Defence`s Feeds

Russian D-20 Towed Gun-Howitzer

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© mrallen / Fotolia

Challenges to security in Europe will take centre stage at the NATO summit in Warsaw on 8-9 July when its heads of state and government will discuss issues ranging from Russia’s conflict with Ukraine and its growing military assertiveness to turmoil across the Middle East and North Africa, and the future of the military alliance.

This note highlights a selection of commentaries, studies and reports by some of the major international think tanks and research institutes on European security and defence published in the run-up to the NATO summit. More reports on the subject can be found in a previous edition of ‘What Think Tanks are thinking’ from in November 2015.

NATO summit

NATO Summit 2016: From reassurance to deterrence. What’s really at stake?
Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, June 2016

The Warsaw summit and the return of Western nationalism
Danish Institute for International Studies, June 2016

Warsaw summit
Atlantic Council, June 2016

NATO Summit 2016: NATO must reaffirm its “open door” policy
Heritage Foundation, June 2016

National priorities for the NATO Warsaw summit
German Marshall Fund, May 2016

NATO defence planning between Wales and Warsaw: Politico-military challenges of a credible assurance against Russia
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, January 2016

What NATO for what threats? Warsaw and beyond
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2015

Preparing for NATO’s Warsaw summit: The challenges of adapting to strategic change
Danish Institute of International Studies, December 2015

Other studies

Restoring the power and purpose of the NATO alliance
Atlantic Council, June 2016

Time to restore conventional deterrence-by-denial
Egmont, June 2016

A new strategy: Implications for CSDP
Clingendael, June 2016

All not quiet on NATO’s eastern front
Carnegie Europe, June 2016

A threat-based strategy for NATO’s southern flank
Carnegie Europe, June 2016

Security in the Baltic Sea Region: Activation of risk potential
Finnish Institute of International Affairs, June 2016

The future of Transatlantic security
Rand, June 2016

Evaluating future U.S. Army force posture in Europe
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, June 2016

NATO must stop crowding Russia
Cato Institute, June 2016

European defence: From strategy to delivery
Clingendael, May 2016

Embedding NATO into the European Union Global Strategy: The missing link?
European, May 2016

Closing NATO’s Baltic gap
International Centre for Defence Studies, May 2016

Russia: A test for Transatlantic unity
Transatlantic Academy, German Marshall Fund, May 2016

A historic reminder, an ever-present dilemma? Assessing Brexit’s potential consequences for European security
European Policy Centre, May 2016

Russian “countermeasures” to NATO are coming
Brookings Institution, May 2016

EUISS yearbook of European security 2016
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

Envisioning European defence: Five futures
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

For a “new realism” in European defense: The five key challenges an EU defense strategy should address
German Marshall Fund, April 2016

A new Helsinki needed? What security model for Europe?
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, April 2016

The parliamentary dimension of defence cooperation
Clingendael, April 2016

European defence spending 2015: The force awakens
European Union Institute for Security Studies, April 2016

Do we need an EU army? Which way for the European security and defence cooperation
Mendel European Centre, March 2016

NATO’s guns point the wrong way
Friends of Europe, March 2016

NATO, the US and Baltic Sea security
Swedish Institute of International Affairs, February 2016

The annexation of Crimea: Lessons for European security
Fondation Robert Schuman, February 2016

Ensuring deterrence against Russia: The view from NATO’s front-line States
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, February 2016

Forces terrestres et réassurance: Quelles options pour l’Alliance?
Institut français des relations internationales, January 2016

The defence of Europe before European Defence: Returning to the Schuman method
Fondation Robert Schuman, January 2016

A stronger CSDP: Deepening defence cooperation
Clingendael, January 2016

Defence budgets and cooperation in Europe: Developments, trends and drivers
Istituto Affari Internazionali, Consortium of Think Tanks, January 2016

Reinforcing deterrence on NATO’s Eastern flank: Wargaming the defense of the Baltics
Rand, January 2016

NATO and European security: back to the roots?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2015

The EU, Russia and the quest for a new European security bargain
Clingendael, December 2015

European strategy, European defence and the CSDP
Egmont, November 2015

L’Europe à la croisée des chemins: La politique de défense et de sécurité a besoin d’initiatives franco-allemandes
Institut français des relations internationales, November 2015

Filed under: International Relations, PUBLICATIONS Tagged: At a glance, CSDP, defence policy, EU army, European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), Marcin Grajewski, Nato, what think tanks are thinking

Welcome to my blog.

My name is Gergely Varga, I’m an international relations and security policy expert, with a PhD from Budapest Corvinus University. Currently I’m working as a non-resident fellow of the Center for Strategic and Defense Studies (CSDS) at the National University of Public Service.

I launched this blog to share my take on international security issues effecting Europe and the wider transatlantic region. As for what to expect balanced approach in understanding competing perspectives, favoring realism in an age of ideologues and extremists, a cherish for traditional values and support transatlantic cooperation in a rapidly transforming world.

I bring extensive research experience from the area of international security studies to this blog: I joined CSDS in 2008 after finishing my law and history studies at ELTE University. In 2012 I was a visiting fellow in Washington D.C. at the Center for Transatlantic Relations Johns Hopkins University. I have written numerous publications, most of the focusing on my primary research areas, US foreign and security policy, NATO, transatlantic relations and European security challenges.

Üdvözlöm a blogomon.

Dr. Varga Gergely vagyok, biztonságpolitikai szakértő. Jelenleg a Nemzeti Közszolgálati Egyetem Stratégiai Védelmi Kutató Intézetének külső munkatársa vagyok, doktori címemet a Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem nemzetközi kapcsolatok szakán szereztem meg.

A blogon Európát és a tágabb transzatlanti térséget érintő nemzetközi biztonsági kérdések kerülnek előtérbe. A blog szellemisége a felmerülő versengő perspektívák megértése tekintetében kiegyensúlyozottságot, az ideológikus és szélsőséges megközelítésekkel szemben a realizmus előtérbe helyezését, a hagyomásos értékek iránti elkötelezettséget és a transzatlanti együttműködés támogatását fogja tükrözni.

Az itt megjejelő cikkek írásakor széleskörű kutatási tapasztalatokra hagyatkozom: 2008-ban kerültem a Stratégiai Védelmi Kutatóközpontba miután befejeztem jogi és történészi tanulmányaimat az ELTE-n. 2012-ben 10 hónapig a washingtoni Johns Hopkins Egyetem Transzatlanti Kapcsolatok Központja vendégkutatója voltam. Számos publikációm jelent meg a fő kutatási területemet, amerikai kül és biztonságpolitikát, transzatalnti kapcsolatokat, NATO-t és az Európai biztonsági kihívásokat érintő kérdésekről.

Language Undefined Tag: StrategoNATOUSA

American EF-111 Raven Electronic Warfare Aircraft

HH-60G, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

In 2006 the US Air Force awarded Boeing a contract worth north of $10 billion for 141 HH-47 combat search-and-rescue helicopters, but by mid-2009 the CSAR-X program was cancelled during its System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase by the Pentagon. At the time Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote that this program had “a troubled acquisition history and raises the fundamental question of whether this important mission can only be accomplished by yet another single-service solution.”

That cancellation may have been warranted, but the underlying operational constraints are increasing as years go by, with a tentative replacement for aging helicopters that keeps slipping. In 2012, the Air Force got the green light to take another crack at it. The competition narrowed to a single bidder, and after wobbly budgetary announcements, the program was greenlighted. By the end of 2014 it was officially designated as HH-60W.

Aging HH-60G Pave Hawks

A solution to replace the USAF’s aging HH-60G Pave Hawk combat search and rescue helicopters becomes more pressing as SAR(Search And Rescue) and MEDEVAC(MEDical EVACuation) flight hours keep piling in. These helos are derived from early-model UH-60 Black Hawks, and were fielded starting in 1982 with an estimated operational life of 7,000 flight hours. Of the initial 112 airframes, the inventory was down to 99 as of late 2010. Only 93 of them were assessed as flyable as of March 2012, with signs of structural fatigue (i.e. cracks) on a majority of them. They are all expected to have reached the 7,000-hour milestone by 2019. In September 2011 two of them were already exceeding 10,000 flight hours.

HH-60G: Longest Sunset Ever

The shortfall in the fleet has been addressed with an Operational Loss Replacement (OLR) program that funded 20 replacement H-60 family airframes over FY 2011-12. That’s just a short-term stopgap, as maintaining older helos becomes increasingly expensive and dangerous.

HH-60M and CRH budgets – Source: DoD Comptroller, Feb. 2012

Development funding for a new program was featured in the FY 2013 President Budget, but Congressional dithering took its toll. A couple of months into FY 2014, the Air Force sounded ready to both award the contract, and deprive it of any funding in its FY 2015 budget request. By March 2014, however, funds had been found.

Savvy observers will recall that years ago, CSAR-X Initial Operational Capability (IOC) was scheduled for 2012, at 10 operational aircraft. In order to defend its lead on this all-service mission, the USAF is putting an emphasis on affordability and fast production. Even so, it will be several more years before meaningful replacements begin to arrive in the field. IOC for the CRH-60M isn’t expected until 2020.

CRH: Contracts & Key Events FY 2015 – 2016

Official designation.

July 1/16: The first of 21 US Army UH-60L Black Hawks, converted and remissionized into HH-60G Pave Hawks, has been introduced as part of the service’s Operational Loss Replacement (OLR) program. Works on the UH-60s is being carried out by Science and Engineering Services LLC which involves adding a comprehensive kit of modifications to the utility helicopter, along with additional equipment to convert it into a combat search and rescue HH-60G. The OLR program aims to replace aircraft lost in nearly 15 years of deployed combat operations since the commencement of the “War on Terror.”

May 24/16: Sikorsky’s HH-60W Combat Rescue Helicopter is to move into the detailed design phase after successfully passing an air vehicle preliminary design review by the US government. The UH-60 Black Hawk variant will now enter a 75-month engineering and development phase which will see nine aircraft produced, including five “system demonstration test articles” to support operational testing. The design includes air force and mission-specific avionics, equipment and defensive countermeasures, plus a larger internal fuel capability and cabin area when compared to its UH-60 cousin and is unique enough to warrant its own development phase and even a separate assembly line.

Nov 29/14: Designation. The CRH is officially designated by the Air Force as HH-60W – or 60-Whiskey more informally – as the HH-60G’s successor. A name will be picked up later. The systems requirement review is scheduled later this fiscal year, with initial deliveries expected in FY19. For one this will depend on how the FY15 budget is actually wrapped up, as well as whether sequestration affects FY16 spending. The W in HH-60W could very well mean “wait”, as this project is clearly not among the Air Force’s top acquisition priorities.

FY 2014

Sikorsky wins, but will there be money? Fuel the Pave Hawks
(click to view full)

June 26/14: EMD Contract. As the sole offeror, Sikorsky in Stratford, CT receives a $1.278 billion Engineering & Manufacutring Development contract that uses a combination of fixed-price-incentive/ firm at target price/ firm-fixed-price clauses to develop and produce up to 4 CRH-60M Pave Hawk Combat Rescue Helicopters, 7 training systems, and initial product support. The government’s Affordability Target Gate was around $2 billion, so the USAF is happy.

The same contract will be used to buy around 108 production helicopters, and if all options are exercised, the contract’s value could rise as high as $7.9 billion. It has been structured to handle quantity changes, so 112 CRH-60Ms (4 + 108) is the target, but it may not be the final tally. IOC is planned for 2020.

It’s also worth being careful around the math. One may be tempted to say that $7.9 billion – $1.28 billion EMD = $6.62 billion, which divides by 108 to get $61.3 million per helicopter during the production phase. That’s almost 3x the regular UH-60M rate, but it wrongly assumes that all of the options are just helicopters. Sikorsky has confirmed that the options also include things like training devices, spares packages, etc., and exact CRH-60M prices will be negotiated year to year as helicopters are bought.

$298.5 million is committed immediately, using FY 2013 and 2014 USAF R&D budgets. Work will be performed at Stratford, CT, and is expected to be complete by June 2029, if all options are exercised. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WISV’s Rotary Wing Branch of Special Operations Forces and Personnel Recovery Division/ISR Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages this contract (FA8629-14-C-2403). Sources: Pentagon | USAF, “AF Awards New Combat Rescue Helicopter Contract” | Sikorsky, “Sikorsky Awarded U.S. Air Force Contract to Develop New Combat Rescue Helicopter”.

CRH’s EMD & Production contract

March 4/14: Funds found. After initially saying during the FY15 budget rollout that CRH would be delayed by a year for lack of funding, the Air Force then scrambled to indicate otherwise, in these terms:

“Due to the criticality of this mission, the Air Force will realign about $430 million from other Air Force priorities beyond fiscal year 2014 through 2019 in order to award the Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) contract to United Technologies’ Sikorsky…. The contract is expected to be signed not later than the end of June 2014. Before moving forward with the contract, the program must complete a Milestone B review including independent cost assessments. In order to enable this timeline, Sikorsky must also agree to extend its pricing through June.”

Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James refers to the contract as “a good competitive price” that “effectively uses the $334 million Congress appropriated for the program.” Plus a bit more. Congress has to approve this, though past indications suggest that this won’t be a problem. James does add that “if the FY16 DoD budget drops back to sequestration levels, this program, along with many others, will need to be reevaluated.”

USAF will go ahead

Dec 13/13: Politics. Secretary of Defense Hagel gets a letter from 74 of 528 Congressional representatives, who don’t want the USAF to leave new combat rescue helicopters out of USAF’s budget. They cite Gen. Moseley’s (correct) characterization of CSAR as a moral imperative for USAF pilots.

The USAF is cagey about committing to anything in response. It’s also worth asking, and answering: if a CRH-60M is really the only choice left, could the US military just choose to equip planned HH-60M buys with a fitting for an aerial refueling probe, then handle the job using a combination of Army (HH-60M) and USMC (MV-22) assets? By all accounts, this is a question being asked in the Pentagon. Using other services’ platforms could meet the moral imperative objection. If the answer is “no, that won’t do,” an effective case requires a precise explanation of why not. Sources: Defense News, “Congress to Hagel: Keep funding search-and-rescue helos.

Nov 22/13: The Air Force posts on its CRH solicitation page that:

“In response to the CRH solicitation, the USAF received one proposal. That offer, from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation has provided an acceptable technical solution and the USAF intends to award a contract based upon budget availability. The USAF is laying the groundwork to award the CRH contract in the second quarter of fiscal year 2014. The award is contingent on the outcome of the President’s budget review process where CRH would need to be funded across the future year’s defense program.”

Earlier in the week Defense News had reported that a CRH start was not funded in the FY 2015 – 2018 budget plans, which were put together by the Air Force under the assumption that sequestration will remain in place over the entire period. Acting Air Force Secretary Eric Fanning explained that new program starts were caught between a rock – the biggest priorities being F-35, KC-46 and the future strategic bomber – and a hard place called sequestration. Maybe this public messaging that the Air Force may have to curtail its combat search and rescue mission will succeed in what looks like a deliberate effort to shame Congress into disarming at least part of the sequester.

FY 2013

RFP, but pull-outs leave just 1 bidder; USAF says that’s OK, but they’re delaying the award. UKMCA/CHC S-92
(click to view full)

Aug 2/13: Delay. USAF spokesman Ed Gulick says that the CRH award will be delayed past Oct 1/13, instead of being awarded before Sept 30/13. The 1-year delay is attributed to “time required to complete an independent cost estimate and the impact of government furloughs.”

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the USAF is either more focused on other spending priorities and likely to drop CRH in coming reviews, or taking the extra time in order to help ensure that the award will be as difficult as possible to challenge. With Sikorsky’s “CRH-60M” as the only contender, a challenge is likely anyway if the award goes through. Reuters.

Jan 4/13: Only 1. Reuters reports that the USAF wouldn’t confirm that it had received only 1 CRH bid, but USAF spokesman Ed Gulick said that they had “acquisition procedures in place to proceed with this important acquisition regardless of the number of bidders.”

That may not stop GAO protests, however, which doomed the USAF’s CSAR-X predecessor. Ominously, EADS North America Chief Executive Sean O’Keefe is quoted as saying that as written, CRH’s terms didn’t call for an evaluation of full life cycle costs. The Defense Department’s emphasis on affordability, and a new federal law which required such an evaluation, could be enough to sustain a protest.

Dec 12/12: Why 112? James Hasik wonders about the math behind 112 CRH helicopters. Why that number?

“I have watched at least two NATO air wars now in which the US Marine Corps seems to have had the hammer for CSAR. It’s important to note that the Marines don’t actually have specialized CSAR units or aircraft… What they do have is long-range rotorcraft and guys who train hard… In Bosnia in 1995, that was a CH-53 and some escorts from the Kearsarge, pulling out an USAF F-16 pilot. In Libya in 2011, it was an MV-22 from (coincidentally) the Kearsarge, pulling out an USAF F-15 crew.”

“…Without seeing the missions needs statement, it’s hard to know what led to the number 112, but the quantity is easy to criticize, and on the numbers… [set of assumptions made]… The point is that even under these unrealistically generous assumptions, the USAF would only want a fleet of 112 dedicated CSAR aircraft if it was figuring on losing lots of planes in a massive bloody war. The only plausible opponent that could give it that much trouble is China, and in that case, the H-60 hasn’t anywhere close to the range needed to recover the aircrews.”

He doesn’t think that math augurs well for budgetary survival.

Dec 11/12: Sikorsky alone. After studying the RFP’s structure and terms, most bidders decide that it’s impossible to win. Once minimum requirements are met, it’s a straight cost battle, with no credit for additional capacity or capabilities, and terms that will disqualify any bid over $6.84 billion. That’s a legitimate contracting approach, especially with the USAF’s top priorities leaving very little room for anything else. The KC-46A tankers are urgent, the F-35 program is set to spend huge amounts of money, and the vastness of the Pacific has made the next-generation bomber a priority. As contracting consultant Jim McAleese notes, everything else is going to be pushed to bare minimums to pay for them.

For CRH, this means that Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin are the lone team willing to bid. Their 2010 teaming agreement for the HH-60 Recap was issued long before the current RFP, and they won’t say which helicopter they’re bidding. All they could tell us is that: “Sikorsky intends to continue with its proposal to offer the Air Force a proven, affordable combat rescue helicopter system to perform the critical mission of saving warfighters’ lives.”

The HH-60M is certainly proven in this role, but the S-92 could also be touted as “proven” given its coast guard service, so the statement means nothing. As for the others:

• AgustaWestland and Northrop Grumman have decided not to bid the AW101/ “HH-71”.
  
• Boeing won’t bid the HH-47 that won the cancelled CSAR-X competition.
  
• Nor will the Boeing-Bell team bid the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor.
  
• Eurocopter has decided not to submit a bid, either, which presumably would have involved the special forces/ SAR variant of its EC725 Cougar, or a modified NH90 FAME with the MEDEVAC/SAR kit.

The question now is whether the USAF will simply barrel ahead with a late FY 2013 contract and say “these were our terms, whomever bids, bids” – or withdraw and revise the RFP. Reuters | Aviation Week | Defense News.

Oct 22/12: RFP. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition announces the posting of the Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) RFP to the FBO.gov website, launching the acquisition program. All previous discussions are superseded by the RFP, and a contract isn’t expected until Q4 (summer) 2013.

The Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract will develop the system and produce 8 helicopters. It will be a Fixed-Price Incentive Firm (FPIF) contract, with options for 16 more Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) helicopters. The FPIF contract includes a mandatory 11% profit margin at target cost, with another 1% possible if schedule performance meets the criteria. If costs go over that target cost, they’ll be shared 50/50 with the government, reducing contractor profit margins, until 120% (and just 1% profit) is reached. At that point, all further costs belong to the contractor.

Full Rate Production (FRP) options will be Firm Fixed-Price (FFP), and the USAF expects to buy around 85. A small portion of the contract will be a combination of FFP and Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) in order to cover “over and above” repairs and studies and analyses.

Known competitors to date include Sikorsky/ Lockheed Martin (HH-92? HH-60M?), and AgustaWestland/ Northrop Grumman (AW101/ HH-71). Both helicopter types already perform search and rescue roles. Boeing is believed to be examining a bid involving the V-22 tilt-rotor, similar to AFSOC’s existing CV-22s. FBO.gov | USAF | AIN Online | Rotorhub.

CRH RFP

FY 2011 – 2012

RFP drafts. From USAF Draft Statement of Work: Sept. 2012
(click to view full)

September 2012: Industry Day and 3rd draft. Details emerge as contractors seek clarification on terms and schedules. The “affordability gate” has been set at $6.848B, a number the Air Force does not seem keen to elaborate on. It is going to be a Best Value award with expected discussions past initial proposals, as the sums at stake lead the contracting officers to think an award without discussions would not be realistic. A 1% schedule incentive is built in, to be paid after (timely) delivery.

The draft Statement of Work shows how production of 112 helicopters is expected to be scheduled between EMD over FY 2013-16, followed by LRIP in FY 2017-18, and FRP in FY 2019-24. That would exactly replace the initial HH-60 fleet, but would be below the canceled 141 helicopter CSAR-X buy. CRH’s 2018 date for Initial Operational Capability would come 6 years later than CSAR-X had been aiming for.

One contractor made a salient comment that the Air Force just brushed aside in their answer by saying they won’t change their communications requirements:

“Spec requires basic comms capabilities — have quick SINCGARS, UHF-SATCOM, etc. However, HH-60G is acquiring new suite of multi-band radios that will also provide crypto modernization, full compliance with GATM (ED-23B) [DID: Global Air Traffic Management], and advanced waveforms such as SRW and MUOS. Won’t CRH be a step backwards from what will be fielded on HH-60G in FY14?

The government’s curt answer is disconcerting, given that CRH deliveries are expected several years after said HH-60G upgrades. GATM retrofits were also made on KC-135s an on C-5s among others, to meet new FAA standards and allow shared access within both civil and military airspace.

Finally, the USAF found that answers to an earlier round of classified questions were not mailed out back in July, leaving contractors hanging dry for the expected clarifications. This is to be corrected promptly.

The final RFP was originally scheduled earlier in 2012, and was postponed a couple of times. At the time of this writing its new release date is not known, though Wright-Patterson Public Affairs tells DID that it should be “very soon” as the 3rd draft should be the last iteration before a finalized RFP. As of July 2012, the date for the award was set to Q3 FY2013, but this now looks likely to slip by at least a quarter. Contractors will have 60 days to submit their proposals.

AW101/ CH-149
(click to view full)

Sept 18/12: AW101. Northrop Grumman and Finmeccanica’s AgustaWestland announce they will partner to bid on CRH, as well as the future presidential helicopter. They will offer the 3-engined, AW101-derived “HH-71” to compete for CRH.

Subsequent displays reveal a number of distinguishing features beyond the 3 engines, including a custom-designed medical suite, 7.62mm minigun turret mounted above the ramp, and rotor blades that push air away to reduce brownout during landings. Release | DoD Buzz.

March 21/12: Industry Day. interested contractors are briefed during an Industry Day whose information package is available on FBO (CCR validation required).

RDT&E budgeted as of PB 2013 – source: USAF
(click to view full)

Feb 2012: In the FY2013 President Budget, the USAF starts ramping up RDT&E funding for the CRH with 2 test airframes in FY13.

Jan/Feb 2012: After conducting an Acquisition Strategy Panel, the USAF Acquisition Executive approved the acquisition strategy in January. On February 10 the Materiel Development Decision (MDD) was received from OSD/AT&L.

This clears the way for an RFP with an approach centered on seeking and existing production helicopter with modifications that use existing mature technologies or subsystems requiring limited integration. In this case a Technology Development phase is not necessary and the acquisition process can proceed to the System Development phase.

MDD

Jan 30/12: HH-60Gs. Rotorhub reports that he HH-60G fleet carried out more than 9,700 sorties in 2010, recovering over 1,900 personnel, but falling to around 8,000 sorties in 2011. With respect to cracking and other issues, the past 6 years have seen 83 structural issues that required unscheduled depot maintenance. Col. Chad Franks, the commanding officer of the 347th Rescue Group adds some thoughts:

“What we have done over the last few years is we have put add-ons onto the [HH-60G] aircraft but it has not been integrated the way it should have been. So for us, getting that total integration of our mission systems and our rescue systems all in one package would be ideal… Given the aircraft we have lost over the last nine years, our first job is to get back to 112. We are doing that by buying UH-60Ms right off the line and outfitting them with our rescue equipment.”

August 2011: the Air Force issues a Sources Sought solicitation for a HH-60 Recap Program. This later morphed into the CRH, as per entries above.

May 26/11: Defense Tech reports on the HH-60 Recap program. Meanwhile:

“The service has initiated a band aid program to replace the 13 lost [HH-60] aircraft in the next couple of years with UH-60M airframes purchased from the Army. Still, this does little to address the fact that the vast majority of the CSAR fleet is aging and overused, with dozens of airframes developing stress cracks.”

April 27/11: AW101. AgustaWestland announces that they’ll offer the AW101-derived “HH-71” for the HH-60 RECAP program, and the AW139M for the USAF’s CVLSP utility helicopter competition. Vertical.

July 16/10: Boeing & EADS. Flight International reports that Boeing and EADS Eurocopter have each submitted data 2 alternatives for the HH-60 replacement program:

“Boeing has submitted data on the CH-47 and V-22 to the US Air Force as potential replacements for the HH-60G Pave Hawk fleet of combat search and rescue helicopters (CSAR), a spokesman says… the UH-60M [is] a helicopter less than half the size of the heavylift CH-47 and barely one-third the maximum takeoff weight of the V-22 tiltrotor.

The same variance in size, roughly put, also applies to the aircraft proposed by EADS, which are the NH-90 and EC-725 Super Cougar. EADS submitted data on both aircraft because they believe they “offer proven capabilities at best value and lowest cost to the taxpayer,” says EADS NA chief operating officer Dave Oliver.”

July 15/10: HH-60? Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin announce that they’ll compete together for the HH-60 Recap program, using a modified H-60M Black Hawk. The HH-60M is already in service as a US Army MEDEVAC platform. Sikorsky.

Additional Readings

• DID – CSAR-X: Canceled for Convenience. The CRH’s predecessor program would have bought HH-47 Chinooks.

• DII – Sikorsky’s $7.4-11.6B “Multi-Year VII” H-60 Helicopter Contract. Explains the UH-60M that sits at the contract’s center, though MYP-VII also buys HH-60M, MH-60S, and MH-60R helicopters.

• USAF – HH-60G Pave Hawk. The current CSAR helicopter.

Americas

• The first of 21 US Army UH-60L Black Hawks, converted and remissionized into HH-60G Pave Hawks, has been introduced as part of the service’s Operational Loss Replacement (OLR) program. Works on the UH-60s is being carried out by Science and Engineering Services LLC which involves adding a comprehensive kit of modifications to the utility helicopter, along with additional equipment to convert it into a combat search and rescue HH-60G. The OLR program aims to replace aircraft lost in nearly 15 years of deployed combat operations since the commencement of the “War on Terror.”

Middle East North Africa

• MBDA Italia has secured a contract with Qatar to provide $1.1 billion worth of missiles for its new naval vessels. Missiles to be sold include the Aster 30 Block 1, VL MICA air defense missiles and Exocet MM40 Block 3 anti-ship missiles. The munitions deal follows shortly after Qatar agreed to the $5.1 billion purchase of seven naval vessels from Italy’s Fincantieri shipyard, which include four corvettes, one landing platform dock, and two offshore patrol vessels.

• Iraq has received the last of its ordered Mi-28 NE Night Hunter attack helicopters from Russia. The first of an estimated 15 Night Hunters was delivered in 2014 as part of a wider $4.2 billion defense package signed in 2012. According to Reuters, the deal marks the third biggest agreement for Russian arms sales since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.

Europe

• The High Court in the UK has ruled in favor of a judicial review into British arms exports to Saudi Arabia. This unprecedented decision follows a challenge by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills’ decision to continue issuing licenses worth $3.7 billion to the Saudi regime. CAAT’s campaign against British arms manufacturers has grown in recent years amid growing concerns over Saudi human rights abuses conducted with British made weapons and munitions in Yemen.

• Airbus is to conduct full contact flight trials of the automatic boom mode on its A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft by the end of 2016. While normally the task of a fully qualified boomer, the technology being trialed involves the use of real-time video and image processing to track a receiver aircraft’s exact position. The new concept involves the operator controlling the boom manually until it has been positioned within a required area, close to the receiver aircraft. At this point, its automatic mode would be engaged to complete the contact procedure. If successful, this method is believed to improve time, safety and operational aspects of air-to-air refueling.

• An agreement to create a joint Armenian-Russian air-defense system has been ratified by Armenia’s parliament. Initially signed by both nations last December, the new system will enable the inclusion of the Russian Air Force’s full range of capabilities, including multifunction fighter jets, into joint regional air defense. Opponents of the pact fear that too much control will now be extended to Moscow threatening Armenian sovereignty.

Asia Pacific

• Singapore is to announce its decision on which helicopter will replace its aging Super Puma fleet sooner rather than later. The $1 billion decision was put on ice following April’s crash of a civilian Airbus Super Puma in Norway which killed 13 people, whose military variant was a frontrunner in the competition. As a result, a decision in favor of Airbus would represent a strong vote of confidence in the helicopter after an 18 month evaluation process. Waiting in the wings, however, is Italian firm Leonardo Finmeccanica who is looking to steal the deal and get a foothold with one of South-East Asia’s biggest buyers.

• Japan is to launch a tender in mid-July for its $40 billion fighter acquisition program which has been dubbed the F-3 fighter jet program. Sources close to the program have revealed that US giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin have already been invited to take part in the project alongside local manufacturer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Adding to this, analysts say Japan’s preference for an aircraft that can operate closely with the US military, given close Washington-Tokyo ties, makes a non-US option a long-shot. Regardless, Saab AB and the Eurofighter consortium will none the less be looking for any opportunities to involve themselves in this mega bucks project.

Today’s Video

• The first F-35B Lightning II lands in UK for first time:

Pantsir-S1
(click to view full)

In October 2012, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki signed a deal with Russia’s Rosoboronexport, variously estimated at $4.2 – $5.0 billion. The deal is characteristically murky, but it includes a combination of 43 Mi-35 (28) and Mi-28NE (15) attack helicopters, plus 42-50 mobile SA-22 Pantsir low-level air defense systems. Their combined cost is unlikely to approach $4 billion unless very extensive long-term support arrangements are included, but Iraq’s maintenance record suggests that this would be a very good idea. There has also been discussion in the press concerning MiG-29M2 fighters or armored vehicles as follow-on options, and the recent crisis in Iraq has led to a limited sale of refurbished SU-25 close air support aircraft.

The deals fill some important military and political holes for Iraq, and the full civil war in progress

Elements of the Deal Mi-28N
(click to view larger)

It isn’t unusual for Middle Eastern countries to consciously split their weapon buys between different suppliers, in order to reduce dependence. Saudi Arabia does this very explicitly, and the same pattern can be found in Egypt and the UAE.

Air Defense: The SA-22 Pansyr/Pantsir is designed for mobile low-level air defense, combining twin 30mm guns with 12 57E6 radar-guided surface-to-air missiles that reach out to 12 km/ 10 miles, and up to 10,000m altitude. Sensors include targeting and tracking radars, with an electro-optical system for passive scanning. It’s more of a low-level air defense system than a remedy against enemies who can use precision bombing from altitude, but that would be quite enough to deal with any threats from Iran or Syria. Its weakness is its use of radio command guidance (RCG) from the launcher, which means that its attacks can be defeated with jamming, or by killing the launcher.

Iraq has barely progressed to airspace monitoring, and the Pantsir-S1s will be their first real air defense assets. Training will be required, in order to ensure that the new systems can work well with Iraq’s own emerging air force. Meanwhile, the system’s mobility allows it to be moved around for point defense as needs warrant. It’s also popular in the region. The UAE, Iran, and Syria all operate it, and Jordan has reportedly ordered some.

DJ Elliott of the Iraq Order of Battle believes the Pantsirs will serve in the same role as their Russian counterparts, acting as point defenses for more advanced air defense systems like the planned buys of American MIM-23 Hawk XXI batteries. Cruise missiles and anti-radar missiles generally don’t have jammers (though there is MALD-J…), so RCG remains effective. There are rumors that Iraq is negotiating for S-300 (SA-20) missiles; time will tell.

That went well…
(click to view full)

Helicopters: Confirmed rumors indicate that Iraq requested AH-64 Apaches, which they had seen up close in American hands, and which are also in use by neighbors like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, et. al. The USA reportedly offered Iraq AH-1Zs Viper attack helicopters instead, and eventually offered AH-64D/Es; by then, Iraq had already ordered Mi-28s and Mi-35s from Russia, and they eventually decided against ordering the American machines.

The Mi-28NE’s heavily-armored design is closer to the Apache than it is to the USMC’s new AH-1Zs, and the NE variant offers day/night capabilities. The Mi-35M is a more modern variant of the Mi-24s that Saddam’s air force flew, and it’s a much larger attack helicopter design, with internal space for 4-6 soldiers. That makes it an excellent choice for special forces. The Russian helicopters can’t use the AGM-114 Hellfire missiles that Iraq has been firing from AC-208 planes and IA-407 helicopters, but their 23/30mm cannons, rockets, guided missiles, and other weapon options make them a formidable force. The Mi-28’s future had been tentative until Russia finally stepped up with a 2006 order, and Iraq becomes an important early export customer.

There are other compensations for Iraq. One is political. Unlike the USA, Russia isn’t going to play politics with spares and support. If Iraq’s central government finds itself using these gunships in armed clashes with the Kurds, or other neighbors, Maliki knows that Russia won’t cut off Iraq’s access to parts, maintenance, or associated weapons. In exchange, Iraq has to accept a separate supply chain for Mi-28 and Mi-35 parts and weapons, coupled with Russia’s well-earned reputation for unresponsive support. They may have fewer attack helicopters in the air at any one time, but at least it won’t become zero.

Then What? T-90: next?
(click to view full)

There have been reports of other elements to the deal, with armored vehicles mentioned most often.

Armored Vehicles: Iraq’s purchases of BTR-4s and M113s, refurbishment of older BMP-1 and MTLB tracked vehicles, and rumored deal for more MTLBs, give them a full array of armored personnel carriers and infrantry fighting vehicles. What they’re really short on, is tanks. 140 M1A1-SA Abrams form the high end of their force, supplemented by some Soviet era T-72s and old T-54/55s. If their moves toward mechanized divisions is serious. Iraq Order of Battle publisher DJ Elliott sees tanks as the biggest gap. That makes rumors of an armored vehicle buy important.

There is a request outstanding for another 140 American M1s, but Iraq will need more than that to fill in its missing battalions, and some form of Russian or Ukrainian design seemed likely. DJ Elliott is wondering whether Iraq might begin buying tracked BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles for use as “light tanks,” at about at 35 per battalion, as an interim step. Their 100mm gun and missiles give them some ability to take on other tanks, their ability to work with infantry would give them broader counterinsurgency and security uses, and the UAE is already a regional customer. The other possibility would be a buy of main battle tanks. Older T-72s could be bought and upgraded at the new Czech-built facility in country. Or, Iraq could buy Russia’s T-90S model, in order to make up those numbers. So far, the Iraqi parliament seems unenthusiastic.

Artillery is another serious weakness in the current Iraqi army, and any deal for “heavy armored vehicles” could also be looking to shore up that weakness. Russia sells the 152mm MSTA-S tracked self-propelled howitzer, and the 2S31 Vena is a 120mm self-propelled mortar on a BMP-3 chassis. 9K57 Uragan (220mm) and 9K58 Smerch (300mm) rocket launcher systems mounted on armored heavy trucks offer longer-range artillery options, if Iraq is interested.

Su-25s unveiled

Fighters: Iraq is already training to fly 18 F-16IQ fighters, which are new aircraft roughly equivalent to Egypt’s new F-16C/Ds. They’ll need about 4 times that number in order to truly control their air space, and Russia really needs to sell MiG-29s. Modernized MiG-29M2s are fully multi-role aircraft, and buying them would remove Iraq’s single reliance of the USA for this critical asset. On the other hand, they come with a need for an entirely separate set of weapons, and have a questionable maintenance record in global service. France has a number of competitive options in this area, and this may be a harder deal for Russia to close. See “The New Iraqi Air Force: F-16IQ Block 52 Fighters” for in-depth coverage of Iraq’s options.

In 2014, however, the collapse of the Iraqi government’s authority in the north and west forced an emergency buy. A shipment of 5 used Russian Su-25 Frogfoot aircraft, along with Russian advisers, arrived in June 2014. Another 7 arrived from Iran, which began using them when Iraqi Su-25s fled to Iran during the Gulf Wars. The Su-25 was the Soviet counterpart to the A-10, a heavily armored close air support jet designed to loiter over the battlefield and accurately deliver ordnance at low speed. They were used in combat during Russia’s Afghan War, and despite their rugged construction, shoulder-fired FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles did manage to take down some jets. It will be interesting to see how they fare in Iraq.

Contracts & Key Events Iraq
(click to view full)

July 1/16: Iraq has received the last of its ordered Mi-28 NE Night Hunter attack helicopters from Russia. The first of an estimated 15 Night Hunters was delivered in 2014 as part of a wider $4.2 billion defense package signed in 2012. According to Reuters, the deal marks the third biggest agreement for Russian arms sales since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.

February 16/16: The delivery of 24 Pantsir-S1 air defense systems and missiles to Iraq from Russia has been completed. The systems were part of a wider defense package estimated to have been worth $4.2 billion with between 42-50 of the units on order. It remains unclear whether more will be delivered in future as part of the same or future deals, after Russian officials and businessmen met with top Iraqi officials last week in Baghdad to discuss oil, gas, and defense cooperation. The previous sale was met with some controversy as former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki almost cancelled the deal over allegations of corruption.

Oct 30/14: Mi-28s. Iraq has been receiving Mi-28NEs, but it takes time and preparation before new equipment can be used. The Mi-28s appear to be ready now, and:

“Defence Minister Dr Khalid al-Obeidi and senior ministry personnel observed a flypast of the helicopters over Baghdad ahead of their deployment to their operational bases. While their planned location has not been officially revealed, Taiji just north of Baghdad would be a likely option.”

The report arrives in the shadow of a recent announcement that Iraq’s Shi’ite army is preparing a significant offensive for Spring 2015. Sources: IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Iraq prepares to deploy Mi-28NE attack helos against the Islamic State” | NY Times, “Iraqis Prepare ISIS Offensive, With U.S. Help”.

Oct 8/14: Shot down. ISIS proves once again that that they’re well-armed and well-trained, shooting down an Iraqi Mi-35M attack helicopter and an IA-407 armed scout this week, and killing all personnel on board. The Iraqi Army aren’t the only combatants (q.v. Oct 1/14) with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles on hand.

Helicopters are inherently vulnerable to those kinds of measures. The Soviets discovered this in Afghanistan, losing earlier Mi-24 variants of the Mi-35M. As for the IA-407, the similar OH-58D was a key player during Operation Iraqi Freedom, but the USA had quite a few of them shot out of the sky. Sources: Defense News, “IS downs another Iraqi helicopter”.

Oct 1/14: Pantsir-S1. The Iraqi government heralds the arrival of Pantsir-S1 systems, along with “Dzighit” twin-launchers for SA-16/-18 Igla missiles. The Russian arms contract reportedly includes 1,000 of the SA-18 Igla-S missiles. They won’t help at all against ISIS, but do allow dispersed low-level air control within territories controlled by the Shi’ite government. Russia Today adds that:

“Since November 2013, Russian military suppliers have delivered to Iraq 12 Mi-35M transport-assault helicopters (16 more to be delivered) and 3 Mi-28NA ‘Night Hunter’ gunships (12 to be supplied soon)…. The Iraqi army will soon start using Russia’s Solntsepek [TOS-1 heavy tracked vehicles that fire short range 220mm ‘Sun Scorch’ rockets carrying]… fuel-air explosive munitions… RIA Novosti reported, citing Almada Press news agency. The weapons have been delivered under the contract signed in July 2014.”

TOS-1 systems are normally part of chemical/ biological defense units in Russia, but one suspects that won’t be their role in Iraq. Sources: Russia Beyond the Headlines, “Russia supplies Iraq with Pantsir-S1, Dzhigit air defense systems” | Russia Today, “Iraq military gets advanced Russian air defense, flame weapons”.

July 6/14: Shot down? The Iranian government’s INRA media arm reports that Col. Shoja’at Alamdari Mourjani was reportedly killed over Samarra, north of Baghdad, last week. The Fars media arm showed pictures of the pilot’s funeral. The National Council of Resistance of Iran claims that 2 more Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps members were also killed around Samarra: Kamal Shirkhani and Pakistani-born Javid Hossein.

The Shi’ite cleric and long-standing Iranian ally Muqtada al-Sadr has militia members deployed to protect Samarra’s golden-domed al-Askari mosque, alongside ground forces from the Iraqi government; Iran also has ground forces in theater. It’s possible that the Colonel was fighting on the ground as a Forward Air Controller. The other possibility is that The Islamic State’s Sunni guerrillas have shot down one of Iran’s Su-25s, which are acknowledged to have Iranian pilots (q.v. July 2/14). Iranian sources weren’t giving out those kinds of details, but you’d expect that the other side would be making more of any Su-25 kills. Sources: NCRI, “Third Iranian regime IRGC member killed in Iraq” | AFP via Saudi Arabia’s Arab News, “Iran pilot killed fighting in Iraq” | Voice of America, “Iranian Pilot Killed in Iraq Defending Shrine”.

July 2/14: Su-25s. The BBC reports that some of the Su-25s in Iraq are from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Air Force – which is distinct from Iran’s regular air force. The BBC backs up their contention with cooperation from the IISS, which provides photos and serial numbers. The irony is, the jets were originally Iraq’s. During the 1991 war, 7 planes defected rather than face the allied armada. Now they’re back in Iraq, and the Aviationist says that “…(three Su-25UBKM and four Su-25KM jets) will be operated by four Iraqi pilots and 10 Iranian pilots.”

Actually, they may have been back before their official unveiling. On June 21/14, unidentified Iranian planes reportedly launched heavy airstrikes around Baiji, north of Baghdad. There are also rumors that this is a trade of sorts, wherein Iran gets ex-Indian Su-30Ks from Russia in exchange. Sources: BBC, “‘Iranian attack jets deployed’ to help Iraq fight Isis” | The Aviationist, “All Iranian Su-25 Frogfoot attack planes have just deployed to Iraq”.

July 1/14: Helicopter delivery. ITAR-TASS reports that An-124 ultra-heavy transport aircraft have delivered 4 Mi-35M and 3 Mi-28NE helicopters to Iraq. They’ve previously reported Iraq’s total at 43 helicopters, to be delivered by 2016: 24 Mi-35s and 19 Mi-28s. That differs from Rostvertol’s own financial reports, however (q.v. June 12/14), which list 28 Mi-35Ms and 15 Mi-28NEs, respectively. Source: ARMS-TASS.

July 1/14: Mi-28. Rostvertol celebrates its 75th anniversary, and the displays include Iraqi Mi-28NEs. Sources: LiveJournal bmpd, “Mi-28NE for Iraq” [in Russian, incl. photos] | Russian Helicopters, “Major Russian military helicopter producer celebrates 75th anniversary” (Rostvertol is a subsidiary).

Su-25 Arrival

June 26-30/14: SU-25s. The Iraqi Ministry of Defense confirms receipt of 5 Su-25 Frogfoot close-air support jets from Russia, and Iraqi Army Lieutenant General Anwar Hamad Amen Ahmed says that they will be thrown directly into the battle against the Sunni Caliphate in Iraq & Syria, but that takes more than fighters. It takes maintenance, which Iraqis are poor at. It takes jet pilots that have been trained to operate with ground forces, and Iraq doesn’t really have those. And it takes communications and specialized ground personnel so that support requests are answered in a timely way. Also not really present, though American special forces personnel have at least the training required. Gen. Ahmed says that:

“We have experienced pilots and other professionals. Our Russian friends have also sent their own experts to assist us in preparing the aircraft. All the logistics have been planned for as well.”

Sure. Of course, you can launch a “massive attack” by just sending the aircraft on free-ranging bombing missions, to areas where your own troops have fled. It helps if civilian casualties aren’t a concern.

A June 26th report by Russia’s Interfax had pegged the aircraft at ex-Indian “Su-30MKI”, which was obviously incorrect because India had only returned less-advanced used Su-30MKs from their initial stopgap order. A “source in the Russian aviation industry” added that delivery from storage warehouses of the Russian Defense Ministry could have allowed Su-27SKM fighters or Su-25 attack aircraft. Which seems to be what has happened. Sources: Interfax, “Russia might have supplied rebuilt Sukhoi aircraft to Iraq – source” | Russia Today, “Target ISIS: First batch of Russian fighter jets arrives in Iraq” | UK’s RUSI, “Desperate for Air Support, Maliki Turns to Russia”.

July 28/14: Shot down. The guerillas’ Al-Anbar News Twitter account publishes photos of a shot down Iraqi helicopter, reportedly an Mi-35, over Saklaviya northwest of Fallujah. There isn’t much left, so it’s hard to tell, but it had a large 5-bladed rotor. Twitter, Pic 1 and Pic 2.

June 20/14: Mi-24s. The Czech Republic’s Defense Minister Martin Stropnicky says that they are in talks to sell 7 of their 17 Russian-built Mi-24V attack helicopters to the Iraqi Defense Ministry.

The Iraqi government has lost Kirkuk to the Kurds, and lost most of the northern and eastern Sunni areas to hard-line Islamist forces that are backed (for now) by local Sunni tribes. At this point, Iraq needs any flying attack platform that can be delivered quickly, and they’re very similar to the Mi-35s that Russia recently delivered. Their weapon compatibility with Iraq’s existing armed Mi-17s would also be a plus.

The Czechs, keen to push an advantage, are also pushing Iraq to buy locally-designed L-159 light attack jets. Aero Vodochody had lost that contract to Korea’s KAI (q.v. Dec 12/13), but the FA-50s won’t even begin arriving until 2015 – 2016. The Czechs have about 8 jets in storage that they could deliver fairly quickly, and that may be enough for Iraq’s immediate needs. If Iraq wants more, restarting the L-159 production line won’t solve their problem in time. If the Czechs divert L-159 planes directly from their own air force, on the other hand, they could offer nearly-immediate deliveries as part of a helicopter/jet package deal. The Czechs would then be able to choose whether to refurbish the 8 stored L-159s for their own use, and/or backfill CzAF stocks with the new L-169 that’s in development. We’ll have to see what gets negotiated, if anything. Sources: Defense News, “Iraq Eyes Czech Mi 24 helos To Combat ISIL Militants”.

June 12/14: Rostvertol report. Rosvertol’s 2013 annual report contains a number of interesting details regarding its orders. Iraq (foreign customer K-8) has apparently ordered 28 Mi-35M helicopters, and 15 Mi-28NEs. This differs from other reported figures, but DID will be using these numbers as the standard.

The report adds that Mi-28s have been having problems with increased vibration in the main gearbox. Sources: Rostvertol PLC, “Annual Report ‘Rosvertol’, ZA2013 Year.

Mi-35 delivery

May 6/14: Delivery. The Deputy Director of Russia’s Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, Konstantin Biryulin, offers some clarity in an interview with Interfax-AVN:

“Russia is successfully fulfilling the contract for supply of Mi-35 and Mi-28NE helicopters to Iraq. The Mi-35 batch has already been delivered [in December 2013] and the Iraqis are happy with them. As for Mi-28NE helicopters, the first batch of these will be delivered to Iraq before the end of this year,” said Biryulin, who leads the Russian delegation at the Sofex 2014 arms show in Jordan.

Sources: Voice of Russia, “Iraq to receive first batch of Russian Night Hunter helicopters before end of 2014”.

Feb 27/14: Some pictures and unofficial updates:

“Taken at Rostov on Don plant, the photographs show Baghdad’s new [Mi-28] attack choppers in the color scheme chosen by the Iraqi Air Force…. Akram Kharief, the editor of Secret Difa 3, a blog focusing on defense topics in the Maghreb region, we can show you the first images of the brand new Mi-28 Havoc helicopter on delivery to Iraq…. 23 Russian attack choppers have been delivered to the Iraqis, the first batch of 10, in September 2013 and the second of 13 examples, in January 2014.”

Sources: The Aviationist, “First images of the new Iraqi Mi-28 Night Hunter attack helicopters”.

Jan 4/14: Delivery. The Alsumaria television channel says that a 2nd shipment of 13 Russian Mi-28NEs have arrived in Iraq, for use in Iraq’s Sunni Anbar Province west of Baghdad. The 1st shipment reportedly involved 15 Mil helicopters, though it didn’t mention whether they were Mi-28s or Mi-35s. Subsequent reports cast doubt, and suggest that these may be Mi-35 helicopters, a modernized derivative of the Mi-24 made famous by Russia’s Afghan war.

The 1st group of Iraqi pilots and technicians reportedly finished their training in Fall 2013. Sources: The Voice of Russia, “13 Russian Mi-28NE helicopters arrive in Iraq”.

June 2013: Mi-28s. At the Paris air show, Rosoboronexport deputy head Alexander Mikheyev confirms to Russian media that the deal is still on, with the first deliveries scheduled for September 2013.

May 31/13: Deal begins. Rostech CEO Sergei Chemezov tells RIA Novosti that Iraq has begun payments, and production has started for the system in the October 2012 deal. RIA Novosti says the deal involves 30 Mi-28NE attack helicopters, and 50 Pantsir S1 short-range air defense missile systems. RIA Novosti.

Deal in force

May 21/13: Investigation. The head of the Iraqi Parliament’s Integrity Committee, Bahaa al-Araji, says that Iraq’s Central Criminal Court has resumed an investigation into officials suspected of corruption related to the Russia deal. Overall verdict? “The deal remains in force, but is not being implemented yet…” RIA Novosti fills in some recent history:

“The Iraqi Parliament initiated an investigation into several officials…. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said in March 2013 that Iraq and Russia had initialed a revised deal and deliveries under the contract would start by the summer. The corruption investigation was closed shortly after.”

Nov 9-12/12: Investigation. An Iraqi government spokesman announces that accusations of corruption had led Prime Minister Maliki to review the Russian arms deal.

Within a day or 2, however, Iraq’s acting Defense Minister Sadun Al-Dulaymi tells a press conference in Baghdad that “The deal is going ahead.” He says that the only issue involves a failure to submit some papers to the anti-corruption commission in time. BBC | Al-Jazeera | RIA Novosti.

Oct 18/12: American switch? Acting Defense Minister Sadoun al-Dulaimi tells Reuters that Iraq is talking with American officials about buying air defense systems and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. That’s an interesting comment, given the recent buys of Pantsir and Mi-28 counterparts from Russia, and the challenge of integrating the Pantsir S1s into American command systems if they want to create a unified air defense network. Reuters | Iran’s Press TV.

Oct 17/12: Testing. Russia’s RIA Novosti reports that Russia is going to test its Pansir-S1 systems against live cruise missiles for the first time, instead of target drones. Both tend to be missile-like bodies with jet engines, wings, and guidance systems. Still, some cruise missiles would offer lower radar profiles and evasive maneuvers that may not be programmed into a target drone. The question is how realistic the tests will actually be, given the natural desire to avoid hurting the SA-22’s export status.

Oct 15/12: DJ Elliott, who publishes the Iraq Order of Battle, offers his thoughts on Iraq’s recent buy:

“Iraq is reported to be buying additional long-range radars as part of the package and is rumored to be negotiating for SA20 [S300] SAMs. The 30 Mi-28s [1 Attack Sq-probably to be based at Taji] are reported to be $1 billion with the price for the Pantsir-S1s and additional air defense items is reported to be $2.3 billion according to Iraqi sources. There is also a surcharge for rapid delivery involved in those prices.

At first glance the Pantsir-S1 is a rip-off… However, it is still used for cruise-missile defense of SA20 sites because its communications/radars are compatible and cruise-missiles do not normally carry jammers… 42 Pantsir-S1s is 7 batteries of 6 firing units each in Russian structure indicating 7 initial planned Air Defense Battalions composed of 1 Battery of Pantsir-S1, 1 battery of SA20, and 1-2 batteries of anti-aircraft guns… Also, overlooked by most reporting but mentioned on Iraqi TV, the Czech deal includes establishing an Iraqi Armor rework/upgrade facility for T72 tanks. [At Taji?] This is more important than the aircraft deal and accounts for much of the price. An upgrade facility in Iraq for T72s means that the Iraqis are probably planning on buying large numbers of used T72s and [like the Russian Army] are going to use upgraded T72s as a large part of their tank force vice buying new T90s. The most likely sources for used T72s include the Ukraine and Poland – Russia is retaining its T72s and upgrading them thus is unlikely to have spares available to sell.”

Oct 9/12: The deal is “announced.” It’s clear that Iraq is buying 30 Mi-28NE attack helicopters, and 42-50 Pantsir low-level air defense systems, but the numbers don’t quite add, and other elements of the deal are likely to emerge only with time.

The first challenge the deal must overcome is Parliamentary. Maliki can sign the deal, but Iraq’s legislature has to authorize the money for the purchases in its budgets. There has already been some pushback from that quarter, and time will tell how Maliki fares.

The next challenge will involve fielding, though this an easier hurdle. Iraq never really stopped operating Russian weapons, including tanks, artillery, helicopters, and guns. Some were scavenged and restored from the Saddam-era military. Others were provided by US allies. Still others, like Iraq’s Mi-17 helicopters, were bought using the USA itself as an intermediary. What’s different about these buys is that they involve a direct relationship with a new source for support, and also involve new roles within Iraq’s reconstituted military. Working our those kinks, and training to use their equipment’s full capabilities without endangering their own forces, is going to take work and time. Russia’s Pravda | RIA Novosti || Al Jazeera (incl. video) | BBC | Bloomberg | Kyiv Post | Lebanon’s Daily Star | Voice of America.

Russian deal

Additional Readings

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

Background: Weapons

Weapons are listed by designation, in alphabetical order.

• DID – AH-64E Apache Block III: The Once and Future Attack Helicopter.

• DID – Russia Improving its Mi-28 Attack Helicopter Fleet.

• Czech MoD – Mi-35 (Mi-24V) – Technical Specifications.

• Army Recognition – Pantsir-S1 / Pantsyr-S1 Air Defense missile – gun system / SA-22 Greyhound.

• GlobalSecurity – Su-25 FROGFOOT Grach (Rook) / Su-39 FROGFOOT.

• Military Today – TOS-1A Heavy flamethrower system.

Background: Other

• Wikipedia – List of Soviet aircraft losses in the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Illuminating.

• DID (July 18/13) – Iraq: Weapons – and Challenges – In the Pipeline. SIGIR confirms reports that an AH-64 export case is pending, and it has now been formally announced – but no contract has been signed.

F-35A
(click to view full)

In December 2011, Japan picked Lockheed Martin’s new F-35A stealth fighter as its next fighter aircraft, to replace its aging F-4 “Kai” Phantom fleet. The F-35 was actually their 2nd choice.

Back in February 2006, Inside The Air Force (ITAF) reported that momentum was building within the USAF to sell the ultra-advanced F-22A Raptor abroad to trusted US allies, as a way of increasing numbers and production. Japan clearly wanted them, and the Raptor was a topic of diplomatic discussions in several venues, including a 2007 summit meeting. In the end, however, US politics denied export permission for downgraded export variants of the F-22, and its production line was terminated. That left Japan looking at other foreign “F-X” fighter options in the short term, while they considered a domestic stealth fighter design as their long-term project.

In the ensuing F-X competition, the F-35 Lightning II beat BAE’s Eurofighter Typhoon, as well as an upgraded F/A-18E Super Hornet from Boeing. Now Lockheed Martin has to deliver, and so will its Japanese partners. Will the F-35A’s price and program delays create problems in Japan? This article looks at the JASDF’s current force, its future options, and ongoing F-X developments.

The JASDF: Structure & Choices F-4EJ “Kai(zen)”
(click to view full)

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) currently has 3 fighter jet models in its fleet: F-15J/F-15DJ Eagles, its F-4EJ “Kai” and RF-4EJ reconnaissance Phantom IIs, and the Mitsubishi F-2 – a larger, longer-range variant on the F-16C. The Mitsubishi F-1 entered service in 1978 and is still listed on the JASDF web site, but it has now been replaced by F-2s [1]. Now, 42 F-35As will begin to replace the 80-plane F-4 fleet, but that won’t be the end for Japan.

The JASDF introduced the F-4EJ in 1973. It currently serves mostly in anti-shipping and other “permitted” strike roles, though it can also be used for air defense and policing. The RF-4EJ reconnaissance version will be replaced by F-15Js with special pods, and Japan has indicated that they will begin retiring the rest of the F-4 fleet early in the 2010s.

Japan has top-tier manufacturing experience, but they also had a qualitative and quantitative problem. Japanese firms have already produced F-15Js under license, and designed and produced the Mitsubishi F-2 in conjunction with Lockheed Martin. The F-2 is larger than an F-16 and has more range, but its performance doesn’t compare to an F-15, and it costs nearly as much. The F-2s won’t be built in expected numbers, which means they cannot replace the F-4EJs and RF-4EJs.

J-20 Prototype
(click to view full)

The Japanese had important choices to make, and the 2010 tsunami sharpened that urgency by destroying 18 of Japan’s F-2 fighters. Then China pushed things to the next level, unveiling its J-20 twin-engine stealth fighter prototype.

The Phase 1 plan was for Japan to choose a future F-X fighter by the end of 2011, buy about 50, and begin receiving them in 2016. Meanwhile, Japanese industry is trying to figure out how to keep itself busy now that license production of F-15 components and F-2s is ending. The Society of Japanese Aerospace Companies’ proposal involves producing F-X fighters and their F-XX follow-on buy until 2028, and having some of those 100-120 planes replace existing F-15Js as well. That would be followed by a Japanese fighter design, to begin development by 2017 based in part on lessons learned from their ongoing ATD-X stealth technology demonstrator. Japan hopes to fly ATD-X in 2014-2016, and the SJAC’s idea was that its successor could enter production around 2028, as the foreign-designed F-X fighter line closed down.

When choosing their initial F-X buy, the Japanese had several options.

The Winner: F-35 Lightning II F-35A test flight
(click to view full)

If stealth is desired, Lockheed Martin’s plane is considered a “second best” option to the F-22. While other contenders have sharply reduced their radar signature when compared to planes like the F-16, the F-35 is significantly ahead because it’s designed for stealth from the outset, including internal weapon bays. As China moved to introduce its own J-20 stealth fighter, that criterion seemed to eclipse all others in Japan’s thinking. “Joint Strike Fighters” also offer exceptional performance in the reconnaissance role, while its set partnership model smooths technology transfer issues. That transferred technology is very important to the Japanese, who are quietly working on stealth fighter concepts of their own. Finally, the F-35 will be widely used, offering commonality with key allies and ensuring a steady stream of upgrades without requiring steady Japanese investment.

On the negative side, the F-35’s single-engine design would be a concern during maritime combat air patrols, as it increases the odds of having an engine issue cause the complete loss of the fighter. Beyond that, the F-35’s industrial structure is largely set, its development delays could make on-time deliveries a problem, any early deliveries will cost well over $100 million per plane, and its declared status as a strike fighter clashes somewhat with Japan’s avowedly defensive posture.

Rising tensions in the area led Japan to conclude that it needed good ground-attack capabilities as an explicit requirement, and based on their mathematical analysis of submitted information, Japan concluded that the F-35A was more capable all around than other fighters with proven records. The choice was announced in December 2011, and agreement to buy up to 42 fighters was signed in June 2012.

Media reports aren’t completely precise, but they seem to suggest that Japanese F-35As could eventually fly with up to 40% Japanese manufactured content. Reports and documents indicate that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. will be involved in work on aircraft bodies, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. on mission-related avionics, and IHI Corp. on engines.

DDH-181 Hyuga & USN’s
LHD-2, post-tsunami
(click to view entire)

The F-35B’s STOVL (Short Take Off, Vertical Landing) capabilities might make it an especially valuable future option, as a defensive aircraft that could operate from dispersed land locations, rather than bases that are easily targeted by enemy missiles.

It has a shorter range than other variants, but Japan is also fielding 18DDH Hyuga Class helicopter carriers for roles like disaster response, and will soon field larger 22DDH Izumo Class ships. They’re called “helicopter destroyers,” because Japan is currently prohibited from operating aircraft carriers, but it should be noted that other countries are planning to operate F-35Bs from comparably-sized ships. This very fact may inhibit Japan from ordering the F-35B, despite its potential usefulness as a land-based fighter.

Japan had other options, too. They included:

Boeing: The Traditional Supplier F-15Js
(click to view full)

Boeing and its predecessor firm McDonnell Douglas supplies the JASDF’s F-4s and F-15s. Their next-generation choices included:

Upgraded F-15s Japan could have chosen to go ahead and buy “kaizen” F-15Js at a comparable cost, possibly with the AESA APG-63v3 radar being fielded by Singapore. Additional capability boosts would come from attached pods like ReeceLight or SHARP for reconnaissance, or combination recon/targeting pods like LITENING or Lockheed’s Sniper ATP.

The concern in Japan is that this option could leave them without an air-to-air advantage against current PLAAF SU-30MKK aircraft, let alone potential future upgrades like the SU-35, or China’s J-20.

Boeing’s new F-15SE “Silent Eagle” appeared to be aimed directly at these concerns. It adds a number of important advances that will help it hold its own with currently-fielded fighters, and is optimized for the kinds of long-range, over-water combat patrols the JASDF requires. In full-stealth mode, its strike capability is sufficiently secondary that it need not raise alarm bells, but it’s still present.

While a combined F-15 Kai/ F-15SE buy appeared to be the easiest move, things did not work out that way. Boeing did not submit the F-15SE, and F-15 upgrades will have to be a separate, future issue for Japan. Instead, it submitted…

Super Hornet Int’l
(click to view full)

F/A-18Ei Super Hornet. The base for Boeing’s submission was the AN/APG-79 AESA radar equipped Block II model, and the F/A-18F model has already been sold to Australia. The “Super Hornet International Roadmap” is on the drawing board, adding improved radar signature, the ability to carry weapons in low-RCS underwing pods, better defensive systems, an advanced wide screen cockpit display, and more fuel capacity without increasing drag.

The other Super Hornet option for Japan would be even more exotic. Some of Australia’s Super Hornets are being fitted to receive electronic warfare equipment, which would allow conversion to EA-18G signals intercept and jamming fighters. That’s a unique capability, but Japan’s avowedly defensive posture makes it much less useful to them than it is to other countries.

Even with the EA-18G option, the Super Hornet was an odd bid choice. Beyond the electronic attack role, it’s less capable than the most current F-15 models, such as Singapore’s F-15SGs. Its main benefits relative to the F-35 and European options involved a low price in the $60 million range, the potential for significant license-production in Japan, and future commonality with Japan’s main defense partner, the US Navy.

Buy European Eurofighter: Rising sun?
(click to view full)

The Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale were seen as possibilities, and coupling them with the MBDA Meteor long-range air-air missile might have been very attractive, given Japan’s needs. Price is likely to be close to the F-35, and similar to the option of buying more F-15s.

Dassault Aviation declined to participate with its Rafale, and Saab’s single-engine JAS-39 Gripen NG wasn’t a contender, but Eurofighter campaigned hard. Their plane is a very capable twin-engine air superiority aircraft. Tranche 1 versions have very limited ground-attack capabilities that would satisfy “defensive-only” criteria, while the latest “Tranche 3” offers a good set of multi-role capabilities. The plane’s carriage of the long-range Meteor missile, and integrated IRST system that can find even stealth aircraft by their heat signatures, offer another pair of advantages over American contenders.

The Super Hornet raised questions of comparative capability relative to China’s new fighters, while industrial and technology sharing remain issues for the F-35, so the Eurofighter had a chance. Their platform did well, but Japan rated theoretical capability very highly, and their desk-bound mathematical analysis hurt Eurofighter. The Typhoon was seen as the most fuel-efficient plane, and its bid had the best industrial benefits for Japan. On the other hand, EADS and BAE had trouble meeting Japan’s purchase cost targets while giving Japanese firms all of that work, and picking it would have meant deviating from Japan’s strongly American industrial links and equipment infrastructure. That’s no small move, in a society that sets such store by deep industrial relationships.

What They Really Wanted: F-22s No climbing Mt. Fuji
(click to view full)

F-22J-EX. The F-22 was at the top of Japan’s wish list, due to its unmatched aerial performance, high level of stealth, and twin-engine design. In February 2006, a Lockheed Martin official confirmed that a proposal to sell Japan F-22s in some form of downgraded “international variant” was working its way through the Air Force with the support of the Japanese government. At the time, it was “at the three- or four-star level” and among civilian decision-makers. The request was pursued at the highest levels of government, but the USA killed the fighter by refusing to export it.

Japan’s combination of long sea zones and growing rivalry with China make a long-range, twin-engine, supercruising andunprecedented stealthy interceptor with reconnaissance capabilities a natural choice. Leveraging existing Japanese partnerships with Lockheed and Boeing made it nearly irresistible. With it, Japan would have had unquestioned air superiority over its territory for the foreseeable future.

There were clear American advantages to a sale. The USAF originally intended to buy 700-800 F-22 fighters, but that was cut to 442, then 381, and finally to just over 180. That left USAF planners concerned, even as foreign projects like Russia & India’s PAK-FA/SU-50, and China’s J-20, prepared to challenge US air superiority. If upgrades and proliferation led to confirmed fighter overmatch against US aircraft within the next decade, an active F-22 production line would have had considerable strategic and financial value.

On the negative side, the F-22’s extensive capabilities made many in the USA very nervous risking security breaches of its electronic architecture, stealth aspects, or next-generation data links. Licensed Japanese production, a standard requirement for other Japanese fighter deals, would be unlikely – or extremely limited if allowed. The aircraft’s $137-160 million base flyaway cost also gives pause, since a Japanese buy would require significant and expensive changes to the plane’s electronics. Some estimates placed the cost of an F-22J at around $250 million per plane.

Japan never had a chance to find out, as political moves within the USA blocked all F-22 Raptor exports. The USA was left to support its shrunken fleet all by itself, which includes financing a very expensive set of electronics upgrades over the next several years.

Japan’s F-X: Contracts and Key Events 2015 – 2016

NG completes center fuselage Getting ready…
(click to view full)

July 1/16: Japan is to launch a tender in mid-July for its $40 billion fighter acquisition program which has been dubbed the F-3 fighter jet program. Sources close to the program have revealed that US giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin have already been invited to take part in the project alongside local manufacturer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Adding to this, analysts say Japan’s preference for an aircraft that can operate closely with the US military, given close Washington-Tokyo ties, makes a non-US option a long-shot. Regardless, Saab AB and the Eurofighter consortium will none the less be looking for any opportunities to involve themselves in this mega bucks project.

April 25/16: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $73.8 million contract for long lead materials, parts, components, and effort to maintain the planned production schedule for six low-rate initial production Lot 12 F-35A Lightning II aircraft as part of Japan’s procurement of the aircraft under the Foreign Military Sales program. Work is expected to be completed by December 2020. The first four of Japan’s planned 42 planes are in various stages of production at Lockheed Martin’s F-35 facility in Forth Worth, Texas while the remaining 38 Japanese aircraft will be assembled and delivered in Japan from Mitsubishi’s Nagoya factory.

February 18/16: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) has started final assembly of their first domestically produced F-35A. Assembly has entered its final stages at the Komaki Minami plant, and it is expected they will have begun work on two of the fighters by the end of fiscal 2017. By 2020, this production will have increased to 16, and a total number to be manufactured in Japan is 38 out a fleet of 42. MHI will also be responsible for testing the jets stealth against radar. The experience gained by Mitsubishi in the development and manufacturing of the F-35 will help toward the development of Japan’s own next-generation stealth fighter, currently under development as part of the X-2 program.

December 11/15: Northrop Grumman has completed delivery of the center fuselage for Japan’s F-35 fighter, known as the AX-1. The center fuselage serves as the core structure for the 5th generation multi-role jet. Japan’s AX-1 is an F-35A jet which uses conventional take-off and landing. Japan has ordered 42 F-35s from Lockheed Martin. Three more center fuselages will be manufactured in the US, while the final 38 will be manufactured and assembled in Nagoya, Japan.

October 6/15: Northrop Grumman has completed the center fuselage for the Japanese Self Defense Forces’ first Joint Strike Fighter, forming the skeleton for the country’s first F-35A. The company manufactured the fuselage in California before shipping it to Japan for Final Check Out and Assembly. In total Japan has ordered 42 F-35As, with an initial order for six aircraft this year coming with a price tag of $827.4 million. The country selected the F-35 in December 2011, beating the Eurofighter Typhoon and an upgraded Super Hornet bid.

2013 – 2014

Expected costs keep rising; FACO agreement; MHI’s industrial deal goes sideways.

Aug 19/14: FY15. Japan’s Ministry of Defense intends to order 6 F-35As in FY 2015, and they’re asking for a YEN 124.9 billion ($1.21 billion) budget to do it.

Other major priority items include 3 long-range surveillance UAVs (YEN 54 billion) and new AEW planes (E-2D or E-737, YEN 58.8 billion). Sources: Reuters, “Japan looking to buy more stealth fighters in 2015: Nikkei”.

Aug 4/14: Industrial. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) was supposed to begin supplying F-35 rear fuselage sections for Japan and for other F-35 partners, but the government says that they’ll only subsidize Japanese production. Japan has already given MHI the YEN 63.9 billion yen ($623 million), as MHI is responsible for Japan’s Final Assembly and Check Out line (q.v. June 21/13), but the firm is worried that their lack of experience in competitive global aerospace markets will cause them to lose money on parts supplied for export. MHI wants another YEN 10 billion ($97.4 million) in subsidies, the government says “no,” and the parties remain deadlocked.

BAE was supposed to begin receiving MHI parts by 2015, but that isn’t going to happen. Japan’s F-35 deal may need to be amended, though one of Reuters’ unnamed sources say that “…if BAE can wait something could be worked out.” Meanwhile, IHI Corp. is building engine parts for Japanese F-35s and with Mitsubishi Electric Corp. is supplying electric components. Sources: Asahi Shimbun, “Mitsubishi Heavy Won’t Supply Parts for F-35 Fighter Project” | Reuters, “Mitsubishi Heavy’s F-35 Deal with BAE Caught In Japan Funding Spat – Sources.”

July 17/14: Weapons. In the wake of recent changes that allow Japan to export some defense items to certain customers, and engage in multinational collaborations with allied countries, Japan is becoming involved with MBDA’s Meteor long-range air-to-air missile:

“Separately, the government also gave a green light to Japan’s joint research with Britain using Japanese seeker technology. It’s a simulation-based project linked to a Meteor missile development among European countries. Defense Ministry official Toru Hotchi said Japanese officials are hoping the research can lead to a technology that can be used for F-35 stealth fighter jets that Japan plans to purchase for its Air Self-Defense Forces.”

Meteor is about to enter service on the JAS-39C/D Gripen, with Eurofighter and Rafale qualification to follow by 2018. MBDA has previously stated that they plan to field a variant for internal carriage in the F-35, and have taken some design-related steps, but there’s no definite program or timeframe yet. Could interest be picking up? Sources: DID, “Meteor Missile Will Make Changes to Accommodate F-35” | (USA) ABC, “Japan Approves Joint Missile Study, Export to US” | NY Times 2014-04, “Japan Ends Decades-Long Ban on Export of Weapons”.

Feb 4/14: Bottakuri. Costs continue to rise for Japan, and F-35Js could end up costing YEN 300 billion each. Meanwhile, Japan’s new 5-year Mid-Term Defense Plan will buy just 28 F-35s by 2018, of a 42 plane order that would see 38 assembled in Japan under a final assembly and checkout deal. At that rate, they won’t make the target of completed deployment by 2021 without a high 2019 order surge. Meanwhile, prices have already climbed from the original YEN 9.6 – 9.9 billion agreement to YEN 14.95 billion each for 2 jets in FY 2013, and YEN 15.4 billion each for 4 more in FY 2014.

“Added to this are plant and tooling up costs of [YEN] 83 billion for 2013 and [YEN] 42.4 billion for 2014 as Japanese companies Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi Electric and IHI establish assembly and production lines…. Sources here have privately begun to refer to the F-35 deal as a “bottakuri bar,” referring to establishments that lure customers… and force them to pay exorbitant bills through a range of excess charges for items not mentioned explicitly on the menu….. locally produced versions of US kit generally cost double their US prices…. Kiyotani said the F-35’s costs could climb to more than [YEN] 300 billion a fighter.”

Abe’s decision to print money at astronomical rates (q.v. Aug 22/13) is going to worsen this problem by dropping the exchange rate. The Yen has lost 28% of its value vs. the US dollar since June 29/12. Defense analyst Shinichi Kiyotani is quoted as saying that lack of specifics in Japan’s 10-year plan reflects uncertainty over the country’s ability to afford the F-35, and its 200 F-15Js and 90 or so F-2s will eventually need replacement. What to do? Sources: Defense News, “Future of F-35 Unclear as Costs Mount in Japan”.

Aug 22/13: Local non-discount. The Asahi Shimbun reports that Japan’s F-35As will be noticeably more expensive than their American counterparts, due to the cost of incorporating Japanese-made parts. They’re correct in general, but their figure is misleading.

The US government has reportedly authorized 24 engine and radar components to be produced in Japan, accounting for about 10% of the plane’s value, and that number is expected to grow with additional approvals. Overall, IHI Corp. will manufacture 17 engine fan and turbine parts, while Mitsubishi Electric Corp. will produce 7 radar system components that include signal receivers. Parts for the rear fuselage, wings, and undercarriage will come from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and other Japanese contractors. That will help Japan gain important experience for its own stealth fighters, and build on the composites manufacturing expertise gained in its F-16-derived F-2 program. The government has reportedly budgeted YEN 83 billion (about $844.1 million) in FY 2013 for F-35 related industrial infrastructure, including new facilities at an MHI factory in Aichi Prefecture.

The problem is that Japanese firms will be manufacturing only for JASDF F-35s, sharply raising per-part costs. The 2 aircraft ordered in 2013 will be the first with Japanese parts, and are now budgeted at YEN 15 billion (see also Sept 6/12, now about $153.5 million) each. Japanese sources cite it as a jump from YEN 10.2 billion (+47%), but sources when the contract was signed cited YEN 9.6 billion. Which makes the new figure seem like an even bigger jump of 56.3%. The real jump? Just 27%. On June 29/12, the equivalent dollar value for YEN 9.6 billion was $120.9 million per plane. A jump to $153.5 million is only 27% in real terms.

Abe may be more hawkish than his predecessor, but running the money printing presses full-bore will make it much more expensive for him to execute on those promises. Sources: Asahi Shimbun, “Japan-made parts to push up price of F-35 fighter jets for ASDF” | New Pacific Institute, “Japanese Companies to Manufacture 10 percent of each of Japan’s F-35As”.

Aug 13/13: 22DDH & F-35. A New Pacific Institute blog post looks at the new 22DDH/ Izumo Class “helicopter destroyer,” and its suitability for F-35s. The author doesn’t believe the ship is very suitable, as it would require expensive modifications that include a new landing surface, much greater munitions storage, greater aircraft fuel capacity, and possibly even new aircraft elevators. A ski jump isn’t 100% necessary, but would be important for good performance. Even after all of those expensive modifications, F-35 carrying and servicing capacity would be very limited, and the pilots would need expensive naval aviation training. It might be a good “lily pad” to extend air defense range in the southern sectors if Japan ever buys (very expensive) F-35Bs, but that’s about it.

Bottom line? The ship’s design makes it better suited to the helicopter and disaster operations it’s publicly touted for, and those needs alone are likely to keep the ship busy. NPI, “Does the Izumo Represent Japan Crossing the “Offensive” Rubicon?”

June 21/13: Industrial. Lockheed Martin has signed an agreement with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. to begin work on a final assembly and check out (FACO) plant. Per Japan’s weapon export restrictions, it would only be used for Japanese orders, and Japan’s agreement will see the first 4 F-35As produced entirely at Lockheed Martin in the USA. Sources: Defense News, “Lockheed, Mitsubishi Sign F-35 FACO Deal”.

FACO

March 25/13: Long-lead. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $40.2 million fixed-price-incentive (firm-target), contract to provide long lead-time parts, materials and components required for the delivery of 4 Japanese F-35As, as part of Low Rate Initial Production Lot 8. See also June 29/12 entry.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is expected to be complete in February 2014. All funds are committed immediately, and this contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD, who is acting as Japan’s agent through the FMS process (N00019-13-C-0014).

Feb 15/13: Industrial. Jane’s reports that Mitsubishi Electric Corporation is no longer banned from bidding on Japanese military contracts, now that they’ve finished paying the National Treasury back for previous overcharges in defense and space contracts. The ban could have affected MEC’s planned involvement in providing avionics and other products to Japan’s F-35A fighter program.

2012

F-35A DSCA request and contract; How the F-35A won; The future of stealth debated. White Paper
(click to read)

Nov 9/12: Industrial. Japan may begin receiving F-35As by 2016, but local industrial participation faces a number of barriers, due to Japan’s 1967 arms export guidelines. Media reports say that current plans to allow participation in the multinational project, under amended arms export guidelines, wouldn’t lead to deliveries of Japanese F-35A avionics, or of exportable parts for the main wings and tails, before FY 2017.

Media reports are vague, but seem to indicate that Japanese F-35As might eventually reach 40% domestically manufactured content. Japan Today | Yomiuri Shinbun.

Sept 6/12: Bottakuri. More cost hikes for Japan, as defense officials Defense Ministry officials cite “lower production efficiency” as the reason its next 2 F-35As will be YEN 15.4 billion (about $195 million) per plane and initial spares. The initial budget was YEN 13.775 billion per plane for the first 4, which works out to an 11.8% increase.

The ministry is trying to find the full YEN 30.8 billion for the FY 2013 budget request, in order to cover the 2 fighters in it. The Japan Times.

July 2012: Why the F-35 won. The Japanese Ministry of Defense releases its “Defense of Japan 2012” White Paper. Among other things, it explains exactly why the F-35 won. All 3 contenders fulfilled all mandatory requirements, but the F-35 was rated as the overall winner based on the 2nd stage evaluation of capability, industrial participation, cost, and support. It’s difficult to tell whether the F-35A’s subsequent cost jumps would have changed this evaluation, if they had been admitted at the time. Based on what the government says it knew…

The F-35A was deemed to have the highest capability. This may seem odd for a plane with no exercise experiences or operational history, but the rating was done as a mathematical analysis, not a flyoff. Within the inputs that Japan received and believed, the F-35A scored highest overall, with a good balance of high scores across air interdiction, weapons and targeting, electronic warfare capability, and stealth target detection capability.

Eurofighter won the industrial participation segment with the highest level of domestic participation, but had a harder time keeping its local manufacturing proposals within Japan’s prescribed cost bracket. The clear inference is that Japanese Eurofighters would have cost more than other customers have paid.

The F/A-18E+ Super Hornet International was best for purchase cost, while the Eurofighter Typhoon had the lowest expected fuel expenses. The F-35A eked out a “Gilligan win” here by placing 2nd in both sub-categories, and by avoiding the need for “renovation expenses.” Japanese KC-767s don’t mount pod and drogue refueling systems, which is what the Eurofighter and Super Hornet require. The Lightning II uses the same dorsal aerial refueling system as existing JASDF fighters, which avoids the need for KC-767 or C-130H refits.

In terms of support and maintenance costs, the F-35A was given the highest score, due to its in-depth, fleet-wide ALIS maintenance and diagnostic system. Having said that, all 3 contenders proposed performance-based logistics (PBL) based on delivered availability, so all 3 scored the same.

June 29/12: Buy 4, for more. Officials from Japan’s defense ministry say that they have agreed to terms for their first 4 F-35As, despite a 9.1% price increase. The price hike was caused by American cuts, which have shifted 179 aircraft out of the order book over the next 5 years. The planes will reportedly cost 9.6 billion yen (about $120 million) each over the entire buy, up from the original plan of $110 million. American officials said they could not offer the Japanese a lower price than other partnership nations. That makes the Japanese contract a good bellwether for the real base cost of an F-35A in the near future.

Fortunately for the Japanese, the overall contract remained at the expected YEN 60 billion (about $752.4 million). The cost of the 2 simulators and other equipment dropped to YEN 19.1 billion ($240.83 million) from the expected YEN 20.5 billion. Defense News | Fort Worth Star Telegram | Reuters.

42 F-35As

May 1/12: F-35A DSCA request. May 1/12: The US DSCA formally announces Japan’s official request for an initial set of 4 Lockheed Martin F-35As, with an option to buy another 38 and bring the deal to 42 aircraft. “The Japan Air Self-Defense Force’s F-4 aircraft will be decommissioned as F-35’s [sic] are added to the inventory.”

The aircraft would come with Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engines, and Japan would also want up to 5 spare engines. Other components of the deal would include Electronic Warfare Systems, Reprogramming Center support to keep those EW systems current, additional software development and integration, a fight trainer system for the F-35, other forms for personnel training & equipment, transport to Japan, ALIS (Autonomic Logistics Information System) maintenance support systems, US government & contractor support that includes ALGS (Autonomic Logistics Global Support); and initial spare parts, technical data, tools & test equipment.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Japan involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, programs management, and training over a period of 15 years to conduct Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) and ALGS for after-aircraft delivery.

The estimated cost is $10 billion, which works out to $238.1 million per plane. Until a set of contracts are signed, it’s hard to split that accurately between purchase and support costs, and long support deals can add a lot to costs. Japan is also interested in considerably more local assembly than most of F-35 buyers, which is likely to add a number of unique costs of its own. Even so, the announcement has a ripple effect in Canada, where its huge cost per fighter draws a new round of questions about the plane. US DSCA [PDF] | Canada’s Postmedia.

F-35 request

April 2/12: Stealth’s future? A Japan Today article goes straight to the main military point at stake: the future effectiveness of stealth technologies:

“As more nations develop stealth fighters, then the use of radar as the main target acquisition device will be taken over by infrared, wake tracking, electro-optics, and radio/electronic chatter detection – thereby side-stepping radar stealth features – in short order.”

It’s a bit more complex than that, especially given the fact that stealth tends to be optimized for certain frequencies, so radars will still play a role. Still, the falling cost of high-bandwidth networking, and the need for a counter to stealth technologies, does suggest a range of countermeasures over the coming decades.

Feb 22/12: Negotiations. Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura conveys Japan’s determination to stick to agreed prices and supply schedules for Japan’s F-35s, after Japan’s Sankei newspaper cites unidentified US government officials as saying that Japan had threatened to cancel its orders if prices climbed.

“When we were selecting the fighter, we asked those making the proposals to strictly observe their proposed prices and supply schedules. Japan has conveyed this to the US from time to time…”

The question is whether this matters. Once a contract is signed, backing out becomes so difficult that for practical purposes, it’s impossible unless the price increases are wildly egregious. The time to back out is before any contract is signed. After that, the contract’s own structure and penalties must serve as a government’s insurance. Reuters UK.

2011

F-35A chosen as F-X; F-35 technical issues; China unveils J-20 stealth fighter prototype. F-35A: Winner.
(click to view full)

Dec 20/11: Winner! Japan’s Ministry of Defense announces that Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II has won the F-X competitive bid process for 42 planes. The initial contract will be for 4 F-35A jets in Japan Fiscal Year 2012, which begins April 1/12. Deliveries are expected to begin in 2016. Japan’s Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa reportedly said at a news conference that:

“…of the four parameters [performance, cost, industrial, and support], the most important was performance. When we think about our national security needs for our future fighters, we have to consider various security environments, and the movements and changes by various countries. In view of this we need to have a fighter that is capable of responding to these changing needs.”

The reported budget for Japan’s initial 4 planes is YEN 55.1 billion (about $706 million, or $176.5 million per plane and initial spares). Overall, the cost is expected to be YEN 9.9 billion (about $127 million) per plane, with spares. On the industrial side, a final assembly and checkout facility is expected in Japan, as well as work on components. Reports and documents indicate that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. will be involved in work on aircraft bodies, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. on mission-related avionics, and IHI Corp. on engines.

As F-4 replacements, the F-35As will have an air defense role, but Japan does have a large cadre of dedicated F-15Js to perform that mission. Note that there’s still an F-XX program in the future, aimed at replacing Japan’s F-15Js. Numbers as high as 100+ planes have been floated, but that will depend on both economic straits, and local geopolitical threats. Japan Ministry of Defense [ in Japanese] | Lockheed Martin | Pentagon | AFA Magazine | BBC | Bloomberg | The Diplomat: interview, and Flashpoints blog | Defense News | Gannett’s Navy Times | Reuters | UK’s Telegraph | Wahington Post | Yahoo!

F-35A wins

Dec 13/11: F-35 problems. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram and POGO obtain an internal Pentagon “Quick Look Review” dated Nov. 29, which says the F-35 is headed for serious technical troubles. The overlap between testing and production has been a sore point for the US GAO in particular, as significant changes due to failures revealed in testing will require expensive retrofits of produced fighters, along with the extra costs of changing future production. Even as operational aircraft were being bought, from June 2010 – November 2011 there were 725 change requests for the fighter, of which 577 are still not yet available to implement.

Major issues issues raised included unexpectedly severe shaking (“buffet”) during high-speed maneuvers, problems with the helmet system’s night vision display, and frequent failures of an important electrical component that can knock out power and affect both oxygen and cockpit pressurization. The team also expressed concern at the slow progress in developing and testing the plane’s combat roles, including “certain classified issues” that especially affect air defense performance. Star-Telegram | POGO.org, incl. full Quick Look Review | Australia’s Herald Sun | The Hill.

Nov 4/11: Super Hornet International. Boeing continues to discuss Super Hornet International designs. Not much has changed beyond earlier releases that noted improved F414 EPE engines, a large touch-screen panel, warning systems with 360 degree spherical coverage, and conformal fuel tanks to extend range. They do mention that the dorsal conformal fuel tanks will have a similar center of gravity to the aircraft, and that up to 3 weapon pods would be able to carry 4 x AMRAAM/ 2 x 500 pound/ 1 x 2,000 pound bomb each, while keeping the plane’s radar signature low. That’s in line with earlier reports, which touted 2 x AMRAAMs and 2 x 500 pound JDAMs per pod, but the 2,000 pound JDAM is new. So, too, is confirmation that the new design would have additional radar shaping to lower its cross section further.

With the Super Hornet out of contention in India, Japan appears to be the main target, though the Super Hornet is also being marketed to Brazil, Greece, Denmark, Kuwait, and Qatar, among others. Aviation Week.

Sept 26/11: F-X RFP submission deadline. Boeing confirms that it’s offering the F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet, which has also been exported to Australia. Boeing also makes the stealth-enhanced F-15SE design, but appears to have decided not to offer it.

Eurofighter GmbH submits the Eurofighter Typhoon, with BAE acting in a lead role. While the submission is described as “cost effective,” the firm is not explicit regarding the status of the submitted aircraft: new, or used.

Lockheed Martin is expected to submit the F-35A, but has made no announcement. Boeing | Eurofighter.

Mitsubishi F-2s
(click to view full)

April 13/11: RFP. Japan issues the Request for Proposal for its F-X fighter competition. Source.

F-X RFP

March 2/11: Eurofighter. During high level visits, British officials continue to press the case for the Eurofighter as Japan’s future F-X fighter, over offerings from Boeing (F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or F-15SE Silent Eagle) or Lockheed Martin (F-35A/B/C). One interesting wrinkle is that reconnaissance capabilities could become an important requirement, a move that would give the F-35 family an edge. BAE et. al. are fighting an uphill fight, but they’re not alone: in January 2011, the European Business Council in Japan launched a defense and security committee to promote defense-related business cooperation. Asahi Shimbun | Japan Times | L.A. Times.

Jan 18/11: China’s J-20. The Wall Street Journal reports that China’s unveiling of its J-20 stealth fighter has creates ripples in the region:

“Tom Burbage, general manager of the F-35 program for Lockheed Martin Corp., said Beijing’s progress in developing the J-20 has created a “stronger sense of urgency” throughout the Asian-Pacific region about air-force modernization. He said Japan, South Korea and Singapore are now engaged in bilateral discussions with U.S. government officials over the F-35… Mr. Burbage said the U.S. government has asked Lockheed to provide preliminary information on how it could build the Joint Strike Fighter with Japanese industrial input, building either major subcomponents or completing final assembly in Japan… on aircraft for its own military inventory.”

2008 – 2009

Efforts to buy the F-22 fail, Japan looks at other options. F/A-18F over CV-63
(click to view full)

Nov 23/09: F-35. In the wake of a FY 2010 American defense budget that ended F-22 production, while maintaining the ban on exporting the aircraft, Japan has been forced to look at other options. Kyodo news agency reports that Japan is considering buying 40 F-35s, and that the Japanese defense ministry is seeking fiscal allocation in the 2011 budget. According to media reports, the plane beat the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, F-15 Eagle variants, and EADS’ Eurofighter. The acquisition plan is likely to be incorporated in new defense policy guidelines and a medium-term defense plan to be adopted in December 2010.

The F-35s are estimated to cost YEN 9 billion (about $104 million) each; that’s a rather low figure, when compared to actual expenditures by the USA and Australia. If the reports are true, the critical question would become: what model of F-35? The F-35C’s longer range might suit Japan very well, while the F-35B’s ability to make use of highways and helicopter carriers would add a very interesting wrinkle indeed. Japan Today | Agence France Presse | domain-b | Times of India.

Oct 4-7/09: F-35. The Japan Times reports, and Jane’s confirms, that Japan is negotiating a requested payment of about YEN 1 billion (around $11 million), in order to receive “sensitive” information about the F-35’s capabilities. Japan wanted the F-22, and is reportedly still considering it; the government is also reportedly looking at the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault’s Rafale, Boeing’s stealth-enhanced F-15SE, and its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Japan Times adds that:

“It is rare for a country to be charged such a large sum for information on potential imports of defense equipment. The U.S. also told Japan that Washington will not provide information on the F-35’s radar-evading capabilities until Tokyo makes a decision to purchase it, the sources said.”

One wonders about the wisdom of that sales approach, if true.

July 31/09: F-22. The US House passes “H.R. 3326: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010” by a 400-30 vote. The final version strips out F-22 funding. As House members prepare for negotiations with the Senate on a single, final bill to send to the President, the amendment vote, and subsequent passage of HR 3326, effectively marks the end of the F-22 program. F-22 production will continue through remaining funded orders, and cease in 2011.

Both the House and Senate versions of the 2010 defense authorization bill require a report to study the potential for F-22A exports. The House version listed only Japan, while the Senate bill did not restrict the countries involved. Development work would be required before production, however, which creates real problems. While it’s theoretically possible to bridge that time gap by resurrecting the American program in future defense bills, the aircraft’s supply chain will stop producing certain parts, and begin losing the people associated with them, long before the final delivery in 2011. That makes a production line restart in 2013 or beyond a very difficult and expensive proposition for potential export customers like Japan. See also: Aero News.

F-22 program ended

June 5/09: F-22. Reuters reports that US Senate Appropriations Committee chair Senator Daniel Inouye [D-HI], has sent sent letters on the F-22 issue to Japanese ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki, and to American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Inouye reportedly supports repeal of the 1998 “Obey Amendment” that bans F-22 exports, and the USAF is also said to have decided to support exports to select countries. Reuters adds that there is even growing Congressional support to repeal the Obey Amendment in the face of North Korea’s stepped-up belligerence, and the prospect of significant job losses if F-22 production is closed per Gates’ FY 2010 budget. The exact quote from one of their sources is “…decent support, but it’s not a slam-dunk.”

The senator confirmed sending the letter, but would not discuss its contents. Reuters claims that the letter conveyed some conclusions from a recent USAF study, which placed the estimated cost of developing an F-22 Export version at about $250 million per plane, assuming a production run of 40-60 planes. The USAF study also reportedly assumed that production of an F-22EX would begin in 4-5 years, with delivery beginning in 7-9 years following a re-start of the F-22 production line.

That price tag is about $80-100 million above the cost of a more-capable F-22A. It factors in average costs per plane for production line restart, and for substituting and integrating replacements for components that the USA still does not wish to export. The final cost per plane could certainly end up being higher, if the development and integration program runs over budget. It could also be lower, but only if the substitution program meets projections and one of 2 things happens: (1) The production line is not shut down, due to Congressional appropriations over the next 3 years; and/or (2) More F-22EXs are bought to spread out the F-22EX program’s development and restart costs, via additional Japanese buys or by adding other countries as F-22EX customers.

May 19/09: F-22. A Japan Times article looks at the barriers to F-22 fielding on the Japanese side of the equation, and concludes:

“In sum, Japan’s acquisition of the F-22 would involve significantly increasing defense spending, rethinking the domestic production of weapons platforms and implementing a more robust legal and enforcement framework to protect classified information. Under current circumstances, these developments are not in the cards.”

Given that some of the F-22’s material/manufacturing methods are considered to be among its more sensitive technologies, domestic manufacturing in Japan is unlikely to be an option at all.

April 6/09: F-22. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announces his recommendation to terminate F-22 orders at the end of FY 2009, leaving the USA with a fleet of 187 aircraft.

F-15SE unveiled
(click to view full)

March 17/09: F-15SE. Boeing unveils the F-15SE “Silent Eagle,” which appears to be aimed directly at Japan. The aircraft has slightly canted vertical tails to improve aerodynamics and reduce weight, minimal additional radar shaping, the addition of coatings to improve radar signature further, and a pair of conformal fuel tanks with cut-in chambers for 2 air-to-air missiles each, or air-to-ground weapons like the 500 pound JDAM and 250 pound GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb. The tanks would be swappable for traditional conformal tanks if desired, and weapons could also be carried externally. BAE’s DEWS electronic self-protection system would be fitted, along with Raytheon’s AN/APG-63v3 radar that will equip all Singaporean F-15s and be retrofitted to the American fleet.

The intent appears to be to offer a “budget Raptor” in the $120 million range, with a basic radar signature that’s competitive with newer fighters like the similarly-priced Eurofighter Typhoon. Advantages would include better radar signature when internal carriage is used for long combat air patrols or limited precision strikes, a superior and proven AESA radar, longer range, and more total carriage capacity if necessary. On the flip side, it would not provide the same maneuverability options as canard equipped contenders like EADS’ Eurofighter or Dassault’s Rafale. The total package would come closer to parity with the SU-30MKI/M and subsequent versions of Sukhoi’s offerings, but may or may not measure up against longer-term opponents like Sukhoi’s PAK-FA or China’s J-XX. From Boeing’s release:

“Boeing has completed a conceptual prototype of the CFT internal-carriage concept, and plans to flight-test a prototype by the first quarter of 2010, including a live missile launch. The design, development, and test of this internal carriage system are available as a collaborative project with an international aerospace partner.”

That partner could also be Israel, which has now expressed interest in the F-15SE, and also made its own requests for F-22s.

Dec 28/08: F-22. Japan’s Daily Yomiuri newspaper reports that the country is likely to drop its attempts to buy F-22s, amid signs that U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s new administration may halt production of the aircraft.

Congress has yet to weigh in, however, and a consensus for continued production could easily change the odds for exports as well. Defense News report.

Oct 10/08: Eurofighter. Flight International’s “Eurofighter gets serious about Japan’s F-X contest” discusses political developments:

“If you had asked me a year ago, I would have said that the Typhoon did not have a chance due to the close US-Japan ties. I am no longer sure of that,” says a Tokyo-based industry source close to the Japanese defence ministry. “Washington’s continued refusal to release information on the [Lockheed Martin] F-22 has strained bilateral defence ties, and Japanese politicians and bureaucrats are eyeing the Typhoon as a viable alternative to the other American fighters that are on offer.”

Flight International’s sources indicate that Japan will make one more push in 2009, after the American elections. If that fails, it is likely to abandon efforts to secure the F-22, and move to buy other options.

July 16/08: Eurofighter. BAE executives interviewed at Farnborough discuss the Eurofighter’s opportunities with Japan if the USA refuses to sell that country F-22EX fighters. BAE says that is willing to share more of its technology with Japanese companies, establishing Japan as a so-called home market where it manufactures and sells products. Current BAE home markets include the U.K., the USA, Australia, South Africa, Sweden, Saudi Arabia.

The executive also mentions that BAE is looking hard at India and South Korea for future growth, adding that Defense spending in Korea will be greater than in the U.K. within 5 years. Bloomberg News.

2006 – 2007

Japan pushes for F-22, but is undermined by pro-China interests; USAF F-22As deploy to Kadena, Japan. F-22: Off to Kadena…
(click to view full)

Nov 15/07: F-22. The Lexington Institute’s quick brief “Asian Security: Japan Needs Better Tools To Do Its Part” weighs in, in favor of Japan’s case:

“The F-22 is the Air Force’s new top-of-the-line fighter, far superior to any other fighter in the world in its agility, survivability and versatility. It’s so capable that policymakers aren’t inclined to export it, even to trusted allies like Japan. But does that really make sense if Raptor is the plane best suited to protecting the Japanese home islands against cruise-missile attack or preempting a ballistic-missile launch by North Korea? It sounds like Washington is saying it wants Japan to play a bigger role in regional security, but with inferior weapons — or that the Japanese will have to depend forever on America to do the really tough missions… if we really want the Japanese to be partners in regional security, we should be willing to trust them with other top systems too — especially since they’re the one ally we have that isn’t inclined to export weapons.”

July 24/07: F-22. Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, said he has recommended that the F-22 Raptor not be sold to Japan. His comments came during a briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, and concern a new U.S. “capabilities assessment group” of Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Office of the Secretary of Defense and industry officials who are reviewing Japan’s fighter requirement. Defense News.

June 28/07: CRS on F-22. The US Congressional Research Service issues its report re: selling F-22EX aircraft to Japan (last revised: July 2/07). The report itself is completely non-committal, as it sketches out the options. While the USAF and defense industry are solidly behind the idea as a way to keep the F-22 production line alive, there is some opposition in Congress. Key paragraph:

“The executive branch proposes and Congress reviews arms sales on a case-by-case basis. The sale of F-22s to Japan raises both broad questions about the security environment in East Asia and questions that are specific to domestic interests. Factors that argue for a transfer include potential benefits to U.S. industry, contribution to the defense of allied countries, and promoting U.S. interoperability with those countries. Factors that argue against a particular arms transfer include the likelihood of technology proliferation and the potential for undermining regional stability.”

Increased Chinese capabilities and the need for a longer-range, twin-engine jet with the ability to take on modern SU-30 family jets is mentioned in the report body, but the military capability drivers are sidestepped and this is not highlighted as a key issue in favor. Japan’s policy of domestic production and license-building is mentioned in the document as a potential stumbling block, but it, too, is absent from the summary paragraph. CRS reports also tend not to present counter-arguments or responses to objections/contentions, as an attempt to remain “above” political debate. That tendency is also present here, and weakens the report as an analytical document. In a particularly interesting side note, however, the CRS report adds:

“A final industrial base issue pertains to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Although originally intended to be complementary aircraft, F-22 and JSF capabilities, development, and production have converged. Implicitly if not explicitly, these aircraft are competing for scarce procurement funds. Extension of F-22 production would likely bring these aircraft into even sharper competition.”

May 23/07: Given the Raptor’s top secret status, American trust in the purchasing country’s security levels and intentions is a significant part of any export decision. Israel’s past defense cooperation with China, for instance, which included sales like “Harpy” anti-radar drones without timely US notification, has created serious issues. It led to temporary suspension from Israel’s observer status in the F-35 program, and is also widely seen as a serious impediment to its current request for an export version of the F-22.

International espionage is a constant of international relations, and victimization is assessed differently; but sufficiently serious leaks can also have repercussions if they indicate a systemic problem, or happen at a high enough level.

Details are sparse, so it’s difficult to assess the true importance of recent developments in Japan. Reuters reports that classified data on the USA’s AEGIS naval radar/combat system, SM-3 missiles, and Link 16 tactical data net had been “leaked” in Japan. Local media said authorities believe that computer disks containing the classified data were illegally copied and circulated among dozens of students and instructors at a naval college in western Japan. The reports follow a police raid on Saturday of a naval college in western Japan over a “leak of data” in March 2007 when police found one of the disks at the home of a Japanese naval officer in Kanagawa during a separate investigation of his Chinese wife over her immigration status. AEGIS, SM-3 missiles, and Link 16 are all key nodes in Japan’s outer layer of its initial ABM defense system. Link from Taiwan’s China Post | Associated Press.

May 18/07: F-22. Bill Gertz, Washington Times: “Pro-China officials in the White House and Pentagon are quietly undermining Japan’s request to buy 50 advanced F-22 jet fighter-bombers, to avoid upsetting Beijing’s government, according to U.S. officials familiar with the dispute… Both the Air Force and the F-22 manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp., favor building an export version… The F-22 export is a major test of U.S. support for Japan and is being watched closely by Japanese government officials who are worried Washington will not back Tokyo and instead kow-tow to Beijing on the sale.”

April 30/07: F-22. Japan applies to buy fighter Australia rejects. The USA’s stated willingness to consider Japan’s F-22EX request re-ignites controversy in Australia, in the wake of the Australian government’s attempt to defuse the issue by maintaining that the USA will not sell the F-22 abroad.

April 27/07: F-22. Japan has yet to receive clearance for F-22EX fighters, but discussions are progressing. South Korea’s Yonhap news agency: “Seoul eyes advanced jets beyond F-15K” contends that the issue of F-22 exports to Japan will be under discussion during the imminent summit between U.S. President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The decision will be watched closely by South Korea, which also wants 5th generation fighter jets for its 3rd phase F-X purchase. An excerpt:

“China is modernizing its air force at a rapid pace,” said Dennis Wilder, senior director for East Asian Affairs at the White House National Security Council. “And so we are very positively disposed to talking to the Japanese about future-generation fighter aircraft.”

Japan has worked to improve its diplomatic and military relations with the USA, stressing its reliability as an ally and collaborating on sensitive technologies like missile defense. Hence the current situation, in which exports of the F-22 can be discussed with some odds of success. South Korea, which has made a very different set of choices, is unlikely to be received as positively.

April 20/07: F-22. Flight International reports that Israel has approached the USA about acquiring Lockheed Martin F-22s, as concern mounts about new threats to the IAF’s regional air superiority from proposed sales of advanced US weapons to the Gulf states, and Israeli assessments of a growing threat from Iran. Sources say that the issue was raised during a recent one-day trip by US defense secretary Robert Gates to Israel.

While unrelated to the Japanese request, and very uncertain for reasons of its own, the Israeli request raises both the pressure to create an F-22EX version, and the perceived market & benefits from doing so.

Feb 17-18/07: F-22. Kadena Air Force Base (AFB), Japan received 10 F-22A Raptors in the aircraft’s first overseas deployment. The F-22As are assigned to the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley AFB, VA, and are under the command of Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver. The aircraft started their deployment with a stop at Hickam AFB, Hawaii, but a software issue affecting the aircraft’s navigation system was discovered on February 11th, causing the aircraft to return to Hickam. The issue was corrected and the aircraft continued on to Kadena.

The 27th FS deployed more than 250 Airmen to Kadena for the 90-120 day deployment, which is part of a regularly-scheduled U.S. Pacific Command rotational assignment of aircraft to the Pacific. See USAF release.

Feb 11/07: F-22. The F-22A’s first foreign deployment, to Kadena Air Force Base (AFB) in Japan, runs into a serious problem. The aircraft started their deployment with a stop at Hickam AFB, Hawaii, but a software issue affecting the aircraft’s navigation system was discovered on February 11th, forcing the aircraft to return to Hickam without navigation or communications.

October 2006: wide spectrum of opinion in Australia (including the opposition Labor Party) is also pushing for an F-22EX request, based on arguments and strategic needs that are very similar to Japan’s. At the moment, however, the current Liberal Party government remains absolutely committed to the F-35A as its only future fighter force option.

September 2006: DID’s “Japan Looking to Expand Missile Defense & Military Spending” report looks at Japan’s current security situation, and political-economic shifts that may be very consequential for its defense market.

Feb 18/06: F-22. Inside Defense’s Air Force Plans to Sell F-22As to Allies offers a fuller discussion and analysis of Japan’s F-22 bid.

Footnotes

fn1. Reader Keith Jacobs informs DID that despite the JASDF listing of 7 F-1s in service, “The JASDF marked retirement of the F.1 with a six-aircraft flypast at Tsuiki Air Base (Kyushu) in 2006 (forgot actual date – but Feb or March if I remember correctly. They were aircraft of the 6th Hiko-tai (the final squadron unit). 6th Hiko-tai has now transitioned to F-2A and has its full complement of aircraft of the new fighter. JASDF also retired the last Fuji T-1B, assigned to the 5th Technical Training School and dispersed them to museums (as they did the T.3) from Komaki Air Base. “ The date of that retirement at Tsuiki was March 6/06.

Additional Readings Background: Japan’s Plans

• Japan Ministry of Defense – Defense of Japan. Annual white papers.

• Japan Ministry of Defense – Number of Major Aircraft and Performance Specifications. 2007 snapshot.

Background: Fighters

• DID – Eurofighter’s Future: Tranche 3, and Beyond

• DID – The F-35’s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy

• DID – Super Hornet Fighter Family MYP-III: 2010-2013 Contracts. Any Japanese purchase would fall under the US government’s multi-year purchase terms, and would effectively extend this production period.

• DID – Lockheed & Mitsubishi’s F-2 Fighter Partnership

News & Views

• New Pacific Institute, Japan Security Watch (Aug 13/13) – Does the Izumo Represent Japan Crossing the “Offensive” Rubicon? Conclusion: no.

• Aviation Week (Oct 22/12) – Japan Aims To Launch F-3 Development In 2016-17 [dead link]. See also News of Japan abridged version. Now known as “F-3” instead of “i3”, this would be a Japanese-designed stealth fighter as a follow-on to the F-35. Hence the importance of industrial offsets. If F-3 progresses slowly, opportunities open up for more F-35s.

• Bloomberg (Sept 2/11) – Lockheed Stealth Jet May Win Japan Deal. Speculative analysis. Suggests that stealth is a very important criterion for the Japanese.

• Aviation Week (June 11/09) – Boeing Studies Stealth Eagle Options [link now broken]. Interesting point made re: retrofits and stealth sales: “It’s not how low can you go, it’s how low are you allowed to go, and the U.S. government controls that,” says Brad Jones, Boeing program manager for F-15 future fighters. “We can get to different levels depending on the country.”

• Japan Times (May 16/09) – Hurdles to a Japanese F-22

• USA Today (July 12/07) – Japan may hold key to F-22’s future, thousands of jobs

• US Air Force Association Magazine (June 2006) – “Air Force Alliance” for the US and Japan. There have been major changes in the alliance over the last few years, as the level of cooperation between the 2 countries has grown by leaps and bounds.

In the last 24 hours, more information has come out on yesterday’s purge of the Baltic Fleet command structure. First of all, the size of the purge is unprecedented, with around 50 high ranking officers being removed, including squadron and brigade commanders. Second, it is highly unusual for removals of top military officials (or of any senior officials in present-day Russia) to be public and openly for cause, rather than officially being described as being for health reasons or because the individual(s) were ready to retire.

Clearly, for the purge to be so large and so open, the misconduct in the Baltic Fleet had to be very serious and very widespread. Yulia Nikitina and Irina Tumakova from Fontanka.ru have published a long article documenting the faults attributed to the fleet’s now-former leadership. The condition of the fleet under Viktor Kravchuk had supposedly declined when compared to how it was under his predecessors, who received much less financing than he did in the last four years.

Nikitina and Tumakova discuss unconfirmed rumors about a collision between the recently completed Krasnodar diesel submarine and a Polish vessel (variously described as either an intelligence collection ship or Poland’s single remaining Kilo submarine). They also mention the poor state of housing for Baltic Fleet officers and obvious failures during recent exercises, such as when a submarine that was towed out to sea started to emit smoke rather than submerging and had to be returned to pier for repairs.

But if that was the extent of the problems, the leadership change is unlikely to have been so broad or so public. The most likely cause for the way this purge has been carried out is corruption. As Nikitina and Tumakova note, back in 2012 Kravchuk was tasked with creating the Kaliningrad defense region, a large  joint military grouping that is to combine naval, aviation, and ground forces units under the command of the Baltic Fleet commander. At that time, Kravchuk was given command of strike aviation, air defense units, Iskander units (when located in Kaliningrad) and four infantry brigades that make up the 11th army corps.

The establishment of the 11th Army Corps required the construction of barracks, housing, and other facilities. The money that was allocated to these tasks was spent elsewhere or embezzled and the command proved to be unprepared to take in the additional troops. Furthermore, Kravchuk was known to have close ties with criminal “authorities” in Kaliningrad, including the “Amber baron” Viktor Bogdan, who, in addition to cornering the amber trade in the region seems to have also been involved in stealing diesel fuel from Baltic Fleet ships.

In other words, the Baltic Fleet purge appears to be a signal to other Russian military commanders (including mid-level ones) that corruption that has a negative effect on combat readiness will not be tolerated and will result in punishment far more severe than the usual honorable retirement given to senior officials who misbehave.

 

At 1500 on 30 June 2016, the final wave of aircraft from the European Air Transport Training (EATT) in Beja in Portugal took off as a ten aircraft package, to deliver tactical cargo and paratroopers as part of a simulated Composite Air Operation (COMAO).  For the last two weeks, twenty crews from Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom have trained, shared their experience, learned from each other and finally brought all of the different academic and practical training modules together into this complex COMAO mission, encompassing five different airlift platforms and supported by F-16s from the host nation.  

Colonel Jim Kolm, the Deputy Director of EATT2016, commented on the flying event, “I am delighted with the conduct of the training and the excellent support we have received from the staff here in Beja.  The annual EATT offers a unique and very realistic opportunity to train in both a multinational and a joint environment and we work hard to ensure it is beneficial to all of the contributing elements such as the paratroopers, ground engineers, Combined Air Terminal Operations (CATO) team, and aeromedical team as well as the aircrews themselves.”

EATT2016 has been a great success with almost 200 hours flown, around 90% of the training objectives completed and offering a unique opportunity to plan and execute missions in a truly multinational framework. The EATT finds its origin in a wider multinational framework: the 20-nation, European Air Transport Fleet (EATF) programme, which sponsors several other airlift activities and underlines the critical importance of Pooling and Sharing capabilities as a means to improve cooperation in European defence.
 

More information:

• News "Air transport community trains in Portugal" (30.06.2016)
• EATT16 factsheet
• European Air Transport Fleet project page
• Exercises & training project page

Length of video : 90'
You may manually download this video in WMV (833Mb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Length of video : 83'
You may manually download this video in WMV (762Mb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Three European C27J nations (Bulgaria, Italy and Romania) participate in the first edition of the Balkan Spartan exercise with the aim to increase interoperability among European C27J Spartan operators. The exercise, taking place from 29 June to 8 July in Sofia, Bulgaria marks the beginning of yet another deliverable from the European Air Transport Fleet (EATF) partnership signed in 2011 by twenty Member States.

Designed by the European Defence Agency (EDA) and hosted by the Bulgarian Air Force, this first-of-its-kind flying event is aiming at promoting aircraft user type approaches to harmonise tactics, techniques and procedures as well as to develop more cost-effective solutions to operate and sustain the C27J. The objective of Balkan Spartan is to provide air crews with both academic and flight training as well as to have ground crews developing harmonised procedures to eventually allowing them to perform cross maintenance on each other’s aircraft.  

This flying event was developed in the framework of the C27J cooperation concept launched in 2015 by EDA. This concept is looking at developing a far reaching level of interoperability amongst European C27J operators through a variety of projects in the areas of operations & training, logistics, airworthiness, common procurement and SESAR. In 2016 a similar working group has been created for the European C295 operators.

The main advantages of EDA’s user groups – that are working in full transparency and cooperate with all other existing user groups led by other organisations, industry and/or service providers – is to group medium and small national fleets to take advantage of economies of scale, to exchange best practices and to be more cost-efficient in operating and sustaining the aircraft.

 

Background information

The European Air Transport Fleet (EATF) partnership, launched in 2011 and now gathering 20 Member States (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SE, NO and HU), aims at increasing the airlift provision in the EU, developing concrete solutions to increase the efficiency of existing and future fleets and to optimise the use of air transport organisations and structures. Other activities undertaken as part of EATF include the European Air Transport Training (EATT) and European Advanced Tactics Training Course (EAATC) events as well as the European Air Transport Symposium.

 

Balkan Spartan: List of participating air forces and aircraft

• Bulgaria: 1 x C27J
• Italy: 1 x C27J
• Romania: 1 x C27J
• Slovakia: Personnel included in the multinational command & control
• Observer nations: Greece, Lithuania, Australia

 

More information

• European Air Transport Fleet project page

 

The European Defence Agency (EDA) has received so far 21 submissions in response to the “Call for Proposals for the Pilot Project on defence research” closed on 23 June.* The objective of the call is to award grant agreements for the value of almost €1.4 million for two technological development projects in the area of defence and one research and development project linked to certification for military and civil uses. Received proposals came from across Europe (twelve countries) and cover all of the aforementioned activities.

“The good number of proposals received shows the interest in the Pilot Project by SMEs, industry and R&T organisations. The Pilot Project – as a predecessor to the larger Preparatory Action for defence-related research – is an important test bed for funding of defence research through the EU budget. The European Defence Agency is looking forward to advancing the projects and to opening this new chapter in the way defence research is funded in Europe”, comments Jorge Domecq, Chief Executive of the European Defence Agency.

The Pilot Project has been entrusted to EDA by the European Commission through a Delegation Agreement which was signed on 16 November 2015. As a result, EDA is responsible for the execution and management of the projects. The call for proposals, the submission of proposals, the evaluation and the awarding of the grant agreement is organised and coordinated by EDA. 

The evaluation of the proposals will be conducted over the summer period with the objective to conclude the grant agreements before year end.

 

Background

Research in defence related technologies is critical for the development of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base and the strength and strategic autonomy of the EU Member States armed forces. The European Commission, in agreement with the European Council, will launch a Preparatory Action on defence research, which will start in 2017 and last for three years. Its aim is to test and prepare the ground for a possible defence research programme in the next Multiannual Financial Framework. The Pilot Project has been introduced in the EU budget (2015 and 2016) adopted by the European Council and the European Parliament, on the basis of an initiative of the latter.

The EDA published the Call for proposals for the Pilot Project in March 2016. The deadline to respond was on 23 June 2016 and the three activities covered are relating to Unmanned Heterogeneous Swarm of Sensor Platforms, Inside Building Awareness and Navigation for Urban Warfare and Standardisation of Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Detect and Avoid (DAA).”

* More submissions might be received in the coming days by post.

 

More information:

• News "EC and EDA sign agreement on defence related research" (18 Nov 2015)

A delegation from the International Criminal Court (ICC) is planning to visit Afghanistan in 2016, but the government has hesitated about receiving it. It has established an inter-ministerial committee to ensure the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC, is finally translated into local languages and published in the official gazette so that the public can read it. That treaty was signed 13 years ago. The committee has also been trying to ensure the ICC will not be trying any Afghan cases. AAN’s Ehsan Qaane takes a closer look at where Afghanistan and the ICC are on prosecuting war crimes.

Afghanistan deposited its ratification of the Rome Statute on 10 February 2003 and it entered into force on 1 May 2003. Only crimes committed in Afghanistan or by Afghans after this date can be prosecuted by the ICC. Four years later, in 2007, the ICC began a preliminary examination of the situation in Afghanistan. The process has been very slow, largely because of a lack of resources – including relevant language resources – within the court. However, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the ICC did publish five preliminary examination reports between 2011 and 2015. The first three, published between 2011 and 2013, focus largely on whether crimes falling under the ICC’s jurisdiction, namely war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide had been committed in Afghanistan. The last two reports (2014 and 2015) focus mainly on questions of admissibility – at whether crimes are grave enough for the ICC to be involved, whether crimes are being tackled by Afghanistan’s own judiciary and whether it would be in ‘the interests of justice’ for an ICC intervention (find the reports here).

The Rome Statute, crimes and Afghanistan

The findings of the Situation Analysis Section of the Office of the Prosecutor, published in the preliminary examination reports, show that two types of crimes against humanity and seven types of war crimes have been committed in Afghanistan since 1 May 2003:

• Murder, as a war crime under article 8(2)(c)(i) and as a crime against humanity under article 7 (1) (a) of the Statute;
• Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of the fundamental rules of international law as a crime against humanity under article 7 (1) (e) of the Statute;
• Cruel treatment under article 8(2)(c) (i) or outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime under article 8(2)(c)(ii);
• The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court as a war crime under article 8(2)(c)(iv);
• Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, materials, units or vehicles involved in humanitarian assistance as a war crime under article 8(2)(e)(iii);
• Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to education, cultural objects, places of worship and similar institutions as a war crime under article 8(2)(e)(vii);
• Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years of age into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities as a war crime under article 8(2)(e)(vii); and
• Treacherously killing or wounding a combatant adversary as a war crime under article 8(2) (e) (ix).

A closer look at the crimes and alleged criminals

The ICC can only prosecute individuals, not institutions, as article 25 of the Rome Statute states:

“The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural person pursuant to this Statute. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.”

Indeed, during the preliminary examination stage, the Office of the Prosecutor analyses the available information regarding a situation (or a case) to determine whether there is any “reasonable basis” (article 15, Rome Statute) to launch an investigation into an alleged crime. The Office of the Prosecutor is not tasked with attributing alleged crimes to any individual at this stage. For example, in Afghanistan’s case, the Office of the Prosecutor reports have so far only attributed potential crimes to parties of the conflict, which it sees as:

1) Pro-government forces that include Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and their international partners under the umbrella of ISAF, and, more recently, the Resolute Support Mission (RSM).

2) Anti-government forces such as the Taleban, the Haqqani network and Hezb-e Islami (led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar).

Anti-government forces are accused of all nine of the crimes mentioned above. Pro-government forces have been accused of torture, only. The Office of the Prosecutor singled out the Afghan National Police (ANP) and the National Directorate of Security (NDS) (see here), as well as the CIA and the US military.

The ICC examined the killing and wounding of civilians by pro-government forces, but the Office of the Prosecutor said it could not attribute the crime of murder to them:

The information available does not indicate that civilian deaths or injuries caused by air strikes launched by pro-government forces, as well as escalation-of-force incidents and “night raids”, resulted from the intentional directing of attacks against the civilian population. Accordingly, the information available does not provide a reasonable basis to believe that the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(i) has been committed by pro-government forces.

Assessment of admissibility

In order for cases to be admissible for the ICC they need to meet three conditions (Rome statute: see here, articles 17 and 53). Two of these, the Office of the Prosecutor believes, have been fulfilled in the case of Afghanistan and it is looking into the third:

• The gravity threshold

According to available information in public sources and 112 communications which the ICC has directly received from victims and other individuals and organizations, the Office of the Prosecutor confirmed the seriousness and widespread nature of the nine above-mentioned crimes:

Between 2007 and 2014, approximately 37,000 civilian casualties (14,700 deaths and 22,300 injuries) have been attributed to anti-government armed groups, primarily from their use of improvised explosive devices. Many alleged crimes were committed with the aim to terrorise and spread fear among the local civilian population, as a means of control… There are an estimated 5,000 conflict-related detainees in Afghan government custody. The manner in which the crimes are alleged to have been committed appears particularly gruesome and was seemingly calculated to inflict maximum pain. The alleged crimes had served short-term and long-term impacts on detainees’ physical and mental health, including permanent physical injuries. (Related to international forces in particular to USA forces) The information available suggests that victims were deliberately subjected to physical and psychological violence, and that crimes were allegedly committed with particular cruelty and in a manner that debased the basic human dignity of the victims.

• No national prosecution: government unable and/or unwilling

Once a crime covered by Article 5 of the Statute – namely genocide, a war crime or crime against humanity – has been determined as having been serious or widespread in nature, there is no impunity and the most responsible perpetrator(s) must be prosecuted either by a national court or by the ICC. The ICC has complementary jurisdiction over these crimes. This means the country’s judiciary is authorised to address these crimes first. However, if it is unable or unwilling to do so, then the ICC can claim jurisdiction. A member state can transfer its jurisdiction to the ICC by requesting its intervention; alternatively, the ICC can initiate, by proprio motu (Latin for ‘own initiative’), jurisdiction if a member state is unable or unwilling to prosecute the alleged crime (article 13, Rome Statute). The Office of the Prosecutor must establish the unwillingness or inability of the Afghan government to prosecute these crimes before the ICC can launch an investigation.

So far, Afghanistan has not referred any cases to the ICC. Neither have the five preliminary examination reports cited any of the perpetrators of the most serious crimes as having been tried by either a national court or by one of the country’s international partners providing military support to the Afghan government. Only a few cases of torture have been looked into by national courts, but these were mostly administrative enquires rather than criminal proceedings, or considered only lower-level alleged perpetrators; none of the main perpetrator(s) have been subject to investigation.

The Government [of Afghanistan] has instituted only a limited number of proceeding against alleged perpetrators (see here). Despite the scale of alleged ill-treatment in NDS and ANP detention facilities (an estimated 35-51% of conflict-related detainees according to the finding of UNAMA’s detention monitoring program (see here), information provided by the government of Afghanistan to UNAMA indicates that to date the Government has prosecuted only two NDS officials (in relation to one incident), and no ANP officials, for this conduct.

In its fifth report, published in 2015, the Office of the Prosecutor discussed Afghanistan’s Amnesty Bill (see AAN’s Transitional Justice paper), which the Afghan parliament passed in 2007. The Office of the Prosecutor identified this law as a sign of unwillingness on the part of the government to prosecute war crimes or crimes against humanity committed by anti-government forces, notably by former warlords or insurgents who put down their weapons and joined the government after 1 May 2003.

The Law on Public Amnesty and National Stability provides legal immunity to all belligerent parties including those individuals and groups who are still in opposition to the Islamic State [sic] of Afghanistan, without any temporal limitation to the Law’s application or any exception for international crimes (see here).

Additionally, crimes covered by the Rome Statute have not been criminalized by the Afghan government and the country’s judiciary organs are incapable of addressing these complicated types of crime.

The example of Sarwari, former head of KhAD

An example of the Afghan judiciary’s inability to try crimes that fall under the Rome Statute is the case of Asadullah Sarwari, head of the intelligence service directorate (KhAD) during the communist PDPA regime. He was arrested on 26 May 1992 by the mujahedin who had just captured Kabul and accused of ‘plotting against the mujahedin government’. He was tried, however, only in 2005. A judge familiar with the trial said Sarwari was accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes, but as these had never been criminalised under Afghan law, he was tried according to article 130 of the Afghan constitution, which refers to the Hanafi Sharia law of Islam (anyway, when Sarwari committed his crimes, Afghanistan had not signed the Rome Statute so they were outside its temporal jurisdiction). Sarwari was found guilty, but of what crime exactly still remains unclear.

Sarwari’s case also demonstrated how far Afghanistan’s judges are influenced by powerful people. One of the plaintiffs in the case was Sebghatullah Mujaddedi, mujahedin factional leader and president of the first post-PDPA, mujahedin government in 1992, and still a prominent figure. Members of his family were forcibly disappeared or killed by KhAD under Sarwari. According to one of the case judges, Mujaddedi has rejected all punishments for Sarwari except capital punishment. However, the evidence against Sarwari is not strong enough to merit capital punishment. The standoff has led to the case never being resolved. After almost eleven years, it is still ongoing even though the Afghan Criminal Procedural Code states that proceedings may not take longer than eleven months in total. It is also unclear at which stage the case is at the moment.

Another challenge for the Afghan judiciary when trying members of insurgent groups such as the Taleban, is their vulnerability to retribution. Judges and prosecutors are often targeted by insurgents, which, of course, impacts their willingness and ability to try war crimes. After the execution of six convicted terrorists in May 2016, for example (five Taleban, including two members of the Haqqani network, and one member of al Qaeda (see AAN reporting here)), the Taleban threatened the judges and prosecutors. They then followed up with three attacks on Afghan courts and members of the judiciary: against the personnel of the Maidan Wardak Appeals Court on 31 May, against the Ghazni Appeals Court on 1 June and against the Logar Appeals Court on 5 June 2016. During these attacks, a total of 22 civilians, at least half of them judges and prosecutors, were killed and 37 other civilians were wounded.

• The ‘interests of justice’

The third issue considered by the Office of the Prosecutor is whether an ICC intervention would serve justice. According to articles 17 and 53 of the Rome Statute, an intervention in Afghanistan would have to be supported by the victims of the alleged crimes. Although none of the five published reports has said anything about the willingness of victims to have their cases prosecuted, the last report said information to this end is in the process of being gathered and analysed. In the same paragraph, it is also stated that Afghanistan is at a stage where it could turn to the Pre-Trial Chamber, the body in charge of resolving all issues arising before a trial phase can begin which supervises the Office of the Prosecutor in its investigatory and prosecutorial activities. The Office of the Prosecutor must gain authorization to open an investigation. It could now request this as its findings show war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed and there has not been prosecution of alleged criminals by national courts.

The Office [of the Prosecutor] will also continue to gather information relevant to the assessment of whether there are substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice prior to making a decision on whether to seek authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber to open such an investigation of the situation in Afghanistan.

According to articles 15 and 57, once the Office of the Prosecutor feels there is a “reasonable basis” to warrant belief that crime(s) covered in the Statute have been committed and the ICC has admissibility to investigate, the Office must request the Pre-Trial Chamber for authorization to open an investigation into the case.

In the last report issued in December 2015, the Office of the Prosecutor mentioned that, following a decision taken in October that year, it intended to send a delegation to Afghanistan to conduct admissibility assessments. The report said the trip had not yet taken place due to, “the non-permissive situation in the country.” According to information AAN received from a source within the Office of the Prosecutor, the ICC asked the government of Afghanistan to issue visas for the members of this delegation, but that this had been delayed – reportedly, because the government wanted time to prepare for the visit and to define its strategy for interacting with the ICC delegation once it arrived in Kabul.

The inter-ministerial committee prepares for the ICC visit

The National Security Council (NSC) decided in January 2016 to establish a high-level, inter-ministerial committee, led by Second Vice-President Sarwar Danish, (1) to investigated the purpose of the ICC visit and prepare for it. It was to consult with international partners who provided military support regarding their position on the ICC request to send a delegation. Apart from defining its strategy for working with the ICC, the committee had two further tasks: first, the translation of the Rome Statute into the local languages, Dari and Pashto, and publication of the translated law in the official gazette and; second, collect all cases relevant to the Rome Statute (if any) that Afghanistan had prosecuted (see here). The inter-ministerial committee established a technical sub-committee consisting of qualified, mid-level officials which had six months (January to June 2016) to carry out these four tasks, at which point they must submit their findings and recommendations for review and approval to the inter-ministerial committee. The technical sub-committee has almost completed its tasks (see below) and is expected to submit its findings to the committee soon.

Cases prosecuted in Afghanistan

A member of the technical committee, who asked not to be named, told AAN on 1 June 2016 that the purpose of collecting information on cases relevant to the Rome Statute that have been prosecuted in Afghanistan was “to show to the ICC the willingness of Afghanistan to prosecute the alleged crimes, which are under cover of the Rome Statute.” He added that it was “impossible to develop the capacity of the Afghan judicial organs in one night, but still we can show our willingness.” His point was that the government is trying to convince the ICC that it is indeed willing, but that the national judiciary have lacked the capacity to effectively address crimes falling under the Rome Statute.

Of the three bodies involved (Attorney General’s Office, Ministry of Interior and Supreme Court), only the Attorney General’s Office has presented a list of cases. It compiled a list of 54 cases of torture (including conflict-related and non-conflict related detainees and prisoners’ cases), based on the work of a special governmental committee that had been established by President Karzai in 2013 as part of the verification of a UNAMA report. The report, published on 22 January 2013, claimed torture had taken place in Afghan detention centres (see the report here). (See AAN reporting here and here. According to a source from the technical committee who spoke to AAN on 30 May 2016, only two out of the 54 cases have been investigated by the Attorney General’s Office, so far. The same source confirmed that the Supreme Court had submitted a letter to the technical sub-committee stating that it could find no cases related to the Rome Statute. The Ministry of Interior has shared no information to date.

Translation and publication of the Rome Statute

13 years after it went into effect in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs finally translated the Rome Statute into Dari and Pashto and, on 30 May 2016, sent it to the Ministry of Justice to have it published in the official gazette. This was only decided by the inter-ministerial committee on 23 January 2016. According to the current Afghan constitution, any international treaty or agreement signed by Afghanistan has to be published in the official gazette following approval by the parliament, with the documents being translated into Dari and Pashto. Technically, the Afghan government was obliged to publish the Rome Statute in 2004 at the latest. However, the statute was signed before the current constitution was approved by the Constitutional Loya Jirga on 13 December 2003, so, at the time of signing, it did not require the approval of parliament (which had not yet been established). Nonetheless, it should still have since been translated and published.

Due to the lack of a translated version of the Rome Statute in local languages, even one of the nine Supreme Court judges and the then-acting head of the Attorney General’s Office, Habib Jalal, (this was before Farid Hamidi’s appointment as Attorney General on 7 March 2016) had been unaware of Afghanistan’s ICC membership (this, according to a source at the NSC whom AAN spoke to May 2016, Habib Jalal). In fact, according to a source in the technical sub-committee, one of the reasons for creating the inter-ministerial committee prior to issuing visas to the ICC delegation was to give information to relevant officials about Afghanistan’s obligations under the Rome Statue.

What were the responses of Afghanistan’s international partners?

Once the ICC announced its intention to visit Afghanistan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked NATO members involved in Afghanistan about the nature of their relationship with the ICC. Feedback, including that from the US, was overall positive, a source in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told AAN. However, when the US and Afghanistan signed the Bilateral Security Agreement (see AAN’s analysis on BSA here), as when it signed the earlier Status of Forces Agreement (2003), (2) Kabul agreed neither to prosecute American soldiers, nor hand them over to a third party for the prosecution of war crimes.

Article 98 of the Statute states that a member state is not responsible for arresting or transferring foreign suspects whose country of origin the member state has an international agreement with banning such an arrest or transfer (3). In other words, Kabul is not bound to violate the 2015 Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) and hand over any US national accused of war crimes to the ICC. However, the ICC can still prosecute US soldiers for alleged crimes committed on Afghan territory after 1 May 2003, despite the BSA and the fact that the US is not a member of the ICC. The ICC can still request the US or any of the ICC’s State Parties to arrest perpetrators who are suspected of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity, and send them to the ICC detention centre in The Hague.

Developing the regulation for the implementation of the Rome Statute

Part Nine of the Rome Statute, International Cooperation and Judicial Assistance, states that state parties must assist the ICC in any way and at any stage of the investigation, prosecution, trial or implementation of a sentence. Therefore, the newly established inter-ministerial committee has also been tasked with developing a regulation or a law to legalize Afghan interaction with the ICC in its future work. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), a member of the committee, is in charge of this task. Developing a regulation or law on such a delicate matter needs a lot of work – and the subcommittee only had six months to finish its tasks. Hussain Moin, who is in charge of developing the regulation, told AAN on 25 May 2016, that the committee had just started on this task. Due to this, the technical committee decided on 24 May 2016 to submit its findings in a report to the inter-ministerial committee and to ask for more time in drafting the regulation or law.

The inter-ministerial committee decided on 23 January 2016 to develop a regulation, but some members are lobbying for a law instead. AAN was told by someone present at the January NSC meeting that figures such as Minister of Foreign Affairs Salahuddin Rabbani, who are not happy with the intervention of the ICC, want to postpone the ICC delegation’s visit. Approval of a law would require more time than a regulation, as a law requires the approval of the Afghan parliament while a regulation just needs the nod of the Afghan cabinet. The same source said that Rabbani presented three arguments for delaying the visit. The first was that cooperation with the ICC would destroy whatever trust existed between the Government of Afghanistan and the Taleban. At the time, the Quadrilateral Cooperation Group, QCG, on Afghan Peace Talks and Reconciliation was still active. However, this argument lost its strength on 25 April following a presidential speech in which Ghani, while not closing the door to negotiations, said fighting the Taleban had to take priority (see AAN’s dispatch). Rabbani’s second reported argument was that the ICC visit would damage the relationship between the government and its international partners (ie the US) fighting in Afghanistan against the insurgency, who are mentioned in the ICC’s preliminary examination reports. Thirdly, he said it would make the mujahedin more suspicious of the National Unity Government (the two are not mutually exclusive, of course) as they might fear prosecution. It seems there may be a misunderstanding about the ICC’s temporal jurisdiction here. It seems Rabbani may have thought the ICC could investigate pre 2003, Taleban, mujahedin and PDPA-era crimes. Salahuddin Rabbani is now leader of one of the main parties to the conflict during these eras, Jamiat-e Islami, and his late father, Burhanuddin Rabbani, was its leader for decades until his death in 2011.

What is next for the ICC in Afghanistan?

Based on the Office of the Prosecutor reports, war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed on Afghan territory since 1 May 2003. The Office is trying to launch an investigation in order to prosecute such crimes. It believes the crimes are serious and widespread and that the Afghan state has proved unwilling or unable to try them. It is looking into whether an ICC intervention would be in the interests of justice. Before any intervention, it would also have to obtain authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC. For the purpose of an admissibility assessment, the Office of the Prosecutor wants to send a delegation to visit Afghanistan in 2016. However, the government has postponed issuing visas until it has received the inter-ministerial committee’s findings on the consequences of the ICC’s intervention in Afghanistan. The committee had six months to finalize its work. One difficult and time-consuming task remains, which is the drafting of a regulation formalising Afghan government relations with the ICC. With the committee out of time at the end of June, it is unclear as to how this can be accomplished and, consequently, when the ICC might visit Afghanistan.

 

 

(1) The Ministry of Interior, Ministries of Defense, Foreign Affairs and Justice, the NDS, Attorney General’s Office, the Supreme Court and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) all have representatives on the committee.

(2) The 2003 Status of Forces Agreement said:

The Government of Afghanistan recognizes the particular importance of disciplinary control by United States military authorities over United States personnel and, therefore, Afghanistan authorizes the United States Government to exercise criminal jurisdiction over United States personnel. The Government of Afghanistan and the Government of the United States of America confirm that such personnel may not be surrendered to, or otherwise transferred to, the custody of an international tribunal or any other entity or state without the express consent of the Government of the United States.

(3) Article 98 of the Statute says:

1) The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.

2) The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender, which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.

 

Today, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that the commander (Vice Admiral Viktor Kravchuk) and chief of staff (Rear Admiral Sergei Popov) of the Baltic Fleet were both fired for cause, as were several other unnamed senior officials at the fleet. This was the largest mass replacement of senior naval officials in the Russian Navy since the Soviet period. The official statement indicated that the removal was the result of serious shortcomings in the officers’ work that were revealed in a month-long review of the fleet’s performance that concluded on June 10. The official notice highlighted “serious shortcomings in organizing combat training, daily activities of their units, poor care of their subordinates as well as misrepresenting the real situation in their reports.”

Although Kravchuk has his defenders, it appears that his removal  was the result of real shortcomings, although combined with external factors that made his removal relatively easy to carry out. Ilya Kramnik and Konstantin Bogdanov have done some very interesting reporting on this subject. They argue that these shortcomings include the unsatisfactory performance of Baltic Fleet minesweepers during exercises that took place in August 2015, combined with a low level of combat readiness among the fleet’s newest ships. The fleet’s four Project 20380 Steregushchiy class corvettes have not deployed to the Mediterranean Sea or Indian Ocean a single time in the nine years since the first of the ships was commissioned into the fleet. Furthermore, the ships have had more than their share of accidents and fires.

In addition to questions about the fleet’s combat readiness, the commanders were also criticized for inadequate living conditions for personnel stationed at the fleet’s bases. The commanders were given until this spring to correct the problems in both areas, and today’s announcement shows that the recently completed review found them still wanting.

Kravchuk’s enforced departure was smoothed by the replacement last winter of the Commander of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, who was removed in November 2015 officially because of health concerns. Chirkov, who had been Kravchuk’s patron in the navy for many years, was rumored to have also been removed due to complaints about inadequate readiness in some units — in his case naval infantry and support ships. These problems had come to a head because of increased requirements related to the Syrian Express operation for supplying Syrian and then Russian troops in Syria with military equipment.

Kramnik and Bogdanov note that although problems at the Baltic Fleet may have been particularly noticeable, they do not differ that much from problems evident in Russia’s other fleets. The reason that the leadership of the Baltic Fleet was chosen may be more a factor of the fleet’s relative lack of importance in present-day Russian operations. Therefore, today’s announcement may also serve as a warning to the commanders of the other fleets that they need to improve their work or face similar consequences.

 

Chinese Luhai Class Guided Missile Destroyer

Americas

• The MQ-8B deployed on board USS Coronado (LCS-4) is the first to be equipped with the new AN/ZPY-4(V)1 radar. Previously, the unmanned helicopter was fitted with the RDR-1700 maritime surveillance radar under an urgent requirement. Compared to the previous radar, the AN/ZPY-4(V)1 will increase the search area of the LCS, improving the ability to simultaneously track up to 150 targets and increase detection accuracies out to 70 nautical miles.

Africa

• Gabon is considering doubling the size of its transport fleet by revamping an early B model C-130. The 1976-built aircraft (TR-KKB) is currently at the Alverca facility of Portuguese maintenance and overhaul specialist OGMA, following its recovery from the African state after being grounded for eight years. OGMA has now sent a proposal to the government for upgrades which would see the installation of new avionics and a glass cockpit, as well as the replacement of several structural parts, including outer wing-caps and the 6m (19.7ft)-long sloping longerons at the rear of the aircraft.

Middle East North Africa

• After several months of frosty relations, Turkey and Russia have resumed bilateral ties including coordination on the fight against terrorism. Tensions between Ankara and Moscow have been high since the former’s shooting down of a Russian fighter accused of invading Turkish airspace last November. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan expressed regret for the incident on Wednesday and the Kremlin announced that Vladimir Putin said he would order the government to start talks with Turkey on resuming “mutually advantageous” trade relations and to drop restrictive measures on Russian tourists visiting Turkey.

Europe

• Germany’s Ministry of Defense has reached an agreement with Israel Air Industries (IAI) over the lease of five Heron TP unmanned aerial vehicles. The $666 million deal will see the drones become operational in 2018. A previous deal to lease drones to Germany was specifically intended for aerial intelligence-gathering missions; however, the Heron’s are capable of carrying payloads of up to one ton.

• An investigation by Norwegian authorities into an Airbus helicopter crash in April has found that the incident was probably the result of metal fatigue in the aircraft’s gearbox. All 13 people on board were killed when the Super Puma’s main rotor blades separated from the aircraft as it was ferrying passengers from a Norwegian offshore oil platform operated by Statoil. Previous Super Puma incidents linked to gearbox problems include a 2009 crash off Peterhead, Scotland, in which the rotor also flew off and 16 people died.

• BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and the Defence Electronics and Components Agency (DECA) are to team up to bid for a significant long-term deal to become the avionics sustainment hub for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in Europe. The UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the involvement of BAE and Northrop Grumman, but declined to say anything about whether DECA, the British state-owned components repair operation, would have a role; however, due to US government insistence, some avionics repairs on the jet here are only undertaken by UK government employees.

Asia Pacific

• The US Army has awarded a number of contracts to companies for the Afghanistan Intelligence Services supporting US Forces in Afghanistan. BAE Systems and Six3 Intelligence Solutions were given $31 million and $28.6 million deals respectively with work to be carried out in Afghanistan, and will last until January 9, 2017.

• Four types of aircraft operated by the Indian Air Force are to receive the latest version of Rafael’s Litening targeting pod as part of a larger $500 million deal between India and Israel. The improved system has been equipped with upgraded infrared cameras and a charge-coupled device color camera to help identify targets on the ground, particularly in dense areas. Furthermore, the new pod doubles as a surveillance and reconnaissance system in addition to being a targeting pod.

Today’s Video

• VMA-211 is set to become the second operational F-35B squadron and the first unit to transition from the AV-8B Harrier on Jun. 30:

Prevailing approaches to security sector reform (SSR) have tended to stress Westphalian notions of the state characterized by legal-rational norms and institutions. Thus, SSR processes have more often than not concentrated on the formal arrangements of the state and its security and justice institutions. Yet, such approaches are fundamentally at variance with the underlying realities of

More than 70 representatives from Member States, industry and EU institutions gathered on 28 June for the workshop “Opportunities for Dual-Use Technologies – Components” organised by the European Defence Agency, the European Commission, the ECSEL JU.

The aim of the event was to find areas of cooperation and to pave the way for possibilities for dual-use research in the future.

Khalil Rouhana, Director in the European Commission, opened the workshop by presenting snapshots of the Commission’s ambitions in the electronic field. Through dual-use research, we can make sure we have technology autonomy in Europe and industrial autonomy for the future. Denis Roger, EDA Director, underlined that the workshop will strive to have a better understanding of activities which can be jointly explored, believing that “better exploitation of dual-use synergies can bring a win-win situation for all stakeholders”. He addressed the issue of the fading borderline between civil and defence and stressed that “more cooperative investment and clear prioritisation in resource allocation is a must for defence”. Bert de Colvenaer, Executive Director ECSEL-JU, presented the joint undertaking’s role in investing in knowledge and innovation through its PPP-model.

The projects presented during the workshop showed success stories of electronic components research from each of the three institutions. The main technological areas addressed were thermal management and robustness, RF components, III-V technologies and advanced digital components. Key takeaways from the discussions in the three sessions of the workshop were: the importance of developing value chains, ensuring supply, quality, appropriate business approaches, volume considerations, EU funding and support towards industry. In the panel “dual-use, dual-benefits”, representatives from the UK MoD, STM, DG GROW and ESA outlined the dual-use spin-off benefits, spin-in technologies, unique European assets and the role of innovative SMEs.

The most important conclusion of the event was that exploiting synergies are highly necessary. Panagiotis Kikiras, Head of Innovative Research at the EDA, highlighted the perfect timing of this discussion in the context of the upcoming EU Global Strategy and European Defence Action Plan. Recognising the effort of the EC, EDA, and ECSEL communities as well as the need to further raise awareness on the subject, Willy Van Puymbroeck, EC, concluded that: “We need to seed in order to harvest but we have to dare to harvest the work that is being done.”