Vol. 30 No. 3 $4.50 PERIODICALS-NEWSPAPER HANDLING Defense News www.defensenews.com January 19, 2015 WASHINGTON — In late spring or early summer, the US Air Force will decide who will build its next- generation bomber. Yet, despite all the hype and public interest, the program remains shrouded in mys- tery. The Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) program is stealthy, liter- ally and figuratively. Few details are actually known about the bomber’s capabilities or design. But the program’s impact is al- ready being widely felt throughout the Pentagon and its industry part- ners. The half a dozen analysts and ex- perts interviewed by Defense News for this piece all agree on one thing: The LRS-B has the chance to shape American military aerospace for the next 20 years. Whichever competitor wins will reap a windfall of development money; the loser could find itself out of the military attack airframe business entirely. And while the program appears to be on track, Congress is waiting in the wings for any sign of cost overrun or technological prob- lems. “This is crunch time,” said Rich- ard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. “It’s the biggest single outstanding DoD competition by a very wide margin. That makes it important in and of itself.” Known Unknowns The bomber is largely a black See NEW BOMBER, Page 6 Shrouded in Secrecy, US Air Force’s Stealthy New Bomber Makes Waves By AARON MEHTA STAFF SGT. NICK WILSON/US AIR FORCE Secrets Spark Questions: Will the Air Force’s planned long-range strike bomber, like the B-2, above, be so classified that it cannot be stationed abroad? LONDON — A shortage of engineers and other skilled personnel is an imminent threat to British military aviation safety, according to a high ranking safety official. When Military Aviation Author- ity (MAA) boss Air Marshal Dick Garwood informed the defense secretary in his report for the year to Aug. 24 that he could give only “limited assurance” of air safety, the cause was “mainly due to the significant and widespread short- age of suitably qualified experi- enced personnel,” such as engineers, aircrew and air traffic managers. That doesn’t mean military avia- tion here is unsafe. Garwood re- ported an historically low accident rate for the 12 months. But it does mean that items like dealing with routine air worthiness issues are not being addressed. The problem’s not new. The MAA has been reporting shortages of skilled civil and military personnel for much of its four-year history. The shortages, particularly of en- gineers and others at the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) arm of the Defence Ministry, is not an isolated issue affecting only mili- tary aviation safety. Garwood’s MAA report said the Defence Board, the highest com- mittee in the MoD led by Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, has identified “achieving and sustain- ing manpower numbers and skills as the greatest single challenge currently facing the department.” As of September 2014, the MoD was advertising 102 program and project management posts and 70 engineering and science posts. Engineer Shortage Threatens UK Aviation Safety By ANDREW CHUTER See UK ENGINEERS, Page 7 TOKYO — While Japan’s newly un- veiled defense budget represents the third small hike in a row after decades of low spending, experts say such spending remains insuffi- cient to fund Tokyo’s plans for “dy- namic defense forces.” Japan’s defense budget for fiscal 2015 is edging up 0.8 percent to ¥4.82 trillion (US $41.12 billion), ac- cording to figures by the Defense Ministry, bringing defense spend- ing closer to 1990 levels. While well below the 2.4 percent boost requested last August, the in- crease represents the third small hike in a row after a decade of de- cline. Japan has adopted a more assertive defense posture under the administration of the conserva- tive Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The MoD will receive funding for all the major purchases it has re- quested to begin updating its Air Force, restructure its defense pos- ture to better protect Nansei Shoto, its southeast island chain south of Okinawa, and boost its naval fleet to strengthen its deterrence pos- ture against China’s Navy. Three big-ticket items include ¥350.4 billion (down from ¥378.1 billion requested) to deploy 20 See JAPAN BUDGET, Page 7 Experts: Japan Budget Boost Still Won’t Meet Goals By PAUL KALLENDER-UMEZU KAZUHIRO NOGI/ AFP/GETTY IMAGES New Equipment Coming: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe inspects an MV-22 Osprey and a mock-up F-35A joint strike fighter on Oct. 26. EUROPE Sea Mine Study BAE, Thales, DCNS team leads competition to develop system to defeat sea mines. Page 15 16 Germany: Euro Hawk UAV revival? NORTH AMERICA Defeating the Hack Governments struggle with how to best respond to cyber assault. Page 12 14 Canada: Crafting spec ops gear needs. ASIA & PACIFIC RIM Naval Gun Buy India short-lists Oto Melara to provide weapons despite probe of parent Finmeccanica. Page 14 MIDDLE EAST Sifting the Fog of War Israeli combat recordings from fierce Gaza battle underscore the complexity of war in a democra- cy. Page 17 INTERVIEW Derek Chollet The departing assistant US secretary of defense for inter- national security affairs discusses changes in US security policy, global military action against the Islamic State group, and evolving relations with Eastern European and Baltic nations. Page 22 LCS NAME CHANGE: NOW IT’S A FRIGATE 4 Trusted Communications for Today’s Connected Warfighter Cost-effective, Low SWAP Ground Vehicle Technologies Our NetCom & TruLink technologies offer clear, reliable, wired and wireless communications, enhancing personnel safety and elevating situational awareness. For more information, visit www.telephonics.com or email [email protected]. 38820 38820
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Vol. 30 No. 3 $4.50PERIODICALS-NEWSPAPER HANDLING
DefenseNewsw w w. d e f e n s e n e w s . c o m
January 19, 2015
WASHINGTON — In late spring or
early summer, the US Air Forcewill decide who will build its next-generation bomber. Yet, despite all
the hype and public interest, theprogram remains shrouded in mys-tery.
The Long Range Strike-Bomber(LRS-B) program is stealthy, liter-ally and figuratively. Few details
are actually known about thebomber’s capabilities or design.
But the program’s impact is al-ready being widely felt throughoutthe Pentagon and its industry part-
ners.The half a dozen analysts and ex-
perts interviewed by Defense
News for this piece all agree onone thing: The LRS-B has thechance to shape American military
aerospace for the next 20 years.
Whichever competitor wins willreap a windfall of developmentmoney; the loser could find itself
out of the military attack airframebusiness entirely.
And while the program appears
to be on track, Congress is waitingin the wings for any sign of costoverrun or technological prob-
lems.
“This is crunch time,” said Rich-ard Aboulafia, an analyst with theTeal Group. “It’s the biggest single
outstanding DoD competition by avery wide margin. That makes itimportant in and of itself.”
Known UnknownsThe bomber is largely a black
See NEW BOMBER, Page 6
Shrouded in Secrecy, US Air Force’sStealthy New Bomber Makes Waves
By AARON MEHTA
STAFF SGT. NICK WILSON/US AIR FORCE
Secrets Spark Questions: Will the Air Force’s planned long-range strike bomber, like the
B-2, above, be so classified that it cannot be stationed abroad?
LONDON — A shortage of engineers
and other skilled personnel is animminent threat to British militaryaviation safety, according to a high
ranking safety official. When Military Aviation Author-
ity (MAA) boss Air Marshal Dick
Garwood informed the defensesecretary in his report for the yearto Aug. 24 that he could give only
“limited assurance” of air safety,the cause was “mainly due to thesignificant and widespread short-
age of suitably qualified experi-enced personnel,” such asengineers, aircrew and air traffic
managers.That doesn’t mean military avia-
tion here is unsafe. Garwood re-ported an historically low accidentrate for the 12 months. But it does
mean that items like dealing withroutine air worthiness issues arenot being addressed.
The problem’s not new. The MAAhas been reporting shortages ofskilled civil and military personnel
for much of its four-year history.The shortages, particularly of en-
gineers and others at the Defence
Equipment & Support (DE&S) armof the Defence Ministry, is not anisolated issue affecting only mili-
tary aviation safety.Garwood’s MAA report said the
Defence Board, the highest com-
mittee in the MoD led by DefenceSecretary Michael Fallon, hasidentified “achieving and sustain-
ing manpower numbers and skillsas the greatest single challengecurrently facing the department.”
As of September 2014, the MoD
was advertising 102 program andproject management posts and 70
engineering and science posts.
Engineer Shortage
Threatens UK
Aviation SafetyBy ANDREW CHUTER
See UK ENGINEERS, Page 7
TOKYO — While Japan’s newly un-
veiled defense budget representsthe third small hike in a row afterdecades of low spending, experts
say such spending remains insuffi-cient to fund Tokyo’s plans for “dy-namic defense forces.”
Japan’s defense budget for fiscal2015 is edging up 0.8 percent to¥4.82 trillion (US $41.12 billion), ac-
cording to figures by the DefenseMinistry, bringing defense spend-ing closer to 1990 levels.
While well below the 2.4 percent
boost requested last August, the in-crease represents the third small
hike in a row after a decade of de-
cline. Japan has adopted a more
assertive defense posture under
the administration of the conserva-tive Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
The MoD will receive funding forall the major purchases it has re-quested to begin updating its Air
Force, restructure its defense pos-ture to better protect Nansei Shoto,
its southeast island chain south ofOkinawa, and boost its naval fleet
to strengthen its deterrence pos-
ture against China’s Navy.Three big-ticket items include
¥350.4 billion (down from ¥378.1
billion requested) to deploy 20
See JAPAN BUDGET, Page 7
Experts: Japan Budget Boost Still Won’t Meet GoalsBy PAUL KALLENDER-UMEZU
KAZUHIRO NOGI/ AFP/GETTY IMAGES
New EquipmentComing: Japanese
Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe inspects an
MV-22 Osprey and
a mock-up F-35A
joint strike fighter on
Oct. 26.
EUROPE
Sea Mine StudyBAE, Thales, DCNS team leadscompetition to develop system todefeat sea mines. Page 15
16 Germany: Euro Hawk UAV revival?
NORTH AMERICA
Defeating the HackGovernments struggle with how
to best respond to cyber assault.Page 12
14 Canada: Crafting spec ops gear needs.
ASIA & PACIFIC RIM
Naval Gun BuyIndia short-lists Oto Melara to
provide weapons despite probeof parent Finmeccanica. Page 14
MIDDLE EAST
Sifting the Fog of WarIsraeli combat recordings fromfierce Gaza battle underscore thecomplexity of war in a democra-
cy. Page 17
INTERVIEW
DerekCholletThe departingassistant US
secretary of
defense for inter-national securityaffairs discusses changes in US
security policy, global militaryaction against the Islamic Stategroup, and evolving relations
Our NetCom & TruLink technologies offer clear, reliable, wired and wireless communications, enhancing personnel safety and elevating situational awareness. For more information, visit www.telephonics.com or email [email protected].
3882038820
www.defensenews.com January 19, 2015 DefenseNews 3
International Publications Mail (Canada Distribution) Sales Agreement No. 546054.Telephone numbers: Editorial: (703) 642-7330; Circulation: (703) 750-7400; Fax: (703) 658-8314; Advertising: (703) 642-7330; Fax: (703) 642-7386.Subscriptions: Call (800) 368-5718 (domestic) or (703) 750-7400 (international), e-mail [email protected], or write to Defense News,Subscriber Service, Springfield, VA 22159-0400. For change of address, attach address label from a recent issue. All content within thispublication is copyrighted and requires proper authorization for reuse. Photocopies: To request photocopies, order online from the CopyrightClearance Center at www.copyright.com, specifying ISSN 0884-139X. The fee is $3.50 per photocopy per article, limited to 500 copies. Reprints & Permissions: To reprint or license content including text, images, graphics and logos please submit your request atwww.gannettreprints.com or contact PARS International via email: [email protected] or by phone: 212-221-9595, x431.
Defense News is published weekly, except for one week in April, one week in July, two weeks in August, two weeks inNovember and the last two weeks of the year, by Gannett Government Media, 6883 Commercial Drive, Springfield, VA 22159-0400.Annual subscription rates: (print and digital) $169 U.S. domestic mail; (digital only) $99 worldwide. Defense News is not a publication of theDepartment of Defense. Periodicals postage is paid at Springfield, Va., and at additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send all UAA to CFS. (See DMM 707.4.12.5); NON-POSTAL AND MILITARY FACILITIES: send address corrections to DefenseNews, 6883 Commercial Drive, Springfield, VA 22159-0400. Defense News is registered with the British Postal System and Canadian Post
InBrief
WASHINGTON — A Malaysian con-tractor at the center of a corrup-tion scandal rocking the US Navy
has pleaded guilty to fraudcharges, admitting to bribing offi-cials with cash, prostitutes, Cuban
cigars and Kobe beef, according toAgence France-Presse.
Known as “Fat Leonard” by the
American sailors who dealt withhim, 50-year-old Leonard Francisof Glenn Defense Marine Asia
(GDMA) entered a guilty plea in afederal court in San Diego, con-
firming he presided over a decade-long scheme involving tens of mil-lions of dollars in bribes,
prosecutors said.In addition, his ship supply com-
pany, GDMA, pleaded guilty to
bribery charges. US Navy Capt.Daniel Dusek pleaded guilty toconspiracy to commit bribery, the
highest-ranking officer so far to ad-mit wrongdoing in the case.
Four other current and former
naval officers have been charged
in the scandal.Dusek, 47, admitted to using his
position as a senior officer to en-sure ships stopped at ports whereFrancis’ company operated, and
on one occasion arranged for anaircraft carrier strike group to stopat Port Klang, Malaysia, a terminal
owned by Francis, officials said.The plea by “Fat Leonard,” por-
trayed as the ringleader of the brib-
ery scheme, represents a coup forprosecutors in the worst scandalto hit the Navy in years. It also
raised the possibility that more na-val officers could be implicated.
Federal prosecutors said the in-vestigation is “ongoing” and thatthe case is not closed.
“It is astounding that LeonardFrancis was able to purchase theintegrity of Navy officials by offer-
ing them meaningless materialpossessions and the satisfaction ofselfish indulgences,” US Attorney
Laura Duffy said in a statement. “In sacrificing their honor, these
officers helped Francis defraud
their country out of tens of mil-
lions of dollars. Now they will be
held to account,” she said.Francis pleaded guilty to bribery,
conspiracy to commit bribery and
conspiracy to defraud the UnitedStates, authorities said.
He agreed to forfeit $35 millionthat he made in the scheme and torepay the Navy whatever amount
the court decides.As part of his guilty plea, Francis
admitted he bilked the US military
out of tens of millions of dollars byroutinely overbilling for fuel, tug-boat services and sewage disposal.
Prostitutes, Pigs and HandbagsFrancis’ firm gave naval officers
millions of dollars in gifts, includ-
ing over $500,000 in cash, hun-dreds of thousands of dollars inprostitution services, travel ex-
penses, luxury hotel stays and spatreatments, lavish meals, includingKobe beef, Spanish suckling pigs,
Governments Struggle To Respond to Nation State HackingBy PAUL McLEARY
MICHAEL THURSTON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Responding to Cyber Attacks: Workers remove a
poster-banner for “The Interview” from a billboard in
Hollywood, California, Dec. 18, a day after Sony
announced it was canceling the movie’s Christmas
release due to a terrorist threat.
www.defensenews.com January 19, 2015 DefenseNews 13NORTH AMERICA
US Defense Budget 2016
The first defense budget with the newGOP-controlled Congress.Defense News will explore:• Army and Marine vehicles• Navy surface combatants and subs• Air Force strike and ISR platforms• Recapitalization vs. new purchases
Issue Date: Feb. 16, 2015
Special report:Middle East defense requirements
This issue will explore the militaryrequirements, land, sea and ISR, inMiddle Eastern countries.• Bonus distribution at theIDEX show in Abu Dhabi
Issue Date: Feb. 23, 2015
AERO India Special with IMR
Defense News and Indian MilitaryReview have created a full menu ofprint and digital advertising andsponsorship opportunities to reachAsia’s Premier Air Show.
Issue Date: Feb. 16, 2015
Special Report: Special Operations
US special operations capabilities andrequirements:• New equipment being developed• Emerging requirements• Budgetary issues• Bonus distribution at the SO/LICconference in Washington
Issue Date: Jan. 26, 2015
Special Report:Air Force Leaders and Programs
Top Air Force leaders discuss:• The new bomber• First flight of the KC-46• The latest on the F-35• Future space contracts• Bonus distribution at theAFAWinter show
Issue Date: Feb. 9, 2015
Special Report:Off-the-Shelf-Weapons
The Pentagon has launched TheBuying Power 3.0 initiative tostreamline purchasing.• Will it make it easier to acquirecommercial technology?
• How will it change the procurementprocess?
Issue Date: Feb. 2, 2015
14_
290_
01-1
2-1
5
Don’t miss these special features in print and online
Explore requirements, policies and tech-nology solutions to support persistent SOFoperations across the globe. KeynoteSpeakers include: USSOCOM Commander,USSOCOM Acquisition Executive andNATO Special Operations HQ Commander.
January 28-29, 2015
HOW WASHINGTON WORKS -NAVIGATING THE DoDReston, VAwww.ndia.org/meetings/543B
CTTSO identifies and develops technology-based capabilities to combat terrorism andirregular adversaries and to deliver these capabilities to DoD components and inter-agency partners. This APBI will forecasts therequirements anticipated for funding in Fiscal Year 2016.
February 10-11, 2015
2015 HUMAN SYSTEMS CONFERENCEAlexandria, VA www.ndia.org/meetings/5350
Focusing on the theme "Human Systems:Maintaining Our Physical Edge, EnablingOur Cognitive Edge" the conference willfeature brief, high-impact presentations oftechnical accomplishments and researchbased recommendations in 90-minuteblocks across the five Human Systems COITopic Areas.
March 25-26, 2015
CYBERWEST: THE SOUTHWESTCYBERSECURITY SUMMITPhoenix, AZwww.afei.org/events/5A06
March 2-4, 2015
30th ANNUAL NATIONAL TEST &EVALUATION CONFERENCESpringfield, VAwww.ndia.org/meetings/5910
"The Future of T&E: Maintaining the Defense Technology Edge." T&E develop-ments, BBP review and lessons learned.
March 11, 2015
WOMEN IN DEFENSE NATIONAL CONFERENCEArlington, VAwww.ndia.org/meetings/5WID
March 30-April 1, 2015
JOINT UNDERSEA WARFARETECHNOLOGY SPRING CONFERENCESan Diego, CAwww.ndia.org/meetings/5260
March 10, 2015
WOMEN IN DEFENSE ANNUAL DINNERArlington, VAwww.ndia.org/meetings
March 16-18, 2015
31st ANNUAL NATIONAL LOGISTICSFORUMWashington, DCwww.ndia.org/meetings/5730
The forum will highlight challenges, attemptto identify opportunities, and assess futureimpacts on logistics support to Warfightersbased on known and anticipated fiscal constraints.
20 DefenseNews January 19, 2015 www.defensenews.com
US Navy appears to — finally — have em-braced the littoral combat ships that will
prove to be a critical element of its surface force.
To address persistent concerns that both versionsof the speedy warship were too lightly armed andvulnerable, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered
the Navy to study alternatives and capped the pro-gram at 32 ships.
Unsurprisingly, the Navy proposed adding weap-
ons and improving the survivability of the last 20ships of the class, referring to them as small surfacecombatants.
Critics maintain the changes will do little to im-prove the utility of the LCS while increasing unitcost by tens of millions of dollars apiece.
Supporters say the program is on time and budgetand that LCS offers an ideal foundation as a potentfuture warship that will provide flexible forward
presence and assume key minesweeping dutieswhen current ships are retired in about a decade.
They contend the shallow-draft ships will provevaluable, as in the search for the wreckage of theAirAsia jetliner.
To make the ships more attractive and help assimilate them more quickly into a skeptical fleet,Navy Secretary Ray Mabus last week announced
that the ships would be redesignated as frigates. Thedecision comes as the last of the Navy’s once-ubiqui-tous Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frig-
ates are decommissioned after decades of exempla-ry service.
The announcement at last week’s Surface Navy
Association’s annual conference and tradeshowoutside Washington, however, did little to assuageskeptics who were quick to point out that the term
frigate is usually applied to warships with multiplebuilt-in capabilities.
The Perry-class ships had anti-submarine gear, a
bigger gun and air defense missiles. None of these
capabilities come standard on LCS hulls, which are
delivered with a single 57mm gun.All that said, the LCS is here to stay and it is criti-
cal that the right steps are taken to ensure the pro-
gram’s success.First, both LCS designs will benefit from the dis-
tributed lethality concept to improve the fleet’s
firepower. A top priority is a new lightweight, long-range missile to give the ships an offensive punch.
Second, changeable mission modules are core to
the LCS design, so the Navy must ensure the minewarfare, anti-surface and anti-submarine moduleswork and can be rapidly swapped as needs change.
Third, as the ships require more people to operatethan originally expected, the Navy must determinethe appropriate crew size and make the design
changes needed to accommodate them.Fourth, consider modifications to increase range
and persistence.
Finally, equip the ships with a gun that is morepowerful than the 57mm weapon now fitted, which
many consider too small for the job.The LCS is far different in fundamental approach
than past ships. The Navy and its contractors must
work hard to improve capabilities of both types ofships, which have limitations. Half the fleet will be asteel monohull by Lockheed Martin and Marinette
Marine and the other half an aluminum trimaran byAustal USA. Adding weapons and systems on eitherone without compromising performance or driving
other costly changes will be a challenge.The right way to map the future LCS frigates is to
get ships to the fleet where commanders and sailors
can operate them to determine future capabilitieswhile taking advantage of a fast, light warship de-signed for engagement, presence and limited com-
bat in relief of larger, more powerful ships. The Navy has signaled it is all-in with LCS. Now
Please include phone number. Letters may be edited.
Submissions to Defense News may be published or distributed in print, electronic or
other forms.
WORD FOR WORD
“Germany is providing leadership inso many areas in Europe, but we arealso looking for German leadershipwhen it comes to investing in defense.We need to invest in our defense tobe able to protect all our allies and to maintainthe security and stability of Europe.”NATO Secretary-General Jens StoltenbergSpeaking at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin onJan. 14
“No, I do not.”US Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee JamesWhen asked if she had any regrets about trying to retire the A-10, amove unpopular in Congress
“Why am I not shocked that, inaddition to wanting to cut SocialSecurity and Medicare as we know it,cut education, cut nutrition programsfor hungry kids, their other brilliantidea is to increase military spending at a timewhen we spend more money than almost the restof the world combined.”Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders,I-Vt.On congressional Republicans
www.defensenews.com January 19, 2015 DefenseNews 21
W ell into the second dec-ade of the 21st century,
the future employmentof the US Army remains in doubt.The Army, the pre-eminent
ground combat force on the plan-et, is bedeviled by two funda-mental questions regarding its
future. The first, on the nature of the
roles and
missions thatthe Armyexecutes, is
intrinsicallylinked to thesecond: how
the Armyexecutes thatmission. Rath-
er than surren-dering tobureaucratic
inertia, theArmy and itscivilian lead-
ers must critically examine theanswers to these questions.
The Army exists to fight and
win our nation’s wars. In theabsence of open conflict, it detersaggression by its readiness to
execute this mission. In their roleas a deterrent to war, soldiershave served as the ultimate mani-
festation of our nation’s commit-ment. Simply put, America’sinterests end where boots on the
ground end.
In view of these facts, the Army
has historically maintained 30 to50 percent of its forces outsidethe United States since World War
II. This trend has changed precip-itously since 1990.
At the fall of the Berlin Wall,
more than 40 percent of the reg-ular Army was stationed outsidethe US and its territories. The
bulk of these forces was inEurope, witness to the successfulculmination of the Cold War. By
2014, this number has shrunk to amere 6 percent.
The Army succeeded magnifi-
cently in its role as a strategicdeterrent. In long-term occupa-tions that evolved to symbiotic
stationing, it kept the peace inseveral countries, primarily inEurope and Asia, first strength-
ening them during postwar re-building and ultimately defendingthem from threats largely emanat-
ing from the Communist bloc. This permanent forward pres-
ence provided a mission the
regular Army alone could ac-complish. Abandoning this strate-gy of deterrence must cause us to
look closely at the daunting chal-
lenges of an expeditionary, home-
based Army.
Testing CapabilitiesDuring the Cold War, despite
the approximately 200,000 Amer-ican soldiers stationed in Europe,
we regularly conducted an exer-cise known as “REFORGER,” anabbreviation for “Redeployment
of FORces to GERmany.” Here,we tested our ability to rapidlyreinforce our NATO allies with
US-based units in case of buildingtensions with the Soviet Union.This was a planned exercise that
taxed and tested our strategictransportation capabilities.
Today, the Army argues that the
active force alone provides therequisite readiness to meet thevastly increased expeditionary
demand. Training is presumed tobe the greatest challenge and notthe logistics required to move
these heavy forces. To test this foundational as-
sumption, a REFORGER-type
exercise to Poland or the Balticstates of an armored divisionwould not only provide much
needed training, but validate our
expeditionary Army concept.
If we determine that it is trans-portation, and not training, thatlimits the expeditionary Army,
this would bring into question theArmy’s plan to draw down theactive components and much
cheaper reserve componentsequally.
We know the threats from a
resurgent Russia and an increas-ingly bellicose Beijing define ourconventional challenges. Poland,
the Baltic republics, Ukraine,Japan, Taiwan and the Philippinesare some of our most likely areas
of conflict requiring our conven-tionally focused Army. The nationhas decided we will not use the
previously successful strategy ofa forward-stationed Army. Thequestion is why?
Willingness To DeployDo we have an expeditionary
Army that can handle the threat,or do we simply lack the will todo so? If the latter, then we must
conclude that if we are unwillingto deploy US forces in time ofpeace, we are unwilling to do so
in time of war, regardless of any
technical ability to do so. Ukraine and many of our newer
NATO allies are debating thisissue even if we are not.
Since 1775, my Army has fought
and won our nation’s wars, bothin battle and through the threat ofcombat. If our landpower deter-
rence is now to be based in theUnited States, we must questionthe size of the active force as well
as what national policy we seekto achieve. When we declare,antebellum, that there will be “no
boots on the ground,” we haveproved to both allies and enemiesthe small regard the country has
for the mission.A grand strategy of “no boots
on the ground” demonstrates a
national disinterest in the affairsof men. Every retreat of our na-tion from world affairs has ended
violently in recent history. Everytime we have stood shoulder toshoulder with our allies, we have
reaped success. Often weachieved these victories withoutviolence.
Even should the expeditionaryArmy prove logistically feasible,itself an unproven assumption,
the larger issue of an essentiallymissionless, large standing Armyframes a debate that must be held
in all corners of Washington, aswell as the nation it represents,and not merely relegated to the
E-Ring of the Pentagon. N
Putting Boots on the GroundAn Expeditionary US Army Must Rethink Role
By Lt. Col. PaulDarling, a graduate
of the United States
Military Academy.
T he 2011 National Security
Space Strategy (NSSS) forprotecting US space capa-
bilities, passed in 2011, contained
various elements, including devel-oping international norms ofbehavior, building commercial
and international coalitions, en-hancing theresilience of
space capa-bilities, deter-ring aggres-
sion against
critical spacesystems, and
preparing to
defeat attacksand operate in
a degradedspace environ-
ment. Language in
the 2015 Na-
tional Defense Authorization Act(NDAA) suggests new focus onthe last two elements — deterring
and defeating attacks — in re-sponse to what the national secu-rity community perceives as a
greater counterspace threat fromRussia and China. But doing so atthe expense of the other elements
is likely to increase risks to criti-
cal space capabilities and jeopar-
dize the strategy’s objectives.Russia and China have height-
ened their counterspace activities.
Since 2005, China has conductedat least seven test launches ofone, and possibly two, ground-
based, kinetic-kill, anti-satellite(ASAT) systems that could poten-tially reach targets at 36,000 kilo-
meters above the equator.
There have also been reportsthat Russia may be resuming
work on air-launched ASAT sys-tems, although there is no hardevidence in the public domain on
actual testing. However, there islittle detail on what threats these
systems might pose to the US.
Over the past three years, theDoD and Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI) have
made modest progress towardimplementing the 2011 NSSS.
Normative efforts on space secu-
rity have been limited to recom-mendations for transparency and
confidence-building measures,voluntary guidelines to enhancespace sustainability, and the Euro-
pean Union-led negotiations on
the nonbinding draft InternationalCode of Conduct for Space Activ-
ities.
Senior US leaders have spoken
out against the testing of weaponsin space that produce long-livedspace debris. Greater interna-
tional cooperation has largelybeen limited to situational aware-ness data-sharing agreements that
do little more than formalize theexisting model of a one-way dataflow from the American military
to other countries. There are no public plans for
the US military to include any of
its allies in the development ofnew satellite systems or to utilize
allied space capabilities instead of
developing its own. And the DoDand ODNI have yet to detail astrategy for how to make national
security space capabilities moreresilient to attacks.
The NDAA for fiscal 2015 directsan update to the 2011 NSSS toinclude space control and space
superiority aspects, and requiresthe majority of the $32.3 millionallocated to the Space Security
and Defense Program be used todevelop “offensive space controland active defensive strategies
and capabilities,” capabilities thatcan be thought of as swords andshields for satellites.
Active defense includes taking
action against a hostile object to
prevent it from destroying a pro-tected object. In the context ofspace, active defenses could
mean cyber or electronic warfarecapabilities to interfere with theability of an adversary’s ASAT
weapon to target and track aprotected satellite, or kinetic killcapabilities that involve destroy-
ing the ASAT weapon before itreaches the protected satellite.
Active defensive and offensive
counterspace capabilities cancontribute to the protection of USnational security space systems,
but only if they are implementedin conjunction with, and in amanner that reinforces, the other
elements of the strategy. Estab-
lishing norms of behavior would
help sensitize all countries topotential vulnerabilities and the
dangers of conflict, and build
critical communication links foruse during a conflict. Buildingstronger international and com-
mercial partnerships, and devel-
oping coalition space capabilitieswith key allies, would also rein-
force deterrence, assuage alliedconcerns and potentially increase
resilience.
Developing swords and shields
by themselves without support
from the norms, cooperation andresilience elements will likelymake the situation more unstable
and could potentially lead to anarms race instability scenario.The result would be increased
threats to everyone’s space sys-tems and increased tensions thatcould lead to or escalate conflict.
The US needs to better artic-ulate how it will implement allelements of the 2011 NSSS and
how these elements will work
together. At the same time, the USneeds to weigh the perspectives
of its allies and the possible con-
sequences for the burgeoningcommercial space sector, in the
development of active defensiveand offensive counterspace capa-
bilities. Failing to do so will undermine
the desired objective of strength-
ening safety, stability and securityin space, and lead to greater insta-bility for all. N
22 DefenseNews January 19, 2015 www.defensenews.com
Interview
Q. Since you assumed this position,what have been some of the biggestshocks for the US government?A. I started this job the first weekof June 2012, so we were a year-
plus into the so-called ArabSpring and dealing with the con-tinuing repercussions of this
generational change in the MiddleEast. But Syria, Egypt, Israelisecurity issues, Iran, Libya, Iraq
have dominated my time, as wellas the NATO piece of the Afghani-stan effort and our relationship
with Europe, which is an endur-ing effort. A year ago we wereworried about the future of the
trans-Atlantic relationship, howwould it be relevant to people.And of course, the events of the
last year with Russia and Ukrainehave focused people again onthreats to European security and
the unfinished business, really,still coming out of the end of theCold War.
Q. There seems to be a shift afoot inUS security policy with more and moreUS training and partner missions inEastern Europe but base closures andconsolidation in Western Europe. Isthere any tension there with allies?A. I see it as a continuing evolu-tion of our force posture in
Europe, as we’re continuallytrying to make it relevant to mod-ern threats. Also, the evolution in
our discussion with our Europeanallies about the division of laborbetween us. Despite all these
changes and the efficiencies thatwe’re gaining by closing certain
facilities [in Europe], while also
improving infrastructure in otherparts of Europe and rotatingforces through Central and East-
ern Europe, the bottom line iswe’re still deeply committed to
European security. The trans-
Atlantic relationship is the corner-
stone relationship for the UnitedStates writ large. It’s not just
about European security, it’sabout US/Europe working togeth-er in North Africa, working to-
gether in the Middle East, andeven working together in Asia.
Q. So the conversations with Europeanallies have focused on engagement notonly on the continent, but globally? A. In those conversations, we takea lot of care to ensure that we’reworking closely with our Euro-
pean partners just as we’re mak-ing decisions to ensure that thereisn’t a perception that we are
seeking to withdraw at all, be-cause it’s the opposite. Whatwe’ve been able to accomplish
with our European partners in thelast year alone is a testament tothat. There is a lot of skepticism
in Washington among the expertcommunity about Europe and theUS being willing to step up togeth-
er to support Ukraine, to ensurethat we have the capability in
place in Europe to send a clear
message to Russia that the NATOalliance remains strong and thatwe’re all committed to Article V,
and that European partners wouldbe willing to put real skin in thegame in the fight against [the
Islamic State group].
Q. France, the UK, Belgium, Canada,Denmark and the Netherlands ap-peared eager to take part in OperationInherent Resolve against the IslamicState group in Iraq and Syria.A. The fact that so many Europeanpartners sought us out to contrib-
ute in a meaningful way militarilyin the efforts in Iraq and Syria issignificant. I think, frankly, it’s
underappreciated. This was notsomething where the US wasgoing around the world pressur-
ing allies to contribute. This is a
situation when allies were comingto us wanting to contribute. Num-ber one, they see this as a shared
security interest, the effort against[the Islamic State group]. Eventsjust in the last week in Paris only
underscore that. And also, theyrecognize their role as responsiblepartners. That doesn’t mean we
don’t have huge challenges withour European partners, whether itbe on their defense budgets, their
capabilities, in some cases thepolitical will. But I tend to see thisas largely a good news story.
Q. And what of the newer EasternEuropean and Baltic partners?A. With some of our newer part-ners, the essential Eastern Euro-pean partners, one of the things
that they’ve been asking us forhelp for — and we’ve been willing
to do — is they would like to notfly Russian helicopters and notdrive Russian armored vehicles.
They’re looking to us for help.Now, those are budget decisionsin their governments, they’re
procurement decisions, so they’redifficult because, like the UnitedStates, all of Europe has suffered
financial austerity recently.
Q. Is there any movement toward doingmore partnered training activities withUkrainian military?A. Yes. We’ve already agreed to
help the Ukrainians build a na-tional guard force, and that’sabout $19 million in funds that
were allocated last year to help dothat. That hopefully will be gettingunderway in the coming months.
We’re very open to the idea thatthat becomes a first step in fur-ther training for the Ukrainian
military. That, of course, willrequire additional resources andwe’re going to have to continue
the conversation with the Ukrai-nians about what they need and
want. The Ukrainian military,
even before the events of the lastyear, were too corrupt, not very
well run, not very well organized.
So we’ve worked very hard to putin place a good consultativemechanism with the Ukrainians to
talk about their defense needs.
Q. In building this national guard force,would US soldiers be in Ukraine doingthe training, or would this be some-where else in Europe?A. It would largely be elsewhere.
There are parts of Ukraine in theWest that are far away from the
fighting where we and NATO havedone exercises. So there are facil-
ities in Ukraine, but we can also
do it outside of the country. I don’t
anticipate that any of this trainingwill require significant US pres-
ence.
Q. Is the US involved in training theIraqis to build their proposed newlargely Sunni national guard?A. I don’t think the training hasbegun on the national guard, butit’s not the US doing it. Helping
train an Iraqi National Guard thatincludes Sunni, Shi’a, Kurd, that’sconsistent with our overall ap-
proach, obviously, to have an Iraqthat’s unified. But it’s not the USdoing it directly, or our partners
for that matter, the Europeans orothers. It’s an Iraqi effort.
Q. What are some of the biggest issuesfacing your successor in the MiddleEast and emerging areas of interest inAfrica as far as counterterrorism andsecurity assistance initiatives?A. If you look at the swath of
territory from Northern Mali tothe Afghanistan-Pakistan border,you have what was known by
Zbigniew Brzezinski as the “arc ofinstability.” You have borders thatmatter less and less, non-state
actors who are using any meansthey can acquire — whetherweapons or technology and com-
munications — to try to fomentinstability in that area but also, ofcourse, to strike outside [that
region]. There are weak govern-
ments, security threats, pop-ulation movements and massive
humanitarian problems — and
they are all problems that don’tknow our bureaucratic stove-
pipes, so that can be a challenge.I think the other challenge will
be what Russia is doing. On the
security side of it, where couldthis lead, and how does this makeus think anew about European
security issues and the relation-ships and the force posture issuesor the defense spending issues?
One big challenge is how thatconversation takes place withinthe context of smaller budgets.
So, how we do more with less.
Q. The price of a barrel of oil has fallenby more than half over the past severalmonths, and it’s flirting with $50 abarrel. What kind of effect do you thinkthat may have on the activities of Iran,Russia and Venezuela?A. Particularly those countries
that you named, Russia, Venezue-la, some others have used theriches they were able to acquire
due to the high price of oil to fundsome pretty negative behavior. Soto the extent that it makes those
countries more focused on theirinternal stability and their eco-nomic woes, and leaves them less
time to think about ways that theycan destabilize neighbors, that’s agood thing.
Q. Several years after the Obamaadministration announced its “rebal-ance” to the Asia-Pacific region, wheredoes that stand? It seems the admini-stration continues to struggle to ex-plain what it’s trying to do.A. I think the key word is “bal-ance.” It’s not meant in any way to
diminish our core relationships inEurope. In fact, our message toour European friends has been
“rebalance with us.” We all havean interest in Asia-Pacific. Thisisn’t just an American thing. I
think the difficulty is that it’s a bigstrategic play, and is often hard to
measure in the day-to-day, hour-
to-hour news cycles that we livein. So you have to just stick with
it, be patient about it and un-
derstand that the payoff may notbe appreciated for another severalyears, decades perhaps.
The theory coming in for thisadministration was that we havebeen out of balance coming into
the end of the 2000s, and that wehad expended far too many re-sources on wars in the Middle
East. And while that was happen-ing, a big shift in geopolitics wasoccurring that we were not as
much a part of as we should’vebeen. N
By Paul McLeary in Washington.
DEREK CHOLLETAssistant US Secretary of DefenseFor International Security Affairs
It has been a busy two and a half years for Derek Chollet, as eventshave left the White House and Pentagon scrambling to deal with
complex issues in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, driven inlarge part by groups of non-state actors. As the principal adviser oninternational issues to the US defense secretary and undersecretary,
Chollet has been in the middle of it all. Elissa Slotkin, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for
international security affairs since 2012, will take over for Chollet, who
is heading to the German Marshall Fund as a counselor and senioradviser.