April 24, 2024 | International, Aerospace
US Army faces uphill battle to fix aviation mishap crisis
Fiscal 2023 marked the highest death rate for Army soldiers since the U.S. withdrew from Iraq in 2011, with a total of 14 dead across 10 accidents.
September 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence
A consensus-driven joint concept for all-domain warfare will fall short
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten recently announced a new U.S. Department of Defense joint war-fighting concept will summarize capabilities needed for future all-domain operations and eliminate artificial lines on the battlefield used to deconflict U.S. operations in the past.
Hyten also noted the concept will seamlessly integrate “fires from all domains, including space and cyber,” to overwhelm an enemy.
While these aspirations are laudable, there are indications the concept could fall short of what is needed to inform cross-service trade-offs that must be made in an era of flat or declining defense budgets.
The DoD creates operating concepts to define preferred approaches to perform specific missions or execute a campaign to defeat an enemy. They also provide a foundation for the services to assess new technologies, force alternatives and resource priorities. Said another way, they are the tissue that connects top-level National Defense Strategy guidance to actual plans and programs.
While a joint all-domain war-fighting concept is urgently needed, Hyten has not made it clear the one in development will lead to trade-offs that maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. For instance, Hyten has said it will call for every service to conduct long-range strikes: “A naval force can defend itself or strike deep. An air force can defend itself or strike deep. The Marines can defend itself or strike deep. ... Everybody.”
This could mean the concept will support a degree of redundancy across the services that has never existed. Setting aside tough trade-offs that eliminate excessively redundant programs will waste defense dollars and reduce capabilities available to U.S. commanders.
More specifically, the concept might endorse the Army's plan to buy 1,000-mile-plus, surface-to-surface missiles that cost millions of dollars each. Doing so would ignore analyses that have determined using large numbers of these weapons would be far more expensive than employing bombers that can strike any target on the planet for a fraction of the cost, then regenerate and fly more sorties. Furthermore, the Army's long-range missile investments could be at the expense of its ability to defend U.S. theater air bases against missile attacks.
Not only has air base missile defense long been an Army mission — it has long neglected and underfunded the mission. Chinese or Russian strikes against under-defended air bases could cripple the United States' primary combat sortie-generation operations.
If the concept does not consider these kinds of trade-offs, it could be due to the approach used to create it. The Joint Staff's doctrine development process is notorious for seeking consensus instead of making cross-service trade-offs necessary to maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. Assuring bureaucratic service equities versus optimizing combat lethality can lead to operating concepts that fail to create clear priorities or — worse yet — declare everything a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority.
Moreover, each service was asked to develop a subordinate concept that will be integrated into the whole. This piece-part approach could result in the services ladening their subordinate concepts with their own equities instead of working together to develop the most effective, decisive options.
In short, a bottom-up, consensus-driven concept for all-domain warfare would not be an effective baseline to compare the DoD's force structure and capability alternatives. Three things could help to avoid this mistake.
First, the secretary of defense should approve a new all-domain war-fighting concept, and the secretary's staff should be deeply involved in its development. Some say the latter is inappropriate, believing the military, not DoD civilians, should create war-fighting concepts. However, it is entirely appropriate for the secretary's staff to be part of the concept's creation if its purpose is to shape the DoD's plans and programs.
Second, DoD leaders should rigorously examine the services' existing roles and missions during the concept's development, and make changes to reduce excessively redundant responsibilities, forces and capabilities. This may need to be driven by congressional language.
Finally, the DoD should jettison the word “joint” as part of the concept's title. This would stress the concept is focused on integrating operations across all domains, not on the services that provide forces to combatant commanders. The point is not for all to participate, but instead for all options to be considered, and those that provide best combat value be prioritized. Otherwise, it becomes a case analogous to all the kids chasing a soccer ball.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy was the beginning of the effort to shift the DoD toward preparing for peer conflict. Given that dollars and time are short, the DoD must now get a concept for all-domain warfare right. Like the National Defense Strategy, the concept must be top-down driven, not a bottom-up, consensus-driven product that fails to make trade-offs across the services and provides a rationale that supports what each service desires to buy. Rather, its ultimate objective should be to seek best-value capabilities and expand theater commander options to defeat peer adversaries.
On the same subject
-
-
October 25, 2018 | International, Aerospace
Belgium reportedly picks F-35 for future fighter jet
By: Valerie Insinna and Sebastian Sprenger WASHINGTON and LIÈGE, Belgium — Belgium appears poised to select Lockheed Martin's F-35 over the Eurofighter Typhoon as its next-generation fighter jet, with government sources on Oct. 22 telling national news outlet Belga that an F-35 victory has already been decided. The Belgian government is expected to formally announce its decision before Oct. 29, Reuters reported on Monday. A Lockheed Martin spokesman said he could not confirm whether Belgium had communicated its choice to the firm, but said the company remains confident in its offering. “The F-35 offers transformational capability for the Belgian Air Force and, if selected, will align them with a global coalition operating the world's most advanced aircraft,” Mike Friedman said in an emailed statement. “The F-35 program is built on strong international partnerships, and our proposal includes significant industrial opportunities for Belgian companies to contribute to the global F-35 enterprise.” The F-35 was widely considered the favorite in the competition, which included the Eurofighter — a partnership among the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Germany. This summer, Belgium announced that it would also consider two options in addition to the F-35 and Typhoon: France's Dassault Rafale or upgrading its existing F-16 fleet instead of purchasing new aircraft. U.S. aerospace behemoth Boeing and Sweden's Saab pulled out of the competition last year, with Boeing claiming that Belgium's requirements favored the F-35 and Sweden stating that it was not able to provide the operational support needed by the Belgian Air Component. A win by the F-35 would further solidify the joint strike fighter's dominance among U.S. allies in Europe and deal a heavy blow to Franco-German ambitions for a prominent role in building Europe's next-generation defense capabilities. Both Rafale and Eurofighter had pitched extensive industrial packages to Belgium in the hopes of bolstering their offers. Analysts had said that Belgium's decision could be a bellwether for future European fighter jet competitions. U.S. industry sources told Defense News this summer that they believed that President Donald Trump's rhetoric on NATO allies' defense spending and tariffs on steel and aluminum may have led Belgium to take a closer look at the European offers. Meanwhile, European defense officials and experts repeatedly made the case that Belgium should pick a European plane. For Brussels, the capital of Europe, to choose the U.S. plane would amount to nothing less than an act of “betrayal,” the French business journal La Tribune headlined on Monday. Two practical considerations were seen as playing heavily into the Belgian government's inclination toward the joint strike fighter: For one, the neighboring Netherlands already is an F-35 customer. The two countries agreed some years ago to pool their resources in policing their common airspace, and having only one aircraft type presumably would be good for interoperability. In addition, Belgium for decades has had an agreement with NATO that requires its planes to be capable of carrying U.S. nuclear weapons into a hypothetical atomic war. Belgium, like neighbor Germany, stores a few warheads within its borders for that purpose. Certifying a European-made aircraft, like the Airbus Eurofighter, for the nuclear mission after the F-16 is politically tricky and – some say – perhaps even undoable given the current state of trans-Atlantic affairs. In that line of thinking, a nuclear-capable F-35 could represent the most trouble-free option for Belgium. The Belgian decision is sure to be watched closely by Germany. Berlin is in the market to replace its Tornado aircraft, looking for roughly 90 new planes. While officials have said they prefer the Eurofighter, uncertainty surrounding the nuclear-weapons certification of the future fleet remains something of an elephant in the room. Belgium intends to buy 34 new fighters to replace its aging inventory of F-16s, which number about 54 jets — although that number may be even fewer after an embarrassing incident earlier this month, where a mechanic accidentally opened fire while doing repair work and and blew up a neighboring F-16. In January, the U.S. State Department pre-emptively approved a $6.53 billion F-35 sale to Belgium that would include 34 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variants, 38 F-135 engines manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, and a slew of other equipment to enable operations, training and logistics. That estimate is expected to come down as Lockheed and the government hammer out a final contract. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/22/belgium-reportedly-picks-f-35-for-future-fighter-jet
-
August 2, 2018 | International, Aerospace
A jet sale to Egypt is being blocked by a US regulation, and France is over it
By: Pierre Tran PARIS — France is seeking to reduce its reliance on U.S. approval for French arms exports as Washington withholds clearance for an American component on the French Scalp cruise missile, which blocks the sale of additional Rafale fighter jets to Egypt. “It is true that we depend on this (U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations) mechanism: We are at the mercy of the Americans when our equipment is concerned,” French Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly told the Committee for National Defense and Armed Forces of the lower-house National Assembly, according to recently released transcripts from July 4. France lacks the means to be totally independent of the U.S., she said, adding that French authorities are looking for ways to boost its autonomy. Parly was answering a question from parliamentarian Jean-Jacques Ferrara on the blocked sale of a further batch of Rafale aircraft to Egypt. “Are we looking to improve the situation?” Parly said. “The answer is yes. In the case raised by Mr. Ferrara, we cannot get the U.S. to lift its opposition to the sale of Scalp missiles." “What is the solution? That the manufacturer of these missiles, namely MBDA, make the investment in research and technology to be able to make a similar component, which would avoid ITAR," she added." “We are able to do it for this contract because the component can be built within a reasonable amount of time even if the client, naturally, sees it as too long.” MBDA declined to comment for this story. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/08/01/a-jet-sale-to-egypt-is-being-blocked-by-a-us-regulation-and-france-is-over-it/