buglerbilly
20-09-10, 12:50 PM
France, U.K., U.S. Work Strategy, Doctrine, Systems
By JOHN REED and PIERRE TRAN
Published: 20 September 2010
The air forces of Britain, France and the U.S. are looking at ways to work more closely together by cooperating on strategy and doctrine - and future systems - at their most senior levels.
"I have a French officer and a British officer in my [strategic studies group], and we have exchanged with them and this will continue going forward," said Gen. Norton Schwartz, the U.S. Air Force chief of staff. "We will collaborate on how the best air forces in the world mix and match their capabilities for the best defense."
French Air Force chief of staff Gen. Jean-Paul Palomeros echoed Schwartz.
"The idea is to reflect together on the concept of the future air force and benefit from lessons learned in the operational theater," Palomeros said. "We have a lot in common. We want to think together on the lessons learned in Afghanistan, lessons from history and operations. It's a coalition of good will."
Each of the three air forces - which have cooperated closely since World War I, most recently in Afghanistan - has established strategic studies groups (SSGs) staffed by officers from each country. The three also have well-rounded air forces with balanced strike, airlift, tanker and ISR capabilities that regularly participate in major multinational peacekeeping, humanitarian and combat operations.
Moreover, fiscal pressures in Britain, France and the U.S. encourage cooperation.
Australia for its part is an adjunct member of the group, with an officer from the embassy who works closely with the U.S. Air Force's SSG.
Palomeros said the French already have American and British officers working in their strategic studies group, which is looking at air force roles in the next decade.
"We hope to move fairly quickly," he said. "We hope to have the first ideas by the end of the year. Time is important."
Group Capt. Robin Adlam, the defense attaché at the British Embassy in Washington, said U.K. participation in the U.S. Air Force's group "is of fundamental importance to the RAF, especially as the RAF/USAF relationship is such a strong and successful part of the 'special relationship.'"
Adlam said the two air forces transformed in lockstep during 20 years of coalition operations over Iraq: "It would be difficult to imagine how the RAF would have been able to remain synchronized with the USAF, through the challenges of transformation and the rapid developments of deployed aerospace technology, without the liaison post within the SSG."
Meanwhile, the Royal Australian Air Force is working with the U.S. to plan how the nations will develop doctrine and tactics and ensure their weapons remain interoperable, said Air Commodore Gavin Davies, the Australian air attaché to the U.S. in Washington.
Davies said the countries can save money on acquisition by coordinating their weapons requirements. "It doesn't mean they have to be the same; it means they have to operate together," he said.
Davies said that once acquisitions matters are hashed out, the countries can begin to look at sustainment and other issues.
A French Air Force spokesman said it was too early to talk about acquisitions.
"The question does arise, of course, but it will take months or years to decide," the spokesman said. "No door is closed in the studies being conducted."
However, French Defense Minister Hervé Morin said Sept. 3 prospective areas of cooperation with Britain included air tanking, the A400M airlifter and naval assets.
Analysts' View
Several analysts noted natural reasons for close cooperation.
"Any time you can work with partners it's a good thing," said Chuck Wald, a retired U.S. Air Force general who was deputy commander of U.S. European Command from 2002 through 2006. "If we can get something where they're deployable just like we are and able to perform functions in a fairly rapid way in a highly sophisticated and highly networked way, it would be fantastic."
Several European allies could not bring forces to bear in the Middle East as quickly as the U.S. did during its 2001 invasion of Afghani-stan, Wald said. He warned that any partnership ought not restrict its members from operating as they see fit.
"You always have to have reasonable sovereignty," he said. "I'm always a fan of interoperability; I'm not as much a fan of sharing equipment."
For example, he said, "You don't want to limit yourself in a situation where there's something the French don't like" about a planned operation, and tell the British they can't use a certain piece of equipment.
Instead, Wald said he hopes the nations will focus more on buying common equipment - he cited the F-35 Lightning II; making sure data systems are interoperable; and synchronizing tactics, techniques and procedures. He said the U.S will remain the obvious leader in development of new military technology.
"I think the French and the British recognize that and want to be on the tier one side of this thing," Wald said.
Olivier Zajec, deputy director of strategic studies at consulting firm Compagnie Européene d'Intelligence Stratégique, said it is natural that a sort of troika of "the capable and willing" is formed among London, Paris and Washington, who operate NATO's most capable militaries.
"The potential for cooperation is very great, as long as the choices in pooling of assets and rationalization preserve the strategic autonomy of the two partners," Zajec said.
He said U.S. officials can hope that the Anglo-French partnership encourages other European allies to end their budgetary "free ride."
Why Now?
Zajec said budgetary constraints were one reason to work together, but Wald said it was a smart idea no matter the economic climate.
Zajec said certain military challenges had become strategic issues for NATO. For example, alliance weapons and doctrine have not kept up with adversaries' air defense technology. The U.S. side is largely focused on technology that allows aircraft to elude defenses, such as jamming and stealth, while the Europeans might propose off-the-shelf assets to destroy air defenses.
"The AASM smart bomb, for example, would not be a bad candidate," Zajec said.
Wald said the three-way alliance might share various IT assets, including communications and ISR processors. "That, to me, would be very, very important," he said. "If you look at the French and British, they're fairly robust in space; the French are robust in bandwidth."
Other areas of cooperation might include an Anglo-French pooling of Scalp and Storm Shadow cruise missiles, swapping strategic airlift beyond the SALIS contract, and creating a systematic exchange of staff officers among the air chiefs.
When France held the rotating EU presidency in 2008, Paris pushed the common maintenance of the A400M fleet as a means of boosting European defense capabilities.
Sharing in-flight refueling tankers "would be a good thing," and "particularly because of the disgraceful behavior of the Americans on their tanker contract," James Arbuthnot, chairman of the British parliamentary defense committee, said Sept. 13 in Marseille.
Britain is acquiring 14 EADS A330 MRTT air tankers under its Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program, while the French are postponing a similar order due to budget constraints.
French access to the FSTA fleet would need careful study of the contract; the aircraft are being obtained under a "power by the hour" deal as part of a private finance initiative.
Arbuthnot also said he hoped for a revival of last year's cross-channel talks on UAV cooperation between BAE Systems and Dassault.
By JOHN REED and PIERRE TRAN
Published: 20 September 2010
The air forces of Britain, France and the U.S. are looking at ways to work more closely together by cooperating on strategy and doctrine - and future systems - at their most senior levels.
"I have a French officer and a British officer in my [strategic studies group], and we have exchanged with them and this will continue going forward," said Gen. Norton Schwartz, the U.S. Air Force chief of staff. "We will collaborate on how the best air forces in the world mix and match their capabilities for the best defense."
French Air Force chief of staff Gen. Jean-Paul Palomeros echoed Schwartz.
"The idea is to reflect together on the concept of the future air force and benefit from lessons learned in the operational theater," Palomeros said. "We have a lot in common. We want to think together on the lessons learned in Afghanistan, lessons from history and operations. It's a coalition of good will."
Each of the three air forces - which have cooperated closely since World War I, most recently in Afghanistan - has established strategic studies groups (SSGs) staffed by officers from each country. The three also have well-rounded air forces with balanced strike, airlift, tanker and ISR capabilities that regularly participate in major multinational peacekeeping, humanitarian and combat operations.
Moreover, fiscal pressures in Britain, France and the U.S. encourage cooperation.
Australia for its part is an adjunct member of the group, with an officer from the embassy who works closely with the U.S. Air Force's SSG.
Palomeros said the French already have American and British officers working in their strategic studies group, which is looking at air force roles in the next decade.
"We hope to move fairly quickly," he said. "We hope to have the first ideas by the end of the year. Time is important."
Group Capt. Robin Adlam, the defense attaché at the British Embassy in Washington, said U.K. participation in the U.S. Air Force's group "is of fundamental importance to the RAF, especially as the RAF/USAF relationship is such a strong and successful part of the 'special relationship.'"
Adlam said the two air forces transformed in lockstep during 20 years of coalition operations over Iraq: "It would be difficult to imagine how the RAF would have been able to remain synchronized with the USAF, through the challenges of transformation and the rapid developments of deployed aerospace technology, without the liaison post within the SSG."
Meanwhile, the Royal Australian Air Force is working with the U.S. to plan how the nations will develop doctrine and tactics and ensure their weapons remain interoperable, said Air Commodore Gavin Davies, the Australian air attaché to the U.S. in Washington.
Davies said the countries can save money on acquisition by coordinating their weapons requirements. "It doesn't mean they have to be the same; it means they have to operate together," he said.
Davies said that once acquisitions matters are hashed out, the countries can begin to look at sustainment and other issues.
A French Air Force spokesman said it was too early to talk about acquisitions.
"The question does arise, of course, but it will take months or years to decide," the spokesman said. "No door is closed in the studies being conducted."
However, French Defense Minister Hervé Morin said Sept. 3 prospective areas of cooperation with Britain included air tanking, the A400M airlifter and naval assets.
Analysts' View
Several analysts noted natural reasons for close cooperation.
"Any time you can work with partners it's a good thing," said Chuck Wald, a retired U.S. Air Force general who was deputy commander of U.S. European Command from 2002 through 2006. "If we can get something where they're deployable just like we are and able to perform functions in a fairly rapid way in a highly sophisticated and highly networked way, it would be fantastic."
Several European allies could not bring forces to bear in the Middle East as quickly as the U.S. did during its 2001 invasion of Afghani-stan, Wald said. He warned that any partnership ought not restrict its members from operating as they see fit.
"You always have to have reasonable sovereignty," he said. "I'm always a fan of interoperability; I'm not as much a fan of sharing equipment."
For example, he said, "You don't want to limit yourself in a situation where there's something the French don't like" about a planned operation, and tell the British they can't use a certain piece of equipment.
Instead, Wald said he hopes the nations will focus more on buying common equipment - he cited the F-35 Lightning II; making sure data systems are interoperable; and synchronizing tactics, techniques and procedures. He said the U.S will remain the obvious leader in development of new military technology.
"I think the French and the British recognize that and want to be on the tier one side of this thing," Wald said.
Olivier Zajec, deputy director of strategic studies at consulting firm Compagnie Européene d'Intelligence Stratégique, said it is natural that a sort of troika of "the capable and willing" is formed among London, Paris and Washington, who operate NATO's most capable militaries.
"The potential for cooperation is very great, as long as the choices in pooling of assets and rationalization preserve the strategic autonomy of the two partners," Zajec said.
He said U.S. officials can hope that the Anglo-French partnership encourages other European allies to end their budgetary "free ride."
Why Now?
Zajec said budgetary constraints were one reason to work together, but Wald said it was a smart idea no matter the economic climate.
Zajec said certain military challenges had become strategic issues for NATO. For example, alliance weapons and doctrine have not kept up with adversaries' air defense technology. The U.S. side is largely focused on technology that allows aircraft to elude defenses, such as jamming and stealth, while the Europeans might propose off-the-shelf assets to destroy air defenses.
"The AASM smart bomb, for example, would not be a bad candidate," Zajec said.
Wald said the three-way alliance might share various IT assets, including communications and ISR processors. "That, to me, would be very, very important," he said. "If you look at the French and British, they're fairly robust in space; the French are robust in bandwidth."
Other areas of cooperation might include an Anglo-French pooling of Scalp and Storm Shadow cruise missiles, swapping strategic airlift beyond the SALIS contract, and creating a systematic exchange of staff officers among the air chiefs.
When France held the rotating EU presidency in 2008, Paris pushed the common maintenance of the A400M fleet as a means of boosting European defense capabilities.
Sharing in-flight refueling tankers "would be a good thing," and "particularly because of the disgraceful behavior of the Americans on their tanker contract," James Arbuthnot, chairman of the British parliamentary defense committee, said Sept. 13 in Marseille.
Britain is acquiring 14 EADS A330 MRTT air tankers under its Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program, while the French are postponing a similar order due to budget constraints.
French access to the FSTA fleet would need careful study of the contract; the aircraft are being obtained under a "power by the hour" deal as part of a private finance initiative.
Arbuthnot also said he hoped for a revival of last year's cross-channel talks on UAV cooperation between BAE Systems and Dassault.