US Trains Philippines On Drones Amid China Fears

US troops trained their Philippine counterparts how to use surveillance drones Friday, as Manila seeks to boost military ties with Washington and counter what it perceives as a rising security threat from China.

The naval exercises are part of annual training operations between the two defense partners, but they have come under closer scrutiny this year due to simmering tensions between Manila and Beijing over rival claims to the South China Sea.

At a naval base around 13 kilometers (eight miles) southwest of the capital Manila, US Navy SEALs taught Filipino soldiers how to use small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, launching one from a boat at sea. It circled the base and landed in the water.

US maritime civil affairs officer Jeremy Eden said these were the smaller “Puma” drones used only for surveillance and not the more lethal, armed versions employed in Afghanistan.

“They (the Filipinos) are very interested and highly motivated to learn and if they acquire the systems, they will use them effectively,” Eden said.

The drones would be useful for the poorlyequipped Philippine military, which faces both internal insurgencies and potential external threats, said Lt. Jojit Fiscar, a senior coordinator of the naval exercises.

“This would be a very good instrument to use. This unmanned aerial vehicle can monitor the actual movement of the targets,” he said.

US and Philippine troops also practiced marksmanship and piloting small rubber boats that are frequently used by naval commandos.

Military officials from both sides stressed that the exercises had nothing to do with China’s claim to the South China Sea.

But Philippine Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin reiterated Friday that the Philippines was looking to give the United States greater access to its military bases, saying this was needed to respond to China’s threats.

“At this point in time, we cannot stand alone. We need allies. If we don’t do this, we will be bullied by bigger powers, and that is what is happening now: There is China, sitting on our territory,” Gazmin said.

“What are we going to do? Wait till they get into our garage?”

On Thursday, he said the Philippines wanted to give the United States and also Japan greater access to its military bases.

President Benigno Aquino’s spokeswoman, Abigail Valte, said separately that any increased US presence would comply with the Philippine constitution.

She also said China should not object. “Whatever we do within our territory... is perfectly within our rights.”

China claims nearly all of the strategically vital South China Sea, even waters close to the shores of its smaller neighbors.

Tensions between Beijing and other claimants to the sea, particularly the Philippines and Vietnam, have escalated in recent years amid a series of Chinese political and military actions to assert its claims to the waters.

Aegis Software

The success of the U.S. Navy's Aegis system in destroying ballistic missiles, and low orbit satellites has led to rapid development of the Aegis control software. Aegis equipped ships are now getting version 4.0 and the next major upgrade (5.0) will make the anti-missile capabilities a standard feature of Aegis software. New destroyers are having anti-missile Aegis software installed as standard equipment. Much of the anti-missile capability of the original Aegis anti-aircraft system came from upgrades to the Aegis software.

 

As of this year 31 of the 82 American Aegis equipped ships have anti-missile/satellite capability. If all Aegis ships were converted, the U.S. would have a formidable, and very flexible, capability to defeat ballistic missiles and low flying spy satellites. So the navy is applying pressure to get money to keep the older Aegis ships (the Ticonderoga's and the first few Arleigh Burke class destroyers) in commission for this. This depends on Congress providing enough money for running these ships and to convert them (for about $20 million each) and supply each ship with four or more SM-3 anti-missile missiles (about $10 million each).

 

The Aegis anti-missile system has had a success rate of over 80 percent in knocking down incoming ballistic missile warheads during test firings. To achieve this two similar models of the U.S. Navy Standard anti-aircraft missile are in service, in addition to a modified (to track incoming ballistic missiles version) of the Aegis radar system.

 

The RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3), has a range of over 500 kilometers and max altitude of over 160 kilometers. The Standard 3 is based on the anti-missile version of the Standard 2 (SM-2 Block IV). This SM-3 missile has a shorter range than the SM-2, which can destroy a warhead that is more than 200 kilometers up. The SM-3 is only good for anti-missile work, while the SM-2 Block IV can be used against both ballistic missiles and aircraft. The SM-2 Block IV also costs less than half what an SM-3 costs.

 

The Standard 3 has four stages. The first two stages boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the nine kilogram (20 pound) LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it. The Aegis system was designed to operate aboard warships (cruisers and destroyers that have been equipped with the special software that enables the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles). However, there is also a land based version.

The American Complaint

The United States is having little success in getting its European allies to organize their armed forces to be more effective. This is becoming a growing problem for the United States. For a long time the European nations have taken for granted that the United States would always show up to supply key military capabilities. During the Cold War (1947-91) the U.S. accepted this. Since the 1990s the U.S. has increasingly resented this burden and has been uncharacteristically undiplomatic over the last few years in discussing logistical and equipment shortcomings of its NATO allies.

 

The latest examples of how this all works can be seen in Mali and Syria. The French led liberation of northern Mali earlier this year was greatly assisted by French warplanes using smart bombs to attack known terrorist bases. This was devastating and led to the rapid collapse of resistance to the French ground forces. But most of the air support would not have been possible without American aerial tankers. There was a similar shortage of aerial reconnaissance aircraft, especially those that could do electronic monitoring (to monitor terrorist communications on the ground). Now NATO is under growing pressure to support the Syrian rebels with air support as they did the Libyans two years ago. That won’t be possible without American assistance.

 

Libya in 2011 was supposed to be just a European operation. NATO was persuaded to take charge of the bombing campaign (to fulfill a UN order to stop the Libyan dictator from murdering his own people.) While NATO agreed to do this, they found, once more, that they didn’t have sufficient military capability to get it done with European resources alone. The U.S. still had to supply most of the refueling and intelligence aircraft, as well as send more smart bombs because most NATO nations don’t have very large stocks of these weapons.

 

This is not a new problem. During the Cold War, the U.S. constantly, and usually quietly, complained of how unprepared most NATO members were for actual combat. These nations were quite relieved when the Cold War ended in 1991. But then came the need for peacekeeping in the Balkans throughout the 1990s. The U.S. was implored to pitch in, because the European NATO nations couldn’t handle this themselves. Then came September 11, 2001. NATO members offered to help in Afghanistan and (to a lesser extent) Iraq. But it was more promises than performance.

 

European reluctance to send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan was more than just the result of political differences. While Europe has about twice as many troops as the United States, they have far fewer fit enough to ship to a combat zone. This was a problem first noted in the 1990s, when there was a big demand for peacekeepers in the Balkans. The Europeans couldn't fob this one off on the Americans, and had to come up with combat ready troops. The Europeans had a tough time finding soldiers ready and able to go.

 

 European armed forces are full of people in uniform who have a civil service mentality. That is, they think, and act, like civilians, not soldiers. Belgium discovered, for example, that 14 percent of its troops were obese (compared to 12 percent of the general population) and unfit for many of their duties. Much noise is always being made about getting all the troops in good physical shape. While that is possible, it is less likely that the mentality of the troops will be changed.

 

During the Cold War, Europe got most of its troops via conscription. Young guys came in for two or three years, and then left. Anywhere from a third to half the troops were long term professionals, in for twenty or more years. But even before the Cold War ended, many of the European military professionals were losing their combat edge. When the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, there was no longer any compelling reason for a European soldier to think and act like one. It was just a job. A government job that was not, or should not, be terribly demanding.

 

Europeans spend a much higher proportion of their defense dollars on payroll, leaving little money for training, new equipment and maintenance. It also meant an older, on average, bunch of troops. Going to war is a young man's game, but Europeans have instead turned their armed forces into another job creation program. There are some exceptions, like Britain and France, demanding that the troops remain fit, and maintaining high training standards. Most European nations maintain a few elite infantry units, but these don't add up to much in terms of numbers. Only Britain and France have large "rapid reaction" forces that can be sent overseas on short notice. The United States has the largest such force, and many European nations are trying to expand theirs.

 

America also has a leadership advantage on the ground. The U.S. has long maintained an "up or out" promotion policy, which forces people out of the service if they are not promoted within a certain amount of time. The U.S. also maintains high standards for new recruits, and making it possible to maintain more combat capable units. The U.S. is able to field more combat troops, and far more combat power, than over twice as many European soldiers, sailors and airmen.

 

The Europeans are still producing more excuses than solutions, and that is not expected to change, no matter how much the Americans complain. In fact, it is getting worse. European nations are rapidly downsizing their air forces. Not just in numbers of aircraft but in money spent on training. For over sixty years the U.S. could depend on European pilots to be well trained and competent. But now Europeans are cutting flying hours and the U.S. has to adapt to Europeans showing up in modern aircraft with poorly trained pilots.