May 22, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Other Defence

Where do special forces fit in the National Defense Strategy?

WASHINGTON — The most valuable role for U.S. special operations forces within the National Defense Strategy is to build relationships with countries in hot spots around the globe to keep Russia and China at bay. But that effort can't be at the expense of its counterterrorism mission, which remains the No. 1 priority of special forces, according to leadership within U.S. Special Operations Command.

SOCOM plans to issue a report to Congress on a comprehensive review of its roles and missions this month, according to Mark Mitchell, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, who was speaking during a recent hearing with the House Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

One of the main priorities for SOCOM is to carry out counterterror missions, but the National Defense Strategy focuses on great power competition against near-peer adversaries Russia and China, so House lawmakers wanted to know how special forces fit in a strategy that focuses less on counterterrorism and more on powerful adversaries.

“We've been the tip of the spear on the [counterterror] fight,” SOCOM Commander Gen. Richard Clarke said during the hearing.

“However, moving forward, particularly in great power competition, our special operations forces are not necessarily going to be in that fight because the whole idea of the strategy is to avoid a kinetic” confrontation, he added.

Clarke said he's examining SOCOM relationships with U.S. Cyber Command, U.S. Strategic Command and U.S. Transportation Command as well as the global combatant commanders to see “how we can best integrate our forces and provide support to those in other domains.”

“I think the special operations community is uniquely suited to build networks of partners and allies around the globe to put us in a position, first of all, to compete for that influence and legitimacy in peacetime,” Clarke added.

Special forces also have an important role to play within the military information support operations center in Tampa, Florida, which is aligned with the State Department's Global Engagement Center, which “allows us to compete in the space ahead of time and make sure that we're countering some of the vitriol that's coming out of Russia at this time and the falsehoods,” Clarke said.

According to Clarke and Mitchell, it's unlikely the reach of special forces around the globe will wane.

“A [counterterror] deployment to Africa is also a part of that great power competition against the Russians and Chinese,” Clarke noted as an example. “We are trying to look at our employment of the SOF force from a holistic view to ensure that we're maximizing the return on that investment to our counterterrorism mission and our great power competition.”

The relationships that U.S. special forces develop with other countries is also unique, Clarke noted. “A small team, a small element of Special Operations forces, can bring a significant impact working with foreign forces.”

“Remember,” Mitchell added, “Chinese and Russian threats are global, and that's part of the reason why we're in 80 countries.”

For example, Mitchell added, SOCOM received recent congressional approval to move forward with an important counterterror effort in the Philippines, but that is also a critical component of building influence within the country and “keeping Chinese at arm's length.”

While the NDS is focused on great power competition, the strategy still recognizes the need to combat violent extremist organizations, which “is not going away, and we've got to balance that,” Mitchell said.

So some new concepts for employment of special forces will likely emerge, according to Mitchell. “We're working with the services to ensure that we are integrated with their development efforts,” he added.

But there are a few tasks where, if given the chance, SOCOM would take off its plate, particularly to improve its deployment ratio with double the time spent at home compared to overseas. Clarke said special forces in Africa could be better optimized. “That's not necessarily ‘take away the mission,' but I see reduction internal to some of these missions,” he said.

Additionally, the mission to counter weapons of mass destruction is also an increasing burden on the force, Clarke said: “I think it's a right-sizing in the mission internal to make sure we have the right force allocation against it.”

And SOCOM is looking at how the Army's security force assistance brigades might be better suited for certain security force assistance-type missions.

“SOF should be in places where it's a light footprint, it's politically sensitive, with a small team, that is training other special operations forces primarily,” Clarke said.

https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2019/05/17/where-do-special-forces-fit-in-the-national-defense-strategy/

On the same subject

February 6, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, C4ISR

The Navy's Surprise Unmanned Fighter Is a Glimpse of War's Near Future
In a surprise announcement, the U.S. Navy revealed on Tuesday that it had successfully flown tests involving unmanned versions of the EA-18G Growler electronic attack fighter. The tests involved a single manned EA-18G controlling two unmanned versions of the same aircraft, opening up the possibility that the U.S. Navy could fly armed unmanned aircraft sooner than originally thought. The test, conducted by the U.S. Navy and Boeing, was undertaken by the U.S. Navy's flight test wing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. According to a C4ISRNET, a single EA-18G Growler controlled two unmanned Growlers in the air. The test is notable for several reasons. One, the Navy was not known to be working on unmanned systems other than the MQ-25 Stingray, a future drone tanker set to join the fleet in the mid-2020s. Second, the ability to convert a manned fighter such as the EA-18G Growler into an unmanned aircraft was also previously unknown. The EA-18G Growler is an electronic attack airplane. The EA-18 is based on the F/A-18F Super Hornet, has a crew of two, and is designed to escort Super Hornets on high risk air strikes. The Growler carries both a jamming pod designed to interfere with enemy radars and communications, preventing enemy air defenses from acquiring inbound aircraft and coordinating their attacks. The Growler also carries HARM anti-radar missiles, which detect the probing beams of enemy air defense radars and follow them to their source, destroying them. Without radars to guide them, many types of air defense missiles become unusable in combat. The Growler's electronic warfare mission is particularly high risk, placing the jet and its crew between the strike fighters it escorts and enemy missiles. That makes it a good candidate for the unmanned mission, where the loss of an aircraft won't result in the loss of a crew. The Growler and the Navy's main strike fighter, the Super Hornet, share 90 percent of their parts and systems. This makes it simpler to maintain both aircraft and allows the Growler to keep up with Super Hornets on missions. It also likely means that the Super Hornet can be unmanned, and possibly controlled by other Super Hornets. This test also reinforces the Navy's seriousness about unmanned aviation. The service caught considerable flak in the 2010s after testing the X-47B unmanned aerial vehicle—and then promptly shelved it. The service greenlighted the new MQ-25 Stingray carrier-based drone, but made it a tanker instead of a fighter or strike aircraft. Now we know that there's been an interest in unmanned aviation all along. But instead of building new unmanned aircraft, the Navy decided to leverage its fleet of hundreds of manned aircraft, devoting resources into converting them into unmanned platforms. Now it seems unmanned aircraft will almost certainly be an important weapon in the Navy's arsenal for future missions. Although drones can be controlled by crews on the ground on the other side of the planet, enemy electronic attack forces will be doing their best to interfere with U.S. forces, attempting to jam communications between a drone and its controllers. A manned aircraft could control multiple drones, providing instructions through unjammable short range communications. For now, it's still important to have a human around. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a30771030/growler-unmanned-navy/
July 4, 2024 | International, Land

Rheinmetall, Leonardo CEOs say deal paves way for EU defence consolidation
December 7, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

America sold $175 billion in weapons abroad in FY20
By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The U.S. sold $175 billion in weapons to foreign partners and allies in fiscal 2020, a 2.8 percent rise from the previous year's total, according to a Friday announcement from the Defense and State departments. The total comes at the end of the Trump administration, which made increasing arms exports a key part of its economic growth platform. Export licenses via the Direct Commercial Sales program totaled $124.3 billion in FY20, up from $114.7 billion the previous year. A series of reforms, started under the Obama administration and continued under the Trump team, has pushed more defense articles into the commercial sales realm. Deals made through the Foreign Military Sales program, which cover the majority of large defense articles, totaled $50.78 billion. Of that total, $44.79 billion came in payments from partner nations, $3.3 billion from Foreign Military Financing, and $2.69 billion for cases funded under Defense Department Title 10 grant assistance programs, such as train and equip programs. The FMS total represents an 8 percent drop from FY19. In FY17, the U.S. sold $41.93 billion in FMS deals. That number jumped a dramatic 33 percent in FY18 to $55.6 billion, then dipped slightly to $55.4 billion in FY19. Despite back-to-back years without growth, officials expressed optimism, pointing to the three-year rolling average of implemented FMS cases — which rose from $51 billion covering FY17-FY19 to $54 billion covering FY18-FY20 — as a sign of overall growth. Officials have historically argued that the volatility of the year-to-year FMS process means that the three-year average is the best indicator of overall growth or decline, as it captures sales that implemented late in one fiscal year or early in the next. The total of official sales is different from the total number of FMS cases cleared by the State Department. The latter figure — 68 cases worth $83.5 billion, the highest annual total of FMS notifications since the start of the Trump administration — is a good indicator of future sales, but quantities and dollar figures often change during negotiations. While industry will cheer the sales total, William Hartung of the Center for International Policy warned that the total may be questionable. “It is important to note that this is a vastly inflated figure if one is looking for statistics on sales that are actually likely to eventuate in contracts and deliveries,” according to Hartung. “There are many steps along the way in which an authorized sale can be sidetracked, including, for example, changes in demand and economic capacity on the part of potential customers. “The truth is we do not have reliable figures from the Pentagon or the State Department on how much weaponry the United States delivers each year, and what items have been delivered to what countries. Without this information, it is difficult to fully assess the impact of U.S. arms exports.” https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/12/04/american-sold-175-billion-in-weapons-abroad-in-fy20

All news

Where do special forces fit in the National Defense Strategy?

On the same subject

Rheinmetall, Leonardo CEOs say deal paves way for EU defence consolidation