search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Base operations


US defence secretary Mark Esper tours the Iron Dome display with Israeli defence minister Benny Gantz in Tel Aviv, Israel, in October 2020.


Rehberg says the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force – which controls China’s ballistic and nuclear missiles – is a threat capable of hitting US and Nato bases. However, he maintains that defence should not be the US’s only concern: perception also matters. “The credibility of US power projection is at stake and a credible response is critical to reassuring our partners and allies,” he says.


Taking responsibility The challenge isn’t to simply create a portfolio of defences against a range of threats. Just as fundamental for the US is deciding who takes responsibility for developing and deploying those resources. Rehberg describes the US as being in a state of confusion over “who’s doing what on airbase defence on the land side”. Are airmen or soldiers in charge? Who is responsible for fusing together the situational awareness picture of surrounding airspace and ground terrain? Who coordinates counter-attacks, especially when defenders may consist of personnel from various nations, with different equipment and combat engagement protocols?


800


US forward operating bases across 70 countries.


Cato Institute 22


There is a congressionally mandated study looking at the roles and missions in integrated air missile defence (IAMD), as well as a separate study into the army and air force, he says. The reviews are expected to learn from various sources, including the US Navy.


Rehberg believes the army and the air force could learn from the navy. “Really, the navy has the best IAMD, top to bottom,” he says. “Obviously, nothing’s perfect, but they’re kind of the gold standard for the US and probably for the world


because they’ve been dealing with threats and they have a layered comprehensive system. The rest of the services are basically catch-as-catch-can, with a few exceptions here and there.”


Blended and balanced defence Whichever service takes ultimate responsibility, finding a balance between passive and active defence is crucial – and it’s something that took time to get right in post-9/11 conflicts when active defences were shown to be deficient. “There’s a special army capability that was used in Iraq and Afghanistan to basically take out the G-RAMM [guide-rockets, artillery, missiles and mortars] threat, a land-based phalanx weapon system to counter rockets and artillery shells,” he says. This capability had not previously existed for the US Army, so it took the navy’s phalanx weapon system and adapted it, he goes on to explain. In addition to bolstering active defences and implementing obvious passive techniques such as camouflage and dispersal, another area of focus for the US has been making key infrastructure more resilient. The war in Afghanistan was a wake-up call for the US, particularly in the use of IEDs, and sparked significant scientific research into how to harden facilities, Rehberg explains. That work focused on the improvements needed to better protect facilities such as aircraft fuel depots. The development of new, more resilient types of concrete, for example, was just one area explored. However, Rehberg says there is more work to be done in terms of hardening. “I’m a big believer that almost every aircraft should be in some sort of HAS [hardened aircraft shelter]. With the new drone threats, the fact is I could basically fly a mini drone


Defence & Security Systems International / www.defence-and-security.com


US Department of Defense


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77