Category Archives: Defence

Britain, Defence, Government, National Security, Society, Technology, United States

Menacing spies in the sky

NATIONAL SECURITY

ABOVE our heads – some 80,000 feet up – a high-tech tussle is under way, with our most closely guarded secrets and our national security at stake. The shooting down of a number of intelligence balloons in recent days seems closer to a fictional tale rather than the serious threat they pose.

Four mysterious aircraft have been shot down in just nine days over North America, three by the US Air Force and one by the Royal Canadian Air Force.

The fictional perspective was primed when an American general sparked a storm of speculation when he said that he was not excluding extra-terrestrial origin for these intruders. General Glen VanHerck, commander of North American Aerospace Defence Command, when asked about the possibility of aliens, said: “I haven’t ruled out anything at this point.”

For these are – quite literally – unidentified flying objects. The language used to describe them recalls the unexplained sightings that, for decades, have puzzled even seasoned observers. UFO enthusiasts are enthralled. In 2021, the Pentagon set up the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronisation Group to investigate more than 100 incidents.

One of the aircraft, downed last week over Alaska, was described as “cylindrical and silverish gray”, about the “size of a small car” and with “no identifiable propulsion system”. Another, brought to earth on the US-Canadian border, was a “small, cylindrical object”.

Such intruders may also have crossed British territory. Rishi Sunak, newly enthused by military matters, says we can and will shoot them down if necessary.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has ordered a review. For now, the questions are multiplying. Are they Chinese? The West seems to think so. The regime in Beijing has protested about the downing of two of them – just peaceful weather balloons, it insists.

Security officials in the West say that China’s stratospheric surveillance programme has operated for many years, and over five continents. It is the brainchild of the Strategic Support Force, a secretive component of the People’s Liberation Army. So, why now? Why have we not noticed this before?

The short and probable answer is that we weren’t looking. These balloons and drones move incredibly slowly at great heights. Our air-defence radar works at lower altitudes. Our missile defence-systems track fast-moving rockets. US officials are now scouring data collected in previous years for signs of intrusions that they may have missed. So far, the Pentagon says, four previous instances have been identified.

In any case, malevolent intruders can easily be missed amid the thousand of innocent weather balloons launched every day. Gathering meteorological data provides perfect cover for covert missions. China counteracts claiming that the US has repeatedly sent spy balloons into Chinese airspace. The Americans deny this.

THREATENING

THE question looms as to why China would invest so much in these missions when it has more than 260 spy satellites? Being only 15 miles above the earth’s surface – satellites are seven times higher – gives them a clear edge in taking photographs and hoovering up electronic information, such as the ultra-sensitive “friend-or-foe” systems that prevent us shooting down our own warplanes.

These satellites can loiter over sensitive military installations, such as the RAF base at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire, used by American spy planes. Gathering information about the temperature and density of the air at high altitudes could also give a crucial advantage to missile-guidance systems. These spycraft may also be sent to test national defences.

Most worryingly, China published in 2018 a video showing a balloon being used as a platform to launch hypersonic weapons. These can travel vast distances at high speed, evading our defences and delivering either nuclear warheads, or electromagnetic pulse blasts that devastate all electrical and electronic devices.

What keeps these machines aloft and on course, thousands of miles from home, nothing is said.

Some clues, however, may come from here in Britain. We have Stratospheric Platforms, a company that offers internet access from a drone that can stay in the atmosphere for a week at a time, powered by a hydrogen engine. Another British start-up, Avealto, has a solar-powered craft in orbit that targets the same market.

Speculation abounds about even more advanced technologies. Aviation experts are eagerly awaiting news from the wreckage of the recent devices shot down.

Could, for example, the Chinese have cracked the difficulties of “ion propulsion”, which uses blasts of electrically charged air to stay aloft, and requires no combustion or moving parts like propellers or jets?

Prototypes of aircraft using this technology already fly, but they use too much electricity to be viable. Or so we think.

Whatever the case, the wreckage recovered from the recent incidents’ will be eagerly inspected by American military technologists hoping to gain an edge in the battle against spy wars in the sky. The results of their investigations will be classified secret. Why give clues to the enemy?

One thing in this extraordinary story is clear. These balloons are far from innocent and have caught the guardians of our security napping. Vigilance has been poor.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, Government, NATO, Society, Ukraine, United States

Britain could do much more in Ukraine

UKRAINIAN CONFLICT

THE UK has been at the forefront in providing military aid to Ukraine, coming second only to the US in the total support it has given.

In some areas, however, Germany is supplying more military hardware than Britain, even though it has been accused of reluctance in supporting Ukraine.

Britain is Europe’s biggest military donor to Kyiv, with some £2.3bn spent in 2022, and as much again is to come in 2023.

The Berlin government says it has so far issued licences for the export of military goods to Ukraine worth a total of nearly £2.1bn.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Britain this week came with a shopping list and appealed for more assistance for his embattled troops.

Fighter jets were at the top of his list – and he made a pointed rebuttal to Rishi Sunak’s suggestion that it would take Ukrainian pilots three years to learn to fly the RAF’s Typhoons, saying he would send air crew who have “already trained for two and a half years”.

Here, it is assessed what Britain could do to enhance its military support for Ukraine:

Typhoon Fighter Jets

The UK has 137 Typhoons, of which around 100 are “on the flight line”, in other words operational. These are based at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland and RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire. Only a few days ago No 10 shot down Boris Johnson’s demands for the UK to provide fighter jets, insisting “it was not practical” – in part due to the training requirements for Typhoons and the F-35 and complications involving their integration with other aircraft and technological systems in the war zone.

But within hours of Mr Zelensky’s plea for British jets to protect Ukraine, the rhetoric from Downing Street had changed saying the UK was “actively looking at just that”.

Sunak’s change of stance also followed Mr Johnson reiterating there was “no conceivable reason” why the UK should not send aircraft.

But, frustratingly for Ukraine, Sunak stopped short of an unequivocal commitment.

The Prime Minister described the announcement that the RAF would train Ukrainian fighter pilots as a “first step” towards sending jets. He also insisted it takes three years to train a Typhoon pilot – hence why the UK is not sending any combat aircraft yet.

But Mr Zelensky dismissed the Prime Minister’s excuse for inaction, insisting Ukraine would be sending pilots to the UK with two and a half years’ experience.

Many military analysts claim the UK’s fast-jet fleet is not suited to the conflict, and Ukraine would gain more from the F-16s operated by NATO partners such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland. These are simpler to use than the UK’s jets.

The US would need to sign off any transfer to Ukraine, as it controls the export licences.

Recent indications from the White House suggest this would not be problematic – although President Biden does not want to send the US’s own F-16s into aerial battle against Russia.

F-16 donations could happen within weeks, and President Zelensky’s visits to Paris and Brussels should provide added impetus.

The Netherlands has 40 F-16s and is transitioning to the more advanced F-35, made by the same manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. So it has jets to spare that are easier to operate than UK aircraft.

That so many NATO allies operate F-16s also gives advantages for training and supply chains.

Even relatively primitive fighter jets are unlikely to be available in the short term, so will not play any part in the anticipated spring offensive being planned in Kyiv.

France also hasn’t ruled out sending fighter jets, albeit with strict non-escalation clauses, including a ban on any French jet attacking inside Russia’s internationally recognised border.

Germany has ruled out sending fighter jets to Ukraine.

Challenger Tanks

The UK has 227 Challenger 2 tanks, of which 14 have already been committed to Ukraine. As Mr Sunak has pledged, they will reach the battlefield next month.

The conventional wisdom is that Britain could do more to help Ukraine. A further 14 Challenger 2s are being brought to “high readiness”, and could be transferred to the war zone.

Mr Johnson highlighted the absurdity of British tanks patrolling rural Wiltshire when they could be sent to the Donbass.

Arguably, the UK’s provision of Challenger 2s was primarily a political gesture intended to convince Germany to release and deploy its Leopard 1 and 2 tanks – which were always Kyiv’s preferred options. Being lighter and more mobile these tanks are considered better suited to the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Germany has agreed to supply 14 Leopard 2s – and said earlier this week it would join the Netherlands and Denmark to provide up to 178 older Leopard 1s. Leopards are used across NATO so it will be easier to resupply the German-made tanks than the Challenger 2s, which are used only by the UK.

The Challenger 2 is also due to be withdrawn from service. Of the 227, 148 will have their engines tuned, their turrets replaced and their main guns replaced. The same hulls will be used for what will be called Challenger 3.

These upgraded tanks will start entering service from 2027.

How many Challenger 3s are built is subject to a review by Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. The review will consider lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine, which has changed the debate about the role of armour in modern warfare.

The Ministry of Defence says the Challenger 3 will reach 60mph and have more range. It will also be the UK’s fully digitised tank, able to share live data with other vehicles and attack helicopters.

Ukraine said it needed 300 Western tanks to make a significant difference on the battlefield. Ukraine has reached that target, mostly Leopard 1s and 2s, so it does not desperately need a tank with logistical issues such as Challenger 2 – and it does not have the time to wait for its successor Challenger 3.

Long-Range Artillery

Britain has committed to sending 30 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine when its combat troops have completed training on the weapon in the UK.

According to reports the British Army ordered 179 AS-90s from its manufacturer, BAE Systems – so there should be significant scope for further donations to Ukraine.

The weapon weighs around 44 tons, has a range of 15 miles and can fire three shots every ten seconds. It is operated by a five-man crew.

The UK has also given six Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) firing M31A1 missiles up to 50 miles, letting Ukraine hit targets behind Russian lines.

Germany has provided five of an equivalent system, the Mars II rocket launcher, complete with ammunition. The UK is understood to have critical shortfalls of ammunition used by the AS-90 and GMLRS as a result of the conflict. Shortages of the anti-tank Stinger, Javelin and N-LAW weapons have also been reported.

The UK must increase production and procurement of munitions and guided-weapons systems, not only to support Ukraine but to ensure the UK can defend itself and meet NATO obligations.

A former senior military commander, Major General Jonathan Shaw, said: “Russia has mobilised its society and industry for war – we must respond. Wars are fought by nations, not armies. The West must mobilise its society and industries to win.”

But the UK is competing with NATO allies such as Poland and the US for many of the same requirements, such as additional GMLRS stocks.

DEFENCE analysts refute that RAF Typhoons should be offered to Ukraine. Their arguments should be considered before any deployment is made.

Our Typhoon fleet is routinely described as “overstretched” due to its operational commitments. Some missions are arguably by choice and not necessity.

Given the acute threat to British and regional security posed by a possible Russian victory in Ukraine, some might say that these responsibilities need be reconsidered so that Typhoons could be released to Kyiv.

The Typhoons flying over Iraq and Syria are based at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. Regional partners could be petitioned and encouraged to fly more sorties, freeing up the eight jets based at Akrotiri.

It is almost two months since any RAF assets hit an Islamic State target – when an unmanned Reaper drone fired a pair of Hellfire missiles to destroy a building. It is possible that drones could take the place of the Typhoons. That would be a strategic decision.

Four more Typhoons are in the Falklands and have flown “deterrence patrols” there since 2009.

The overall Typhoon force – 100 aircraft – is spread thinly and worn out. Numbers are compromised by spare part problems, engineer shortages and pilots lacking training hours. The first Typhoons, introduced in 2002, have flown longer than was originally planned and suffer from wear and tear.

To defeat Russian fighter jets in dogfights, Ukrainian-flown aircraft need advanced air-to-air missiles. The options are limited and the European Meteor missile – the weapon of choice for aerial engagement – is not compatible with early Typhoons.

To avoid Russian air defence systems, the Typhoons would need to fly at low altitude, and they were not designed for this.

However, the Typhoon has some advantages over rivals – it is faster than the MIG-29 and has a much bigger payload.

The claim that logistical support and maintenance is difficult is highly valid. The Typhoon is complex to maintain and significant numbers of UK contractors would be needed as well as arrays of support equipment. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has likened the Typhoon to a Formula One racing car, with good reason. The Typhoon is a highly complex aircraft.

The RAF Typhoon jets are especially susceptible to engine damage from objects being sucked into its air intakes, meaning smooth and constantly maintained runways are a must. Such runways would become a Russian target.

Standard
Britain, China, Defence, Government, National Security, United States

The Chinese spy balloon: we cannot dismiss the storms

NATIONAL SECURITY: DEFENCE

Tobias Ellwood, Chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee, has written on the need to thwart China and Russia’s mission to splinter our world into two. He was writing following the shooting down of a Chinese spy balloon by a US fighter jet off the coast of North Carolina.

Mr Elwood asks us to consider if it was the other way around had a US balloon gone into Chinese airspace. The Beijing regime would not have hesitated in shooting it down.

For too long, Ellwood says, America has dithered. With the West preoccupied with helping Ukraine, the diplomatic stand-off that has ensued between Washington and Beijing comes at a time when there is significantly more choreography occurring between the leaders of China and Russia.

Having enjoyed decades of relative peace, those two countries are fully aware that the West has become complacent and have lost its appetite to defend fledgling democracies such as in Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.

It is no coincidence, either, that ahead of the invasion of Ukraine almost a year ago, Russia began its immediate military build-up not long after America and NATO retreated from Afghanistan.

Mr Ellwood asserts that together, China and Russia are not just openly pioneering a more authoritarian approach to governance, but are also encouraging other countries to follow suit, as they hope to see not just America but the entire West weakened.

China’s balloon over Montana should prompt another pivotal moment in history: a realisation that a China-Russia axis is looking ever more likely, and that we in the West are ill-prepared for the looming geo-strategic threats that the next decade will throw at us.

During his commentary, Ellwood says that the incident reminds him of what happened in October 1957, when millions of Americans looked to the skies in unprecedented panic after the Soviet Union launched the world’s first satellite.

The feat was awesome. It lapped the world every 98 minutes, and was assumed to be peering down with sinister aims.

While Vladimir Putin poses the single largest threat to European security as he leverages Russia’s ability to endure hardship and drag out the Ukraine conflict, China’s President Xi poses a greater geopolitical challenge as he competes with America for global economic and technological dominance. Since gaining office in 2013, he has expanded the Chinese military to become the largest in the world and used Covid as an excuse to build the most advanced domestic surveillance system.

Xi is now starting to flex his muscles. China has taken clusters of rocks deep in international waters south of neighbouring Taiwan and turned them into military fortresses. All illegal under international maritime law – but unimpeded by the West.

Ellwood’s view that this is no time for strategic ambiguity is well stated. We need a clear plan, he says, to check both Russia and China’s destabilising agendas. We must accept that they are bent on a mission to see our world splinter into two spheres of dangerously competing influence. We urgently need to craft a strategy which influences Beijing’s behaviour, rather than one which prompts a reaction each time Xi pushes the envelope further.

Without a coherent approach, the risk of sudden escalation is increasingly likely.

TOUGH QUESTIONS

OF COURSE, all this raises some tough questions for the UK, too. We helped design the post-war security architecture, much of which still functions today.

Our efforts and actions earned us a permanent seat at the UN Security Council created in 1945. Nearly eight decades later, the world has changed. Do we still deserve this seat? And do we still want it?

If the answer is “Yes” – which our actions in Ukraine suggest – we must urgently upgrade our foreign policy, defence posture and international statecraft not only to justify our place at the table, but to anticipate what is coming over the horizon.

It may have been just a weather balloon – but the storms it forecasted are not so easily dismissed.

Standard