Sea Power 2010: Navy, EW firms award AWD decision | ADM Apr 2010
This represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capture fleet-wide synergies and sustain an indigenous industry capability in this critical area.
Gregor Ferguson | Sydney
As ADM closed for press, Navy and defence industry were awaiting a decision on which EW suite would equip the Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD).
Sources within the AWD Alliance were tight-lipped, but ADM understands a decision could be announced around the time this edition is published.
The choice of EW suite for the AWDs is important for a number of reasons.
First of all, it is an important component of the ships' situational awareness, an important source of intelligence and a vital layer of both self and collective defence for the AWDs and the ships they may be escorting.
Secondly, elements of the EW suite selected for the AWDs could also be acquired for the LHDs as well as the Anzac-class frigates.
This would provide the RAN for the first time with a single, integrated family of maritime EW equipment, embracing both Electronic Support (ES) and Electronic Attack (EA), across all of its major surface combatants.
This would enable the resources of the Navy, DSTO and industry to be focussed to best effect on sustaining and evolving this capability over the next generation.
The operational and operator training synergies are potentially significant, as are the cost savings in areas such as software and hardware sustainment and development.
Thirdly, Defence's choice of an all-new EW system, its justification for making this choice and the capability development roadmap it sets out (or doesn't, as the case may be) will tell us something about Defence's views on how it can (and even whether it should) support an identified Priority Industry Capability (PIC).
Common systems advantages
What would be the advantages of having a common EW family across the RAN's surface fleet?
The most obvious is economies of scale: the more you buy, the cheaper it becomes, noting of course that EW is inherently expensive and complex, anyway.
A common equipment family sharing elements of a common architecture provides potential for synergies and savings in hardware support, operating system software (development and support), algorithms and wave forms, and threat library generation.
A common system with a common user interface enables common maintainer and operator training - EW operators can be transferred from one class of ships to another with the minimum of re-training.
The former DG Maritime Development, CDRE Gerry Christian, put this into context at the 2008 Old Crows Symposium when he pointed out that the RAN faces a very dynamic and worrying threat environment.
In particular, missile technology is developing at a rate which is challenging the Navy's ability to keep pace and maintain a capability parity.
Modern missiles are faster, have a lower radar cross-section and frequently use multiple seeker heads - dual-RF, RF/IR, and so on.
The very cluttered peacetime electromagnetic environment, especially in littoral areas, where threat signals are harder to discriminate against a background of air traffic control radars and mobile phone and WiFi networks, further challenges naval ESM systems.
In wartime, the background clutter will only intensify as more emitters and sensors come online.
This places a huge responsibility on the EW operators and those charged with ensuring ES equipment and its critical software remains abreast of emerging threats.
Previously, CDRE Christian noted, the RAN procured ships' EW systems as part of the platform package.
The result was a proliferation of small numbers of EW equipment which put a massive burden on RAN and ADF training and logistics resources - especially the need to repeat and reformat threat libraries for different EW systems.
CDRE Christian pointed out that the converging requirements of the AWD, Anzac and LHD programs provided a unique, probably unrepeatable, opportunity to tackle this issue in a holistic and integrated way.
However, there is no mechanism beyond enlightened goodwill to achieve this holistic outcome.
It's perfectly possible Defence will acquire three separate and fully compliant EW systems for the three ship classes in question, though this is not an outcome anybody actually seeks.
The key is the AWD project, and Defence has managed to arrange matters in such a way that the EW system for this ship will be selected first.
The AWD has the highest capability needs and perhaps the most demanding integration task; over-simplifying somewhat, anything good enough for the AWD will easily satisfy the needs of the Anzacs and LHDs.
Other platforms
So, with an AWD electronic warfare source selection imminent, what of the Anzac and LHD programs?
Under Project Sea 1448 Ph.4A Defence seeks an improved ES system for the Anzacs "to address the forecast supportability issues of the current ES system.
"This sensor is critical to the provision of long range warning and in its contribution to force level warfare."
"To the extent it can be achieved," says the DCP, "there is a desire to align procurement activity of the ES system for ANZAC and LHD and, if possible, AWD.
"Industry engagement has occurred through the issue of a Request for Proposal (RFP).
"The replacement solution could include further development of Australian niche products to complement the replacement solution, or evolution of overseas equipment, project managed and supported in Australia."
According to the DMO, an RFT for the Anzac ES system will be released after 1st Pass Approval for this phase of the project - some time within the next 18 months, and probably sooner rather than later, in the view of industry sources.
"Leading up to First Pass there have been a number of Industry solicitations starting in 2007 with an Invitation to Register," according to a Defence source.
"This was then followed up with the first of two Request for Proposals in 2008 and the second in 2009.
Source selection may be conducted between First and Second Pass which is scheduled for FY 2011/12 and 2012/13," ADM was told.
"The Initial Operating Capability is planned for 2013 - 2015."
As for the LHDs being acquired under JP2048 Ph.4A/B, Defence would say only, "JP2048 is considering the appropriate timeline for selecting and fielding a tactical ES system in the Canberra Class within the existing construction schedule."
So, while the equipment selections for these three ship classes are likely to be sequential, their development and delivery will be concurrent.
What does this mean for the contractor(s)?
Can a single prime contractor deliver and install all three systems concurrently?
Or does risk mitigation demand that these EW contracts be spread among different contractors?
And if so, what will be the effect on through-life support costs for the Navy's EW inventory?
None of which matters terribly much, it is believed, to the AWD Alliance.
The Alliance's sole obligation is to itself, ensuring probity, value for money and minimum risk in selecting key equipment for the Hobart-class destroyers.
In a formal sense it's of no concern to the Alliance whether or not its choice of EW system is suitable also for the Anzac and LHDs.
But it's more likely an AWD-compliant EW system will be suitable also for the Anzacs and LHDs, than the other way round.
Defence recognises the benefits from an integrated approach, but told ADM, "The selection of the respective EW systems [for the three ship classes] will be based on a competitive approach."
That said, a Defence source added, "The potential to achieve efficiencies with Systems' integration with Saab 9LV Combat Management System in the Anzacs and LHDs has been recognised by the two projects."
Because they have a common combat system, the technical synergies between these ships could be compelling, though these may not extend to the AWD whose combat system architecture and systems integration challenges are quite different.
It's not impossible that Defence may end up selecting a stand-alone system for the AWDs and a separate common system for the LHDs and Anzacs.
Contenders
The two shortlisted contenders for the AWD system are ITT, which is teamed with Ultra Electronics Avalon Systems in Adelaide and Jenkins Engineering Defence Systems (JEDS) in Sydney; and Spanish firm Indra Sistemas, which manufactures the EW systems for the Spanish F100 destroyers and is teamed with BAE Systems Australia, also in Adelaide.
The ITT bid is based on an extended version of its ES-3701 ESM system which is already in Australian service aboard the Collins-class submarines.
This suite is also aboard Sweden's Visby class corvettes, Norway's Nansen class Aegis frigates and is the basis of the companies' joint proposals for the Anzac and LHD EW contracts.
This system was supplied by EDO, which ITT acquired in 2007 and the Extended 3701 system it has offered the AWD Alliance also incorporates additional Comms ESM and EA capabilities using the same architecture as on the Collins, but with technology inserts and extended frequency coverage.
The ITT solution would provide a single common architecture for all of the RAN's fighting ships and submarines and, for the surface ships, identical passive antennas.
The Indra/BAE Systems bid for the AWDs is based on Indra's baseline equipment for the Spanish Navy's F-105 destroyer, Juan Carlos-class LHD and S-80 submarines: the Rigel C-J Band ES/EA system (which also equips the German Navy's U212A submarines and K130 corvettes) and the Regulus Comms ES systems; these are derived from the older Aldebaran ES/EA and Regulus Comms ES suites aboard the earlier F-100 destroyers and would naturally also be the basis of subsequent proposals for the Anzac and LHD.
Under the teaming agreement with Indra, BAE Systems Australia would deliver, test and support these EW systems.
The Rigel system is based on an Open Architecture which provides an open growth path for technology inserts originating either from Indra or the various EW-related Capability & Technology Demonstrator (CTD) programs undertaken by BAE Systems (including the former Tenix Defence).
Interestingly, both BAE Systems and Ultra Electronics Avalon have carried out CTDs in the maritime EW area - indeed, this is a technology domain where Australia is developing some genuine indigenous ‘smarts'.
In 2009, Avalon Systems was awarded a CTD Extension contract to further develop Project Scrannel, a classified system designed to demonstrate enhanced missile detection designed to provide ships under threat with additional warning time, and thus increasing their survivability chances.
A BAE Systems (formerly Tenix) CTD which may also secure CTD Extension funding this year is Project Sea 1657 - Cuttlefish.
This is designed to demonstrate a significantly enhanced ability for vessels such as large, lightly armed amphibious transport and supply ships to defeat advanced imaging radars, especially Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR) sensors.
Two other Maritime EW CTDs which the company hopes are candidates for Extension Funding are the former Tenix Millimetre Wave Receiver, an OA digital receiver designed to tackle emerging maritime threats - in particular, a new generation of anti-ship missile seeker heads; and an OA interface architecture designed to simply the integration of new EW equipment with existing open and proprietary ship combat systems in future.
ADM understands that Defence has never asked for these emergent technologies to be included in any EW system offered for the AWD or other ships; however, it has explicitly requested an OA approach which enables technology insertions in the future, if Defence deems it necessary.
After the disappointments the ALR-2002 and Echidna airborne self-protection programs, Australia's EW industry has contracted sharply, starved by a lack of ongoing work.
The acquisition of a new fleet of EW equipment for three warship classes simultaneously provides an opportunity to arrest this decline.
It would provide a baseload of ongoing support work for industry and Defence, and could support a mechanism for transferring the fruits of CTD work into frontline service.