Back to news

July 31, 2018 | International, Land

A new cold war: How the Army is preparing for a fight in the Arctic

By:

As Russia beefs up its Arctic presence with new units, equipment and weaponry for the cold weather fight, the Army has slowly begun to shift some resources to improving its own capabilities — though it lags behind its Arctic allies and lacks large-scale capacity to train or provide high numbers of troops for a potential Arctic battle.

Melting polar ice is opening a region once thought nearly impenetrable to competition for shipping traffic, natural resources and potential land grabs some experts think could start a new Cold War.

In recent years, Canada, Norway and Russia have realigned their focus to improving and expanding their Arctic capabilities.

Along with those neighboring nations, which include Denmark, Finland and Sweden, the United States and United Kingdom all have varying levels of competing claims on Arctic resources.

It wasn't always so.

As recently as 2012, experts such as Siemon Weizeman with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute were analyzing cooperative efforts between Russia, the United States and other Arctic nations.

In the U.S. Department of Defense 2013 Arctic Strategy, Russia is barely mentioned.

But following the 2014 war in Ukraine, stoked by Russia, leaders have shifted their view about the nation's role in the Arctic.

In that time, Russia has pushed resources in that direction. Its 2014 Russian Military Doctrine paper for the first time included the task of “protecting Russian interests in the Arctic.”

So far, that's included building up to 40 heavy icebreaking ships, more than a dozen new airfields, 16 deep-water ports, a broad range of tactical airpower, dedicated training centers, and stationing of paratroopers, counterterrorism, electronic warfare and other forces in the region, said Maj. Gen. Laurie Hummel, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, at a June conference on Guard interests in the Arctic. The talk was put on by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Those ground forces include naval infantry and two army brigades on the Kola Peninsula, with aims to guard the Northern Sea route.

And all of that is tied together under a recently established Russian Arctic Strategic Command, Hummel said.

In addition, although China does not border the Arctic, it has “aspirational” goals for the region and wants to exploit sea lane passages for shipping and fishing waters, she said.

In January, China released its first Arctic strategy white paper titled the “Polar Silk Road.”

The paper focuses on Arctic shipping routes and states a cooperative goal for infrastructure and other development. China's polar strategy echoes its One Belt One Road policy in Africa, which seeks partnerships to provide natural resources such as oil, gas and minerals.

The Chinese government is looking to a liquefied natural gas project in northern Russia called Yamal to supply it with millions of tons of fuel a year upon program fruition.

These and other factors are pushing key U.S. military and government leaders to look at how to shore up Arctic capabilities.

“It is time for our nation to have a comprehensive and overarching arctic strategy,” Hummel said at the Wilson Center conference.

Shifting priorities

Right now, the U.S. military's ground forces under U.S. Army Alaska, which falls under Indo-Pacific Command, includes a combined force of only 25,000 active duty, National Guard and Reserve troops.

That's about 2.5 percent of the entire force.

In recent years, the Army has increased unit training in the Arctic, including airborne operations in 2014, armored vehicle deployment exercises in 2015, and the return of the 75th Ranger Regiment to Alaska for training for the first time since 2001.

As of 2016, the Northern Warfare Training Center hosted an estimated 1,400 troops annually for training in an arctic region.

The Northern Warfare Training Center in Alaska provided the following numbers of troops trained there over the past decade:

  • Cold Weather Leaders Course — 3,025
  • Cold Weather Orientation Course — 1,188
  • Basic Military Mountaineering Course — 1,440
  • Advanced Military Mountaineering Course — 150
  • Mountain Warfare Orientation Course — 360
  • Military Ski Course — 36
  • Total all events (some not listed) — 7,100

NWTC focuses on small units and training unit leaders in effective cold weather and mountaineering skills. It seldom hosts large units, said John Pennell, spokesman for U.S. Army Pacific Command.

Other training areas are available, though they are more accurately classified as subarctic than Arctic, and that has major implications.

In 2015, Fort Drum, New York, home of the 10th Mountain Division, was reclassified from Zone 5 to Zone 7, which put it in the ranks of Fort Wainwright, Alaska, and Camp Ethan Allen in Jericho, Vermont.

The shift pushed an additional $12.5 million in funding for equipment and infrastructure to the site.

Some Army funding has also gone to upgrade individual equipment for soldiers at Fort Drum, Fort Wainwright and in Italy.

New items include new gloves, headgear, sleds and skis.

In June, the Army posted a Request for Information from industry on building an over-the-snow vehicle capable of operating in 50-below conditions.

Dubbed the Joint All Weather All Terrain Support Vehicle, or JAASV, it would replace the decades-old Small Unit Support Vehicle, or SUSV, a tracked vehicle that typically supports an infantry platoon-sized element.

How cold is too cold?

New equipment, even a new vehicle, doesn't necessarily equal a force ready to perform in truly Arctic conditions.

Capt. Nathan Fry, the officer-in-charge of the U.S. Army Mountain Warfare School's training division, told Army Times that people unfamiliar with Arctic environments often confuse “northern training,” which can be cold weather or high-altitude focused, with Arctic training.

But the two are not equal.

As Fry noted, gear that works well in freezing conditions can fail spectacularly when temperatures drop to minus-50 Fahrenheit.

He would know. For the past few years, he's been one of the U.S. representatives on the Guerrier Nordique team that spends weeks in Arctic and sub-Arctic areas of Canada.

The exercise began in 2012 and was, in some ways, a small-scale attempt to recapture lost lessons of Arctic warfare that were explored regularly and in depth by the U.S. military throughout the 1940s and 1950s, as the United States prepared for a potential Cold War through operations such as Ice Cap in Greenland, Nanook, Snow Chute, Snow Drop, Snow Fall and Snow Storm.

There must be a better understanding of the differences between cold weather and Arctic training, Fry said.

Some think that if soldiers can fight in minus-10-degree weather, then they can do it at 60 degrees below zero.

“That's just not true,” Fry said. “It's just like the mountain warfare fight, it's really tricky.”

Fry left active duty Army service in part to go to his current post at the Guard-run mountain warfare school and push for more work and preparation in the Arctic sphere.

Outside of the annual Arctic Eagle Exercise with U.S. Army Alaska and the recent Fort Drum conference, Fry said he's not seen a lot of improved Arctic policy.

“From my foxhole, I haven't seen a whole lot of forward progress,” Fry said.

But the interest is there.

Fry said that his school has seen a drastic increase in demand for mountain and cold weather training, and they began running extra classes to meet the need. And next year's calendar is filling quickly.

Though a byproduct of the school's mountain and cold weather training can better inform soldiers on how to plan, survive and fight in some ways in extreme conditions, it is not Arctic focused.

Items that are simple in normal weather conditions — how much fuel will people and vehicles need to stay warm and conduct operations? What rate of travel can be expected for either mounted or dismounted soldiers? How much water will soldiers need? — are complicated in extreme cold weather.

Soldiers can have a frozen 5-gallon water jug but not be able to use it.

“If I can't melt it, then I can't drink it,” Fry said. “Lack of fuel will absolutely shut you down.”

While some cold weather training teaches students to use snow, the amount of water yield from snow is far less than ice. And leaders must plan for fuel use to melt the snow or the ice in ways they wouldn't have to in a desert or woodland environment.

Fitting it all in

And most training, from that being done in Alaska, Vermont or New York, is at the small unit, tactical level.

“We are not thinking in terms of a staff exercise,” Fry said. “We're not testing brigade staff on how to conduct resupply missions in cold weather environments.”

And that's a problem when soldiers are in extreme, austere environments where the only resources are those that they bring with them.

Fry pointed to work that the Marines have long done with the Norwegians as something the Army should consider. Marines rotate a force of 300 to Norway for extended joint training. That number was recently more than doubled to 700.

One suggestion the captain has might be to value Arctic training the same way the Army does airborne qualifications, including with a Skill Qualification Identifier.

That number makes it easier for leadership to track how many soldiers have the appropriate training. And that mentality, coupled with an integrated Arctic focus similar to that given to airborne training, would help commanders prioritize unit training to emphasize those qualifications and seek more training opportunities.

For example, the 10th Mountain Division is designated as a light infantry unit.

That means that although its soldiers have access to mountain training and the current commander has emphasized “putting the mountain back into 10th Mountain,” without Army-directed prioritization those skills can fall to the bottom of the checklist.

Small changes, such as a Skill Qualification Identifier, can direct the focus of commanders and resources, Fry said.

“It's like being in the 82nd Airborne Division,” Fry said. “Do we do range time or refresher jumps? Somehow they fit it all in.”

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/07/30/a-new-cold-war-how-the-army-is-preparing-for-a-fight-in-the-arctic/

On the same subject

  • Pentagon acquisition boss talks industry, mergers and coronavirus

    September 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    Pentagon acquisition boss talks industry, mergers and coronavirus

    Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — A longtime industry executive, Ellen Lord was confirmed as the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment in August 2017. In that role, Lord — who is now the longest serving political appointee at the department from the Trump administration — oversees billions of dollars in weapons procurement and sustainment, while also overseeing the health of the defense industrial base, a particularly important role in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Lord was a keynote speaker at this year's Defense News Conference, where she touched on a number of issues affecting the Department of Defense. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. We're about six months after COVID-19 first hit the defense industry. How do you judge the health of the defense industrial base? We use the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency to track about 22,000 key companies that the department works with. And going back over the last six months, we did have hundreds of companies shut down, but now we're down to only about 30. So that's very, very good news. We monitor them on a daily basis; we look at on-time deliveries, deliveries missed and, most importantly, we listen to what the issues are, really leveraging the industry associations to do a lot of listening. What we are looking for is whether or not we're maintaining war-fighter readiness for our production programs, and then relative to modernization, whether we are hitting key milestones relative to development programs. We have seen some slowdowns. We are carefully monitoring, using monthly metrics, where we are. That's something that I'm actually extremely proud of the team over the last few years — we have developed a very data-driven way of doing business. The Pentagon is seeking billions of dollars from Congress to help fund reimbursements for the defense industry's pandemic-related costs. But we've heard criticism of this from a number of sectors, with some saying financial reports last quarter were not so bad. Why is that funding needed, and why now? All the [quarterly] reports that have come out in large part don't reflect the hits that were taken by business. I would contend that most of the effects of COVID-19 haven't yet been seen because most companies gave their employees time off, they stretched out production, paid a lot of people for working 100 percent when perhaps they were only getting 50 percent of the hours in and so forth. So I think the system has absorbed it up to this point in time. Now when we get to the point where we're having payments and incentive fees and award fees earned, and if we haven't done the deliveries, that's where you're going to see the hit. So I believe there's a bit of a delayed response. We want to make sure that we have a one-time accounting for these major COVID hits — very, very well defined in terms of a period of time, March 15-Sept. 15, that we take a very, very data driven approach [saying]: “Send us a proposal showing what the impact was; we will assess them all at once and get back.” However, we can't do that at this point in time because we have an authorization through Section 3610 [of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act] and so forth, but we don't have an appropriation. We believe we need that appropriation to maintain readiness because if we do not get that, what we are going to find is we are not going to get the number of units delivered, we are not going to maintain war-fighter readiness, we're not going to move forward in modernization. We would like to take the one-time hit and then see where we go from there. Assuming you get the appropriation, much money is needed? When will industry see it? We think it's somewhere between $10 billion and $20 billion. We think it would take five to six months because once we got an appropriation, we would go out for a request for proposals, and the larger companies are going to have to flow down those RFPs through their supply chain, gather the data — because again, this has to be a very data-driven drill. So we would get all of that back; we think that would take two to three months. Then we want to look at all of the proposals at once. It isn't going to be a first-in, first-out [situation], and we have to rationalize using the rules we've put in place, what would be reimbursable and what's not. So overall we think five to six months, in terms of a process. We're at about the two-year mark from the executive order 13806 study, which assessed the health of the defense industrial base and included some dire warnings about the supply chain. How has work on fixing those issues gone? We had several areas that we pointed out were problematic, that we were concerned that the U.S. had too great of a dependency on non-friendly nations and that we just didn't have the security and resiliency that we were looking for. In fiscal 2019, we actually had 14 presidential determinations, which is the process you go through to actually say: “Yes, these are areas that are worthy of looking at.” Then we go to get the appropriation to be able to use [the Defense Production Act's Title III authorities]. A number of the areas we looked at were small unmanned aerial systems, rare earth [minerals], that type of thing. When COVID-19 hit, it shone a spotlight on the concern we had with this fragility and helped us tell the story. Because of another executive order coming in declaring a federal emergency, we no longer had to go through the presidential determination route, which is a bit time consuming, to identify areas where we needed to invest. Then [with the pandemic] we had new areas bubble up, probably the most significant of which was aviation propulsion, where we have a number of our key suppliers who are extremely dependent on commercial aviation that was grinding almost to a halt for a while — huge impacts there. So what we did was we were now able to move a little bit more quickly, which is always helpful. And we made a number of awards to aviation companies that literally kept those companies in business, which allowed us to continue to support the war fighter. COVID-19 has helped us accelerate some of those areas. Others are perhaps not getting as much attention as they were pre-COVID-19, looking at our defense industrial base for nuclear modernization for instance, also for hypersonics. But overall, the team is working very hard, and we have put out almost a billion dollars in DPA Title III over the last six months. It sounds like the pandemic may have been beneficial in addressing these long-term issues. What it did was allow us to really put speed in the system, peel away all of what I would call the non-value-added bureaucracy. COVID-19 gave us a burning platform to really demonstrate we could be very responsible in terms of taxpayer dollars, very responsible in terms of security of the war fighter, but move at the speed of relevance to get things done. So I don't want to backslide there. And I want to make sure we really take advantage of all of that. Companies are concerned about being in compliance with the Section 889 rules, which prohibit the government from buying a system that might have Chinese equipment in it from the telecommunications supply chain. Are more waivers for companies possible? We are incredibly supportive of making sure that we don't have Chinese technology in a lot of our telecom systems, which has proven to be a problem in terms of exfiltration of data. So what we did is we got a waiver from [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence] for noncritical weapon systems. We continue to discuss an extension beyond September of that with them. We are getting waivers on a case-by-case basis, we will look at those. However, we are encouraging industry and we are very, very pleased at how we see industry still stepping up to really get these systems out of their supply chains. So it will be by exception that we will do waivers, and we are looking to really have a clean path through everything. There have been significant mergers and acquisitions during your tenure at the Pentagon. Are you seeing a downside for the department, given the desire for more competition on programs? I actually put a process in place early on, when we are notified of M&A deals, that we go out very formally to all the services and agencies and ask for objective evidence as to whether or not these mergers or acquisitions will constrain competition in any way. We then work very, very closely with either [the Federal Trade Commission or the Justice Department] on those deals to make sure there are divestitures if needed. Where I'm really focused, and the team is focused, is really getting the small companies going. That's where the predominance of our innovation comes from. That's what bubbles up to these larger companies. So we are holding all kinds of webinars and meetings connecting not only our traditional defense industrial base, small company partners, but nontraditional [firms] with our DoD efforts. We're partnering with the services to get more of that activity. So we want that diverse group coming in, and I'm really excited about what I see coming up through. That doesn't sound like you have many concerns about what you've seen. We watch very carefully. And at this point, we think we've made some smart divestitures on some of those. And we like competition. It's our friend. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2020/09/21/pentagon-acquisition-boss-talks-industry-mergers-and-coronavirus/

  • US to send $125 million in new military aid to Ukraine, officials say

    August 22, 2024 | International, Land

    US to send $125 million in new military aid to Ukraine, officials say

    The anticipated aid comes as Washington works to get a better understanding of Kyiv’s incursion into Russia and how it advances broader battlefield goals.

  • 4 questions about innovation with the US Air Force’s vice chief of staff

    September 18, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    4 questions about innovation with the US Air Force’s vice chief of staff

    By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Gen. Stephen “Seve” Wilson knows the enemy doesn't sleep. As the U.S. Air Force's vice chief of staff, he's aware of how innovation can be stifled. But that must change as the United States finds itself in an era of great power competition, he argues. Wilson spoke on a panel at the 2019 Defense News Conference on Sept. 4, where he discussed how the government can close the innovation gap, and how the military can improve its relationship with industry. What is the biggest challenge to moving innovative concepts into military operations? What I see arguably as the biggest challenge to innovation and moving it forward is urgency. And today I can't beat that drum hard enough and loud enough about the sense of urgency that the status quo simply isn't acceptable in the world that we live in. The good news is we know how to do this, we've done it before. And I'd go back to a time in our history in the early '60s when President [John F.] Kennedy said: “We're going to go to the moon and back.” In about eight years, we did 36 space launches. We built the biggest rockets ever known. And we did 36 launches in eight years. Today I look at the time frame it takes us to deliver capability, and we're nowhere on that timeline. I think we as a nation need to understand the competition and develop amongst all of us in all of our communities this sense of urgency that we're in this competition, and the status quo is just simply not good enough. So how do you enable that change? I was just at in San Antonio, Texas, visiting the 33rd Network Warfare Squadron. I met a young lieutenant with these bold ideas. He went to his boss and said: “Hey, I think we've got this really hard problem. I think I can solve it. Give me a handful of people in a couple of days and I'll be able to get after [it].” He came back and not once, not twice, but three times he failed. And along the way he asked for more people and time, until he didn't fail, and he solved a really wicked hard problem. There was a courageous lieutenant in this case and a leadership that empowered him to move forward. And then he briefed me — here's the vice chief coming to visit, [and he says]: “Hey vice chief, here's where I failed three times until we didn't.” And he brought the sense of urgency. It was about building a team, a common vision. It's really powerful, and I think it's indicative of what we need to see across all of our forces. We hear how advanced China is in areas of innovation. Just how advanced is it really? I tell people that we're the best in the world and our adversaries know it. But they're catching up. If we don't change, we could lose. We have to do business differently. We're trying. How? We hear government is not always easy to do business with. We're trying to lower those barriers and bring on people quicker and easier. We have some of the most impactful problems for our nation. And if we can get people in the door and expose them to the challenges and let them do what they can do, it's hugely rewarding. We have to make it easy. Can we make it easy where industry could come work with us, maybe even for only a few years, but [long enough] to really make a difference? How can we bring somebody in, let them work and then let them go back to industry? We both benefit from it. We have to find ways because this is about a competition for talent and good ideas. Then what do we do with it? Do we empower them and let them really work at these really hard problems? I think that's what people really want to get after. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2019/09/15/4-questions-about-innovation-with-the-us-air-forces-vice-chief-of-staff

All news