Delays in air defence target system programs appear to be
endemic – ask anyone who followed the progress of the UK’s Combined Aerial
Target Service (CATS) or who continues to keep tabs on the ADF’s JP66 Phase 1 –
Aerial Defence Target System (ADTS).
Work began in 2001 on CATS, which was originally intended to
deliver subsonic air defence aerial target and air-to-air services to the
British Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy for 20 years from late 2004.
However, selection of the Qinetiq, Megitt Defence Systems and
Meteor consortium for work worth an estimated 450 million stg (A$690 million)
was not confirmed until March 2006 and the first elements of the system were
not operational until two years later.
With JP66, First Pass was achieved in March 2009 and a Request
for Information was released to industry the same month. A Request for Tender
emerged seven months later with Second Pass approval anticipated in 2010-12 and
Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in 2012-14.
Acquisition cost was put at the lower end of a $300 million-$500
million band. This was adjusted in the December 2010 DCP Update to the low end
of a $100-$300 million band, and IOC was refined to 2011-13.
To no-one’s surprise, the 2012 DCP saw the Year of Decision
slipped to 2012-2014, with IOC moving right to 2013-2015 and the forecast cost
of acquisition slashed to less than $100 million, but with no discernible
reduction in project scope.
Notwithstanding the new two-year band for final approval, ADM
understands a decision was scheduled for mid-2012 but again, this could not be
achieved.
Defence declined to facilitate an interview to discuss JP66 but
told ADM in December that the project was being reviewed “in light of some
recent developments and the outcomes will be presented to Government for
approval in due course”.
Industry sources were notably unimpressed with the ongoing
situation and referred to delays, non-answers and high level meetings with no
clear lead on the part of Defence participants. They were also unanimous in
dismissing the proposed project budget as totally unrealistic.
Apart from a shared history of delays, CATS and ADTS are similar
in the breadth of the air threats they need to cover and both involve turnkey
contracts with all target assets contractor owned, operated and maintained,
albeit with government providing basic facilities at range areas.
This similarity suggested a strong case being made for the
QinetiQ-BAE Systems Australia bid for JP66, but informed sources have disclosed
the Qinetic-primed team was advised some time ago that its proposal was
unsuccessful.
Discussions are however understood to have continued with other
contenders, who are thought to include Northrop Grumman, Boeing Australia and Nowra-based
Air Affairs.
Current capability
The latest DCP acknowledges that current
ADF air target capabilities have limited capacity to meet future training and
test and evaluation needs – but this was already the case eight years ago,
according to an ADTS presentation given in 2005 by Squadron Leader David
Riddel, then with Capability Development and now a Wing Commander serving as
deputy director of the RAAF’s Air Combat Group.
Ridel named future threats as helicopters, tactical UAVs, Fourth
Generation Fighters (now presumably upgraded by a generation), subsonic
sea-skimming missiles, supersonic sea skimming missiles, and ballistic
missiles.
Consequently, a recoverable unmanned aerial target (UAT) should
be deployable over land and sea; able to operate 80 nautical miles from the
coast.
Attributes listed by Riddel were high subsonic sea skim
(essential); high subsonic medium altitude (essential); supersonic sea skim
(desirable); 60 minutes ‘on task’; radar and infrared augmentation; vector miss
distance indicator; and multiple simultaneous UAT operations.
These capabilities are unlikely to have changed to any extent,
although the recent deployment in the region of ship-killers such as the
Indo-Russian BrahMos and the Russian Klub 3M-54 suggests supersonic sea skim
may have moved from desirable to essential, notwithstanding the ADF’s limited
ability to counter such threats.
Services provided to the Commonwealth under JP66 are expected to
consist of flights of physical targets capable of emulating specified threats.
The precise threat emulation characteristics to be supplied, rate of effort and
date of commencement remain contingent on a range of related projects that
include Anzac ASMD, AWD, Super Hornet and the JSF.
Acknowledging that the diverse range of ADF end-user
requirements could result in a mix of various types of UATs and manned
aircraft, with or without towed targets, the DCP states that the Commonwealth
will not mandate any target types or delivery methods. And this, according to
sources familiar with the program, could be one of the issues delaying
resolution.
“Often with a joint project there’s no single service sponsor.
This means that the desk officers have to go to each of the services, who all
have very demanding requirements and these go in as an ambit claim,” one source
said.
Another described the project office as being well aware of what
was available, and hoping to leverage off existing capabilities.
“The reality is you can’t cover that wide spectrum of
requirements with anything but a mix of manned and unmanned target solutions,
and as soon as you start doing that the price goes up. There really is no
simple answer, and therein lies the problem.”
Past efforts
The ADF’s target system capability has been a mixed bag for many
years. The last MQM-107E drone –designated the Kalkara in Australian service –
was retired by the RAN in early 2008 after being operated as a joint capability
with the RAAF. Introduced in 1998 after a protracted tender process eventually
won by the US company Tracor, later acquired by BAE Systems North America, the
type never achieved full operational acceptance. The RAN currently utilises
towed aerial targets and RAAF aircraft to address aspects of its air defence
requirements, supplemented by use of overseas ranges when necessary.
Both the RAAF and RAN (which also makes occasional use of
overseas ranges) conduct missile and gunnery training against infrared, radar,
and low level height-keeping targets towed by civilian contractors – notably a
Learjet 35A operated by Air Affairs.
The targets, themselves weighing between 35 to 50kg, are towed
at the end of a cable stretching up to 6.9 kilometres behind the host aircraft.
The limitations of such targets mean large exercises such as Red Flag or Cope
Thunder are the only opportunities outside a simulator now likely to provide
multiple genuinely complex targeting scenarios for RAAF fighter crew. According
to a Defence spokesperson, Army currently tests its RBS-70 short-range missile
system against TGX-2 day and TVX-7 night towed targets, although ADM
understands the TVX-7 has not been used for several years.
The two metre-long TGX-2 is representative of a small UAV, and
is augmented with a 600,000 candle power gimballed lamp that oscillates through
a figure v8 pattern to enhance detection ranges in both the head-on and oblique
profile. A series of radar reflectors is collocated with the lamp to increase
the electronic signature of the target when used in conjunction with a
targeting and acquisition radar. The
TVX-7 is the same size as the TGX-2, but the gimballed nose lamp is replaced by
a 60W safety light. The rear of the target contains a metal combustion chamber
into which air is forced through a venturi, where it’s mixed with methylated
spirits and then ignited electronically.
This produces a large signature in the near infrared range,
which allows RBS-70 operators to acquire and engage the target through a
clip-on thermal imager.
