Defense Industrialist

Russia is laying the groundwork for further professionalizing its military.

Russia’s military intervention in Syria illustrates that in the minds of Kremlin planners, the primary criterion for great power status is military might. Further cruise missile strikes and bomber sorties continue to showcase the depth of Russian military modernization. However, if Russia wants to remain a modern military power, it needs to rethink and reform its approach to people. Military failures in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and to a lesser degree Georgia have clearly demonstrated the need to end conscription, but Russian authorities have serious societal hurdles to overcome before adopting a fully professional force. Their first two steps already involve strong efforts in image and indoctrination.

Read More

Just “how can Canada best” contribute to the fight in Iraq and Syria?

The Americans are bombing. The French are now bombing by the score. The British are slinging Brimstone. The Canadians will train the Peshmerga. That’s right—making good on a campaign promise, new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau still intends to withdraw the six F-18 fighter-bombers of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), even if many Canadians would be happy to leave them there. Instead, he will greatly increase the force of 69 commandos that the Harper Government had sent to train Kurdish troops fighting Mr. Baghdadi’s gang from the north. "How many that will be, what form that will take, what kind of engagement we’re going to have,” the new PM told reporters on his own plane,  “those are things that we’re going to work out.” The basic question, he believes, is “how can Canada best be a strong and positive contributor to the continued and continuing mission against ISIL?” So is that on the ground or in the air?

Read More

Egypt’s procurement of helicopter carriers is truly strategic.

As I wrote the other day, the Al-Baghdadi Gang has truly found tragic ways to combine brutality with stupidity. Attacking Russia and France in the same month, as Robert Pape of the University of Chicago wrote in the Boston Globe, is clearly an indication of desperation. Dealing with his thugs is requiring a lot of bombs and thousands of troops, but Daesh has already lost a third of the ground it once held. Yet even after a Syrian or Iraqi or Kurdish flag is planted in Ar-Raqqa, some of those hoods will slip away to do damage elsewhere. Dealing with that will require mobile and agile forces, and that’s why we should reflect again on Egypt’s recent decision to acquire the two spare helicopter carriers that France has on hand. It’s hard to think of a more appropriate, strategic, and dramatic break with past patterns of military procurement in the Middle East.

Read More

The GCC air forces need, deserve, and can handle outside support.

The tragedy of Paris this past weekend may eventually prove to have been the beginning of the end for the Al-Baghdadi Gang in Al-Raqqah. Wantonly attacking the citizens of two UN Security Council members in a week wasn't just heinous, it was stupid. So if the Coalition air forces have been running through a lot of ordnance pummeling troops and infrastructure, the pace is only stepping up. Getting them the weapons, though, hasn’t been easy. As Air Force Secretary Debbie James stressed at last week’s Dubai Air Show, her department has been trying to speed up its part of the export review process. Some of the bureaucratic anguish is about maintaining Israel’s “qualitative military edge” (QME), an American policy since 1968, and a matter of law since 2008. At a certain point, however, obsession with Israel’s security undermines American efforts to help Arab states help themselves, and Arab security calls out for whatever America can reasonably send.

This week, it’s the Saudis who are buying a lot of bombs. As noted by Andrea Shalal at Reuters, the US State Department has just approved the sale of 22,000 bombs, including 5,000 GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) from Boeing, and 1,000 laser-guided Paveway IIs from either Raytheon or Lockheed Martine. The total bill will come to about $1.29 billion. The Houthis are absorbing a lot of damage, and now there will be more coming their way. It’s not clear just when that request went in, but we can imagine how the interagency ground its gears on this one. As William Wunderle and Andre Briere of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted in a paper in 2008, the process by which State and Defense have sought to determine just what might breach that QME hasn’t always been rigorous. But it’s important to remember that a qualitative edge doesn’t necessarily demand a quantitative edge, so at least large munitions sales have been getting through.

The United Arab Emirates, after all, have been getting resupplied with what they need. Back in October 2013, the Defense Department reported to the Congress that the UAE had applied to undertake a huge shopping trip with American weapons manufacturers: 5,000 of Boeing’s Small Diameter Bombs, 1,200 of Raytheon's JSOW-C glide bombs, and 300 of Boeing’s SLAM-ER cruise missiles. The Emiratis already had gobs of Textron’s Sensor-Fuzed Weapons—antitank cluster munitions that can take out whole squadrons of vehicles at once. The UAE Air Force also already had the fighter-bombers to drop them: about 79 F-16E/F Desert Falcons, and 68 Mirage 2000s. If the $4 billion price tag seems remarkable, it's an understandable expense for fending off savagery.

It’s true that at one point, much of the Arab world had large air forces. Egypt still does. But these days, some of the less developed countries are spending much more on their armies than their air forces, because their security problems are mostly internal. The lingering big inventories of old aircraft will not be replaced; outside the Gulf, none of the countries can afford it. Consider that the Libyan Air Force under Qaddafi had about 400 jets—rather few of them flyable, of course. Even before the place fell apart, according to the Libyan Herald and other sources, the long-term plan for the Libyan Air Force included only 30. Those squadrons upon squadrons were built up only because the Soviets were spending about 25 percent of their GDP on military hardware, and giving a lot of it away at “friendship prices”. That gravy train left the station twenty-five years ago. It's not just that the inventories today aren't going to be replaced; after 1989, they were never going to be replaced.

The mere size of an air fleet and its munitions, of course, hardly captures its military power. In “Lessons from Ground Combat in the Gulf: the Impact of Training and Technology” (International Security, Fall 1997), Daryl Press argued that training is what matters most, given reasonably good equipment. In Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle (Princeton University Press, 2006), Stephen Biddle argued that what matters is actually a closely coupled combination of training and technology. There is the separate problem that bombing can prevent al-Baghdadi’s maniacs from taking any more territory, but only boots on the ground can take the territory back. So far, those boots have been mostly Kurdish, and while the Peshmerga are tough, they are not legion.

So bean-counting doesn’t produce a meaningful answer, for few Middle Eastern countries can handle even the equipment they’ve got today. When planes are needed in Syria, Assad gets a fighter-bomber regiment direct from Russia. The regime probably doesn’t have the absorptive capacity to fly even another two dozen jets on its own. But there’s a marked contrast in what’s happening in the Gulf States. The Emirates have already figured out how to integrate drones into their airspace, while the FAA in the more spacious USA cannot. There was the arms deal signed with Ukraine in February—a rare show of support for the embattled European state. Alenia is pitching  gunships to the Emirati air marshals, and for good reason, they’re interested. That sale of V-22 Ospreys has been rumored for about three years now, and there’s an understandable need. Indeed, American arms makers are setting up not just sales offices, but the beginnings of more serious facilities. For as my colleague Bilal Saab has written, along with Saudi Arabia, the UAE is one of the few places in the Arab world with a budding arms industry.

Indeed, that confluence of capabilities is already far ahead of what most countries in the region can manage. Almost everywhere else, either the armed forces lack the institutional capacity to wage modern war, or their treasuries lack the monies to pay for it. In some cases, it’s both, and that doesn’t add up to too a worrisome threat to Israel. But that also means that if the Emirates and the rest of the GCC can continue to improve their military performance by concentrating on training, doctrine, and organization, they should be able contain threats with much less outside assistance. Together, they have almost the population of Iran, and more disposable income. At this point, if Iran is no longer the clear and present danger, Daesh is. Either way, since 1991, we've known that tanks and technicals coming across the desert make really good targets for precision weapons. So let’s continue to get them the weapons they need.

James Hasík is a senior fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security.

Does the Long-Range Strike Bomber need nuclear capability, and does nuclear capability need the LRS-B?

Recapitalizing the air-breathing segment of the American nuclear triad has generally not been the US Air Force’s first argument for developing its new Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B). Sustaining a global capacity for massive, repeated, marginally economical surgical strikes has long been the core of the argument. But nuclear certification is planned for 2027, just two years after the Air Force’s declaration of initial operating capability in 2025. Eliminating the immediate nuclear requirement would save some money in the beginning, but only a small fraction of the cost of the whole program. For this reason, adding nuclear capability to the LRS-B continues to be programmatically appealing. The bigger question, however, may be how useful the LRS-B is for American nuclear strategy.

Read More

Our new anthology of fiction describes the wonders and worries of the Pentagon’s plans for human-machine collaboration.

Today, the Atlantic Council is publishing an anthology of short fiction and graphic art it curated over the first year in its Art of Future Warfare Project. Entitled War Stories From the Future, the collection makes good on the Project's mission statement: “…to advance thinking [about] the future of warfare [by] cultivating a community of interest in works and ideas arising from the intersection of creativity and expectations about how emerging antagonists, disruptive technologies, and novel warfighting concepts may animate tomorrow’s conflicts.” Writing in a Forward to the anthology, General Martin Dempsey, the recently retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commends the book's ten stories for their “power to develop the professional imagination.”

Read More

Starkly different defense conferences discussed why military procurement is still so broken.

The Lund Initiative at the Atlantic Council was busy with conferences this weekend. Two of us spent our time at the 2015 Defense Entrepreneurs Forum (DEF) at the University of Chicago, and another spent it at the Reagan National Defense Forum (RNDF) at the Presidential Library in Simi Valley. I spent at least a few minutes of my time watching a YouTube video (but in a good way). The conferences were very different, with the usual panel discussions out west, but Post-It note sessions in the Midwest. Put together, though, the conversations at each discussed why military procurement is still so broken.

Read More

The inherent unknowables in this highly classified development effort render questionable the value of an appeals process.

So Boeing, on behalf of its teaming arrangement with Lockheed Martin, has protested. Late last month, the US Air Force chose Northrop Grumman to develop and build its hoped-for Long-Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B), and the losing bidder is naturally unhappy. Two friends at the defense conference I’m attending this weekend expressed alternate but emotional reactions: well of course they protested said the writer; geez I was hoping they wouldn’t said the consultant. I wasn’t calling the odds, figuring that the nuances of corporate strategy and the degree of corporate indignation were unknowable. But that’s the problem with this episode of the drama—the unknowable knows inherent in this program are nearly inscrutable, but the policy implications of yet another protest are more clear.

Read More

Is the bomber’s target set feasible, or even advisable?

What’s the most important role for the USAF’s planned Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B)? What could it do that fighter-bombers, cruise missiles, and drones couldn’t? Arguably, a big manned bomber offers a unique combination of massive, repeatable, human-on-scene air power at a distance, which is valuable when targets are challenging but plentiful. Already today, hardened targets are plentiful and tough to find. But mobile targets, one of the LRS-B’s planned target sets, while perhaps more plentiful, are near impossible to find. That calculus leaves aside the political questions—even if the LRS-B’s likely targets could be attacked, should they? Policymakers should consider all these questions before endorsing the next bomber.

Read More

Historical experience with incentives and concurrency provides cause for cautious optimism.

Is Northrop Grumman’s plan for developing the US Air Force’s new Long-Range Strike Bomber realistic? That’s another known unknown in this mystery plane program. We do know that the development contract will be cost-plus-reimbursable-incentive, meaning that a percentage will be added to the direct material, labor, and overhead costs in order to create a profit margin for the contractor. That percentage will vary with a subjective assessment of how well Northrop Grumman is performing as it works to design and test the prototypes. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute called that approach “out of sync” with the Obama Administration’s Better Buying Power (BBP) enthusiasm for fixed-price deals. However BBP has been interpreted throughout the bureaucracy, fixed-price was never meant as a panacea. For unfashionable is preferable to uneconomical, and some historical experiences suggests that the Air Force might be getting this right.

Read More