ADBR September-October Issue by adbr5

DEFENCE | INDUSTRY | INTEGRATED

AW D AN ENDURING LEGACY AUG-SEPT 2019 Volume 38 No. 04

ADBR.COM.AU

.COM.AU

Contents

Volume 38 No. 4 AUG-SEPT 2019

FEATURES & ANALYSIS

AIR 5431 PHASE 3 OneSKY OUT OF CONTROL

18 LAND 400 PHASE 3 SHORTLISTED 22

SEA 4000 AN ENDURING LEGACY

SEA 5000 FRIGATE FORMING

44 SEA 1180 SMALL SHIPS

THE PLA NAVY DANGEROUS SEAS

MARITIME AUTONOMY

60 LOYALTY POINTS 62

BREAK WITH TRADITION

AWI COURSE JEWELS IN THE CROWN

A DISCREET AFFAIR

REGULARS 4

Initial Point - Editorial

Upcoming Events

Battlespace - News

On Target - Williams Foundation

COVER We take a deep dive into SEA 4000 AWD programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lessons and legacy. DEFENCE

ADBR is published by: Felix Advantage 7 Finlay Rd Eumundi QLD 4562 adbr.com.au adbr@felix.net.au +61 (0)2 6232 7474 Twitter: @DefenceBusiness Facebook: @ADBRonline

Managing Editor Andrew McLaughlin andrew@felix.net.au

Publisher John Conway jc@felix.net.au

Senior Contributor Max Blenkin

Art Director Daniel Frawley

Contributors this issue Owen Zupp, Peter Knott, John Conway, Brian Weston

Sub Editor Bruce McLaughlin

DEFENCE | INDUSTRY | INTEGRATED

AW D AN ENDURING LEGACY AUG-SEPT 2019 Volume 38 No. 04

Felix Advantage 2019. All material published in Australian Defence Business Review is copyright and may not be used without the express permission of the publisher. ISSN 1033-2898

BATTLESPACE ADBR DEFENCE NEWS ROUNDUP

Battlespace DEFENCE NE WS ROUNDUP

.COM.AU

DEFENCE

Boeing Defence Australia MD Darren Edwards passes away

Boeing Defence Australia has advised that vice president and managing director Darren Edwards passed away on September 22, aged 51. Boeing Defense, Space and Security chief executive Leanne Caret said Edwards was a talented leader who had helped transform Boeing’s defence business in Australia. “He was a respected and trusted colleague and mentor to countless people inside and outside the company,” Caret said. “The global Boeing team mourns the loss of Darren, a smart, warm and funny individual who is best remembered as a husband and father, a veteran, and a friend.” A former Australian Army officer, Edwards started his career at Boeing in 2000 and had various roles covering human resources, supply chain management and operations in Australia and the US. He was Boeing Defence Australia chief operating officer from 2011 until 2015, when he joined Salentis as general manager for Australia and New Zealand. In 2017, Edwards re-joined Boeing as vice president and managing director of Boeing Defence Australia, based in Brisbane. He was a member of the Boeing Australia Holdings board and part of Boeing Australia’s leadership team under Boeing Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific President Maureen Dougherty. Boeing Global Services chief executive Stan Deal said, “The career of integrity and honour that Darren forged from his beginnings in the Australian Army straight through his time at Boeing demonstrated his unwavering commitment to those in uniform and ensuring that they have what they need to protect and defend Australia and its allies.” Boeing said Scott Carpendale would serve as acting vice president and managing director of Boeing Defence Australia. ADBR extends our condolences and very best wishes to Darren’s family, and to the management and staff of Boeing Defence Australia.

First Boxer CRV delivered to Army

The first Rheinmetall Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle was handed over to the Australian Army on September 24 at a ceremony at Enoggera Barracks in Brisbane. The vehicle – the first of 211 Boxers on order and one of about 25 that will be manufactured in Germany – was presented by Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds, Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price, and Chief of Army LTGEN Rick Burr.

“These new vehicles… will be able to undertake a range of missions from regional stability and peacekeeping through to high-threat operations, and will provide improved safety to Australian soldiers on deployment and on exercises around the world,” Senator Reynolds said in a statement. The vehicle was rolled out at Rheinmetall’s Kassel facility in Germany in April, and arrived in Australia in July where it received Australian-specific modifications including communications and computer equipment, its EOS remote weapons station, and the Australian Army’s paint scheme. The handover comes just 13 months

Your partner of choice for maritime integration.

Lockheed Martin Australia leads the maritime defence technology industry for the integration of combat systems across Australia’s surface and subsurface maritime fleets. We pioneered systems integration more than 40 years ago and our maritime combat technologies provide the situational awareness and countermeasures necessary for the defence of Australia. Learn more at lockheedmartin.com/australia

Lockheed Martin. Your Mission is Ours.®

BATTLESPACE ADBR DEFENCE NEWS ROUNDUP

DEFENCE

after the contract was signed between the Commonwealth and Rheinmetall for LAND 400 Phase 2 in August 2018. While the final number of vehicles to be manufactured in Australia is yet to be decided, about 186 Boxers will be built at Rheinmetall’s Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence (MILVECOE) facility in Redbank, near Ipswich in Queensland. “This project presents an exciting opportunity for Australian industry to play a vital role in delivering leading-edge capability and technology to Australia’s Army,” Minister Price said. Minister Price said 19 Australian businesses had been contracted by Rheinmetall to supply components and materiel for the first 25 Australian vehicles.

basic flight functions and operations with the ground control station,” a Boeing statement said. “Seeing MQ-25 in the sky is a testament to our Boeing and Navy team working the technology, systems and processes that are helping get MQ-25 to the carrier,” MQ-25 Program Director Dave Bujold said in the release. “This aircraft and its flight test program ensures we’re delivering the MQ-25 to the carrier fleet with the safety, reliability and capability the U.S. Navy needs to conduct its vital mission.” Boeing was awarded a US$805m contract in August 2018 to develop the MQ-25 – ahead of contenders from General Atomics and Lockheed Martin – to design,

development, manufacture, test and deliver four MQ-25s by 2022. “Today’s flight is an exciting and significant milestone for our program and the Navy,” US Navy Unmanned Carrier Aviation (PMA-268) Program Manager Capt Chad Reed said. “The flight of this test asset two years before our first MQ-25 arrives represents the first big step in a series of early learning opportunities that are helping us progress toward delivery of a game-changing capability for the carrier air wing and strike group commanders.” The US Navy has a requirement for 72 MQ-25s to take over the carrier-borne AAR mission from F/A-18E/F Super Hornets equipped with buddy refuelling packs.

US NAVY

First flight for US Navy MQ-25 Stingray UAS

The US Navy’s Boeing MQ-25 Stingray UAS made its first flight from the test program’s base at MidAmerica Airport in Illinois on September 19. The aircraft – designated T1 – is designed to operate from aircraft carriers to provide unmanned air-to-air refuelling and ISR support to US Navy combat aircraft. For its first flight, T1 was remotely controlled by Boeing test pilots. “The aircraft completed an autonomous taxi and takeoff and then flew a predetermined route to validate the aircraft’s

Please visit us at: Hall 3, Stand P20 Please visit us at: Hall 3, Stand P20

KONGSBERG provides state of the art missiles for ships, trucks, fighter aircraft KONGSBERG provides state of the art and naval helicopters. Stealth, high-G agility missiles forAutomatic ships, trucks, fighter aircraft and Target Recognition and naval helicopters. Stealth,for high-G agility the future. and Automatic Target Recognition for the future.

PRECISION PRECISION STRIKE STRIKE SEA SEA & LAND & LAND Contracted by :

Contracted : Norway -by Poland - Malaysia - Germany - United States - Japan

Norway

Poland - Malaysia - Germany - United States - Japan

www.kongsberg.com

BATTLESPACE ADBR DEFENCE NEWS ROUNDUP

DEFENCE

Poland approved to buy F-35A

The US State Department has approved the sale of 32 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighters to Poland. A September 11 Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSAC) notification says the acquisition is valued at US$6.5bn (A$9.6bn), and includes the 32 F-35As, one spare P&W F135 engine, the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and a full mission trainer. Support equipment and services includes ground support equipment, tools and test equipment, a training package, and ferry and tanker support. If it goes through, the sale will be the first of an F-35 to a former Warsaw Pac country. Poland says it will replace MiG-29 fighters and Su-22 strike aircraft with the F-35A. Interestingly, the DSCA notification also says, “The proposed sale of this aircraft, systems and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.”

RAAF 4SQN to retire PC-9/A

The RAAF’s Williamtown-based 4SQN will soon retire the four Pilatus PC-9/A(F)s it uses for the training of forward air controllers (FAC) and joint terminal attack controllers (JTAC). The aircraft – which are modified from the standard PC-9/A advanced trainers operated by Central Flying School (CFS) at

East Sale, and 2FTS at Pearce – feature wing pylons capable of carrying auxiliary fuel tanks and smoke grenade launchers, as well as additional radios, infrared laser pointers, and night vision equipment. 4SQN’s executive officer SQNLDR ‘P’ said the forward air control (F) variant of the PC9/A had been invaluable in a joint ground-and-air unit. “The crews operate them and interact closely and routinely with combat controllers, 2 Commando Regiment, the Combat Survival Training School, Forces Command or the Special Air Service Regiment, enhancing the value and effectiveness of the asset throughout integrated training,” he said in a statement. “They have significant endurance such that Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) students can repeat training serials to meet the standard.” While the PC-9A(F)s are not considered operational JTAC aircraft, they have served a vital role in the training of FACs and JTACs, initially as the Forward Air Control Development Unit (FACDU) element of Air Combat Group (ACG), and later as a standalone squadron. “ADF JTACs and combat controllers that were trained or maintained proficiency with PC9/A(F) flying overhead have a soft spot for these aircraft that contributed significantly to building the skills they were able to employ in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq,” SQNLDR P said. The aircraft will be replaced in service by the PC-21, the first of which painted in 4SQN’s distinctive low viz grey scheme was noted at Pilatus’ Stanz facility in June.

Army releases ITR for tactical UAS to replace Shadow

Defence has launched the process to replace the Army’s Shadow 200 tactical unmanned aerial system with a more modern capability, with the release of an invitation to respond (ITR) on the AusTENDER website on September 4. The in-service Shadow 200 Version 1 was procured under Joint Project 129 Phase 2, and is operated by 20th Surveillance and Target Acquisition Regiment. Defence said Shadow 200 v1 was becoming obsolescent from 2019, while in the US the US Army is replacing its v1s with the Shadow 200 v2. But the ITR documents stressed that both versions of Shadow had a number of capability shortfalls which did not support Army’s need for a deployable, amphibious, and runway-independent capability. That shortfall will be addressed by a new tactical unmanned aerial system (TUAS) to be acquired through Project LAND 129 Phase 3. “The replacement will ensure that the ADF is positioned to take advantage of the technological enhancements being made in TUAS Air Vehicle and Sensor technology,” the ITR says. “It will also ensure that there is no degradation in the Combat Brigade Commander’s combat capability due to reduced capability through Shadow 200 v1 obsolescence.” An industry briefing on LAND 129 Phase 3 was held on September 19 at the

SUPERIORLETHALITY ENTERPRISE-WIDE SELF DEFENCE SOLUTION JOINT INTEROPERABILITY– JOINT SUSTAINMENT PRECISION. FIREPOWER . MOBILITY ONE CALIBRE – MULTI-ROLE MULTI-PLATFORM FOR MOBILE INTEGRATED AIR AND SURFACE DEFENCE • Rheinmetall’s 35mm cannon technology with advanced Air Burst Munition 35mm AHEAD is the only weapon in its calibre range capable of protecting against the full spectrum of threat scenarios • On mount search and track capability • In-service and NATO proven • Established, optimised and simplified system integration • Simple, effective, low cost through life support and training • Demonstrated LASER growth path offering mount utility for alternate effector capability www.rheinmetall-defence.com

FORCE PROTECTION IS OUR MISSION.

BATTLESPACE ADBR DEFENCE NEWS ROUNDUP

Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra, while the projected timeframe for delivery of the new capability is 2022-26. The AAI RQ-7B Shadow was the Army’s first non man-portable UAS. The system entered service in Afghanistan in 2011, flying 10,000 hours in support of Australian and coalition operations. The system was delivered directly into theatre, and was withdrawn from operations in 2016. Shadow has proved a reliable and versatile UAS. But, when it comes to finding a replacement, Army is spoiled for choice with more than a dozen candidate systems available on the world market, both fixed and rotary wing. To help narrow and define its requirements, the Army has conducted trials with Schiebel S-100 Camcopters operated with the RAN which is conducting its own trial program in search of suitable UAS to operate from new warships.

BAE to convert M113s for autonomous trials

The Army’s M113AS4 Armoured personnel carriers (APCs) are well past their prime when it comes to transporting soldiers safely on the modern battlefield. But they could still form the basis of a capable autonomous land vehicle to demonstrate the technology of the future. BAE Systems Australia and the Australian Army plan to modify two M113AS4 armoured personnel carriers at the company’s Edinburgh Parks facility in Adelaide, using autonomous technologies developed in Australia. The project will see these vehicles used by the Army to conduct experiments to better understand opportunities to employ autonomous vehicles on the battlefield. Such self-driving vehicles could have a range of uses, from intelligence gathering to logistics support. The Army possesses a substantial fleet of M113 APCs, taking delivery of the first of more than 700 in 1965, and many of these subsequently served in Vietnam, Somalia, Rwanda and Timor Leste. A total of 431 have since been upgraded and designed M113AS4. But soon these vehicles will be replaced by new and substantially larger and more survivable infantry fighting vehicles to be acquired under Project LAND 400 Phase 3. Although no longer providing adequate levels of protection for their crews, their systems are reliable and well understood, and so they are well suited to the testing and development of autonomous systems. In a statement, BAE Systems Australia Chief Technology Officer Brad Yelland

said autonomous technology would assist soldiers to respond in an accelerating warfare environment, increasing their ability to outpace, out-manoeuvre and out-think conventional and unconventional threats. “The Australian Army Robotic and Autonomous Systems Strategy highlights the goals that Army is seeking from this disruptive technology,” he said. “Through this demonstration and the CRC program, we will help the Army achieve that.” Following the planned trials, the two test vehicles which will remain optionally manned, will be available for BAE Systems and other partners in the trusted autonomous systems Defence Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) to use for further development.

Navantia launches second new RAN AOR

Navantia has launched the second of two new Supply class Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) vessels for the RAN at its Ferrol, Spain shipyard. The launch of the vessel, to be named Stalwart in RAN service, follows the launch of her sister ship, Supply last November. The two vessels are being acquired under Project SEA 1654 Phase 3, and will replace the former HMAS Success which was decommissioned in July, and HMAS Sirius which is scheduled to pay off in 2020. “The delivery into service of the Supply class replenishment vessels from next year will provide Navy with vital afloat logistics support to enable our ships to remain at sea longer,” Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds said in a statement. “These ships will ensure Navy can make sustained and long-term contributions to regional and international security in support of our national interest, and further our strong relationships with countries across Southeast Asia and the Pacific.” Chief of Navy VADM Michael Noonan added, “The Supply class AOR vessels will enable Navy to maintain a long-term presence at sea and provide combat support to our frigates, destroyers and combatants wherever they operate in the world. Stalwart and Supply will extend our warships’ endurance and operational range by providing bulk fuels, potable water, stores and explosive ordnance to naval vessels operating at sea.” Both Stalwart and Supply are based on the Spanish Navy’s ESPS Cantabria, a vessel which was seconded to the RAN in 2013/14 while HMAS Success underwent her double-hull upgrade. It is expected Supply will be delivered to the RAN later this year, with Stalwart to follow in 2020.

Lockheed Martin Australia appoints Joe North as Chief Executive

Lockheed Martin Australia has appointed Joe North as its new Chief Executive effective September 1, replacing Vince Di Pietro who departed the company in April. Mr North comes to the role from his most recent position as Vice President Rotary & Mission Systems Operations for Australia and New Zealand, and has an extensive background in rotary, mission systems and maritime program management. “Joe has proven himself in leadership roles on significant programs and his appointment as Chief Executive demonstrates we remain committed to delivering for our customers in Australia and New Zealand,” Executive Vice President for Lockheed International Rick Edwards said in a statement. “With his experience, Joe will provide a critical link to our US technological backbone and expertise which is critical to ensuring we can continue to support the development of a future sovereign defence capability for Australia.” Since Mr Di Pietro’s departure, Lockheed Martin Australia’s Strategic Engagement Director and former Royal Australian Navy officer Scott Thompson has been acting as the Interim Chief Executive. He will now assume the role of Deputy Country Executive. “Scott has played a key role in Lockheed Martin’s growth in Australia and New Zealand, exemplifying our company ethos of customer focus, innovation and delivery,” Edwards added. “I would also like to thank Scott for stepping into the Interim Chief Executive role over the past four months.”

Sikorsky Australia’s Brisbane operations to be consolidated at Nowra

Lockheed Martin Australia (LMA) has announced its Brisbane-based Sikorsky Australia operations will be consolidated at Nowra by 31 January 2020. The move will see Sikorsky Australia’s Brisbane Airport facility closed and all of the operations previously at Brisbane re-located to its sustainment facility adjacent to HMAS Albatross at Nowra in NSW. The Nowra facility is the company’s largest rotary-wing maintenance facility in-country, and was established in 2014 to support the RAN’s fleet of 24 MH-60R Romeo naval combat helicopters.

ADBR.COM.AU

“We announced to our staff that we will close the Brisbane operation by the 31st of January, and we are going to consolidate all that business in Nowra,” Lockheed Martin Australia’s Director of business development Rotary and Mission Systems Neale Prescott told ADBR. “In the past we have worked to co-locate our businesses directly or as close as possible with our military customers. “We want to very much reinforce to the defence force that the rotary-wing business in a military sense is very robust and positive,” he added. “There’s a lot of activity in Australia with the special forces helo, the armed reconnaissance, and subsequently the battlefield lift replacement. “But those are future opportunities, here we’ll move everything into the MH-60R facility which has been running for just over five years, and what we’ll be doing is making

clear plans for looking for opportunities for the workforce.” The company says it will support its Brisbane workforce of 103 personnel through the consolidation process, including offering the option of redeployment to other Sikorsky and LMA facilities in Australia. The Brisbane facility currently provides maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) support to commercial S-92 and S-76 operators, and had performed MRO work for a couple of undisclosed foreign military customers. Apart from the expanded operation at Nowra, the company will continue to maintain small maintenance workforces

PROTECTED. CONNECTED. TRUSTED. Rohde & Schwarz supplies interoperable and secure communications systems for naval forces. More than 40 navies around the world rely on our tailored solutions to gain information superiority. www.rohde-schwarz.com

of 19 personnel at Townsville and 30 personnel at Holsworthy to support Army Black Hawk operations until that aircraft’s planned withdrawal in 2022/23, as well as two staff at Perth to support S-92 and S-76 commercial and resource operations in the west. The Nowra facility currently has 140 staff, and was designed with sufficient hangar and office space from the outset to be able to absorb additional future work and personnel. It is unclear how much of the work from the Brisbane facility nor what proportion of the workforce will be redeployed to Nowra. “For each of those clients, we have notified them, and we’ll work with each of them to ensure we fulfil each of their contracts and what location we need to do that to conclude those contracts,” Prescott said. Lockheed Martin Australia interim chief executive Scott Thompson said the company’s diverse programs form a critical backbone for Australia’s current and future defence capabilities. This includes “Rotary Wing Systems and sustainment, next generation pilot training, combat systems integration and surveillance across air, sea,

BATTLESPACE ADBR DEFENCE NEWS ROUNDUP

land and space domains. “We have significant opportunities for growth across all of our Australian business and we will continue to deliver exceptional program performance and leading innovation for Australia.”

RAAF & US Navy Triton cooperative program ramps up

The co-operative development program between the RAAF and the US Navy to develop capabilities for the Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton unmanned maritime surveillance system is ramping up, with the placement of eight RAAF personnel with the program in the US. The eight cooperative project personnel (CCP) have joined the program over the past 12 months following the signing of the agreement in 2018, and the Commonwealth’s commitment to acquire up to six Tritons and associated mission control stations under the Triton development, production and sustainment cooperative program. “This cooperative program aligns with [the US DoD’s] objective to strengthen alliances that are crucial to our National Defense Strategy,” US Navy Triton program manager Capt Dan Mackin said in a statement. “We are working together with our Australian counterparts to jointly define new capabilities that benefit both countries.” RAAF flight test team member SQNLDR Neale Thompson added, “It is an absolute privilege to fulfil this role, working with my US Navy colleagues to develop and test this new, unmanned platform. The dedication and ingenuity displayed by the system administrator team in this example epitomized the US Navy’s genuine commitment to integrate their cooperative partners within the Triton program.” SQNLDR Thompson is a former AP-3C tactical coordinator (TACCO) and is a graduate of US Naval Test Pilot School, and is the first international partner to operate the Triton. His responsibilities include managing mission systems during flight, and to perform the mission systems team-lead role at the integrated test team (ITT) where he manages specialised flight test engineers and project officers. “This is the latest important milestone for our cooperative program, which allows our test team member to be fully involved in all facets of testing,” Australian National Deputy for the Triton program WGCDR Troy Denley said. “The cooperative program continues to mature with all CPP embedded

DEFENCE

in key roles that will help ensure the success of the program for both nations. This is due in no small part to the dedication of Triton’s international team.” To date, two MQ-4Cs have been ordered for the RAAF, with the first system due to be delivered in 2023.

First four RAAF P-8s to get sixth mission workstation

The US Navy has awarded a number of contracts to Boeing for the provision of kits to install a sixth mission crew workstation on US Navy and RAAF P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft. The contracts, totalling about US$34m (A$50m) cover the production and delivery of 56 Sixth Mission Crew Workstation (MCW) Retrofit B-kits for US Navy Lot 1-5 P-8As, and four sixth MCW Retrofit B-kits for RAAF Lot 6 P-8As. “Our ability to continue to enhance the P-8’s capabilities is really a reflection of

DEFENCE

our commitment to give our customers the product they need, when they need it,” Boeing’s P-8 program manager, Fred Bruner said in a statement. “By using this kind of evolutionary approach, we’ve been able to get the aircraft out there, performing at an incredibly high level, and now will add even more capability to support missions around the world.” The additional workstation will enable increased mission capability, versatility, data analysis in high workload missions. The four kits will bring all 12 RAAF P-8As delivered or on order up to a common interior standard. To date, seven P-8As have been delivered to the RAAF; A47-001 to -004 from Lot 6 , aircraft A47-005 to -008 were or will be delivered from Lot 7, and aircraft A47-009 to 012 are currently being manufactured in Lot 8, and the second and third batches have been or will be delivered with the sixth MCW. The four RNZAF P-8As to be manufactured as part of Lot 11 will also have the sixth MCW.

MQ-9B

THE WARFIGHTERS’ CHOICE • Trusted, multi-role and ready • Seamless Airspace • Supported by a world-class Australian Industry team Integration

• Backed by over 5 million Predator • RPAS Borderflight and hours Maritime Security • Joining a rapidly growing user community • Overwatch and ISR capabilities • Local basing

Project Air 7003

ga-asi.com

OUT OF CONTROL

AIR 5431 PHASE 3 ONESK Y

OUT OF CONTROL? ANAO report finds the OneSKY ATM system is not good value for money BY MAX BLENKIN

he Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has found the major OneSKY project to unify civil and military air space under a single air traffic management (ATM) system could cost more than $4 billion. The OneSKY project was launched in 2009 with initial plans for it to be operational in 2015, but that is now looking more like 2026. “There is inadequate assurance that the contracted acquisition price is consistent with a value for money outcome for the capability being acquired,” an ANAO report released on July 31 said. But both Defence and Airservices – the procurement lead – have disagreed. Defence said the procurement adequately demonstrated value for money, while Airservices said it had acquitted its obligation in making all reasonable inquiries to ensure the contract represented value for money. OneSKY aims to replace two outdated air traffic control systems – covering civil and military airspace – with a single unified civil-military air traffic management system (CMATS). Airservices launched the procurement process in 2010 and, following an evaluation of tenders, Thales was selected to deliver the project. The $1.32 billion acquisition contract was signed in February 2018. At that time, Airservices estimated total project costs of $1.517 billion. But the ANAO report now puts the final cost at more than $4.11 billion, taking into account procurement costs, support of existing and new systems, and contingencies. The delay in OneSKY has required Airservices to extend the life of its existing air traffic management system through a hardware refresh and extension to support arrangements. The refresh was launched in 2016 and runs to December 2021. In December 2018, Airservices extended the system life again, this time to December 2024. The total cost of these refreshes is more than $140 million. Throughout, OneSKY has been marked by problems. In May 2017, then Defence Minister Marise Payne placed the Defence side of OneSKY – Project AIR 5431 Phase 3 – on the Projects of Concern list, although it was subsequently removed in May 2018. ANAO noted the long delays in getting the project off the ground and scope changes along the way. “Important changes were made, after the successful tenderer was selected, to the timeframe for delivery, scope of work, type of contract and price,” it said. “An appropriate governance framework was established to

evaluate whether negotiations had resulted in contract terms that represent value for money. Shortcomings in the application of that framework mean that value for money has not been adequately demonstrated.” For its part, Defence said the final price was higher than it had forecast and, rather than seek a further budget increase, it instead sought scope reductions. These included removing system contingency capability and potentially accepting lower cost nonCMATS solutions in some Defence airfield control towers. Defence said this would not appreciably reduce the benefits for Australia nor impact on the ability to deliver safe and efficient air traffic management. In a response to the report, Airservices chairman John Weber said the ANAO had identified some areas where, with benefit of hindsight, it could have better documented its decisionmaking. “However, that would not have materially impacted the decision-making process nor the substance of the evidence relied on by the Board as decision maker nor the outcome,” he said. Mr Weber said what Airservices had embarked on was a large and complex procurement with highly technical requirements and a limited market of suppliers on behalf of two agencies with different requirements, funding arrangements and governance structures. He said air traffic control systems were not an off-the-shelf product and were unique to each country. “In this circumstance, the value for money considerations are necessarily broad and must include supplier market maturity, the specialist nature of the capability required and the level of risk.” And it seems this isn’t just a problem unique to Australia. Mr Weber said the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) air traffic modernisation program was running more than a decade late and had so far cost US$7 billion, 100 per cent more than the initial budget. In a joint response to the ANAO report, Defence Department Secretary Greg Moriarty and Chief of Defence Force (CDF) GEN Angus Campbell said there was room to enhance administrative arrangements supporting documenting actions and decisions in such a complex program. “Defence maintains however that is procurement of a Civil and Military Air Traffic Management and Control System adequately demonstrates value for money,” they said.

One place. Rapid decisions. Patient focused outcomes. Leidos is a global leader in health systems, data security and electronic health record implementation. In Australia, we are transforming this expertise into sovereign capability for now, and into the future.

To learn more, email: Leidos-Australia-Communications@leidos.com

SHORTLISTED

LAND 400 PHASE 3

SHORTLISTED

LAND 400 Phase 3 contenders shortlisted for risk mitigation activity. BY MAX BLENKIN & ANDREW McLAUGHLIN

he Commonwealth announced on September 16 that it has short-listed two vehicles – the Korean Hanwha Redback and the German Rheinmetall Lynx KF41 – for the next phase of the Project LAND 400 Phase 3 requirement for a next generation infantry fighting vehicle. Following this down-select, the vehicles will now proceed to a risk mitigation activity (RMA) which is a comprehensive series of trials from which the winner will be selected in 2022. LAND 400 Phase 3 will replace the Australian Army’s ageing M113AS4 armoured personnel carriers, and is worth $10-15 billion over the period 2019-2032 – the largest ever investment in new Army capability. Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds said the Morrison Government was investing in the best possible capability to meet the current and emerging threats of our changing geostrategic environment. She said these advanced vehicles would provide new levels of troop protection, firepower, mobility and enhanced communications. “This project will deliver Australia a brand-new, cutting edge capability. But we will also ensure we are well placed to work together with industry, to grow and develop the capability over the course of its life. “When fully delivered the LAND 400 program will allow Army to successfully sustain mounted close combat operations against emerging and future threats, as part of an integrated Australian Defence Force,” she added. “I thank all tenderers for their significant effort and the resources invested in supporting Phase 3 of this project.” Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price added that, if at any stage of the evaluation process there was a need, Defence reserved the right to invite other tenderers to join the shortlist to ensure Army acquired the capability it needed and the Australian taxpayer the best value. The RMA will start later this year and, following completion, Defence will undertake a final detailed evaluation of the contenders. This will follow the same procedures as was adopted with the LAND 400 Phase 2 contest to select a new combat reconnaissance vehicle, for which Rheinmetall’s Boxer CRV 8×8 was selected. And like Phase 2, shortlisted contenders will be funded to provide three vehicles for the trials, which will ultimately

culminate with one of each of the vehicles to be destroyed to assess their survivability. The shortlist decision excluded two other contenders, the General Dynamics Land Systems’ Ajax IFV, and BAE Systems’ CV90. Both are mature designs – Ajax is now entering service with the British Army, while the CV90 is in service with a number of armies in Europe. By comparison, Redback and Lynx are both new designs which have been developed to meet the particular requirements of LAND 400 Phase 3. Both are tracked vehicles designed to provide high levels of protection for their crews and dismount troops, with the ability to fully-network with each other and other Army platforms and systems. Lynx has substantial mechanical and design philosophy commonality with the Boxer, and mounts the same 30mm gun system. Redback is a derivative of the proven K21 IFV which was fielded in 2009, and which has more than 400 units in service with the Republic of Korea Army. The Redback gun is a Bushmaster MK44S in 30 or 40mm with an option to go up to 50mm The Commonwealth has also specified other capabilities for either vehicle – Harris radios, an Australian Electro Optics Systems (EOS) remote weapon system, and the Israeli Rafael Spike LR2 anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) which will also be employed on Boxer.

The Hanwha Redback shares its mechanicals and design philosophy with its K9 Huntsman self-propelled howitzer and K10 ammunition support vehicle. HANWHA DEFENCE AUSTRALIA

ADBR.COM.AU

Rheinmetall’s believes its Lynx KF41 is the best vehcile in its class, and will be fully mature in time to enter service with the Australian Army in 2026. RHEINMETALL

The new IFV will replace the elderly but upgraded M113AS4 armoured personnel carriers. The M113 is a versatile and reliable vehicle which carried Diggers into battle in Vietnam, but its slab aluminium sides made an inviting target for enemy soldiers with rocket propelled grenades (RPG) and its flat bottom is vulnerable to landmines. Despite an extensive upgrade at a cost of around $1 billion, the Australian Army’s current M113AS4 vehicles just weren’t up to the kind of threats likely to be encountered in all but low threat peacekeeping operations. Defence is seeking to acquire a total of 400 vehicles, the majority in IFV configuration but with a range of other variants for command and control, engineers, ambulance, recovery and manoeuvre support vehicles. Both contenders plan to build in Australia – Rheinmetall at its new military vehicle centre of excellence (MIVECOE) at Redbank near Ipswich in Queensland which is building the Boxer 8×8, and Hanwha at a new site in Victoria where it will also build new K9 self-propelled guns. In a statement, Rheinmetall Defence Australia Managing Director Gary Stewart, said, “We welcome the Commonwealth’s decision to select Lynx KF41 for the RMA trials and look forward to demonstrating the capability of our next generation infantry fighting vehicle. “We believe Lynx is the best vehicle in its class for Australian needs and it sets new standards in protection, mobility, lethality and knowledge needed to survive and defeat any adversary,” he added. “Rheinmetall has developed this vehicle so it is positioned at an ideal level of maturity when Australia needs it to enter service in 2026 – and it has the inherent growth capacity and a growth path to extend these capabilities through its 40+ year life. “Rheinmetall has taken all of the significant benefits of BOXER and ensured they are part of the Lynx KF41 package with significant commonality between the vehicle fleets. Extending our partnership with Army and the Commonwealth to deliver the Lynx for Land 400 Phase 3 would deliver a fully integrated armoured vehicle fighting

force for the ADF.” Rheinmetall says it is delivering an Australian industry network that will build industrial capability in Australia. It says this will include creating high-tech jobs in electro-optics, weapon systems, fire control and sensor systems, turret manufacturing, variant design and manufacture, integration, armour systems, simulation, training and fleet sustainment. “We are delighted to have been selected in Australia for the next phase of this important program,” Rheinmetall Vehicle Systems Division Global Head, Ben Hudson said. “Design, development and manufacture of the Lynx in Australia for the Australian Defence Force will build on the advanced manufacturing jobs at our new MILVEHCOE as well as a strong national industrial network of Australian small and medium businesses across Australia.” In a separate statement, Hanwha Defence Australia (HDA) said it was, “extremely appreciative of the opportunity to showcase the world’s Latest IFV to the Australian Army,” adding that, “the announcement of HDA being successfully selected…is a humbling one and a great responsibility,” and that it will, “strive to deliver a capability worthy of the Australian Army.” HDA’s statement said the Redback has been developed from experience with, “IFV technologies…from countries where capabilities are needed to defeat constant real-world threats.” It said its, “approach to service is further augmented by the fact that many of the Hanwha team have family members who have served or are currently serving in our various vehicle technologies.” “Recognising that the solider system lies at the heart of this vehicle the Redback has integrated active protection systems, comfortable space for eight Australian Infantry dismounts, rubber tracks to improve ride quality and significant additional growth margins to accommodate additional upgrades and as much kit as the Infantry soldier requires,” the statement reads. “The Iron Vision see-through-armour system will (allow) crew and section commanders to have an unobstructed clear 360 degree view from within the vehicle to the outside.” The company says the Redback’s turret system already comes already integrated with the Iron Fist Active Protection System, the Spike ATGM, and Elbit’s weapon-integrated Battle Management System (WinBMS) and TORC2H C4ISR system. Hanwha’s K9 Huntsman self-propelled howitzer is also a leading, and possibly the sole contender for the Project LAND 8116 Protected Mobile Fires requirement which PM Scott Morrison announced during April’s federal election campaign. Many of the Redback’s mechanical components and its design philosophy are shared with the K9 and its K10 re-loader. If successful, all three vehicles would be produced together at a greenfields facility near Geelong, while Australian industry would have an opportunity to join Hanwha’s global supply chain for both vehicles.

ARH RFI

LAND 4503 RFI

ARH RFI

Airbus, Boeing and Bell respond to the LAND 4503 RFI

request for information (RFI) for the replacement of the Australian Army’s Airbus EC665 Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopter (ARH) closed on August 30, just two months after its July 1 release. The RFI calls for submissions from industry for Project LAND 4503 which is seeking a total of 29 airframes to replace the Army’s 22 Tigers. It specifies that 24 aircraft will be operational at a single location, likely to be 1 Aviation Brigade (1Avn) at Robertson Barracks in Darwin, and five airframes will be assigned to training, likely to be at Oakey in Queensland. Designed to “deliver armed reconnaissance efforts in close and deep contested battlespace”, the RFI calls for an initial operational capability (IOC) of one squadron of 12 aircraft in 2026, and a fully operational capability (FOC) to follow just two years later in 2028. It states that, at IOC Army will be able to operationally deploy a troop of four aircraft, and that at FOC, will be capable of generating 12 aircraft for deployment whilst maintaining a training system of five aircraft. The RFI says Army is seeking a near one-for-one replacement of Tiger with what it says will be a “proven and mature, off-the-shelf” capability. It also suggests that value will be placed on the successful system being able to integrate and operate with unmanned systems such as that to be acquired under LAND 129 Phase 3 to replace Army’s Shadow 200, and the GA-ASI Predator/Reaper being acquired under the RAAF’s AIR 7003 program. On the eve of the RFI closing date Airbus Helicopters revealed it had proposed a mid-life upgrade of the current Tiger ARH fleet to meet the requirement. ADBR initially understood an upgraded Tiger was unlikely to be considered as a contender for LAND 4503, as the language used in the 2016 Defence White paper and subsequent anecdotal comments by some senior Defence and political leaders suggested Tiger was unloved and unwanted. “It’s been a challenge,” Airbus Australia Pacific Managing Director and Head of Country Andrew Mathewson told ADBR. “Tiger is performing very

BY ANDREW McLAUGHLIN

well, but it’s operating in Darwin. It is not seen every day – not only by the general public and by politicians, it’s not even seen every day by the normal members of Army. “It’s only on those major exercises,” he added. “I’ve been delighted to see just how positive though the customer has been, and they’ve been really open from a social media perspective, and making public comments about the performance of Tiger, the contemporary Tiger. “But, as you know, it takes some time to change the reputation of a product. And we’ve seen that on other campaigns around the great work that’s been done on supporting and delivering that capability. So we’re doing our best to get the truth out there.” Despite the negative language which evolved from poor aircraft availability and high sustainment costs and an adverse Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report, Airbus Helicopters has continued to develop the aircraft, and has proposed a number of capability and performance enhancements. These include the Tiger Mark II upgrades for the French Army’s HAP Tiger, the version most common to Australia’s ARH variant, and a more comprehensive Tiger Mark III upgrade program was launched through the European Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en Matière d’Armement

ADBR.COM.AU

TOP: Bell has teamed with BAE Systems Australia to offer the AH-1Z ‘Viper’ ABOVE: Boeing will offer the AH-64E Guardian Apache. USMC & US ARMY

(Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, or OCCAR) with member nations France, Germany and Spain. While Mr Mathewson wouldn’t be drawn on any specific enhancements the company was offering for Tiger in its RFI, he did submit it would involve a midlife upgrade, the work for which would be performed at Airbus’s Pinkenba facility in Brisbane. “We feel that we’re in a very positive position because Tiger simply isn’t in the same place that it was at the time that the White Paper was written in 2016,” he told ADBR. “Its improved performance means our customers are happy, and the cost has been reduced, so we’re hopeful that we can convince our customer and government that Tiger is the best product to continue to operate out into the 2040s. “The Commonwealth is after a mature system, they make that very, very clear in their RFI,” he added. “We see ourselves as the perfect bridging capability to whatever is the next capability that Defence would consider. And publicly, the indicators are that is likely to be the future vertical lift (FVL) capability. So for us, that would mean extending Tiger by a further 15 years beyond 2025. “From a value for money perspective, that puts us in a great position, because any other alternative capability to introduce it, effectively it would only just be being matured in the early 2030s to be taken out of service in the late 2030s. To my mind it doesn’t make a great deal of sense from a value for money perspective.” Those alternatives include the Boeing AH-64E Guardian Apache, and the Bell AH-1Z ‘Viper’. Boeing confirmed on August 30 it had responded to the RFI with the AH-64E. In a release the company said, “Australia would not only benefit from the AH-64’s mission capabilities, it would also enjoy its technological and strategic advantages against adversary aircraft; a global parts and supply network and a domestic training, support and sustainment team.” The AH-64E is the latest version of the AH-64D Longbow Apache, and features an enhanced combat system and the ability to be integrated with unmanned systems. The US, UK, India, Indonesia, Taiwan and other nations are all buying the AH-64E, and the aircraft offers the ability to integrate with US

and other regional forces in combined operations. “Boeing’s AH-64E Apache is known for its survivability, sustainability, interoperability and reconnaissance capability,” Boeing’s Global Sales and Marketing, Defense, Space and Security, Terry Jamison said. “As an Apache operator, Australia would join coalition countries, including the US and UK, and regional partners Singapore, Indonesia, Japan and the Republic of Korea.” The company added that it would seek to involve Australian industry in a successful Apache program beyond continued platform upgrades, and that it plans to deliver support services in-country and engage local suppliers to maximise Australian industry involvement for the ARH replacement program. The US Army has a planned ongoing upgrade program which will see the AH-64E serve into the 2040s, and Boeing anticipates Australia could stay in lockstep with that program to ensure it has the latest capabilities as they are rolled out across a larger fleet. Bell also released a statement confirming its response to the RFI and to push the virtues of its AH-1Z ‘Viper’ helicopter to replace the Tiger through a statement which lists capability and performance attributes which neatly align with those of the RFI. Bell says it will team with BAE Systems Australia to manage Australian industry Content for, and to sustain and support a successful AH-1Z bid. “The combat proven Bell AH-1Z Viper is the only marinised attack helicopter in the world that is specifically designed and built for expeditionary and maritime operations,” a company statement reads. “Marinisation is more than just corrosion protection against saltwater. Unlike unproven and costly add-ons, Bell’s marinisation begins at aircraft design and is built into the aircraft at point of manufacture to (ensure) conformity to shipboard operations.” The company says the marinisation process also includes the AH-1Z’s composite rotor blades and yoke style main rotor hubs which it says, “significantly outperform legacy ‘strap-pack’ type systems which are prone to corrosion and failure”. The AH-1Z, “also includes semi-automatic blade folding for quick stowage either on board ship or for rapid C-17 deployment, rotor brakes, ease of maintenance, electromagnetic environmental effects (E3) hardening which provides safety against the ship’s powerful radars and other sensors from interfering with aircraft onboard weapons and systems.” The company also points out the Viper’s commonality with those helicopters operated by the US Marine Corps, some of which are based in Australia on regular rotations to the Northern Territory, and which are permanently deployed to the wider region. Bell says it can easily meet Army’s IOC and FOC schedules, and with USMC production due to end in 2022/23, can deliver complete aircraft earlier if required. The USMC has a program of record requirement for about 190 AH-1Zs, while the aircraft is being actively marketed to other operators in the Indo-Pacific region.

AWD: AN ENDURING LEGACY

AN ENDURI SE A 4000 - AWD

The SEA 4000 Air Warfare Destroyer program lays the foundations for Australia’s future warship building capability. BY ANDREW McLAUGHLIN

ustralia, by its very location has, is, and always will be a maritime nation. We are overwhelmingly dependent on the sea for the vast bulk of our imports and exported goods, and thus, for our economic prosperity. Because of this reliance on trade and Australia’s vast littoral and blue water area of interest, it is therefore vital that the Australian Defence Force maintains a modern, competent and professional Navy, one that can not only defend our maritime approaches, but can also seamlessly integrate into allied naval operations in the wider region.

So it is somewhat perplexing then that, until recently, Australia hasn’t sustained a viable ongoing major naval shipbuilding industry. Before the late 1990s, most of our surface combatants and support vessels were acquired from the UK or US and, while many of those were built here in small batches, there were long periods of inactivity in between. This inactivity resulted in trade and project management skills being lost to other industries, and as a consequence, long ramp-up periods, project management challenges, and quality control issues when new projects did eventuate. Attempts were made to establish a continuous warship building program as part of the 2000 Defence White Paper (DWP), but funding uncertainties and other

ADBR.COM.AU

NG LEGACY

priorities following a number of regional conflicts and humanitarian missions, plus an arguably incorrect view by the DWP authors that surface combatants were too vulnerable, meant the continuous plan wasn’t funded. But what was funded was what became the Project SEA 4000 Air Warfare Destroyer program, an effort to re-establish a modern fleet air defence capability in the wake of the imminent retirement of the John F Adams/Perth class DDGs. Some 19 years later and after a not inconsiderable amount of programmatic pain and advanced systems integration success, NUSHIP Sydney, the last of these Hobart class vessels recently commenced sea trials in preparation for its commissioning in early 2020. The three Hobart class vessels have colloquially retained

the AWD abbreviation in deference to the air warfare destroyer program which spawned them, but they are more correctly known as Destroyer Designated Guided (or DDG) or more commonly as guided missile destroyers. DDG more accurately aligns these vessels with NATO’s Standardisation Agency publication (STANAG) 1166 MAROPS – Standard Ship Designator System based on their displacement and firepower. But regardless of their designation, these three vessels are without doubt the most capable warships ever built in Australia and operated by the RAN and, despite the their advanced ‘air warfare’ capabilities, for now they are also the most advanced anti-surface and anti-submarine vessels in the RAN as well.

AWD: AN ENDURING LEGACY

PREDECESSORS

The three Hobart class air warfare destroyers will assume the naval air defence mission from the four Oliver Hazard Perry/Adelaide class guided missile frigates (FFG), the last of which, HMAS Melbourne (III), is scheduled to be decommissioned in October 2019. But despite there being no in-service cross-over between the classes, the new Hobart class has a more direct lineage to the RAN’s three Adams/Perth class guided missile destroyers (DDG), the last of which was decommissioned in 2001. The much-loved Adams/Perth class were the first major surface combatants of US design to serve in the RAN, and these ships provided fleet air defence to the RAN and allies for nearly 40 years, including on ‘Yankee Station’ off the coast of Vietnam in the late 1960s. The ships underwent three major upgrades during their service lives, primarily to combat systems, weapons systems, and sensors. The Perry/Adelaide class FFGs replaced the RAN’s River class destroyer escorts, six of which were built in Australia between 1959 and 1968 and which were based on the UK’s Type 12M Rothesay and 12I Leander class frigates. The FFGs entered service from 1980 with the first four being built in the US, while the last two were built at the Williamstown yard in Melbourne in the early 1990s. The US-designed FFGs were initially designed as low capability ships intended to conduct escort and general purpose missions as the lower tier of the of the US Navy’s ‘high-low fleet plan’ to augment that service’s larger Spruance class DDGs. The RAN’s four-phased Project SEA 1390 FFG Upgrade Project (FFG-UP) program of the 2000s saw four of the six FFGs receive a comprehensive upgrade to their weapons, sensors and combat systems. While all six vessels were originally scheduled to be upgraded, this was amended in 2003 to just four due to cost overruns, and the other two vessels were decommissioned in 2005 and 2008. The upgrade saw newer RGM-84 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles and the RIM-66 SM-2 Block IIIA medium-range anti-aircraft missiles employed, plus the challenging installation of an 8-cell Mk 41 vertical launch system able to employ up to 32 shorter-range Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) anti-air missiles. New sensors included an upgrade of the AN/ SPS-49v4 air surveillance radar to the AN/SPS49Av1MPU standard, a new AN/SPS-55 surface search and navigation radar, an upgrade to the Mk92 Fire Control System from MOD 2 to the MOD 12 standard, the addition of a passive Radamec 2500 electrooptical targeting system (EOTS), a multi-sensor Radar Integrated Automatic Detect and Track System (RIADT), and the replacement of the original AN/SQS56 and MULLOKA sonar systems with the Thompson (Thales) Spherion set common to the then-new ANZAC class frigates. But the upgrade was not without its problems, blowing out in cost by nearly 50 per cent and being delayed by four years. The original contract signed in November 1998 called for the sixth vessel to be redelivered in 2005, but despite the reduction from six to four vessels, the fourth wasn’t accepted into service and SEA 1390 wasn’t removed from the government’s projects of concern list until late 2009.

SEEDS SOWN The 2000 Defence White Paper (DWP) was the first formal Government document to identify the requirement for an air warfare fleet defence capability. This requirement had previously been identified by Navy, but was in part brought into focus following the 1999 Australian-led INTERFET mission in Timor Leste and the need to rely on US Navy support in the form of the Ticonderoga class Aegis cruiser USS Mobile Bay to provide air cover over Dili and the surrounding region to counter a potential Indonesian air threat. Indeed, Australia’s inability to conduct a comparatively small operation like INTERFET less than 1,000km from our own shoreline without support from the US and other nations informed ADF planners for the next decade. Indeed, INTERFET and subsequent operations such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami recovery effort under Operation Sumatra Assist and the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) under Operation ANODE, informed the requirements for the acquisition of outstanding capabilities such as the RAAF’s C-17A Globemaster III transport, and Navy’s Canberra class LHDs. In Robert Macklin’s paper, Air Warfare Destroyer: The Game Changer (ASPI, 2018), then Chief of Navy VADM David Shackleton described INTERFET as a “fundamental wakeup call for Australia”, adding that, “if it wasn’t for the US Navy, any air threat from Indonesia could have been a very big problem”. VADM Shackleton said that, “getting the AWD

One of the RAN’s three John F Adams/Perth class DDGs, HMAS Brisbane. DEFENCE

ANZAC frigate HMAS Arunta departs Cockburn Sound in WA in July to commence sea trials following her AMCAP upgrade at Henderson. DEFENCE

ADBR.COM.AU

The RAN’s final Oliver Hazard Perry/Adelaide class FFG, HMAS Melbourne approaches her namesake city during her farewell cruise in September. She will decommission in October. DEFENCE

‘We missed out on the long-range plan, but we did get the DDGs.’

program into the 2000 policy statement occupied an enormous amount of my time and energy”, and “getting it in the White Paper literally was the game changer”. Also proposed for the 2000 DWP was a 30-year naval shipbuilding plan, one which would have seen a continuous build of surface ships to immediately follow the then-notional AWD program. But, as Macklin’s paper says, 2000 DWP author Professor Hugh White believed surface combatants were becoming increasingly vulnerable. So, as VADM Peter Jones (Ret’d) told Macklin, “We missed out on the long-range plan, but we did get the DDGs”. The 2000 DWP’s language identified that the RAN’s surface combatants, the six Adelaide class FFGs and the then-new ANZAC class helicopter frigates (FFH) lacked defences against modern antiship missiles that were proliferating in our region. It said that, while this would be addressed by the Project SEA 1390 FFG-UP, it added that ‘the ANZACs do not have adequate defences and have other significant deficiencies in their combat capabilities.’ In many ways, this laid the foundation for the multi-phased SEA 1448 ANZAC Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) program which was completed in October 2017, and the follow-on ANZAC Mid Life Capability Assurance Program (AMCAP) upgrade, the lead vessel of which – HMAS Arunta – returned to the water for trials in July 2019. Apart from ensuring the ANZAC class can effectively meet its planned withdrawal in the late 2030s, the extensive SEA 1448 program also gave the RAN its first experience operating an advanced phased array radar and integrated combat system through the world-leading Australian-developed CEA CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT sensors. The 2000 DWP also highlighted the requirement ‘for a long-range air-defence capacity in the fleet.’ It said that, ‘Without such capability, our ships would be more vulnerable to air attack, less capable of defending forces deployed offshore, and less capable of contributing effectively to coalition naval operations.’ It said, ‘the FFGs are planned to be replaced when they are decommissioned from 2013 by a new class of at least three air-defence capable ships. It is expected that these ships will be significantly larger and more capable than the FFGs. The project is scheduled to

commence in 2005-06. The Government’s strong preference is to build these ships in Australia, which will provide significant work for Australia’s shipbuilding industry.’ The 2001-2010 Defence Capability Plan (DCP) which followed the 2000 DWP saw the Project designation SEA 4000 Maritime Air Warfare Capability allocated to the program, with an anticipated year of decision (YOD) of 2007/08. The DCP said, ‘SEA 4000 seeks to provide the ADF with an affordable maritime air warfare capability as a complementary part of a comprehensive, layered air defence capability for the ADF.’ This passage also shows the ADF was also laying the foundations for what would become the Project AIR 6500 Joint Battle Management and Integrated Air and Missile Defence System. While the Hobart class DDGs were the first major elements and the outer layer of this system, another key element is also being acquired in the form of the LAND 19 Phase 7B Raytheon/KONGSBERG Enhanced NASAMS shortrange ground-based air defence (SRGBAD) system. The requirement for the delayed AIR 6500 integrated battle management system is scheduled to be defined in the next few years for deployment in the late 2020s, as is a medium-range (MRGBAD) capability which will slot neatly between the Enhanced NASAMS and the DDGs. The 2001 DCP went on to say that, ‘Stages of SEA 4000 include: · A series of funded studies between 2001 and 2003, which will support and quantify the Government agreed capabilities inherent to these platforms. Support for the studies is being provided by many areas within Defence and will be conducted in consultation with industry. · A more detailed concept design and costing study and analysis based on the options identified in the earlier stage. · A preliminary and detailed design stage to define the capability design to be acquired and built. · The acquisition and build stage will commence in 2005/06. The exact number and timing of each build will be determined in the earlier study and design stages.’ The more detailed SEA 4000 section near the end of the DCP forecast a YOD of 2005/06, and an optimistic in-service delivery of 2013. Even more

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT - AWD: AN ENDURING LEGACY

unrealistically, it also forecast an estimated phase expenditure for the project of $3.5bn to $4.5bn. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the ten 4,000t ANZAC FFHs based on the German Blohm+Voss MEKO 200 design were constructed for the RAN and the Royal New Zealand Navy at Williamstown. But as highlighted above, despite the best efforts of Navy, an opportunity to maintain or even expand this skilled and valuable workforce and capability beyond the ANZAC build run and roll it into a continuous build program of warships was missed. Thus, the ANZAC workforce was released and moved on to other industries such as the then-booming resource sector. The fitting out of the two Canberra class LHDs by BAE Systems at Williamstown from 2012 to 2015 was ultimately a successful undertaking. But the LHD hulls were constructed by Navantia in Spain, and no large ship hull block fabrication or major propulsion and engineering systems installation work had been conducted by a local workforce between the end of major construction on the ANZAC program in 2004 and Forgacs commencing hull block work on the first AWD in Newcastle in 2010/11. But despite this, it was believed a build program of the three AWDs could be successfully achieved within the forecast budget and schedule. The next iteration of the DCP published in 20042014 started to put some ‘meat on the bones’ of the SEA 4000 program, with three distinct major and two minor phases outlined in the document. The initial Phase 0 had already been completed by that time, and comprised a series of funded studies undertaken between 2001 and 2002 to identify capabilities for the vessels in consultation with industry and other areas of Defence. Phase 1C was a further study phase that explored various ship platform options to provide the desired affordable maritime air warfare capability. For this, industry was also engaged to help mitigate risk prior to the SEA 4000 acquisition phase and to inform the design phase. Phase 2 was to be the design phase of the project, where concepts were developed into detailed and fully costed designs prior to entering into contractual arrangements for the build phase.

Phase 3 was the build phase, and the 2004 DCP stated that ‘the exact timing of each build will be determined from the outcomes of previous phases’, but stuck to the previously proposed in-service date for the first ship of 2013. The final Phase 4 was proposed as the Test and Acceptance phase. A 2013 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report into the project says ‘The AWD Program has four principal objectives: deliver an affordable Maritime Air Warfare capability to meet Australian Defence Force (ADF) requirements, within established schedule and cost constraints; markedly improve the overall capability of the RAN’s surface combatant force; build the ships in Australia, thereby sustaining and providing significant work for Australia’s shipbuilding industry; and establish and sustain a design capability in Australia that can support the evolution of the ships in service in a responsive and cost‐effective manner.’

EXISTING OR EVOLVED?

First Pass approval for the project was granted by the Howard Government’s National Security Committee (NSC) of cabinet in May 2005, and this saw the project proceed to the Phase 2 design phase. This phase saw the development of two competing platform designs. The first ‘existing’ design was a modified or ‘Australianised’ military-off-theshelf (MOTS) design based on Navantia’s F-100 Alvaro de Bazan class frigate, of which there are five in service with the Spanish Armada. The ‘evolved’ option was loosely based on Gibbs & Cox’s Arleigh Burke class DDG 51 design, colloquially dubbed ‘Arleigh Burke-light’, but which in reality was an almost new design. The B+V F124 design was also considered early in the process, ostensibly due to its similar design features and philosophy with the B+V MEKO 200 design upon which the ANZAC class frigates were based. But it was rejected early reportedly because, at less than 6,000 tonnes it was considered to be too small to fulfil the role, and because the German design had never been integrated with the American Aegis combat system. First Pass dictated that both hull designs would be specified with the Aegis system and the AN/SPY-1D(V)

USN Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class Aegis destroyer USS Preble. The ‘evolved’ AWD option was based on this design. DEFENCE

ADBR.COM.AU

‘...the NSC had instructed that we were to go forward with the evolved design to be contrasted with an existing offthe-shelf solution.’

The ESPS Cristóbal Colón (F-105) upon which the RAN’s Hobart class is partly-based. DEFENCE

electronically scanned array radar, that ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd would be the shipbuilder, that the vessels would be built at Osborne in Adelaide, and that Raytheon Australia would be the combat system systems engineer. Former Alliance CEO and currently Raytheon Australia’s Head of Campaigns, Rod Equid told ADBR that the combat system systems engineer’s initial role was to work with the Commonwealth to define and refine the vessels’ requirement set. “The SEA 4000 project office had taken a decision that it was going to be an Aegis-based system, but the rest of the combat system wasn’t decided at that stage,” he said. “There was a view formed that there wasn’t a completely suitable existing design for the AWD, but there was also an interesting and fairly pervasive view that a large ship would cost too much, and what was sought was a Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) like capability but in a smaller platform. “Gibbs & Cox had won the design competition, and they were to produce a new design for AWD,” he added. “The evolved design had DDG 51-like technology in it, and all the early betting money was on that evolved design. But the NSC had instructed that we were to go forward with the evolved design to be contrasted with an existing off-the-shelf solution, and the F-100 was picked as the most suitable.” In late 2006 the AWD program appointed Equid to lead the evolved design effort. “We had people working on the combat system from Raytheon, and we had a large number of people from Gibbs & Cox and a few from (Arleigh Burke shipbuilder) Bath Iron Works,” he said. “As part of Phase 2 there were also people from ASC doing planning work for the build of evolved design – things like costing it, and looking at schedule and risk etc. “The first significant decision was taken to make the combat system common to both ships, which meant that from a capability point of view, it really became a competition between the two platforms, not between the combat capability. It was a great outcome for the Commonwealth because it gave a lot of clarity – you’re getting almost the same combat capability irrespective of the platform choice. There was a little bit less capacity on the existing ship compared to the evolved design, but the decision really then came down to cost schedule and risk.”

AWD ALLIANCE

Also in late 2005, the Government directed that the AWD program would be delivered by an innovative alliance-based contracting strategy, and the AWD Alliance was formed between the Commonwealth and two industry participants – ASC Shipbuilding and Raytheon Australia. The goal of the AWD Alliance was to deliver ‘best for project outcomes based upon a pain-share and gain-share contracting strategy’, and it was the first ADF procurement project of such a magnitude to use an alliance model. More specifically, ASC Shipbuilding was established as a subsidiary of ASC to be responsible for project management, production planning, platform systems and materiel procurement, construction and physical integration of the ships including block subcontracting, combat and platform systems installation, ship test and activation, and the development of an integrated‐lifecycle‐support solution for the platform system. Raytheon Australia was to be responsible for project management of the combat system scope, combat system architecture and design, procurement of combat system equipment, integration of the Australian elements of the combat system, combat system test and activation, and the development of an integrated‐lifecycle‐support solution for the combat system. The 2013-2014 ANAO report into the AWD program noted, ‘There are a range of potential benefits, issues and risks associated with alliance contracting arrangements. The benefits include the ability to apply a pricing structure which provides a strong incentive to motivate the non‐owner participants to deliver the project on time, at cost, and in accordance with requirements; and for the participants to collectively, collaboratively and flexibly manage project risks and issues.’ “The Alliance approach has been subject to extensive commentary, notwithstanding I would say that few really understood what it meant,” said Rod Equid. “The rationale for it was elegantly simple, and relates to the work required to complete a complex capital warship. “Broadly, the division of scope on a cost basis was roughly 40 per cent combat system, 40 per cent platform, and 20 per cent project management,” he added. “The view was that no one organisation in Australia had expertise across all elements of scope, and a mechanism was sought to encourage high levels of cooperation with participants focussed on the overall outcomes.” Equid’s equivalent at ASC was John Gallacher. “John was a great champion of the Alliance approach based on his good experience from the oil and gas sector,” said Equid. “And we were aligned in agreeing it was our job to bring our respective corporate organisations along for the journey. “While we drew staff from our exiting organisations, growth of the team was based on attracting many new hires, and we worked hard to establish the project execution team, ie the Alliance, as a virtual organisation without company badges and total focus on the project outcomes.” Current AWD Alliance General Manager, Paul Evans joined the program in 2007. “It has

AWD: AN ENDURING LEGACY

‘...in mid2007 the two competing designs were brought before a capability options review board...’

(Clockwise from below) - The first AWD hull block arrives at Osborne in 2011. - Hobart’s hull takes shape. - Detail machining on an AWD screw. - Keel laying ceremony for Brisbane with then Chief of Navy, VADM Ray Griggs. DEFENCE & AWD ALLIANCE

been a fascinating journey as you can imagine,” he told ADBR. “The start-up is a phase where everyone’s excited and we were doing huge amounts of work to prepare the new organisation. “My background is in aerospace with Air Force, so shipbuilding is something on quite a different scale,” Evans added. “But I think for everyone involved, it’s fascinating. It’s a complex organisation – the Alliance is something that hasn’t been tried before with Defence, certainly on this scale, and the technology is also new. At the time we had a new shipyard, and we had to go out and find a new workforce. We didn’t have the design at that point, so we were going through a hectic phase to understand what was ahead of us.” Former RAN marine engineer and currently CASG’s Assistant Secretary Ships Acquisition – Specialist Ships, Peter Croser recalled how he established the evolved solution team. “I was asked to set up Gibbs & Cox in Australia and became the CEO and the first employee,” he told ADBR. “I grew it to 50 people, and developed the evolved solution with Rod Equid and a team of Australian and US people to design a competitive solution to be evaluated by government.” Ultimately, in mid-2007 the two competing designs were brought before a capability options review board which comprised the chief defense scientist Dr Roger Lough, the head of the DMO Dr Stephen Gumley, Chief of Navy VADM Russ Shalders, the head of Capability Development Group (and now Governor General) LTGEN David Hurley.

SECOND PASS

The announcement of the winning AWD design was made by then Prime Minister John Howard on 20 June 2007. “The Government has decided to purchase the Navantia designed F-100… as the next generation Air Warfare Destroyer for the Royal Australian Navy,” PM Howard said at the media conference which was also attended by then Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson, and VADM Shalders. “There will be three ships delivered under this project,” the PM said. “They will be delivered in 2014, 2016 and 2017; the aggregate cost will be in the order of $8 billion. This does represent a massive lift in the Royal Australian Navy’s air warfare capability. These vessels will be able to perform the full spectrum of joint maritime operations including area air defence and escort duties, including, importantly, for the amphibious ships.” The selected design was – rather than being based on the lead ship of the F-100 class, the F-101 ESPS Alvaro de Bazan – was actually a hybrid of the later F-104 ESPS Méndez Núñez and F-105 ESPS Cristóbal Colón, both of which incorporated minor improvements over the earlier lead vessels of the class. Despite being designated as frigates by Navantia and the Spanish Armada, the F-100 class is considered to be much closer to a destroyer in terms of its displacement and firepower. Each of the three Hobart class DDGs is made up of 31 ship sections or ‘blocks’ which have been constructed at various shipyards in Australia and

ADBR.COM.AU

overseas, these being ASC AWD Shipbuilder at Osborne in Adelaide, Forgacs in Newcastle, BAE Systems Australia at Williamstown, and later, by Navantia at Ferrol in Spain. As shipbuilder, ASC was tasked to consolidate those blocks at Osborne, while Raytheon Australia was responsible for the integration of the vessels’ sensors and its combat and weapons systems. The original approved build program projected the first vessel, HMAS Hobart would be commissioned in December 2014, with HMAS Brisbane scheduled to follow in March 2016, and HMAS Sydney in June 2017. But the complexity of these advanced ships notwithstanding, this distributed construction model presented another level of complexity of its own, especially for such a small build run. Through all ship build runs, a program will realise increased productivity on each vessel through economies of scale, as processes are streamlined and efficiencies are found, and as workforces become more experienced and skilled. But for a run of three ships, even one based on an existing design, such efficiencies are difficult to amortise across a relatively small program, and schedule and cost overruns are hard to make up. “I’ve been doing this for a while, and I could show you some examples where, internationally in most shipyards, it normally takes about four ships, building that the same type of ship four times before you get down to what would be baseline productivity level,” former AWD Program Manager, CDRE Craig Bourke told ADBR. And so it was with SEA 4000. The reestablishment of the warship building capability in Australia with a skilled but immature workforce, the distributed block build program which saw blocks delivered with varying quality, the decision to not include the shipbuilder of the original design in the AWD Alliance or at least in a consultant capacity, and the integration of US combat and weapons systems with a European hull design and a high percentage of commercialoff-the-shelf (COTS) components all took their toll on the program’s schedule and budget. One of the best decisions that was made was to engage Raytheon Australia as the combat systems integrator early in the process. This resulted in the combat systems integration work running smoothly, with the opportunity for testing to occur early on in the project, thus minimising the combat system risks to the project.

Early in Macklin’s paper, he stated that, ‘The AWD procurement was like no other. It involved the reluctant departure from office of two defence ministers; it fell into almost every organisational pitfall imaginable; it ran wildly over budget and schedule; yet it lay the foundation for a continuous naval shipbuilding industry for the first time in Australian history.’ While elements of this statement may seem harsh or excessive, they are not without foundation. Yes, as we shall see, the project ran over budget and schedule. And yes, more than two defence ministers departed office during the program’s construction. But to be fair, one of them – Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon – was ousted for unrelated issues. And while Senator David Johnston’s removal from the portfolio could be more closely linked after he declared he “wouldn’t trust [the then government-owned ASC] to build a canoe”, it was reported that Johnston also clashed with then Prime Minister Tony Abbott on other defense related issues. It should also be noted that four PMs have also been ousted from office in that time, so it is perhaps a reflection of a period of political instability rather than being attributable to the program’s early failings! And as for ‘every organisational pitfall’, that perhaps is the most excessive comment. While it can reasonably be argued that there were project management and quality control issues, the AWD Alliance and the wider organisation was robust enough to be able to recognise these issues, and to restructure the program in order to be able to deliver three superb warships.

ABOVE LEFT: The SPY-1D(V) radar face is mounted on Hobart’s Aegis module. ABOVE RIGHT: Hobart’s mast is barged to Osborne. AWD ALLIANCE & DEFENCE

DARK DAYS

“Lots of people will give you lots of reasons for why it got to where it was, but essentially you can always put it down to lack a leadership and lack of accountabilities,” CDRE Bourke said. “In any complex program there needs to be sound and solid leadership and solid accountabilities framework. In the absence of that, a clear direction is lost – you can’t have thousands of people working on a single program with different directions, and expect to have success. “But there were some other aspects that led to many of the problems that we experienced – I’ll call it the conspiracy of ‘news’, as in new things,” CDRE Bourke added. “It was a new shipyard – before these ships were built this was a great brownfield site, no wharf, no ship lift, no construction buildings. It was also a new workforce, and they had never built surface ships at Osborne.

‘Lots of people will give you lots of reasons for why it got to where it was...’

AWD - AN ENDURING LEGACY

“Shipbuilding is difficult – it’s inherently complex,” he said. “Aircraft have thousands of equipment items and hundreds of suppliers. Ships and submarines have millions of equipment items and thousands of suppliers. So if you drew a curve from like white goods, cars, aircraft, and then ships and submarines, it’s exponential.” Peter Croser pointed towards the complexity of the project as a contributing factor. “Back when I was in industry for a while, I was involved in the development of complex project management courses and systems engineering courses,” he said. “But I realised that this is one of the most complex projects that I’ll ever be on, and part of that complexity was aligning all those stakeholders and interests to a set of values which we all signed up to and committed to. “When I walked in everything seemingly was going swimmingly,” Croser added. “But when I looked at the details, I realised it wasn’t going swimmingly. So, not only did I have alignment as complexity, I was now responsible to tell government that we’ve got a real problem here.” It has been reported that program costs were getting out of control and that a firm schedule was unable to be agreed upon. Further, the relationship between the Alliance partners was reportedly strained over contractual obligations, a factor which added further risk to the schedule. “My view was, this is not good,” says Croser. “We went up and we got support to reform it, to identify the issues.” Despite early assessments that the combat system was where much of the program risk lay, the majority of the significant problems arose in the steel and welding part of the build, the part which had been expected to be straight forward. While the steel and welding work coming out of Forgacs met

specification, there were well-publicised keel block problems experienced by BAE Systems. “Time moved on and there was a changing of the guard at ASC corporate, John Gallacher left the program, and the relationship with ASC corporately was not as strong as it had been,” recalled Rod Equid. “I would not suggest that there was any one root cause, and no attribution of blame is worthwhile,” Equid added. “But there is not much question in my mind that certain things had influence, including the lack of experience which had atrophied at Williamstown, certain production nuances necessary to get a good outcome for the particular blocks, schedule pressure, and the lack of full engagement of Navantia as the one organisation that had built these blocks before.” In an attempt to minimise the schedule impacts, the Alliance shuffled the hull block work between the three Australian production sites, and also commissioned some block work in Spain. Director General Naval Construction Branch, CDRE Steve Tiffen described this period as ‘dark days’. “We think it was pretty obvious at the time what we thought we should do, and that was to get some designer experience in the yard,” he said. “I think one of the concerns in what we did with the program was we didn’t include the designer in a fundamental role in managing the construction work, and isolated the designer to a design role only, and I think that’s caused us some pain through those early years. As the hull for Hobart was consolidated and it entered the complex ship completion phase, it became obvious that productivity was heading in the wrong direction. While the Alliance was formally reporting a $300m cost overrun, another report assessed that it could be as much as $1 billion. It was then that Warren King who was the head of the DMO commissioned an independent review.

The AWD Alliance and ASC workforce pose in front of Hobart shortly before her launch. AWD ALLIANCE

‘I would not suggest that there was any one root cause, and no attribution of blame is worthwhile...’

ADBR.COM.AU

REFORM

In June 2014, the Government took delivery of the White-Winter Report into the project. Notwithstanding the non-release of the report, a ministerial release stated that problems had occurred in the following areas: the initial program plan; inadequate government oversight; the Alliance structure’s capacity to manage the project and deal effectively with issues if and when they arose ; and the performance and capabilities of ASC and major subcontractors. In order to respond to these problems the Review recommended a reform strategy that, the Ministers asserted, would: • improve shipbuilding productivity at ASC and its subcontractors BAE Systems, Forgacs and Navantia; • include the urgent insertion of an experienced shipbuilding management team into ASC; and, • after an augmented shipbuilding capacity has been put in place, pursue the reallocation of blocks between shipyards to make the program more sustainable. “We got help from the Winter-White Report to state it to government in a way that was clear, and we then implemented a process of bringing in a ship designer/builder who could guide the build to conclusion in a schedule that was achievable,” said Croser. While Navantia had a presence in each of the shipyards that were building the various blocks, Croser says they weren’t being sufficiently consulted on the various build problems that were being encountered. “They have all the know-how of how to build these ships, they’ve built five of these class,” he said. “So, I wondered why the shipyards weren’t talking to them about how to solve these problems – no-one was going to where the IP exists for how to do this correctly.” Croser says he found the shipyards were actually generating more issues by not consulting Navantia. “Because they were deviating from the build strategy of Navantia and deviating from the build concepts, they were generating their own way of doing business and failing at it.” The Winter-White Report recommended the integration of an experienced shipbuilder management team into the ASC shipyard, and this was competed between BAE Systems and the F-100 OEM, Navantia. “We needed to bring an experienced shipbuilder designer to the table, and Navantia was that group,” said CDRE Tiffen. “And I think what you’ve seen is that lesson has now been picked up by the naval shipbuilding plan of 2017 which has the designer-shipbuilder as a key role in the design and construction going forward.” Croser explained that BAE Systems and Navantia were asked how they would reform the program. “We asked them to convince us how they would unravel this and deliver to the schedule, commit to a performance, and deliver capability to the Navy,” he said. “Both (companies) went in and assessed where the build was at with respect to all the ships. We did

the evaluation clean, but the logic said the guy that understands how to build the ship and who designed the ship can best assess where the build is at. “When Navantia won the contract to come in as the building oversight organisation, they brought their design knowledge which was a big advantage,” he added. “They could bring their build knowledge, but they also knew something about the ship because they can identify where we were at much easier. So we told them, ‘You drive the strategy, you drive the sequence, you have to interface well with the ASC management in a way that it’s non-confronting, and you need to commit to a schedule’.” Following the reschedule, the projected delivery dates of the three ships had slipped nearly three years. Hobart was now due to be commissioned in June 2017, Brisbane would follow in September 2018, and Sydney is scheduled for March 2020. These revised milestones have held since early 2015, and Sydney remains on track. “Some of that badness was because we were progressed as far as we had before reform,” said CDRE Bourke. “Ship two was a different kettle of fish. And from ship two to ship three were very much in line with what you’d expect to be industry best practice for learning. “We were coming down the learning curve,” he added. “And we shouldn’t be surprised about that because, by that stage we had an experienced and competent ship-building management in place. We had experienced trades that were no longer new. We had a now-proven shipyard, we had an established supply chain, and we now had mature work orders. So we should have expected this to come much more in line with industry norms.” Another initiative was the creation of a project management office within the Alliance that centralised the budget and schedule activities across the whole of the project. This effort, led by Raytheon Australia effectively provided a whole-ofproject approach to managing the entire program, rather than managing each ship’s budget and schedule separately. Peter Croser recalls the point where he thought the reform program had worked. “It was the day that we launched Hobart,” he said. “To me, that was a sign that we’d turned the corner, the ship was consolidated, we were about to start builders’ acceptance trials and sea acceptance trials, and start to light off systems. “So, for me, that was a sign that we’d turned the corner, we had a ship, and we had another one in build. At that time, Brisbane was probably 40-50 per cent consolidated on the hard stand and was moving along fast. So, we were back in swing, even though we were 32 months behind the original schedule.” Raytheon Australia Managing Director Michael Ward says the Alliance really pulled together to get the project to a successful conclusion. “I think across the course of the program the Alliance has taken a bit of criticism,” he explained. “Largely, I think that’s because people didn’t really understand how the Alliance worked. I will say the Alliance has worked very collaboratively to do something that’s never

‘We needed to bring an experienced shipbuilder designer to the table...’

AWD: AN ENDURING LEGACY

been done before in Australia on this scale and of this complexity.” In recognition of Navantia’s impact on the AWD program, in early 2018 the company was designated as the Class Manager for the new Hobart class DDGs. “This decision is the largest, most valuable transfer of intellectual property that I am aware of in the history of Australian defence industry,” Chairman of Navantia Australia, Warren King said in a February 2018 statement. “This transfer means that the design of the Hobart class and its future developments will all be managed from Australia.”

COMBAT SYSTEM

Some of the SEA 4000 program’s architects including Warren King - had worked on previous programs which suffered from combat system integration issues, such as on the Collins program, and they were determined that the combat system implementation for AWD would be well-managed. The decision to include the USN’s Aegis Weapon system as the core of the AWD combat system leveraged the earlier USN investment, it was a proven and fielded system which would benefit from regular updates, and it provided deep interoperability. Despite specifying the SPY1-D(V) radar, the Aegis Combat Management System, the Mk41 VLS and the Mk99 missile directors, the complete combat system still needed to cover all of the intended Australianspecific requirements. Ultimately the Combat System comprised 10 sub-systems. “Raytheon was accountable for the combat system architecture based on sound principles including consideration of certification, support and upgrade,” recalls Rod Equid. “The combat system program procured the additional elements through sub-projects, managed the FMS case with the Commonwealth, delivered data and equipment into the shipbuilding program, and designed and executed a program of integration demonstration and risk-reduction which ultimately assured a complete and functioning combat system was available for sea trials.” An example of the unique features of the Hobart class’s combat system was the Integrated Sonar Suite (ISS) from ULTRA UK. ULTRA was deemed to have the best solution to detect a broad range of threats in varying operational environments, and it comprised a bow sonar and a linear array with active and passive elements. “The two sonar sources have the potential to employ multi-statics,” explained Equid. “While the integration of the ISS was not without difficulty, a world class solution meeting specific RAN requirements was achieved and incorporated into the AWD combat system.”

CAPABILITY – AEGIS & SPY-1D(V)

If a ship’s crew is considered to be the heart of the vessel, then in the Hobart class’s case, Aegis can be considered the brain, and the SPY-1D radar, the eyes! As described above, the decision to acquire Lockheed Martin’s Aegis combat system and AN/ SPY-1D(V) radar which were common to the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke class DDGs was made well before the successful AWD hull design was chosen. Aegis was the name given to the shield wielded by Zeus in Greek mythology. Appropriately dubbed

‘The shield of the fleet’, the Aegis weapon system was first developed in the 1980s by RCA as an advanced digital combat system that integrated the sensors and weapons systems of the US Navy’s then-new Ticonderoga class cruisers (CG). “It all started in terms of capability around Aegis,” CDRE Tiffen recalls. “The government made a big decision and didn’t leave it to the vagaries of the commercial world to make the decision about the combat system and the weapons system. They chose the Aegis Combat and Weapons Systems, and that system combined with the MK-99 fire control directors, the SPY-1D phased array radar, and cooperative engagement capability (CEC) combined give the RAN the capability to detect, track and engage at very, very long, and share the information at very long distances. Australia ordered three of the then-latest configuration Baseline 7.1 Refresh 2 version of Aegis and S-band SPY-1D(V) radar systems in October 2005, and these were delivered initially into storage until the construction program was ready for the installation of the systems’ hardware. The FMS deal through the US Navy included the usual associated engineering services and integrated logistic support. Apart from the US Navy and RAN, Aegis and the SPY-1D radar is also in service with the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) on four Kongo and two Maya class DDGs; with the Spanish Armada on its five F-100 class frigates; and the Republic of Korea Navy on three (plus three planned) Sejong the Great class DDGs. The SPY-1F frigate array radar system which is scaled for a smaller vessel is in service on four Fridtjof Nansen class frigates with the Royal Norwegian Navy. That there have been nine ‘baseline’ versions of the Aegis system shows how the system has evolved, with each adding new levels of capability and complexity. The early baselines featured MilSpec computers, but Baseline 6 went to fully commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware and featured significant new capabilities including theatre ballistic missile defence (BMD) and cooperative engagement capability (CEC), the ability to network US and allied vessels by sharing threat, targeting and engagement data. Baseline 7 added the latest SPY-1D(V) radar, while Baseline 8 brought COTS and open architecture systems to older Aegis vessels, mainly the USN’s Ticonderoga class CGs. Baseline 9 is a very significant

‘That there have been nine ‘baseline’ versions of the Aegis system shows how the system has evolved...’

HMAS Hobart fires her main gun during weapons trials in the US. DEFENCE

ADBR.COM.AU

RAN personnel trained on the Aegis weapon systems with their US Navy counterparts. DEFENCE

‘Baseline 9 will also enable the incorporation of an Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) capability...’

upgrade to which Australia has committed to remain in lockstep with the US Navy program, and it features a true open architecture computer framework which allows much easier integration of new capabilities. Importantly, Baseline 9 will also add three major warfighting improvements including the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) which allows aircraft such as the F-35 and MH-60R Romeo helicopter to identify and provide targeting solutions for ship-launched missiles over the horizon and over land. Baseline 9 will also enable the incorporation of an Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) capability which will provide a much more versatile capability for air defence, Aegis’ primary mission. Its centrepiece is the new multi-mission signal processor (MMSP) software package. Something also under consideration for the RAN is an Enhanced Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability. Baseline 9 features launch-on-remote (LoR) and engage-on-remote (EoR), with tracking data for targeting incoming missiles provided by remote sensors which could be on other ships or aircraft, on land or in space, thus improving the ability to intercept longer-range and faster missiles. Baseline 9 also features what the US Navy and Lockheed Martin calls a common-source library which permits easier, cheaper and faster integration of new capabilities. The three Hobart class DDGs plus the nine planned Project SEA 5000 Hunter class frigates will give Australia the largest fleet of Aegis-equipped warships outside the US Navy, and will thus provide significant leverage into the future Aegis development process.

CAPABILITY – CEC

The adoption of Aegis and the linking of the RAN’s planned upgrade program with that of the US Navy also provided the option for Australia to integrate Raytheon’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) on the Hobart class, and to integrate it with other advanced sensor-equipped platforms. CEC is designed to enhance the capability of a surface fleet by combining ship-borne radar and fire control data into a common picture, allowing one ship to engage an adversary based on another ship’s data. Initial tests of CEC on the Hobart class DDGs

was successfully conducted aboard HMASs Hobart and Brisbane in the Gulf of St Vincent south-west of Adelaide in March and early April 2018. Australia is only the second nation to integrate CEC after the US, and also plans to integrate it with other assets such as the RAAF’s E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C, the planned AIR 6500 Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) program, and the SEA 5000 Hunter class’s Aegis system to provide a long-range, cooperative and multi-layered air defence capability. In his paper The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) – Transforming Naval Anti-Air Warfare published in 2007, William D O’Neil says “… the key to CEC is the ability to move from track-telling to transmitting complete radar data, dwell by dwell.” A ‘dwell’ is described as a “single radar ‘look’ at a target, which may involve multiple pulses in rapid succession but at the same beam position”. O’Neil said this has been enabled by advances in computer speed from the use of faster digital components in radar receivers, and by computerised digital communications which permit faster transmission speeds without the need of greater bandwidths or increased power. These advances have effectively seen the first distributed lethality utilised by naval platforms. The concept of CEC goes back to the 1970s when the US Navy sought counters to the proliferation of advanced high-speed anti-ship missiles, and the limitations of a ship’s mast-mounted radar which gives a radar horizon in the low tens of miles. The US Navy’s concept of operations at the time was to engage an attacking force as far away as possible from an aircraft carrier around which a task group was commonly structured, hence the development of the Grumman F-14/Hughes AWG-9/ AIM-54 long-range interceptor combination, and the RIM-66 SM-2 in the 1960s and 70s, and the first generation of Aegis combat systems in the late 1970s and 80s. Vessels currently communicate with other vessels and defending aircraft primarily via Link-11 and Link-16 datalinks to share track and early warning information. But these links come with a high level of latency which does not readily allow for reliable fire control solutions to be developed when sensor data is shared. Where CEC differs is, it is not reliant on these systems and instead uses an organic network which shares raw data, not tracks. The system is sensorambivalent, so it builds a composite track from any number of airborne and surface sensors, thus giving the ship a much greater ‘horizon’ than that offered by the radar on its own mast. Further, if one of those sensors is destroyed or disabled, it has a ‘self-healing’ ability to seek other sources of information from other sensors in order to retain its air picture, and thus retain an accurate fire control solution on any approaching threat. Any vessel or aircraft that has a CEC capability becomes a node in the network. While ships were originally thought of only as CEC nodes, this can now be applied to land-based aircraft, especially those which have advanced digital sensors such as the E-7A. Possible future airborne nodes could also be carried by the P-8A Poseidon or even something like a KC-30A MRTT.

AWD: AN ENDURING LEGACY

CAPABILITY – AVIATION UPGRADE

The AWD program was commenced when the RAN operated the S-70B-9 Seahawk, and before the newer MH-60R Romeo has been selected under Project AIR 9000 Phase 8. As a consequence, the RAN’s ships were designed with a hangar and associated aviation spaces similar to those of the Spanish Armada vessels which operate the SH-60B Seahawk. But the more advanced avionics, sensors and weapons suites of the Romeo requires different spares, weapons bunkerage, and workshop spaces to effectively service the helicopters at sea, so it was decided to upgrade the hangars and aviation spaces of the three vessels to better accommodate the new helicopters. The upgrade has seen HMAS Hobart and NUSHIP Sydney receive new flightdeck and hangar lighting, hangar space optimisation, and better weapons storage to accommodate the newer aircraft and its more advanced sensors, systems and weapons. Hobart’s three-month upgrade was performed in dry dock in Sydney in early 2019. The second ship of the class, HMAS Brisbane is scheduled to undergo its aviation spaces upgrade in 2020, while NUSHIP Sydney has received its upgrade during construction. “We were ahead of schedule, around three months at the start of last year,” Paul Evans told ADBR. “So we proposed to the Commonwealth that we could introduce that capability (on NUSHIP Sydney) before the ship left Osborne, rather than needing to incorporate that once the ship was in service. And we’ve been able to do that through the productivity initiatives and enhancements that we’ve brought along with the program. “So, Sydney for the first time will leave here with the full combat helicopter capability on board, that will enable the crew to immediately start training with that capability, put the ‘birdies’ on board, and get the helicopter working with the ship in a full workup sense.” The upgrade culminated in HMAS Hobart for the first time embarking an RAN Romeo in July for first of class flight trials (FOCFT) in conjunction with the Aircraft Maintenance and Flight Trials Unit (AMAFTU). The FOCFT not only evaluated the interaction between the vessel and helicopter in flight in various sea states and wind conditions, but also aircraft handling on the flightdeck and in the hangar, and the ability of maintenance and weapons handling personnel to work effectively in the confined spaces of the hangar. “The trials have proven highly successful with day and night sorties flown to test and expand our operating limits,” Hobart’s Commanding Officer, CMDR Ryan Gaskin told Navy Daily. “The expanded operating limits will be a pivotal capability multiplier as Hobart prepares for her maiden task group deployment to North-East Asia later this year.” The MH-60R is able to employ Mk54 torpedos, the APKWS guided rocket system, AGM-114 Hellfire laserguided air-to-surface missiles, and a door-mounted heavy machine gun. By comparison, the older Seahawk was armed only with the machine gun and the lighter and shorter Mk46 torpedo.

LEGACY

Despite the early production and project management issues experienced by the program, there is no doubt it has delivered not only the most capable warships to ever enter service with the RAN, but also an enduring legacy of naval warship building that will be maintained well into the 2040s. In a statement, Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds told ADBR that the DDGs are the most capable and lethal warships ever to be operated by the RAN. “It is essential our defence force has worldleading technology and the capability to protect our nation – one that can provide credible deterrence, scalable response options and can withstand counter coercion,” she said. “The success of the AWD program is credited to the federal coalition government led reform and the dedication of 5,000 people and 2,700 suppliers Australia-wide,” she added. “Each and every person who has worked on the program has brought their unique skills to ensure its success – from welders and pipefitters to systems engineers, administrators, procurement officers and project managers. “Furthermore, this workforce has created a legacy and foundation to establish the strong sovereign shipbuilding industry needed to support the national shipbuilding enterprise.” But perhaps any commentary on the program’s legacy is best left to those who had the most skin in the game. CDRE Tiffen says one of the most important legacies of the AWD program was the pool of experienced people it has left. “I think the challenge for AWD was the stop start nature of shipbuilding in Australia,” he said. “The Australian frigate (FFG) and the ANZAC projects overlapped by some margin, so there was no valley of death. But the ANZAC program and the AWD program never overlapped, and they were started in a different location so, there was no workforce to rely on. “I think the best thing that resulted out of the AWD program is that experience is going to be exploited, and that the issues that we saw in (the program) shouldn’t be repeated,” he added. “Although there will be start-up issues as there are with every program, and of course SEA 5000 and SEA 1180 are very different programs in respect of some of the technical challenges that they will experience.” Peter Croser says Defence and Industry have both learned about what the dependencies are of shipbuilding in Australia. “I don’t mean just shipbuilding,” he said. “I mean the design, the supply chain, the integration, the set to work, the trials. We are now a lot more mature than we were before AWD, and we’ve proven that we can do it. “So, the lessons are, we greybeards who are around – Craig (Bourke), Steve (Tiffen) and I are three of them – have the scars and have the lessons that we bring to the table every day,” Croser added. “And what that’s doing is de-risking the next programs, which is why we are, I think, at the moment delivering against our schedules and our outcomes on the current programs as a result of those lessons.” Paul Evans says the AWD program laid the foundation for continued shipbuilding. “This program has really set up the next 20 or 30 years in shipbuilding where we’ve developed a workforce

‘This program has really set up the next 20 or 30 years in shipbuilding...’

ADBR.COM.AU

from practically nothing,” he said. “We now have a very advanced shipyard, arguably the best in the world. We’ve got a trained workforce that understands procurement, planning, scheduling of the work, and in all the trades producing a very complex system which is a warship. CDRE Bourke says if the program had not been successfully turned around, it may have meant the end of large warship building in Australia. “I doubt very much that the government would have been willing to say 12 months ago we’re putting out a national ship-building strategy and we’re going to be building ships in Australia,” he said. “So, I look out there and I see probably four and a half million man hours of effort in that one (Sydney) compared to nearly nine million man hours of effort in the first one,” he added. “I see three and a half thousand suppliers, key suppliers, not their subcontract suppliers, but key suppliers. I see about 70 per cent Australian involvement. They’re all legacies that go into the future programs. “And the ships are amongst the most capable ships of their type in the world, certainly ships of that size. They’re hard to beat, a fabulous radar and well-proven technology. An excellent combat suite, fantastic communications suite, levels of integration that we haven’t had on previous platforms, and interoperability that we haven’t had with previous platforms, which brings a lot more to bear for the war-fighter.” Rod Equid agrees that the program produced far more positive outcomes than negative ones. “Ultimately, the program should be seen as highly successful in comparison with international first-ofclass ship programs that often suffer monumental overruns and delays with production runs shortened to compensate. “The AWD program served to re-establish the industrial base and corporate knowledge required for this type of undertaking, and the products delivered are great,” Equid added. “The promises around performance were met. The combat system works as advertised and was delivered under the original budget for the scope. The ship meets all of its key

NUSHIP Sydney perpares to sail for her initial builder’s trials on September 16. AWD Alliance General Manager Paul Evans, Director General Naval Construction Branch CDRE Steve Tiffen, and CO of NUSHIP Sydney CMDR Ted Seymour are in the front row. DEFENCE

performance characteristics and carries 600 tons of future growth margin.” Michael Ward says the AWD program has delivered a formidable capability. “We now have all three ships, we’ve finished the cooperative engagement capability integration – and these are the only ships outside of the US Navy that have CEC – and of course, that coupled with Aegis weapon system just gives them a formidable capability. “More than 5,000 people and 2,700 suppliers have worked on this program over the last 14 years, and they should be immensely proud as Australians,” he added. “That these ships have been designed, developed, built, and now will be supported by Australian industry. This program has offered us the opportunity as a nation to develop significant skills and capabilities, so what we’re really developing within Australia is a sovereign capability.” Perhaps the last word is best left to the incoming commanding officer of NUSHIP Sydney, CMDR Ted Seymour, with whom ADBR spoke on the eve of the start of Sydney’s builder’s sea trials. “I think the proudest moment for me is still in the future,” he said. “I have been on a journey with Aegis now since 2010, so being onboard Sydney for that final target being splashed by a missile in 2021 will be 11 years’ worth of effort. So that will be a pretty special moment. “But having been involved in the program for so long, we’ve built a number of relationships with the different organisations that are involved in the Alliance, and those relationships have been extremely valuable in bringing this platform into service. While we’ve got a way to go yet, the experience that I had (as Executive Officer) in HMAS Hobart previously and working with the guys down in Adelaide and the shipbuilding industry down there, it’s been extremely positive. “The platform that we have received has met all the expectations that we had for it,” he added. “The legacy of the shipbuilding industry that we have established has set the foundation for the future platforms that we need to produce.”

FRIGATE AMBITIONS

ADBR.COM.AU

SEA 5000

FRIGATE AMBITIONS

BAE Systems Australia and ASC Shipbuilding progress Australia’s Hunter class frigate design BY MAX BLENKIN

A BAE Systems rendering of an RAN hunter class frigate. BAE SYSTEMS

n June 2018 the Commonwealth announced that nine new frigates, based on the BAE Systems UK Type 26 Global Combat Ship (GCS) were to be built for the Royal Australian Navy in South Australia under Project SEA 5000. Rather ambitiously, first steel was to be cut in 2022. Ambitious, because this is a brand new design. Work on the first Type 26 for the UK’s Royal Navy only started in July 2018 and, at the time, Australia didn’t have a shipyard suitable for construction of the new vessels. But that shipyard is under construction and Craig Lockhart, managing director of ASC Shipbuilding, says they’re right on track to begin prototyping in 2020. And, although he’s not nominating a firm date for a ceremonial button pressing for plasma cutting of a section of steel plate, he predicts it will be around December 2022. “From mid to late next year we start really looking at prototyping,” he told ADBR. “We have selected a number of keel blocks and a number of mid-section blocks and we have picked them at levels of different complexity. “We are taking the five blocks and intend to run those blocks through the shipyard from a full

design reference, to work cards on the shop floor right through to production, as a way of testing the shipyard processes,” he added. “It’s a chance for us to break things. We want to test it in a controlled environment where we are not too worried about getting it wrong.” Lockhart says these will be fully finished blocks, but they will not form part of the first ship. “This will be a way of testing the technology transfer, a way of testing the shipyard processes, and a way of testing our readiness, but also it gives the supply chain a much earlier engagement,” he said.

WORLD CLASS

For that to occur a shipyard is needed, and construction of the new $500 million facility is well underway at Osborne, where Collins class submarines and Hobart class DDGs were built, and where the first two SEA 1180 offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) are now under construction. Once completed, this will be the most modern shipyard in the world, and Lockhart said those building Type 26s for the Royal Navy at historic yards in Glasgow were deeply envious of the new facilities

FRIGATE AMBITIONS

“For the first time, Australia has invested in a tailored and unique ship build facility, where raw materials come in one side, straight into the unit build hall where panel lines and plasma cutters will start to shape sheet metal and build units,” Lockhart said. “The units will then transfer into the block build hall and be created into blocks. Then assembled blocks will go into the assembly hall where we will have the capability to bring two ships alive at once.” That’s different to how the three SEA 4000 AWDs were built. Hull blocks were constructed at Forgacs in Newcastle, BAE Systems at Williamstown, and by ASC at Osborne. They were then assembled into complete ships and fitted out in Osborne. Construction of all the Hunter class hull sections at Osborne means the work isn’t shared around as much to others, but the supply chain will still have significant opportunities to participate. On the plus side, building everything in the same locations requires less concentration on “dimensional control policies,” one of many issues which plagued the AWD program where blocks manufactured in different yards didn’t always fit together. The AWD project, now all but completed, encountered numerous problems and ran late and over budget. Only towards the end and after major reforms which brought ship designer Navantia fully into the build process, did this project demonstrate productivity approaching world standards. Lockhart says although they’re building a new design in a new shipyard, they aren’t starting with a completely clean sheet. “There has certainly been a proper and good discussion in the contract negotiations referencing learning from the AWD program. That’s a very positive thing to do,” he said. “We accept that we will learn lessons from AWD.”

GOING GLOBAL

Last year was a very good year for BAE Systems and its Global Combat Ship design. First Australia chose the UK design to eventually replace the RAN’s eight ANZAC frigates with nine new vessels. Soon after construction of the first of eight ships for the RN began in July. Then in October, Canada announced it had chosen the GCS as its new Canadian Surface Combatant, with 15 to be constructed in partnership with Lockheed Martin in Canada. That makes a global fleet of 32 warships and, as success begets success, there could well be more than these three programs. New Zealand will soon need to replace its two ANZAC frigates, the second and fourth of the 10 ANZACs constructed at Williamstown between 1993 and 2006. The New Zealand Defence White Paper forecast that the two ships would remain in service to around 2030, so they would have to start considering replacements around 2023-24. So could Australian-made Hunters be exported? “While construction on the first of the UK’s City class Type 26 ships gathers pace, we are confident that the Global Combat Ship has further potential for export and would be a strong candidate should there be future international competitions for a class of anti-submarine warship.” Lockhart said. “The challenge for ASC shipbuilding and the Australian government is to make sure we deliver against the Hunter program (schedule), and the Type 26 program and that track record will stand for itself.” The Commonwealth signed the head contract with BAE Systems Australia last December. But even before that, in October BAE signed an Advanced Work Arrangement to allow preliminary processes to begin.

A computer rendering of the completed Osborne shipbuilding precinct in Adelaide. DEFENCE

‘We accept that we will learn lessons from AWD.’

Delivering advanced Australian technology to the Royal Australian Navy Modernising the existing fleet

SEA1448 Ph2B ASMD Upgrade

SEA1448 Ph4B Advanced Air Search Radar

and preparing it for the future

SEA5000 Hunter Class Frigate

CEA Technologies is exhibiting at PACIFIC 2019, 8–10 October at the Sydney Convention Centre. We’re located at stand 1K2 and would be happy to discuss our technology with you when you visit.

CEA Technologies Pty Limited 59–65 Gladstone Street, Fyshwick ACT 2609, Australia Call: +61 2 6213 0001 Email: cea@cea.com.au Visit: www.cea.com.au

FRIGATE AMBITIONS

In July 2019, the project passed its first major milestone, the Systems Readiness Review (SRR) in which ASC Shipbuilding, BAE Systems UK, and the Commonwealth assessed design maturity. “We are being paid against a set of design milestone we have agreed with the Commonwealth,” Lockhart said. “We are working in a collaborative way to achieve them and SRR was one of those first steps and that’s why I am confident in saying we are bang on schedule.” BAE Systems Australia already has around 400 people employed in the Hunter program, split around between Australia and the UK. “We have about 40 Australians living in Glasgow and fully integrated not only with the mobilisation aspects of Hunter, but getting heavily involved in the detailed design and construction of Type 26,” Lockhart said. “They are learning how the reference ship is coming together and are compiling the technology transfer,” he added. “We have a couple of hundred people in Adelaide and in Melbourne who are bringing the early design phase together with the customer. We are bang on schedule. We are where we should be at this point in a complex warship design and build program.”

European MBDA SeaCeptor. The Canadian vessels will be different again. The prime contractor is Irving Shipbuilding which awarded the contract to Lockheed Martin Canada. The key system will be the Canadian Combat Management System 330, which includes elements of the Saab 9LV, based on the system aboard Canada’s modernised Halifax-class frigates.. For Australia, the CEA radar and Aegis/Saab combat system drives considerable change in the ship design. “It is a bigger radar, it uses more power,” explained Lockhart. “That gives us a challenge of how we configure it inside. Obviously we have the US Aegis combat system which different from the UK. “Between Lockheed Martin and Saab, our two partners, we have a busy time in the combat management space identifying how we integrate Aegis, the depth of the Australian interface, and how that integrates with the rest of the ship.” There are other changes which fall under the general heading of design Australianisation, for example while the RN doesn’t see a collision alarm as necessary, the RAN does. Then there’s configuration of the ops room, including screen layouts and who sits where. The hangar deck layout will be different as Australia operates different helicopters. Power outlets will of course be Australian not UK standard. However, much will be the same – the hull, powerplant and ship management system. “We are trying not to limit change,” Lockhart said. “The Lloyds certification for a class of ship in the UK is broadly the same as the Lloyds classification for a ship in Australia. “Where it has that classification and acceptance standard, we will not seek to change, and we are not pursuing the Australian defcon standard if Type 26 has an approved Naval Standard as the reference design,” he added. “But we are building new processes as we go through in terms of how we manage the design review between us. That is a challenge for everyone. We have two teams working with different systems knowledge and different experience, but we are bringing them together and making it work.”

‘We have about 40 Australians living in Glasgow and fully integrated...’

DIGITAL SHIPS

The Hunters will the first Australian warship designed and constructed to a wholly digital design. That gives unprecedented opportunity for design changes to be instantly standardised between the UK and Australia, for integration of new or different features, for tracking of every production item, and for maintaining integrity for key design criteria such as the noise and vibration quota, vital for an antisubmarine warfare platform. However, Hunter will be different from Type 26 in key areas. Australia has mandated the Australian CEA phased array radar, Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system and the SAAB Australian Tactical Interface. But on the UK’s ships, the key sensor will be the BAE Systems Type 997 Artisan radar. Both designs feature the US Mark 41 vertical launch system, but different weapons. Hunter will be armed with US ESSM and SM-2 missiles, while Type 26 with the

Canada’s version of the Global Combat Ship has several notable differences, most notably the mast design and primary sensors. LOCKHEED MARTIN CANADA

ADBR.COM.AU

The Hunter class frigates will replace the RAN’s eight ANZAC FFHs, the first of which - HMAS Arunta - just completed its AMCAP upgrade. DEFENCE

INSPIRED

Less than six months passed between the Commonwealth’s June announcement that BAE’s design was the winner to contract signature in December. That’s a remarkably short period for a project of this size, duration, and complexity, and contrasts with the protracted period of negotiations with Naval Group for design and construction of the SEA 1000 Attack class submarines. For the Hunters, the Commonwealth has actually contracted with ASC Shipbuilding, previously a division of the Commonwealthowned ASC. Under the deal with BAE Systems Australia, ASC Shipbuilding structurally separated from ASC and became a subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia, with the Commonwealth retaining an interest. To build the Hunters, a workforce will be needed and that has greatly diminished from the peak of the AWD project, courtesy of the ‘Valley of Death’ – as the work has wound down, there’s been no alternative but to lay off skilled workers. Right now, the only shipbuilding under way at Osborne is residual work on the AWDs and construction by ASC Shipbuilding of the first two new Arafura class OPVs. With completion of the two Arafuras, the South Australian component of SEA 1180 ends next year after which the project relocates to Henderson in Western Australia. The government’s decision to split the OPV build between SA and WA was initially criticised as a clunky solution to the workforce problem, one which would just add cost and complexity. When that occurs, ASC Shipbuilding will get its workers back just in time for the Hunter prototyping phase.

So now that decision is actually starting to look pretty inspired. The 100 workers engaged on the OPV project actually hold Australia’s most recent actual shipbuilding experience across a range of skills including design, fabrication, and supply chain management. At the peak, the Hunter program will engage 2,400 employees, and will create and sustain more than 5,000 jobs throughout BAE Systems, ASC Shipbuilding and the defence industry supply chain. Lockhart said, as the project proceeded it would become tougher to find those with the required engineering and systems skills. “It is part of the challenge to develop that skill base over the long term,” he said. “We are on target. We are doing really well but we have got to move from just being what I would call a South Australian focus to a truly national focus. “We are tapping into and having good conversation with lots of universities and lots of TAFEs from Western Australian to NSW to Victoria in an attempt to get them aligned to our needs. “Realistically we are going to have kids who have not yet started school hopefully work at some point on this program. Getting them turned on to the STEM agenda is a big issue for us because I have to think about the next 20 years worth of capability.” This is a long recognised challenge and not just for defence industry, but Lockhart says the situation is definitely improving. “Not only is the number improving but the mix is improving,” he said. “We are seeing many more female students interested in science and engineering subjects and we can measure that through our graduate intake.”

FRIGATE AMBITIONS

STRATEGY

At the end of the project, Australia will gain nine very advanced warships, but building new warships for Australia is just part of the government’s plan. The over-arching ambition is to develop a sovereign shipbuilding capability, with the ability to design and build our own ships. For that Australia needs a Naval Shipbuilding Strategy which is now under development. “I have just reviewed the first draft,” Lockhart said. “We are in early discussions with the customer on what that looks like. That will set the future program for decades to come. “How we bring it alive is the detailed naval shipbuilding strategy itself,” he added. “It started with a series of questions. We converted that into something we refer to as a definition document. “It is the early stages of being able to develop that with the customer, which sets up long-term decision – how many ships, to what drumbeat, to what standard, and to what technology are we going to try to build to, and even considering how we fully develop Australian industrial capability. “By the end of this decade, we need to be a in a position as a sovereign nation to be able to undertake concept design, scheme designs and full detail designs with the capability we have available on these shores. So what if Australia decided it needed a new type of vessel such as an aircraft carrier? Lockhart said that would start with concept designs. “We would then work with the government on systems definition and requirements. If we got agreement that met the capability requirement, we would then have a contract that went into full scheme and detailed design development,” he said. “It’s about having the processes, the system, the tools and the know-how on how to do that and bring it alive,” he added. “That’s a big part of this contract – to transfer that knowledge – 100 years worth of shipbuilding knowledge in BAE Systems on the Clyde, and bring it alive over here.”

SUPPLY CHAIN

But BAE Systems and ASC Shipbuilding aren’t doing the Hunters on their own. Many other Australian firms will be involved in the supply chain. Already seven Australian firms are supplying equipment for Type 26 in the UK. In June ASC and BAE Systems hosted their supply chain conference with some 170 suppliers. In July, a get together of industry, research centres and universities showcased future innovation and technology for the Hunter project. “The good thing is when we do events like the (showcase) and the supply chain conference…for ourselves as prime contractors, we get to find out things we didn’t know existed in the SME market,” Lockhart said. “There’s lots of innovation in companies, doing really good stuff that we are just not aware of. Even at the basic level, connecting company A with company B has been a valuable exercise.” Right now ASC Shipbuilding is working with 10 primary equipment suppliers. These include companies such as Rolls-Royce which produces the MT30 gas turbines for Type 26 in the UK. And RollsRoyce owns MTU which manufactures the ship’s diesel engines. Could this type of equipment be made in Australia? “Some of those suppliers, like Rolls-Royce are looking at this as a 20 to 30 year program and looking to make that commitment and investment either to initially licence, but then ultimately to manufacture out of Australia,” Lockhart said. Many other Australian companies are interested in this project, unsurprising as it’s worth $36 billion and will run for decades. That includes four Australian indigenous-run companies, with ASC Shipbuilding working with the Indigenous Defence and Infrastructure Consortium (IDIC) to get them on board. ASC Shipbuilding sees the Australian industry community in three categories; those firms ready to work on the Hunter project right now, those which could be ready with some help and guidance on contracting procedures, and those which have some interesting capabilities but don’t yet make the grade. “But we are going to give them some help to move them down that journey,” he said.

BAE’s Global Combat Ship design has been adapted to three different operators, including the Royal Navy’s Type 26 (pictured). Will there be more?. BAE SYSTEMS

‘It’s about having the processes, the system, the tools and the know-how on how to do that and bring it alive.’

DEFENCE JOBS QUEENSLAND

SMALL SHIPS

SEA 1180 OPV

SMALL SHIPS

The RAN’s SEA 1180 Arafura class Offshore Patrol Vessel program is rapidly taking shape BY MAX BLENKIN

he big grey warships, the frigates and guided missile destroyers, may well be the star athletes of the modern Royal Australian Navy, but it’s always been the little ships which did most of the work. The numbers tell the story. Budget documents for 2019-20 show the Navy’s minor combatants, the patrol boat fleet and minehunters, achieved 4,098 unit available days, against 3,053 for the major combatants – the frigates, destroyers and submarines. So much of the work was thrust upon the Armidale class patrol boats that they literally started to crack, their aluminium hulls never designed for the extended periods at sea as was demanded of them in the border protection mission. But their replacements are on the way under the SEA 1180 offshore patrol vessel (OPV) program, 12 much larger steel hulled vessels that are better able to operate for extended periods at sea and designed to perform a range of missions. Ship numbers one and two are now under construction by ASC Shipbuilding at Osborne in Adelaide, while work on ship three will start at Henderson near Perth next year. Ship one will

be named HMAS Arafura and all 12 will form the Arafura class. The Navy hasn’t yet revealed names for the other 11 vessels. The Arafura is based on the OPV80 design by German shipbuilder Luerssen, similar to the Darussalam class OPVs of the Royal Brunei Navy. These are substantially bigger vessels than the hardworked Armidales – 80 metres and 1,640 tonnes versus 56 metres and just 300 tonnes. Fourteen Armidale boats were commissioned between June 2005 and February 2008, replacing 15 220 tonne Fremantle class patrol boats. The Armidales have copped the brunt of the ongoing border protection mission, prompted by an initial influx of asylum seekers voyaging perilously south from Indonesia and Sri Lanka aboard clapped-out fishing boats. A combination of the aluminium hull and wave buffeting on long operations created hull cracks – along with a firm belief in Navy that future vessels needed to be made of steel. But despite the problems, just one of the 14 Armidales has departed service, HMAS Bundaberg which was written off after a fire during a refit in 2014. The government first outlined its vision for a replacement in the 2009 Defence White Paper. It

ADBR.COM.AU

A rendering of an Arafura class OPV in RAN service. Luerssen

‘The final decision was announced in December 2017, but there were some novel provisions.’

said a fleet of 20 new Offshore Combatant Vessels, each as big as 2,000 tonnes, would replace the 14 Armidales, six Huon-class minehunters, plus hydrographic and oceanographic vessels. A single type of vessel would be configurable to different missions from mine-hunting to border protection to counter-terrorism. In 2013 that was dialled back a bit, with the government declaring that a modular multirole vessel remained a ‘possible longer term capability outcome’. The Armidales would be replaced, and the Huons and other vessels upgraded ‘until the longerterm solution can be delivered’. The 2016 White paper said 12 new offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) would be acquired, with greater range and endurance than the Armidales and capable of performing different missions. Work would start in 2018, with all vessels delivered by 2030. The Defence Integrated Investment Plan (IIP) cites a program cost of $3-4 billion over the period 2016-33. Meanwhile, the Huons and military hydrography capability were initially planned to be updated, but that’s not quite how it turned out. During the 2019 election campaign, Prime Minister Morrison announced that two new mine warfare support vessels would be constructed in WA though Project

SEA 1905, while a new hydrographic vessel would be constructed through project SEA 2400. So now it could mean 15 new vessels from three separate projects – 12 Arafuras plus three others of types TBA. However, these may well be based on the Arafura as Luerssen almost certainly plans to bid for these builds, especially as OPV production at Henderson will be well underway by then. Compared to the bigger projects – SEA 1000 for Future Submarines and SEA 5000 for Future Frigates – SEA 1180 for OPVs was low key, pitting Luerssen against fellow German shipbuilder Fassmer and Damen of the Netherlands. Long before the final decision, Luerssen and Damen had both teamed up with ASC Shipbuilding and WA engineering firm Civmec, while Fassmer partnered with WA shipbuilder Austal. The final decision was announced in December 2017, but there were some novel provisions. The first two vessels are to be built in South Australia and the remaining 10 in WA. Although Austal appeared to dip out, the government called for Luerssen to talk to Austal to explore options to leverage wider WA shipbuilding experience. But Luerssen announced in May last year it

SEA 1180 - SMALL SHIPS

had been unable to reach a viable commercial agreement with Austal so, at this stage, Austal is playing no part in the OPV project. Fortunately, it is hard at work turning out the new Guardian class Pacific patrol boats, 21 of which Australia is donating to PNG, various Pacific nations, and Timor Leste. Luerssen’s two major sub-contractors are ASC Shipbuilding, now a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems Australia, and Civmec, a heavy engineering firm in the resources sector which has increasingly focused on the rising naval shipbuilding industry. In 2016, Civmec acquired Newcastle firm Forgacs Marine and Defence which had built hull sections of ANZAC frigates and the Hobart class DDGs. For its growing role in shipbuilding, Civmec has been building an enormous shed at Henderson which one Defence official has quipped could be seen from space. This shed will fit a Hobart class DDG and, even at peak production, the OPV project will occupy just 40 per cent of the space, leaving plenty of room for other work. And last year Luerssen Australia and Civmec formed a new company, Australian Maritime Shipbuilding and Export Group (AMSEG) to exploit emerging opportunities. The build split between Osborne and Henderson initially raised some eyebrows. For efficiency’s sake, how could one yard launch production and build two boats, then shut down and start all over again on the other side of the country? The government’s key objective in starting the build at Osborne was to ensure a nucleus of skilled workers remained between the end of SEA 4000 air warfare destroyer project and the start of construction of the new SEA 5000 Hunter class frigates. “It’s working,” ASC Shipbuilding managing director Craig Lockhart told ADBR. “It’s providing an infill. It’s providing a level load. Without OPV it would have been a significant challenge on the trade and industrial side from having nothing in the yard.” All steel for the two SA OPVs was cut by Civmec in Henderson, with truckloads of hull sections and bulkheads arriving each week for assembly. The

steel itself comes from NSW. The first steel was cut at Henderson in October 2018, with Prime Minister Morrison officiating in the obligatory hard hat and high-viz vest. That same day, Civmec erected the first steel on its 53,000 square metre ship assembly building. Almost a year on, Luerssen Australia chief executive officer and project director Jens Nielsen said they are pleased with progress. The big event for the year was the keel laying ceremony for Arafura on May 10. Construction of ship two started in Adelaide in early June. Construction of ship three is scheduled to start in Henderson at the end of March next year. For a shipbuilder starting up in Australia, a single yard would have been a whole lot easier, but Luerssen took on board the government’s requirement for production at yards more than 2,000 kilometres apart. “There was a request by the government – can we accommodate this – and we have made the analysis and said yes we can do this,” Nielsen told ADBR. “We are quite confident we can deliver. “That fact is that this requires more communication and more explanation, but that is going very well. It is open and transparent communication and we are quite pleased with it, otherwise we wouldn’t be where we are.” Nielsen said ship assembly in SA and WA is actually quite different. “In Osborne we build the ship in two halves, and the two halves get put together, and that is based on the infrastructure available,” he said. “In Western Australia with the modern technology Civmec is putting in place, we are able to build layer by layer. We start at the bottom and just go layer by layer. “We are very very pleased so far with what we are getting out of Henderson with respect to the steel cutting and all the other materials from Civmec, and also the progress on the construction of the shed.” Nielsen said that was positioning Civmec and Luerssen very well for the future. While building 12 vessels for Australia is a significant deal in itself, that project will come to an end in a decade. From then

‘We are very very pleased so far with what we are getting out of Henderson...’

The Henderson facility south of Fremantle has rapidly become a centre of excellence for shipbuilding, upgrades and sustainment. DEFENCE

Construction of CIVMEC’s new facility at Henderson is well underway. CIVMEC

ADBR.COM.AU

‘It was always the intention when Luerssen first came here to establish a regional export base from Australia.’

on, Luerssen and Civmec will be looking to export. “It was always the intention when Luerssen first came here to establish a regional export base from Australia, it being far easier to export from Australia to the region than it might be from Germany,” said former Navy chief VADM Chris Ritchie (Ret’d), now a Luerssen Australia director. “It doesn’t mean they will stop shipbuilding in Germany.” However the German government’s attitude to defence exports has hardened, and total exports have declined for the last three years, though they remain significant. Last year defence exports totalled €4.82bn (A$7.8bn), well down from €7.86bn (A$12.7bn) in 2015. That’s been attributed to stricter government guidelines for export permits, driven by growing public opposition to arms exports, particularly to regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Nielsen said there were areas where Germany for some time had been reconsidering its position, and that had made Luerssen consider a second hub for export. “We consider it a second hub to be developed, and it’s not a sole export hub. That is not

the direction we are taking,” he said. Germany itself will be buying a range of new vessels and Luerssen’s civil shipbuilding business, constructing mega-yachts is very busy. However, there is a growing export market for small naval vessels, as various regional nations recapitalise and expand their fleets. Like other defence companies, Luerssen acknowledges the challenge of acquiring the skilled Australian workers it needs. But it has a couple of advantages – it’s starting early, and it won’t need the big numbers as will be required for construction of new submarines and frigates. At peak, that will be around 400 working directly on the project, or 1,000 including the supply chain. The peak arrives quite soon and covers the period of parallel production at Osborne and Henderson. Right now there are 15 German nationals working on the project in Australia. Nielsen said they were able to find needed skilled workers from the market, but were still ramping up. “We do see the difficulties everybody has,” he said. “Getting shipbuilding expertise from the market is not easy, and we are involved in various programs and discussions with respect to workforce and our scholarship program we launched last year in December.” Luerssen’s main sub-contractors are ASC Shipbuilding and Civmec for construction, Saab for the combat system, Taylor Brothers for accommodation, Penske Marine for MTU diesel engines, Noske-Kaeser for air conditioning and refrigeration, and MTA for electricals. The target is 63 per cent Australian industry content, but Luerssen believes it’s on track to do better. “We are also very much promoting that the SME base is interested in taking over elements which are currently being done out of the country and getting them connected to European suppliers,” Nielsen said. For our money, Australia will be acquiring vessels vastly more capable than their predecessors. These will be competent blue water vessels, albeit with somewhat reduced capacity for littoral area operations. Although the Arafuras feature a substantial flat rear deck which could land a helicopter, the government didn’t specify a helicopter capability. That gives the vessel the ability to quickly adapt to different missions through the integration of modular equipment for mine-countermeasures, special forces, or extra accommodation. It was always envisaged the OPVs would be equipped with an unmanned aircraft system. Either fixed or rotary-wing systems, both of which the Navy has been trialling, could be embarked giving the vessel a greatly increasing ability to conduct surveillance or search and rescue. For basic armament, the vessels will be equipped with a Leonardo stabilised 40mm gun system plus a pair of 50 Cal machine guns. For a small vessel, the Saab combat system will be very sophisticated, raising the prospect that down the track, the OPVs could be up-gunned. That would make them formidable small combatants, of a kind Australia has never possessed but which are common across other Navies.

OSINT - DANGEROUS SEAS

t is no secret that the People’s Republic of China has transformed into an economic powerhouse in the last 20 years following an ambitious economic reform program. It has also meant that the People’s Liberation Army has been similarly transformed into a modern military powerhouse, and is a far cry from the manpower-heavy ‘peasant army’ force posture of years past. The same can be said of its Navy. The People’s Liberation Army Navy or PLAN is no longer the brown and green water coastal force of yore. Today, with more than 100 major surface combatants and submarines and a personnel count of about 250,000, the PLAN can justifiably lay claim to being a true blue water Navy and the most powerful on this side of the Pacific. The PLAN is divided into three major commands; the North, East and South Sea Fleets, and in times of conflict its main role would be to secure the seas within the ‘First Island Chain’ and beyond as part of

China’s anti-access, area denial (A2/AD) strategy. This would see the PLA conducting operations during times of conflict to prevent an adversary’s access to a particular region (anti-access) or to contest its freedom of movement within that theatre (area denial), and is geared to prevent US forces from operating freely inside the First Island Chain to, for example, intervene militarily during an PLA invasion of Taiwan. The First Island Chain refers to the first chain of major archipelagos out from the East Asian continental mainland coast. Principally composed of the Kuril Islands, Japanese Archipelago, Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan (Formosa), the northern Philippines, and Borneo; essentially the waters between Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula and the Malay Peninsula. To that end, building up the PLAN has been a vital element of that strategy. The aforementioned 100 ships in the PLAN include aircraft carriers, modern cruisers and destroyers, an armada of frigates, corvettes, and submarines.

Liaoning underway with eight J-15 Flying Shark fighters on deck clearly shows its ski-jump takeoff ramp.

ADBR.COM.AU

O S IN T - T HE P L A N AV Y

DANGEROUS SEAS A comprehensive description of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy order-of-battle BY PETER KNOTT

OSINT - DANGEROUS SEAS

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

China’s carrier ambitions have come a long way since the surreptitious acquisition of the former Soviet Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier Varyag from Ukraine in 1998. At the time she was barely more than a stripped-down hulk, work having stopped on the incomplete carrier following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The buyers – a Macau-based company – claimed to be seeking to turn it into a floating casino, but instead the hulk ended up at a shipyard in Dalian. In fact, the vessel had already been commissioned into service when it was revealed in 2015 that the company was a front and the intention all along was to put the ship back into service as the PLAN’s first aircraft carrier. The carrier, now called the Liaoning, was commissioned into service in 2011. Its Chinese ship class designation is the Type 001 aircraft carrier and is what is known as a Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) design, with fixed-wing aircraft taking off with the assistance of a ski-jump instead of using a catapult like the US Navy’s carriers. As a result of not having catapults, the Liaoning, which measures 304.5 metres (999 feet) at its flightdeck and displaces about 54,000 tonnes full load, is unable to operate heavier and less powerful aircraft. Its air wing is centred around about two dozen Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark multirole fighters, the design of which was copied from the Sukhoi Su-33 which Russia operates form Liaoning’s former sister ship, the Admiral Kuznetsov. The only other aircraft in its air wing are a mixture of helicopters, with the Changhe Z-18 (a naval variant of the Avicopter AC313 which is a development of the Aerospatiale Super Frelon) and Harbin Z-9 (Aerospatiale AS365 Dauphin) being the types seen operating on board. The former includes the Z-18J that carries an active-electronically scanned array radar in a deployable belly housing and acts as the air wing’s airborne early warning asset, although the use of a helicopter instead of a fixed-wing asset diminishes the capability due to a helicopter’s speed and ceiling limitations.

Meanwhile, China’s first domestically-built carrier is nearing completion at the same Dalian shipyard that the Liaoning was refurbished. The second carrier, known as the Type 002, is another STOBAR design broadly similar to the Liaoning externally except for a number of design refinements. This ship, which has yet to be named, has already undergone a number of sea trials at the time of writing, and is expected to be handed over to the PLAN soon. China is not resting on its laurels after these two carriers though. Already, its third carrier is being built at Jiangnan Changxing Shipyard in Shanghai. Open source satellite imagery and photos posted online, some of which were taken from airliners overhead, indicate that hull modules are currently being built at a new purpose-built facility next to the already-impressive naval shipyard which churns out significant numbers of the PLAN’s cruisers, destroyers and intelligence gathering ships. This third carrier, called the Type 003, is expected to be a larger and more complex ship than the Liaoning and the Type 002, and is widely expected to feature catapults for more efficient launching of its air wing. China has built two landbased catapult launch systems at its carrier aviation training base near Huludao in Liaoning Province. One is believed to be a traditional steam catapult while the other is an electromagnetic launch system similar to the US Navy’s EMALS. Satellite photos have shown J-15s and an unknown UAV appearing to test them on a number of occasions since 2016.

MAJOR SURFACE COMBATANTS

No aircraft carrier can fulfil its potential without escorts, and over the past decade China has been building a sizeable fleet of modern, increasingly capable surface combatants. The PLAN has been experimenting with small numbers of slightly different destroyer designs since the turn of the century, gradually improving and refining the design and requirements with the Type 051B, 051C, 052, 052B, and 052C classes, before settling on the Type 052D. The acquisition of two Russian Type 956E/EM (Sovermenny class) destroyers in the late 1990s

J-15 Flying Sharks fly past the carrier Liaoning with J-15s, a Z-8 and two Kamov Ka-28s on deck, and an accompanying Type 54A frigate.

ADBR.COM.AU

construction of the Type 055 is now going full steam ahead. At least seven vessels are in various stages of construction at the same Dalian and Shanghai shipyards that are building the 052Ds and carriers which, by western shipbuilding standards, is an impressive feat. Going forward, the 052Ds and 055s will almost certainly form the major elements of the PLAN CVBG escort component, and no doubt will become a familiar sight in the waters inside the First Island Chain and the Western Pacific in the years to come.

The PLAN Type 54A frigate Huangshan sails in company with RAN ANZAC class frigate HMAS Ballarat. DEFENCE

‘...rumours abounded that the PLAN was planning a larger, more ambitious surface combatant.’

would undoubtedly also have helped with pointers on warship design, and China built two more Type 956Es before going all-in on the Type 52D. The first Type 052D named Kunming, was commissioned in 2014 and, as of September 2019, 12 of these vessels are already in service with all three fleets of the PLAN, while 13 more are being built at shipyards in Shanghai and Dalian. Assigned the codename Luyang III class by the US DoD, the Type 052D is 515 feet long and displaces 7,500 tonnes, and is a surface combatant roughly analogous to the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke Flight II design. Its primary weapons are the 64 vertical launch system (VLS) cells that can fire surface-to-air, anti-ship, land attack and anti-submarine missiles, while a 130mm main gun and close-in weapon systems are also available for other kinetic roles. The main sensor of the Type 052D is the Type 346 multi-function, dual-band (S and C-band) naval active phased array radar. This is the default radar fitted on China’s naval combatants, being also found on the earlier Type 052C destroyer, the Type 055 cruiser that is entering service and the Type 001 and 002 carriers. In addition, a Type 518 air surveillance radar is also carried, along with towed array and variable depth sonars for anti-submarine work. The Type 052D also has helicopter facilities, with hangar space and a flight deck for a Harbin Z-9 or Kami Ka-28 helicopter. Twelve of the 13 ships currently being built are of a slightly modified design with a longer flightdeck, increasing the overall length of the ship to 528ft, and it is believed that these will be able to accommodate a navalised Harbin Z-20 helicopter which is very similar in appearance to Sikorsky’s S-70 Blackhawk. Even as the Type 052Ds were starting to enter service, rumours abounded that the PLAN was planning a larger, more ambitious surface combatant. This manifested itself as the Type 055, a 10,000 ton, 590ft long design described by China as a destroyer, although the US DoD designates it as a cruiser. Initial construction started in 2014 and the first ship, the Nanchang, was launched in 2017. The vessel was commissioned in early 2019 following fitting out and an extensive trials program. The weapons and sensor fit of the 055 is similar to the 052D, although significantly, the number of VLS cells has nearly doubled to 112 (64 forward and 48 midships/aft). In addition, the 055 also has HQ-10 short-range missile launcher aft and expanded helicopter facilities for up to 2 Changhe Z-18F ASW helicopters. In a sign of the China’s increasing confidence in its own design and shipbuilding expertise,

SECOND-TIER SUW COMBATANTS

If the rate of construction for China’s higher-end surface combatants is impressive, then the way China has built its frigates and corvettes can be considered staggering. Since 2013 the PLAN has already inducted 30 Type 054A frigates and 60 Type 056 corvettes into service, numbers that really underline China’s recent naval build-up. Compared to the destroyers these are less capable ships, although they are perfectly suited to fulfilling lower end taskings that do not require a destroyer or cruiser to tackle. This is something that the US Navy is finding out, with an overburdened cruiser and destroyer fleet leading to shortfalls in crew training and readiness that have contributed to a number of collisions at sea with other ships. The Type 054A is a 4,000 tonne, 440ft long frigate design that is reasonably well-armed for such a class of ship. It is equipped with a 32-cell VLS that is used to launch either HQ-16 surface-to-air missiles or Yu-8 anti-submarine rockets, while C-803 anti-ship/ land-attack missiles are carried in two quadruple launchers amidships. Other weapons on board include a 76mm main gun, torpedoes, and mortars for anti-submarine warfare. The frigates do not have the phased-array radar, instead using more conventional 3D air search radars and various other sensors for fire-control. There is also a single hangar for a Z-9 helicopter. The Type 054As are distributed throughout China’s three fleet commands, while Pakistan has ordered four ships. The smaller Type 056s are 295ft, 1,500 tonne corvettes designed for quick mass production, with China continuing to build these useful vessels at four different shipyards. Primary weapons are a 76mm gun, two twin-launchers for YJ-83 anti-ship missiles and eight FL-3000 surface-to-air missiles. The latter are stored in an eight-cell launcher very similar in appearance to the US RIM-116 RAM launcher. The corvettes carry torpedoes and sonar for antisubmarine warfare, while there is a stern helipad for a Z-9 helicopter, although there are no hangar facilities. In addition to the PLAN, the Type 056 is operated by the navies of Bangladesh and Nigeria, where they are known as the C13 and P18N classes respectively. The Type 054A has been seen acting as part of China’s nascent carrier battle groups in concert with more capable destroyers, while both classes of ships have been used to extensively patrol the South China Sea and its disputed islands and features, backing up the rapidly-proliferating Chinese Coast Guard and maritime militia in enforcing China’s claims to the features.

OSINT - DANGEROUS SEAS

AMPHIBIOUS AMBITIONS

Compared to the shipbuilding efforts for the rest of its surface fleet, China’s bid to build up its amphibious capabilities seem almost lacklustre. China’s amphibious capability, or the lack thereof, is one of the key reasons why most analysts believe China will be unable to launch a full-scale invasion of Taiwan anytime soon. The PLAN’s amphibious force is currently made up of mostly Type 072 LSTs, along with a smattering of Type 073s and 074s. But beginning in 2007, the first Type 071 Landing Platform Dock (LPD) made its debut. With a capacity of 600-800 troops, four Type 726 air-cushioned landing craft and two helicopter spots and stowage for four, the 25,000-ton 071s are the first truly modern amphibious assault ship for the PLAN. The service has eight Type 071s in service or being built, and already China is moving on to the next class of amphibious assault ships. Known as the Type 075, it is expected to displace between 35,00040,000 tonnes and is roughly analogous to the US Navy’s Wasp class landing helicopter docks or LHDs. It will feature a large flightdeck capable of spotting five to six large transport helicopters and parking and hangar spaces for more, and will also have a well dock which is expected to be able to accommodate multiple conventionally-powered and/or Type 726 air-cushioned landing craft. The vessel was launched on September 25, with photos taken at the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard in Shanghai where the vessel is being built posted in Chinese media. The same shipyard is also responsible for building the Type 071, and it is currently not known how many Type 075s the PLAN plans to eventually operate, although some reports have suggested at least three such ships will be built. The Pentagon’s 2019 China Military Power Report released earlier this year suggests that the PLAN has a near-term focus on building up an amphibious force geared towards smaller-scale expeditionary missions as opposed to a large-scale direct beach assault such as a Taiwan invasion scenario. The report also said that China has reorganised the PLAN’s Marine Corps, with plans for the force to grow from two brigades with 10,000 troops to seven with more than 30,000 personnel, and an expansion in its mission to “include expeditionary operations beyond China’s borders” by 2020 as part of planned reforms to China’s military.

progressed technologically. This has no doubt been helped by the acquisition of 12 Kilo class diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs) from Russia beginning in the late 1990s. The two initial boats were of the standard Project 877 export-standard, while the remaining ten are Improved Project 636 Kilos. All ten boats were delivered by around 2007. The Kilos are armed with a mixture of torpedoes and Russia’s 3M54 Club-S anti-ship/land-attack cruise missile, and are joined in PLAN service by several domestically-built submarine classes. The PLAN still has older Type 035A, B and G SSKs in service, although these are being rapidly superseded by the Type 039 Song class and 039A Yuan class boats. Despite the similar nomenclature, there are very little similarities between the Types 039 and 039A, with the latter class inheriting only the tail design of the former. The newer Yuan class is bigger, dives deeper and features improved noise reduction features. The class is further divided into four subclasses with minor differences such as the addition of flank sonar arrays or changes to the configuration of the conning tower. The PLAN also has nuclear-powered submarines for operations further afield. The early, and very limited Type 091 Han class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) are quickly being replaced by more modern 7,000 tonne Type 093 and 093G Shang class boats which are equipped with vertical-launch tubes for cruise missiles in addition to conventional torpedo tubes. Chinese sources say that the 093s are as quiet as the US’s 688I improved Los Angeles or Russia’s Akula SSNs, whereas the US Navy’s Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) puts their noise level on par with the 1970s-era Soviet Project 671RTM/RTMK Victor III SSN. The Chinese appear to be not fully satisfied with the design, for Type 093G production has stopped after three boats and the PLAN is moving on to developing a new class of SSNs known as the Type 095. Performing the sea-based nuclear deterrent role for the PLAN is the Type 094 Jin class nuclearpowered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). These 11,000 tonne boats each carry 12 JL-2 nuclear-tipped submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), each with a range of more than 7,000 kilometres. That would mean that, in theory, a Type 094 positioned off the Kuril Islands would be able to strike most of the continental United States, although the ONI’s assessment that these boats are slightly noisier than the Soviet Project 667BDR Delta III SSBN from the late-1970s would make an effort to reach and maintain a patrol line there during times of conflict a challenge for the PLAN. Owing to a lack of prominent identifying features or pennant numbers painted on China’s submarines, it is almost impossible to independently keep track of the number of submarines in service. However,

‘It will feature a large flightdeck capable of spotting five to six large transport helicopters and parking and hangar spaces for more’

SUBMARINES

The PLAN build-up extends underwater. Back during the Cold War, China’s submarines were regarded as something of a joke, often being derided as noisy and unreliable, fatal flaws in the world of submarine warfare. That is no longer the case, with China’s nuclear and conventionally-powered attack and ballistic missile submarines understood to have improved by leaps and bounds as the country has

ADBR.COM.AU

TOP: The Type 071 LPD Jinggang Shan.

the Pentagon’s 2019 China Military Power Report says the PLAN has 50 SSKs, six SSNs and four SSBNs.

ABOVE: Photos posted in Chinese media of the launch of the first Type 075 on September 25 2019.

NAVAL AVIATION

‘...the J-20 is a big aircraft, so the smaller J-31 may be better suited to carrier operations.’

The PLAN also has a significant air element which, in addition to its carrier air wing and associated training aircraft, also includes several regiments of land-based aircraft spread across the three fleet commands. In addition to combat aircraft such as the Shenyang J-11 – a Chinese-built Su-27 clone with indigenous weapons and avionics – Xi’an JH-7 fighter-bombers, Shenyang J-8 fighters and Russianbuilt Sukhoi Su-30MK2 multi-role fighters, the PLANAF also operates the venerable Xi-an H-6 bomber, helicopters and special mission aircraft. The latter includes the Shannxi KJ-200 and KJ500 Airborne Early Warning aircraft based on the Y-8 and Y-9 turboprop airlifters respectively which themselves are based on the Soviet-era Antonov An-12. These aircraft have started being assigned to individual PLANAF regiments within the three fleet commands, and have been observed on the airbases at Hainan island on the fringes of the South China Sea, along with GX-6 anti-submarine aircraft. The Y-8/Y-9 airframe is also the basis of several different special mission aircraft used in the ELINT, COMINT, and SIGINT, with these routinely flying missions off Japan and South Korea where they are intercepted and photographed by the fighter jets of the two US allies. It is also believed that China is seeking a new carrier-borne combat aircraft to supersede the J-15s currently assigned to the Liaoning and potentially to the Type 002 carrier. The new aircraft is expected to be a stealthy type, and it has been suggesting both Chengdu and Shenyang are developing carriercapable versions of the J-20 and FC-31/J-31 fighters respectively. It would appear that the J-20 might have an advantage owing to commonality with the land-

based version currently entering service with the PLAAF. But the J-20 is a big aircraft, so the smaller size of the J-31 offering may be better suited to carrier operations and stowage. But this development may not spell the end of Flanker-derivatives operating from the PLAN’s carriers, with China developing an electronic attack version of the twin-seat J-16 multirole fighter – an Su-30 development – for both land and carrier-based operations. These will find greater utility operating from a CATOBAR-equipped carrier, freed from many of the takeoff weight limitations of STOBAR operations. A CATOBAR-equipped carrier will also likely mean China will push ahead with the development of a fixed-wing carrier borne AEW platform. In the early part of this decade a non-flying mockup of an aircraft that closely resembles the E-2 Hawkeye was photographed at the airbase at Xi’an-Yanliang, where new aircraft types destined for China’s military are flight tested. But, since that time no further progress has been observed on such an aircraft beyond artists’ impressions of what is tentatively known as the KJ-600.

INVESTING IN THE FUTURE

Going beyond the present, the PLAN is continuing to invest in future technologies. One of its more interesting projects is what is believed to be a shipmounted railgun, a cannon that uses electromagnetic force instead of gunpowder to launch high-velocity projectiles. The projectile fired by a railgun normally does not contain explosives, instead relying on the kinetic energy to inflict damage. In early 2018, photographs of a PLAN Type 072III LST mounting a large turret with a large barrel on its deck appeared on the internet. It was speculated that this was a testbed for a railgun, with the spacious hold and deck being the ideal location to place the power sources required to fire the weapon. Taken together with its increasingly assertive actions in the region and frequent disregard of behavioural norms, China’s increasingly powerful military is certainly one that bears watching. While on paper the PLAN is not expected to be a match for the US Navy, it must be remembered that the PLAN is nowhere as stretched by global commitments and is increasingly gaining operational experience by taking part in operations like anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden and a steady operations tempo in the South China Sea.

MARITIME AUTONOMY

ADBR.COM.AU

AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS

MARITIME AUTONOMY THE RAN IS EXPLORING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUTONOMOUS MARITIME CAPABILITIES BY MAX BLENKIN

he next war at sea could be fought at the speed of electronic thought, with autonomous vessels obliterating each other, along with conventional crewed vessels in frantic battles decided by which side has superior artificial intelligence (AI) and reaction times. “This is going to be how we do business,” the RAN’s Lead for Autonomous Warfare Systems, CMDR Paul Hornsby told ADBR. “It allows us to have more constant presences in all domains – air, surface, sub-surface and cyber – where we could never afford it before. We are very serious about developing this capability and very serious about getting the message out that Australia is a leader in this field. “There is great opportunity for Australian industry and academic research centres to develop niche capabilities and payloads in partnership with mature platforms.” It is also the way the US Navy plans to do business in a world where potential adversaries – China and Russia – are fielding supersonic, hypersonic, and ballistic anti-ship missiles, and where survivability of traditional carrier task groups is increasingly less than assured. The USN fields a diverse range of unmanned surface vessels (USVs) and unmanned undersea (or underwater) vessels (UUVs), from small to extra-large. Under its proposed new fleet architecture, there will be proportionately more USVs and it’s seeking to acquire two large USVs (LUSVs) per year in FY2020 to

FY2024, with the first delivered around 2023. The USN dubs these USVs the ‘Ghost Fleet’, and wants its LUSVs to be low-cost, high-endurance, reconfigurable vessels carrying modular payloads, particularly anti-ship and land attack weapons. Such vessels would be up to corvette size, around 2,000 tonnes, based on current designs and, initially, optionally manned. The USN has used images of resource industry offshore support vessels to illustrate what it has in mind. The USN also wants lots more UUVs – a total of 191 by the mid2020s. Most will be small and medium-sized vehicles of types already in service for surveying and mine-hunting. But significantly, there’s a requirement for nine extra-large UUVs (XLUUVs). Earlier this year, Boeing’s Orca design was chosen over Lockheed Martin’s Autonomous Underwater Vehicle system for the first five. Orca is a development of Boeing’s Echo Voyager concept, a fully autonomous 15.5 metre 45 tonne UUV, able to dive to depths of nearly 10,000 feet and cover 6,500 nautical miles on a single fuel module. It is planned that Orca will be able to perform multiple missions including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and attacks on submarines, surface vessels and land targets. The USN is keen to get its unmanned vessels at sea as soon as possible, and is seeking to employ accelerated acquisition strategies, procuring LUSVs and XLUUVs at the same time as it’s developing

‘There is great opportunity for Australian industry and academic research centres to develop niche capabilities and payloads...’

MARITIME AUTONOMY

enabling technologies. Not to be left out, the US Marine Corps is experimenting with its own concept called Sea Mob which uses USVs to support or even conduct amphibious assaults. Unlike the sleek grey warships we’re used to, Australia’s unmanned and autonomous surface and underwater systems aren’t especially visible, but they are around and have been for a long time. And soon there will be a lot more of them through a variety of new acquisition projects. The Navy is hardly unique. The Army is trialling robotic supply vehicles – eg the Australian-made Praesidium Mule – and has long operated various unmanned (uninhabited) aerial systems (UAS). And now BAE Systems is developing optionally manned versions of the old M113AS4 APC using locally-developed technology for an Armysponsored trial. Similarly, the RAAF is in the process of acquiring the Northrop Grumman Triton long-endurance UAS for maritime surveillance and the armed General Atomics Reaper/Sky Guardian RPV, and has invested in the Boeing ATS Loyal Wingman development for possible employment from the mid-2020s. In the air, the RAN has conducted extensive trials with embarked and land-based UAS including the Insitu ScanEagle and Schiebel S-100 Camcopter to inform it for its Project SEA 129 Phase 5 Maritime Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems requirement. Both of these UAS have advantages and disadvantages. The fixed-wing ScanEagle has long endurance and versatile sensors, but requires substantial onboard infrastructure, including a catapult for launch and pole for recovery. Other than a clear section of deck, the helicopter-like Schiebel requires no onboard infrastructure for launch and recovery. But it is a more complex system, with less

endurance but greater payload capacity, meaning larger and more powerful sensors.

ROADMAP

For better or worse, robotics are going to be a major part of our future across most sectors of society. Last year, the government released the Robotics Roadmap for Australia which was prepared by the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision. That report says robotics in Australia will maintain our living standards, help protect the environment, provide services to remote communities, reduce healthcare costs, provide safer, more fulfilling jobs, prepare the next generation for the future, encourage investment, and return jobs to Australia. The roadmap includes a section on Defence robotics, declaring Australian defence needs can’t be satisfied by existing technologies alone, and that robotics can be the force multiplier needed to augment Australia’s highly valued human workforce and to enable persistent, wide-area operations in air, land, sea, sub-surface, space and cyber domains. It says the future of Defence robotic capabilities is inextricably linked to the development of AI and machine learning – the ability to assess vast quantities of data, make reasoned decisions and learn from that experience. That applies just as much to everyone else developing autonomous systems, whether they be weapons or self-driving cars. This is right at the very cutting edge of technology and, unsurprisingly, is central to a global tech race, with the potential to confer vast strategic advantage on whoever does it best and first. The RAN has developed its own strategy for robotic and autonomous systems which is close to release. That’s driven by a number of principles. “It is important that we take the public with us on

‘For better or worse, robotics are going to be a major part of our future...’

Members of participating nations at Autonomous Warrior 2018 . DEFENCE

ADBR.COM.AU

A Phoenix International Artemis AUV was used in the search for MH 370. DEFENCE

‘You can win fights with autonomous systems, but you won’t win wars.’

this journey because there can be misconceptions about robotic and autonomous systems,” CMDR Hornsby said. So no killer robots? “I hear that all the time,” he remarked. “What we do know and indeed, I have proposed it in a draft measure to the UN convention, is that you will always need – to a greater or lesser extent – some level of human intervention. “You can win fights with autonomous systems, but you won’t win wars,” he added. “At the end of the day, you have to have the trust of those people affected. No robot is going to comfort a child or family affected by war or a natural disaster. They can do an awful lot, but you are always going to have to have some meaningful human presence.” There are some guiding principles. Australia is a big island with a small population, so we more than most will need all the help we can get from robotic systems. This applies as much to agriculture, environmental protection, transport, health, farming and mining, as it does to Defence. So the goal is to enhance not replace capabilities, and this is particularly important for Navy platforms. “A ship will last you 40 years, but to stay ahead of the game in the robotic and autonomous space you need to be changing every two years,” CMDR Hornsby said. So, robotic systems will be about keeping Australian servicemen and women safe by doing the ‘dangerous, dull and dirty’ jobs. Where once expensive crewed mine hunters ventured into mined areas, now they stand off and let the robots do the clearance. And finally, there’s sovereign capability. Australia possesses very significant capabilities, and Australian sea and weather conditions are especially arduous and a stern test of autonomous systems. “We have learned over the last 30 years that doing mine hunting or surveying in strong currents, you need some grunt under the hood,” CMDR

Hornsby explained. “So in the world of robotic and autonomous systems, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.”

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

There are a very large number of maritime uninhabited and autonomous systems either available or under development around the world, covering a diverse range of capabilities. But the nomenclature and designation systems are confusing. CMDR Hornsby said the Americans generally call everything unmanned while the British call everything autonomous. Aviators call their systems uninhabited, unmanned, or remotely piloted. Unmanned or uninhabited naval vessels are generally under positive operator control by a datalink or cable, whereas autonomous generally refers to vehicles that conduct pre-programmed tasks and are not in continuous communication with a controller. Autonomous implies a platform operating independently of the outside world, but UUVs tethered to a surface vessel to draw power or to provide sensor feeds may still operate autonomously, conducting pre-programmed search patterns, while providing real-time data to onboard operators. Most underwater systems rely on battery power, giving them a finite endurance. USV propulsion can be the same as any other vessel. There are some interesting hybrid capabilities, such as the Northrop Grumman AQS-24B minehunting system in which the UUV is towed behind a remote-controlled Mine Hunting Unmanned (MHU) surface vessel that resembles a RHIB. However, until someone comes up with a way to reliably transmit data through water, true untethered autonomous underwater systems can’t pass on the full extent of what they’ve discovered until they return to the surface.

MARITIME AUTONOMY

For a mine-hunting system that’s found something suspicious, that could be in the form of a ping to a circling drone, USV, a wave glider, or a mother vessel. The RAN adopted its first USV 30 years ago, a development of a basic craft designed for towing gunnery targets. For this, two Bay class inshore minehunters were equipped with French PAP 104 Mk 3 remotely operated vehicles (ROV). With limits in their operating envelope, the Bays weren’t a great success. The RAN subsequently acquired six Huon-class minehunters, each equipped with two more sophisticated Saab Double Eagle mine disposal vehicles, equipped with a searchlight, closed-circuit low light television camera and an on-board close-range identification sonar. “There is much we have learned from various ROV systems,” CMDR Hornsby said. Sea mines might appear a remote threat, but retaining a mine countermeasures capability is necessary insurance for a maritime nation, utterly reliant on export of resources for national wealth. The Huon replacement has now been brought forward from the mid-2030s to mid-2020s, with Prime Minister Morrison announcing during the election campaign that two new mine-warfare vessels would be constructed in WA though Project SEA 1905. “Over $1 billion has been allocated for the Defence Integrated Investment Program (IIP) to deliver the full scope of SEA 1905, including the building of the two mine-warfare support vessels and investment in new mine countermeasure systems,” the PM said. As well, a new hydrographic vessel would be constructed through Project SEA 2400. First pass approval is expected in fourth quarter 2019 with construction starting in the early 2020s. CMDR Hornsby said there were a variety of interesting technologies now available, including ships, payloads and USVs which allowed stand-off minehunting. Under Project SEA 1778 Phase 1, the RAN is also moving to refresh its deployable mine countermeasures capability, with advanced surface and underwater technology. To this end, Australian firm Steber International will supply five 12-metre boats, three configured as mine countermeasures support vessels, and two configured as USVs. For the actual mine-hunting missions, General Dynamics Maritime Systems will supply four of its small 70-kilogram Bluefin 9 and three large 213-kilogram Bluefin 12 autonomous UUVs. Both are torpedo-like craft equipped with cameras and sonar. Bluefin 9 is deployable by two people from a small boat or pier, with endurance of up to eight hours at three knots. The larger Bluefin 12 can carry multiple payloads, with an endurance of more than 24 hours. No longer will the RAN dispatch a diver to place charges to dispose of mines unless absolutely necessary. That will be the job of the Sonartech Atlas Seafox Expendable Mine Neutralisation System. Seafox is a 40kg remote controlled by way of fibre optic cable, mini-torpedo equipped with a camera and steered to the mine by an on-ship operator. Once close, the operator detonates a shaped charge which destroys the target mine and also Seafox. This

is effective against bottom, tethered and floating mines, as well as historic mines of which many are still out there from wars past. As well the RAN is acquiring a pair of 37-kilogram REMUS 100 UUVs through Project SEA 1770 Phase 1 for the task of rapid environmental assessment. That gives a deployed force the capability to conduct a speedy hydrographic survey of an unfamiliar port or proposed beach landing site, checking for obstacles or obstructions.

The US Navy’s Orca XLUUV is based on Boeing’s Echo Voyager concept. US NAVY

THE FUTURE

In such a rapidly-developing domain, there’s plenty more of interest to the RAN. With vast areas of ocean to watch, a persistent long-endurance USV would be most useful for a whole range of tasks including observing for refugee boat arrivals and illegal fishers, reporting on weather and ocean conditions, and even serving as a mobile sensor for anti-submarine operations. Such a vessel could be the Australian-made Ocius Bluebottle, or the Boeing Liquid Robotics Wave Glider (title image). The Bluebottle is a sixmetre vessel which uses a rigid adjustable sail to assist with propulsion, along with a flipper system which harvests wave energy. The sail carries photovoltaic cells which provide power to batteries for its mission systems. This all gives Bluebottle near indefinite endurance, limited only by the build-up of marine life. “Bluebottles have more power, payload and performance in the one USV than any known persistent USV,” a company statement reads. The Wave Glider is a three-metre surfboard-like surface vessel attached to a 2.2 metre submerged glider by an eight-metre rigid tether. Movement of the glider up and down according to ocean swells provides forward propulsion. In 2013, Liquid Robotics won the Guinness World Record for the longest journey by an autonomous unmanned surface vessel with a 14,703 kilometre voyage from San Francisco to Bundaberg in just over a year. While the RAN currently has no stated requirement for an armed USV, it is keeping watch on emerging capabilities. One is the Israeli Elbit Seagull, a 12-metre vessel with ability to operate for up to four days, in a variety of mission configurations, including harbour security, electronic warfare, mine detection and disposal, and anti-submarine warfare for which it can be equipped with a pair of torpedoes.

‘Over $1 billion has been allocated for the Defence IIP to deliver the full scope of SEA 1905...’

ADBR.COM.AU

‘It was the first truly joint autonomous exercise conducted by western allies that involved all domains...’

The Australian-made Ocius Bluebottle featured at Autonomous warrior 2018 at Jervis Bay. DEFENCE

The applications for USV extend to Australian land forces. In 2017 the Army ordered three Teledyne OceanScience Z-Boats to support riverine operations, including by Special Forces. These small remotely-operated USVs provide rapid survey of waterways. And while Australia is upgrading its Collins class submarines and planning is well underway for the follow-on Attack class, one capability under consideration is a submarine-launched AUV. The operational concept would appear to be akin the RAAF’s Loyal Wingman, with the AUV patrolling ahead of or to the flank of the sub. There are a number of contenders, among them the in-service Bluefin 12 and its larger Bluefin 21 sibling. The Bluefin 21 is a large 750kg AUV capable of staying submerged for more than a day and reaching depths of more than 12,000 feet. It can be equipped with different sensors including a camera, sonar and ocean bottom profiler, and navigates by an onboard inertial navigation system. A Bluefin 21 operated by civilian marine services company Phoenix International participated in the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, accumulating 370 hours search time and, on one mission reaching a depth of almost 14,000 feet. There are other large AUVs with different missions. Saab’s AUV-62 can be configured for realistic ASW training, mimicking a real submarine for training of ASW operators at substantially less cost than using a real submarine. The US Navy, Royal Navy, Royal Canadian and Royal Netherlands Navies all operate REMUS (Remote Environmental Monitoring Units) AUVs, which have seen considerable operational service, particularly in mine hunting configuration. The largest is REMUS 6000 which can reach a depth of nearly 20,000 feet. A REMUS 6000 AUV operated from the research vessel RV Petrel discovered the wrecks of USS Lexington and USS Indianapolis, both sunk during WW2. In US Navy service, the mid-sized REMUS 600 is designated as the Mark 18 Mod 2 Kingfish, and has been used for mine-hunting in the Persian Gulf. Kingfish is a versatile AUV capability which can

be deployed from small boats, the USN’s Littoral Combat Ship and even helicopters. REMUS AUVs were developed by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute with later models manufactured by a subsidiary of Norway’s KONGSBERG.

UNDERSTANDING

Australia has a very good understanding of this type of technology through a couple of important activities – the Unmanned Warrior exercise in Scotland in 2016 (UW16), and Autonomous Warrior (AW18) run by the RAN in Jervis Bay last year. CMDR Hornsby led the Australian team to Scotland and then directed AW18, a Five Eyes and multinational activity which also involved Australian and overseas companies and institutions. That effort directly involved more than 600 people each day from 26 different organisations and 47 companies, with 77 platforms and systems. Also involved were the Defence and Civil Aviation Safety Authorities (CASA) and Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), all with a strong interest in the growing operation of unmanned systems in their domains. The Jervis Bay Marine Park Authority took an interest and was apparently delighted that all those USV and UUVs successfully operating around the bay with minimal environmental footprints, and produced a vast amount of real-time data about the bay environment. “It was the first truly joint autonomous exercise conducted by western allies that involved all domains – air, surface, sub-surface, ground and cyber,” CMDR Hornsby said. “Autonomous Warrior was a unique allied activity that combined leadingedge trials, industry demonstration and exercising in-service robotic and autonomous systems. “In Scotland we were demonstrating the utility of systems, and in AW18 we were demonstrating how they combine together,” he added. “We ran connected scenarios for the first time, and we tested in tougher Australian conditions in a diminished communications environment. AW18 was seen as the climax of six years of international trials and research. We met all our military, scientific and industry and strategic objectives, in many cases exceeding them.” AW18 featured a variety of scenarios including counter piracy, counter smuggling, base defence, base attack, critical infrastructure defence, and mine clearance. CMDR Hornsby said at the core was the application of near real-time development of command and control and AI systems. “One of the things we were most pleased about was the ability to integrate quickly,” he said. “Another success was the collaboration it developed between Australian SMEs and large international primes. This has been a true benefit.” In closing, CMDR Hornsby said the trial wasn’t just about the capability of particular systems. “It’s about how you use them and how they perform,” he said. “We are genuinely the leader in many niche areas of robotic and autonomous systems and AI. “That was one of the things we learned from AW18. Australia’s industry and academic capabilities are further ahead than we thought they were.”

LOYALTY POINTS

AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS

LOYALTY POINTS Applying the Loyal Wingman concept to other domains. BY JOHN CONWAY

he concept of a ‘wingman’ is as old as military aviation itself. Providing mutual support within a formation, the purpose of a wingman was established to protect the flight lead and provide him or her with the additional mental capacity to manage the formation, operate the aircraft, and make decisions. As the role developed, the most important tasks for the wingman were to help avoid an attack by an unseen enemy, contribute to the formation’s situational awareness, and watch out for obvious signs the leader had either missed something or made an error. At the very heart of the idea was an acceptance that the human is fallible and, in the heat of battle, task saturation was likely to result in mistakes and errors in tactical decision-making. In the early years of aviation, a wingman would be positioned slightly behind the lead aircraft in close visual proximity to the wings of the leader. But as advances in technology introduced new inter and intra-flight data links, such as Link 16, and increased levels of integration with airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) systems such as the E-7 Wedgetail, formations became invariably separated beyond

visual range of each other and able to benefit from the ‘god’s eye view’ of the world and shared situational awareness. There are, of course, still times when a wingman is required to be in close visual range, but these are becoming more suited to non-tactical reasons such as transits through controlled airspace or through poor weather conditions. So what started out as a role providing visual lookout support has now been transformed by the introduction of multi-sensor fusion displays and data links, with mutual support by proximity now measured in miles rather than metres. The fundamental purpose of a wingman has changed over the years from supporting and protecting the leader, to one which is focused on the greater concentration of firepower and more effective application and multiplication of force.

GAME CHANGER

Yet perhaps the most transformational aspect of the evolving wingman role is that of the unmanned ‘Loyal Wingman’, a wingman that does as it is told and does not get distracted by the fear and chaos of battle. This is not to say a human wingman is fundamentally disloyal, nor does it undermine

ADBR.COM.AU

Boeing’s Echo Voyager concept has spawned the US Navy’s Orca XLUUV demonstrator program. BOEING

‘It should come as no surprise to see the expansion of the loyal wingman concept into other warfighting domains.’

the importance of a human in dealing with the complexities of highly dynamic, multi-dimensional fights in the air. But it does unlock what the incoming Commandant of the US Marine Corps calls, “the game-changing opportunities with manned and unmanned teaming”. The concept of the Unmanned Air System (UAS), or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), is nothing new nor is their use in missions which traditionally challenge human performance, fragility, and endurance. Often described as the dull, dirty, and dangerous missions, unmanned systems have provided the commander with a far broader range of options for the application of force against even the most challenging target sets. However, ongoing operational experience confirms unmanned systems on their own are not the panacea. When Boeing Defence Australia announced its Loyal Wingman project at Avalon earlier this year it sparked significant discussion and, not least, progressed the argument for greater numbers of unmanned platforms in a far more mature and balanced way than hitherto. The manned-unmanned narrative is now sensibly shifting towards “and” rather than “or”. Manned and unmanned teaming – the US Army coined the term MUM-T – is a powerful concept which leverages the strengths and mitigates the weakness of each platform and concentrates the mind on the important operational aspects, such as imaginative new roles and the challenges of integration. It should come as no surprise, then, to see the expansion of the loyal wingman concept in recent times into the other warfighting domains. The ADF formally recognises five warfighting domains, sometimes referred to as environments: Air (to include Space), Land, Sea, Information and Human. The applications of unmanned systems in the land environment are moving beyond tactical flying drones, with BAE Systems Australia recently awarded a contract to support Australian Army plans to modify two M113AS4 armoured personnel carriers at the company’s Edinburgh Parks facility in Adelaide, using autonomous technologies developed in Australia. The human domain is also seeing the rapid development of artificial intelligence and robotics, and the information domain is becoming increasingly viewed as the natural home for a virtual ‘digital twin’. Moreover, reports are now emerging from the US about recent developments in unmanned surface and sub-surface combatants, which are opening new ways of warfighting and creating opportunities to reconceptualise joint operations and move away from the platform-on-platform engagements which have traditionally characterised the battlespace. Yet these ideas cannot get too far ahead of policy and the dollars, with manned and unmanned teaming driving a wholesale reconsideration of the US Navy budget. Despite an increasingly complex threat and the rapid developments in autonomous technologies, there is still much to be done to build consensus that the future lies in MUM-T.

ORCA

The Boeing Company was recently awarded a US$43m (A$63m) contract for the fabrication, test, and delivery of four Orca Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (XLUUVs) and associated support elements. The Orca XLUUV is described in open sources as a modular, open architecture, reconfigurable UUV with its own guidance and control, navigation, situational awareness, communications, power, propulsion and mission sensors. Taking a closer look, this project appears to be the proverbial tip of the iceberg, with the US Navy in pursuit of a much broader family of unmanned surface and undersea vehicles based upon three core variants: Large Unmanned Surface Vehicles (LUSVs), Medium Unmanned Surface Vehicles (MUSVs), and Extra-Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (XLUUVs) such as the Orca. Reports suggest the USN is seeking to invest over US$600m (A$873m) in near term research and development for these programs and their enabling technologies. While the platforms themselves are fascinating from a technology perspective, what is more significant is their wider employment in a distributed architecture when teamed with the manned surface and sub-surface fleets containing a greater proportion of smaller, agile platforms. The new unmanned platforms are expected to carry a range of sensors and weapon systems almost certainly configured for anti-surface warfare and maritime strike. Yet the potential for broader counter-air missions set within the co-operative engagement framework opens up new possibilities and significantly leverages existing manned surface fleet capability as well as providing a means of enabling integrated fire control, with the air layer containing E-2D Hawkeye, F-35C, F/A-18F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers. But as ever, the platforms are only half the story. The distributed architecture alluded to earlier will require a complex web of advanced datalinks and communication systems to make it operate as a combat system. Designing and building this ‘kill web’ so that it can enable the delivery of mannedunmanned firepower across domains will be a huge challenge not least due to the laws of physics. And then the ability to train, test, evaluate and validate tactics and procedures will add a whole new level of complexity to generate the ‘trusted autonomy’ required for warfighting. And that is exactly why we should do it. It will be interesting to see whether the Commonwealth’s policy settings and budget profiles for the Australian warship continuous build program allows the headroom for the RAN and the broader ADF to explore the full potential for manned and unmanned teaming in the context of future joint operations alongside the US Navy, and indeed the USAF and US Army. From its humble origins at the platform level, the opportunities and potential of the wingman concept can now be realised at the enterprise level, which will fundamentally transform Joint and Coalition operations. The ‘force level wingman’ – game-changing indeed.

A BREAK WITH TRADITION

A BREAK WITH TRADITION The challenge of equipping the ADF to integrate and fully utilise its 5th gen capabilities BY JOHN CONWAY

ADBR.COM.AU

n the first of a two-part feature, ADBR explores Australian Defence Force future operational challenges. This edition considers joint operations through a maritime lens, and in the next ADBR, will look at the same topic from an air power perspective. It flows from the previous edition of ADBR in which Chief of Army LTGEN Rick Burr, and Chief of Joint Capabilities, AIRMSHL Warren McDonald, each described the future operational challenges with a sense of urgency and purpose. It is clear from the words and deeds of Defence leadership writ large, that the time for talking about the complexity of the future operational environment is over. Defence must now act decisively and with focus at an enterprise level to ensure a coordinated and joint approach to the new threats and new risks in the region.

HIGH CONTEST

DEFENCE

In an August 2019 article published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Peter Hunter articulated the operational context with considerable skill and without pulling any punches. In his special report entitled Projecting National Power: Reconceiving Australian Air Power Strategy For An Age Of High Contest, Hunter asks the central question about what the ADF is for in a “contemporary environment where rival powers are using political warfare to win strategic objectives below the threshold of military intervention”. Hunter raises the importance of the topic because, as he explains, “Like many others in the Indo-Pacific region, Australia is increasingly concerned that some revisionist powers are seeking to re-write the regional order to their own advantage through political warfare and grey-zone methods. And since Australia’s first-rate military capabilities don’t seem to be deterring this sort of warfare, questions arise about what might be done to make our exquisite military platforms relevant to those challenges.”

DEFENCE DEFENCE

NEW THINKING

The central theme emerging from Hunter’s paper is that the rapidly emerging operational environment is driving the need for Air Force to re-imagine the purpose of its newly acquired 5th generation platforms, and prepare for them to be used in different roles and missions for which they were originally intended. Hunter highlights that, “the obsolescence of platform-centric approaches in achieving strategic effects has been revealed by the political warfare and grey-zone strategies being used by regional rivals. A reframing of air power strategy is needed to ensure that our newly acquired, sophisticated platforms have relevance in these grey-zone scenarios.” An important point of clarification should be made here; Hunter is not saying the platforms are already approaching obsolescence nor are they unimportant, far from it. What he is saying is that a new way of thinking is needed if we are to fully realise the benefits of sophisticated, softwaredefined capabilities which characterise the ADF’s new platforms. And the need for strategic agility must translate into an air power strategy which will “deliver effects within a whole-of-government approach to wielding the elements of national power.” This, of course, is equally applicable to the other services. Indeed, with the Royal Australian Navy’s warship re-capitalisation well under way, there is a strong possibility that enterprise-level requirements for strategic agility will also impact the RAN and its key function to project Australia’s maritime power, protect trade routes, and shape and influence the trends impacting Australia’s national security objectives. As Hunter argues, as well as “discouraging political warfare”, the ADF will “need to contribute to cooperative relationships in the region if we wish to sustain the access and presence required to enhance our influence.”

DEFENCE

BREAK WITH TRADITION

This is the new normal, and with the environment changing so rapidly, driven substantially by information-related technology and geo-political competition, it is vital that these non-materiel inputs to capability, such as the ideas, concepts and relationships, which define the conceptual component of fighting power, are fully integrated with the platforms and weapon systems which traditionally dominate the Defence narrative. Getting the right balance between traditional, kinetic warfighting roles, and the new informationrelated, non-kinetic roles is going to be a challenge. It will demand new relationships and mobilise significant elements of Defence, industry, academia, and other Government departments to work in ways previously unimagined. And it is not just about capability, it is about capacity, too. Perhaps the time has come for Defence and, specifically the services, to increase its numbers. But simply throwing more people at the problem without understanding the emerging enterprise readiness and sustainment requirements could simply create bottlenecks in the training systems and overwhelm extant logistics capability. Not least, Defence must operate within the resource constraints of the Government of the day in a budgetary environment which is now impacted by trade wars and global economic uncertainty. So where to from here, and what stands in the way of the progress identified by Hunter in his article? Among many others, there are three key factors which are worthy of further consideration providing constraints and challenges in linking strategy to task. And, as ever, context is everything. First and foremost, there is obviously a world of difference between preparing to achieve short-term tactical success against a technologically inferior threat, and the requirement to deliver strategic effect against a high-tech threat in a campaign measured over years or decades.

Secondly, integrating a Joint force – both physically and conceptually – to achieve even the most seemingly straightforward operational objectives at an acceptable level of risk is excruciatingly difficult to do. And thirdly, the accelerating trends in the geostrategic environment are such that, preparing for each and every possible eventuality is simply out of the question.

EASY TO SAY

Addressing the first point, and as described in the previous edition of ADBR, the move to the long-term campaign footing necessary to succeed in the new operating environment needs an ongoing recurring examination of the architecture and apparatus of the Defence enterprise, which has taken shape over the past two decades to support operations primarily in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The new relationships and new ideas outlined earlier to enable campaigns requires additional apparatus, such as new institutions, at the heart of which are people sharing information and building knowledge and an understanding of the risks and opportunities in the ever-changing environment. These institutions also create access and are defined in terms of bases, ports, academies, warfare centres, logistics hubs and the like, without which exquisite next-generation platforms would possibly be condemned to a life of tactical-level employment, no matter how important that will continue to be. This apparatus is often described in terms of enablers, a title which understates its importance when considered in terms of the campaigns and strategic agility we are talking about here. Be in no doubt, the ‘bones’ of the ADF force structure is world class, and will continue to demand significant long-term resourcing both in acquisition and sustainment. But Defence should be prepared to draw a line under previous operational concepts and from time to time, even some equipment

‘Getting the right balance between traditional, kinetic warfighting roles, and the new informationrelated, nonkinetic roles is going to be a challenge’

ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN

ADBR.COM.AU

DEFENCE DEFENCE

acquisition projects, and avoid letting tradition and legacy force-structures get in the way of designing, building, and developing the joint force for future operational success on a strategic scale. The US Marine Corps has adopted this approach, and this is considered below. Yet, designing and developing defence capability is far easier said than done. So, to the second point, each of the services has a core role upon which the foundations of their capability are established: control of the sea, control of the land, and control of the air. The challenge for Defence decision-makers is that, while predicting new missions and tasks is difficult enough, finding the additional capacity to do them while maintaining professional mastery in their traditional roles and domains – within existing resources – can seem daunting. Designing, building, operating, and sustaining a Defence force of the quality of the ADF should never be under-estimated. It is way beyond the capability of most countries and, as well as operating alone as a joint task force, it can integrate and fight alongside the world’s biggest superpower. This is an extraordinary achievement, and is only possible because of the quality of the people involved, their equipment, and the way they prepare.

CORE SKILLS

‘Designing, building, operating, and sustaining a Defence force should never be underestimated.’

Even the most seemingly basic of ADF missions requires a fundamental bedrock of skills and experience that takes years to establish. From navigating through Sydney Heads to transiting the Straits of Hormuz, the effort involved in building a team that can operate and sustain a warship – or any other Defence capability for that matter – in combat operations far from home is only possible because of world class leadership, education and training systems, and the core values and traditions upon which the technology and platforms become lethal. And to the third point, how does the ADF prioritise its preparations to ensure it can achieve the most likely objectives in an increasingly complex range of operational scenarios with activities taking place within the physical domains as well as simultaneously, and at the speed of light, in

the information domain? Information-related technologies are developing rapidly for both military and commercial purposes which is redefining the traditional concepts of electronic warfare and information operations. Persistent and aggressive operations in cyberspace are now part of the everyday operating environment, opening up new threats and, of course, new opportunities in the grey zone warfare so convincingly described in Peter Hunter’s paper. Therefore, perhaps the biggest risk to operational success in the future is a lack of strategic imagination, for want of a better term. Preparation for every eventuality in the physical domains of sea, land and air is no longer a realistic proposition, although cognitive preparation remains an essential element of ADF readiness and sustainment planning. Without the necessary mental preparation the unexpected event becomes a strategic surprise, which inevitably results in operational paralysis and emotionally-charged thinking rather than disciplined sense-making to achieve a decision advantage. The human domain is, once again, highlighted along with the information domain as critical to achieving strategic influence in the future. It also minimises the likelihood that a miscalculation or accident in the Indo-Pacific’s increasingly congested oceans, airspace, cities, and electromagnetic spectrum, does not escalate out of control. This is not just a challenge for Australia, with the US now demonstrating its intent and falling back on its experience from the Cold War. With an emphasis on the readiness and sustainment priorities needed for high-end warfighting, the US Government has also returned to the architecture and apparatus which it established as a result of the rise of the Soviet Union. Taking a closer look, the US approach provides an interesting perspective in meeting the challenges of strategic competition.

STRATEGIC BENCHMARKS

To quote once more from Hunter’s paper, “As Hal Brands has argued: What made US strategy so

BREAK WITH TRADITION

effective in the late Cold War was that it deployed virtually every weapon in the American arsenal: intensified military competition, economic warfare, covert action, and political and ideological measures… Today, by contrast, the US’s strategies are not nearly so complete.” A significant contributor to the effectiveness of US strategy was an increased emphasis on the total or ‘net assessments’ of capability, as opposed to the traditional focus on tactical level, platform-againstplatform reporting and analysis – which, of course, still has its place. The key factor in a net assessment is that it is conducted in a comparative sense against a thinking enemy and it examines the asymmetries and intangibles in the battlespace, rather than just the physical platforms. The net assessment methodology was developed over several decades by the late Andrew Marshall, a former strategist at the RAND Corporation who served as Director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment from 1973 until 2015. And there have been recent calls for the establishment of a similar capability in Australia with John Blaxland, Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, outlining the need in A Geostrategic SWOT Analysis for Australia, published in June 2019. In an Australian context, Prof Blaxland describes net assessment in terms that “involves a holistic, comprehensive, analysis of long-term and broad ranging dynamics to derive a multinational and multispectral net assessment of the security challenges faced in the medium term (out 5-10 years) and long term (spanning the next generation, out to 2040 and beyond).” Yet net assessments are not just confined to whole of Government strategy development. A similar methodology can be applied to the military at the operational level to provide a suite of net assessments, all of which contributing to the effort to synchronise the broader elements of national power and integrate the joint force. And speed things up, too. At the ceremony to mark the US Navy Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Change of Office on 22 August 2019, incoming CNO Admiral Mike Gilday also spoke about the need for “a sense of urgency”, to “question our assumptions”, and to “think differently about the competition we are now in”. CNO plans to release detailed guidance in the coming weeks, which already points to much closer integration with the US Marine Corps to “develop our way ahead to meet these challenges”. The US Marine Corps transformation is already well under way.

THE US MARINE CORPS MODEL

The US Marine Corps provides an excellent example of how new methodology and thinking can contribute to the development of force level integration, and drive transformational change in the maritime environment. Released in June 2019, the 38th commandant’s strategic direction is contained in the The Commandant’s Planning Guidance (CPG). Flowing down from the US DoD’s planning guidance,

it articulates the USMC priorities for ongoing relevance and success in the new operational environment. Commandant General David H Berger’s planning guidance is bold and personal, with an emphasis on architecture and integration. He describes how “force design is my number one priority”, and that “we must divest of legacy capabilities that do not meet our future requirements, regardless of their past operational efficacy. There is no piece of equipment or major defense acquisition program that defines us”. Furthermore, he describes the USMC as part of a wider enterprise, and that “the future integrated naval force will shift from traditional power projection to meet the new challenges associated with maintaining persistent naval forward presence to enable sea control and denial operations…We must strive to create capabilities that support fleet operations and naval campaigns”.

COUNTER COMMAND - A THINKING ENEMY

The commandant also highlights the importance of the need “to fill what is arguably our greatest deficiency in the training and education of leaders: practice in decision-making against a thinking enemy”. To achieve his objectives, the commandant has focused on three conceptual foundations around which to encourage innovation and disciplined thinking: distributed operations, littoral operations in a contested environment, and expeditionary advanced base operations. And central to his objectives is an unprecedented commitment to wargaming, “a set of tools for structured thinking about military problems within a competitive framework – in the presence of that ‘thinking enemy’ who lies at the heart of our doctrinal understanding of war”. Indeed, about 15 per cent of his guidance is devoted to wargaming and its utility across a number of functions, from force design, concept development, capability development, integration and, of course, mission rehearsal to support naval campaigns. A benefit of disciplined, wargame-enabled net

US NAVY

‘A significant contributor to the effectiveness of US strategy was an increased emphasis on the total or ‘net assessments’ of capability...’

ADBR.COM.AU

list; however, it is the architecture and design in bringing these elements together within a whole of government context which will now deliver a decisive strategic advantage. And what is also relatively new is that perhaps the greatest impact on the traditional roles and responsibilities of the ADF, the US Marine Corps and others, is that they now face significant additional challenges manoeuvring and operating inside threat weapons engagement zones.

FUTURE MISSIONS AND NEW REQUIREMENTS

DEFENCE

assessment approach to planning is that it plays a significant role in translating tactically-focussed situational awareness into the more valuable strategic aspects of ‘situational understanding’. Whether in the operations room of a ship or planning within a strategic headquarters, both situational awareness and situational understanding give a decisionmaker a far better chance of anticipating what is likely to happen in the future. The ability to predict the possible range of outcomes in the mind of the commander can compensate for the limitations in the physical training environment and build the mental models in the brain which are so critical to dynamic decision-making. The Commandant sees wargaming as an essential tool for becoming future ready and for better “understanding that accepting risk in current capability, before emerging threats fully mature, is a reasonable price to pay for a better chance of properly anticipating future requirements”. In a final nod to Peter Hunter’s paper and, indeed, Professor Blaxland’s SWOT analysis, US Marine Corps wargames provide some interesting observations and priorities when linking strategy to task in an Australian context. The outcome of the Marine Corps wargames aligns with those of the other US Services and the UK, which have been reported recently in open sources. Commandant Marine Corps highlights, among other things, six topics worthy of note which fall into the categories of relationships; increased survivability, sense and strike across all domains, resilient command and control systems (with enhanced situational awareness), secure communications and data networks, and “game-changing opportunities with manned and unmanned teaming”. There is nothing much which is new in this

The forthcoming Sir Richard Williams Foundation seminar called ‘The Requirements of Fifth Generation manoeuvre’ will explore many of these issues further. Whether or not we choose to differentiate between the hard and soft varieties, the reality is that power is being projected into the region on an unprecedented scale, and the traditional boundaries between war and peace have been replaced by high contest. However, the proliferation of long-range strike weapons and integrated air defence systems in the Indo-Pacific region means the ADF will be now operating regularly within range of sophisticated weapon systems and sensors. This will require traditional missions to be re-imagined in the context of advanced, long-range weapon systems and an increasingly congested and contested electromagnetic spectrum. The traditional approach to what were seen previously as single service roles – such as Counter Air and Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) – need an increasingly networked, joint approach, one which will allow rapid, synchronised effects across the sea, land, air, information, and human domains. Attempting to predict a future which is fundamentally unknowable is fraught with risk. But it is probably fair to say that manoeuvre and operations in the Indo-Pacific is likely to require a significant increase in capability in the both the information and human domains, and innovation in the cognitive aspects of warfare against a thinking threat. Above all, the architecture and apparatus of a campaign approach involves greater levels of intelligence integration, and a different way of thinking from the traditional tactical warfighting approach. Making decisions without first making sense is a sure-fire way of dishing up more of the same. As Peter Hunter says: “What sense does it make, then, for Australia to have one hand tied behind its back by insisting that our military tools be kept exclusively for their designed warfighting purpose?”. In the next edition of ADBR we will continue this theme with a closer examination of counter Integrated Air Defence (IADS) and counter Command operations, and the impact of information-related technologies and increased intelligence integration on what was traditionally viewed as a traditional air power role.

‘The Commandant sees wargaming as an essential tool for becoming future ready...’

John Conway has worked in the Australian Defence Industry for almost a decade and specialises in the design, integration and implementation of command, information warfare and human factors at the enterprise level. He is a Board Member of the Sir Richard Williams Foundation, and his experience as a senior joint air warfare commander and air combat aviator includes Cold War Europe in the Second Allied Tactical Air Force, the Balkans, Middle East, and Eastern Mediterranean theatres of operation.

JEWELS IN THE CROWN

AWIC 2019

JEWELS IN THE CROWN The RAAF graduates a growing number of Air Warfare Instructors across multiple skillsets. BY ANDREW McLAUGHLIN

hey are among the RAAF best of the best – the latest batch of Air Warfare Instructor (AWI) capability subject matter experts showing they have what it takes to emerge as graduates of the biennial 2019 Air Warfare Instructor Course (AWIC). The course concluded with the now familiar Exercise Dawn Strike, an event where about 20 combat aircraft fought their way through a defensive force to conduct a simulated strike on RAAF Base Williamtown. While flying en route from RAAF Amberley, the course candidates and their airborne instructors flying F/A-18 classic and Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers were intercepted by other

classic Hornets from Williamtown off the NSW mid-north coast, with the melee being ‘supervised’ by an E-7A Wedgetail. All attacking and defending aircraft then conducted a spectacular high-speed low-level ‘beatup’ of Williamtown in waves of up to four aircraft, before recovering at the base for the graduates’ informal patch presentation at the Williamtown mess. A couple of nights later, your writer was privileged to attend the formal graduation where the newly minted AWIs were presented with their qualifications and various awards of excellence in front of senior RAAF leadership, past and present FCI and AWI patch wearers, their peers, and family and friends.

Classic Hornets in the Williamtown carports prepare to launch for Dawn Strike. ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN

ADBR.COM.AU

FROM FCI TO AWI

AWI course candidates are drawn from an increasing number of RAAF air combat specialties. The FCI course was founded in 1954 by WGCDR Dick Creswell to develop specialist Fighter Combat Instructors from air combat lessons he had learned as Commanding Officer of 77SQN in the Korean War, and his previous air combat experience in WWII. In 1954 the RAAF was flying Gloster Meteor fighters, and through the following four decades course candidates operated the CA-27 Sabre, Dassault Mirage IIIO, and the classic Hornet. In 1992 the FCI course was expanded for the first time to include ground-based Fighter Intelligence Instructors (FII) and Fighter Combat Controllers (FCC), while later that decade the first F-111C strike

crews were also invited to undertake the course and graduate as FCI â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;patch-wearersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. FCIs are considered subject matter experts in the fields of air combat, strike, RAAF weapons systems, and adversary capabilities and tactics. But to be considered to participate in the course, candidates must have completed a number of professional milestones. Following operational conversion (OPCON) to their aircraft type, candidate pilots and air combat officers (ACO) will have completed at least one three-year squadron tour and a large force employment exercise such as Red Flag, Cope North or Pitch Black. These major exercises are often where pilots are upgraded to a B Category (B-Cat) rating which qualifies them to lead four-ship

JEWELS IN THE CROWN

formations in combat. Course candidates are also invited to participate based on their above-average competency and leadership qualities. Up until 2017, the FCI Course was conducted wholly within Air Combat Group (ACG) and using ACG resources. Due to the limited resources of the operationally-focused force element group (FEG) – and despite the high-quality output of the course – the course’s scope was understandably limited. “It was still a very fighter-centric course,” Air Warfare Centre Commander, AIRCDRE Phil Gordon told ADBR. “But with the advent of Plan Jericho and the Air Warfare Centre in 2016, the die was cast to fundamentally re-think how we execute that advanced integrated training, and we leant very heavily on the US Fighter Weapons School model when it broadened its scope to become the USAF Weapons School. “The first AWIC we ran was in 2017, and that was the first one that was not entirely based around fighters with other supporting capabilities, but became a whole-ofcommunity integrated effort,” he added. With its own dedicated budget and instructional resources to draw upon, the AWIC was brought under the Tactics and Training Directorate (TTD), an element of the Air Warfare Centre. “The Air Warfare Centre I would say was born of Plan Jericho and the need to drive the Air Force to make the most of all the new capabilities that are being introduced,” AIRCDRE Gordon said. “When it was formed in January 2016 with the motto to ‘Ready the Warfighter’, it really was focused on driving innovation and integration across all of air force to get us to that 5th generation future. “One of the newly created directorates within the AWC at that time was the TTD which has 88 Squadron within it,” he added. “I think the TTD is one of the real crown jewels in our drive for high-end integration. It has some really high-calibre subject matter experts from each of the platforms and systems that we use operationally, and we put them all together and make

them work out how to get all the systems to work together and how to fight as a system-of-systems, not as a series of individual platforms. “Having developed these tactics, 88SQN really shapes the training and the tactics and the development of the rest of Air Command, so that everyone is heading in the right direction to deliver on that integrated future.” While the AWC is headquartered at RAAF Edinburgh near Adelaide, the “critical mass” of TTD and 88SQN is based at RAAF Williamtown in order to be co-located with key RAAF elements such as ACG, 81WG, Headquarters Surveillance & Response Group (HQSRG), 41WG, 42WG, the E-7As Wedgetails of 2SQN, and most of the fighter squadrons’ headquarters. The TTD is currently headed by GPCAPT Matt McCormack and 88SQN is commanded by WGCDR Tim Main. GPCAPT McCormack is a classic Hornet pilot and a former CO of 2OCU, while WGCDR Main is an air combat officer and a qualified Fighter Combat Controller (FCC). With the change from FCI course to AWIC, the 2017 course was vastly expanded to include AEW&C Combat Instructors (ACI) from the E-7A Wedgetail, and Mobility Tactics Instructors (MTI) from the C-130J. Also in 2017 the FII qualification was “rebranded” as ICI, or Intelligence Combat Instructor. “So we broadened the community away from just fighters to include Wedgetail and C-130s,” AIRCDRE Gordon said. “Then in 2019 we created a Growler Tactics Instructor (GTI).” Prior to 2017, FCI courses usually graduated between six and 10 fast-jet crew members plus a few FIIs and FCCs. But AWIC19 graduated a total of 27 AWIs across six specialist domains, comprising eight FCIs (five classic Hornet pilots, two Super Hornet pilots, and one Super Hornet ‘back-seater’ weapons systems operator), four FCCs, three ICIs, five ACIs, three MTIs, and four GTIs.

‘The Air Warfare Centre was born of Plan Jericho...’

COURSE ELEMENTS

Despite not having ny pilots in the 2019 course, the F-35As of 3SQN supported many of the Diamond series of force employments. DARREN MOTTRAM

ADBR.COM.AU

The RAAF’s C-130J fraternity graduated three Mobility Tactics Instructors (MTI) at AWIC 2019. Observers of Dawn Strike at the end of the course nominated the C-130J for the ‘beat-up of the day’. DARREN MOTTRAM

Exercise Dawn Strike at the end of May was just the last of several major exercise elements conducted over the five months of the course. The first of these was Exercise Diamond Sage conducted in Canberra in January which comprised planning meetings and briefings in conjunction with Air Force Headquarters (AFHQ) and other participating ADF capability managers. Following that was an initial instructional phase in February, before the course rolled into Exercise Diamond Shield in March. Previously called Aces South, Diamond Shield is an air defence exercise conducted at Williamtown and Amberley and the airspace in between and, this year, was supported by visiting USAF F-16C/D fighters from the 18th Aggressor Squadron based at Eielson AFB in Alaska. Following an additional instructional phase, the course rolled into Exercise Diamond Spear which is a dedicated air-to-ground phase using live and simulated ordnance on the ranges around Williamtown and Amberley. Exercise Diamond Spear was previously called Aces Strike. In between all the flying activities of the course, the AWIs are required to complete intensive academics to provide theoretical grounding for what they will later be required to put into practice. The major exercise element of the AWI course was the massive three-week long Exercise Diamond Storm which was conducted primarily in the Northern Territory ranges around Darwin and RAAF Tindal near Katherine. Formerly called Aces North, Diamond Storm

this year included visiting USAF F-15C Eagles of the 144th Fighter Wing (144FW) California Air National Guard based in Fresno, and B-52Hs from the 23rd Expeditionary Bomber Squadron (23EBS) on a rotational deployment at Anderson AFB on Guam that were working with the ADF on the regular Enhanced Air Cooperation (EAC) program. “There are multiple levels why it is important for USAF to support exercises like Diamond Storm, the major one being interoperability between the United States and Australia,” the 23EBS Assistant Director of Operations, Maj Bryson Ayers said in a statement during the exercise. “We train together because it gives us a better understanding of the people we are likely to work with in the future. “It’s sometimes the small things that build the strongest relationships, we don’t just fly together – we eat together and attend briefs together,” Maj Byers added. “We are learning about how life is different in the two countries and yet essentially the same. It has been an enriching couple of weeks for the crew on the ground here.” In addition to the USAF assets, there were also US Marine Corps AH-1Z Vipers, UH-1Y Venoms and MV22B Ospreys, and Alpha Jets and Learjets operated by Air Affairs and Raytheon to provide additional electronic warfare, adversary force, and a force multiplication capability. The Raytheon Electronic Warfare Training Systems (EWTS) Learjet 35A provides a simulated contested electromagnetic environment which course candidates need to manage and ‘fight’ through. An ADF statement says the EWTS inclusion

JEWELS IN THE CROWN

in the adversary force’s order of battle introduced radar jamming, communications denial, and deception through accurate threat simulation. “When we experience jamming from the Learjet it makes it more difficult for us to be able to target that aircraft,” F/A-18A pilot FLGOFF ‘Georgi’ said in a statement during the exercise. “We have to use our radar in a more deliberate manner to achieve an affect. It increases the complexity of the task and is a fantastic simulation of what would happen in the real world.” Raytheon also deployed its Mobile Threat Training Emitter System (MTTES) system from Oakey in QLD to the NT for Diamond Storm. The MTTES is a new capability designed to provide an operationally representative ground-based threat, the effects of which can be coordinated with other air and ground elements to create a layered defence posture that requires advanced integrated planning and execution to overcome. “The threat emitters give us another layer of targeting complexity when we are focused on delivering weapons on our adversary’s doorstep,” said FLGOFF Georgi. “We must defend against surface-to-air threat systems that can pop-up without notice anywhere in the area of operation. It’s been great to see our aircraft threat warning indicators react in real time to surface-to-air threats. It really makes a difference when you see an indicator light up as opposed to having to pretend.” Diamond Storm also saw the final employment of the Dornier Alpha Jets as adversaries prior to their return to Canada. Operated by Discovery Air Defence Services under Air Affairs Australia’s existing Jet Air Support contract, the three former Luftwaffe Alpha Jets have been based at Williamtown since August 2017 on a two-year trial contract to provide adversary ‘Red Air’, Joint Terminal Attach Controller (JTAC) training, and RAN fleet support work. Another simulated threat employed for Diamond Storm was a Royal Air Force Skyguard radar and inflatable simulated weapons system – or ‘jumping castle’ – which was set up in the Bradshaw Range southwest of Darwin. The RAF says that when the Skyguard radar and inflatable weapons system are paired together, they create a layered defence. “The Skyguard radar can track aircraft up to 16 kilometres away and has twin 35mm cannons with a range of four kilometres,” RAF Aerospace Systems Manager, SGT Nick said in a statement during the exercise. “In a real world scenario it would be used to protect high value assets like a hospital or base headquarters. “Skyguard sends out an electronic signal to the aircraft, giving the aircraft a realistic target on the ground,” he added. “From the air, a pilot will see an inflatable tank and react to the threat from the Skyguard. Our equipment is simulating an adversary force that the AWIC candidates have to identify, engage or manoeuvre around.” Following Diamond Storm, the Skyguard radar

and inflatable weapons systems was deployed to Queensland and used in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2019. Apart from the fast jets, other ADF Diamond Storm assets included Hawk 127, AP-3C (EW) Orion, P-8A Poseidon, C-17A, KC-30A MRTT, E-7A Wedgetail and C-130J Hercules, as well as 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit (114MCRU) and 3CRU operating AN/TPS-77 Tactical Air Defence Radar Systems (TADRS), Army SASR special forces and Tiger ARHs, and 4SQN combat controllers. Near Timber Creek at the southern end of the vast Bradshaw Range, 3CRU set up its TPS-77 unit, while 114MCRU set up its radar and communications systems at Pine Creek between Darwin and Katherine. “Our TADRS has a range of up to 250 nautical miles, and our role here is to help provide a three dimensional air picture in exercise scenarios,” 3CRU communication electronics Technician CPL Steve Maley said in a statement during the exercise. “We are trained to deploy our radar capability to the most remote locations. “3CRU are emulating an enemy force during Diamond Storm,” he added. “We are playing the ‘baddies’ to provide complex training for the course. We have to keep the radar spinning to keep the exercise going. If a jet breaks it can potentially sit out of a mission, but if our radar goes down there is a crucial missing link.” Also supporting the exercise was the newly upgraded Delamere Air Weapons Range (DELAWR), a half-million acre area southwest of Katherine that the ADF describes as ‘Australia’s premier weapons ranges for practice gunnery and both inert and high explosive bombing. The range has recently received new accommodation, recreation and messing facilities to better support permanent staff and those deployed

‘The threat emitters give us another layer of targeting complexity when we are focused on delivering weapons...’

The RAF Skyguard radar and inflatable ‘jumping castle’ simulated weapons system at Bradshaw Range. DEFENCE

ADBR.COM.AU

for major exercises and training events. “The new facilities have more work-stations and work areas meaning that we can more easily accommodate exercise personnel,” Officer in Charge Range Operations, WGCDR Lynette Horne said in a statement during the exercise. “We now have a dedicated and permanent facility for Raytheon, an operations centre and briefing room, a dedicated medical room with trauma bed and purpose built explosive ordnance storage areas. “The new facilities have enhanced our ability to provide a high-quality support base for operations in the field. All the permanent staff here look forward to the future growth of the range.” Further upgrades are scheduled for DELAWR, including the all-important electronic warfare training range capability that will be required to provide high-fidelity threat training for the RAAF’s F-35A, EA-18G Growler, and the forthcoming Gulfstream G550-based MC-55A Peregrine

USAF F-16C/D fighters from the 18th Aggressor Squadron based at Eielson AFB in Alaska supported Exercise Diamond Shield at Williamtown. DEFENCE

An F/A-18F+ Super Hornet of 1SQN overhead Williamtown during Dawn Strike. ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN

electronic warfare system.

FUTURE AWIC

While AWIC19 saw the course’s continued expansion into new skillsets and categories, it was also a somewhat poignant one for the RAAF. With the F/A-18A/B classic Hornet due to retire from RAAF service in 2021/22 after 37 years of service, this will likely have been the final AWI-FCI course led by 2OCU flying classic Hornets. In July, the RAAF commenced the final operational conversion course (OPCON) to the classic Hornet. Once that course is complete later this year, 2OCU will divest itself of its Hornets before elements of the squadron relocate to Luke AFB in Arizona in early 2020 to begin their conversion to the F-35A, before returning to Williamtown in late 2020. “Having worked in ACG for a large part of my career, I have seen the evolution from where we started with the Hornet to where we have ended up, and the progression has been remarkable,” Commanding Officer of 2OCU, WGCDR Woodland said. “It is sad to see the Hornet retire, but it’s also an exciting time as we transition to the F-35A and beyond, evolving into that next generation fighting force.” In the meantime, 77SQN at Williamtown and 75SQN at Tindal will continue to operate the Hornet as operational squadrons and, while they will conduct upgrades and refreshers ‘in-house’ through their own training flight elements, from next year all formal RAAF fast-jet pilot training will be conducted on the BAE Hawk, F/A-18F, EA-18G and F-35A. By the next AWIC in 2021, one RAAF squadron of F-35As will have achieved an initial operational capability (IOC) and another will be well advanced, and local operational conversion will be well underway. But the rapidly increasing tempo of F-35 training and operational workups mean it is unlikely the RAAF will be ready to send any F-35 pilots to the 2021 course. But the F-35A community will still play a major role in AWIC21 by providing air combat, strike, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), joint-force integration, and other support roles to the exercise. Meanwhile a high priority for AWIC21 for the RAAF is to develop an AWI category for the P-8A Poseidon maritime ISR aircraft. “We had planned this year to have our first students on the course flying the P-8 Poseidon, but the operational tempo of that aircraft during its transition into service meant we held back on that,” AIRCDRE Gordon told us in closing. “The P-8 community still participated in the exercises and integrated at various points, but they didn’t have any of their crews as candidates on the course. “In 2019 we also had some other warfighter communities supporting the course and as observers. For example, we had C-17 folks, KC-30, we had combat controllers from 4SQN, and we had some cyber folks from the Information Warfare Directorate in the AWC. The priority community in 2021 is to add the P-8, but we’re also looking at how we bring these additional new communities into the course in a measurable way that doesn’t dilute the product.”

XXXXXXX

A IR A F FA IRS

A DISCREET AFFAIR BY OWEN ZUPP

ADBR.COM.AU

‘The long line of twinengined Learjets on Air Affairs’ ramp is impressive...’

owra, on the NSW south coast is well known as the home of the Royal Australian Navy’s Fleet Air Arm (FAA) and the Army-Navy Joint Helicopter Aircrew Training School (HATS) at HMAS Albatross. But, if one casts the eye across the western side of the airfield, a growing network of sizeable, modern hangars, offices and workshops can be found beyond the perimeter fence. This is the home of a lesser known, but significant participant in the Australian aerospace sector. Spanning both the civilian and defence sectors, Air Affairs Australia undertakes a broad range of activities that range from flight operations and manufacturing to ongoing service and support. And while their name may not be high profile, as the world’s largest operator of the Learjet, their fleet and their operations are impressive.

HUMBLE BEGINNINGS

You can never judge a book by its cover and, at first glance, the 6,500 square metre Air Affairs facility is testament to that. The large, modern, glass-fronted office is typical of the entrance to any company in a modern industrial estate. Air Affairs CEO, Chris Sievers started his working life as an apprentice sheet metal worker with Trans Australia Airlines (TAA) before joining Stillwell Aviation. At the time, Stillwell was the Australasian distributor of the Learjet, and Sievers was involved in modifying Learjets for special mission roles and, in a first, for military training. After six years at Stillwell, Sievers began supplying specialist aircraft services under contract to the Royal Australian Navy, before establishing Air Affairs in 1995. The company has now grown to 170 employees, operates more than 20 aircraft, and fulfils substantial contracts with governments, defence forces, and multinational companies.

AIR AFFAIRS

TARGETS & MORE

The concept of target towing is not a new one. As a training aid for fighter pilots, the opportunity to engage a target towed behind a host aircraft has long proved beneficial. However, the fabric drogues of the past were superseded many years ago by sophisticated hard-bodied targets, both in tow and free flying form. And now missiles have joined the ranks of the ordinance used in what is now a sophisticated training regime. The Learjet has been pivotal in the role as a target towing aircraft for decades, and today is better than ever able to provide realistic threats for surfaceto-air, air-to-air missiles and for medium and large caliber guns. In turn, the targets can be further augmented with devices such as light, smoke and active and passive radar, and are a far cry from the early days of a cloth drogue. The long line of twin-engined Learjets on Air Affairs’ ramp is impressive to say the least. Immediately identifiable by their sleek form, T-tail and tip tanks, the distinctive aircraft possess an endurance of three hours plus reserves, and the ability to provide their special missions role at a speed range of 200 to 350 knots IAS. Flown by ex-military pilots, the advantages of a single type are several, such as spare parts inventory, crew checking and training as well as maximising the availability of an aircraft when needed. In its current Jet Aircraft Support Contract, Air Affairs’ Learjet 35 and 36 series corporate jets have been extensively modified to carry underwing equipment, reeling machines, miss distance scoring equipment, command and control telemetry units, military radios and tracking cameras for a range of tasks across all three services of Defence. At first glance, An Air Affairs Learjet may seem like any other business jet, with the wing hard points, special mission wiring and UHF radio less

AIR AFFAIRS

than obvious. But the sight of a white pod beneath the wing points to its true purpose. Two MTR-101 reeling machines can be carried, with each extending forward of the Learjet’s leading edge. Built by Air Affairs, the MTR-101 is designed to accommodate a range of tow targets using cables of various diameters that can extend up to 30,000 feet, or more than nine kilometres. Controlled by an operator via a console in the aircraft cabin, the target is deployed by a launcher arm which, when extended, offers a stable launch clear of aircraft-generated and shear layer turbulence. Additionally, the extended position ensures that separation exists between the tow cable and the tow aircraft through the range of manoeuvres that are called for across a range of training scenarios. A camera on the pod monitors the launch and recovery of the target, while a removable spool allows a quick change of the tow cable on the ground should it be shot off in flight. In the case of a shot not actually hitting the target, miss distance indicator systems can calculate how close the shot came. The Mini Marque acoustic system measures the distance between a supersonic projectile or missile and the tow target in any firing situation, be that air-to-air or surfaceto-air. The target towing operator can then present the firing results in real time for up to six targets simultaneously. As with so many aspects of Air Affairs operation, the maintenance of the company’s Learjet fleet is conducted in-house. From flightline and basic

component maintenance, to the incredibly deep 12year inspection, Air Affairs is accredited to conduct the full range of maintenance actions upon the Learjets and the single Beech King Air 200 in its fleet. The two aircraft types also combine to provide high altitude fire mapping services Australia-wide – a role that the company has performed for more than 20 years. Capable of operations up to 40,000 feet, the Learjet’s onboard imaging systems are capable of mapping fires through dense smoke, both day and night. The systems utilised by Air Affairs permit onboard processing of the image data to provide firefighting authorities with the much-needed information as soon as is practically possible. The upload and enhancement processes usually being completed within a few minutes of having overflown the bushfire.

Air Affairs Learjets are flown by former military pilots. AIR AFFAIRS

ADBR.COM.AU

The Phoenix Jet target is designed, manufactured and operated by Air Affairs. AIR AFFAIRS

A Phoenix jet target being launched at Woomera. AIR AFFAIRS

Additionally, Air Affairs has an alliance with CareFlight International to provide a range of aeromedical services both in Australia and abroad. Utilising specially-configured Learjet 35 and Learjet 60 aircraft, the service is available 24/7/365, with a response time to deployment being as little as 60 minutes to conduct retrieval operations throughout Australia and the South Pacific region. All flight operations are monitored from a command centre equipped with a wall of screens. These screens display security cameras, weather, aircraft readiness status and a pictorial display along a timeline of where and when, which aircraft are to be tasked into which specific role. It is effectively the command and control centre of Air Affairs Australia, and has an unmistakable air of professionalism.

PHOENIX & ALPHA JETS

And as impressive as its Learjet and King Air operations fleet may be, there is much more to Air Affairs. Not all targets are towed and, with the rise of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) across the aerospace spectrum, its presence is felt in the target drone space. Still, it is a not a new concept in Australian skies, dating back to the 1950s and the Australian-developed GAF Jindivik. With a bloodline that flowed through the BAE-supplied Kalkara target drone, Air Affairs operates the newest remotely piloted target, the Phoenix Jet. Available in various configurations, a long line of the orange delta-winged Phoenix Jet targets are lined up along the walls of the facility in various states of maintenance. Designed, manufactured and serviced in-house by Air Affairs, the composite aircraft provides a mid-performance training solution for a variety of gun and air defence missile system. Powered by a jet engine and with a maximum speed of 330kts (600km/h), the Phoenix can carry a large variety of payloads. Launched from a catapult and recovered by parachute, the Phoenix is controlled by a groundbased operator to provide a realistic threat simulation. It can employ enhancements such as acoustic miss distance indicators (MDI), smoke, and IFF, while infrared (IR) and Luneburg lenses can be fitted to enhance the target’s signature for a range of weapons systems. Air Affairs Australia has also been involved with operating the larger and faster, V-tailed Kratos MQM-178 Firejet UAV target.

‘...the Phoenix is controlled by a groundbased operator to provide a realistic threat simulation.’

AIR AFFAIRS

‘Xxx xx xxxxx xx xxx xx xxx x xxx x x xxxx xx xx xxx xxx xxx xx xxxxxx’

Up until the recent completion of the contract, Air Affairs was also responsible for the operation of three Dornier Alpha Jets to deliver fast jet adversary air capability to the ADF. Teamed up with Top Aces in Canada, the jets were based at RAAF Williamtown and provided ‘red air’ for the RAAF, joint terminal attack controller (JTAC) training for the Australian Army, and fast jet surface training for the Royal Australian Navy. At the time of the visit to the Air Affairs Australia facility, the Alpha Jet trial had ended following the completion of the 2019 Air Warfare Instructor Course in June, and were in containers preparing to be shipped back home to Canada. But the Alpha Jets’ time in Australia demonstrated yet another capability of this Australian company.

BEHIND THE SCENES

To keep such an expansive fleet airborne, a broad range of support services is required. Air Affairs Australia not only maintains its fleet and equipment but, in many cases, it designs, modifies and manufactures it. The support services include a nearby advanced manufacturing facility located in a 3,000 square meter purpose-built facility. Housing CNC machines and sophisticated measuring machines, the facility performs a large range of tasks including the manufacture of its own training equipment. Back at the Albatross facility, there is a Rescue

Hoist Workshop that accommodates a modern testing rig and repair facility. A welding and fabrication workshop has a range of tooling to cut, weld, form, and fabricate a range of components. There is also an electrical and electronics workshop which undertakes work on the target drones across the range of design, manufacture, test and repair. Complex wiring harnesses are manufactured to military standards, and an environmental chamber is available to test components. The underwing stores rack – so pivotal to a range of Air Affairs’ operations – is manufactured in Nowra, while the assembly shop alongside manufactures target tow

Air Affairs has its own engineering, welding, form and composite fabrication tooling. AIR AFFAIRS

ADBR.COM.AU

equipment, target drones, air pods, and reeling machines. Air Affairs Australia is also contracted to provide common services support (CSS) to the Royal Australian Navy’s fleet of helicopters, comprising support for life rafts, flight suits, battery maintenance, and a helicopter corrosion control facility (HCCF). The certificates of approvals for the supply of services, fabrication, testing and more fill the office

AIR AFFAIRS

wall at the facility and are a written representation of the skilled workforce and capability of Air Affairs Australia.

A DISCREET AFFAIR

Many in the aviation field are aware that aerial target towing takes place off the coast of Nowra but, because the fleet of Learjets are usually towing targets or making runs on vessels off the coast, there are few witnesses to the level of activity. When they are mapping fires at high altitude, their work is not obvious from the ground, and the Phoenix Jet is catapulted skyward in remote Woomera or some other location away from populated areas. Even more subtle are the numerous support tasks performed by the majority of the company’s workforce. Highly skilled and highly specialised, they not only keep Air Affairs’ projects operational, but provide a range of services to external customers. Certain elements of the operation are undoubtedly kept quiet by virtue of their Defence links, but even Air Affairs Australia’s commercial roles do not seem to attract the attention that a company of its scale would normally draw. Even so, the dedicated team continue to design, manufacture, test and operate, meeting the demanding standards of governments, military customers and multinational companies alike. Air Affairs Australia is a far-reaching company of substance and professionalism, yet it remains a discreet affair.

Air Affairs maintains all of its own aircraft and equipment at its Nowra base. AIR AFFAIRS

ON TARGET - SIR RICHARD WILLIAMS FOUNDATION

On Target

Similarities from 1925 By Brian Weston

n the last issue of ADBR, Alan Stephens concluded the three-part series on Sir Richard Williams by outlining Williams’ concept of operations for the defence of Australia – a document of sixty-eight pages titled a Memorandum Regarding the Air Defence of Australia. Some of the themes Williams identified in his concept of operations, drafted in 1925, bear similarities to Australia’s circumstances of today. The first was the importance of Australia’s geo-strategic setting. Williams placed emphasis on Australia’s proximity to South-East Asia and on the importance of Australia’s north and north-eastern maritime approaches and their island chains to the defence of Australia. He articulated a concept of operations exploiting the emerging capabilities of aircraft in Australian national security policy. As Stephens noted in last issue, it was not until 1987 that Australia’s geo-strategic setting was again so clearly identified by Paul Dibb, as a critical policy determinant in Australian defence policy. No doubt, Williams would have endorsed the use of the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection chart attached to the inside rear cover of the Department of Defence policy paper Defence of Australia – 1987, some 62 years after Williams’ 1925 memorandum. The second similarity was of the expanding influence of an emerging Asian power. In 1925 it was Japan, building on its military success in defeating the Russian Baltic fleet at the battle of Tsushima Straits in 1905 and with covetous eyes on neighbouring lands. An aggressive strategic aspiration later formalised under the innocuous label of Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. But while some recognised Japan as an emerging threat, it was not a universally accepted view even after Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. From the Australian perspective, it was not until 1934 when Australia’s leading and arguably greatest industrialist, Essington Lewis visited Japan. He returned to Australia surprised at Japan’s industrial capacity and unsettled by their menace and aggression, and reported this to the Australian government. History records that while the Australian government began to take the threat from Japan seriously, the government’s actions were far short of what was warranted. Today the emerging Asian power is the People’s Republic of China (PRC), a totalitarian state under the governance of the Communist Party of China.

Notwithstanding its status as one of the world’s major trading economies, the PRC clearly has wider aspirations as evidenced by its occupation and militarisation of the South China Sea in defiance of a ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Is this a Tsushima in a difference guise? As for national governance, while the detail of Imperial Japan’s militaristic autocracy is different from the governance of the PRC, both nations are effectively one-party states well-able to plan and take decisions that nations with a democratic form of government cannot. Add to this the soft-power being projected by the PRC, and its disregard for established conventions in the acquisition of technology, and it would seem there is little that would hold back coercion as a means to advance the PRC’s national interests. Third, Williams was concerned that the scope and utility of a new military capability – air power – was generally neither well understood nor recognised. That would have to wait until World War II when it was clear that rapid advances in aeronautical technologies had revolutionised military operations. Today, there is a plethora of rapidly advancing technologies, many with scope for military application such as autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, intercontinental strike, space, cyber, ‘debt-bombs’ and even social media. There is little doubt these technologies will have a significant impact on military operations but, more importantly, they open the door to new strategies and to new ways a nation state, or non-state actor can influence, intimidate, control or prosecute an aggressive campaign against other nations. While the term ‘asymmetric warfare’ has long been in the politico-military lexicon, that lexicon is currently under revision as new chapters about new ways of prosecuting aggressive campaigns against nation states are being added. While the net effect of these changes may well be to lower the risk of large-scale war between nations due to the grave risks involved in twentyfirst century conflicts, they do substantially increase the likelihood of smaller-scale aggressive and coercive campaigns to advance a nation’s national interests. In short, Australia would be wellwise to understand the world’s post-1945 system of established ‘rules-based international order’ is being superseded.

Brian Weston is a Board Member of the Sir Richard Williams Foundation

‘Williams placed emphasis on Australia’s proximity to SouthEast Asia and on the importance of Australia’s north and north-eastern maritime approaches...’

OR OPEN T I S VI OW E D N TRA TION RA T S I

REG

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CENTRE, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

PACIFIC 2019 is Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s global maritime business event attracting senior merchant marine, shore services, maritime and defence industry, military and government decision-makers from around the world.

2017 HIGHLIGHTS 546

companies from 25 countries

delegations from 53 countries

international Navy Chiefs present or represented

16,765

19,000sqm

attendances

conferences and symposia world class exhibition hall

For further information contact the PACIFIC 2019 Sales Team PO Box 4095 Geelong, Victoria 3220 Australia T: + 61 (0) 3 5282 0500 E: expo@amda.com.au

www.pacificexpo.com.au

SUBSCRIBE TO

SUPPORTING DECISION MAKERS Subscribe to ADBR, Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leading defence magazine focusing on the business of integrating Defence capabilities, people and industry.

ADBR provides a high-quality and comprehensive overview of key defence industry issues in Australia, with its blend of news, interviews with senior uniformed, Defence civilian and defence industry leaders, and feature articles ranging across defence acquisition, integration, enabling capabilities, and defence industry topics. Complemented by our website and weekly BATTLESPACE e-newsletter which cover major government and defence industry news, announcements, speeches and reports, ADBR is unmatched in covering the business of Defence. FREE TO SERVING DEFENCE PERSONNEL & DEFENCE CIVILIANS

Visit www.adbr.com.au

NE X T GENERATION DEFENCE INFORMATION & INTELLIGENCE SERVICES Felix Defence is a specialist provider of capability development services to Defence. We deliver enterprise solutions and integrate people, policy, technology and process change within resilient execution frameworks.

Visit www.felixdefence.com

Felix Defence is partnered with the Slitherine Group for their award winning wargaming and cross-domain battlespace simulation, Command Professional Edition. The partnership provides Australia with enhanced access to sophisticated, commercial off the shelf wargaming technology in widespread use across the defence communities in the US, UK and NATO.

MULTIPLE MISSIONS. ONE SOLUTION. NO COMPARISON.

STANDARD MISSILE-6 Terminal missile defense. Air defense. Anti-surface warfare. SM-6® and only SM-6 can perform all three – to bring superior over-the-horizon capabilities, readiness and cost-effectiveness to each and every mission.

RAYTHEON.COM/SM6