[JLRC]

Analysis: NATO States Divided Over Iraq
 
 
(Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; issued Nov. 16, 2004)
 
 
 NATO's Supreme Allied Commander for Europe General James Jones has said that 10 member states have refused to send troops to Iraq as part of the alliance's new training mission there, ft.com reported on 15 November. Jones said the move by the 10 states, which he refused to name publicly, could undermine the alliance itself and threaten the long-term viability of the operation.  
 
The website reported that the U.S. government has already complained that France and Germany have ordered their staff seconded to NATO headquarters in Belgium and to Norfolk, Virginia, not to participate in Iraq missions. Both countries were opposed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Opponents to the NATO program have argued that a larger NATO presence in the country equates to putting the alliance into the battlefield through the back door, Reuters reported on 14 November.  
 
Germany's ddp news agency reported that the German government has "consistently refused to send German soldiers directly to Iraq." However, according to a 15 November ddp report, 32 Bundeswehr instructors will be training Iraqi security forces to operate five-ton trucks in the United Arab Emirates. Germany has also committed to training Iraqis at a NATO center in Oberammergau, Germany. Norway is training Iraqis at the Joint Warfare Center in Stavanger  
NATO committed itself last month to sending 300 trainers to Baghdad and 1,000-1,500 soldiers to the capital to provide protection for its in-country program, which will train 1,000 Iraqi officers a year at a military academy currently being set up near Baghdad.  
 
Jones's statements came just days after NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer met with U.S. President George W. Bush and addressed the UN Security Council in New York. De Hoop Scheffer supported the war in Iraq before becoming head of NATO in January. The secretary-general suggested to reporters after his 10 November meeting with Bush that the NATO alliance is strong, saying, "It is a very important sign that I was the first foreign visitor, indeed, to meet President Bush in the Oval Office" following Bush's reelection, international media reported. He told the UN Security Council the following day that NATO's decision to assist Iraq was based on the security interests of its member states, which are "affected by events" there.  
 
He took a more critical view of European member states in the war on terror at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on 12 November. "In Europe, we still have complicated discussions, be it in the European Union or be it national discussions, of how far governments could go in the relationship with their citizens in the fight against terrorism. I think Europe should catch up here," independent.co.uk quoted him as saying in a 13 November report.  
 
De Hoop Scheffer went a bit further in a 14 November interview with Italy's "Corriere della Sera," saying that Europeans need to "wake up" to the terrorist threat. "The average U.S. citizen perceives terrorism as being by far the most serious threat. That is not the case in Europe. A large part of the population has to wake up to the fact that everything has changed," de Hoop Scheffer said.  
 
He added that Europeans "find it difficult to understand that something might happen in some far-off region of Asia which might place their own personal security in jeopardy." "This gap in perception compared to the United States gives me cause for concern," he said. De Hoop Scheffer said his goal is to turn NATO into an institution for political dialogue on security issues between the United States and European member states.  
 
Of the 18 NATO member states that individually committed (outside of NATO) troops to Iraq, only about half remain committed to keeping troops there. Most Western European states have said they will pull out altogether in the coming months.  
 
Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia have all opted to stay indefinitely. Hungary announced on 16 November that it may send military trainers to Iraq as part of the NATO contingent. Prospective NATO members Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia said on 13 November that they too are eager to support the NATO training mission in Iraq.  
 
-ends

[JLRC]

Interview: Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation, and Commander, Joint Forces Command

BY HUNTER C. KEETER

Giambastiani: Change in Culture Key to Joint Transformation

Since Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld endorsed the term “transformation” in 2000, it has become the watch-word for the prioritization of investment in technologies and concepts of operation that enhance the military forces’ ability to act in an integrated fashion. From the battlefields of Iraq to the halls of the Pentagon, the DoD leadership gradually has clarified a vision of future military capability in which interoperability, not only of systems but of various service and agency cultures, is the key to success in coalition operations.

As the executive agent charged with ensuring the future of transformation, the U.S. Joint Forces Command at Norfolk, Va., oversees the interoperability of the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy. At the helm is Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr. He wears two hats as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation, and Commander, Joint Forces Command. His mission is to lead the way for the transformation of U.S. and NATO alliance command-and-control capabilities.

Giambastiani is a submariner whose earlier commands included NR-1, the Navy’s nuclear-powered research submarine, and the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Richard B. Russell. He commanded Atlantic Fleet Submarine Force, NATO’s Submarines Allied Command Atlantic, and was Rumsfeld’s military assistant. He became the leader of Joint Forces Command in 2003.

Giambastiani recently discussed his command’s challenges and priorities with Sea Power Associate Editor Hunter C. Keeter.

Does the military develop capabilities, plan operations and carry out missions better today as a result of joint transformation?

Giambastiani: Is the military doing much better at this? The answer is, yes. Is it where we should be? The answer is, no. The reason why I say this is we keep striving to know how to better integrate our existing capabilities.

What is Joint Forces Command’s role to ensure a closer integration of capabilities?

Giambastiani: What we don’t want to do is have all the services and agencies out trying to build their own systems and then not be able to perform operational level command and control when they get together. We have been given significant authority to work with services like the Navy, for example, in management initiative decisions. That allows us oversight in programs that involve joint command and control.

Once joint command and control is working, how does it address the challenge of diverse requirements for fires?

Giambastiani: There are a lot of people and capabilities that provide fires. There are aviation fires; there are ground combat fires from artillery, rockets, missiles; and fires can come from at sea in the form of rockets, missiles and guns. The question is how do you put all that together? We are becoming more integrated with regard to joint fires, particularly in reference to the delivery of air-dropped munitions.

How do better-integrated joint aerial fires affect changes in the structure of forces that depend on those capabilities?

Giambastiani: One of the things happening is that Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker [Army chief of staff] is reducing the amount of organic artillery that he has in a number of units. He is using the personnel to, in fact, create additional military police, civil affairs and a whole series of other functions that are important. He also is using these personnel to fill out combat divisions, where they are, in fact, creating a fourth brigade in some cases. Take the 3rd Infantry Division, for example. When it fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom, it had three brigades. The next time we use it, it is going to have four brigades.

Is the trend in joint interoperability to make the uniformed services more dependent upon one another?

Giambastiani: If you make each of the services more interdependent on each other, you can, in fact, invest money or re-invest personnel in the capabilities that you need, to make this joint force better equipped to do its job in the future.

What is the next step for interservice cooperation?

Giambastiani: When you start talking about moving to a coherently integrated force, there are some very important enablers. The integrated force has got to be interdependent; it has to be capabilities-based, collaborative and network centric.

How do you create this kind of cohesiveness?

Giambastiani: You have to have the ability to conduct high-level, or large-scale, vertical and horizontal collaboration. That means up and down the chain of command and across all of your capabilities and forces. The ability to collaborate is what allows you to do command and control, plus collecting and sharing information, and then you have a better understanding of the commander’s intent.

From the perspective of your NATO role, what is the challenge of interoperability?

Giambastiani: We have coalition information sharing, not only through trading pieces of paper, but digitally, to share knowledge and do it in a manner that doesn’t create an incredible amount of fire brakes or delay the process so that you can actually work toward outcomes and end-states.

Is this a change in philosophy for both U.S. and allied forces?

Giambastiani: It is not so much a change in philosophy; but a change in culture. Culture is a very important part of being able to do anything in any organization. One must know what is the established culture and how to change that. The culture of understanding joint warfighting today is significantly advanced over what it was a few years ago. In fact, think about how far we have come with regard to joint warfighting. It is pretty remarkable.

Could joint force integration expand beyond the traditional spheres of the military?

Giambastiani: The Goldwater-Nichols Act [which reorganized the Department of Defense command structure] happened in 1986 and here we are, 18 years later, moving toward that. Guess what? Now you get the 9/11 Commission talking about having a Goldwater-Nichols for the rest of the government. This is about changing cultures to integrate. That is one of the points we make all the time. We are working on the questions of how we bring in the interagency process; how we bring in allies, nongovernmental organizations and other agencies.

What are some of the technological challenges remaining in the arena of joint warfare?

Giambastiani: Fratricide prevention is big, and that means Blue Force tracking [knowing where friendly units are on the battlefield] in addition to combat identification. Knowing these things is very important for situational awareness, not only to have a good idea of what is happening on the battlefield, but to keep from killing each other.

Are there shortfalls in today’s information management capabilities?

Giambastiani: We need technologies that allow us to do a more effects-based [long-term results] assessment that is real-time, instead of what I call attrition-based battle damage assessment. One of the findings that we put out in an unclassified testimony before the House Armed Services Committee is that our ability to do battle damage assessment is far outpaced by our ability to move on the battlefield. We were way behind this [during Operation Iraqi Freedom].

Based on lessons learned from Iraqi Freedom and other actions, what are your views on collaborative access to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities?

Giambastiani: The only way you can do ISR is to do it in a joint fashion. The questions are: how ubiquitous is the information? Is it useful? How real-time is it? And how can you help it enable quick operations? Judging the old paradigm of battle damage assessment, we are not quick enough at turning information around. We are very good at getting static looks at a battlefield or some kind of operation. What we are not good at is getting someone a picture of what is happening in real-time when we get very dynamic and everybody is moving very quickly. Through efforts like Blue Force tracking we are beginning to understand where our forces are. The question is, where are the enemy forces? From the fratricide point of view this is critical.

What are some of the tools for collecting information and how are you using these technologies today?

Giambastiani: The Air Force now has built up a pretty substantial capability within Air Combat Command to support Predator unmanned aerial vehicles. Those vehicles are in Air Combat Command, under Joint Forces Command, and we provide them to locations around the world. Many are deployed to the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility [including the Middle East]. The Predators are actually driven and controlled from Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. The Air Force has a complete system there to support joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and also attack. We are doing this through reach-back [from the field to the continental United States] and this is a big deal.

What else concerns you, from your perspective on joint force technical capabilities?

Giambastiani: We are [deploying] huge numbers of forces and our ability to … do this [efficiently] today is not particularly good. We are spending a lot of time working in this area, for example with the U.S. Transportation Command, developing new ideas about joint [logistics].

Do you have a long-term vision for joint force support and sustainment capabilities?

Giambastiani: How do we deploy but logistically sustain the force in a way that makes sense, without costing the taxpayer huge bundles of money? We need to be able to make sure we are applying our dollars in the right locations without wasting them on piles of stocks in certain areas. We are trying to get rid of those iron mountains of the past.

Going forward with joint force transformation, what are some of your other priorities?

Giambastiani: If you look at what is important to the leadership in the Defense Department … [they] talk about creating a joint concept of operations for air, land and sea. How do you integrate all of this stuff? Translating that into a joint concept of operations and then into a joint acquisition strategy is a little different than the way we are doing business today.

Would new approaches to joint operations and acquisition have an impact on force integration?

Giambastiani: Think about the implications. This effort should help us drive toward what we want: doing things in a joint way as opposed to having organizations go forward and arbitrarily acquire capability by themselves.

[JLRC]

Commander Slams NATO Iraq No-Shows
Associated Press
November 24, 2004

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military commander in Europe criticized NATO countries who refused to provide military instructors for a training mission in Iraq, saying the result will be an increased burden on allies who are contributing.

"It's important to recognize that once the alliance gets involved in an operation, it is important that all allies support the operation," Gen. James Jones, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe said Tuesday.

He said "nine or 10 or 11" of NATO's 26 countries would not send instructors, even though they voted to approve a mission there.

"This is disturbing. I hope it is a one-time event, because it really will be a limiting factor in the long term in terms of generating forces and successive rotations," Jones said in a speech at the National Press Club.

He did not identify the countries, but France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece have refused publicly to contribute personnel. It is unlikely Iceland could provide a contribution because it has no military, although it does have technical experts who have accompanied other NATO missions.

The project to train Iraqi officers will not involve offensive combat duty and is part of a broader program aimed at creating an Iraqi security force capable of protecting the country without the need for U.S. and other foreign forces.

As designed, it would involve 400 instructors and about 1,200 troops to protect them, a State Department official said last week

The United States will bear a large share of the costs and contribute a sizable percentage of the instructors and the protective force, the official said. An advance contingent of 60 to 65 officers will go to Baghdad in four to six weeks to begin the training program.

While NATO long has played a postwar peacekeeping role in Afghanistan, many European governments and their constituencies still disapprove the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq.

The decision to use soldiers of NATO nations to train Iraqi officers is the first collective action on Iraq by the alliance, the official said, although individual NATO members have contributed troops.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking at a news conference at the Pentagon, called the refusal by certain NATO countries to send personnel a problem.

"It's kind of like if you've got a basketball team, and you have five people train together, week after week after week, it comes to be game time and two of them stick up their hands and say, `Gee, I don't think I'm going to play this week.' It would be better if they were on the bench, and somebody else had been training for the last period of weeks," he said.

[JLRC]

Memorandum of Understanding for the Provision of a Satellite Communications Capability Signed
 
 
(Source: NATO; issued Nov. 23, 2004)
 
 
 NATO completed on 22 November the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Governments of France, Italy and the United Kingdom for the provision of a satellite communications capability for fifteen years, commencing 1 January 2005.  
 
This new NATO satellite capability will primarily be used to provide the communications support of NATO’s deployed forces.  
 
The capability will be provided through the use of the French SYRACUSE, the Italian SICRAL and the United Kingdom SKYNET Satellite constellations. They will provide SHF and UHF capacity and coverage to meet NATO’s operational requirements.  
 
The programme will be coordinated through a Joint Programme Management Office located in Paris.  
 
Follow-on enhancement of the current NATO ground equipment will be acquired by NATO through the process of international competitive bidding.  
 
-ends-

[JLRC]

Another NATO Country Buys RBS 70  
 
 
(Source: Saab AB; issued Nov. 25, 2004)
 
 
 Saab Bofors Dynamics has signed a contract with Latvia regarding the RBS 70 Air Defence Missile System. The order is worth MSEK 185 for Saab. The Latvian Air Force is the end customer and user of the system.  
 
Latvia is now the seventeenth country to acquire RBS 70. In recent years major orders for the system have also been received from Finland and Australia.  
 
“It is very pleasing and an excellent testimony to the system that yet another NATO country has chosen the RBS 70 Air Defence Missile System. The system has been on the market for a long time and the upgraded version is now enjoying a renaissance. The recent sales success shows that it is still a world-class system,” comments Tomas Samuelsson, President of Saab Bofors Dynamics.  
 
The Latvian contract is a combination of donated materiel from Sweden and new materiel from Saab Bofors Dynamics. The Latvian RBS 70 system will be upgraded to the most modern version with a night sight and aircraft identification equipment. The system fulfills the necessary requirements for operational use within NATO.  
 
Deliveries will take place in 2006 and 2007.  
 
Saab is one of the world’s leading high-technology companies, with its main operations focusing on defence, aviation and space. The group covers a broad spectrum of competence and capabilities in systems integration.  
 
-ends-

[JLRC]

Lithuanian Airspace to be Safeguarded by Air Defence Armaments Donated by Norway
 
 
(Source: Lithuanian Ministry of Defence; issued Nov. 15, 2004)
 
 
 On Monday, 15 November an official ceremony will be held at the Air Defence Battalion when short-range air defence missile system RBS-70 will be handed over by Norway to Lithuania.  
 
The equipment to be received by the Lithuanian Armed Forces free of charge is estimated at approximately 135 million Litas.  
 
Between October-November of this year, a dispatch including 21 short range anti-aircraft missiles RBS-70, Mk-1 missiles, 5 training simulators, as well as surveillance radar systems Giraffe IV, others spare parts was handed over to the Air Defence Battalion, situated in Mumaiciai, near the country’s northern city of Siauliai. The handed-over equipment is brand new.  
 
The received RBS-70 anti-aircraft system will be used to safeguard the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant and other strategic objects. The equipment will be sufficient to equip two air defence companies.  
 
At the beginning of next year, two simulator classes are expected to be equipped and training curriculum developed. Up till now some 20 instructors have been undergoing training in Norway on how to operate and maintain the air defence systems.  
 
The handover ceremony will be attended by Undersecretary of the Lithuanian Ministry of National Defence, Mrs Jūratė Raguckienė, the Norwegian Ambassador to Lithuania, HE Kaare Hauge, Logistic Command Head of the Norwegian Armed Forces, Major General Arne Dahlberg, Commander of the Lithuanian Air Force, Colonel Jonas Marcinkus, and other high-ranking officials from the Lithuanian National Defence System.  
 
-ends-

[JLRC]

Norwegian Fighter Aircraft on a Temporary NATO Mission in the Baltic
 
 
(Source: Norwegian Ministry of Defence; issued Nov. 26, 2004)
 
 
 In response to a request from NATO, Norway is offering four F-16 fighter aircraft as a contribution to NATO's policing of the airspace in the Baltic area. Since the three Baltic countries became members of the Alliance in April, NATO has been responsible for "air policing" in the Baltic area, and the task is taken on by member states in rotation. So far, fighter aircraft have been contributed by Belgium, Denmark and the United Kingdom, and other NATO countries will take over when the Norwegian aircraft are brought home.  
 
The background to NATO's involvement is that the three Baltic states do not possess the necessary military air control capabilities of their own. Since NATO now has a clear collective responsibility for the security of the new member countries, the present interim solution will be extended until permanent arrangements for the control of Baltic airspace have been put in place.  
 
NATO has based its Baltic airspace policing on the provision of fighter aircraft, equipment and personnel by member countries on a 3-monthly rotational basis. This ensures an equitable sharing of the burden. So far this year, aircraft have been made available by Belgium, Denmark and the United Kingdom while Norway will be ready to take over during the first quarter of 2005. Plans are being made in Norway to make available four F-16 fighter aircraft together with the necessary aircrew and ground staff to operate them.  
 
Norway has also contributed an Air Control Unit which has been on deployment in the Baltic area since April. This deployment is to be extended until the end of March 2005.  
 
-ends-

[JLRC]

NATO Discusses Expansion, New Political Role
 
 
(Source: Voice of America; issued Dec. 2, 2004)
 
 
 NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has told the 50th General Assembly of the Atlantic Treaty Association in Rome the alliance must play a stronger political role and change its military capability to face new threats.  
 
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told the assembly of some 350 delegates NATO is undergoing a full transformation both militarily and politically. He said the alliance must play a stronger global political role and adapt its military capability to the modern-day threats - terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and rogues states.  
 
"Protecting our security today sometimes necessitates addressing the security and threats that arise far from our homes," Mr. Scheffer says. "If we do not tackle these programs at their source, they will end up on our doorstep. Not only in the form of illegal migration, trafficking or terrorism, but also in the form of instability that will inevitably affect us in an increasingly interdependent and globalized world."  
 
NATO is no longer a Euro-centric alliance, Mr. Scheffer said, and will continue to engage in operations outside of its area wherever the need arises. It is for this reason, he added, that NATO forces are in Afghanistan, its naval forces are engaged in an anti-terrorist operation in the Mediterranean Sea and it contributes to the stability of Iraq through training the Iraqi security forces.  
 
The NATO Secretary General also spoke of the political stand-off in the Ukraine, saying that the democratic future and territorial integrity of that country are of direct and vital interest to NATO.  
 
"The situation that came about after the elections should not be characterized as a West versus East rivalry but as an issue of democracy and respect for peoples' will," Mr. Scheffer says. "And whatever different approaches among the Ukrainians the sense of belonging to one nation is very important and it is on that basis that a non-violent democratic solution should be found within the territorial integrity of that country."  
 
The President of the Atlantic Treaty Association, U.S. Ambassador Robert Hunter, said NATO is encouraging Russia to ensure that a free and fair solution emerges from the Ukrainian electoral process.  
 
"This is a decisive moment for Ukraine, economic advance, building a civil society," Mr. Hunter says. "It would be tragic for the people of Ukraine and I think tragic for people all over Europe, including in Russia if somehow this process were short-circuited. This is not just about Ukraine. It's about democracy all over the European space."  
 
NATO's Mr. Scheffer described the alliance's handover of peacekeeping troops in Bosnia to the European Union Thursday as a milestone in its relationship with the European Union. He said it has been an extremely successful operation, which began with 60,000 troops in a period of instability in 1995 and is ending with seven thousand.  
 
He said NATO will continue to maintain a reduced presence in Bosnia to support the country's defense reforms, help to hunt down war crimes suspects and fight against terrorism.  
 
Mr. Scheffer also said that in the Balkans, Kosovo still remains volatile and fragile and that Nato will remain there with its 17,000 troops to secure stability until a political solution is found.  
 
The three-day assembly meeting, which is focused on the future of Euro-Atlantic security, is being attended by presidents of the three Balkan countries which are candidate nations to join the alliance: Albania, Croatia and Macedonia.  
 
"Even as NATO engages further away from home, our engagement in the Balkans is strong and getting stronger," Mr. Scheffer says. "Some have already become members. Three more whose presidents are here today are working to join as well, as we are working with them. We share that goal of Euro-Atlantic integration."  
 
Ambassador Hunter said the role of the alliance has changed from containing the Soviet Union and its Communist allies to building security and democracy in Europe and reaching out beyond Europe's borders. To achieve this, he told the gathering, the Atlantic Treaty Association must play a key role in educating a new generation of people in NATO's 26 member countries.  
 
-ends--

[JLRC]

NATO Buys Underwater Navigation
 
 
(Source: Kongsberg Gruppen; dated Dec. 8, web-posted Dec. 10, 2004)
 
 
 Kongsberg Maritime Limited's Waterlooville (UK) facility has entered into a contract to provide underwater navigation, tracking and communications systems to the new NATO Submarine Rescue System.  
 
The NATO Submarine Rescue System will enter service at the end of 2006, replacing the current UK rescue vehicle, LR5, which was dispatched to the scene of the last major accident, involving the Russian submarine Kursk in the Barents Sea in August 2000.  
 
Kongsberg will provide an integrated suite of systems providing the rescue forces with vital information to expedite the rescue mission. Kongsberg will provide networked command information systems that will integrate a multitude of underwater and above water sensors and communications systems.  
 
Mike Topp, the site manager at Waterlooville, said: "This provides us with the opportunity to select the very best subsystems from our extensive marine products portfolio and integrate them in a way that provides the customer with a highly competent and cost effective solution".  
 
"That we have been selected also recognises our ability to utilise commercial off the shelf systems in a military environment, and our significant experience with naval underwater platforms, from small unmanned vehicles, to fully crewed submarines".  
 
The rescue system will comprise:  
 
--A Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) - an unmanned craft which will locate the submarine within 56 hours, to check for signs of life, take air quality measurements, provide emergency supplies to survivors, and prepare the submarine for the rescue stage by removing debris.  
 
--A three-man operated Submarine Rescue Vehicle (SRV) which will, within 72 hours, dive up to 600 metres below the sea to rescue up to 150 survivors in groups of up to 15 at a time.  
 
The 10m-long SRV will be flown out, together with a portable launch and recovery system and other specialist equipment, and fitted onto a suitable ship at a port near the incident. The ship will sail to the submarine location, where the 27-tonne SRV will be deployed and dive to dock with the submarine escape hatch, allowing crew to be transferred and raised to safety.  
 
On its return to the ship, the SRV will transfer those rescued to special decompression units to ensure submariners do not suffer the 'bends' - a potentially fatal disorder resulting from nitrogen bubbles forming in the bloodstream.  
 
The contract covers ten years of design, build and operational support for the system, which will be based at Her Majesty's Naval Base, Clyde, in Scotland. HMNB Clyde was selected because it has modern facilities, access to both shallow and deep waters for training exercises, and access to civilian and military airfields.  
 
The new rescue system will primarily support the three partner nations, but will also be on standby to assist any nation anywhere in the world, complementing other systems operated by Sweden, the USA, Italy and Australia.  
 
-ends-

[JLRC]

USAF and European Air Forces Adding Important New Capabilities to their Lockheed Martin F-16s
 
 
(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Dec. 16, 2004)
 
 
 FORT WORTH, TEXAS --- The U.S. Air Force (USAF) and five European Participating Air Forces (EPAFs) - Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal - are receiving new technologies for their F-16s that will ensure the latest combat capabilities, along with an unprecedented degree of interoperability and cost savings among these NATO allies. The capabilities are being implemented mostly through software developed by Lockheed Martin.  
 
The U.S. Air Force and five European Participating Air Forces are adding new software capabilities to their F-16s to ensure an unprecedented degree of interoperability and cost savings among these NATO allies. Upgraded F-16 Block 50s have distinctive electronic interrogation antennae in front of the canopy.  
 
The new software packages for the USAF F-16s, designated M3+, and the corresponding EPAF version, designated M3, were released this summer and are being implemented on aircraft having received appropriate avionics upgrades (described in text below). There is a high degree of commonality in the software, with some differences owing to features that are unique to the various aircraft models.  
 
The most notable common new capabilities are the Link 16 data link and a helmet-mounted cueing system (HMCS). The USAF F-16s also will be receiving a capability to deliver the Lockheed Martin AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and have compatibility with the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR targeting pod, both recently certified on the F-16. The European F-16s will gain the capability to deliver the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).  
 
"This M3/M3+ software release is an important event for both the USAF and EPAF operators," said Col. Scott W. Jansson, F-16 Systems Group commander at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. "Not only will they receive the latest enhanced capabilities, the common systems path they are following is providing significant cost savings in development, fielding and support."  
 
The M3+ software is being installed on the 200-plus USAF Block 50 F-16C/Ds that are receiving the F-16 Common Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP) modification, which is providing a common hardware upgrade to the cockpit and avionics of these and approximately 400 Block 40 F-16C/Ds. This M3+ software update is being installed as a field retrofit to Block 50 aircraft already modified with CCIP hardware, and the rest of the aircraft will receive the software loads during the initial depot modification at the Ogden Air Logistics Center, Utah. Modification of the Block 40 aircraft will begin in 2006.  
 
The M3 software will be installed on approximately 350 EPAF F-16A/Bs that have already undergone the F-16A/B Mid-Life Update modification and are now receiving hardware changes associated with the M3 upgrade. The M3 modification will take place at depot facilities in each country.  
 
"The USAF/EPAF joint software development program has been a great success," said June Shrewsbury, vice president, F-16 programs. "The M3/M3+ update has been on schedule since it was initiated in March 2000. We are currently in work on M4/M4+ to be released in 2007 and M5/M5+ to be released in 2009. This commonality ensures a high degree of interoperability among these NATO allies. It also means these capabilities are available for other F-16 customers."  
 
The Link 16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) provides a secure, jam resistant, high-capacity data communications link with other fighters, airborne control aircraft and ground control centers. The NATO-standard Link 16 ensures a high degree of interoperability between the USAF and allied air forces, increased battlefield control, and excellent situational awareness for the pilots. Link 16 ensures that F-16s will be at the leading edge of network-centric warfare initiatives and that they will interface well with next-generation combat aircraft, such as the F/A-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  
 
The helmet-mounted cueing system allows various weapons and sensors to be cued to the pilot's line of sight, and the pilot's eyes to be cued to targets that sensors are tracking, or targets data-linked from other sources. The system is particularly useful in cueing and launching agile weapons, such as AIM-9X, at high angles off the aircraft's nose.  
 
The value of these enhancements was made evident during separate initial operational test and evaluation activities performed in the United States and in Norway earlier this year.  
 
-ends-

[JLRC]

Maritime Patrol Aircraft Solutions
 
 
(Source: Frost & Sullivan; issued Dec. 23, 2004)
 
 
 Originally designed to counter the Soviet Submarine threat that existed at the height of the Cold War, the fleets of NATO Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) were originally seen as ‘blue water’ maritime specialists. However, the traditional ‘sub-hunting’ role for the MPA has radically changed since the end of the Cold War with an increased focus on littoral warfare and operations other than war.  
 
These platforms are now conducting increasingly complex and versatile missions, and although the main role for a MPA is predominantly maritime, the MPA can find itself operating overland as a significant asset in an air campaign. The crews of MPA have found themselves conducting missions as varied as search and rescue, maritime interdiction, launching stand-off land-attack missiles and long-ranged armed intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) sorties across the globe.  
 
The evolving role of the MPA means that the platforms must demonstrate increased flexibility and have a broader range of capabilities than they were initially designed for. This fundamental requirement for more adaptable platforms has created significant problems for the operators of aircraft that were introduced into service over thirty years ago. Therefore, the MPA community is currently experiencing a significant period of development and acquisition, as there is a significant requirement to replace and upgrade the current MPA fleets.  
 
However, there appears to be more than one solution to the universal problem and several nations have taken distinctly different approaches with regard to their ageing MPA fleets. As always there a number of different elements that affect the programme adopted by a country, but in a period of increased operational tempo and restructuring of armed forces towards network centric warfare there simply is less capital available for research and development of new MPA platforms. It appears that only nations with significant budgets have the resources to develop new technologies and platforms, whilst others are looking at more affordable solutions and some nations have no replacement strategy in place.  
 
Currently the US is operating 150 Lockheed Martin P-3C at a cost of $ 36 million each. The P-3C is an Anti Submarine Warfare, Anti Surface Warfare and Maritime Patrol aircraft. The US Navy fleet has been reduced from 246 in 1990 to the current number and eventually the whole fleet will be replaced by the Multi-Mission Aircraft (MMA). The US Navy has allocated $ 3.89 billion for system development and demonstration phase of the MMA based on the 737-800ERX. The total programme is estimated to cost $20 billion, with 108 platforms proposed, and the first aircraft is due in service in 2013. The USN is considering using a systems approach for their MPA replacement programme that would involve a UAV component known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS). As yet there is no commercial strategy for BAMS but it is believed there will be competition between General Atomic Predator B and a UAV variant of the Gulfstream G500 series long-range business jet.  
 
The UK have decided to conduct extensive upgrades to their existing BAE Systems MR2 Nimrod fleet. The MR2, which is due to be replaced in 2009, will now under go extensive refurbishment to become the BAE Systems MRA4 (British Replacement Patrol Aircraft) BRPA, at a cost of between $4.1 billion and $5.3 billion. This maritime reconnaissance attack (MRA) platform will be an upgraded MR2 with 80% of the airframe been replaced to create essentially a new aircraft. At present there are three design and development airframes and BAE Systems are waiting for the British Government to announce the actual number required, but it is thought to be ‘around 12’.  
 
This delay in the announcement could create a capability gap if it has not been finalised by the end of 2004. Unlike other nations the UK are not considering a UAV component to operate in the maritime environment because they believe that UAVs in their current form do not have the weapon carriage and mission system capability, and are focusing their attention towards large scale upgrades of an existing platform.  
 
The UK has also identified a future requirement for a Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) to be operated from the Royal Navy future carrier the CVF. The UK MOD has not announced how many MASC will be required but the indicated number is between 6 and 12 platforms at an estimated cost of $1-1.5 billion. The MASC will provide sensor coverage against air and surface threats, together with command and control for other air operations. Potentially the MASC capability will be filled by either a fixed wing aircraft such as the E-2 Hawkeye series, a helicopter such as the EH-101, the V-22 ‘tilt rotor’ or a UAV. At present the fixed wing option appears the more favourable, because a fixed wing aircraft would allow for a larger radar horizon to intercept sea-skimming missiles. However, the capability is still in the concept stage and no solution has been announced.  
 
Germany are currently operating their 16 Dornier and Siebel Br 1150 Atlantics. First introduced in 1966, these platforms will continue with their current roles until 2012 with 12 platforms configured for Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) and Maritime Patrol (MP) whilst the remaining 4 are used for Electronic and Signals Intelligence (ELINT / SIGINT).  
 
As a replacement for the ASW / MP Br 1150s Germany have purchased 8 P-3C Orions from the Royal Netherlands Navy for $355 million, and will take delivery of these platforms between November 2005 and March 2006. The ELINT / SIGINT Br 1150s will most likely be replaced by either High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) or Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAV programme.  
 
The Canadian Air Force uses the CP-140 Aurora for maritime reconnaissance (MR) and the CP-140 Aurora A for environmental control operations. Both types of aircraft were first introduced into service in 1982 and the fleet was purchased for $ 670 million. The Canadian government wants to keep the maritime reconnaissance variant in service until 2025 and conducted a series of upgrades in 2004 including the upgrade of the avionics, communications and air frame under the Aurora Incremental Modernised Programme (AIMP). All 18 maritime reconnaissance variants will be upgraded by 2011 with the first 2 used as prototypes and test articles, and then retired in 2011. The 3 CP-140 Aurora A aircraft will not receive any upgrades and will be retired soon.  
 
Italy is operating 13 Br1150 Atlantics (Maritime Patrol Aircraft [MPA 2000]) and an additional 5 in store. These aircraft are due to be replaced in 2012, but Italy has not announced how it intends to proceed. Initially they were working in conjunction with Germany to achieve a combined MPA replacement programme for their Atlantic fleets. However, the coalition has been discontinued because of budget problems. The replacement solution could involve a limited life extension of the existing fleet or a longer term solution of some 14 aircraft with a UAV component. It is likely that the Italian solution could be similar to the German replacement programme.  
 
The Netherlands are operating 10 P-3C Orion platforms that conduct Maritime Reconnaissance (MR) and Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW). However, a cut in the country’s defence budget of $ 411 million is forcing the Netherlands to scrap their MPA fleet. Therefore the Orion fleet is due to be withdrawn from Dutch service in 2005 and sold. Germany has purchased 8 platforms and Portugal has purchased the remaining five Orions, but there is no planned replacement for the Dutch armed forces. This decision is seen by observers as short-sighted, because the Dutch Orions have experienced a high level of activity since the end of the Cold War, and the decision will create a capability gap in a nation that has a long tradition of maritime operations.  
 
The age of the platforms and the increased adaptability to multi role missions have combined to create an active market for the maritime patrol aircraft industry. However, the solutions that are been adopted by some NATO nations cannot be described as long-term in their concept.  
 
The Netherlands decision to just ‘live with’ a capability gap is a decision they could learn to regret, and Italy will have to focus their efforts if they want to make a timely decision and avoid the possibility of having no platforms available to perform this vital role. The Germans appear to have a more rounded approach to the solution with their aircraft and UAV combination, but eventually they will be faced with major decisions about the aircraft they operate, as the Orion continues to age.  
 
The US MMA and UK MRA4 are investing in products that potentially will influence the domestic markets in these countries. If these platforms are successfully developed and fielded there is little doubt they could have an increased influence in the larger global markets, where the age of maritime aircraft is an issue. Finally, UAVs will undoubtedly play an increasing role in the future of MPA development. As UAV technology continues to become more sophisticated and their payloads increase they will have the ability to conduct MPA missions on an equal par as the aircraft.  
 
-ends-

[JLRC]

Poland agrees to transfer vessels to Latvian Navy
Poland and Latvia reached an agreement in late December to handover five Polish Navy Pilica 918M Class anti-submarine warfare (ASW) patrol boats to the Latvian Navy. Latvia currently has a small navy, equipped with about 18 vessels. Since joining NATO and the EU last year, Latvia has been looking to modernise its 5,170-strong armed forces.

[JLRC]

NATO/PfP Trust Fund Project to Destroy Surplus Weapons and Ammunition in Ukraine
 
 
(Source: NATO; issued Feb. 19, 2005)
 
 
 A NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Trust Fund project has been established to help Ukraine destroy stockpiles of surplus munitions, small arms and light weapons, and Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS). The project – the largest single demilitarisation effort in the world - is a practical demonstration of NATO’s continuing commitment to support Ukraine’s defence reform.  
 
The Trust Fund project responds to Ukraine’s request for assistance in eliminating 133,000 tonnes of munitions and 1,5 million small arms and light weapons. Much of this material is stored in the open, posing a major security threat to local civilian population and infrastructure. Safe destruction of these stocks also eliminates potential proliferation risk.  
 
The Trust Fund project will be executed in four phases, over 12 years. The voluntary contributions to the Trust Fund, estimated to be in excess of EUR 25 million will be used to purchase new equipment and improve Ukraine’s demilitarisation capabilities. Ukraine will contribute in-kind to the demilitarisation costs.  
 
The United States has agreed to act as Lead Nation for the first phase of the project. The initial phase is estimated to cost EUR 7 million over three years. This is the first time the US has taken on the role of lead nation of a NATO/PfP Trust Fund project. In addition to the US , the United Kingdom and Norway have pledged funding for this project.  
 
The PfP Trust Fund policy was established in September 2000, five projects have been completed to date. This is the second PfP Trust Fund project to be executed in Ukraine. The first project in 2002-2003 destroyed 400,000 Anti-personnel landmines (APLs). In total, Trust Fund projects have destroyed more than 2 million APLs in Albania, Moldova, Tajikistan and Ukraine.  
 
-ends-

[JLRC]

NATO Forces Gather in the Mediterranean for the World’s Largest Annual Anti-Submarine Warfare Exercise
 
 
(Source: NATO; issued Feb. 25, 2005)
 
 
 Ten NATO nations will provide six submarines, ten maritime patrol aircraft and 16 surface ships to take part in NOBLE MARLIN 05 (NM 05), the world’s largest anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) exercise from 03 to 16 March 2005.  
 
The exercise will take place in the Ionian Sea to the Southeast of Sicily. Forces are provided by Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.  
 
Six submarines from France (1), Germany (1), Greece (1), Spain (1) and Turkey (2) are scheduled to join the exercise. Each submarine will have the opportunity of being a hunter as well as the prey. NATO surface ships from Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group 2 will take part, as well as a French Frigate and surface ships from the Italian Maritime Force (ITMARFOR).  
 
The exercise will demonstrate NATO’s determination to maintain proficiency in coordinated anti-submarine, anti-surface, and coastal surveillance operations using a multi-national force of ships, submarines and aircraft. In addition to traditional submarine roles and missions, this year submarine capabilities will also be exercised in support of defence against terrorism.  
 
Maritime Patrol Aircraft from Canada, France, Italy, Portugal and the United States of America will operate from Sigonella, Sicily. Italian shore-based ASW helicopters from Fontanarossa, Sicily will also participate. Over 65 air missions are planned, and on average this will result in a crew briefing every four hours, day and night, throughout the exercise.  
 
NM 05 will be directed from the co-located multi-national Headquarters of the Commander Submarines Allied Naval Forces and the Commander Maritime Air Naples, Italy.  
 
-ends-

[JLRC]

Launch of NATO’s Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) Programme
 
 
(Source: NATO; issued March 16, 2005)
 
 
 NATO’s Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) Programme has reached a key milestone in Alliance efforts to field an Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) capability by 2010.  
 
As a practical example of the ongoing transformation of NATO’s military capabilities, on 11 March 2005 the North Atlantic Council approved the Charter for the ALTBMD Programme Management Organisation (PMO). This decision launched the Alliance’s ALTBMD Programme, which will provide protection against the threat of ballistic missiles to our soldiers deployed on NATO missions.  
 
The importance of being able to defend deployed troops against theatre-range ballistic missiles, such as SCUD missiles, was made apparent during the 1990s. As a number of foreign nations continue working on ballistic missile programmes, as well as developing chemical, nuclear, and biological warheads for those missiles, the need for effective defences has increased.  
 
To counter this threat, NATO has, for the past several years, worked to design a battle management system for theatre missile defences. The system will be able to integrate different TMD systems (such as PATRIOT, the NATO MEADS system, SAMP-T) into a single coherent, deployable defensive network able to give layered protection against incoming ballistic missiles.  
 
The detailed specifications of the NATO system were agreed by Defence Ministers in Istanbul last June. With the approval of the Charter, the NAC has formally established the TMD Programme Office, paving the way for the financing and purchase of the NATO TMD system.  
 
The launch of the TMD program is the result of a decade of work by NATO in the theatre missile defence area, and provided to the Alliance a new collective capability for common defence.  
 
-ends-