testing and ballistics research laboratory in Pompano Beach, Florida. Boasting a staff with over 100 years of body armor technology and design experience, the Technology Center is a world-class hub for ballistic protection and science innovation. With multiple U.S.-based manufacturing facilities and strategic relationships with leading, global fiber suppliers and weavers, Point Blank has responded to mass scale production requirements like no one else in the industry. For example, during the last 18 months, Point Blank has delivered over $400 million in U.S. Military orders at cost and ahead of schedule. Since 1998, Point Blank has shipped over 1.3 million body armor sets to U.S. Military Forces. Additionally, PBSI rapidly produced thousands of protective accessories in reaction to emerging threats and lessons learned in combat. This could not have happened without continuous investment in innovation, research and development in collaboration with industry and government partners. Having produced the majority of battle-proven Interceptor ® Outer Tactical Vests (OTV) based on an original Point Blank design, PBSI is leading again as one of two producers of the Army’s new Improved OTV. Never standing still, PBSI is working to develop lighter, more flexible, more wearable solutions with the protection needed to support mission accomplishment and a safe return home for America’s heroes.

Ballistic Missile.indd 135

2/27/08 2:00:41 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

MDA photo

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor streaks toward space to intercept a target over the Pacific Missile Test Range off Kauai, Hawaii. The target, representing a SCUDtype ballistic missile, was launched from a platform in the Pacific Ocean. The hit-to-kill intercept took place outside the Earth’s atmosphere.

As an example, the U.S. Army is revamping and forming an integrated Air and Missile Defense (AMD) Composite Battalion Task Force structure, according to Col. Edward L. Mullin. He is project manager, cruise missile defense systems, Program Executive Office (PEO) Missiles and Space. This restructuring is designed to defend ground forces against a wide variety of threats – aircraft, short-range ballistic, and cruise missiles. Forming this AMD composite task force involves integration of legacy and developmental systems into an Army system of systems, Mullin said. The composite battalion task force consists of a combination of sensors, weapons, and Battle Management, Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (BMC4I) with a standard set of networks and their interfaces. The weapons include: Surface Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (SLAMRAAM) fire units; improved Sentinel and Patriot radars; Patriot launchers; a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery; Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS); and the Avenger, pending its replacement. “We have taken short-range air defense out of the division and formed composite battalions with PAC-3 and SLAMRAAM, tying them together to defend at any level,” Mullin explained. SLAMRAAM and JLENS are both programs in the colonel’s project management portfolio. Each JLENS consists of the long-range surveillance-improved Sentinel radar, high-performance fire-control radar, integrated in large 74-meter aerostats tethered to groundbased processing stations. Raytheon is developing JLENS under a fiscal year $240 million contract, which is slated to double in 2008. Tethered up to a 10,000-foot altitude, JLENS is a top priority program managed at the Department of Defense level. This system also provides elevated communications capabilities and supports situational awareness for the battlefield commander. Along with a significant cruise missile defense capability, JLENS is capable of tracking surfacemoving targets and tactical ballistic missiles during their boost phase. The system is designed to pass target data to a variety of weapons systems and platforms across the military services, and to be interoperable with the PAC-3 and the Navy’s Aegis SM-3, Mullin revealed. JLENS was successfully demonstrated using the Sentinel radar mounted in a sub-scale 38-meter aerostat. This same radar is also integrated with SLAMRAAM “to deploy them together and provide cruise missile defense. Sentinel and SLAMRAAM are deployed together in the National Capital Region [Washington, D.C.], Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are pleased with the air picture provided in the division and composite battalions,” Mullin said. “Sentinel automatically detects, tracks, identifies, classifies, and reports airborne threats, including helicopters, high-speed attack aircraft, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles.” Raytheon also is developing SLAMRAAM under a $127 million Army contract to develop, fabricate, integrate, and

136

Ballistic Missile.indd 136

2/27/08 9:03:26 AM

Image courtesy of The Boeing Company

MISSILE DEFENSE

MDA’s FY08 budget request includes funding to integrate the Sea-Based X-Band Radar into the BMD system.

test the weapon system. SLAMRAAM consists of the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile mounted in a launcher on a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). Using a new integrated fire-control system, the weapon is netted to the Army’s already fielded three-dimensional X-band Sentinel radar, JLENS and the Marine Corps’ future multi-role radar system. JLENS is a critical component in cruise missile defense, using a network of sensors and a wide variety of weapons to provide over-the-horizon threat detection and engagement, Mullin continued. The Sentinel radar also cues Avenger fire units toward targets for engagement by infrared-guided Raytheon Stinger missiles. Avenger, a Boeing system, is slated to remain viable until 2018, when SLAMRAAM replaces it, Mullin pointed out. “By integrating legacy systems with JLENS and SLAMRAAM, the Army could seamlessly engage airborne threats.” The service is eyeing the use of directed energy weapons for missile defense, such as a mobile tactical high-energy laser, he added.

The Army, along with Israel, earlier funded development of the successful Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL). Developed by Northrop Grumman, THEL, an advanced technology concept demonstrator test bed, provided a 3.5- to 3.8-micron laser to destroy airborne targets. “The laser uses something very much like a rocket engine to provide energy, scaling easily to higher power levels. Gaseous fuels burned in a combustion chamber drive this device. By the proper choice of fuels, an excited state is created to extremely high-energy levels. This energy is released as radiation. Mirrors at either end of the laser capture this radiation as a laser beam and direct it. The laser is easy to build and naturally wants to lase,” according to Dr. Josef Shwartz, Northrop Grumman’s director for land- and sea-based laser defense systems. “This laser was used to successfully detect, track, engage, and destroy 46 threat targets in midflight, including missiles, rockets, mortars, and artillery shells with a wall thickness of almost an inch,” Shwartz said. “THEL intercepted and destroyed targets singly and in salvos, simultaneously destroying multiple rocket, artillery, and mortar threats.” Shwartz, with a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, managed the THEL program from 2001 until 2005, generating a number of conceptual designs for a ground-based laser weapon systems based on the THEL demonstrator. From 1996 to 2000, the THEL program went from a theoretical concept to an integrated stand-alone laser weapon demonstrator shooting down a variety of targets. Despite the laser’s success and its transportable capability, the Army halted funding because the laser was not designed as a mobile defense system. Meanwhile, THEL’s laser technology has been upgraded and repackaged as a Skyguard system and is of interest to several allied nations for applications to defend airports and other high-value targets. The Department of Homeland Security is providing funding for the laser weapon system for U.S. defense, Shwartz noted. “One possible application includes defending civil aircraft and their passengers departing and arriving at commercial airports against shoulder-launched, man-portable antiaircraft missiles. Skyguard could become a key element of a layered defense for airport security against a wide range of antiaircraft missiles, even those with very short flight times. Another mission involves protection for cities and critical infrastructure such as ports, power plants, transportation centers, critical command and communications nodes, and emergency services against a variety of threats, Shwartz emphasized. “Based on proven performance, Skyguard represents significant progress in laser weapon technology. As a near-term defensive system, the newer version is one-fourth the size of the THEL test bed, but has more power, a larger beam, and more fuel efficiency,” Shwartz said. “Even though the power is increased, the laser consumes less fuel.” In addition to homeland defense applications, Northrop Grumman is involved in procurement discussions with other nations, including Japan and Israel. One immediate application for allies would be border defense against ballistic missiles, rockets, mortars, artillery, and unmanned aerial vehicles. “Skyguard research and development funding is not necessary,” Shwartz stressed. The weapon is “the only high-power, end-to-end laser system ready for production to defend against indirect fire offensive weapons. This laser is the answer to multiple threats and it is ready for production. A modular and flexible system, Skyguard’s speed-of-light operation, precision, and proven lethality represents a unique defense capability. Performance is twice the THEL test bed’s and is designed to accommodate improved laser and beam control technologies as they emerge,” Shwartz concluded.

137

Ballistic Missile.indd 137

2/27/08 2:00:55 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Photo by Michael Behling

The Queen Modjadji is the third of three Type 209/1400 conventionally powered submarines ordered for the navy of South Africa, which may decide not to take the boat when it is ready for delivery in May 2008 due to high operating costs and problems in recruiting and training sufficient personnel to operate more than one of the two boats already delivered.

138

Submarine.indd 138

2/27/08 11:55:10 AM

SUBMARINES

The (More or Less Bright) Future of the Submarine in the World’s Navies By Arthur D. Baker III

D

uring World Wars I and II, the submarine proved a formidable weapon that nearly tipped the balance in favor of the aggressors. Since 1945, however, there have been only three instances where submarines sank enemy ships (all with torpedoes), and the principal value of the submarine has become its use as a strategic and tactical deterrent, in attacking land targets with cruise missiles, and in intelligence collection. The vast majority of the submarines purchased in recent decades have been conventionally powered boats acquired by smaller nations seeking to provide a defense against potential seaborne aggression against their own territories. Five nations have gone through several generations of mostly nuclear-powered submarines equipped to launch nuclear-payload ballistic missiles, none of which has yet been launched in anger since the “SSBN” began to enter service a half-century ago. The U.S. Navy – and to a lesser extent, the navies of its principal allies and a tiny handful of its potential enemies – has used its non-strategic submarines primarily as reconnaissance and surveillance platforms; in those roles, the submarines have provided highly secure, but not particularly cost-effective, components of their owners’ overall intelligence-collection efforts. Only the United States and Great Britain have used submarines to launch tactical cruise missiles at enemy shore targets, and no submarine has yet launched a cruise missile in anger against an opposing submarine or surface ship. Indeed, the U.S. and British navies have abandoned submarinelaunched antiship missiles altogether. During World Wars I and II, submarines were also used to lay minefields, but the only unit lost to submarine-laid mines since 1945 was a Pakistani submarine that attempted to run back through its own minefield off the Indian east coast in 1971. The U.S. Navy no longer has a submarine-laid mine inventory and has no new such mines in development. Over the past century, the submarine has developed from a tiny harbor defense craft with limited range and even more limited combat capabilities to a long-endurance platform packed tightly with sophisticated sensors and weaponry. The introduction of nuclear power for submarines by the United States and Russia

in the mid-1950s marked the birth of the true “submarine” whose submerged endurance was limited only by its capacity to support its own crew. Nuclear power for submarines is so expensive to develop and procure, however, that even after more than five decades of use, it is still limited to only five navies. Brazil is no closer to its long-range plan to build an SSN than it was more than two decades ago, despite a long and expensive research program, but India is not only in the process of building its first indigenous nuclear-powered submarine but also planning to take delivery of two Russian-built Akula-I-class SSNs, one during 2008 and the second during 2010, both on 10-year leases with an option to buy. Only the submarine fleets of the United States, Great Britain, and France are entirely powered by nuclear energy, and that is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Developments during the past 20 years, however, in Sweden, Germany, France, and to a very small extent in Russia and China have provided the means to extend the submerged endurance of conventionally powered submarines from several days to two weeks or more. But AirIndependent Propulsion (AIP) is as yet only able to produce around 300 kilowatts of silent power to propel a submarine to speeds of 4 or 5 knots maximum; for higher speeds, noisy diesels are still required to generate power to top off battery sets that, in smaller submarines, can weigh nearly a third of the boat’s total submerged displacement. Once projected to proliferate rapidly in the world’s submarine fleets, AIP has spread only very slowly and is still only being employed by six navies, five of them close allies or friends of the United States. The additional cost of equipping a submarine with AIP has been the main reason for its slow acceptance. During spring 2006, however, a German Navy Type 212 submarine, U-31, made a voyage from the Baltic to Spain while entirely submerged on AIP; such demonstrations may encourage a small number of additional navies to buy AIP in the coming years. At the end of 2007, 37 countries worldwide operated a total of 387 active seagoing combatant submarines, a figure well under half the number in service at the time of the collapse of the Soviet

139

Submarine.indd 139

2/27/08 1:57:14 PM

bwx on temp.indd 1

1/15/08 3:53:41 PM

Photo by Chris Sattler

SUBMARINES

The 3,076-ton Project 877 Kilo-class submarine Sindhurakshak is one of 10 delivered to the Indian navy by Russia from 1986 to 2000; seven have thus far been modified during refits in Russia to launch subsonic Klub-S antiship missiles. Six upgraded Project 636 versions of the Kilo were ordered during 2007, two each by Algeria, Indonesia, and Libya, and three by Venezuela, which would bring the total built or on order of all versions of the 30-year-old design to 58. Union in 1991. Perhaps to the surprise of some, the U.S. Navy has the largest of the world’s submarine fleets, with 69 boats, followed by the aging Russian fleet with 56 (38 of them nuclear-powered) and China with 55 (four nuclear-powered, with four more in the water). The next largest fleet is that of North Korea, with as many as 20 thoroughly obsolescent Russian-designed 1950s-era Romeo-class diesel boats, with India and Japan following at 16 each, Turkey with 14, Great Britain with 13, and Germany with a dozen. No other nation operates more than 10 submarines. The average force level is four, and several navies have only one or two boats. Many of the present units will soon be retired after service lives of 25 years or more. Given that submarines require expert, expensive, and lengthy maintenance, perhaps a third or more of the current total are not immediately available at any given time. In addition, the Russian fleet has a number of laid-up nuclear and conventionally powered submarines requiring major refits that might someday be returned to service; although to date, the Russian government has not provided

any resources to do so – nor is it likely to as the unmaintained submarines continue slowly to decay. While a number of other technologies have long been in development for submarines, few new concepts have actually been incorporated in current submarines or even in those now on order. The most significant have been in the realm of improved combat data systems and sensor data processing systems, while many new Western submarines now have non-hull-penetrating sensor masts that provide greater security while the boats are operating at shallow depths. Most of the really significant improvements have been in the area of production engineering; for example, starting with the two Virginiaclass nuclear-powered attack submarines in the U.S. fiscal year 2012 program, the long-standard spherical sonar array at the bows will be replaced with a conformal array that is far cheaper to procure and easier to maintain, but not significantly superior in performance. Indeed, while the Russians have long built submarines with highly efficient hull and appendage shapes – and the new German Type

141

Submarine.indd 141

2/27/08 1:57:28 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

The 1,285-ton Type 209/1200 submarine Tayrona, one of two delivered to Colombia’s navy in 1975, is seen here arriving at Mayport, Fla., in February 2007 to provide antisubmarine warfare training for units of the U.S. Navy, which has no small, conventionally powered, quiet submarines of its own.

in such systems would seem likely to be enormous and beyond the resources of more than one or two nations. Only the United States, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, and China retain the capability to both design and construct a non-nuclearpowered submarine primarily from within their own resources, and China is still employing diesel engines, sensor systems, and weapons imported from or copied from European and Russian equipment. The United States has been unable to make good on a promise made by President George W. Bush in April 2001 to provide eight dieselpowered submarines to Taiwan because it lacks the industrial base to design and build such craft at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time, while no other submarine-building nation has been willing to arouse China’s ire by offering to assist. Worldwide, the consolidation of defense industries continues unabated, which inevitably has resulted in a less prodigious flowering of new concepts and systems, and an increase in prices. Germany remains the leading exporter of submarines, but its two domestic submarine yards were merged in 2004, and one of those had purchased Sweden’s remaining submarine builder in 1999; nonetheless, the Germans have a healthy work backlog. German designs are also being assembled, or have been built since the 1980s, in Argentina, Brazil, Turkey, India, the Republic of Korea, and Greece, but none of these other countries can yet build a submarine without German technical and material assistance. Major pressure hull components, engines, batteries, electronics, and weaponry still must be imported. Countries that bought the original generation of the famous Type 209 design three decades ago for around $100

Photo by MCS2 H. Brayton, U.S. Navy

212 boats go them even one better – the U.S. Navy continues to employ a less-efficient hull form with a long, constant-diameter midbody that is much less expensive to fabricate. The U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is funding a number of exotic concepts for future submarine designs, but none of them seems likely to be used in a production class for the next decade or more. Potentially the most significant of these is the use of electric propulsion that is entirely external to the pressure hull, eliminating such noise-generating features as gearing and propeller shafts. Another DARPA-supported concept is the use of externally mounted weapons launch tubes, although that concept actually dates back to at least the late 1930s. Many Russian-built submarines already have a simple form of anti-helicopter countermeasure missile system, and the U.S. Navy has begun development of a far more capable system for its submarines that will also be able to deal with fixed-wing aircraft. Other countermeasures, in particular increasingly sophisticated decoys, are being incorporated in many currentconstruction submarines. One major development area where the U.S. Navy is currently leading the field in development is the Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV). Successfully deployed and recovered through a torpedo tube by a submerged submarine late in 2007, the AN/BLQ11 Long-Range Mine Reconnaissance System will eventually provide a means for submarines to clandestinely clear minefields, but only at the expense of much time. Future employment of constellations of UUVs equipped for reconnaissance or even combat and controlled by a mother ship submarine have been foreseen, but the investment

142

Submarine.indd 142

2/27/08 11:55:39 AM

SUBMARINES

Table I: The Worldwide Operational Submarine Fleet at the End of 2007 Country:

Number, class, and type (completion years in parentheses):

Algeria Argentina Australia Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China

2 Kilo SS (1987-88) 2 TR-1700 SS (1984-85); 1 Type 209/1200 SS (1974) 6 Collins SS (1996-2003) 1 Type 209/1500 SS (2005); 4 Type 209/1400 SS (1989-99) 1 Romeo SS (circa 1960) 3 Upholder SS (1991-93) 2 Scorpéne SS (2005-06); 2 Type 209/1300 (1984) 1 Xia SSBN (1988); 3 Han SSN (1984-91); 12 Kilo SS (1995-2006); 1 Yuan SS(AIP?) (2006); 12 Song SS (2001-07); 19 Ming SS (1975-2002); 7 Romeo SS (…-1984) 2 Type 209/1200 SS (1975) 2 Type 209/1300 SS (1977-78) 4 Romeo SS 1983-84); 2 Sava SS (1977-78) 3 Le Triomphant SSBN (1997-2004); 1 L’Inflexible SSBN (1985); 6 Améthyste SSN (1983-93) 4 Type 212 SS(AIP) (2005-07); 8 Type 206A SS (1973-75) 4 Type 209/1200 SS (1979-80); 4 Type 209/1100 SS (1971-72) 4 Type 209/1500 SS (1986-2000); 10 Kilo SS (1986-2000); 2 Foxtrot SS (1972-73) 1 Type 209/1300 SS (1981) 3 Kilo SS (1992-97) 3 IKL-800 SS (1999-2000) 2 Type 212A SS(AIP) (2006-07); 2 Primo Longobardo SS (1993-95); 2 Salvatore Pelosi SS (1988-99); 1 Nazario Sauro SS (1982) 10 Oyashio SS (1998-2007); 6 Harushio SS (1990-95) 20 Romeo SS (1973-95) 1 Type 214 AIP (2007); 9 Type 209/1200 SS (1993-2001) 4 Walrus SS (1990-94) 2 Agosta-90 SS (1999-2003); 2 Agosta SS (1979-80) 6 Type 209/1200 SS (1975-83) 1 Kilo SS (1986); 4 Type 207 SS (1964-67) 1 Daphné SS (1968) 2 Typhoon SSBN (1981-89); 6 Delta-IV SSBN (1985-92); 5 Delta-III SSBN (1978-82); 8 Oscar-II SSGN (1986-97); 2 Akula-II SSN (1995-2001); 10 Akula-I SSN (1988-95); 2 Sierra-II SSN (1990-93); 1 Sierra-1 SSN (1987); 3 Victor-III SSN (1988-93); 4 Kilo-II SS (1992-94); 12 Kilo-I SS (1981-93) 4 Sjöormen SS (1967-69) 2 Type 209/1400 SS (2006-07) 4 Agosta SS (1983-86); 1 Daphné SS (1975) 3 Gotland SS(AIP) (1999); 2 Västergötland SS(AIP) (1989-90) 2 Hai Lung SS (1987-88) 8 Type 209/1400 SS (1994-2007); 6 Type 209/1200 SS (1976-90) 4 Vanguard SSBN (1993-99); 7 Trafalgar SSN (1983-91); 2 Swiftsure SSN (1976-78) 14 Ohio SSBN (1984-97); 4 Ohio SSGN (1981-84); 3 Virginia SSN (2004-07); 3 Seawolf SSN (1997-2005); 45 Los Angeles SSN (1976-1996) 2 Type 209/1300 SS (1976-77)

Colombia Ecuador Egypt France Germany Greece India Indonesia Iran Israel Italy Japan Korea, North Korea, South Netherlands Pakistan Peru Poland Portugal Russia

Singapore South Africa Spain Sweden Taiwan Turkey U.K. United States Venezuela

143

Submarine.indd 143

2/27/08 1:57:39 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Table 2: Submarines on Order, Building, Outfitting, or in Trials Status Algeria Brazil Canada China France Germany Greece India Indonesia Israel Japan Korea, South Libya Malaysia Pakistan Poland Romania Russia Singapore South Africa Spain Taiwan Thailand Turkey U.K. United States Venezuela

2 Kilo (Project 636) ordered October 2007 1 Type 214 (minus AIP) to order 2008 4th Upholder in reserve, to start repairs in 2012 (but Canadian government is reported to be considering retiring all submarines) 2 Jin SSBN launched, 2-3 more expected; 2 Shang SSN launched; more building; 1 Yuan SS possibly building; 2 Yuan SS fitting out; 1 Song SS possibly fitting out 1 Le Triomphant SSBN to complete in 2010; 4-6 Barracuda SSN to deliver 2016-26 to replace Améthyste class 2 more Type 212A SS(AIP) to deliver 2012-13 to replace at least 4 Type 206A 1 Type 214 completed but in dispute with builder; 3 more building in Greece 2 Akula-I SSN to deliver on 10-year lease in 2008, 2010; 1 ATV SSGN to complete in 2009; 6 Scorpéne SS ordered 2005; 6 Amur-1650 may order in 2008 1 Type 209 in reserve awaiting refit funds; 2 Kilo ordered October 2007 2 improved IKL-800 with AIP ordered 2006 3 2,900-ton SS(AIP) building, 1 more authorized 5 more Type 214 SS(AIP) on order, 3 more to order later Negotiated with Russia for 2 Kilo at end of 2007 2 Scorpéne to deliver 2009-10 1 Agosta-90 with AIP to commission 2008; negotiating for Marlin with France 4 small submarines may order 2012 or later to replace Type 207s Funds being sought for batteries for laid-up Kilo 3 Borey (1 launched) SSBN on order; 1 Severodvinsk SSN to launch 2008; 1 Lada in trials, 2 more ordered 2 Västergötland SS(AIP) to deliver in 2010 3rd Type 209/1400 to deliver in February 2008 4 S-80A ordered 1993 for delivery 2011-14 Navy seeking 8 SS, thus far without success May order 2 SS from China during 2009-13 4 SS(AIP) to order for delivery 2013-on to replace Type 209/1200 4 SSBN to begin delivery 2025 to replace Vanguard class; 4 (1st launched 2007) Astute SSN to enter service 2010-15 1 Virginia SSN to commission 2008, 7 more building; 30 total planned 3 Kilo SS to be ordered April 2008; possibly ex-Russian Navy units

million apiece are now faced with paying six times that amount for replacements. The Type 209 is still being built for South Africa and Portugal, but the more capable and costly AIP-equipped Type 214 is the current best seller, with examples on order for Greece and the Republic of Korea, with orders likely from Brazil and Turkey in the next year or so. Russia is the second-most prolific exporter, but it has yet to achieve an export sale for its most recent (early 1990s) design, the Amur class, and its sales leader, the Kilo series (which continues to be sold for around $150 to $200 million at what must be a loss), was designed nearly 30 years ago. During the fall of 2007, six firm

orders for additional Kilos were received. Great hopes for largescale sales of the smaller Amur family of designs were evinced with its introduction in the mid-1990s, but to date there have been no sales, and even the first of the class for the Russian Navy has been in construction and trials status for a decade; India may order six of the class during 2008, but reported orders of two of a smaller version for Indonesia and others for Venezuela seem to have foundered on cost grounds. France is having significant success in building export submarines, but its cooperative effort with Spain’s Navantia seems to have come to an end, leaving the Spaniards with the necessary facilities to build

144

Submarine.indd 144

2/27/08 11:56:08 AM

SUBMARINES

submarines, but not yet the ability to design and outfit them completely on their own. France has gone through three generations of export boat designs and now offers a fourth, the Marlin, which is said to be essentially a variant of its successful joint Scorpénè project with Spain but with systems of U.S. or Spanish origin replaced. Japan cannot export its excellent submarine designs, the latest of which includes AIP and is the largest combatant non-nuclear submarine design now being built. Sweden, which had success with the six Collins-class submarines for Australia and has sold “used” submarines to Singapore, no longer has the means to design and build submarines on its own and will probably build a German design for its own use beginning late in the next decade. The Chinese, despite long effort, have not obtained any export submarine orders since Egypt bought Romeos in the mid-1980s, although Thailand may order two Chinese boats in the near future. While the early years of this decade saw a flurry of conventionally powered submarines delivered each year to the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy, “diesel boat” construction in China seems to have all but halted, with resources now being concentrated on the construction of Project 093 SSBNs and Project 094 SSNs, with two of each type now in the water. Tables 1 and 2 provide lists of the current operational submarine fleets and of submarines currently on order, respectively. New orders for submarines have slowed and will likely slow further in the decade to come as shipbuilding costs continue to escalate far faster than inflation in general. For less developed countries, the manning of submarines with qualified personnel is already becoming difficult. During November 2007, the South African Navy was reported to have had to put one of its two new Type 209 submarines in standby and the South African government was said to be considering canceling the third boat, which was to have been handed over from Germany in May 2008. As mentioned earlier, both Indonesia and Venezuela have had to scale back fairly grandiose plans to acquire new submarines, while Norway has forsworn the acquisition of new boats until the mid-2020s; Chile and the Netherlands have cancelled plans to buy new submarines in favor of life-extension programs for existing units; the once sizeable Swedish sub fleet has shrunk to five; the Danes retired their entire submarine force in 2005; and Romania cannot afford even to buy new batteries for its one Kilo-class boat, which has been out of service for more than a decade, etc. By 2030, it is very likely that the world submarine fleet will be a quarter to a third smaller than it is today, since submarines continue to be retired at a faster rate than they are being built. As can be seen in Table I, many of the submarines in today’s navies are at or nearing the ends of their useful lives. That does not mean, however, that the submarine will be a decreasing threat, if for no other reason than that the major navies of the world have neglected anti-submarine warfare since the fall of the Soviet Union. Today, the U.S. Navy has greatly downgraded its Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) effort, combining it with the equally neglected mine warfare field under a single minor command. ASW exercises are too few and far between to retain proficiency, because the fleet is needed for immediate duties in peacekeeping, deterrence against possible Iranian aggression, the continuing wars ashore in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for a wide variety of humanitarian and politico-military functions. As a result of the great reduction in the size of its overall fleet, the U.S. Navy cannot even provide escorts for the vast number of logistics ships that support its own operations or the Military Sealift Command and chartered commercial ships that carry vital supplies to the Middle East and elsewhere. Should a global war break out, the U.S. Navy would be woefully ill-equipped and trained to handle ASW in the face of a determined undersea war on trade, nor will its allies be able to fill the gap. The U.S. Navy’s only long-range, all-weather ASW missile system was retired several years ago, and today only the Russian and Japanese navies have such a weapon. Even short-ranged ASW weapons have been removed from ships in many navies, while shipboard helicopters now have so many duties that their crews are no longer able to maintain adequate proficiency in ASW. No country is prepared now, or is preparing, to address potential future submarine warfare, and only a handful treat ASW with greater attention than does the U.S. Navy. Non-acoustic and/or space-based means of detecting submerged submarines, seen in the early 1990s as having promise, have failed to pan out, leaving passive and active acoustic systems as the only current means of detection. Thus, for the next several decades, the submarine really does not need to be radically improved or built in greater numbers in order to remain a threat.

145

Submarine.indd 145

2/27/08 1:57:49 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

The Highs and Lows of Joint Programs By J.R. Wilson

I

t has been said, by defense contractors, military program managers, and industry analysts, that the fastest way to kill any program is to put “joint” in front of its name. Today, “jointness” has become nearly as ubiquitous a requirement for major programs as “open architecture” and the use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components to ease future technology refresh and insertion. What has not changed is the added difficulty – technological and political – that has always marked any effort by the four Department of Defense (DoD) services to find a common answer to similar requirements. As might be expected, the military holds a far more positive official position on such efforts than do those not in uniform, citing benefits in reduced research and development (R&D) and production costs and commonality of training, maintenance, and logistics support on the battlefield as major benefits of jointness. “Sometimes, making a program joint is good for the warfighter, with two services using the same type of equipment. But there are challenges because different services have cultural differences – different acquisition processes, for example,” noted Air Force Col. Tim Hutchison, deputy chief of the joint staff Capabilities Acquisition Division. “That’s why the joint staff is here, to determine when we can get the services using the same things, but not at the expense of not meeting individual service capabilities and requirements.” Those difficulties have led to a number of joint programs being canceled or reduced to single-service efforts somewhere along the way, but there have also been success stories. The Joint USMC/Army M777 Lightweight 155 mm Howitzer (aka LW 155) stands as a major bi-service and multinational success story, providing a reduced footprint that matches or exceeds the range, stability, accuracy and durability of its predecessor (the M198) with 7,000 pounds less weight. Smaller and lighter, it can be quickly moved into and around the combat zone by the Marine Corps’ MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, as well as the C-130, C-17, C-5, CH-53D/E and CH-47D.

The addition of an automatic primer feeding mechanism, loader-assist and Towed Artillery Digitization (TAD) digital fire control give the M777A1 a semi-autonomous capability previously found only in self-propelled howitzers. Enhanced software and the Platform Integration Kit (PIK) further enable the M777A2 to fire the Excalibur precision guided munition, making it the most accurate light force general support artillery piece ever fielded. The Marine Corps has an approved acquisition objective of 511 units, fielding between 2005 and 2010, and the Army 366, designated for Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. Several of the first M777s produced by prime contractor BAE Systems also were deployed to Afghanistan with Canadian forces and saw extensive combat use. Program officials cite “a true team effort” by the end users, materiel developer, independent evaluator, systems command, program executive office and the Departments of the Army and Navy in bringing the M777 from concept to combat. Sometimes one joint program ends up being canceled, only to be replaced by another with essentially identical goals. Such was the case with the Joint Common Missile (JCM), a multi-service replacement for all versions of the Lockheed Martin Hellfire and Raytheon Maverick and TPW missiles currently carried by U.S. fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and UAVs. Lockheed Martin won the JCM contract in 2004, only to see it cancelled less than a year later for reasons that remain somewhat fuzzy. By early 2008, however, both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon were anticipating a new prototype development contract for the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), the details of which are remarkably similar to JCM, albeit with four years’ newer technology and updated missions. Given their small R&D budget and limited procurements, the U.S. Marine Corps is heavily involved in joint programs, leveraging largely off the Army’s land and rotor-wing developments and the Navy’s fixed-wing aviation efforts. There also are occasional moments of symmetry with the Air Force

146

Joint Programs.indd 146

2/27/08 2:09:09 PM

Team JSF photo

Joint programs

Perhaps the most joint, and certainly the biggest, joint program of recent years is the F-35 Lightning II, which will be produced in three variants for the Army, Navy, and Marines, as well as international customers. and even – rarely – joint programs in which the Corps is named executive. Perhaps the most joint program of recent years, if not of all time, is the Navy/Air Force/Marine/International F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), being built in three variants – conventional, short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL), and carrier. Even it, however, has faced inter-service conflict over whether all three should be built. “Given the requirements for JSF and the numbers involved, the progress so far is rather encouraging,” Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia said. “There has been a remarkable level of compromise. The Air Force has accepted STOVL requirements, the Marines are happy to pay for supersonics. So far, except maybe the Navy, everyone is doing their part. The only signs of trouble are with the Navy’s budget commitment. They have a lower-cost aircraft they are very comfortable with – the Super Hornet – there are doubts about stealth in the maritime environment and their current production program is seen as the best way to keep carrier numbers justified.”

When the F-35 enters service, currently anticipated around 2010, it will be the world’s second fifth-generation fighter. The first – the U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor – also had a brief encounter with jointness when a carrier-based variant was considered for the Navy, but that effort was canceled in 1993. One of the rare Marine-led programs is the Joint Advanced Vertical-Lift Aircraft – better known as the MV-22 Osprey. The tilt-rotor aircraft, which is replacing the Marine’s aging CH-46E Sea Knight and CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopters, has become so closely identified with the Corps that most people outside the military are unaware a second variant – the CV-22 – is going to the Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The Air Force requirement for a new high-speed, long-range insertion and extraction aircraft for its own special operations command, AFSOC, as well as for the newly formed Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, not only gave the Osprey legitimacy as a joint program, but, with ongoing combat operations in Southwest Asia, added urgency and political support within both DoD and Congress.

147

Joint Programs.indd 147

2/27/08 2:09:25 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008 Photo by Lance Cpl. Jessica Aranda

An MV-22 Osprey belonging to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 takes off from the flight line at Al Asad. After an extended procurement and development history, Ospreys are now in action.

“The V-22 was never hobbled by jointness, it was hobbled by budget realities, technological maturity, and politics,” Aboulafia said. “And it has had about the worst delays any program has ever faced. But jointness never endangered nor prolonged the development of that program.” Both V-22 variants underwent extensive test programs during 2007, much of that addressing corrections to problems identified during initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) in 2005. While the MV-22 showed significant improvements, problems with its ice-protection and fuelmanagement systems and its radar signal-detecting set are still being resolved. The 2007 results were more problematic for the CV-22, however, with continuing concerns about its electronic warfare defensive suite, weight-restricted range and sensor conflicts near Navy ships. Army participation in joint programs also tends to involve the Marines, as the two share ground operations requirements the Navy and Air Force – with the limited exception of some special ops capabilities – do not have. The largest Marine/ Army joint program is the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle, a heavily armored family of vehicles designed to replace HMMWVs in current combat operations. With Marine Corps Systems Command leading the JPO, MRAP is

being developed in two basic variants – Category I, carrying at least six people, and Category II, designed to transport no less than 10. While most vehicles have only one or two primary manufacturers, the urgent need has led to five commercial vendors with ongoing production contracts for Category I and II vehicles – BAE, BAE-Tactical Vehicle Systems (formerly Armor Holdings), Force Protection Industries, General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada and International Military & Government; 160 initial vehicles previously were procured from Oshkosh Truck and Protected Vehicles, although neither has a current contract. At the start of Fiscal Year 08, DoD identified an initial overall need for some 8,000 MRAPs (both variants combined), with an expectation the ultimate procurement could double that. Because of its size and weight – and in hopes the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which have become a prominent weapon of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan, will not be so prevalent elsewhere in the future – the Marines view MRAP as a temporary acquisition for their traditionally lightweight, fast-moving operations. Perhaps the most controversial joint program at the moment is the Army/Air Force Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA).

148

Joint Programs.indd 148

2/27/08 2:09:37 PM

Joint programs

“JCA has an interesting history,” Hutchison said. “The Army had come forth with a future cargo aircraft and it kind of became joint through a combination JROC [Joint Requirements Oversight Council] and OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] review. The Army requirement was for a tactical distribution airlift asset; at the same time, the Air Force was looking at a similar requirement called the light cargo aircraft. They became one, with all services agreeing to pursue the same platform with the same mission packages last spring [2007]. “By all points, it has been successful so far. It went to contract award in June 2007 [L-3 Integrated Systems, Boeing, and Alenia] and currently is moving forward with no real problems. They currently are in LRIP [low-rate initial production], with the next milestone decision in 2010 following a program review in 2009. The services have committed to about 78 aircraft total; there also have been a lot of discussions with several foreign countries.” Aboulafia, however, has a decidedly different view of how JCA became joint – and its future. “JCA – I call it the ‘joint cynical aircraft’ – is another disaster waiting to happen. Even the origins show a certain ‘original sin,’ if you will,” he said. “It basically started as a very aggressive missions, role, and budget grab by the Army. It is very unclear if they are legally allowed to operate an aircraft in this class. It started as a simple replacement for the Sherpa [a remanufactured Shorts 330 regional airliner used for short-haul freight] and suddenly expanded into a lot of more capable aircraft. That’s when the Air Force jumped in, despite having no interest in it other than preventing the Army from having its own air force. “The thing to remember is that budget percentages are kind of fixed; they seldom deviate. So if you can’t steal the other guy’s cash, you go for his missions and roles. Joint programs often reflect that, JCA being an excellent example. It has gone from 148 aircraft, all for the Army, to 78 for the two of them. So it succeeded in keeping the Army from having its own air force. From an Air Force standpoint, it was a political necessity, but from a requirements standpoint, it’s at best futile. Think of the Air Force bases outside of Southwest Asia – what do you do with a twoengine, short-range aircraft? It’s great for National Guard duty, but, for the most part, the Air Force doesn’t worry about the last tactical mile – that’s more of an Army concern.” He has an even less-positive view of the proposed Army/ Marine Corps Joint Heavy-Lift Rotorcraft (JHL), which has yet to achieve program status. “JHL promises to be the worst yet,” Aboulafia maintained. “Both sides are proceeding, in both talk and action, in opposite directions. The Marines are pressing ahead with CH-53K [aka, Heavy Lift Replacement] and a future V-22. The Marines want more range, the Army wants more lift. There is no cash for moving beyond the talking stage and very little way to reconcile requirements. I really wouldn’t bet on it ever becoming a program.” One that is moving forward is the Army/Marine/SOCOM Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), actually a family of vehicles to replace the HMMWV. “JLTV had a Milestone A decision – concept technology demonstration – in December 2007 and is on track, proceeding

into the concept-technology-development phase and prototyping to get a couple of competitors,” Hutchison said. “Contract award is expected in 2011. It’s pretty early in the program at this point, but no significant issues have arisen so far.” Actually, a significant issue was raised in September 2007 by the Pentagon’s acting acquisition executive, John Young, in a memo to the Army and Navy acquisition chiefs that seemed like it might slow, or even end, JLTV. “There are several aspects of the strategy that raise doubts about our ability to develop and acquire this vehicle fleet in an affordable and timely manner,” Young wrote. The progression to Milestone A three months later seemed to indicate his concerns were being addressed, but the changing requirements of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – including the rapid buildup of MRAP – and concerns about equipping U.S. forces to handle any future combat needs in environments that may differ sharply from Southwest Asia are likely to keep JLTV’s status somewhat precarious. The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) has been an ongoing effort for several years to bring interoperability to all of the diverse communications systems in use by not only the U.S. military services but also allied militaries and, post-September 11, domestic first responders. As with most joint programs, JTRS is being developed in multiple variants: Airborne/Maritime/ Fixed Station (AMF), Ground Mobile Radio (GMR), and Hand-held/Manpack/Small Form Fit. To date, no contract has been issued for AMF, which has had the greatest development problems. “JTRS is a very complex program used by all the services, with the full gamut of variants, each moving forward at different stages,” Hutchison said. Which highlights one of the biggest problems for any joint program: Keeping a large enough common core element as the different services pursue their own variants. The downfall comes when those variants essentially become unrecognizable to the original concept. “Once you’ve strayed to the point where you need very different maintenance concepts and training, you’d have to argue they aren’t joint anymore,” Hutchison acknowledged. “Certainly with JSF, the push is to have similar maintenance and training strategies, so there is a lot of pressure on the services to avoid any divergence because it can drive some cost increases. That’s what the JROC and the PEO really focus on.” Even so, Hutchison maintains joint programs have been largely successful and are becoming more so. Aboulafia, however, remains skeptical, although allowing a little leeway for optimism. “Whether it is the historical track record, the likely objectives, the turf-grab aspect, there are many reasons to be suspicious of joint programs,” he concluded. “What you’re left with is shrinking R&D, shrinking program numbers, and growing requirements – in other words, the need for joint programs hopefully will outrun a terrible track record. “But except for JSF, the odds aren’t all that great. And, ironically, even it may be a classic example of too big to fail and too few alternatives.”

149

Joint Programs.indd 149

2/27/08 2:09:46 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Conway, the commandant of the Marine Corps, speaks during a rollout ceremony to unveil the first STOVL F-35 Lightning II aircraft at the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas, Dec. 18, 2007. The aircraft will replace the U.S. Marine Corps’ aging AV-8 Harriers and will be operational in 2012.

U.S. Navy courtesy photo

150

JSF.indd 150

2/27/08 12:18:36 PM

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

Update: Joint Strike Fighter By J.R. Wilson

S

ix years into its System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) marked a number of significant milestones during 2007; but it also suffered a serious delay in flight tests due to engine and electric component failures, raising concerns about schedules and capabilities among its international partners. “The year really started after we flew AA-1 [the first flight test aircraft] four times in December 2006,” said Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis, the F-35’s program executive officer. “It had flown up to twice a day and worked up to 19 flights [by May], when we had an electrical anomaly and set it down for some modifications and updates.” Prime contractor Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office initially predicted the problem would be solved within a month. But even as efforts to address the initial fault stretched through the summer, a second problem arose within the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, one of two new interchangeable powerplants being developed for JSF. While that happened on a STOVL (short takeoff/vertical landing) test stand, it nonetheless affected the overall program; as a result, AA-1, a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) model, remained grounded seven months, finally returning to flight on Dec. 7. “We didn’t want the airplane to be down – and it was down about four months longer than we had ever hoped it would have been – but it was a good risk-reduction event in terms of the electrics,” Davis maintained. “It’s good that we found it now; it would have been really lousy for the program if we had the tests up and running with 13 or 14 aircraft in the middle of the test program and had to stop the program there for four to six months while we worked some of these issues. “So AA-1 has been a very valuable risk-reduction tool for the whole flight test program. We went back to the manufacturing line and processes and our supplier quality control systems, and continued to improve those to make sure we don’t see things like that develop in the rest of the electric components of the airplane.”

The original fault occurred during AA-1’s 19th test flight on May 3, 2007, when a power loss during a planned 360-degree roll in level flight at 38,000 feet forced the pilot to make a high-speed emergency landing. Lockheed Martin engineers found the problem was a power supply in the aircraft’s new technology electrohydrostatic actuators (EHAs). “The one area that is unique on the F-35 is the flight-control components, the EHAs, which are basically their own self-contained electronics and hydraulic pump,” Davis explained. “We found if we don’t control the manufacturing tolerance of some of these highvoltage circuits, it results in the short we had in the electrical system, which gave us a chance to look at the complete electric and flightcontrol emergency backup systems on the airplane – not something you ever really schedule in flight tests, but you gain a lot of data. “We also were down waiting a bit for the Pratt & Whitney engine, which had a blade break off the third-stage turbine while doing a test on the STOVL-configured F-35. It was a result of what they believe was a high-cycle frequency condition, a combination of the blade itself, some engine configurations, some shortfalls in tolerance on dampers, which offset loads in the plane.” Davis says engineers determined the blade broke at a very specific engine RPM regime that is present on both the STOVL and CTOL variants. Although the break occurred while the engine was hooked up to a STOVL lift fan, it was a normal test in conventional mode. “So we don’t believe it is a STOVL-unique problem, which is why we tested the engines flying in AA-1 at those specified frequency regimes to make sure the combination of root factors did not exist in it,” he added, “which is how we got AA-1 back into the air. We’re still working through how we make sure we don’t have any of those combinations coming together in production engines.” Despite those delays, Davis said JSF recorded a number of milestones and highlights in 2007, from full commitment of all international partners to the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) phase to production start on the first two F-35A CTOL aircraft for the U.S. Air Force.

151

JSF.indd 151

2/27/08 12:18:45 PM

best of both worlds

By consistently incorporating proven technologies from GE and Rolls-Royce, the F136 engine is meeting the evolving demands of the F-35 Lightning II program. Designed for maximum flexibility, the F136 is also positioned for unmatched mission accomplishment in harsh, demanding environments around the world. For more information, visit ge.com/aviation or rolls-royce.com.

gerroyce on temp.indd 1 52415_f136_defense_ad.indd 1

1/7/08 5:57:57 PM 1/7/08 4:15:30 PM

Photo courtesy of Team JSF

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

F-35 Lightning II AA-1 undergoing flight testing in 2007. After being grounded so that faults in the aircraft’s electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs) could be corrected, AA-1 returned to flight in December 2007.

The first four aircraft – AA-1 and BF-1, -2, and -3 (all STOVLs scheduled for first flight in 2008) – are flight test aircraft only and not equipped with F-35 avionics. The AA-1 is the only test aircraft not to incorporate structural optimizations resulting from a 2003 weight-savings exercise done on the STOVL variant and incorporated into the baseline design on all three models. AF-1 (CTOL), with first flight also set for 2009, will be the first with F-35 avionics. “The carrier variant [CV] critical design review was completed in June. The pilot training systems also had a CDR and we brought up the first version of our autonomic logistics information system [ALIS], which began supporting not only AA-1 but the production line,” Davis said. “We put 15 of our 21 jets into build [19 test aircraft and the first two production CTOLs] and completed a little less than half the total software and installed it on AA-1. “Where AA-1 really had value was it exercised our suppliers, including international suppliers, and gave us a good start on manufacturing. I think we also proved a lot of the basic flight control laws, handling qualities, takeoff and landing performance of the airplane, virtually all of the vehicle systems,

such as the engine start systems, the generators, and so on. All are virtually equivalent to what we will fly on every F-35 we ever build, so there was a lot of knowledge gained on the basic vehicle and power systems on the airplane.” Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager, also emphasized program progress in 2007. “The biggest macro accomplishment was beginning the transition from pure development to flight test and production in 2007, in part with the award of LRIP 1 [low-rate initial production], but also the flights of AA-1 and CATBird [Cooperative Avionics Test Bed],” he said. “We’re making the transition from a paper design to real aircraft in the factory and on the flight line.” On the same day AA-1 returned to flight in December, the CATBird, a modified 737 designed to integrate and validate the F-35’s advanced avionics and sensor suite, also began flying after numerous modifications. Those included installation of F-35 mission systems, a high-fidelity F-35 cockpit, and the addition of a 13-foot canard to emulate the F-35’s wing.

153

JSF.indd 153

2/27/08 12:19:07 PM

An entire electronic system on a single chip the size of a dime.

(Enough said.)

www.cputech.com (925) 224-9920

cpu on temp.indd 1

The combat-proven source for System-on-a-Chip solutions for large-scale platforms. Secured through the IBM Trusted Foundry.

2/7/08 9:44:47 AM

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

“The CATBird will include flight tests on our CNI [Communication, Navigation & Identification] systems, which is one area where the F-22 had a lot of challenges in its test program as the software created some stability problems. We’re getting an early jump on testing that in the CATBird,” Davis said. “CATBird will gradually continue to add additional components to the mission systems throughout 2008 and will act as a precursor for a lot of our missions’ systems flight tests on the actual F-35 airplane.” Crowley said the December flights set the stage for a long run of upcoming tests involving both aircraft. “For the F-35, those tests include refueling from an airborne tanker in the short term and supersonic flights in 2008,” he said. “At the same time, we are putting the finishing touches on our first STOVL F-35 aircraft, which will initiate flight testing in the spring. By the end of 2008, we expect to have at least three F-35s in the air and numerous aircraft on the assembly line. “While we don’t have a lot of the mission systems flying on AA-1 right now, we do have all of the components that make up the mission systems flying in test beds. The radars have been flying in an F-111 test bed for some time now and demonstrating early phases of the software and performance of our AESA [Active Electronically Scanned Array] radar system. We’ve had electronic warfare systems flying on test beds at China Lake [Naval Air Station, Calif.]; the E/O [electro-optical] targeting system, our FLIR [Forward Looking Infrared] pod, flying on a test bed in Florida; distributed aperture systems, basically our missile warning system, and part of our RWR [Radar Warning Receiver] system flying on a podded airplane at Holloman [AFB], N.M. And we’ve gotten really good results from all of those.” Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems share top billing with Lockheed Martin in developing the F-35’s three variants – 1,763 F-35A CTOLs for the U.S. Air Force, 320 F-35B STOVLs for the U.S. Marine Corps, 360 F-35C CVs for the U.S. Navy, and 138 F-35Bs for the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, combined. In addition to the F135 engine, all three variants can be powered by the F136, being developed by a joint GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team. At 40,000 pounds of thrust each, the F135 and F136 are the world’s most powerful fighter jet engines. The F-35 was designed from scratch to have the most open hardware and software architecture in aviation history, allowing new technologies and capabilities to be inserted with the least amount of cost and effort throughout the aircraft’s operational life. That process also applies to SDD, however, as 2007 demonstrated. “There are about 80 software developers, so we architected JSF software to include a middleware layer that buffers between the runtime systems and the applications. That unique architecture has made it easier for us to integrate code from all those different sources and we did a lot of software integration in our Fort Worth labs in 2007 to proof out both vehicle and mission systems,” Crowley said. “The fact we adopted this architecture has allowed us to achieve higher software stability this early in the program compared to the F-22, for example. “The only change we have made in hardware is from a rear-projection to LCD cockpit display. When we started the program, LCDs were not ready for use, but in the last 10 years, a lot has happened in that technology. So we made a jump to them midway and now we are finishing the hardware and software design.” Initiation of the ALIS in April was considered not only an F-35 milestone, but touted as the earliest activation of such a system in any military aircraft program. “Historically, operation and support have accounted for about two-thirds of a fighter’s lifecycle costs. F-35 aims to reduce those expenses significantly, starting with an extremely reliable aircraft and our sophisticated data management system, ALIS,” said Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President Tom Burbage, general manager of F-35 Program Integration. Each F-35 will constantly monitor its own systems and automatically relay information to ALIS, which in turn will capture, analyze, identify, and communicate aircraft characteristics and data, providing information and decision support for every Lightning II user in the world.

Engineered Solutions Provider and Systems Integrator for:  Manufacturing Systems and Aids  Moving Assembly Lines  Aerospace Tooling Systems  Universal Holding/Manufacturing

Systems

 Flight Hardware  Material Handling Equipment  Ground Support and Test Equipment  Data Acquisition

INNOVENTOR, INC. 3600 Rider Trail South St. Louis, MO 63045 Phone 314.785.0900 Fax 314.785.0044 www.innoventor.net [email protected]

155

JSF.indd 155

2/27/08 12:19:19 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Lockheed Martin photo by Andy Wolfe

The Cooperative Advanced Test Bed, or CATBird, also returned to flight in December 2007 after numerous modifications that will test the F-35’s advanced avionics and sensor suite.

In June, the F-35’s Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) completed its first flight test aboard a modified Sabreliner. Demonstrating its capability as a multifunctional system for precision air-to-air and air-to-surface targeting, the EOTS employed Infrared Search and Track system data collection and FLIR point and scene track. Scheduled for incorporation into the CATBird in 2008, EOTS is designed to provide F-35 pilots with significant air-to-air and air-toground functionality from a single compact, totally passive sensor. Electric power was applied to the first STOVL variant flight test aircraft – BF-1 – on Oct. 25, 2007, as ground tests got under way to prepare it for first flight in May or June 2008. “This event is one of the major milestones in the life of the STOVL aircraft and we have eagerly anticipated it for some time,” Davis said at the time. “The F-35 has the most complex electrical system of any fighter to date. We had great success with the first jet we flew, but that jet taught us some very important lessons about its electrical system and those lessons have been incorporated into the jet we powered up today.”

The current schedule calls for the first F-35As to be deployed by the U.S. Air Force in 2010, but the USAF will not attain initial operational capability (IOC) until 2013, which means the Marines will actually field the first operational squadron (of F-35Bs) in 2012. IOC for the first U.S. Navy F-35C squadron is now set for 2014, while the U.K. has slipped IOC on its F-35Bs to 2017. The remaining international partners (Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Turkey) will receive priority status on any F-35s they decide to purchase. In the meantime, the international partners are playing an increasingly active role in F-35 development and production. “AA-1 has content from all the participating partners, who are members of the joint executive steering board and influence the direction of the program, voting on key issues such as Block 3 content, sustainment, etc.,” Crowley noted. “The big accomplishment in 2007 was [international] pilot participation in Block 3 simulation events to get a better feeling for the warfighting capabilities. Another is updating their industrial participation

156

JSF.indd 156

2/27/08 12:19:31 PM

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

Powering Freedom.™

plans, which are somewhat like offset, but they are competing to win work for their local contractors.” They also are heavily involved in program testing, Davis added: “We’ve had various tests going on across the partnership – work on EW systems in Australia, testing of components and STOVL performance issues in the U.K. and so on. And we expect that to increase in 2008. We will continue to increase the number of suppliers across the world that will be contributing parts to our production airplanes, bringing on other companies in composites, airframe components, structurally mated components, etc., which will be the biggest ramp-up across the partner community in 2008.” Several other nations also have indicated an interest in JSF, with the CTOL variant considered the most likely choice for most. Possible future operators include Israel and Singapore, both already part of the program as Security Cooperative Participants (which places them first in line behind the international partners and ahead of any other Foreign Military Sales), as well as Greece, Japan, South Korea, Spain, and India. The F-35 is only the world’s second fifth-generation fighter, after the F-22. And while other nations – primarily Russia, China, and India – have announced plans for their own fifth-generation aircraft, those involved with the F-22 and F-35 have their doubts. As they see it, no other program fully combines very low signature, speed, low operating and maintenance costs, advanced avionics, and network interoperability the way the Raptor and Lightning II do. “The sense I get from what little data is available on the Chinese and Russian programs, for example, is a belief a fifth-generation airplane is defined strictly by stealth,” Davis said. “While stealth is a fairly important attribute in the F-35, it certainly is not our biggest challenge. So I think those airplanes will miss the mark because we’re putting an exceptional amount of effort into getting the reliability of the airplane right, the sortie generation right, getting the training and maintenance systems right so it is cheaper and easier to maintain – all key parts of what we call fifth generation. “Fifth generation also really requires that you provide data to the pilot in a format unlike any pilot flying today has ever seen. In other words, in a fused, coherent format he can use to make decisions, using every source it can find, whether it’s an Aegis cruiser, a J-STARS, an AWACS, a satellite, a soldier on the ground – in a display that gives him the most chance of executing his mission successfully.” With three U.S. and two U.K. services, and nine other international partners at various levels of involvement, the F-35 raises the concept of “joint” to an entirely new level – along with concerns about the “curse” on any program so designated, as the F-22 once was, losing the support of one or more partners. As the man assigned to keeping JSF “joint” and moving forward, Davis admitted it is not an easy task. “Pulling this herd of cats together has been a challenge, but everyone has worked well together. We’ve had a lot [of] meetings where there have been very frank and open discussions with all the services and partners across a myriad of requirements issues – and that’s why it has worked very well,” he said. “My biggest challenge, from the joint aspect, has been making sure that, with all the budget challenges all three services have, we continue to deliver what they need so they can continue to buy what they really need. But, having said that, I don’t see any threat of the services pulling out.” As he prepared for new milestones in 2008, Davis assessed the F-35 program as making good overall progress. “All three software blocks are in development, every variant is in build, we’ll have two variants in flight tests and three production contracts under way, we’ll have software development going for the training system – every part of JSF is in full swing in 2008. So I think everything is proceeding as well as could be expected,” he said. “Where we probably struggle more than earlier programs is putting a production line in place. It has taken longer than we ever predicted to get the suppliers that support it and the assembly processes we will use throughout production stood up to build the test jets. But it is still coming along great; every section of the airplane is of much better quality than the previous. It has just taken much longer than planned.”

PW4062 Engine for KC-767 Advanced

F135 Engine for F-35

F119 Engine for F-22

F117 Engine for C-17

www.pw.utc.com

157

JSF.indd 157

2/27/08 12:19:53 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

The Air Force Copes with Fighter Issues By Robert F. Dorr

Two U.S. Air Force F-15A Eagle aircraft from the 125th Fighter Squadron, Jacksonville, Fla., Air National Guard, fly en route to Klamath Falls, Ore., for the exercise Sentry Eagle on Aug. 3, 2007. Sentry Eagle, the Air National Guard’s largest air-to-air exercise, provides military pilots with a forum to test basic fighter maneuvers and air combat tactics against different types of aircraft. Worries about the 35-year-old design’s capabilities against 21st century opponents have been added to by concern over the possibility of structural failures in a large part of the F-15 fleet.

158

F15 Eagle.indd 158

3/1/08 6:22:52 PM

U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Aaron Allmon

F-15 EAGLE

T

o all who support, maintain, and fly it, the F-15 Eagle is the seasoned veteran that commands the sky. Even when the Eagle began to show its age, Air Force leaders felt that it could still handle any fight, defeat any foe. In May 2007, Gen. Ronald Keys, approaching retirement after two years as head of Air Combat Command, called the F-15 “a great aircraft.” Keys saw what was coming. “I’m like a race [car] driver who needs a new car,” said Keys. “I’m taking my 40-year-old cars to the Indianapolis Speedway and racing them at top speed, not just on Sunday afternoon but all day, every day. “The F-15 Eagle is a great aircraft,” Keys said. “I flew it. It’s undefeated in air-to-air combat. It has a worldwide aerial victory ratio of 105-to-1. But I’ve got skin peeling off and wire bundles catching fire on my F-15s. I’ve got pilots climbing into the cockpits of F-15s their fathers flew.” Keys passed the baton at Air Combat Command to Gen. John D.W. Corley, who was on the job just a month when Maj. Stephen Stilwell ejected from an F-15C over Rolla, Mo., on Nov. 2, 2007. Air National Guardsman Stilwell, a Southwest Airlines pilot when not serving with the Guard’s 110th Fighter Squadron, reached for the black- and yellow-striped handle for his ejection seat only after the nose section of his plane broke off from the rest of the fuselage. He sustained severe injuries to his left arm and shoulder. It wasn’t the first F-15 loss attributed to age and structural issues. A fatal 2002 crash revealed problems with the honeycomb design of the Eagle’s twin fins that was remedied by fleet-wide fixes. Without diminishing the tragic consequence of the 2002 loss, which claimed the life of Maj. James Duricy after a 900-mile-per-hour bailout over the Gulf of Mexico, the tragedy offered no hint that a bigger problem might be lurking somewhere beneath the skin of the Eagle. Stilwell was the canary in the coal mine. His aircraft loss grabbed instant attention throughout the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the nation because, suddenly, officials knew there was a bigger structural issue, possibly age-related but possibly not. Moreover, the structural issue may have been there all along and gone undetected, possibly for decades. Corley grounded all 666 Eagles. He returned all to flight, and then grounded all the service’s 442 F-15A through D models, leaving only the 224 newer and differently designed F-15E Strike Eagles airworthy and able to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Corley’s second grounding was indefinite. It threw into motion the machinery that exists within the Air Force to deal with mechanical problems when they arise unexpectedly. At Warner Robins, Ga., the home of depot services for the F-15, Air Force uniformed and civilian experts analyzed the F-15 from every angle, almost as if they were designing the 1972-vintage fighter all over again, using computer-aided design (CAD) rather than a blueprint drawing board. Maintenance officers, inspectors, and enlisted maintainers were suddenly the heroes in every fighter squadron as experts created a plan to inspect the Eagle fleet and pushed ahead with it. In a stroke of timing that could not possibly have been worse, the January-February issue of the Air Force’s internal magazine,

159

F15 Eagle.indd 159

2/27/08 12:26:42 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman John Hughel

A U.S. Air Force F-15C Eagle aircraft takes off from Portland Air National Guard Base in Oregon on Jan. 10, 2008. While many Eagles are back in the air, some are unlikely to fly again.

Airman, was published the day of Corley’s second, and at-the-time possibly permanent grounding of the Eagle fleet. The magazine devoted six pages to breezy, upbeat, feel-good interviews with F-15C/ D pilots and crewchiefs of Detachment 1, 125th Fighter Wing of the Florida Air National Guard at Homestead Air Reserve Base, Fla. It was very uplifting and had been sent to the printing presses before Stilwell bailed out. The story ended with an inspiring quote from Senior Airman Marcus Holling that was intended to honor crew chiefs but suddenly, sadly, became a metaphor. “You see, if we don’t fix these planes, they don’t fly,” Holling said at a time when all Eagles were still fully airworthy. “And if they don’t fly,” Holling added, “we’re not protecting the skies.” The F-15 has been crucial to Operation Noble Eagle, the ongoing mission to defend the United States that was launched after September 11 in anticipation of some future day when a fighter might be called upon to shoot down a hijacked airliner. Although Pentagon officials said they could not provide more recent statistics, as of March 2007, Noble Eagle aircraft had flown 44,000 sorties

and were diverted from patrols or scrambled from strip alert 2,200 times. A significant number of the Air Force’s 1,244 F-16C/Ds were pinch-hitting for the Eagle fleet during the stand-down. A month after pilot Stilwell’s mishap in Missouri, the ongoing investigation found “possible fleet-wide airworthiness problems” because of defects in the longerons, the lengthwise structural metal rails of the Eagle’s fuselage.. The grounding of Eagles sent shock waves throughout the military. Air Force leaders have plenty of practice beseeching Congress for relief from the geriatric condition of KC-135 Stratotankers, C-5 Galaxy airlifters, and HH-60G Pave Hawk rescue helicopters – but the emergence of an age-related, structural problem among A through D model Eagles came abruptly and unexpectedly. Elaborating on the structural issue, an Air Force press release added that the investigation’s findings, “based on a metallurgical analysis of the mishap aircraft, have drawn attention to the F-15’s upper longerons near the canopy of the aircraft that appear to have cracked and failed.

160

F15 Eagle.indd 160

2/27/08 12:27:02 PM

F-15 EAGLE

The longerons are major structural components that run along the length and side of the aircraft.” When inspections of the Eagle fleet were completed, 191 aircraft were shown to have “suspect” longerons, including nine F-15C models with cracks that were detected via X-ray. Some officials speculated that the problem was caused not by age but by an error in the manufacturing process in a batch of fighters built between 1978 and 1985. Maj. Gen. Tom Owen, head of the Warner Robins facility, told the trade journal Air Force Times that it wasn’t known if the Air Force or the F-15 manufacturer, McDonnell, knew the longerons were not built to specifications. While all A through D model Eagles were grounded, their number dropped by one plane to 441 when the Massachusetts Air National Guard, in a stroke of irony, implemented a longstanding plan to make one Eagle a museum piece. Many Eagles returned to flight in early 2008. Still, the size of the fleet went down one more notch to 440 when Lt. Col. Christopher “Frenchy” Faurot bailed out of an F-15D near Hawaii on Feb. 1, 2008 in an incident that appeared unrelated to structural problems. A Coast Guard HH-65C Dolphin helicopter hauled the uninjured Faurot of the 199th Fighter Squadron, Hawaii Air National Guard, back to land but, because details were bottled up for several days, press speculation was rampant. For a few hours, the online version of a respected magazine identified the Guard pilot as Maj. Gen. Robert G.F. Lee. The state’s adjutant general, Lee is responsible for all Guard activities in his state, but he wears an Army uniform. With some Eagles back in the air and some possibly grounded forever – the cost of repair exceeding the price of the aircraft – Air Force leaders found themselves pulled in several directions by what Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael “Buzz” Moseley candidly called “a crisis in the fighter force.” The first priority for Moseley and other leaders was the safety of men and women in F-15 cockpits, and their strong, serious actions demonstrated that they were concerned with real substance, not merely appearances. But in acting sternly to resolve the problem, they faced a dilemma: They did not want to use a safety issue to promote their long-standing request for more F-22 Raptors, or even to appear to be doing so. For years, Air Force leaders argued that the service needs 381 F-22 Raptors to equip 10 combat squadrons with 24 fighters each, plus robust developmental and training units, and some aircraft for attrition. The Bush administration has consistently requested funds for only 183 Raptors in seven combat squadrons, some of which would have just 18 aircraft each. Enforcement of administration policy, and capping F-22 production, has long been the task of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. But in January 2008, in part because of the crisis in the Eagle fleet, England relented somewhat and agreed to include a small number of additional Raptors in emergency supplemental legislation intended to underwrite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The paralysis of the F-15 fleet will almost certainly mean more Raptors, possibly including 20 aircraft likely to be added to emergency supplemental legislation early in the spring.

The F-22 Raptor is almost universally recognized as being a generation ahead of every other fighter in the world. It can fly at supersonic speed while cruising toward its target, can evade radar detection with low-observables, or stealth features, and once in a dogfight is exceedingly maneuverable. But more than two decades after it was conceived as the stealthy Advanced Tactical Fighter to wage war against the Soviet Union, and more than three years after it reached initial operating capability, the F-22 is still not ready for the full range of combat missions. Experts acknowledge that its capability as an ISR platform (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) is hindered by a delay in installing Link 16 and other datalink capabilities to the aircraft – leaving Raptor pilots currently able to communicate with the outside world only via voice radio. One day, the F-22 pilot will be hooked up to “net-centric” warfighters on land, sea, and air, but in early 2008 that day still appeared to be at least two years away. Although new – one pilot remarked on the “new car smell” of his factory fresh F-22 – the Raptor has experienced some leaking and corrosion. Air Force experts say these issues are minor, but other sources say that plans to deploy F-22s to the AOR – the “area of responsibility” in and around Iraq, meaning the combat zone – have been postponed at least twice. To help make their case for increased Raptor production, Air Force leaders point out that the United States must be ready for all eventualities, and that the enemy may not always be a jihadist with a roadside bomb. China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and an increasingly bellicose Russia are all equipping their air arms with advanced fighters like the Sukhoi Su-30. When this article was going to press, Moseley provided the following quote to set the F-22 situation in context: “We’re currently working close with the secretary of defense and the OSD staff to flesh out the options and details to continue the F-22 production line,” said Moseley. “As we all work hard to execute the current, cost-saving F-22 multi-year procurement program as well as to deliver the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter on time and on budget, we are looking at a variety of options to keep this ‘fifth-generation’ F-22 line open and delivering capabilities for the joint team. The F-22A is the world’s only next-generation aircraft in production and delivering fifth-gen capability, and as such represents that generational enhancement in lethality and survivability that is required for today’s and tomorrow’s fight. Currently we are equipping Active, Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard units with the new aircraft. Over time, we have explored a variety of other bed-down options to include additional air sovereignty-tasked squadrons within the Air National Guard. The number 381 is the total of those operational combat coded [CC] squadrons plus the school house at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., and the Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., the test/evaluation inventory, the backup aircraft inventory [BAI] and the attrition reserve [AR].” The F-15 Eagle is not yet finished flying and fighting, but Moseley clearly sees the F-22 Raptor as the wave of the future.

161

F15 Eagle.indd 161

2/27/08 12:27:17 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

EXPORTING FREEDOM AND SECURITY: American Arms

Transfer Programs By Dwight Jon Zimmerman

T

he most visible – certainly the most reported and talked about – news regarding American defense policy overseas has been recent and ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, these operations are just one part of a much larger policy that supports the stability of friendly indigenous governments around the world. In fact, today more than 150 nations receive assistance in the form of arms transfers from a variety of programs. Arms transfers under just the Direct Commercial Sales program alone amounted to more than $52 billion in export licenses and defense service authorizations in Fiscal Year 2005. They ranged from a high of more than $4.6 billion for a wide range of arms and materiel to South Korea to less than $1,000 dollars to Tanzania for helicopter parts. The security issues for arms transfers by the purchasing country include counter-insurgency, fighting drug trafficking, combating organized crime, and other security needs. For a small country such as the Bahamas, such aid significantly augments its ability to combat drug trafficking. Arms transfers have been an important part of America’s defense policy from the very beginning of the nation’s history. Arms manufacturers were among the first

homegrown industries, and inventors and innovators such as Eli Whitney perfected mass production methods such as the use of interchangeable parts that allowed the industries to flourish. Yet, the United States was dependent on imported European arms to varying degrees throughout the 19th century. This dependency extended into the early 20th century and World War I, where American aviators flew British and French aircraft, and fought with European tanks and other heavy weapons (even though American military exports actually rose to $2.3 billion by 1918). It was not until World War II that America became an “arsenal of democracy.” Through Lend-Lease, the most famous arms transfer program in history, the United States delivered more than $50 billion of arms and equipment to its allies. The country’s role in international arms transfers expanded during the post-World War II ideological struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union popularly known as the Cold War. The evolving expansion of the Cold War saw U.S. commitment begin in Europe and then go to flash points in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and Southeast Asia. From about 1950 to 1990, the United States provided roughly $196.3 billion in arms transfers and military training to nations through various programs. The collapse

162

Exporting Freedom no third.indd 162

2/27/08 12:21:21 PM

U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Shane S. Keller

Exporting Freedom

Iraqi army soldiers with 2nd Brigade, 7th Iraqi Army Division, train with M16A2 rifles at the small-arms range at Camp Al Asad, Iraq, Aug. 13, 2007. U.S. Marines from 4th Reconnaissance Battalion, 4th Marine Division, worked with the Iraqi soldiers to teach them various warfighting techniques. Aid such as these weapons, ammunition, and especially training, will help the Iraqi government to fight against terrorists and insurgents.

163

Exporting Freedom no third.indd 163

2/27/08 12:21:36 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008 Department of Defense photo by Cherie A. Thurlby

164

Exporting Freedom no third.indd 164

2/27/08 12:21:58 PM

Exporting Freedom

of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War saw the rise of new, smaller-scale regional challenges and the development of new doctrines including today’s Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) and military operations other than war (MOOTW). Modern arms transfers are governed by a number of acts. The most rigorous are the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA) as amended, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). These laws and regulations, particularly the ITAR, are constantly updated, and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) provides regular updates. Three federal programs manage the arms transfers: Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and Foreign Military Financing (FMF). The FMS program is responsible for governmentto-government purchases of military and defense services, training, and weapons. In FMS, the Department of Defense (DoD) acts as an intermediary between the purchasing country and the domestic arms industries, handling procurement, logistic, and delivery support and services, as well as follow-up training and maintenance services. DCS is a State Department program that oversees sales between foreign governments and private industry. A direct commercial sale requires an export license issued by the Office of Defense Trade Controls from the State Department’s Bureau for PoliticalMilitary Affairs. Licenses are valid for four years and do not guarantee that requested items can be purchased or delivered. The FMF program provides grants and loans to help qualified countries purchase U.S.-manufactured weapons and military support services under the FMS program. Under the terms of the AECA, every February, the president, through the State Department, is required

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, right, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, left, conduct a press conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Failsal, center, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Aug. 1, 2007. Gates and Rice were in the Middle East to discuss regional affairs and the United States’ long-term relationship with Saudi Arabia. The meeting came just days after Rice announced an estimated $20 billion military arms sales package, which will consist of missile defenses, including early-warning and air capabilities; maritime capabilities; weaponry to counter unconventional threats; and enhanced counterproliferation capabilities. The bulk of the package was to be sold to Saudi Arabia.

165

Exporting Freedom no third.indd 165

2/27/08 12:22:16 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

to present to Congress a report, known as the “Javits” report, regarding arms-sales proposals for the upcoming year covering all FMS and DCS of major weapons or weapons-related defense equipment of $7 million or more, or of any other weapons or weapons-related defense equipment for $25 million or more, which are considered eligible for approval. The report also contains an indication of which sales or licenses are most likely to be approved during the year, an estimate of the total amount of FMS sales and DCS licenses expected to be made to each foreign country, and other relevant data. In addition, the report contains a list detailing the type of arms and their value each nation has received the preceding year. Military weapons and support are divided into 21 categories in the U.S. Munitions List. They are as follows: Category I: firearms, close-assault weapons, and combat shotguns Category II: guns and armament Category III: ammunition/ordnance Category IV: launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, and mines Category V: explosives and energetic materials, propellants, and incendiary agents and their constituents Category VI: vessels of war and special naval equipment Category VII: tanks and military vehicles Category VIII: aircraft and associated equipment Category IX: military training equipment and training Category X: protective personnel equipment and shelters Category XI: military electronics Category XII: fire control, range finder, optical, and guidance and control equipment Category XIII: auxiliary military equipment Category XIV: toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents, and associated equipment Category XV: spacecraft systems and associated equipment Category XVI: nuclear weapons, design and testing-related items Category XVII: classified articles, technical data, and defense services not otherwise enumerated Category XVIII: directed energy weapons Category XIX: [Reserved] Category XX: submersible vessels, and oceanographic and associated equipment Category XXI: miscellaneous articles The Department of State and DoD are the two cabinet offices responsible for foreign military assistance as established through legislation by Congress. The secretary of state provides continuous supervision and general direction for security assistance, including determining whether and which security assistance programs a given country will have, as well as their scope and content. The secretary of defense implements programs to transfer defense articles and services on a government-to-government basis. The DDTC is an office within the Department of State that oversees foreign arms transfers. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) is the principal organization within DoD responsible for security assistance.

Nations wishing for arms and training assistance under the FAA and AECA must meet eligibility requirements. The president must first determine that assistance to the country, as specified in section 503 FAA and section 3(a) AECA, “will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace.” Also, the president must find that the country does not have, according to section 503 FAA, “sufficient wealth to enable it ... to maintain and equip its own military forces at adequate strength without undue burden to its economy.” For example, in May 2007, the DSCA notified Congress of a possible FMS to Iraq of various small arms ammunition, explosives, and other consumables, as well as associated equipment and services. If all the options within this proposed sale are exercised, the amount could total $508 million. According to the notification, the proposed sale “will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country. This proposed sale directly supports the Iraqi government and serves the interests of the Iraqi people and the U.S. as well as offering hope for a more stable and peaceful Middle East.” The report goes on to state that the proposed sale “will enhance the ability of the Iraqi forces to sustain themselves in their efforts to bring stability to the country and prevent overflow of unrest into neighboring countries.” And it notes that it “will not affect the basic military balance in the region.” The United States has established three special export programs designed to expedite arms transfers to nations it has mutual defense treaties with, such as those in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), or otherwise identified as a friendly nation. These programs are the Defense Capabilities Initiative that applies to specified defense items for NATO allies; the Special Embassy program, which provides “an expeditious channel for approval of defense articles procured in the United States by embassies of NATO allies, Australia, and Japan;” and the special licensing regime for commercial communications satellites and related components that “provides multi-destination licenses and retransfer authorizations to an approved list of end users and satellite programs.” The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan has caused those two nations to be in a separate category. The DDTC has prepared an application for arms transfers to these two nations that a company must use. Presently the DDTC lists 25 nations on its embargoed list. The list includes such nations as Cuba, Iran, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The list includes the appropriate legislation and policy documents published in the Federal Register as it relates to the individual countries, and the list also notes that the Federal Register should be consulted regarding the most immediate changes or amendments. The DDTC offers through its Web site (www.pmddtc.state. gov/index.htm) the latest information on arms trade, enforcement actions, and licensing updates. Additionally, it offers the D-Trade Information Center, a fully electronic, trade-licensing system for interested companies. D-Trade contains the latest updates, guidelines for processing, trade-user requirements, digital certificates, a list of authorized vendors, and a variety of forms.

166

Exporting Freedom no third.indd 166

2/27/08 12:22:25 PM

Exporting Freedom

The home page of DSCA (www.dsca.mil) presents a wide range of news and services, including notifications of major arms sales, resources for contractors, Javits report updates, and relevant news reports. Both the DDTC and DSCA Web sites are well designed and easy to navigate. The Foreign Military Sale process is a lengthy one. It can last up to one year or more, depending on the type of weapons being purchased. It begins when a foreign government requests “price and availability data” (P&A data) on U.S.-produced items it wishes to purchase. This request is presented to Security Assistance Organizations’ (SAOs’) military personnel stationed at the U.S. embassy in the petitioning country. If the State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs refuses approval, the proposed FMS sale process immediately stops. If the State Department grants approval, P&A data are provided to the government that made the request. That government can decide to purchase the arms and material through the FMS or DCS program, or go to another country. Assuming that the purchaser decides to purchase from the U.S. government, an appropriate implementing agency within the Pentagon experienced in the types of arms and support requested negotiates the terms of sale. Once an agreement is reached, both parties sign a letter of offer and acceptance (LOA), which is the contract that sets the FMS “case” in motion. Once the LOA is signed, the DSCA goes through Defense Department procurement channels to purchase the items from U.S. manufacturers. FMS sales costs are paid for by a 3 percent administrative surcharge. Spare parts, equipment modification, secondary support equipment, and supply costs are underwritten by a 3.1 percent logistics support charge. These surcharges pay a major share of the salaries and operating costs of the SAO and DoD personnel who administer the program. Though the FMS process is slow, particularly when compared to the Direct Commercial Sales program, it offers a purchasing country a number of advantages. They include closer military-to-military contact at all stages of the sale, as well as follow-on training and support. FMS sales are often less expensive, particularly for more advanced systems. It is not unusual for the Pentagon to group its purchases with those of other countries, thus gaining a better price through an increase in production volume. FMS contracts carry service and training guarantees. FMS provides countries with limited experience negotiating procurement contracts a convenient option as it utilizes Pentagon services to handle the complex paperwork. Also, the FMS process is a matter of public record. Thus it enables the purchasing country to show that it has “nothing to hide.” For countries that can meet the criteria, the U.S. government offers Foreign Military Financing (FMF) in the form of grants and low-cost loans to purchase U.S.-produced weapons, defense equipment, defense services, and military training. The FMF program is authorized by sections 23 and 24 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended. FMF funds are usually made available through the FMS program. On rare occasion, monies are made available through the Direct Commercial Sales

program. FMF does not provide outright cash grants. Instead, it pays for sales of goods or services through the FMS or DCS programs. FMF policy is set by the State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs, with day-to-day management provided by DoD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency. FMF has been important in the funding for U.S. military assistance in Latin America, particularly the Caribbean. In 2006, FMF provided $3.96 million for the launching of Operation Enduring Friendship, a naval cooperation program between the U.S. Southern Command and Caribbean nations. The importance of this measure was highlighted in a prepared statement before the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Committee on International Relations, chairman of the Subcommittee, the Honorable Dan Burton, who said on Oct. 19, 2005, “The Caribbean region constitutes America’s third border, and one which is critically important in both economic and security terms. There are numerous threats to security in the Caribbean, from organized crime, drug trafficking, environmental degradation, infectious disease outbreaks, and natural disasters. All of these threats either directly or indirectly constitute challenges to our security here in the United States. The Caribbean countries lack resources to adequately maintain and guarantee security of their own waters. To address this, the Bush administration developed Operation Enduring Friendship to strengthen our national security and that of participating Caribbean nations. Operation Enduring Friendship provides a structured framework to enhance cooperation in the areas of counter-drugs, counterterrorism, and law enforcement. Caribbean nations participating in the program benefit from coordinated maritime security exercises, technical assistance, standardized command, control, communications training, and logistical support.” End-use monitoring is conducted under the “Blue Lantern” program. It was initiated in September 1990 and has greatly strengthened export controls. Blue Lantern does this by deterring diversions, aiding in the disruption of illicit supply networks used by rogue governments and international criminal organizations, assisting the federal government in making informed licensing decisions, and ensuring compliance with the AECA and the ITAR. Blue Lantern has proved particularly effective in countering the growing problem of the “gray” arms trade, where fraudulent documents are used to require weapons through legitimate channels. When combined with other forms of foreign aid, arms transfers have proved to be, in the words of the State Department, “an integral part of safeguarding U.S. national security and furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives.”

167

Exporting Freedom no third.indd 167

2/27/08 12:22:33 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Soldier’s Home:

Shelter for the 21st Century Warfighter By Dwight Jon Zimmerman

T

he challenges a leader faces in finding temporary shelter for his troops is as old as Genesis. In the past, one answer was for commanders to requisition houses or large buildings in a town and have his men occupy them, a solution that was inefficient, awkward, and prone to abuse. One of the more notorious examples of this was the infamous Quartering Act of 1774 in which Parliament, in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party raid, passed a law that forced American colonists to house British troops. The other troop housing option was portable shelters – tents. The old GP (General Purpose) tent was just that: general purpose. It came in a variety of sizes, was bulky, made of heavy canvas, had no floor, was dark, drafty, and was for decades put to every field use, from the arctic to desert and jungle environments. The future of troop shelter design and development changed in 1975 with the creation of the Joint Committee of Tactical Shelters (JOCOTAS). The mission of JOCOTAS was to prevent the duplication of Tactical Shelter Research and Development, eliminate the proliferation of non-standard tactical shelters in the Department of Defense (DoD) inventory, and maximize the usage of DoD Standard Family of Tactical Shelters. Prior to the creation of JOCOTAS, each branch designed and developed its own shelters. When JOCOTAS was made operational, this meant, for example, that more than 100-rigid wall tactical shelter types were on inventory, creating an enormous logistical and cost burden. Since then, JOCOTAS has succeeded in reducing the overall inventory to 17 shelter types for all four services. Within these 17 types, JOCOTAS has on inventory of 75 different models. These include 29 rigid-wall tactical shelters, 40 soft-wall and hybrid (incorporating both rigid- and soft-wall technologies) shelters, and six specialty items (cargo bed covers using camouflage and solar-system designs and technology). The Natick Soldier RD&E Center (NSRDEC) located at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Mass., under the auspices of the Army’s Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) has, among its duties, the responsibility to design and develop shelters that take advantage of advances in fabrics and technologies. Their efforts have produced an amazing array of portable shelters, which first appeared in field operations during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Today

portable, modular shelters are large enough to conduct full-scale aircraft maintenance, sterile enough to be used as operating rooms, secure enough to be used in hazardous material removal, and versatile enough to provide all the comforts and tools needed to house, feed, entertain, and command in-combat, battalion-sized units. The NSRDEC has worked hard to ensure that U.S. troops are the best equipped, clothed, fed, and protected. In recognition of its success in using science and technology to achieve that mission statement, it has received the Department of the Army’s Research & Development Lab of the Year Award for four of the last five years.

Rigid-wall Shelters As the name indicates, rigid-wall shelters have roofs and sides that are inflexible and are usually made of metal. They are presized according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and are also known as ISO shelters. ISO is a non-government organization network composed of 157 nations that establishes international standards for a variety of items, including the sizes of containers and shelters. ISO shelters are highly mobile, contain climate-controlled environments, are transportable by land, sea, or air, require minimal site preparation, and no specialized set-up. They are available in three basic models, Non-Expandable, One-Side Expandable, and Two-Side Expandable. A Non-Expandable ISO Shelter is a wholly rigid “box” that is complete and self-contained. A One-Side Expandable ISO Shelter is a modular design in which one wall can be detached, allowing the shelter to be fitted to a similar sized unit. A Two-Side Expandable ISO Shelter has two detachable walls, enabling more versatile expansion. There are a number of mission-specific configurations available. The ISO Tactical Operations Center (ISO-TOC) can be tailored to individual mission requirements. The Modular Extendable Rigid Wall Shelter (MERWS) is an expansion kit for the one-sided or two-sided models that can provide up to 1,150 square feet of unobstructed floor space and is useful for any operation that requires large floor space, such as a tactical command center, a hospital, or a maintenance center. The Standardized Integrated Command Post

168

Soldiers Living Fac.indd 168

2/27/08 2:22:07 PM

Photo by LCpl Andrew Williams, USMC

Warfighter LIVING FACILITIES

ISO shelters used by the Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron-234 (VMGR-234) at Ahmed Al Jaber Air Base, Kuwait. ISO shelters are complete, selfcontained units that are easy to transport and set up.

System Rigid Wall Shelter (SICPS RWS) can house C2 command and control systems. Unlike earlier systems, which were primarily a hollow “box” with electric outlets, the SICPS RWS comes fully equipped with all the necessary radio, computer, power, and environmental systems. The S-788 Lightweight Mulipurpose Shelter (LMS) is a rigid-wall shelter designed to fit onto a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. It is electromagnetic interference protected, and is the shelter of choice for C4I systems. The Mobile Digital Imaging System–C-Arm Shelter Air Force Medical shelter brings the versatility of state-of-the-art digital imaging equipment into a mobile twosided expandable ISO shelter designed for medical surgery. Previously such equipment was only available at fixed hospital sites.

Soft-wall Shelters Some of the greatest innovations have occurred in the design and construction of soft-wall shelters. The Fabric Structures Team at Natick has developed technology so that these shelters are now capable of such delicate tasks as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN) collective protection. Depending on the model, they incorporate flexible photovoltaics, high-efficiency insulation, flexible lighting, and ballistic protection materials. Frames in the latest models are supported by inflatable air beams sewn into the walls and ceiling.

The most famous of the soft-wall shelters in Operations Desert Shield/ Desert Storm was arguably the soft-wall Large Area Maintenance Shelter (LAMS), more popularly known as “clamshells.” The LAMS is a semi-mobile rigid-metal-frame modular, all-weather shelter that is free of vertical support beams, thus allowing unobstructed movement in its interior. Today, it is being phased out in favor of the Wide Span Air Beam Shelter (WSABS) that uses air beam technology for its frame. Air beams are manufactured by continuous braiding or weaving of a high strength, three-dimensional fabric sleeve over an air retention bladder. Depending on the size of the shelter, the air pressure in the bladders ranges from 30 to 80 pounds per square inch, with 80 pounds psi used in the larger shelters. Air-beam technology is perhaps the most important breakthrough in the design of large portable shelters. Originally, the LAMS took 10 people up to a week to set up. By comparison, the WSABS can be set up in two days. It has half the weight and a quarter the stored volume of a similar metal-frame shelter. In addition, these new clamshells have powered door openings, floors, and fully integrated electrical, heating, and cooling systems. For personnel, the Expeditionary Force Provider Kit (EFPK) is a state-ofthe-art system designed for high-mobility base operations up to battalion size. The basic EFPK kit supports as many as 150 soldiers, takes about four hours to construct, and contains seven billeting tents, one dining facility tent, one hygiene tent, four washers and dryers, and four seated latrines. A typical

169

Soldiers Living Fac.indd 169

2/27/08 2:22:19 PM

Rapid Deployment is Mission Critical! Tricon Support System One Tricon = 1200 sq. ft.

When time matters, rapid deployment and total systems integration is key. High pressure airbeam shelters require no staking prior to inflation and minimal manpower. Ruggedized for mobile environments, the LED lighting fixtures, for both rigid and soft-wall shelter, remain in place during strike.

Collective Protection

Mobile Single Pallet Unit™ operational in 10 minutes

Fully integrated shelter systems for all applications The 21st Century Mobile Hospital System5. family of deployable shelters takes state-of-the-art technology to the front lines. Designed to meet stringent military and medical requirements to provide a climate controlled environment within minutes of arriving at the theatre of operation.

802.748.2322smobile-medical.com P.O. Box 672, 2176 Portland Street, St. Johnsbury, VT 05819 MMIC08MilitaryadREV.indd 1

mobileR on temp.indd 1

Tactical Mobility At Its Finest! 2/11/08 3:46:22 PM

2/12/08 4:01:41 PM

U.S. Army photo by 1st Lt. Michael Oliveira, 3rd Medical Command

Warfighter LIVING FACILITIES

Chemically and Biologically Protected Shelters (CBPS) allow medical staff to do their jobs during combat without concern for chemical and biological attacks. The highly mobile shelter is designed to provide a controlled, clean environment for up to 36 hours in a chemically or biologically contaminated area. A four-man crew can set up the CBPS in less than 30 minutes while dressed in MOPP4 chemical-protection suits.

camp occupies 10 acres, and from site preparation to completion the camp can become entirely operational in 14 days. The modular tents in an EFPK, which can be expanded in 18-foot increments, are made of vinyl-coated fabric whose seams are heat-sealed, not sewn, to form a waterproof barrier. To maximize interior illumination, the inside walls are white. The tents also have tough, impermeable floors that extend several inches above ground to keep out everything from insects and other pests, to water and toxic agents. These new models are also easier to build or strike. On average, four soldiers can erect or strike one in less than 30 minutes. In 2005, the Army had 36 Force Provider units, sometimes called “tent cities,” in preposition locations in Europe, the Persian Gulf, the western Pacific, and the continental United States. A number of EFPKs are presently in use in Afghanistan. The risk of chemical, biological, or radiological attack is a thought that concerns all units deployed in the field today. Natick’s Collective Protection Systems Teams have developed soft-wall and rigid-wall shelters that provide survivable environments against these and other threats. The shelters include: the highly mobile Chemical & Biological Protective Shelters (CBPS) and Chemically Protected-Deployable Medical Systems

(CP-DEPMEDS) mobile hospital. The CBPS is a self-deploying rigid-wall shelter attached to a vehicle and connected to a chem-bio tent that utilizes inflatable air-beam supports. Its environmental systems are capable of filtering nuclear, biological, and chemical agents. It is designed to be a battalion aid station with forward medical treatment capability in a contaminated environment. It has a modular feature allowing for expansion to a full forward surgical team site. The CP-DEPMEDS is a 256-bed, 3.5 acre hospital complex of TEMPER (Tent, Expandable, Modular, Personnel) design that includes environmentally secure tents, passageways, and shelters for patients and a 150-person hospital staff. A CP-DEPMEDS is a complete hospital that includes surgery, X-ray, and dental services, and a CB-protected water supply system. Though CB weapons are a potential threat, a more probable one is that of indirect fire – shrapnel from an exploding mortar round or other fragmentation, and bullets. In response, Natick partnered with the Advanced Engineered Wood Composites (AEWC) Center at the University of Maine to create the Modular Ballistics Protection System (MBPS). Natick Soldier Center engineer Ryan Devine said, “The MBPS is lightweight, quickly deployable, and provides soldiers with enhanced ballistic protection where it never existed before – their tents.” The MBPS is an armor continued on page 175

171

Soldiers Living Fac.indd 171

2/27/08 2:22:29 PM

dhs on temp.indd 1

1/18/08 3:02:11 PM

Advertiser’s Feature

Exploring the Many Means of Psychological Operations By Naeran Rubio

Photo by TCpl. Rich Mattingly

T

o many, Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) brings to mind images of North Vietnam’s “Hanoi Hanna,” Japan’s “Tokyo Rose” and, more recently, Iraq’s infamous “Baghdad Betty” of Desert Storm. Designed to persuade and inform foreign audiences of the content and wisdom of one’s policies, intentions and actions, PSYOPS media can be a force multiplier by using non-violent means to influence people in an often violent environment. To do this, it is important for units to use the utmost in sophisticated equipment. From loudspeakers to leaflets to radio broadcasts, U.S. PSYOPS units have been utilizing cutting-edge resources for years to communicate with both military and civilian populations overseas.

Mobile Print Production Centers One effective means of disseminating information is through the distribution of printed media in the host country’s native language. During the Gulf War, U.S. PSYOPS units designed leaflets that looked like Iraqi currency on one side and included detailed instructions for surrendering on the other side. This innovative design allowed thousands of Iraqi soldiers to surrender without fear of reprisal from their superiors by hiding them in their wallets. Currently, U.S. Army PSYOPS units use the Deployable Print Production Center (DPPC), which can print up to 93,000 leaflets within a 24-hour period and can be carried in a HMMWV for complete deployment wherever needed. The DPPC allows for the local production of leaflets, flyers, newsletters and other information products in forward areas. However, not all publications are printed on site. When language experts are not available at the deployment areas, PSYOPS relies on outside sources to pre-print articles to distribute within a short period of time.

Broadcast Media Another effective means of communicating utilizes radio broadcast systems and mobile television systems to both inform and influence military and civilian audiences. During the Iraqi War, both “Black” and “White” PSYOPS tactics were used to accomplish this. While “White” PSYOPS is up front about who the media represents, “Black” PSYOPS hopes the target audience does not see through the ruse and believe the information comes from the wrongly attributed source, thus decreasing its credibility. The risk of conducting “Black” PSYOPS is palpable if the ruse is discovered. During Operation Desert Storm, American soldiers listening to Baghdad Betty were warned that while they were in Saudi Arabia their wives and girlfriends were sleeping with Tom Cruise, Tom Selleck and Bart Simpson. Of course, suggesting that a cartoon character was seducing servicemen’s women in the U.S. made Baghdad Betty lose all credibility. PSYOPS uses the Special Operations Media System – B (SOMS-B) to conduct any broadcast operation, Black or White. The SOMS-B is a selfcontained system that consists of two primary subsystems: the Mobile Radio Broadcast System (MRBS) and the Mobile Television Broadcast System (MTBS). Each of these systems includes a rapidly deployable Deployable Rapid Assembly Shelter (DRASH) system that can be deployed with or without an accompanying 33 kW generator and environmental control unit. Two HMMWVs and a mission trailer carry the entire system which is capable of broadcasting in AM, FM, television and short wave radio. The SOMS-B

The crowd pushes around an Afghan National Police Officer handing out PSYOP newspapers on February 18, 2005, in Jalalabad. The PSYOP papers are eagerly received whenever they are passed out. targets both short-wave and long-range audiences, which means that it can be set up in a strategic location to target the local population and then moved further out to cover even larger parts of the country with short wave.

Loudspeakers When the audience is in range, loudspeakers are used to broadcast messages into foxholes, trenches and city streets. They are also very effective for areas that radio or television broadcasts cannot reach, and can be immediately useful for clearing enemy soldiers and civilians out of target areas, or to broadcast to populated areas. Loudspeakers come in various types with different ranging capabilities. The man portable version has a typical broadcast range of 700 to 1,000 meters, while the mounted HMMWV or M1025 versions can broadcast up to 1,800 meters. The highest power version can be mounted on a Black Hawk helicopter for an even greater range.

Alternative Means Although e-mail may seem an ineffective way of communicating with the local populace, it can be used for more targeted communications. For instance, during Iraqi Freedom, PSYOPS used mobile phone text messaging and e-mails to send messages directly to key decision makers in the Iraqi regime. This worked, specifically, because the cost of maintaining a home e-mail connection is beyond the means of ordinary Iraqis, and the number of Internet cafés available in the country is limited. However, most of the Baath Party leadership, which were whom the U.S. was targeting, had e-mail access. This allowed PSYOPS to outline to Baath Party members the cost to themselves and to Iraq of their continued support for Saddam. Sometimes, technology does not play a part in PSYOPS. Rather, human ingenuity and careful planning can make all the difference in a successful operation. In the end, superior technology can only aid that intelligent and creative spark which is already there.

173

Soldiers Living Fac.indd 173

2/27/08 2:22:41 PM

HESCO Ad YID Jan 08.qxd:Layout 1

23/1/08

16:15

Page 1

Concertainer from HESCO

The most significant development in field fortifications since WWII

Concertainer® units have been a key component in providing Force Protection since the 1991 Gulf War. Structures built with Concertainer units have been subjected to testing with charges up to 20,000lbs, and correctly configured, will mitigate the effects of truck bomb attack. Concertainer units have also been tested and proven against small arms fire and RPG, and are used extensively in the protection of personnel, vehicles, equipment and facilities by major military organisations around the world. If Force Protection is your responsibility, there really is no other response. www.hesco.com

Tel. +44 207 350 5454 Email. [email protected]

Worldwide Patents Apply. Patent No. 0466726 (Europe), Patent No. 5472297 & 5333970 (USA) Hesco and Concertainer are registered trade marks of Hesco Bastion Limited in Europe and Worldwide, CTM 4022604 and 438093.

hesco on temp.indd 1

1/23/08 12:17:32 PM

Warfighter LIVING FACILITIES

Department of Defense

A Tent, Extendable, Modular, Personnel (TEMPER) design. The TEMPER shelters can be set up individually or joined together to form larger complexes such as Chemically Protected-Deployable Medical Systems (CP-DEPMEDS).

panel system that can be easily integrated into a standard soft-wall shelter frame. It requires no modification to the frame, no additional anchoring, and no special tools for installation. The panels are secured using a simple strap and buckle system. Though MBPS protection is not the equal of heavy-armor systems like concrete barriers and the like, it is an extra level of security and safety. Devine said, “Mortar attack modeling has indicated that the MBPS would protect against more than 99 percent of mortar fragments.” The panels have already been modified so they can be integrated into Force Provider kits and work continues on new ways to upgrade the armor composites to increase the level of protection against more powerful ballistics.

Within the services themselves, construction of the shelter sites is the responsibility of the Army’s Corps of Engineers, Navy’s Seabees, and Air Force’s Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineers, or “RED HORSE.” RED HORSE was formed during the Vietnam War. Each squadron contains 404 airmen and is rapid deployment capable to remote and hostile locations where important construction projects are necessary. Each team contains a complement of civil engineers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, power-production personnel, equipment operators, vehicle maintenance workers, medics, logistics experts, and necessary support personnel. A RED HORSE squadron can be broken into 35-person airborne teams that

175

Soldiers Living Fac.indd 175

2/27/08 2:22:52 PM

qwest on temp.indd 1

2/6/08 4:31:36 PM

U.S. Army

Warfighter LIVING FACILITIES

A portable shelter that incorporates air beam technology. The technology allows faster set up and is more portable and easily transportable than earlier shelters. are capable of being immediately deployed to expedite initial work necessary to conduct operations. One of the notable achievements of RED HORSE occurred in early 2007. Under the popularly known “Baghdad Security Plan,” the 557th Expeditionary RED HORSE Squadron, working with the Army’s 411th Engineer Brigade and the 92nd Engineering Battalion’s Black Diamonds, constructed Forward Operating Base (FOB) Shawshook near Besmaya Range in Iraq. Within 45 days, they built on a completely barren site a complete base capable of supporting the U.S. Army’s 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division. Facilities included three Force Provider Kits, a water system allowing each soldier four gallons of drinking water, and 16 gallons of nonpotable water a day. In another example of the challenges faced in Iraq, Army Reservist Lt. Col. Thomas J. Shea III, design engineer for the 411th Engineer Brigade, recalled his experience during the construction of FOB Hammer in January 2007. Located about 25 miles east of Baghdad, the site was remote and required the use of both the military supply system and local contractors to fill out base construction requirements. Shea stated, before he could build the base, the foundation had to be properly prepared. He later wrote, “A key lesson to remember is to develop a drainage plan for the area protected by [the base’s] barriers. This includes grading the area to create a sloping crown, ditching key areas to drain the water to where you want it, and including seep pipes under the barriers to allow additional draining.” If this is not done, when it rains, even though shelters are now so well-built that troops inside them and the shelter floors will remain dry. When the troops emerge, they will encounter a sea of mud, something Shea noted, they “will not enjoy.” The speed that FOB Hammer was constructed impressed Army Lt. Col. James Kukehart, construction management section deputy, who observed, “If you’ve ever seen “Extreme Makeover” on TV, that’s what it was like … only for 4,000 soldiers instead of just one family.”

177

Soldiers Living Fac.indd 177

3/1/08 6:23:52 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Africa Command Bolstering security across the continent By Lee Ewing U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Nic Raven

At

Kelley Barracks, a small, heavily wooded compound in a suburb of Stuttgart, Germany, a new and strikingly unique U.S. command is taking shape. President George W. Bush, on Feb. 6, 2007, directed the secretary of defense to stand up the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) by Oct. 1, 2008. “The new command will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa,” Bush said in a White House statement. “Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring

178

AFRICOM.indd 178

2/27/08 2:57:24 PM

DoD photo by R.D. Ward

AFRICOM

peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa.” In creating the command, the president is consolidating activities that had been under three commands. “Prior to President Bush’s initiative to create AFRICOM, Central Command handled countries in the Horn of Africa; European Command was responsible for northern and sub-Saharan Africa; and the handful of island nations off Africa’s eastern shore fell to the Pacific Command,” Ryan Henry, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, told the House Armed Services Committee Nov. 14, 2007. “This splintered approach created inefficiencies and often stymied our ability to understand emerging continental issues.” Creating a single geographic command for Africa headed by a four-star general, “will harmonize our efforts, sharpen our coordination, and improve our ability to effectively influence change in Africa,” Henry said. “Additionally, AFRICOM reconfigures DoD’s approach to addressing African security problems as Africans do – from a continental perspective.” The command’s area of responsibility encompasses all 53 African nations. Egypt is a special case, Theresa M. Whelan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, said at an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) panel discussion Sept. 20, 2007. “Egypt is essentially going to be in a unique position – because of its unique position globally and in the international security environment in that it will remain underneath CENTCOM [Central Command] but it will have a relationship with the Africa Command as it relates to African security issues.” Both civilian and military officials associated with the creation of AFRICOM cite Africa’s growing importance in explaining why the command is needed now. “The increasing importance of Africa to the United States is undeniable,” Henry told the committee. “Linked to the U.S. historically, economically, culturally, and politically, security and stability on the continent are of critical interest to the United States. The reorganization of the Defense Department’s approach to the continent through the creation of AFRICOM is simply a recognition of this fact.” Henry and other proponents of the command say its creation is long overdue, and

Opposite: U.S. Army Gen. William E. Ward, commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), introduces AFRICOM Command Sgt. Maj. Mark Ripka as they meet with Botswana Defense Force Lt. Gen. Tathego Masire in Gaborone, Botswana, Dec. 3, 2007, to discuss AFRICOM’s mission. Above: U.S. Navy Adm. Henry Ulrich, left, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe, and U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William E. Ward, commander of U.S. Africa Command, briefed reporters in the Pentagon Oct. 15, 2007, on a new cooperative initiative called Africa Partnership Station. In response to requests from many African nations for training in various aspects of maritime safety and security, two ships, the USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43), a large amphibious ship, and HSV 2 Swift, a smaller high-speed vessel, deployed for seven months in November 2007 to the Gulf of Guinea.

179

AFRICOM.indd 179

2/27/08 2:57:41 PM

The technology to power future vehicles… the engineering and manufacturing capability to produce them.

Michigan Michigan World leader in automotive Research and Development

Michigan is on the move with the DC3 (Defense Contract Coordination Center) —a new entity dedicated to meeting your needs. The DC3 will be your single point of access to Michigan’s capable supply chains.

SM

MichiganAdvantage.org/DC3

michiganRR on temp.indd 1

part of the 21st Century Jobs Fund, administered by the Michigan Economic Development Corporationsm

2/21/08 12:33:57 PM

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class R.J. Stratchko

AFRICOM

Gabonese sailors boarded Africa Partnership Station (APS) for training to enhance their regional and maritime safety and security aboard the amphibious dock-landing ship, USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43), in Port Gentile, Gabon, Jan. 11, 2008. APS is a multinational effort to bring the latest training and techniques to maritime professionals in nine West and Central African countries to address the common threats of illegal fishing, smuggling, and human trafficking.

that now is an ideal time to do it, in part because the nations of Africa have begun to work together to address continental issues, as seen, for example, in the formation of the African Union (AU) in 2002. “We are not, and do not plan to be, at war in Africa,” Henry told the House panel. “Rather, AFRICOM is a recognition that the approach to Africa left over from the Cold War was not only outdated, but potentially damaging to our national security interests. The unprecedented conditions of the command’s creation afforded us an extraordinary opportunity to start from scratch and tailor AFRICOM differently.” One salient difference between AFRICOM and other commands is that preparing to fight is not its primary mission. “AFRICOM will be one of six geographic commands,” Stephen D. Mull, acting assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs,

said at the same hearing. “In contrast to the traditional mission of a geographic command, however, AFRICOM’s primary focus will not be on preparation for combat.” Instead, Mull said, AFRICOM will focus on “security cooperation – helping our African partners build the capacity to deal with African security concerns.” Another hallmark of AFRICOM is that the new command will be “a staff headquarters, not a troop headquarters,” Henry said. “We will have no bases with the one exception of our forward operating site in Djibouti, which has been in existence now since 2002,” Whelan said at AEI. “We will have no new bases and we will not be deploying forces or basing U.S. forces on the African continent.”

181

AFRICOM.indd 181

2/27/08 2:57:54 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

U.S. Navy sailors hoisted equipment from the amphibious dock-landing ship USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) on Nov. 18, 2007, to be used in building a medical clinic in Ghana as part of the Africa Partnership Station (APS). APS is scheduled to bring international training teams to Senegal, Liberia, Ghana, Cameroon, Gabon, and São Tomé and Príncipe, and will support more than 20 humanitarian assistance projects in addition to hosting information exchanges and training with partner nations during its seven-month deployment.

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class R.J. Stratchko

182

AFRICOM.indd 182

2/27/08 2:58:06 PM

vseRR on temp.indd 1

2/26/08 5:20:47 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

Photo by Tech. Sgt. Jeromy K. Cross

Army Capt. Laura Porter prescribes medication for children during a medical capabilities exercise in Senkoro, Mali.

As it has for many years, the Department of Defense will rotate military teams into and out of Africa for missions such as training African forces, conducting military exercises, assisting in humanitarian efforts, and countering terrorism. Central Command’s Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, which has about 1,800 personnel based at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, will fall under Africa Command. The task force was set up in 2002 “to prevent conflict, promote regional stability, and protect coalition interests in order to prevail against extremism.” AFRICOM will have the ability to “reach back” for additional resources if necessary. While the idea of a command for Africa has been discussed for years, action toward that end began in November 2006 when an interagency implementation team started laying plans for an Africa command, Mull noted. The group became the AFRICOM transition team, which started work in Stuttgart in February 2007 and became Africa Command Oct. 1, 2007, when the command achieved initial operational capability. Until it is fully operational, AFRICOM will be a sub-unified command under European Command, which has its headquarters in another part of Stuttgart. During Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, the initiative to establish the command cost $50 million. For the current fiscal year, $75.5 million has been budgeted. AFRICOM, unlike any other command, will be led by civilians as well as military officers. While a four-star Army general commands AFRICOM, a

civilian diplomat is one of the two co-equal deputy commanders. The other is a three-star military officer. “The deputy to the commander for civil-military affairs [DCMA] will be a senior foreign service officer from the Department of State,” Whelan said at an Aug. 1, 2007, hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s African affairs subcommittee. “This civilian deputy will be responsible for the planning and oversight of the majority of AFRICOM’s security assistance work. In particular, the DCMA will work with the State Department and the African Union on developing ways in which AFRICOM can provide effective training, advisory, and technical support to the development of the African standby force.” The African Standby Force is a peacekeeping force that the African Union began building in 2003 with troops from its member nations. The plan, yet to be fulfilled, is to create five brigades of African peacekeepers, one brigade for each of Africa’s major regions. Whelan added that, “State Department leadership at this senior level will also enhance AFRICOM’s ability to support such State Department-funded endeavors as the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program, a mainstay of the U.S. effort to build peace support operations capacity in Africa.” Gen. William E. “Kip” Ward is AFRICOM’s first commander. The nation’s only African-American four-star officer, Ward has extensive experience

184

AFRICOM.indd 184

2/27/08 2:58:25 PM

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Elizabeth Merriam

AFRICOM

Gunnery Sergeant Frederick Sloan, Master Sergeant Ronnie Leonard, and Gunnery Sergeant Michael Hussey (from left to right), assigned to the 4th Anti-Terrorism Battalion based in Bessemer, Ala., stand with Ugandan Brig. Gen. Silver Kayemba, chief of training, Uganda People’s Defense Forces, at the Non-Commissioned Officer’s Academy in Jinja, Uganda. The Marines provided familiarization with the roles and responsibilities of non-commissioned officers as well as NCO selection, education, and development. The familiarization event is part of the U.S. Defense Department military-to-military contact program and is supported through units such as those assigned to U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and U.S. Africa Command.

in combat commands, logistics, and security cooperation. He commanded a brigade of the 10th Mountain Division during Operation Restore Hope in Somalia. Before his assignment to AFRICOM, he served as deputy commander of European Command. Ambassador Mary Carlin Yates, a career diplomat with many years of experience in Africa, is deputy to the commander for civilmilitary activities. As such, she directs plans and programs involving humanitarian assistance, health, disaster response, humanitarian mine action, and security-sector reform. Vice Adm. Robert T. Moeller, a naval surface warfare officer with extensive experience in command and staff positions at sea and ashore, is the deputy to the commander for military operations.

Other civilian agencies with representatives assigned to the command include the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of the Treasury, Justice, and Commerce. No decision has been reached on the sensitive issue of exactly where AFRICOM will be located once it stands up, U.S. officials say, but they have made clear that they intend to locate its headquarters somewhere in Africa. Jendayi Frazer, the assistant secretary of state who heads the bureau of African affairs, addressed the issue of location at the Aug. 1, 2007, Senate hearing. “I want to make it clear that no final decision has been made about the location of AFRICOM’s Headquarters in Africa, although it is AFRICOM’s plan to establish an initial headquarters presence on

185

AFRICOM.indd 185

2/27/08 2:58:37 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

the continent by October 2008,” Frazer said. “Until then it will be located in Stuttgart, Germany, not far from the European Command. The current thinking is there will be subordinate offices in several other places on the African continent as well, but those locations have not yet been determined.” Several African nations have expressed skepticism, apprehension, or even outright opposition to the creation of the command, and some African leaders have declared that they are not willing to host it. AFRICOM leaders and other U.S. officials are engaged in extensive discussions with African leaders in which they are explaining the command’s role. AFRICOM will have a presence on the continent only if invited, Yates said Dec. 5, 2007, at a news conference. “There certainly is a desire to have presence on the continent because we believe we can be more value-added to the African militaries who want to interface with us if there is some presence,” she said. “But we will not go anywhere that we’re not invited, and we will not go anywhere it would cause harm.” When the command becomes fully operational, it is expected to consist of roughly 800 civilian and military leaders and staff, relatively few of whom are likely to be stationed in Africa. “We estimate that no more than 20 percent of the entire command will actually be physically present on the continent and maintain a presence on the continent,” Whelan said. “Roughly 80 percent of the command will be off the continent.” Even the internal organization of AFRICOM will be distinctive, as it will not be based on the traditional military staff J-code used by other commands: J-1 for personnel, J-2 for intelligence, J-3 for operations, and so on. “Recognizing that AFRICOM’s focus is on war-prevention rather than warfighting,” Whelan said, “we are reorganizing the inner workings of the command to best position it for theater security cooperation activities and preventing problems before they become crises and preventing crises before they become catastrophes.” Options for organizing the command were still under discussion in late 2007. As AFRICOM is being organized, it already is engaged in explaining its role in the face of criticism from African leaders and others. Among the concerns most commonly expressed are that AFRICOM is intended solely to fight terrorism on the continent, to secure oil resources, or to counter the growing influence of China in Africa. Whelan has said much of the criticism is based on misconceptions, which she sought to dispel in her Senate testimony. “First, some people believe that we are establishing AFRICOM solely to fight terrorism, or to secure oil resources, or to discourage China,” she said. “This is not true. Violent extremism is cause for concern, and needs to be addressed, but this is not AFRICOM’s singular mission. Natural resources represent Africa’s current and future wealth, but in a fair market environment, many benefit. Ironically, the U.S., China, and other countries share a common interest – that of a secure environment. AFRICOM is about helping Africans build greater capacity to assure their own security.” Whelan noted that some skeptics are concerned that AFRICOM will take control of security issues on the continent. “Our intent is quite the contrary,” she said. “DoD recognizes and applauds the leadership role that individual African nations and multi-lateral African organizations are taking in the promotion of peace, security, and stability on the continent. For example, AFRICOM can provide effective training, advisory, and technical support to the development of the African Standby Force.

“This is exactly the type of initiative and leadership needed to address the diverse and unpredictable global security challenges the world currently faces,” Whelan added. “The purpose of AFRICOM is to encourage and support such African leadership and initiative – not to compete with it or to discourage it.” Fears that AFRICOM represents a militarization of U.S. foreign policy in Africa are unfounded, Whelan said. “The creation of a single U.S. DoD point-of-contact for Africa will simply allow DoD to better coordinate its own efforts, in support of State Department leadership, to better build security capacity in Africa.” The Africa Partnership Station (APS), a training mission led by the European Command’s naval component, “is a wonderful example of the sorts of things AFRICOM will do throughout the continent,” Ward told Pentagon reporters Oct. 15, 2007. Under the APS initiative, a U.S. Navy amphibious dock-landing ship, the USS Fort McHenry, was dispatched Oct. 16, 2007, to the Gulf of Guinea on a seven-month cruise. The ship was scheduled to visit Senegal, Liberia, Ghana, Cameroon, Gabon, and São Tomé and Príncipe. An international interagency team aboard this mobile “center of excellence” offers training in maritime safety and security to participating West African nations. At each port of call in the region, another U.S. ship, the high-speed vessel Swift, ferries students and trainers to and from the Fort McHenry. Training in maritime security is its main mission, but the APS team also engages in a number of humanitarian assistance operations, such as the construction of a pier in Cameroon and creation of a medical clinic in Ghana. The establishment of Africa Command as a civil-military organization led by and composed of civilian diplomats and economic aid specialists, as well as military personnel, embodies a new and dramatically different approach to the use of national power. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates called for such a change Nov. 26, 2007, in a speech at Kansas State University. “My message is that if we are to meet the myriad challenges around the world in the coming decades, this country must strengthen other important elements of national power both institutionally and financially, and apply all of the elements of national power to problems and challenges abroad,” he said. “In short, based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former director of the CIA, and now as secretary of defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use ‘soft’ power and for better integrating it with ‘hard’ power.” AFRICOM, formed from the start by melding “hard” (military) and “soft” (civilian) power, will be the first major test of the new approach Gates advocates. “We have the opportunity, vision, and determination to redefine how the U.S. military cooperates with and complements the efforts of the U.S., international, and non-governmental partners in Africa,” Ward said at the Nov. 14 hearing. Indeed, the ultimate impact of Africa Command could extend far beyond the vast continent. Asked at a Nov. 20, 2007, Pentagon teleconference whether AFRICOM will be a prototype for future defense organizations, Moeller, AFRICOM’s deputy to the commander for military operations, said that could well be the case. “I think that … there is a sense that what it is that we’re putting together is viewed by many as a model for the future of our defense organizations.”

186

AFRICOM.indd 186

2/27/08 2:58:45 PM

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

187

P&S08Rol.indd 187

3/1/08 4:40:11 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

188

P&S08Rol.indd 188

2/27/08 5:43:45 PM

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

GCC

Government Contracts Consultants

“Innovative solutions today for tomorrow’s success”

189

P&S08Rol.indd 189

2/27/08 5:44:08 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

190

P&S08Rol.indd 190

2/27/08 5:44:31 PM

PRODUCTS & SERVICES

191

P&S08Rol.indd 191

2/27/08 5:44:46 PM

THE YEAR IN DEFENSE 2008

192

P&S08Rol.indd 192

2/27/08 5:47:56 PM

WT-1952.RugbyAD_9x10.875.final

12/21/07

12:43 PM

Page 1

In A Sea Of OTC Products, Only One Name Stands Out.

STILL IN THE GAME

Bringing quality, trust, and value to families for over 30 years. For more information, visit: www.watson.com. Customer Service: 1-800-272-5525

watson on temp.indd 1

©2007 Watson Pharma, Inc. September 2007

Morristown, NJ 07962 04329

Rugby Laboratories, Inc. Duluth, GA 30097

12/27/07 11:35:19 AM

lockheed on temp.indd 1

2/25/08 3:58:25 PM