(L-R) Interim Chief Executive Lockheed Martin Australia, Scott Thompson; Defence Industry Minister, Melissa Price; and AIRCDRE Damian Keddie from the JSF Division sign the Strategic Deed and IMAS on August 1. (Lockheed Martin)

Lockheed Martin Australia and the ADF have today signed Strategic Deed and an Integration, Maintenance and Administration Services (IMAS) contract to provide sovereign sustainment of the RAAF’s fleet of F-35 Lightning II fighters for an initial five year period.

The signing consolidates existing autonomic logistics information system (ALIS) support arrangements that were previously facilitated by the US F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), and will bring them under a contract managed directly between the ADF and Lockheed Martin Australia.

“This is a significant milestone towards achieving initial operating capacity for the F-35A,” Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said in a statement. “It delivers a more responsive and cost-effective solution for key aspects of Australian F-35A maintenance management, and will create up to 60 jobs, in the Canberra, Adelaide, Hunter and Katherine regions.”

The Strategic Deed follows on from a heads of agreement signed in February, and is the first of its kind to be signed by the Commonwealth, and provides a contractual framework that will underpin all subsequent F-35 sustainment contracts in Australia.

The IMAS contract is the first contract to be signed under the Strategic Deed, and appoints Lockheed Martin Australia to deliver ALIS support including administration services, mission combat system support and cyber accreditation for Australia’s F-35 program.

“As the original equipment manufacturer and lead sustainment partner globally, we are proud to partner with the Department of Defence to lead sustainment support for the Australian F-35 program,” Interim Chief Executive of Lockheed Martin Australia, Scott Thompson said in a separate release.

“Our new contracts with the Department of Defence are an important step in developing 5th Generation sovereign capability, providing opportunity for potentially billions of dollars’ worth of new sustainment contracts for local industry.”

(DEFENCE)

(DEFENCE)

The federal government has announced it has approved the first phase of a $3 billion 20 year investment into new equipment for the Australian Army’s special forces.

Today’s announcement of the approval of the $500 million Project LAND 1508 Phase 1 GREYFIN Special Operations Capability Assurance Program will see new equipment acquired to ensure special forces are better equipped to respond to threats.

“Australian Special Forces undertake complex, highly demanding operations in high threat environments,” Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in a statement. “Global threats will continue to evolve. This funding will ensure our Special Forces have cutting edge capabilities to stay ahead of those who might threaten Australia’s interests.”

The equipment to be purchased includes new body armour, weapons, diving equipment, roping and climbing systems, medical search and rescue, communications, and human performance training and support.

“Our special forces, now more than ever, need to be ready and able to deploy on operations anywhere in the world, at short notice, and in very uncertain conditions,” Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds said.

“This first stage of funding enables our special forces to engage with intelligence, science and technology, and innovation organisations to ensure future threats and opportunities are assessed, to make sure we are delivering them the capability they need in the future.”

The announcement says the project will provide opportunities for small and large Australian defence companies.

F-16V concept art. (LOCKHEED MARTIN)

The Taiwanese Air Force has announced it is confident the sale of 60 new Lockheed Martin F-16V Block 70 fighters will be approved by Congress following provisional approval of the sale by the US administration in a submission to Congress.

If approved, the sale would follow the re-delivery of 145 Taiwanese F-16A-Ds following an upgrade to the F-16V configuration, but will likely anger China. But some analysts believe the US may be using the possible sale as leverage as it seeks to gain concessions in the ongoing and escalating trade war with China. For its part, Chinese state television said in March that any such sale would cross a “red line”.

Taiwan is looking to replace its fleet of Dassault Mirage 2000-5s, 60 of which were acquired in 1992 and which have suffered from poor reliability and serviceability in recent years, as well as some of its domestically-built AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-Kuos.

The Block 70 features an AN/APG-83 AESA radar, advanced cockpit displays, a modular mission computer, JHMCS helmet, advanced datalinks, conformal fuel tanks, the AN/APX-126 CIT, the Sniper advanced targeting pod, Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS), an advanced EW systems, and a missionised rear cockpit in the two-seat models. It can also employ advanced precision weapons, although these would be subject to sale to Taiwan separately.

The proposed sale has received support from a number of members of the US Congress, who cite the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. Despite the Act formally recognising the Beijing-based People’s Republic of China as the legitimate government of greater China which includes Taiwan, the US reserves the right to sell weapons to Taiwan for self-defence, and has done so for decades.

The three Dassault Falcon 7X aircraft at Fairbairn. (DEFENCE)

The RAAF has taken delivery of its third and last Dassault falcon 7X special purpose aircraft (SPA) at Fairbairn Defence Establishment in Canberra.

Following the delivery of the first 7X in April, Defence initially confirmed the arrival of the new aircraft before going quiet during the federal election campaign. Acquired to replace the Bombardier Challenger 604, the 7X was first noted in an official role during Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s August visit to Tuvalu for the Pacific Islands Forum.

The aircraft are leased to the RAAF through National Australia Bank Global Infrastructure, are sustained in service by Northrop Grumman Australia, and are operated by 34SQN.

(ANDREW MCLAUGHLIN)

(L-R) President Dassault Aviation Falcon Asia Pacific, Jean-Michael Jacob; Head of Air Force Capability, AVM Cath Roberts; National Australia Bank Director of Global Infrastructure and Government Corporate and Instiitutional Banking, Don Oliveira; and CO 34SQN WGCDR Jason Pont. (DEFENCE)

Lieutenant General Rick Burr has been in the Chief of Army position for just on a year, and by all accounts has not taken a backward step in continuing his predecessors’ programs to modernise the Australian Army.

After working as Deputy to the previous Chief of Army, now Chief of Defence Force (CDF) GEN Angus Campbell, LTGEN Burr was already deeply involved in Army’s transformation, and also had time to develop his own philosophy, one of the ‘Army in Motion.’

“It remains a great privilege to lead our Army of amazing men and women,” LTGEN Burr told ADBR on the eve of his first anniversary as Chief of Army. “I’m very proud of our people, and getting out and about seeing them is inspirational. As you know, General Campbell built on the work of his predecessors, and has left the Army in great shape. We are now ready for the next stage of transformation.”

LTGEN Burr is warm and affable, and has a great memory for names and faces. On face value he appears comfortable talking and listening to people of all ranks and standing. These are important traits for a leader who is not only charged with introducing a whole raft of new equipment, but also one prepared to lead a massive cultural shift in what is typically a very conservative and traditional organisation.

“I have started my tenure by describing our future operating environment through the Accelerated Warfare concept,” he explained. “I think that has been really powerful in defining the unique challenges that we all face, and what we need to do to respond to them.

“The release of Army in Motion has, I think, been very important in describing an Army that needs to be continuously moving, in perpetual motion, adapting to that future environment, embracing the opportunities of technology, and thinking about new concepts and ways of doing things.”

LTGEN Burr describes Accelerated Warfare as both the operating environment and “how we respond”. He says it provides the concept for how Army thinks, equips, trains, educates, organises and prepares for war in order to become “future ready”.

“I’m very pleased with where we are at in terms of thinking about the future, preparing the ground to embrace that future, as well as building concurrent energy,” he said. “As a concept, it’s forcing us to intellectually engage in these challenges to think about all of the domains – land, maritime, and air – our traditional domains, but also increasingly in space and in the cyber domain.

“And if you consider the human domain, then obviously we’re always in that domain as well,” he added. “But those geographic and functional domains are important in providing context when we think about the different way we might need to operate now and into the future. The overall effect it is important for the joint force. Army’s contribution to the joint force, and what we can do in each of those domains, is significant. We do more than we probably give ourselves credit for.”

But LTGEN Burr is also cognisant of the operational obligations Army maintains, and is looking for opportunities to apply the lessons learned on operations into his philosophy and to the Accelerated Warfare concept.

“The Army continues with its current commitments operationally,” he said. “We remain in the Middle East and in the Philippines helping with the mission there. “We’ve always been engaged in our own region as you know with very strong regional cooperation, but we’ve also really stepped up in response to the Government’s commitment to the Pacific in places like Fiji, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea.

“And I’m very pleased. We bring those lessons home, and it allows us to grow our junior leaders in a great way, to build on those existing partnerships and alliances, and strengthens our world view. It’s really important for our leaders.

“Applying those lessons on operations and dealing with increased demands through the spectrum of cooperation, competition and conflict, has been the other important development. We’re thinking about how we best leverage the Army’s unique value proposition as part of the joint force during the various phases of cooperation, competition and conflict across multiple domains.

“We could be in different stages and different domains all at the same time, and that requires a much more integrated, much more sophisticated approach to how we operate. This lends itself to new principles of design for our forces. We are not just joint by design, but integrated by design. This allows our teams to be more coherent, more organised, and more responsive to meet that ‘Accelerated Warfare’ challenge. And of course, domain convergence is a key part of that.”

While culture and intellectual engagement are major parts of the Accelerated Warfare concept, they would be all for nought if they weren’t supported by significant investment in new equipment and training through the various project in the Defence Integrated Investment Plan (IIP).

In this regard, Army has prospered in recent years, with major projects to recapitalise and significantly upgrade the capabilities of almost every Army vehicle, to the incorporation of new resilient communications systems, to the integration of Army’s key land elements with Navy’s new amphibious ships, to the acquisition of a new short-range ground-based air defence (SRGBAD) system.

The contract for the acquisition of Enhanced NASAMS SRGBAD system being acquired under Project LAND 19 Phase 7B was signed in Canberra on June 20, less than three months after passing its Gate 2 approval milestone, and barely two years after Gate 1.

“That air defense capability inside Army is very much needed,” LTGEN Burr explains. “It really developed a stronger, more coherent air defence capability that is integrated across Army, Navy and Air Force, particularly with AIR 6500 coming along.

“That really elevates our thinking and our intellectual engagement with the battlespace,” he added. “To me, while that is another important way of satisfying the air defence capability need, it allows us to think more broadly about how we employ lethal fires in the battlespace, and the integration of sensors and effectors. This then leads into the broader modernisation priority that I have around lethality and the need for long range fires.

“If we start to build the DNA, we start to develop the capacity and capability inside Army to be a much stronger contributor to the joint force across all of those domains.”

LTGEN Burr comes to senior leadership not only from a strong operational and leadership background with the SAS and Special Operations Task Group (SOTG) in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also an equally strong instructional and training background through leadership stints at both the Australian Defence Force Warfare Training Centre (ADFWTC) at RAAF Base Williamtown, and at Royal Military College Duntroon.

“I think it’s progressive,” he said. “Like all people or leaders, you keep building on lessons and experiences and observations. And for me, and certainly with my own background, the power of teams is essential. Those teams can be anyone and anything that contributes to the problem at hand, but the focus on connectivity and enterprise level thinking is really powerful in this regard.

“We need to be working together, helping each other.” he added. “Certainly for the land force, what we can do to better enable maritime and air forces is an area that I know can be enhanced. An Army is not just a beneficiary of a Navy and an Air Force, but I think the same is also true in reverse.

“It’s the interdependency in all of those domains – we all bring different capabilities to the table, and we need to be able to leverage each other’s strengths and unique capabilities in a more coherent way, from cooperation, competition and conflict.

“To me, that sophistication of thinking, that cultural maturity if you like is a real coming of age, and it’s a pleasure to be able to lead the Army at this time..”

To take advantage of the next generation of weapons systems and their enabling capabilities, all three ADF services have embarked on cultural change programs to best position themselves in the future. Air Force has led the way with Plan Jericho, followed closely by Navy with Plan Pelorus.

Army had previously embarked on Plan Beersheba which was essentially a restructure which saw three multirole manoeuvre Brigades created – the 1st, 3rd and 7^th Brigades (1, 3, 7Bde) – to better integrate infantry, armour, artillery, engineers, logistics and communications components.

The restructure also included the establishment of 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (2RAR) as a specialised amphibious force, and a greater integration of the Army Reserve into the regular Army for deployments on stabilisation operations.

As part of the amphibious component of 2RAR, a key element of Beersheba was a commitment to work closer with Navy and Air Force on enhancing the interoperability between the three services, particularly with the Project JP 2048 Phase 4A/B Canberra class Landing Helicopter Docks (LHD) and other amphibious platforms. This has since been expanded with the training and lessons learned by 2RAR to be rolled out across all Army units.

LTGEN Burr’s Army in Motion message in many ways takes Beersheba to the next level. With the structural and training elements now in place, and many of the key capabilities either in service or deep into their project cycles, the next step is to bring Army’s people along through ongoing engagement.

“Through development of Army in Motion and Accelerated Warfare, and a very active engagement program, we’ve got out to visit all the Brigades and the different parts of the Army,” LTGEN Burr explained. “But also across the joint force and where our people serve, just to build that understanding and support for what we are trying to do.

“And I think my view is that logic wins every time,” he added. “If you can explain the logic and it’s sufficiently compelling, then people will support it. My big focus has been on understanding the challenges around transitioning from being ‘ready now’ to being ‘future-ready’, including accepting that some things have to change in order to accommodate those new requirements.

“That’s the bit that often gets glossed over – how do you get from here to there? What trade-offs, what risks are you willing to accept? Are you going to reinforce your workforce, or stop doing things here, or take people offline to reskill them in order to do something? Like any change management, that’s the hard bit, and that’s why we are doing this active engagement program, socialising the idea, and then developing action plans to get after each part of this challenge.”

Part of Army’s action plan is the development of training transformation teams. “Training, because our training system is obviously fundamental to all of the services, and our genuine strength is our training system,” LTGEN Burr said. “We are very focused on modernising our training system – the way we approach and deliver learning in our Army, but also making sure we’ve got the capacity to deliver these new requirements for a new generation of workforce as well as reskilling those who are already qualified or trained in existing systems.

“The work force is absolutely ready for that in my view – they’re excited by it,” he continued. “They know that it’s needed, and they know that that’s where the advantage is accrued.

“But the other part of the broader cultural challenge is why. Earlier this year, we reissued an updated version of Good Soldiering which is essentially our cultural optimisation initiative which talks to the power of high performing teams, and how we build high performing teams within our organisation.

“I’m not just talking about the more advanced parts of their organisation, but wherever we are, we work best in teams, and the best way to optimise the performance of that team is by understanding the principles that go into that. These principles are generally around culture and leadership and I put a big focus on that across the Army, and that’s already paying dividends. That just speaks to Army’s strengths – I think naturally that’s what we do, we’re a teaming organisation.”

And as a result of that engagement and the rollout of these changes, LTGEN Burr said there may be more structural changes and an increase in overall manning to come.

“We are working on some initiatives around the future of 6 Brigade , which is the Brigade that develops a lot of our information warfare capabilities, as well as our air defense and UAS capabilities.  How can we better organise to deliver against those future challenges? we might see some changes there,” he said. “And I think there will probably be a greater focus on our training institutions to make sure we’ve got that sufficiently resourced to achieve the transformation that we seek.”

LTGEN Burr also said he has been pleased with the response he has had from the other services, CASG, Headquarters Joint Operations Command, other government organisations, and Industry, to his goals.

“We’re pushing on an open door,” he said. “People recognise the need and the opportunity, and where there’s a joint interdependency, that would obviously only occur once we’re all happy. But a lot of these are internal, and we’re certainly well engaged with all the stakeholders and the partners.

“I have five ‘Ps’ – people, preparedness, the profession, achieving our potential, and partnerships – and I think partnerships is where there’s real opportunity as we recognise Industry as a fundamental input to capability. So, what does that mean? How do we better work together? How do we better collaborate? We need industry to know that we’re open for business, that our challenges are recognised, and that people should feel comfortable coming to help share what some of those solutions might be.”

As part of its transformation and in an effort to stay aligned with the other services, apart from the obvious ADF senior leadership team exchanges, LTGEN Burr’s teams also stay engaged with Air Force’s Jericho and Navy’s Pelorus teams at the middle management and rank level.

“The concepts, capital acquisition, and development community, that’s very tight now,” he said. “I think we all learn from each other and, the approach is that we’re all in this together. I’m very pleased with that level of collaboration, sharing and transparency that says, ‘We all want to get better because we all know that Army benefits from a stronger, more capable Navy and Air Force’. And the same is true for those services and for the joint enterprise, so that’s a real sign of maturity in our organisation now.”

With many of Army’s new capabilities either here or due to soon start coming online, LTGEN Burr is acutely aware of Army’s need to evolve its thinking and its way of doing business in parallel with the upgrading of equipment. Almost without exception, much of that equipment to be acquired under LAND 400, LAND 8120, LAND 8112, LAND 19 Phase 7B and others will be much heavier, offer greater levels of protection, have greater fire power, and will be of a whole new generation of complexity than the capabilities it will replace.

“It’s all very exciting, but it’s not all happening overnight of course – the plans to acquire and introduce into service these capabilities all have their own plans and pathways,” he said. “Most importantly, considering all the fundamental input to capability implications, and making sure that they’re all addressed so that, ahead of time, we are preparing the ground so that we can start operating them effectively when they turn up.

“So that’s what we’re trying to achieve, whether it is through simulation, or through attachments to armies that are already operating these systems, for example,” he added. “And it’s building expertise and being engaged with the original equipment manufacturer or the industry partner to really progressively build understanding of these capabilities before they come into service.

“And then, of course, there is the synergy between all of them. It’s the links between all these capabilities so that we’re developing our concepts and our operating procedures as early as we can, noting that there are obviously some things we won’t really know until we start operating them.

“That discovery learning, what’s actually possible – one of the most exciting parts of Army and the joint force is we learn by doing, and how our intelligent people see better ways of doing things – things that others may not have seen. They say, ‘why don’t we try this, now that we can do that?’ And then you’ve got a capability advantage which is what our ADF is always in search of.”

But not only does the Army need to learn to operate and to fight with all this new equipment, it needs to be able to move it quickly, to deploy it effectively, and to sustain it on operations.

“In terms of moving this equipment, we currently rely on Navy or Air Force to move Army around,” he said. “And once we’re in a location we have our own organic vehicle transport and aviation support. But I’ve also become increasingly focused on our own watercraft capability to make sure that we have sufficient, organic maritime manoeuvre, and to support these new capabilities.

“I think there’s real opportunity there as we think about the (JP 2048 Phase 5) future watercraft project to make sure that it accommodates both Army’s needs, but also provides opportunities in the region to better collaborate with our regional partners as we think about inter and intra-island movements.

“So there is a project in the IIP for watercraft replacement, and we’re focused on what that might look like to meet these needs,” he added. “Army has operated heavy landing craft in our past prior to Navy taking on the role. And as you know, we have recently provided some of these vessels to our Pacific island neighbours.

“So we’ve been there before, and we still operate the smaller LCM8 as well. That’s an old but reliable capability that does need to be replaced, so as we think about what that future holds, the medium and heavy landing craft concept is certainly an area that we are actively looking at. And I think that will allow us to be much more effective in our own region and make our Army more deployable and more self-contained with little extra overhead.”

As the complexity and cost of Army’s new systems rises, so too does the need to maintain a cohesive and accountable development and sustainment system in order to safely and effectively use these capabilities. To this end, much as Air Force and Navy are focused on structured, documented and accountable air-worthiness and sea-worthiness systems respectively, so too Army has a renewed focus on assuring its systems are ‘land-worthy’.

“Land-worthiness has always been there, but not defined within a single framework,” LTGEN Burr explained. “So over the last couple of years we’ve been drilling into what are the other components of land-worthiness, how are they done? How do they all come together? And so forth. And what we’ve developed is a more coherent framework starting with appointment of Chief of Army as the authority accountable for land-worthiness, much like Chief of Air Force and Navy for air and sea-worthiness respectively.

“I think just is a natural extension of where we go to with air and sea-worthiness,” he added. “It’s arguably much more complex in the land space, because there is so much more equipment, and greater variety of types and fleets. This is even more reason to develop the Land-worthiness framework. So over the next six months we will work through in more detail what our model will be to bring assurance and fidelity to those accountabilities. And then we’ll brief the CDF and the Secretary towards the end of the year.

“It’s not like we haven’t done it before, but it can be clearer and more joined up with accountabilities that are more defined. So to me, this is important. It gives us much more assurance and confidence in the safety and availability, and the effectiveness of the equipment and systems.

“I think it’s about making sure that we have good accountability and good governance around land-worthiness. I think we owe that to our people and to our leadership. And so to me this just needed to be done. The benefits will be the ability to manage with confidence more sophisticated, heavier, and arguably more complex equipment, and that makes us all better.”

This feature appeared in the May-June 2019 issue of ADBR.

The ADF’s Joint Capabilities Group (JCG) was formed in 2017 as the second phase of the then-new ADF Headquarters (ADF HQ) Implementation Program.

The formation of ADF HQ, and subsequently JCG resulted from the 2015 First Principles Review which – through the One Defence approach – recommended key enabling capabilities within Defence be consolidated and integrated to provide a ‘coordinated, coherent, comprehensive capability’ to the ADF.

JCG’s mission is to ‘deliver designated joint capabilities to improve the ADF’s warfighting effectiveness’ through its objectives of the delivery of joint outcomes by working with the services and Joint Operations Command (JOC) to be future-focused by taking calculated risks and investing in new capabilities, and to develop a joint workforce by upskilling and promoting flexible and critical thinking.

In his Commander’s Intent, AIRMSHL Warren McDonald, Chief of Joint Capabilities says, “Joint Capabilities Group (JCG) is about maintaining a military warfighting edge, not a corporate edge. We are the linchpin of key capabilities that underpin our joint force, with our success or failure directly affecting those we support.

“We will lead Defence in its drive to optimise Joint Warfare performance by ensuring that we strengthen key capabilities such as Cyber, Space and Communications. We support Defence and Command by providing education and training, healthcare, logistics, policing, Reserve and Youth programs, civil-military cooperation and ADF sports coordination.

“We all have our part to play and undertake these activities so as to assist our allies and protect against those who seek to do us harm.”

JCG has an annual budget of about $2 billion and a combined workforce of 4,900 ADF and Australian Public Service (APS) people, and has elements at more than 90 bases and locations in every state and territory, and at overseas locations.

The nine areas AIRMSHL McDonald and JCG are responsible for are Information Warfare Division (IWD), Joint Logistics Command (JLC), Joint Health Command (JHC), the Australian Defence College (ADC), Reserve and Youth Division (RYD), the ADF Sports Cell, the Joint Military Police Unit, the Australian Civil-Military Centre, and the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Directorate.

“In 2017, the Chief of Defence Force (CDF) stood us up so that we could get better traction, and provide better support for the enablers,” AIRMSHL McDonald told ADBR. “There are some sandstone organisations in JCG already including ADC, JLC, and JHC.

“While these organisations were already in existence, for the Vice Chief of the Defence Force (VCDF) who they were reporting to, it was becoming – along with his portfolio where for almost half the year VCDF was representing CDF – more complicated as those organisations grew,” AIRMSHL McDonald added. “So it was recognised that we needed to stand up a ‘Joint Capabilities’ Group. And as we have moved forward in those almost two years, we have picked up other capabilities, and now we have nine areas of responsibility.”

While many of the above listed organisations were already in existence and have just been incorporated under JCG’s umbrella, IWD is new and is arguably the most important capability element JCG is responsible for.
Information Warfare has been described as the ‘Fifth Domain’ – the other four being air, land, sea, and space.  Information Warfare capabilities include cyber; electronic warfare; information operations; space-based systems; command, control, and communications systems; and intelligence – all of which need to be integrated to generate coherent information capabilities for the ADF.

At a relatively benign level, information warfare can involve the spreading of disinformation to deceive an adversary, as well as through state propaganda and the media, and the exploitation of open source intelligence (OSINT). At its most destructive application it involves the insertion of hacks and destructive viruses through cyber attacks on critical military networks, digital weapons systems and national infrastructure.

JCG through IWD is acutely aware of the role open source intelligence can play in future operations; such an example includes social media posts by Russian separatists and the part they played in bringing charges in the International Criminal Court against the perpetrators of the July 2014 shootdown of flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine.

Regardless, the first shots of any future war will be – or likely already have been – fired through the employment of such cyber capabilities. To this end, JCG says that IWD “leads the development of ADF information warfare capabilities and formulates the strategies and plans to counter contemporary threats in the information environment.”

IWD comprises five branches;

• Information, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Electronic Warfare (ISREW) and Cyber which leads the development of ISREW and cyber capabilities, including cyber training and awareness;
• the Space and Communications branch which is responsible for the development of satellite and strategic communications capabilities;
• Joint Command and Control (C2) which develops joint command and control capabilities;
• the Joint Influence Activities branch which develops capabilities aimed at enhancing the ADF’s ability to operate effectively in the information environment, and;
• the Defence Signals Intelligence and Cyber Command which comprises the Joint Cyber Unit and Joint Signals Intelligence Unit, and is embedded within the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD).

At its most basic level, IWD is tasked with educating ADF personnel about the vulnerabilities they are exposed to every day. “Many of the vulnerabilities that exist in any organisation are the result of a lack of understanding about how vulnerable you are, and they’re often the simple things like clicking on a link,” AIRMSHL McDonald explained. “So we work with CIOG (the Chief Information Officer Group) and ASD to conduct education campaigns, and we’ll even send out our own phishing emails – not to catch and shame, but to catch and educate.

“Some of them are very sophisticated, and we do catch quite a few that were not used to having something displayed on their Defence Restricted Network (DRN) which is public facing through the internet,” he added. “So we work constantly to ensure we lock out any vulnerabilities.”

Those who attended the 2018 Airpower Conference in Canberra will remember AIRMSHL McDonald’s hard-hitting and compelling speech about cyber security. “That’s what we’re facing,” he said. “If we could seal off that, we’d seal off 80 per cent of our problems, it is literally that simple. We put a lot of time into weapons training, but we need to put a lot more time into educating our personnel about the dangers of the cyber data.”

“I think the younger generation like the convenience of what social media brings,” he said. “But with that brings complications. People like myself are probably not as engaged in it and can ignore it a little bit more – I’m not on any social media platform whatsoever, and I choose that. It’s not something I do just because I’m old, I choose to because I’ve seen where it can go in the hands of others and I think others may want to look at how they approach those social media platforms.

“With the advances in technology you can turn a picture into something completely different,” he added. “As you’ve seen in the media, there have been modifications of high profile people to say something that they never actually said, or to have faces that simply do not exist. It’s very clever, and it’s only going to become more and more common, so our people need to be aware of it.”

IWD also has an immediate focus of developing the ADF’s defensive cyber operations capabilities by building a trained cyber workforce and equipping it with the appropriate tools and training systems.

“We’re currently finalising Joint Project 9131 Phase 1 Defensive Cyberspace Operations for the deployed environment,” AIRMSHL McDonald said. “We go to government for second pass later this year, and we have been very involved in what outcome we are seeking.

“MAJGEN Marcus Thompson and his team have also been responsible for standing up the cyber workforce defence collective,” he added. “They’ve got a detailed workforce plan that’s been agreed to, so we’ve caught it early. The workforce is going to start to change shape from the original intent, but we’ve got a really good framework to make sure we can develop our personnel and cope with the demands that are coming.”

Other areas of focus for IWD include the overall growth of the ADF’s cyber capability by not only ensuring all members are fully versed in cyber-security practices, but that they have input into all new projects coming into the Integrated Investment Plan (IIP) by ensuring they all have strong cyber security and resilience.

And as the ADF introduces more unmanned systems across all the domains that are reliant on satellite communications (SATCOM), IWD is looking to improve the ADF’s multi-phased Project JP2008 SATCOM capability through the establishment of the Space and Communications Branch which initially will work to develop policy objectives for space.

Another priority for the IWD is the delivery of the Project JP9347 Phase 1 Joint Data Network (JDN) which comprises tactical data links, the Integrated Broadcast System and other machine-to-machine data links used by the ADF and allies. The JDN will be designed to manage the requirements of future complex, congested and contested operating environments.

“JP9347 is going to government shortly,” AIRMSHL McDonald said. “That will put a wrapper around all of our links that have been brought up through the individual services so we can understand the vulnerabilities and understand the upgrades required to move forward quickly.”

AIRMSHL McDonald says the future challenges JCG and the ADF as a whole faces are very real and, in many ways, already here. Therefore, one of his tasks is to look at project timelines and to try to compress them so the ADF can not only keep pace with technology, but so it can get inside an adversary’s threat development cycle.

“While I think the organisation itself will continue to move forward, the challenges are in capturing people’s attention long enough to make them understand that, in about the next seven years – collectively as a nation and globally – we are into an enormous amount of change,” he said. “As digitisation starts to build a lot of speed, which it already has, you can sometimes catch people off balance.

“We have a tendency to over-estimate the abilities of technology in the short term, but under-estimate it in the long term,” he added. “So, where do we pull that sliding scale so we can keep people focused on it? For example, if you look at the miniaturisation of electronic warfare sensors, this is a classic example of how quickly systems are reducing in size. Systems that weighed hundreds of kilos now can be the size of a laptop.

“It’s moving really quickly. We’ve seen the Air Force stand up the Loyal Wingman project, and across the ADF we’re in a transition from manned to unmanned. In the future, the unmanned system will direct where the manned system should be, and then there may be no manned at all. How ready are we for that? How ready are we for artificial intelligence? How ready are we for robotics? Because all these things will come in more quickly than I think we are anticipating, and we have to be ready for it.

AIRMSHL McDonald says the rise of artificial intelligence has been rapid, and predicts a tipping point where it will be hard to tell the difference between a human and a robot. “Some will over-estimate artificial intelligence, but the general view AI is the equivalent of about a five year old at the moment,” he said.

“But it will mature quickly into an adult, some are saying within the next four years. Even if that is too quick and it’s 10 years, are we ready for that? By 2028 – 2030 you’ll have a little bit of difficulty understanding or trying to determine the difference between a human and a robot. They have robotic tactile feel down to that of a human.

“So, machine learning and data mining with an artificial intelligence, these are being brought together very quickly,” he added. “And then there’s human augmentation which is another thing we’re going to have to come to terms with. It’s already here with cochlear implants for example, while others have put implants in their brain so they can see infrared images.

“While some of these examples may not necessarily translate to usable outcomes, are we ready for them? Are we ready for the revolution that digitisation will bring? Are we ready for people acting like companies, and companies acting like states which, again, is already starting to happen? How will that play out in the future, and are we ready to embrace it?

“All of these things will challenge Defence I think. So I look at some of these projects coming through with their timelines and say, ‘It’s not fast enough, you have to move more quickly’.”

A lot of what JCG is focusing on is being tested and peer reviewed through the ADC, located at Weston in Canberra. “Through challenging programs and ‘think tank’-like research they are maximising cognitive capacity in our people to grasp these information age challenges to ensure we have an enhanced intellectual edge in an era characterised by accelerating change in geopolitics, demographics and technology, AIRMSHL McDonald said.

“The ADC under (MAJGEN) Mick Ryan has really evolved into the future-focused learning institution our personnel need to be technically savvy and future ready,” he added. “He’s doing a great job of that, and is pulling in a lot of academics and setting groups for future thinkers.

“He’s really revitalised it. We’re in a good position now and setting ourselves up as leaders in Joint Professional Military Education globally. We’re attracting excellent ‘intelligencia’ and academia in to talk about these things, to understand where we are, and to give us a fighting chance of working our way through.

“We’re also setting up a Defence Artificial Intelligence Centre so that we can bring in different technologies and see how they play out on a protected unclass network. We’ll test what use they are to us so we can better understand them. It will sit under JCG, but we’ll work very closely with DSTG because they have some incredible people in their field.”

Joint Logistics Command (JLC) is Australia’s only joint military logistics capability, providing logistics support to ADF operations, force preparation, and raise, train and sustain activities. 

RADM Ian Murray is the commander of JLC (CJLOG), and responsible for the delivery of JLC’s capability outputs. CJLOG is dual-hatted as the Defence Strategic J4 which is the most senior military logistics advisor to CDF and the Secretary of Defence. The role of the Strategic J4 is to harness and align the functions, components and organisations within Defence that deliver logistics support to the ADF.

AIRMSHL McDonald says that CJLOG will implement the Defence Fuel Transformation Program that was approved by Government last year. “The Government has allocated funding of $1.1 billion over the next 30 years to deliver a safer, simpler, and more assured Defence Fuel Network in partnership with Industry,” he said. “The Program will make targeted investments in the Defence Fuel network and seize immediate opportunities to improve flexibility and increase the level of industry collaboration.

“The Program will ultimately reduce network risk, improve the ability of the fuel network to deal with disruption, and reduce the cost of ownership to Defence,” he added. “As part of the Program, JLC has begun engaging with Australian industry on future innovative fuel supply and facilities operations and maintenance contracts at an Industry Brief held on 4 July 19.”

CJLOG is also responsible for Explosive Ordnance (EO), an integral part in the ADF’s ability to fight and win. In this context, EO ranges from simple munitions to complex guided weapons, and represents challenges to Defence in terms of achieving capability, safety and security outcomes.  It is a multi-function enterprise that supports the supply surety of certified EO, integrating governance, test, acquisition, maintenance, storage, handling, and distribution activities. 

“The coordination of EO activities is a complex body of work, requiring harmonisation of multiple stakeholder inputs and outputs across the EO Enterprise,” AIRMSHL McDonald said.

In closing AIRMSHL McDonald said JCG will continue to be aligned with each of the services as they identify new or enhanced requirements, and develop and upgrade their capabilities. “We liaise with all the projects that come through the services,” he said. “We have full input into them, and we debate them at investment committee to ensure we have the right balance.

“We are very well integrated with the services,” he added. “We’re adopting all the successful innovation and modernisation programs of the services such as Air Force’s Jericho piece, Navy’s Plans Pelorus and Mercator, and General Burr’s Accelerated Warfare.” (see article page 34 this issue.)

JCG on the surface can seem eclectic given its portfolio but it has more synergies than meets the eye. “At a recent senior leadership team meeting, someone said, ‘I don’t think we will ever get accused of group think’. Given the mix of our portfolio, I think that hit the mark pretty well. And we will need all that diverse thinking to meet the challenges of the future.”

This feature appeared in the May-June 2019 issue of ADBR.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc (GA-ASI) has conducted a flight and capability demonstration of its MQ-9B SkyGuardian unmanned system, the basis of the UK’s Protector RG Mk1 system, and an option for Australia’s AIR 7003 armed unmanned system requirement.

The demonstration was attended by RAF senior leadership and Reaper operators, as well as RAAF and US Marine Corps observers, and was conducted at the Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. It showed off new capabilities including the system’s including the new Certifiable Ground Control Station (CGCS), automatic takeoff, landing and taxi over SATCOM, Portable Pre/Post-Flight Equipment (P3E), and the Mission Intelligence Center.

It also demonstrated its ability to self-deploy by flying from Yuma to an undisclosed base in Nevada through controlled airspace, and by conducting an automatic takeoff, landing, and taxi at its destination via SATCOM data link from Yuma.

“This demonstration was a complete success and has really built our anticipation and excitement about our new Protector RPA to a whole new level,” said RAF Protector RG Mk1 Programme Director GpCapt Lyndon Jones said in a statement. “We witnessed some exciting technologies as part of the demonstration and we’re looking forward to incorporating these innovations into our fleet when we begin taking delivery of Protector in the early 2020s.”

GA-ASI president, David R. Alexander added, “This flight demonstrated the full global expeditionary capabilities that the Protector will have when it joins the RAF fleet. In addition to RAF’s mission sets, the aircraft’s ability to fly seamlessly in civil airspace will allow it to support domestic emergencies such as fire, flood, and security related missions.”

The SkyGuardian is based on the MQ-9 Reaper Block 5, but features a due-regard radar, the new ground station, and other capabilities which allow it to be certified to operate in controlled airspace, as well as a longer wingspan with winglets.

ADBR understands the MQ-9B SkyGuardian is favoured for Australia’s Project AIR 7003 over its Reaper stablemate, and that an announcement is imminent.

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. He 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 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.

During the fighting in Iraq, terrorist group Islamic State (ISIS) proved itself a master of information operations, convincing Iraqi government troops that they could not be defeated.

But they could be defeated, and despite being thought of as being ‘ethics-free, MAJGEN Roger Noble – deputy chief of the ADF’s Joint Operations Command (JOC) – told the University of NSW Defence Research Institute defence leaders breakfast on August 30 that it was possible to use information operations against them to great effect.

MAJGEN Noble served in Iraq, effectively as second-in-command of Coalition forces supporting the Iraqi Army in the fight against ISIS, and said fighting with ISIS were both foreign fighters and Iraqis.

“The biggest difference was at that fault line,” he explained. “When we drilled in in great detail we found that conditions of service for a foreign fighters were a lot better than for the Iraqi fighters. The pay was different, and the death benefits were different. If you played that back using all available means into the ISIS network, what do you think the result would be?”

MAJGEN Noble said they had to turn around and contest the ISIS narrative. “It’s [more than] clearing cities, destroying targets, dropping bombs, the western focus on kinetic fighting,” he said. “It’s to defeat the idea.”

Presenting the main speech, Professor Mervyn Frost from the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, warned against falling into the ethical traps laid by mini-actors such as ISIS. Such groups should have no effect at all on great powers which, on face value appear to hold all the aces, with vast resources and effective military forces.

“However, this has proved not to be the case,” Professor Frost said. “We have seen how a mini-power like Al Qaeda has managed to exert sufficient power to get the US and its allies to modify their policies. In Israel, the mini power Hamas (and also Hezbollah in Lebanon) continues to engage with a vastly superior military power, (and) it has sufficient power to stay in the struggle.”

But it only achieves this through what’s called ethical trapping, ie committing an act so outrageous that the target state will respond disproportionately. Examples include the 9/11 terror attack on the US, Hamas’ rocketing of Israeli civilians, and numerous ISIS atrocities.

“The trapping effect is achieved when the target state, ethically outraged, launches large-scale counter-attacks that themselves violate fundamental ethical norms espoused by the target state itself and the international community,” he said. “The calculation here is simple: Do something unethical in order to provoke a much bigger unethical response.”

The end result was a diminution of the legitimacy of the great power. That only worked because the small actor had available to it the technology for massive, instant and global dissemination through social media.

Professor Frost, a visiting fellow at the UNSW Canberra, said video clips were the means most often used for this. “Without access to such cheap and instant communication channels such traps could not be sprung,” he said.

He said a second strategy by weaker parties in asymmetrical struggles was to disrupt normal democratic politics in the target state. Examples include the hackers who disrupted and sought to steer the American presidential election.

“In the disruptive manoeuvre the goal is not – as in ethical trapping – to provoke a drastic response in the target state, but to undermine its stability, erode the democratic processes, pit extremist factions within the society against the establishment, and generally provoke discord,” he said. “What matters here is that democratic states are fundamentally threatened by this kind of cognitive warfare. I am not saying that they feel threatened, but that they are threatened.”

Professor Frost said in the face attempts at cognitive war involving elaborate strategic communications, our overriding aim must be to avoid ethical traps.

“Our defence must not be to use the same methods used by our adversaries – that is, we must not introduce underhand communication strategies that, once exposed, can be used to undermine our ethical standing,” he said.

“Instead the focus at every point should be on exposing and explaining what is being done to us by our adversaries.  Counter-cheating will simply must us vulnerable to ethical trapping.”

MAJGEN Noble said that inside Defence there was serious thought about the definitions of war, competition, peace, the use of force and the definition of force. “So what is an armed attack – that is probably one of the big questions – where is the threshold?” he said.

“Our approach is under construction, but is critically important.”

The Commonwealth has short-listed two vehicles for the next phase of the Project LAND 400 Phase 3 requirement for a next generation infantry fighting vehicle replacement for the Australian Army’s ageing M113AS4 armoured personnel carriers.

The two vehicles shortlisted are the Korean Hanwha Redback, and the German Rheinmetall Lynx KF41. 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 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.

“I thank all tenderers for their significant effort and the resources invested in supporting Phase 3 of this project.”

Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price said the LAND 400 Phase 3 program provided an exciting opportunity for Australian industry to contribute to building and maintaining these new Infantry Fighting Vehicles. “Just as with the Phase 2 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles, Australian industry involvement and Australian workers are vital to this project,” she said.

“Phase 3 is another important opportunity for Australian industry to deliver leading edge technology for our Australian Defence Force. During the testing-phase Defence will work with the shortlisted tenderers to ensure small and medium enterprises across Australia have the opportunity to showcase their capabilities.

“The two companies have been assessed as offering vehicles that are best able to meet the requirements of the Army while providing value for money for Defence.”

Ms Price said if at any stage of this 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 armed reconnaissance vehicle, for which Rheinmetall’s Boxer 8×8 was selected.

Shortlisted contenders will be funded to provide three vehicles for the trials, which culminate with one of each of the vehicles are destroyed to assess their survivability.

The shortlist decision excluded two others, 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.

Redback and Lynx are new designs 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 commonality with the Boxer and mounts the same 30mm gun system. Redback is a derivative of the K21 IFV, fielded in 2009 with more than 400 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 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 Ipswich in Queensland which is building the Boxer 8×8, and Hanwha at a new site near Geelong in Victoria where it will also build new K9 self-propelled guns.

The third Project SEA 4000 air warfare destroyer sailed from Osborne in Adelaide for the first time on September 16 to commence its first round of builder’s sea trials.

The vessel, to be christened Sydney in RAN service when it is commissioned next year, will conduct a week of trials in St Vincent’s Gulf to test its hull, propulsion and navigation systems, before returning to Osborne to prepare for a more comprehensive trials in October.

“Over the past decade, more than 5,000 people from across the Department of Defence, ASC, Raytheon Australia and Navantia have dedicated millions of hours of work towards delivering the most capable warships ever to be operated by the Royal Australian Navy,” Minister for Defence, Senator Linda Reynolds said in a statement. “This is underpinned by over 2,700 suppliers who have supported the AWD Alliance in its efforts to expand Australian Industry Capability for the overall Program.”

AWD Alliance General Manager Paul Evans added, “Our highly skilled workforce has taken our third ship Sydney to sea at the greatest level of completion, capability and quality of all three destroyers at this stage. This is a remarkable achievement by ASC, Raytheon Australia, CASG & Navantia.”

The lead air warfare destroyer, HMAS Hobart will soon lead a task group on a north Asia cruise, while HMAS Brisbane recently arrived in the US to prepare for combat and weapons systems testing with the US Navy.

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

Australia, 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 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.

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/SPS-49Av1MPU 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 electro-optical targeting system (EOTS), a multi-sensor Radar Integrated Automatic Detect and Track System (RIADT), and the replacement of the original AN/SQS-56 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 re-delivered 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 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 anti-ship 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 short-range 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 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 2004-2014 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-the-shelf (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) 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 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 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 re-establishment 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 commercial-off-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.

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.

“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.

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-of-project 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 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 Australian-specific 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 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 sensor-ambivalent, 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.

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 laser-guided 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 world-leading 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 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 sub-contract 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-of-class 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 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.”

To view this Special Supplement as a digital magazine, please click here

The Royal Australian Navy has released its new Industry Engagement Strategy, with Navy chief VADM Mike Noonan declaring the status quo was no longer acceptable.

At a launch of the policy on the first morning of the PACIFIC 2019 International Maritime Exposition in Sydney on October 8, VADM Noonan said the timelines for major programs were tight and the Australian public expected Navy to deliver on current and future capability needs.

He said the alternative was business as usual and this new strategy was about thinking differently, acting differently and communicating and behaving differently.

“We have a world class capable lethal navy and I need cutting edge technology in all aspects of the Australian shipbuilding industry,” he said. “The strategy challenges Navy, industry and academia to innovate, to make a difference. It’s about making a difference to protecting Australian and our national interests. It’s about finding better ways to achieve outcomes through people processes and technology.”

VADM Noonan said the strategy would fundamentally improve how Navy engaged with industry. “We are focused on working with you. We will make our needs clear to industry so it is best positions to develop, deliver and support Navy’s capabilities. We will be receptive to your advice and we will not accept the status quo.

“We will move forward and I am asking you to move forward with us. I am asking you to move forward with us. We are in this together.”

The strategy sets four key pillars for future industry engagement – direction, dialog, delivery and innovation. VADM Noonan said this started immediately, with his staff directed to get out and talk to the many small and large businesses exhibiting at PACIFIC 2019.

Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price said, since the government breathed fresh air into Defence and the Australian defence industry, we were really seeing tremendous bang for our buck.

“New small Australian businesses have been created and new job opportunities have opened up for many Australians,” she said. “Manufacturing in Australia is alive and well with defence industry proving itself as a pillar for developing new and cutting edge solutions for our defence force.

“Not only have we changed how our defence industry thinks, we have also changed the way that defence thinks.”

The heads of seven major Australian defence primes and organisations have signed on to an unprecedented collaboration to ensure shipbuilding projects have the workers they need.

Through the Naval Shipbuilding Industry Strategic Workforce Plan – signed at the Pacific 2019 International Maritime Exposition in Sydney on October 8 – industry partners will embark on a four step planning model to deliver the required industry workforce.

The plan starts with defining workforce requirements and the priority short, medium and long term skills. Step two is analysing training needs and supply.

Step three is designing a workforce program, which includes buying in the needed skills or upskilling, while step four is delivery for each priority skill area.

The Plan has been implemented following ongoing collaboration between the Naval Shipbuilding College and five naval shipbuilding primes – ASC, BAE Systems Australia/ASC Shipbuilding, Lockheed Martin Australia, Luerssen Australia, Naval Group Australia, and SAAB Australia.

Naval Shipbuilding College Chief Executive Ian Irving said it was ground breaking to see this level of cooperation.

“I have not seen this in the 30 years I have been involved in this sector,” he said.

Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price said this was a who’s who of shipbuilding in Australia.

“Our government is committing $90 billion to our national shipbuilding enterprise and it is great to see so many people interested in making sue we have the skillsets we need,” she said.

Naval Group Australia chief executive officer John Davis said the defence shipbuilding primes needed a workforce which at its peak would be more than 5000 direct employees.

“When we look at the sustainment and the flow on into the supply chain the real number of people who will be engaged in these programs is much much higher,” he said. “Ensuring we have this workforce with the right skills at the right time to be able to deliver the program is what this is all about.

“We recognise the important role that we have to shape this workforce of the future and that is why we have come together with the NSC to do the architectural work to transform the educational system to support the development of this workforce.”

Mr Davis said he had not seen this kind of collaboration any time during his career, and that showed how important it was.

He said companies were not just looking for workers to start the program. “We have to sustain this workforce for decades to come so we really are creating the generational skills and capability for Australia.”

The Federal Government has awarded Melbourne firm Sypaq Systems a $3.5 million contract to develop an unmanned aerial system (UAS) with potential future applications for the Royal Australian Navy.

Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price announced the Defence Innovation Hub contract with Sypaq Systems at the  Pacific 2019 International Maritime Exposition in Sydney on October 9.

Under this contract, Sypaq – founded in 1992 – will develop a small UAS with a hybrid power delivery system and the capacity to operate effectively in harsh environmental conditions such as at sea.

Minister Price congratulated Sypaq on their innovative solution and said the technology would enhance situational awareness for maritime operations.

“If successful, this UAS would be capable of operating from ships at sea and performing a range of surveillance and reconnaissance operations,” she said. “Sypaq Systems, an engineering and systems integration company, is an example of an Australian business that is exploring leading technology to help the Australian Defence Force meet its current and future challenges.

“Through the Defence Innovation Hub, we are investing approximately $640 million in Australian industry to develop innovative technology with a Defence application.

In March Sypaq was awarded a $1 million contract to develop a small UAS capable of delivering supplies to soldiers in the field.

The Navy’s two Canberra class landing helicopter dock (LHD) vessels have achieved the final operational capability (FOC) milestone.

Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds said on November 12 that HMASs Canberra and Adelaide were now fully ready to be deployed on amphibious operations such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and amphibious warfare.

“The Australian Defence Force’s amphibious capability is an integral part of Australia’s strategic posture and this milestone is another step in Navy’s roadmap to delivering amphibious excellence,” she said in a statement.

Navy Chief VADM Michael Noonan said the Navy was closer to achieving a resilient, sustained and integrated force as outlined in the Plan Pelorus strategy for 2022.

“As we transition to a more technologically advanced Navy, our goal is to be capable of conducting sustained combat operations as part of a Joint Force,” he said.

The 230-metre long, 27,500 tonne Canberra class are the Navy’s largest ever vessels, providing the ADF with a capability for amphibious operations which has not existed since the end of World War 2.

Each ship has the ability to transport more than 1,000 troops and 110 vehicles, and to support six helicopters and four amphibious landing craft.

Plan Pelorus sets out the Navy’s vision as a service fully ready to conduct sustained combat operations as part of the joint force by 2022. That means a full workforce, with vessels fully crewed at sea and staffed ashore, able to train for future demand, and prepared for continued growth.

Measures designed to attract and retain personnel appear to be working, with the government announcing last week that Navy had grown by more than 1,000 in two years.

By Max Blenkin

The 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 hard-worked 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 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 longer-term 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 to be advised. 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 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, while 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 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.  

This feature appeared in the September-October issue of ADBR

The third and final Royal Australian Navy SEA 4000 Air Warfare Destroyer, NUSHIP Sydney has completed its initial period of sea trials off the coast of South Australia.

Launched in 2018, Sydney commenced its trials in September, and anecdotal reports suggest the trials have been successful and completed ahead of schedule.

“Today’s milestone is another example of the Liberal and National Government’s successful initiative to reform the AWD program, setting the scene for the Naval Shipbuilding Plan,” Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds said in a November 9 statement. “Sydney will enter into service early next year, and with her sister-ships HMA Ships Hobart and Brisbane, they will be the most potent warships to date.”

Sydney is scheduled to be accepted into service and will travel to its home port of Garden Island in its namesake city in February, and will be commissioned in May.

The Commonwealth has signed a $137 million contract with CEA Technologies for the provision of short and medium range surface-to-air phased array radars for the LAND 19 Phase 7B short range air defence missile project.

To be integrated with the Enhanced NASAMS system being provided by Raytheon Australia and KONGSBERG, the CEATAC and CEAOPS radars will be mounted on Australian Army Thales Hawkei PMVs and trailers, and Rheinmetall HX77 vehicles respectively. The radars will be supplied to Raytheon Australia as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for integration with the Enhanced NASAMS.

“This air defence capability combines world leading Australian radar technology with a highly effective air defence system that will protect our service men and women from future airborne threats,” Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said in a statement. “I congratulate CEA for adapting these radars from those already in service with the Royal Australian Navy, confirming its reputation as an agile, innovative company and a key strategic partner for Defence.”

Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price added, “Integration of these radars into existing air defence technology is a significant step in establishing Australian industry as a leading exporter of defence technology. This contract with CEA will support 45 jobs in Canberra and Adelaide and demonstrates the company’s ongoing success after securing a $90 million loan through the Morrison Government’s Defence Export Facility.”

Northrop Grumman has announced it is seeking expressions of interest from Australian industry to join the company in its efforts to support the RAAF with Project AIR6500.

While yet to be fully defined, AIR 6500 aims to develop a multi-domain joint battle management system (JBMS) to enable coordination of air battle management, joint weapons employment, and ground-based air defence (GBAD) in operational theatres.

“Northrop Grumman aims to lead industry support to the RAAF as it fields a survivable, scalable and modern, next-generation JBMS under AIR6500. We’re committed to a sovereign capability that’s designed and developed through close collaboration with other Australian industry members,” Northrop Grumman Australia chief executive, Chris Deeble said in a statement.

“We recognise that a program of this size, scope and complexity will demand the most innovative, best-of-breed capabilities and a prime systems integrator partnering with Australian industry who can deliver world class capabilities to the Australian Defence Force.”

The company says it will engage with a range of industry members, including small businesses, with the goal of creating an Australian AIR 6500 solution that brings the best capability for the best value. The ICN Gateway Portal will serve as the primary vehicle for potential suppliers to register expressions of interest and share information about their competencies and skills.