Airborne EW programs

Aside from projects with EW components such as the Seahawk Mid-Life Upgrade, the Seasprite Intermediate Helicopter and the C-130H EW upgrade, the three most to
AIR 5416 (Echidna) - This is a multi-phase project that currently includes the development of the ALR-2002 series of Radar Warning Receivers (RWR) being carried out by BAES, the Industry Design Assistance (IDA) contracts now being carried out, competitively, by BAE Systemsand Tenix Defence Systems. And, in the future, the application of what is planned to be an essentially common architecture EW suite to the Blackhawk, C-130-J, Chinook, possibly the final EW suite for the F-111, and maybe other aircraft such as the P-3C, if it can wait, and the Hawk LIF. Although there might be a commitment to equip these aircraft with a capable EW suite, their installations will be discretely funded over what is likely to be a long period of time. This long period of time will provide an all-important reason for the architecture not only to be fundamentally common, but also flexible and modular to accommodate new EW systems to counter new threats as they emerge during the period.

ALR-2002 is being developed in a number of variants to be applicable to the F-111, the Blackhawk, the F/A-18 and other candidates as they emerge. Noteworthy is the fact that this RWR is not dependent on Echidna, though it forms an important product of that project. The RWR has been under development for many years but only limited acceptance testing of it has been carried out to date. Development activity has also covered studies of the inclusion of an EW system manager and the possible application of the RWR to the F/A-18 Project. However, to date the RWR has not been functionally integrated with other components of an EWSP suite. Within Defence there are strident protagonists for and against this equipment.

Competitive IDA contracts were awarded to BAE Systems and TDS in May and June this year to study the threat environments and document the EWSP requirements for Blackhawk and C-130J, with Chinook as the next candidate. The IDA contracts have a 12 months duration and the end product of the activities is specified to be an architecture and a solution responsive to the agreed threat environments for the aircraft. Coupled to the IDA activity is a requirement to develop costed proposals for the incorporation of the system of choice proposed by each company, the supply of that system and the incorporation of the system in the Blackhawk as the priority aircraft.

Also included in the IDA contract are the definition of all the modifications to the aircraft ground support equipment due to the inclusion of the EWSP suite. An interesting slant for Tenix is that it is required to incorporate in its system architecture ALR-2002 as an alternative to the RWR of its choice, assuming the company prefers a different one. Currently, Echidna is a winner take-all project, but the totality of the requirement is so diverse and the timescale so protracted that the project will almost certainly break down into discretely funded and approved phases that allow for future competition to be considered.

It is also interesting to speculate on the approaches that each company may take. BAE Systems in Australia, through its UK parent's acquisitions, particularly in the USA, will be able to offer an entirely in-house system solution. This is not to say that BAE Systems will adopt a myo
Tenix is in the EW business, but not as an equipment designer and manufacturer. Its expertise lies in system engineering, as evidenced by the EW systems it is supplying for the C-130H, the SEA 1405 Seahawk upgrade and the SEA1411 medium helicopters for the Anzacs. Tenix's approach will undoubtedly be to apply its project management and systems' engineering expertise to the problems and propose a system derived from the selection of optimal EWSP sub systems from a number of sources and to undertake their integration. It will also keep a very sharp eye on the costs of systems and will undoubtedly carry out cost/performance trade-off studies. Nonetheless, Tenix may seek to involve a much more experienced subcontractor in EW systems' integration to ameliorate perceived risk.

EW Self-Protection for the F-111 - The earliest requirement for a modern EW suite for the F-111 was promulgated some twelve or more years ago. At that time the RAAF was leaning towards the replacement of the inboard RWR and CMDS and fitting an externally carried podded RF jammer, to replace the originally fitted internal jammer, following the USAF policies at that time. But although the priority to upgrade the F-111's EW suite remained, other activities for the fleet, such as the major avionics upgrade program (AUP), occupied centre-stage and as Echidna slid so did the much-needed modernisation of the F-111's EW suite.

In 1998, the F-111 Program Office broke ranks with Echidna and proceeded independently with an Interim EW suite, pending the longer-term acquisition of a final suite under Echidna. From the radar warning receiver (RWR) perspective the emphasis was very much on an interim capability with the ALR-62(V)6, provided ex-USAF surplus along with the ALE-47 CMDS and the Terma EW Suite Manager. An ELTA EL/L-8202 podded RF Jammer is being acquired and all aircraft are being wired to carry it, although probably only 10 to15 pods are being purchased. The support of this pod, including software system, is being provided by Tenix Defence.

AIR 5416 Phase 3 provides for the enhancement of the F-111 EWSP capability including the upgrade of the Radar Warning and Missile Warning Systems. The F-111 flight test program late last year with the BAE Systems ALR-2002A radar warner was reportedly a success; although the flight test results are classified as reported elsewhere in this issue, ADM understands the test report was 'highly complimentary' to the ALR-2002A.

There is some speculation that under the Echidna EWSP enhancements only the RWR will be changed as Defence comes to the realisation that it has to stop trying to make a 'silk purse out of a Pig's ear'!

EW Self Protection for F/A-18 - Some five years ago Defence moved to modernise the RAAF's F/A-18 A/B aircraft to provide them with an equivalent capability to that of the USN's F/A-18 C/D models, setting up a two-phase program for this purpose. The first phase centred on the replacement of the fire control radar in the aircraft so that it could interface with the beyond visual range (BVR) and within visual range (WVR) missiles being acquired under separate projects. This aspect of the project has now become a routine activity at RAAF Williamtown, the first modified aircraft having been accepted around mid-2000. Phase 2 of the project was planned to be more complex as it covered the acquisition of a number of new capabilities including the modernisation of the EW suite.

During the period 1997-2000 the DMO extensively exercised US Industry and the US FMS organisation concerning the EW suite requirements, generally based on the assumption that the RAAF would adopt the F/A-18 C/D EW suite that comprises the ALR-67 (V)3 RWR, the ASPJ inboard RF jammer and the ALE-47 CMDS. There was no unanimous opinion about accepting the USN suite as the DMO wished to retain a competitive opportunity where possible, the ALR-2002 protagonists pushed the local product, and there were critics of the ASPJ based on the long-term viability of that system.

Additionally, the condition of the aircraft structure gained greater exposure and the same remediation program adopted by the USN and the Canadian Air Force was more recently adopted. For this and other reasons the Phase 2 project was recast which set aside the EW suite for later consideration, perhaps within the next two-year timeframe.

>From the EW perspective, the delay provides breathing space for the ALR-2002 and for the selection of a different RF Jammer as by the next decision time ASPJ may not be realistically available. There are two clear alternatives to the ASPJ, the first is to install the RF Counter Measures from the Sanders (now BAES) towed decoy system. This would use the RF components of the system, but in place of the ALE-55 pod, the transmit antenna would be fitted to the airframe. The second alternative is to fit a pod, but this is considered to be unlikely as it uses up store capacity. Noteworthy, is the extremely strong likelihood that not all aircraft will be modified for a modern EW suite, but perhaps only half of them, due to cost. Aside from the possible inclusion of ALR-2002, it is considered fairly unlikely that Echidna will have much impact on this project.

EW Cooperative Development - This joint Project Arrangement (PA) was set up some five years ago between Defence and the US Army's CECOM. In the arrangement DSTO's EWD has the technical responsibility for the Australian aspects of the project with DMO providing contract management.

The aims of the project are to provide access to Australia of contemporary US EW developments, particularly for helicopters, and for Australian Industry to undertake specific tasks, many of which originated in DSTO as research activities, of common benefit to both parties to the PA. Notably, there is no Defence end objective to adopt the US Army's EW suite and apply it to Australian requirements. But this does not preclude the two IDA contractors from offering any part or all of the suite if it measures up to the requirements.

Much has been written about the PA-10 tasks to be carried out by Australian Industry, but it is very evident that the plan to create a broad base within Australian Industry to develop indigenous EW expertise is not working. Instead, the two most capable companies, BAE Systems and Tenix, are getting the lion's share of the business and this situation appears unlikely to change. But to be fair, both companies are employing lower tier Australian specialists to achieve the objectives of individual tasks. On a quid pro quo basis the US Army has unfettered access to the products of the tasks undertaken in Australia and already the Tenix fibre-optic data link is attracting considerable US Army interest for incorporation in the ITT Avionics SIRFC.

>From the EW system aspects of this interesting relationship Australia is buying one complete suite of equipment for evaluation by DSTO that comprises SIRFC (Suite of Integrated RF Countermeasures), DIRCM (Directed Infrared Countermeasures) and a Laser missile warning system. DSTO observes the development trials of these systems as part of its evaluation process. Delivery of these systems is currently scheduled for end-2001.

Defence has committed some $60m for this six-year project, with no declared end-objective other than the acquisition of a slice-in-time of US Army EW technology and the employment of a very narrow segment of Australian Industry to participate in the furtherance of research activities started by DSTO. If Defence declines, for whatever reason, to adopt the US Army system or terminates the PA, the whole exercise may with few exceptions, such as the commercialisation of some of the products of the project which could have been effected without it, turn out to be a waste of money.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that while Echidna has hibernated, a highly capable US EW system that is relevant to Australia's EW helicopter needs has appeared on the Australian EW scene and is being marketed already to other countries and proposed for fixed-wing applications. So the question really is: proceed with Echidna at considerable expense, risk and delay or adopt the US EW system? We wonder how BAE Systems and Tenix will respond to this dilemma during their IDA contract activities.

The problem confronting the development of EW systems is that they appear to be in the process of being subsumed by the much more complex fabric of Information Warfare with its subsets of Situational Awareness and Battlefield Management. In this process the most important feature of EW which is to protect platforms is becoming blurred and is tending to lose its priority and possibly its capability as a result. Great care needs to be taken in Australia to prevent this from happening.

By Fred Haddock and Tom Muir, Canberra