A U S T R A L I A N
D E F E N C E
I N
A
G L O B A L
C O N T E X T
Dec 2008 / Jan 2009
VOL. 34 NO. 10
Lindsay Tanner
confirms ASC sale
process
Air Warfare
Destroyer
sonar
analysis
NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE MINISTER
SUPER HORNET UPDATE
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
YOU’LL FIND US
LEADING THE WORLD IN
NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS
Thales is a world leader in naval communications and
information systems.
Thales’s open architecture communications system,
based on Internet Protocol (IP) technology,
is a flexible and low-cost solution
designed to meet the Royal
Australian Navy’s current
and future communications
requirements.
With a proven track
record of naval
communications integration
in Australia and overseas,
Thales has the unique capability to
successfully integrate an IP-based solution
into naval platforms.
From design and specification to installation,
testing and responsive through life support,
Thales is the only choice for today and tomorrow.
The world is safer with Thales
www.thalesgroup.com.au
Small image © Australian Department of Defence
CONTENTS
]
Leader
National security statement ........................................................ 6
Letters to the Editor
.................................................... 7
Headlines
ASMD sea trials .......................................................................... 8
Austal success ............................................................................. 8
Banned website ........................................................................... 9
New submarine ............................................................................ 9
ASC sale
Finance Minister interview ......................................................... 10
New Zealand
Incoming Defence Minister........................................................ 12
Conventional submarine technology
Analysis by Norman Friedman ................................................. 14
Israeli Navy
A change of focus .................................................................... 20
Air Warfare Destroyer
Ultra sonar details ..................................................................... 23
Army’s ground-based air defence
Future directions ........................................................................ 26
Chinese aircraft carriers
How realistic are they? ............................................................. 30
Regional surface ships
A number of active programmes ............................................. 34
Super Hornet update
RAAF jets being assembled ..................................................... 38
Cover description: Front cover: Australia’s Collins Class at sea. This
edition deals with a number of submarine matters, including an analysis
of technology trends. And in an interview with APDR’s editor, Finance
Minister Lindsay Tanner confirms that the sale of prime contractor ASC
will go ahead as planned. Photo credits: ASC .
Contributor’s opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher or editor and while every precaution has
been taken to ensure that the information contained in this publication is accurate and timely, no liability is accepted by the publisher or editor for errors and omissions, however caused. Articles and information contained in this
publication are the copyright of Asia Pacific Defence Publications Pty Ltd (unless otherwise stated) and cannot be
reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher. The publisher cannot accept responsibility
for loss or damage to uncommissioned photographs, manuscripts or other media.
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 3
IF YOUR BUSINESS IS HERE
JOIN US AT AUSTRALIA’S PREMIER NAVAL
t Anchored by ASC Ltd, builder of Australia’s new state-of-the-art Air Warfare Destroyers and
Collins class submarine fleet maintainer
t World-class common user shipbuilding infrastructure - including wharf, runway, dry berth
and Australia’s largest shiplift
t 35+ hectare, fully integrated industrial precinct for suppliers
STAGE 1 SELLING NOW
t Onsite Maritime Skills Centre delivering trade and technical skills for a job-ready workforce
t Purpose built Air Warfare Destroyer System Centre
t Critical mass of warship design and construction skills
t National transport network access - road, rail and deep channel port
IT SHOULD ALSO BE HERE
W
O
N
D
N
A
L
E
L
B
A
L
I
A
V
A
DECONNO
E DANIEL
N
O
H
P
E
L
TE
02 020
ON 0412 4
INDUSTRY HUB – TECHPORT AUSTRALIA
The combination of location, facilities and billion dollar contracts already in place,
make Techport Australia the prime destination for any business involved in naval,
defence and related industries.
RESERVE YOUR PLACE TODAY
VISIT OUR WEBSITE OR TELEPHONE DANIEL DECONNO ON 0412 402 020
Phone: +61 8 8463 7140
Email: [email protected]
DEF0016
TECHPORTAUSTRALIA.COM
[
Print
PrintPost
PostApproved
ApprovedPP349181/00104
PP349181/00104
Managing
Managing Director
Director
Marilyn
MarilynTangye
Tangye
Publisher
& Editor-in-Chief
Editor
Kym La
Bergmann
Peter
Franchi
Phone:
+61(0)412
Phone: +61 (0)417539
476106
791
Email:[email protected]
[email protected]
Email:
Associate Editor
Contributors
Abraham Gubler
Ehsan
Dzirhan
Vladimir
Phone:Ahrari,
+61(0)432
174Mahadzir,
192
Karnozov,
Richard Scott, Mark Farrer,John
Email: [email protected]
Haseman, Hank Schouten, Jean-Michel Guhl,
Contributors
Nicholas
Merrett. Vladimir Karnozov, Richard Scott, John
Dzirhan Mahadzir,
Haseman,
Hank Schouten, Jean-Michel Guhl, Arie Egozi,
Graphic
Design
NormanOtten
Friedman.
Angela
Graphic Design
Australia
Angela Otten
Ventura
Media Asia-Pacific Pty Ltd
Australia
PO
Box 88, Miranda
Ventura
Media
Asia-Pacific Pty Ltd
NSW 1490
Australia
PO Box
88, Miranda
, NSW 1490 Australia
ABN
76 095
476 065
ABN 76 095 476 065
Singapore
Singapore
Raymond
Raymond Boey
Boey, Regional Manager
Regional
Manager
Block 729
#04-4280 Ang Mo Kio
Block
729
Ang Mo Kio
Avenue
6, #04-4280
Singapore 560729
Avenue
Singapore
560729
Phone: 6,
+65
6457 2340,
Fax: +65 6456 2700
Email: [email protected]
Phone:
+65 6457 2340
Fax:
+65 6456 2700
Subscriptions
Rose [email protected]
Jeffree
Email:
Phone:
+ 61 (0)2 9526 7188, Fax: + 61 (0)2 9526 1779
Subscriptions
Email: [email protected]
Rose Jeffree
Phone:
+ 61 (0)2 9526 7188
Advertising Offices
Fax:
+ 61 (0)2
9526Zealand
1779
Australia
and New
Email:
David [email protected]
Tsang
Phone: + 61 Offi
(0)2 ces
9526 7188, Fax: + 61 (0)2 9526 1779
Advertising
Mobile: +61
008
Australia
and(0)412
New 328
Zealand
Email:Tsang
[email protected]
David
China, +Hong
Kong
& Macau
Phone:
61 (0)2
9526
7188
Roger
Loo(0)2 9526 1779
Fax:
+ 61
Mobile: +65 9386 7934, Fax: +65 6534 8186
Mobile: +61 (0)412 328 008
DID: +65 6327 8148
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Europe
Singapore, South East Asia, Japan & Korea,
Diana
Scogna
Gulf and
Middle East
Phone:
+33 1 4315 9829
Chris Kuang
Mobile:
98466617,
Fax:
+33+65
1 4033
9930 Fax: +65 6534 8186
DID: +65
6327
Mobile:
+33
(0)68148
6252 2547
[email protected]
Email:
[email protected]
Taiwan
Israel
James Hwang
Talbar Media
Mobile: +886 918 172 741, Fax: +886 2 2805 0224
Phone:
+972
3 562
9565
DID: +886
2 2805
0235
Fax:
+972 3 562 9567
[email protected]
Email:
[email protected]
Europe
Italy
Diana Scogna
Phone: +33Internazionale
1 4315 9829, Fax: +33 1 4033 9930
Ediconsult
Mobile:
+33 (0)6 6252 2547
Ida
De Mari
Email:
[email protected]
Phone: 010 583 684, Fax: 010 566 578
[email protected]
Email:
Talbar Media
Russia
& CIS
Phone: +972 3 562 9565, Fax: +972 3 562 9567
Laguk
Email:Co.
[email protected]
Yuri Laskin, Sergei Kirshin
Italy
Phone:
+ 7 Internazionale
495 912 1346
Ediconsult
– Ida De Mari
Fax:
+ 7 010
495583
912684,
1260
Phone:
Fax: 010 566 578
Email:[email protected]
Email: [email protected]
USA
& Canada,
South East & South America
Russia
& CIS
Laguk
Co. – Yuri Laskin, Sergei Kirshin
Joan
Daly
Phone:
+
7
495
912
1346, Fax: + 7 495 912 1260
Phone: 703 938 5907
Email:[email protected]
Fax
703 938 5910
USA & 703
Canada,
Mobile:
407 South
3204 East & South America
Joan Daly
Email:
[email protected]
Phone: 703 938 5907, Fax 703 938 5910
West
Coast
Mid3204,
Atlantic
and
Canada
Mobile:
703 407
Email:
[email protected]
Tony Calamaro
West Coast Mid Atlantic and Canada
Phone:
610 449 3290
Tony Calamaro
Email:
[email protected]
Phone:
610 449 3290
Email:
[email protected]
New
England
Upper Mid West
Maryann
Johnston
New England
Upper Mid West
Phone:
973
252 0680
Maryann
Johnston
Phone:[email protected]
973 252 0680
Email:
Email: [email protected]
Printer
Printer Printing & Supplies Pte Ltd
Sunrise
Sunrise
Printing & Supplies Pte Ltd
ISSN
1446-6880
ISSN 1446-6880
Australian Public Affairs Information Service.
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter is indexed in APAIS: Australian
Public Affairs Information Service produced by the National
Library of Australia in both online and printed form. Write
to: National Library of Australia, Parkes Place, Canberra,
ACT 2600 Australia. Addressing requests for APAIS online
access to Ozline: Australian Information Network: Sales
& Subscriptions hotline, phone +61(0)3 9925 8210 or fax
+61(0)3 9925 8299 for APAIS online or printed APAIS.
[ LEADER
KYM BERGMANN
CANBERRA
National Security Policy
On December 4, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered
his long awaited National Security policy statement to
Parliament. Rather than being a stand-alone approach,
it will work in with other major initiatives such as the
Defence white paper and the Counter-Terrorism review.
Unsurprisingly, the analysis of what needs to be covered
is very broad:
“Freedom from attack or the threat of attack; the
maintenance of our territorial integrity; the maintenance
of our political sovereignty; the preservation of our hard
won freedoms; and the maintenance of our fundamental
capacity to advance economic prosperity for all
Australians.”
And in an explanation consistent with ongoing global
financial issues:
“The global and regional order is now changing so
rapidly that we must continue to reassess our evolving
national security needs. We need periodically to adjust
the lens through which we view the challenges to our
security and the arrangements we establish to protect and
advance our interests. This requires greater institutional
agility than in the past.
“Increasing complexity and inter-connectedness is a
fact of life in the modern, global environment. Classical
distinctions between foreign and domestic, national
and international, internal and external have become
blurred.”
The steps to be taken are clear, with the appointment
of a National Security Adviser and boosting Customs
so that it becomes the Australian Customs and Border
Protection Service – amongst other things. The statement
also dropped some further large hints about what will be
the direction of the Defence White Paper, including the
comment that it will be about “…enhancing Australian
Defence Force [ADF] capabilities.”
Whilst enhancement could take a number of forms,
it is interesting that neither in this statement, nor in
anything said by other Ministers, has there been any
questioning about the commitment of a 3% real increase
in annual Defence expenditure through to 2018. Given the
magnitude of the global financial crisis and its unknown
duration, it seems very brave to assume that the money
will always be available. As Government revenues are
expected to decline for at least two years, Defence dollars
will have to be at the expense of something else.
Mention is also made of the importance of greater
certainty in Defence budgeting, coupled with the need for
internal reforms and more rigour.
In his statement, the Prime Minister also referred to
changing patterns of defence expenditure in our region.
This seems to be a reference to China in particular, and
is a further indicator that the Australian defence budget
will not suffer, no matter what. This is consistent with a
number of previous remarks made by the Prime Minister
and is further evidence that (like his predecessor) he
will be closely involved in all aspects of national security
policy.
The stated foreign policy goals for Australia include
defence self-reliance, regional engagement, and a
global role through multi-lateral activities – especially
in conjunction with the United Nations. Some of these
objectives indicate a different approach than that taken by
the former Government, and with a curious twist.
At the end of his speech, Kevin Rudd spoke of the aim of
strengthening the US alliance, without elaboration. One
would have thought the Australian-US alliance is as close
as could be reasonably expected. Realistically, Australia
will be doing well just to maintain the status quo. The
previous Government was part of Washington’s inner
circle – the War on Terror and so on – and that is highly
unlikely to be replicated in the Obama administration.
Not that such a thing is a slight to Australia. On the
contrary, it’s just that times have changed. President-elect
Obama is coming to office with an enormous amount of
international good will and is seen by many as a powerful
force for change.
World leaders will be falling over
themselves to meet with him and establish good relations.
Australia will simply become one of many nations trying
to attract the attention of the new President.
This will be a challenge for Australian diplomats and
politicians. At least the new administration is sending
out the signals that it recognises the importance of the
Asian region, something that was absent during the Bush
years because of the enormous distraction of Iraq. With
the growing economic and military power of China, it is
highly likely that the Asia-Pacific region will become the
most important foreign policy challenge for the incoming
administration – especially for Secretary of State Hilary
Clinton.
Perhaps the initiative of Kevin Rudd to create an AsiaPacific economic community by 2020 (an analog of the
European Union) will be a big enough and progressive
enough idea to be of genuine interest to Washington.
If such an economic union came into being, it would
address many of the concerns outlined in the Prime
Minister’s national security statement. Perhaps we all
need to start thinking about creating this region’s version
of the Euro. APDR
WE INVITE DEBATE AND DICUSSION OF DEFENCE ISSUES.
Short and clear letters will be given preference. All letters must include the writer’s full
name, address, position and contact details for verification purposes. Responses should
be sent to:
[email protected]
6 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
LETTERS
Dear Sir,
Since the release of the Mortimer Report, there has been considerable
commentary amongst those with a genuine interest in defence
procurement. APDR’s contribution to the discussion has been of
particular interest.
There would be many in the defence industry who would agree with
particular concerns expressed by the publication, such as those
relating to the proposals to scrap the broad price bands in the DCP,
not announcing preferred primes until after contract signature and not
granting second pass approval until contract signature.
Similarly, it is only natural for Australian defence industry leaders
focussed on investment in this country and the job creation that goes
along with it, to be anxious over any proposition to extend the degree
of off-the-shelf acquisitions.
Whether one agrees with these positions or not, it is important not to
throw out the proverbial “baby with the bathwater.”
The essential themes of the Mortimer Report are sound. Anything that
can make the DMO more business-like in its operation, and impose
a greater commercial discipline on the procurement and sustainment
process, is fundamentally a good thing.
The DMO has come a long way under Stephen Gumley. Although
the process of cultural change within the organisation is far from
complete, Dr Gumley deserves credit for what has so far been
achieved.
I, for one, encourage the mandating that the DMO’s CEO must have
significant private sector and commercial experience. I welcome
the push to give the CEO control over DMO appointments and
remuneration. Further, I believe that the creation of new General
Manager – Commercial within the DMO to achieve a greater business
focus within the organisation, is a laudable ambition.
I also agree with the Mortimer Report’s proposition that there should
be increased rigour with which projects are assessed for entry to the
Defence Capability Plan, including a more disciplined understanding
of costs, schedule and risk information. This is an area I have made
my own previous representations to the Joint Committee on Public
Accounts and Audit.
In his Ministerial Statement to the House of Representatives, the
Defence Minister indicated that his intention was for the DMO to
run more like a business and less like a bureaucracy, and that the
Government’s response to the Report would be guided by the
likelihood of the suggested changes giving effect to that aspiration.
Industry would welcome such an outcome.
The importance of these issues is not to be underestimated. The
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement highlighted at
the National Press Club that the DMO is larger in terms of staff and
budget than ten of the 17 Australian Government departments. Mr
Combet said that the DMO has over 7,000 employees and a budget
this year of $9.6 billion – equivalent to approximately 44% of the
Defence budget, or just under one per cent of Australia’s GDP.
This all means that the Government’s response to the Mortimer
]
Report should matter as much to every Australian taxpayer as it does
to defence industry, and those in Defence we seek to serve.
Ron Fisher
Managing Director
Raytheon Australia
Dear Sir,
I have been following the analysis the Mortimer Review of the DMO with
a great deal of interest. Since most our Australian defence business
is ultimately sourced by the DMO, its future structure, direction and
culture will have a direct impact on our activities.
As an SME, we are highly sensitive to changes in the way the
Commonwealth interacts with the private sector. It is important for our
future that we work as much as possible in an environment which is
stable and predictable. With this in mind, I welcome the general thrust
of the Review, and most of its specific recommendations. A basic point
to make is that as DMO becomes more business-like in character, it
should be better equipped in turn to understand the needs of business
itself.
In the past there has sometimes been a cultural gap between the
private sector and Defence. One obvious area is predictability of
workload, where SMEs in particular are looking for continuity. Life
becomes difficult if we need to reduce staff 1 year, and then ramp up
for the next. There has been a feeling in industry that our issues are
not always fully understood, and with Mortimer’s view that DMO needs
more private sector managerial expertise perhaps this will change for
the better.
Having said that, I believe everyone in industry recognises that the
principle purpose of the defence budget is the support of the ADF.
With this in mind it would seem that the Mortimer Review is not about
industry policy - that will apparently come in the White Paper - but
rather internal to how DMO can be redesigned to improve efficiency
and deliver better value for money. It would be difficult to argue against
such a proposition.
Regards,
Owen Culley
Managing Director
SMA(Operations)Pty Limited
CAPTIONS NOTE
CLARIFICATION
In October APDR ‘Generation
IV ASLAV’ was written by
Abraham Gubler.
A June 2008 article ‘ACATS to
push VBS2 to its limits’ needs
the clarification that the UK’s
Future Rapid Effects System
(FRES) project is being carried
out by Boeing and Thales,
assisted by QinetiQ.
In November APDR ‘More
helicopters, please’ was written
by Kym Bergmann
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 7
[ HEADLINES
ANZAC’s new radar tested
CEA TECHNOLOGIES
T
he ANZAC class frigate’s anti ship
missile defence (ASMD) upgrade
under Sea 1448 Phase 2B achieved an
important technical milestone with
the successful demonstration of the
build standard CEA Technologies’ CEAFAR active
phased array radar at sea.
Mounted above the hangar of HMAS Perth
the CEAFAR system consisted of dual faces of
active phased array radar and had previously
been active in Canberra for land based trials.
During the trials the radar system was used
in tactical air and surface scenarios involving
multiple aircraft and ships and small targets
representative of anti-ship missiles and weapon
systems.
These trials were conducted in the open
ocean and close to shore clutter in complex
electromagnetic environments of multiple ship
and aircraft radars and communication systems.
The risk reduction and data collection objectives
of the at-sea demonstration were successfully
Phased array to sea.
achieved in significantly less than the planned
time frame enabling additional capabilities to be
assessed during the searide.
CEA Technologies phased array radar
technology had gone to sea previously onboard
HMAS Arunta in during the Sea 1448 Phase 1D
validation trials in 2004.
The sea trials is part of Defence’s risk
mitigation strategy for the ASMD upgrade using
developmental Australian technology.
The first ANZAC ship to undergo the ASMD
upgrade is HMAS Perth scheduled to start in
January 2010 and complete sea trials in July 2011.
CEAFAR is a fully digital beamforming system
to dynamically adapt and change modes to meet
complex environmental and threat scenarios.
Each ANZAC frigate will receive six CEAFAR
faces to provide high assurance of detection and
tracking of every surface and low altitude threat
out to the horizon.
Another four faces of the similar technology CEA
Technologies CEAMOUNT X-Band continuous
wave illumination target designation radars will
be provided allowing for engagement of multiple
simultaneous targets with the Raytheon IM-162
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM).
CEA Technologies are also funded in a joint
Australian-USA project to develop the AUSPAR
active phased array radar capable of much
higher power loads than CEAFAR as a potential
replacement for the Lockheed Martin SPY-1D
radar at the heat of the AEGIS weapon system.
– Abraham Gubler / Gold Coast
Austal win fast vessel market
A
8 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
Modular Manufacturing Facility (MMF) at Mobile
that will be complete in 2009.
The JHSV will be capable of speeds of more
than 35 knots with a range of 2,160km (1,200 NM)
and have a draft of only 3.8m allowing access at
austere ports.
Payload will be 635 tonnes in a 1,800m2
Fast track.
unobstructed cargo deck able to embark M1A2
Abrams tanks and berth 150 troops and seat
another 312.
The flight deck is capable of landing CH-53E
sized helicopters and a bay is provided for
parking a MH-60R helicopter. – Abraham Gubler
/ Gold Coast
AUSTAL
ustralian shipbuilder Austal has won
the highly competitive contract to
design and build Joint High Speed
Vessels (JHSV) for the US Army, Navy
and Marine Corps for a potential
worth of over US$1.6 billion.
As prime contractor Austal will design and
construct the first 103m catamaran JHSV with
options for nine additional vessels expected to be
exercised between FY09 and FY13.
The win comes against fierce competition from
rival Australian fast ferry builder INCAT and their
American partners Bollinger and Rolls-Royce.
Austal’s success comes due to their innovative
weight cutting design, strong reputation for
quality build standards and that their US yard
located in Mobile, Alabama is the only shipyard
in the USA building large, high speed, aluminium
multi-hulls.
The win cements Austral’s leading position in
the international market for large, high speed,
aluminium multi-hulls in both civilian and
military applications.
Austal USA is the shipbuilder for the first
General Dynamics Independence class Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) 127m long trimaran and has
also built two 113m long high speed catamarans
for Hawaii Superferry.
The JHSV will be built in a new 70,000 m2
HEADLINES
]
Fire Support Base Under Siege
S
enior officers within the Department
of Defence have proposed that the
internet discussion forum www.
firesupportbase.com be added to
the Government’s “unwanted” list
of webpages to be filtered by the Australian
Communications and Media Authority
(ACMA).
The controversial ACMA filter is designed
to blacklist a number of websites featuring
prohibited content of illegal and highly
disturbing material like child pornography and
terrorism promotion.
The web master of FSB [Fire Support Base]
has promised to release the name and rank of FSB Corralled.
the leading proponent within Defence of the with procurement of faulty and suspect combat
blacklist if the webpage is filtered by ACMA.
clothing for the Army.
The FSB website was established as an open
Former Chief of Army, Lieutenant General
discussion, yet restricted access forum for Army Peter Leahy, AC, and now foundation director of
and related personnel to discuss equipment the University of Canberra’s National Security
and other issues.
Institute was a frequent visitor to the webpage
It arose out of the controversy associated and used it as part of his appreciation process
Sea 1000’s growing dispute
S
FSM can be developed around this need
including indigenous hull design.
Contrasting to this next generation
submarine agenda by the Chief of Navy Vice
Admiral Matt Tripovich, the Chief of Capability
Development Group (CDG), was reported as
making the distinction that Sea 1000 is for
a “future” submarine not a next generation
submarine”.
The difference is significant as the Navy is
looking for Sea 1000 to provide a balanced
submarine capability while the strategy and
capability planners within the White Paper
team and the CDG area increasingly seeing
the FSM’s utility as limited to intelligence
gathering and stealthy strike.
The former Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ
Shalders, had argued strongly in favour of
the Gibbs & Cox Evovled AWD because of its
enhanced capability but lost out to the lower
cost and risk favoured option of the Defence
Materiel Organisation.
The total cost of Sea 1000 build and design
has been estimated at $25 billion yet in 2025
dollars that will equate to only 25% more than
the cost to build and remediate the Collins
class thanks to inflation. – Abraham Gubler /
Gold Coast
Rival views on replacement.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
enior Naval officers are at odds over
the scope of the Future Submarine
(FSM) project Sea 1000 with
rival positions on the capability
reminiscent of the Air Warfare
Destroyer (AWD) project.
Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Crane, has
detailed his ambitions for Sea 1000 in a speech
to the Submarine Institute of Australia (SIA).
V.Adm. Crane said that the lessons learnt
from the Collins class project and its
remediation through the close association
with the US Navy provides a starting point
for Sea 1000 to, “spiral off this for the next
generation of submarines.”
He further said, “I would go so far as to
suggest that the future version of the US SSN
combat system, weapons and I add possibly
sensors to this equation, might form the pre
integrated MOTS option we put to Government
for what we all know is the highest risk element
of projects such as this.”
“Combine this with the reality of our vast
geography, and therefore need for a longer
range and endurance capability, and you can
see we need a large submarine,” he said.
Once the combat system and range
requirement is defined the platform for the
of the state of affairs within the Army.
Exposure via FSB to the problems facing
soldiers with the issue Terra combat boots has
been attributed to the former Chief’s landmark
decision to allow for higher quality commercially
acquired combat boots to be worn by soldiers.
While FSB has garnered criticism from some
in Defence for its merciless commentary on
the leadership ability of some officers and
equipment acquisition all content is open
source and does not contravene Defence
secrecy and chains of command.
Joining FSB is limited to members of the
ADF, Police, emergency services, defence
industry and defence public servants with
special consideration given to those associated
with defence such as veterans, reporters and
academia.
All potential members must supply a verifiable
name and contact details but they can post
anonymously as long as they meet a code of
conduct. – Abraham Gubler / Gold Coast
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 9
[ FINANCE MINISTER
KYM BERGMANN
CANBERRA
ASC will be sold
F
ederal Finance Minister Lindsay
Tanner has confirmed that the
Government will go ahead with the
privatisation of ASC Pty Ltd. Speaking
in Canberra to APDR, the Minister
discussed the way ahead:
“We intend to proceed with the privatisation.
This has been a longstanding bipartisan position
going back seven or eight years; in fact I was
Shadow Finance Minister when the Howard
Government first outlined its intentions.
“So that is the position we came to Government
with, and that is the position we intend to
pursue.
“There are a variety of complicated issues
associated with ASC which make it a very unusual
privatization. Obviously there are security issues
which are more a matter for the Minister for
Defence than for me. On these topics, I will have
to defer to the specialists and experts who will be
involved in the process.
“Then with regard to commercial issues, the
Government wants to make sure that for future
projects in which ASC could have a major role,
we do not undermine competitive tension.
Associated with that is the need to protect a
degree of Australian ownership and Australian
control.
“This combination of factors does not always
apply to privatisations, and is an indicator of
why the process will be complex.”
The Commonwealth has always owned
shares in ASC (originally known as “Australian
Submarine Corporation”), starting off with
a 20% stake held by the Government-owned
investment bank, AIDC. As a result of various
shareholder changes, the AIDC proportion
increased to 49% in the 1990s, with another 49%
owned by the Swedish Celsius group, which in
turn owned Kockums, the original designer of
the Collins Class submarines. In 1999, Celsius
sold Kockums to the German submarine
builder, HDW, in a complex transaction of
which the Australian Submarine Corporation
was a significant part.
However, the Howard Government blocked
the transfer of the Celsius shares in ASC on broad
national interest grounds, and instead used the
legal pre-emptive rights of AIDC to acquire
10 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
Business as usual
FINANCE MINISTER
all of the company in 2000. At the time, this
unusual move of nationalising a defence asset
was described as a temporary measure while
certain intellectual property ownership issues
were sorted out. It was also to allow the RAN to
receive sensitive US submarine technology. An
assessment was made at the time that the US
would not have been prepared to release this
technology had ASC not been fully Australian
owned. This view is still held by many, though
not all, analysts and will continue to be a factor
in the future ownership structure of ASC.
The Minister continued:
“All of these issues have been worked on
during the course of 2008, and I hope that we will
be able to proceed in the not too distant future.
“However, given the wider market climate
that has been evident these last few months,
there naturally haven’t been too many reasons
for getting it on the auction block quickly – if
anything, quite the contrary.
“Under the circumstances, I can’t commit
to a specific timetable but fundamentally the
position of the Government has not changed.
Commenting on share market volatility, the
Minister said:
“There hasn’t been a conscious decision to
delay. I’d like to explain it in a slightly different
way: if ever there had been any reason for haste,
that reason has very much melted away.
“And frankly that’s not a bad thing because
we are dealing with some very complicated and
very sensitive issues. It is vital we get this right
because we are not talking just about who builds
future submarines, but it has wider implications
for defence and national security interests.
“We also have to keep in mind budgetary issues,
and how much as a nation we might have to pay
for future capabilities. The range of options
for Governments on some of these capabilities
is fairly narrow, so we have a responsibility to
take that into account. We are conscious of the
fact that the decisions we will make will have
consequences for the next Government and
even the one after that.
Discussing the position of ASC in the defence
market, the Minister observed:
“ASC will certainly be an attractive proposition
for a purchaser, there is absolutely no doubt
about that.”
He indicated that the Government will
broadly follow the sale guidelines published by
his predecessor, Senator Nick Minchin in 2006.
These stipulate 51% Australian ownership, a
majority of Australian citizens on the Board, and
the headquarters of the company remaining
in Australia, and a number of other national
interest matters. In this regard, the sale of
ASC will have similar provisions to those of
some other sales, such as of QANTAS (which is
enshrined in an Act of Parliament).
Commenting on final responsibility for the
sale, Lindsay Tanner explained:
“Ultimately, this will be a decision for Cabinet,
via the National Security Committee. I don’t
think it is a problem that both the Defence
Minister and I are involved in the process. We
have already had a number of discussions about
this, and the relevant parts of our respective
Departments have been working closely on the
detail for quite some time.
“Anything of this kind becomes a team effort
and typically any privatisation – like, say, that of
Telstra – involves a number of parties. To use that
example, the Department of Finance provides
the mechanism, particularly for the sale process,
but the line Department – Communications –
which is in charge of policy issues, was a key
player.
“In just the same way, Defence will be central
to the privatisation of ASC.”
Asked about the philosophy behind the sale
of a Government-owned asset, the Minister
observed:
“For me it’s not a question of ideology. ASC
was originally privately owned and that is a
better structure than to have a Government
owned entity competing for Government work
against the private sector. That kind of thing can
be managed – there are ways of dealing with it –
but it does tend to complicate things.
“Our general view is that it would be better for
all concerned if ASC were being run according to
ordinary private sector disciplines. This would
be preferable to having me as a shareholder
trying to mimic those private sector disciplines
to achieve particular outcomes.
“To put it another way, we don’t see any reason
why it should remain publicly owned.”
The Minister went on to discuss a number of
other technical issues relating to the Defence
budget, including the use of the Non-Farm GDP
Inflator. This is part of the present methodology
used for calculating how much Defence receives
annually, and some analysts argue that its use has
provided the Department with an unexpected
multi-million dollar windfall:
“It’s a mechanism which we have inherited
from the previous Government. We are now well
into the Defence white paper process, which
covers everything – including this. It is meant
to be an accurate way of calculating actual cost
increases over the long term.
“The problem that has emerged recently is
that with the enormous fluctuations in our terms
of trade, we are in unusual times. Because
of the recent enormous swing in the terms of
trade towards us, this has fed straight into that
calculation and has provided a notional windfall
to Defence.
]
“But now that the pendulum is swinging the
other way it does raise a question about whether
this indicator is more volatile than is desirable.
“To be honest, I don’t have a particular view on
it. The thing that makes Defence different from
some other areas of Government is that we have
to make plans for the very long term. This means
that we need some kind of reference point that
tells you how much you will have available to
spend a long way down the track.
“No-one is hung up about any particular
indicator for its own sake; the real question
is ‘what is it likely to produce?’ The truth is
that there will never be an absolutely perfect
mechanism. Whatever you chose will have
pluses and minuses. I’ll reserve judgment and
see what comes out of the white paper process.”
Reflecting on other issues such as the
dramatic fall in the value of the Australian
dollar and what that might mean for Defence,
the Minister said:
“The Government essentially self-insures and
therefore over the long haul things even out.
I haven’t personally done the analysis, but I
think you will find that over broad timeframes
the losses are cancelled out by the gains. You
will find that over the recent years with some
defence purchases and the higher dollar, we
have made some gains. And while the dollar
has now gone down, we don’t know where it
will be in two months time, let alone two years
from now.
“However, this is something I raised in
Opposition and I think it’s something we will
have to give further thought to, even though
I’m not saying there is a need for change. But
given the current world circumstances and the
inevitable effects on how global financial markets
will function in the future, some re-evaluation
will occur.
“It’s not unreasonable for all major entities
which are exposed to factors such as exchange
rate variations to be asking the question: ‘As the
world has changed, are our existing arrangements
still the best which are available?’
“So I think it makes sense for us at some point
in the not too distant future to look at these
issues. It’s a bit too early to do that just yet
because we don’t know what the reconfigured
global financial landscape is going to look like,
but at some point it will be appropriate to take
stock.
“Exchange rate is not the only issue. There
will inevitably be a number of matters about
which the Government will need to examine the
implications of present circumstances for how
business is done.
“Having said that, it’s not good to get overexcited about short-term fluctuations when
dealing with very long-term projects.” APDR
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 11
[ NEW ZEALAND
HANK SCHOUTEN
WELLINGTON
A worried new Kiwi Defence Minister
T
The new Minister
WAYNE MAPP WEBSITE
here’s a distinct note of concern in the
Wellington Beehive office of New Zealand’s
new Defence Minister Wayne Mapp. A week
after he was sworn in as a Cabinet Minister
in the National Coalition Government, he
was given his first briefings by Defence Force Chief Jerry
Mateparae and Defence Secretary John McKinnon.
Suddenly, the concerns he had as Opposition
defence spokesman were crystallised and explained in
all their complexity.
As an MP for 12 years but new to Cabinet
responsibility, Mapp is worried by one particularly
troubled acquisition project and at how stretched
the armed forces are by operational deployments,
personnel shortages and platform upgrade projects.
On top of this, he knows that there will be no extra
money. The global financial meltdown and worries
about a deepening recession overshadow everything
and a restrained Defence budget will be choked even
more by a steep decline in the value of the New
Zealand dollar.
One of Mapp’s biggest immediate concerns is
resolving a nasty scrap with BAE Systems over Project
Protector, the $NZ500 million contract to supply the
Navy with its new multi-role ship (HMNZS Canterbury),
two offshore patrol craft (Otago and Wellington) and
four inshore patrol craft.
Delivered last year, HMNZS Canterbury is subject
to a raft of warranty claims that have spilled over to
the other vessels, all of which are overdue and not yet
being offered for delivery by the manufacturer.
There is a dispute over the Gemini rigid-hulled
inflatable boats [RHIB] which have been rejected
because of safety issues experienced on HMNZS
Canterbury. The Navy has since bought replacement
Zodiacs for HMNZS Canterbury and wants them for
the other vessels as well.
There are other issues with HMNZS Canterbury –
the vulnerability of the RHIB alcoves and the need
for additional ballast to reduce her rate of roll. And it
Rescue, made by
12 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
NEW ZEALAND
now appears that the 1,700-tonne HMNZS Otago is too heavy – not enough
allowance has been made for the weight of extra equipment that is expected
to be added to the ship over its life.
Tens of millions of dollars are understood to be at stake in the warranty
claims that have now dragged on for the best part of a year. Mapp will not
give a figure beyond saying, “…it’s quite a bit,” and he blames the previous
Government for choosing the wrong multi-role ship option.
“There are contractual issues and legal issues involved here. We’re having
to fix a problem that we inherited from the previous Government and the
previous Government needs to take responsibility for that, particularly
around the Canterbury.”
Fortunately, Mapp only has to deliver on one relatively inexpensive
manifesto promise – “…to publish a White Paper in our first year in
Government to provide a fresh look at the best use of our Defence Force’s
capabilities.”
There is little indication of what’s in store – there are no terms of reference
– but the broad brush of party policy suggests no dramatic change. National
long ago dropped its promise to reinstate the air combat wing or amend New
Zealand’s anti-nuclear law and instead went into the election saying there
was now a broad consensus on foreign policy and defence issues.
It instead talked of “…emphasising a requirement for agile forces
deployable at long range with relatively short notice” and, “…focused on
specific and specialist capabilities that reflect our defence expertise.”
Mapp says a White Paper is overdue.
“Ten years has elapsed since Defence Beyond 2000, we’ve had a substantial
range of deployments … there have been serious and challenging issues
]
around procurement and serious and challenging issues around the inability
of defence to meet the outputs Government has expected of them.”
One issue he expects the White Paper to look at is where savings can be
made so that money can be released for defence priorities.
However, that will not include revenue from the closure and sale of
Auckland’s Whenuapai Air Base, in his own electorate, which he has vowed
to keep.
There have been question marks over the Base for six years since the
air combat wing was disbanded. The Air Force was planning to close
Whenuapai, moving all its operations to Ohakea in the lower North Island,
but that is now highly unlikely.
Mapp, an Associate Professor of commercial law at Auckland University
before he went into politics, has a long-term interest in defence going back
to his days when he was a Territorial Army Officer. While he is also Minister
of Research, Science and Technology, he will have ACT Party member
Heather Roy as an associate. They have not yet worked out how they will
divide responsibilities, but she clearly has an interest in the cadet forces and
the territorial.
However, both are actually low ranking ministers – she is near the bottom
and he is 13th on the list and not regarded as a high flyer – and it is hard to
see defence commanding the level of interest, let alone the funding, that
Labour has committed over the last nine years.
Where policy was largely driven by former Prime Minister Helen Clark,
there is no sign that new Prime Minister John Key (a 47-year-old former
money trader) has any interest in defence beyond its cost in troubled
economic times. APDR
EADS.
Every year, thousands of people worldwide owe their lives to the search and rescue
capabilities of a Eurocopter. Just one example of the vital role that EADS technologies play
in the world‘s emergency services. Navigation systems, to guide help to where it‘s needed.
Satellite surveillance, to warn of natural disasters. Secure communications, to provide a
lifeline between rescuers and people in need. We make the systems, we make them work
together, and the survivors live to tell the tale. | www.eads.com/madebyeads
AIRBUS A380
EUROCOPTER EC135
A400M
EUROFIGHTER
METEOR
GALILEO
ARIANE 5
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 13
25
[ FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
NORMAN FRIEDMAN WASHINGTON
Diesel Electric
Submarines: What’s Next?
T
he Royal Australian Navy is beginning
to think about its next-generation
submarine.
Some countries in
Southeast Asia are thinking about
their first. What options are open
to them?
The first point must be that all submarines
offer one basic virtue, stealth, but they can use
it in different ways. Stealth makes it possible to
operate on a sustained basis within waters an
enemy nominally controls.
The original purpose of submarines was to
use their presence to threaten enemy shipping
with torpedoes. A modern derivative is to use it
to threaten the use of land attack missiles, such
as the U.S. Tomahawk or the Russian Klub or
Alfa. Yet another purpose, vitally important to
the Cold War U.S. and Royal Navies, and almost
certainly to the Royal Australian Navy, is strategic
surveillance. It is often said that although
aircraft and satellites can collect almost all
signals, their presence is known, and the most
important signals are often turned off when they
are overhead. The operation of a truly stealthy
collection platform is not affected.
Submarines also seem to be ideal platforms
for launching special operations, because of
both their invisibility and their ability to operate
far from home. Again, a special aircraft might be
a better means of delivery, but it can be seen at
its air base, and the likely victim warned.
In theory, any submarine can perform any
of these tasks. However, a navy buying a
submarine faces real choices. The best torpedo
submarine is probably the smallest, because it
presents the smallest sonar target. However,
Submarines are continually becoming stealthier.
HDW/YPS
14 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
the smallest submarine will have a limited
weapons load, and it might be difficult to justify
substituting a few cruise missiles for many of
the available torpedoes. Small size also might
preclude an adequate sensor outfit, or space
for those processing it. Also, it might make
it nearly impossible to accommodate special
forces in sufficient numbers. These factors
tend to push up the sizes (and costs) of modern
diesel-electric submarines.
Another factor is the threat that the
submarines face. At one time, anti-submarine
warfare was essentially reactive: a submariner
had to reckon with escorts, or perhaps with
enemy submarines lurking off his base. Once
he was in the open sea, he was unlikely to
be approached or attacked. During the Cold
War, the U.S. demonstrated that submarines
could be detected at remarkable ranges, with
SOSUS [Sound Surveillance System]. Maritime
patrol aircraft (like the U.S. P-3 and the British
Nimrod) were designed specifically to exploit
SOSUS detections. During the Cold War, the
Soviets tried to build an equivalent of SOSUS,
and bought maritime patrol aircraft (Il-38 “May”
and Tu-142 “Bear-F”) specifically to work with it.
Their system had nothing like SOSUS range, and
it did not enter service until the end of the Cold
War. However, it had the interesting feature of
being active rather than passive, which suggests
that it can detect even the quietest diesel-electric
submarines operating on battery power.
This Dnestr system has been advertised for
several years. No sales have been reported, at
least in the open press, but it would certainly be
suitable to countries like China. Other countries,
such as Indonesia, have reportedly bought
underwater surveillance systems in the recent
past, but details are unknown. They might be
no more than a means of detecting surface
traffic through internal straits, or they may offer
something like mini-SOSUS performance. It is
suggestive that no South Asian power other than
India (which long had them) has been investing
heavily in long-range maritime surveillance
aircraft, although the Chinese do have a very few
(perhaps only seven) maritime patrol aircraft.
The fixed threat question affects a major
emerging technology, Air Independent
Propulsion [AIP].
A pure diesel-electric
submarine generally cannot operate for more
than about 24 hours on battery power, and even
then only at very low speed. She periodically
snorkels (runs her diesels) to top up her battery
and, incidentally, to draw breathing air inboard.
The reason is the very limited energy content
of existing batteries compared to fuel burning
in air.
At present the major AIP choices are the
German fuel cell (in Type 214 and related
designs), the Swedish Stirling engine (burning
stored oxygen), and the French MESMA steam
engine. The Russians are offering a variety of
options, including a very small nuclear reactor,
which has been tested on board a “Juliett.”
All of the Western options have been bought
for operational submarines. In each case, AIP
offers a small fraction of full power, sufficient
to cruise for several weeks at perhaps five or
six knots. To date, the most spectacular AIP
demonstration was a German cruise all the way
to the Mediterranean without snorkelling.
Advocates of AIP point out that a dieselelectric submarine is at its most vulnerable
whilst snorkelling, hence that the submarines
can survive in a forward area for weeks without
being detected. However, a submarine is
detectable whilst snorkelling only if someone
is listening.
If only the U.S. has big passive arrays
(actually, mainly relocatable ones, now that
SOSUS has largely been decommissioned),
then few submarines are likely to be affected.
In the Pacific, Japan and probably Australia
and Korea, and perhaps Taiwan, shared SOSUS
or similar technology. For anyone planning
to operate near them, AIP would be a major
bargain. However, if the technology in question
is the Russian active sonar, it is not so clear that
avoiding snorkelling is so very important. The
Russian system can operate passively, but its
pings do not much care whether a submarine
is near the surface. It might even be arguable
that a submarine snorkelling near the surface
is less detectable by a pinger than one in the
body of the water. For that matter, a submarine
operating in the open sea might find it easiest to
simply surface when snorkelling, simulating a
diesel merchant ship. The Russians did just that
during the Cold War.
Subsequently, the AIP question might really
be whether some evolved version of AIP offers
a worthwhile jump in high- or medium-speed
endurance. Some years ago, in advertising
advanced versions of the British Upholder,
Vickers suggested that the time would soon
come when a submarine could rely entirely on
a fuel cell for propulsion. Such a craft would
be large for a non-nuclear submarine, but that
might be acceptable.
About thirty years ago, it was estimated that
a 6,000 ton submarine with a fuel cell could
operate for about two weeks at 14 knots. Since
then fuel cells have become significantly more
efficient; they are probably more efficient than
engines burning their fuel in air. If, as many
expect, fuel cell automobiles become popular,
their development will probably drive up fuel
cell efficiency – how far is not clear. In that case,
the fully AIP submarine, using a fuel cell, might
]
well become an interesting possibility. It might
be particularly valuable for sustained presence
off an enemy coast.
Such a submarine would probably have a low
maximum speed, below that of current dieselelectric submarines (albeit sustainable for far
longer). However, that might be acceptable if the
main role of the submarine were surveillance or
land attack rather than torpedo attack. Torpedo
attack inevitably invites counter-attack, and it
makes a quick burst of speed invaluable. The
other roles make the burst of speed a lot less
important.
Another possibility, which has been discussed
for some time, is that polymer injection might
dramatically reduce a submarine’s underwater
resistance. Obviously the capacity for such
substances can never be very great, but perhaps
a combination of a future AIP system and the
polymers would provide both long endurance
at reasonable speed (say 14 or 15 knots) plus the
ability to make a few escapes after attacks, or
while under pursuit. This is only a possibility;
no navy has yet produced a polymer submarine.
However, if we are looking ahead, it cannot be
discounted.
Another possible effect of using polymers
would be to increase the submarine designer’s
freedom in choosing a hull form. Current
submarines all follow a more or less bodyof-revolution form first tested on board USS
Albacore in the 1950s. It was adopted at
the time because it was so clearly the most
efficient from a propulsion point of view: for a
given power level it offered the highest speed.
However, it imposes an inefficient internal
arrangement, particularly for a small submarine
with a single continuous deck. If internal space
becomes much more important, it might be
advantageous to select some alternative, such
as a flatter form enclosing several pressure
hull cylinders side by side. That having been
said, it should be added that the USS Albacore
form was attractive because of its inherent
underwater dynamic stability. Submarines of
more conventional forms, such as the wartime
German Type XXI and the postwar US Guppy,
had problems maintaining their depth. Again,
it seems reasonable to imagine that automated
control systems will do far better, and thus
will justify different hull forms. A few years
ago, Electric Boat displayed just such a hull
form, to gain internal volume without accepting
excessive length (which would cause problems
in shallow water).
The other obvious platform development is
higher-strength materials, perhaps ultimately
non-metallic, which would dramatically reduce
the proportion of submarine weight attributable
to the pressure hull. Such materials have been
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 15
[ FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
predicted for years, but their development
has generally been slower than expected. For
example, in the US Los Angeles class greater
power was bought at the expense of pressure
hull weight (i.e. strength). This step was justified
on the ground that the necessary strength would
soon be regained as a new material came into
service – but it was late, and the submariners
had to accept reduced depth performance.
However, it is not clear how serious a loss that
was.
Even the weaker hulls could still operate
comfortably below the layer in the Atlantic,
which in summer is about 600 ft deep. Even had
the stronger hulls been available, they could not
have operated at the next important depth, the
deep sound layer perhaps 5,000 ft down. Even
the Russians, with their titanium hulls, have not
claimed operating depths that great (they claim
16 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
using unmanned vehicles.
In effect an unmanned undersea vehicle [UUV]
is an extension of a submarine. A submarine
probing a hostile area can send a UUV into
harm’s way, programming it to search the area.
For example, the U.S. Navy became interested in
minefield reconnaissance (not mine-hunting)
as a way to guide its battle groups away from
hostile minefields. It imagined sending a
submarine into an area to prepare the battle
space by surveying possible minefields, keeping
in mind that most countries have only finite
inventories of mines, particularly those effective
in the deep water where a carrier battle group
would operate. In this model, the submarine
used its UUV to conduct the survey, created a
map of the area, and then retired to burst this
information by satellite back to the battle group
and other interested parties.
DEFENCETALK.COM
RAN Collins Class.
one kilometre for a “Mike”) – and these hulls
proved far too expensive for series production.
The most important near-term development for
submarines is probably the advent of unmanned
vehicles, both underwater and airborne. In
the late 1990s, an additional factor was added:
reliable acoustic communication with muchincreased information capacity. For example,
in the U.S., Lockheed Martin Sanders (now BAE
Sanders) demonstrated communication at 35
mile range. As in earlier successes with highcapacity HF radio, the key was to use a computer
to overcome the multi-path and other effects of
the medium through which the signal passes.
In Australia, Nautronix demonstrated a longrange low data rate technique, HAIL (HydroAcoustic Information Link). Both techniques
are now operational, and both have important
implications for future submarine operations
FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
]
Portable – Precise – Fast
@ZZe^c\igVX`d[hZXjg^in"Xg^i^XVah^\cVahl^i]i]ZGHœEG&%%edgiVWaZgZXZ^kZg#
U;gZfjZcXngVc\Z.`=oid,#*<=o
Submarines are expensive – long gone are the days when hundreds of
them were a minor expense. Given the small numbers of submarines
any country can operate, UUVs become interesting as a force multiplier.
A single submarine operating several UUVs can be, in effect, in
several places at once. Inspired by the dramatic improvement in
underwater communications, the U.S. Navy’s Underwater Systems
Center conceived an armed UUV it called “Manta.” Manta nestled on
the bow of a submarine in a conformal position (the Center’s model
showed four of them) until launched. It had enough endurance to
operate for days within acoustic range of the mother submarine. In a
video produced by the Center, a submarine was assigned to block an
enemy port with several entrances. One Manta was assigned to each.
Given acoustic communication, the mother submarine could order
a Manta to torpedo a particular target detected and evaluated by the
UUV.
Whether or not Manta was practicable (the main question was the
energy source), the idea suggests that future submarines should be
large enough to operate multiple UUVs, simply because numbers so
dramatically enlarge its effective area. Surely this idea applies strongly
to the surveillance mission. Surveillance is often electronic, and ideally
it is conducted close inshore. It seems far better to use an expensive
submarine, complete with valuable operators, as a command station
than as the actual surveillance platform. Multiplying the number of
platforms would make it possible to place them closer to the sources of
the signals, and that in turn would justify using simpler and less visible
antenna arrays. Again, this is not an entirely new idea; a few years ago
the U.S. EDO company displayed a poster of a UUV system at a Navy
League Show.
A submarine can certainly launch an unmanned air vehicle [UAV],
though retrieval is likely to be more difficult than for an UVV. Many
years ago, the U.S. Navy (and, presumably, the CIA) designed but
probably did not build a small airplane which could also function as
a submarine. Again, presumably the idea was that it could carry out
covert missions from a submarine, without requiring the submarine
to surface. This study certainly suggests that it would be possible to
launch and recover a device as a UUV, while flying it to and from a
target. Such a device would certainly offer interesting reconnaissance
capabilities. At one time, the U.S. Navy was interested in a swarm of
micro-UAVs, which a submarine might release to blanket a target area’s
cell phone network by settling on cell phone relay antennas. Since
many Third World countries rely almost entirely on cell phones, such a
blanket would be quite useful. It might also be relatively covert.
Again, whilst the submarine might gain by operating single unmanned
vehicles, the possibility of leveraging its presence by operating multiple
ones simultaneously would seem a lot more attractive. That in turn
suggests the advantage associated with size in surveillance. Current
UUVs displace torpedoes, and at least the U.S. Navy’s current UUV
retrieval system requires the surrender of a pair of tubes. Future UUVs
might be carried externally, if servicing could be foregone during a
mission (torpedoes used to be carried externally, too, but a full patrol
usually ruined them). All of this of course raises the question of the
submarine’s energy supply, e.g. to process and then transmit whatever
the unmanned vehicles collect. It might be that nuclear power would
be associated with a UUV future.
Another way to think of a UUV is as a detached submarine sensor.
For example, diesel submarines are inherently quiet when on batteries,
so it is generally assumed that they are best detected by active sonars
– whose emissions reveal the presence of the submarine or surface
ship hunting them. A remote UUV might operate in conjunction with
remote pingers launched by a submarine. The usual argument against
U+ÉÉXdadgY^heaVnl^i]Xdci^cjdjhankVg^VWaZWVX`a^\]i^c\
UBdc^idg^c\d[h]dgi"YjgVi^dcVcY[gZfjZcXn"]dee^c\h^\cVah
U=^\]hXVcheZZYVXgdhhZci^gZ[gZfjZcXngVc\Zjeid'#%<=o$h
U=^\]"hZch^i^k^inh^\cVaegdXZhh^c\i]ViYZiZXih
gZbdiZ^\c^i^dcYZk^XZhZkZc^chiVcYWnbdYZ
UIdcZ[jcXi^dci]ViVXdjhi^XVaan\j^YZhgZhXjZ
eZghdccZal]ZcZbZg\ZcXnigVchb^iiZgh
VgZYZiZXiZY
www.rohde-schwarz.com.au
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 29
DCN
[ FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
Scorpene: purchased by Pakistan.
such multi-static sensing is that the pings
bounce off the listening submarine, and thus
can be used by the target to detect the hunter.
If the pings are sufficiently coded, they might be
semi-covert. If the listener is far enough from
the hunter, connected only by covert acoustic
communication links, then whatever the victim
hears will probably do it little good. In a shallow
littoral area, much the same can be said of
a submarine laying bottom (upward-looking)
sensors as a way of detecting enemy activity.
These sensors would be passive; they would
detect the unavoidable sound of the target
submarine passing overhead. Each would have
a very short range, but a series of lines of sensors
would be effective. The U.S. Navy is currently
interested in just this approach. Again, it would
require a combination of stowage capacity
and processing capacity on board the hunting
submarine. The associated weapon might be
a long-range torpedo or even a rocket-boosted
torpedo like the old U.S. SUBROC.
That brings us to sensors. The first point to
keep in mind is that the submarine combat
direction system determines how well the
submarine can use the widest possible variety
of sensors. The more kinds of sensors she uses,
the more she benefits from a more numerous
combat team, which again suggests the virtue of
size and energy content. At present the newest
submarine sensor is the optronic mast. Its most
obvious advantage over a periscope is that there
is no longer any need for a physical connection
between masthead and control room. In the
U.S. Virginia class, the control space has been
18 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
moved down a deck, where the submarine is
widest, for just this reason. By extension, there
is no need for the optronic sensor to be attached
directly to the submarine. It might be placed in
a remote pod, connected by, say, a fibre-optic
tether. As long as the pod knew where it was
relative to the submarine, it could function like
an optronic mast – without the disadvantage
that spotting it would tell a hunter exactly where
the submarine was. A submarine might even
deploy multiple pods.
During the latter years of the Cold War, the
Russians deployed another kind of submarine
sensor, a collection of non-acoustic devices.
For example, many Victor III class submarines
had scoops atop their sails. Water passing
through was examined for its chemistry and
for its transparency. The theory was apparently
that the wake of a distant submarine could
be distinguished from the surrounding water.
If that could be done, the Victor could track
down such a submarine. Later Russian ships
showed both scoops and small hull pods for
this purpose (not the towed array pods right
aft). The Russian system has never been offered
for export, and indeed no name was ever given
for it – but some Russian books do provide very
limited descriptions. There is no indication
of whether it was particularly successful.
Many U.S. and British submarines now show
environmental sensors on or near their sails,
which might have a similar function – or which
might help the submarine commander to find
waters in which the Russian-style sensor will
be much less effective. On balance, it seems
that non-acoustics in some form will be added
to the submarine arsenal at some time in the
future, though probably mainly for submarines
fast enough to catch those they detect in this
way. In case anyone imagines that the Russians
engineered a decisive breakthrough, it is well
to keep in mind that their submarines have
shown larger and larger acoustic sensors in
more recent classes.
Finally, a word on weapons – the most
spectacular change has been the increasing
use of land-attack missiles, mainly cruise
missiles like Tomahawk. In some cases, such as
Sub-Harpoon or Sub-Exocet, they are designed
to sink surface ships (the Russians alone have
missiles for attacking other submarines).
The limit on range for such weapons seems
to be the submarine’s own sensor range, and
probably the U.S. Cold War judgement that it
is 60 miles or less is still valid. For a submarine
to attack at greater ranges, with any reasonable
chance of success, requires cooperation with
an external ship-tracking system. The Cold
War U.S. Navy deployed just such a system,
although its efficacy was always in some doubt
(it could not necessarily detect many other
nearby ships, which would have attracted some
missiles). Currently, the Chinese probably have
some sort of ship-tracker, as evidenced by the
interception of USS Kitty Hawk by one of their
diesel-electric submarines, but it is not clear
how good it is. The point is that submarines are
not isolated systems. To exploit some of their
potential requires considerable investment in
external systems designed to support them, not
to mention good real-time communication – a
very difficult proposition, but perhaps worth
the effort. Unfortunately, for anyone trying to
follow this technology, it tends to be dramatically
unheralded.
The other weapon which has attracted
enormous recent interest is the Russian Shkval
rocket torpedo, capable of 200 knots at a range
of about 10 km. Currently Shkval is an unguided
missile, and the limited precision of the sonar
guiding it suggests that it is relatively ineffective.
Only a periscope (or an associated search radar)
would give anything like enough precision,
which suggests that periscope detection will
be an increasingly interesting ASW measure.
Probably wake-following torpedoes, which
are increasingly available, are a much more
effective weapon against surface ships. Space
precludes any extensive discussion of mines,
beyond the point that, the wider the variety of
weapons, the more that internal volume matters
in a submarine, because numbers of weapons
become vital. APDR
Mercedes-Benz
INSUPPORT
Mercedes-Benz has a long and successful association with the Department of
Defence supplying vehicles ranging from Mercedes-Benz cross-country G wagons
to Unimogs and special built Actros fuel tankers.
Mobile support in every sense of the word.
With its worldwide reputation for engineering excellence, vast automotive
research and development resources, and its advanced safety and technological
skills, Mercedes-Benz has the global resources to best meet the demands of
specialised clientele.
For more information on Mercedes-Benz military
vehicles call (03) 9566 9266
[ ISRAEL
GOLD COAST
ABRAHAM GUBLER G
Israel Sails East:
the expansion of Israeli naval
power into the Indian Ocean
I
srael is well known for the effectiveness
of their army and air force; proven during
60 years of conflict with the rest of the
Middle East since the independence of
their state. Receiving less recognition is
Israel’s naval power. The Israeli Sea Corps (aka
Israeli Navy) of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF)
is respected as a professional and innovative
force but due to its small size and apparent
limited aims as a coastal defence force does not
receive much attention amongst global naval
forces. This is about to change because of an
unprecedented expansion of the Israeli Navy to
meet the changing circumstances of the threat
to survival of the State of Israel.
Being acquired, or seriously considered for
acquisition, for the Israeli Navy are up to three
additional Dolphin class submarines and four
new Freedom class littoral combat ships (LCS) or
frigates. Also the Israeli Air Force has requested
up to 50 Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II
short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) strike
fighters able to be operated from the flight decks
of basic aircraft-carrying ships. The new vessels
will not be replacing older systems but are a
direct increase in the force structure of the Israeli
Navy.
The need for this expansion is to provide Israel
with a military capability to deter and defeat
aggression from Iran that has committed itself
to international leadership of the destruction
of the “Zionist Entity”; its name for Israel. The
Islamic Republic of Iran has since the 1979
Red Sea from Israel.
20 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
Islamic Revolution made clear its enmity to
Israel and in recent years made a series of direct
threats. Combined with the development of an
intermediate range ballistic missile force under
command of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (aka
the Pásdárán) and the threat of Iran developing
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the central
importance for Israel of defending against Iran
is clear.
HORIZONTAL THREAT ACCESS
The focus on naval forces comes as a direct
response to the changing nature of the threat
to Israeli with Iran emerging as the both the
major direct military threat and supporter of
non-state threats like Hezbollah in Lebanon.
This has been labeled the “horizontal axis” in
Israel where a connecting line from Iran through
Syria to Hezbollah and Hamas has been drawn.
This axis contrasts to the previous “vertical axis”
threat of Egypt, Jordan and Syria that provided
the mainstay of opponents for the conventional
Arab-Israeli Wars: the War of Independence in
1948, Suez Canal Crisis in 1957, Six Day War in
1968 and Yom Kippur War in 1973.
Apart from the geographic differences of the
new threat axis it is characterized by radicalism
compared to the pragmatic realism of much of
the vertical axis. This saw peaceful resolutions
of the Arab-Israeli dispute with both Egypt and
Jordon once acceptable territorial divisions were
found. The radical horizontal axis is committed
to destruction of the State of Israel primarily for
religious purposes rather than the historical,
primarily land based disputes.
This creates a far more complex strategic
environment for Israel with the threat moving
from massed armies and air forces on her borders
to ballistic missiles located 1,500km away deep in
Iran and separated by non-contiguous national
territories. For Israel to strike at Iran the IDF
needs to either operate over or through other
nations that may not be involved, such as Jordan
and Iraq or turn to the freedom of the high seas.
RED SEA GEOGRAPHY
Geographically Israeli is clearly focused on the
Mediterranean Sea but the city of Eliat provides
a port on the ‘other’ side of the Eurasia-Africa
continental mass and a direct link to the Gulf of
Aqaba. The Gulf of Aqaba is part of the Red Sea
and through this waterway the ocean joins the
Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf
and the Indian Ocean. The Straits of Hormuz
are roughly 5,600km (3,100 NM) sailing distance
from Eliat or 6,100km (3,390 NM) from Haifa
through the Suez Canal. From both ports the
Persian Gulf is an easy two week sail at cruising
speed (10-12 knots) for submarines and surface
ships. This is two thirds of the distance from
Fremantle, WA to the Persian Gulf.
Since the 1979 Egyptian–Israeli Peace Treaty
Israel has free passage through Egypt’s Suez Canal
enabling a direct link from the Mediterranean
Sea. The Straits of Tiran, that link the Gulf of
Aqaba and the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aqaba
ISRAEL
]
LOCKHEED MARTIN
LOCKHEED MARTIN
Navy has a high level of experience in operating
in these waters and further afield and while kept
low key this experience is instrumental to their
new strategy for fighting Iran.
IRAN WAR STRATEGY
Israel’s new big fleet.
were also recognised by Egypt as international
waterways. This provides Israel with the ability
to base naval forces in the Mediterranean and
Eliat and freely access the Red Sea.
The Israeli Navy is no stranger to the Red Sea
having dominated it during the conflict with
Egypt after the seizing of the Sinai Peninsula in
1967. While heavily outnumbered Israeli naval
commandos used special tactics during the
1968-69 War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War
to destabilise and eventually force conventional
Egyptian naval forces further south. Noteworthy
actions included the Green Island Raid in which
an Egyptian sea fort was razed following the
world’s first underwater amphibious assault.
Israeli naval commandos also launched multiple
raids on the Red Sea Port of Al Ghardaka (aka
Hurghada) destroying Komar class fast attackmissile craft.
After the peace with Egypt Israel maintained
operations in the Red Sea primarily associated
with the transfer of thousands of Ethiopian Jews
to Israel. The Israeli landing ship, tank (LST)
INS Bat-Sheva was disguised as a civilian vessel
for several clandestine recovery missions from
the Sudanese coast before being withdrawn for
operations in the 1982 Lebanon War. In 2002
Israeli commandos also seized the Palestinian
freighter Karine A in the Red Sea some 500km
from Israel as it was carrying 50 tonnes of
weapons.
The Israeli presence in the Red Sea has not
always being glorious with the 1981 running
aground of the INS Gash in Saudi Arabia. This
Sa’ar 3 class fast attack-missile craft was recovered
without interference by the Saudis and repaired
in Eliat and returned to service. But the Israeli
The use of the high seas will provide the IDF with
a capacity to launch attacks and intelligence
gathering missions against Iran without having
to overfly third part territory. While current
Israeli plans and exercises are focusing heavily
on the air option the eventually withdrawal of
the US from Iraq will complicate any attempts to
use the Jordanian-Iraq air corridor to access Iran
in the future.
With a naval force in the Persian Gulf or Arabian
Sea Israel can launch sea based missile attacks
against Iranian ballistic missile sites as well as
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(ISR) assets like unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
and naval commandos. These forces would
importantly provide a persistent presence to
support air strikes and through the use of cruise
missile armed submarines a stealthily force in
being able to strike or counter attack without
warning.
Any Israeli presence would be greatly assisted
by the significant US Navy and coalition naval
forces in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea that
would significantly frustrate any Iranian attempt
to force Israel from international waters near her
coastline. If Israel can sustain a naval presence in
the Persian Gulf
However much of the Israeli Navy’s fleet has
been focused on short range missions in the
Mediterranean. The long transits required to
travel to and from the Persian Gulf and the
capability to sustain a presence away from
close distances to bases are conventional for
many fleets but not the Israeli Navy. The new
force structure developments, doubling the
submarines and acquiring four ocean going
frigates, are the first significant steps for the
Israeli Navy to develop this capability.
SUBMARINES FOR PERSIAN WATERS
The first three 1,640 tonne (surfaced) Dolphin
class
diesel-electric
submarines
were
commissioned in 1998-2000 and were equipped
Israel looks East.
with four 650mm torpedo tubes in addition to
their six conventional 533mm tubes. The large
weapon launchers have been reported as being
for launching 1,500km range Rafael Popeye
Turbo cruise missiles and the conventional
tubes can launch Boeing UGM-84 Sub-Harpoon
missiles with a land attack capability in their
Block II version.
In 2006 the Israeli Navy ordered three
additional Dophin class submarines to be based
on the Type 214 submarine technology with air
independent propulsion (AIP) and enhanced
land attack capability. The first two submarines
have been ordered with Germany paying up to
a third of the projected 1.3 billion euro cost. The
first is expected to be delivered in 2012 and the
third submarine remains an option.
The Dolphin class should be able to conduct
70 day patrols with enough fuel to sail up
to 15,000km (8,000 NM) using its snorkel to
recharge the ship’s batteries and maintain a
transit speed of 10 knots submerged. This would
enable submarines based in Haifa to patrol the
Persian Gulf for 40 days out of every patrol with
a submerged transit.
Even using dual crews with a 25 day turnaround
period (plus time for periodic and major refits)
between patrols with only three submarines
the Israeli Navy can only just manage to sustain
a single Persian Gulf patrol throughout the
year. This leaves only a single surplus patrol
per annum for training and a Mediterranean
presence which is clearly unacceptable. This
shortfall is driving the need for the additional
submarines.
With the two additional contracted submarines
Israel can sustain a constant presence in the
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 21
[ ISRAEL
LOCKHEED MARTIN
friendly base is likely to be Mumbai in India which is about 1,500km (800
NM) from the Straits of Hormuz. While many of the Arab Gulf States are lax
in their legal State of War against Israel it require an open state of war with
Iran before they could offer any noticeable support to the Israeli Navy.
IS THERE AN ISRAELI CARRIER?
F-35B’s first customer?
Persian Gulf with eight additional 70 day patrols for training, Mediterranean
operations and boosting the presence in Iranian waters. With the full six
submarines two can be maintained in the Persian Gulf along with two
additional patrols, enabling a very high level presence in extended periods
of high tension, or a balanced approach with both a significant Indian
Ocean and Mediterranean Sea presence.
Conventional diesel-electric submarines with high quality systems and
crews like the Israeli boats are highly capable intelligence gathering assets.
With a sustained presence very close to Iranian shores they will be able to
provide Israel with considerable targeting information and the ability to
strike. This could include attacks with missiles against land targets with
almost no warning thanks to the offshore launch profile. Intelligence
can also be gathered about Iranian freighters carrying cargo to Syria for
disbursement of missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
FREEDOM FOR ISRAEL
22 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
America for Israel?
: NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
The July 15, 2008 notification to Congress of the response to an Israeli letter
of request (LoR) for the supply of up to four Lockheed Martin Freedom
class LCS variants equipped with SPY-1F under the Foreign Military Sales
(FMS) program gives a clear indication of the importance of acquiring a
naval strike capability is to Israel. The cost of the four vessels and their
weapon systems could be as high as $1.9 billion or almost 60% of a single
year of US defence aide to Israel.
Each ship is conceived as having 16 RGM-84 Harpoon launchers and 16
cells for Mk 41 Vertical Launch Systems (VLS) in addition to their Rafael
Barak air defence missile systems. The Harpoon missiles and other Israeli
ship launched missiles like the Israeli Military Industries (IMI) Delilah
would provide considerable land attack potential. Block II Harpoon
can engage surface targets based on their geocordinates using GPS/INS
navigation to which Delilah adds a day/night video camera and datalink
capability with target loitering and go-around options as an ideal weapon
for finding and defeating mobile targets like missile transporter erector
launcher (TEL) vehicles.
The large 3,000 tonne plus Freedom class will offer the Israelis much
better seakeeping and endurance than their three Sa’ar 5 class corvettes
and fleet of 10 large but limited Sa’ar 4.5 fast attack-missile craft. To sustain
a surface fleet presence in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea the Israelis will
need to develop further capabilities for at sea replenishment. The nearest
Of all of Israel’s recent force structure modernisation after the 2006
Summer War against the Hezbollah and the rise of Iran as a significant
strategic threat the LoR request for the F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) is the most perplexing. The September 29, 2008 DSCA notification of
the LoR detailed an Israeli requirement for a possible sale of an initial 25
F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft with an option to
purchase at a later date an additional 50 F-35A or F-35B STOVL aircraft.
The Israeli Air Force has stated that the need for the F-35B is to provide
dispersal from air bases in the face of missile threats from Palestinian
forces in the Gaza and potentially occupied West Bank, Hezbollah in
Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Yet the kind of missiles and the firing techniques
used by these threats lack the sort of precision and simultaneous volumes
needed to saturate and close down airbases. Particularly as Israel has many
hardened air bases and facilities in the expanses of the Negev desert.
Further since the 2006 Summer War Israel has fast tracked the
development and acquisition of the Rafael Iron Dome counter rocket,
artillery, mortar and missile (C-RAMM) to defeat this very threat. Iron
Dome is expected to enter service in 2010 well before any F-35s that
couldn’t be expected to be operational before 2014. High value targets
threatened by missile attack like air bases would be the first to receive
C-RAMM protection.
So why acquire a STOVL strike fighter? One reason could be to sea base
them and provide a direct line of attack to Iran. The F-35B has a strike
radius of 900km (500 NM) sufficient to reach almost all of Iran from a
carrier in the Persian Gulf. The US Navy’s new America class amphibious
assault ship (LHA) is able to operate 20 F-35Bs with six helicopters and
carry up to 1,600 soldiers like Israeli commandos for rapid strikes against
shore targets. Combined with the four Freedom class LCS vessels such a
surface striking group would be capable of inflicting severe damage on
the Iranian threat. While the cost of such a carrier would be around $2.4
billion it would provide Israel with what it needs most: a countermeasure
to Iranian attacks. With billions being spent on submarines, LCS frigates
and F-35Bs it should not be unexpected. APDR
AIR WARFARE DESTROYER
RICHARD SCOTT
]
LONDON
Ultra’s sonar solution
T
he August 2008 selection of
Ultra Electronics – Sonar and
Communications
Systems’
business to supply the undersea
warfare sonar system for the Royal
Australian Navy’s [RAN’s] Hobart-class Air
Warfare Destroyer [AWD] programme marked
an important breakthrough for the company in
Australia.
A firm contract valued at circa A$80 million
was let to the company through Raytheon
Australia (as part of the AWD Alliance) in early
November. As well as establishing Ultra’s longterm presence in-country, the order also heralds
the first sale of a very different type of antisubmarine warfare [ASW] sonar suite, founded
on an open architecture, net-enabled ‘system of
systems’ approach.
Under the A$8 billion AWD programme
(Project SEA 4000), the RAN will receive three
new Hobart-class Aegis destroyers, based on the
Navantia F-100 design, between late 2014 and
mid 2017. The AWD Alliance (comprising ASC
Shipbuilder, the Defence Materiel Organisation
[DMO] and Raytheon Australia) is managing the
acquisition.
Although the AWD has air defence as its
primary role (using the SPY-1D[V] phased array
radar and SM-2 missiles), the Hobart-class ships
are also intended to have a force ASW capability.
This demands a capability to detect and track
submarines beyond their weapon range, and
additionally to provide torpedo threat alerts.
The planning assumption at the outset of
the AWD programme took a conventional
approach to force ASW, specifying a need for
separate medium-frequency hull-mounted and
low frequency variable depth sonar [VDS] sets,
together with a dedicated torpedo reception
array. However, Ultra’s solution has in actual
fact taken a very different path in bringing
together the various sonar components in a
modular, integrated undersea warfare suite
using a common multi-sensor sonar processing
engine. It also adopts a radically different
business model that, Ultra claims, will give
the Commonwealth full control over future
development and technology insertion.
saw it overcome the powerful incumbency and
industrial footprint of Thales Australia. Ultra
believes that this was achieved through a
combination of assiduous positioning, judicious
integration of complementary capabilities
and technologies drawn from across the wider
Ultra Group, and a shared vision with the
customer of a networked and ‘future proofed’
open architecture sonar system, unfettered by
proprietary lock in.
Matt Cox (Head of Sonar Systems marketing
for Ultra’s Sonar and Communications Systems
division), explains that the company’s primary
interest, going back to early 2006, lay in supplying
torpedo detection and countermeasures systems
into the AWD programme. “Our start point
was to respond to a Request for Information
[RFI] for a torpedo defence system, drawing
on our experience from the UK’s Sonar 2170
programme,” he explains. “But as other RFIs
came out, and we began to better understand
the RAN’s force ASW aspirations, we looked
across the technical resource available across
the Ultra Group of companies and it became
clear that there was an opportunity to pursue
the AWD opportunity on a broader front.
“Quite quickly, we conceived an integrated
architecture that introduced hull-mounted and
towed sonar arrays, plus sonobuoy processing
and networking with cooperative ASW assets
such as maritime patrol aircraft. Torpedo
defence remained our main thrust, but we could
see a bigger picture if the disparate RFIs were
joined up into a common undersea warfare
suite.”
In early 2007, an Ultra team came in-country
to perform a series of technology demonstrations
to the Defence Science and Technology
Organisation [DSTO].
“We successfully
demonstrated a flexible towed body variant of
the Nixie [torpedo countermeasures] system in
DSTO’s test tank, proving its capability to defeat
a wake-homing threat,” says Cox. “That was
important for us to demonstrate our credibility,
and show our reactive nature in front of
representatives from the DSTO and the DMO.”
Later that year, Raytheon Australia (as AWD
Alliance combat system-system engineer)
hosted an industry day to outline the scope
of the competition for the sonar suite. It was
Source: Ultra
LONG GAME
Ultra’s emergence in Australia, and eventual
selection for the AWD sonar system requirement,
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 23
[ AWD
then that Ultra received final confirmation
that it had been pre-qualified to bid across the
whole system requirement, not just the torpedo
defence segment.
“At this point,” says Cox, “we came back to
Greenford [Ultra Sonar and Communications
Systems’ UK base in West London] to refine the
system architecture and introduce capabilities
for bistatic and multistatic processing.”
The concept that emerged was for an
integrated sonar system that maximised
ensonification in all areas of the water column,
using low-frequency active sonar for longrange detection multistatically, using multiple,
separate sources and receivers, as well as
mutually co-operating monostatic sonars.
John Martin, Marketing Manager for Ultra
Sonar and Communication Systems, explains:
“Low-frequency propagation offers longrange detections, but long-range propagation
is significantly affected by the temperature
structure of the ocean.
Sharp negative
thermoclines [below the layer in temperate
conditions] will effectively hard-limit the
maximum detection range, regardless of how
much power or directivity gain is built into a
sonar. Acoustically layered conditions may offer
good detections in one layer, but virtually none
in another, giving the astute submariner the
opportunity to hide in acoustic shadow zones.
“The only effective way to increase detection
performance is to use multiple sources and
receivers to increase ensonification, in all
discrete water layers, rather than attempting
to increase the performance of a monostatic
Source: Ultra
system. Remote sensors can readily be used to
plug coverage gaps.”
He adds: “Because of the need to access sonar
data directly, traditional tactical datalinks do
not satisfy the requirements for multi-platform
multistatics, and so a dedicated link is essential.
The potential cost of integrating live acoustic
data transfer through traditional mission and
sonar systems is also likely to be high, and so a
simple, open link, such as the current or future
NATO sonobuoy telemetry standard, provides
an adequate solution.
“A solution in which any active source also
transmits its sonar characteristics at RF, using
the NATO sonobuoy telemetry standard, would
offer substantial benefits to the Force ASW
commander through a free-forming, ad-hoc,
open network which would allow sonar data from
any one platform to be processed multistatically
by another without significant overhead.”
INTEGRATED SOLUTION
A formal Request for Tenders [RFT] was released
through Raytheon Australia in November 2007.
Alongside Ultra, the RFT was also promulgated
to ITT (formerly EDO), Lockheed Martin and
Thales Australia. Proposals were submitted in
January 2008.
Ultra’s submission drew on components and
technologies sourced from across divisions in
Canada (Maritime Systems), the UK (Sonar and
Communication Systems, PMES and SML) and
the United States (Ocean Systems and Advanced
Tactical Systems), integrated in an open
architecture founded on the OMG-certified Data
Distribution Service [DDS] architecture. Using
a single multi-sonar processor, its baseline
configuration proposed a single integrated towed
system (including a horizontal projector array,
a low-frequency source, a passive directional
receive array, and a torpedo-detection array)
together with a hull-mounted sonar. System
options included towed and expendable torpedo
countermeasures; over the side torpedo fire
control; underwater telephone; ASW mission
planning; bistatic and multistatic processing
between own sensor, other vessels and remotely
deployed sensors; and a net-enabled capability
through the integration of the vessel into the
maritime surveillance picture via datalinks.
According to Martin, its integrated processing
approach affords a number of benefits. “For
example, active transmissions from the dualfrequency hull-mounted sonar (operating at
centre frequencies of 4 kHz and ~7 kHz) or
variable-depth sonar (the 1.8 kHz low-frequency
source and ~3 kHz horizontal projector array)
can be received on the passive directional
receive array to enhance in-layer/separated
layer performance.
“Furthermore, a fully networked ASW data
architecture accommodates an upgrade path
to allow the vessel to integrate offboard sensor
data from other assets, such as maritime patrol
aircraft. The same architecture enables the
initiation, location and time stamping of active
sources to be transmitted over the network,
allowing for participation in a multistatic
processing environment.”
Another important feature of Ultra’s solution
is the single integrated towed system. “All towed
elements including the horizontal projector
array, passive receive array and torpedo defence
system are integrated into a single tow cable,
removing the need for large and expensive hard
body handling systems,” says Martin.
“The system is streamed through a standard
fairlead in the stern using a lightweight single
drum winch (obviating the need for dual
or multiple tow streaming) and there is no
requirement for a door to deploy the VDS
system.” The VDS and torpedo defence system
are fully flexible, allowing them to be recovered
by no more than two people in conditions in
excess of Sea State 5.
EVALUATION
The evaluation of the candidate sonar system
bids involved technical and commercial experts
from the AWD Alliance participants (DMO,
Raytheon Australia and ASC Shipbuilder)
supported by representatives of the RAN and the
Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
In early June 2008, Lockheed Martin and ITT
were notified of their elimination from the
24 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
AWD
Source: Ultra
competition, with Ultra and Thales engaged for
parallel commercial and technical clarifications.
“We were confident at this stage that we had
the best technical solution, and also had a price
advantage over the competition,” says Ultra’s
Matt Cox. “But we still had work to do in
a number of areas, for example, the support
case.”
According to Cox, a key was the enterprise
model proposed to the Commonwealth.
“The source code to the open architecture
infrastructure of the system is theirs to keep,” he
points out. “In addition, the customer also gets
the tools and training to be able to implement
new or alternative modules in the system. That
enables research from DSTO, small business and
academia to be pulled though and inserted into
the system with no recourse to a third party.”
Ultra was announced as the preferred supplier
for the AWD sonar system on 11 August.
Following negotiations, a baseline development
and manufacture contract for three ship systems
was awarded on 5 November.
The contract includes various options, which
were presented alongside the baseline solution.
Ultra is confident that many of these will be
exercised before the first AWD enters service in
2014.
Ultra Electronics Australia Pty Ltd has been
established in Adelaide to lead project delivery
in-country, and provide an indigenous capability
for long term customer support. A core staff of
up to about 25 personnel is now in the process of
being built up, with Ultra currently advertising for
project managers, systems engineers, software
engineers, an integration and test engineer, and
commercial/finance staff.
PEDIGREE
Of course, successfully bidding a programme is
one thing. Delivering against contract is quite
another.
Ultra acknowledges that the fully integrated
system now under contract for the AWD
programme does not currently exist in its fully
integrated form. However, Ultra argues that the
central components are all founded on existing
systems at high technology readiness levels,
and points also to a track record of on time, on
budget delivery.
“We are leveraging technology and experience
from proven undersea warfare capabilities
available from Ultra’s UK, US and Canadian
sonar business,” says Cox. “Our approach is to
give the customer a solution that brings together
high TRLs, military-off-the-shelf systems, and
one that through its open architecture promotes
an extensible, upgradable and easily supportable
capability.
“Furthermore, that architecture includes a
defined upgrade path to a full network-centric
undersea warfare capability that meets the RAN’s
end-state ‘aspirational’ capability.”
While a newcomer to the Australian market,
Ultra has already delivered a number of major
surface ship sonar to UK and NATO customers.
These include the Sonar 2170 Surface Ship
Torpedo Defence system for the Royal Navy, and
its Sea Sentor export derivative for Turkey; the
Sonar 2091 medium-frequency hull-mounted
sonar for the RN’s Type 45 destroyers (in
conjunction with ITT and Tods); and the design,
development and manufacture of a full range
of active and passive sonobuoys (including
DIFAR, DICASS, HIDAR, Barra, LOFAR, ALFEA
]
Source: Ultra
and VLAD).
Ultra has also achieved a number of significant
successes in the airborne acoustic processing
field, supplying (in conjunction with General
Dynamics Canada) the 32-channel AQS-971
replacement acoustic processor to the Royal Air
Force’s Nimrod MR.2 fleet and the 64–channel
AQS-970 to the successor Nimrod MRA.4. It is also
under contract to the UK Ministry of Defence to
develop a multistatic active processing capability
for Nimrod.
For the AWD sonar programme, Ultra will
use adaptor technology pioneered by Ultra
Electronics Advanced Tactical Systems to enable
individual modules, components and entire
subsystems to communicate across the DDS
architecture. “The interface simply needs to be
defined in XML,” says Cox, “then the adaptor
automatically translates for DDS. This same tool
will allow Australia to introduce new algorithms
and interfaces.”
Ultra has committed to place more than 50% of
the AWD Sonar System contract with Australian
industry. Key indigenous partners include Acacia
Research, offering expertise in trackers and
multisensor datafusion; L-3 Nautronix, bringing
its capability in underwater telecommunications
and data exchange; Babcock Australia (product
support); and AJF Professional Services.
Delivery of the first-of-class system to the
AWD Shore Integration Facility is due 26 months
after contract signature. Ultra plans to build
and integrate the first-of-class shipset in the UK
before breaking it down for shipping to Australia,
for re-integration, delivery and setting-towork. Follow-on systems will be delivered from
Australia. APDR
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 25
[ GROUND BASED AIR DEFENCE
ABRAHAM GUBLER
LWC 08
Land 19-7 in three stages
F
RHEINMETALL
or the past decade modernisation of the Australian Defence
Force’s (ADF) ground based air defence (GBAD) capability has
had mixed fortunes with the failure of Joint Project 117 for
a new medium range air defence (MRAD) system. With the
priority for the ADF now being expeditionary operations GBAD
is back on a modernisations and capability expansion path. However the
project to deliver the new capability, Land 19 Phase 7 for enhancements
and/or replacement to the legacy Saab Systems RBS-70 GBAD system, still
remains under funding threat and is located at the far end of the current 10
year outlook capability planning cycle.
Previously the ADF had struggled to justify the expense of GBAD in
competition with other air defence capabilities in ensuring the defence
of Australia and its direct approaches. GBAD provides point defence and
while mobile cannot manoeuvre to counter threats. Its utility comes
from its ability to engage a wide variety of targets rapidly and with high
assurance to protect a high value location. Under the Defence of Australia
strategy GBAD’s lack of responsiveness over wide areas could not provide
the kind of coverage over the vast expanses of northern Australia. Since
any potential threat would have to cross the expanse of air-sea gap to
Australia’s north fighter aircraft cued by broad area surveillance systems
like the Jindalee Operational Radar network (JORN) and the Wedgetail
airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft are far more efficient
at defeated air threats.
Subsequently the Defence of Australia strategic focus saw JP 117 disappear
and the planned withdrawal of service of the MBDA Rapier system covered
by further procurement and modernisation of the Saab Systems RBS-70
short range air defence (SHORAD) system. However the turn around on
acquiring further GBAD capabilities beyond the RBS-70 SHORAD has come
from the operational experience in the Middle East Area of Operations
(MEAO) and a realistic assessment of the threats facing other potential ADF
expeditionary operations. The unwillingness of Government’s to accept
military casualties has seen the importance of Counter Rocket, Artillery,
Mortar and Missile (CRAMM) capability being added to the traditional
anti-aircraft role of GBAD. Developments in air combat has also seen the
importance of being able to defeat unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and
strike fighter launched standoff weapons being added to the legacy antiaircraft and helicopter mission. This expanded capability has been labelled
ground based air and missile defence (GBAMD) but does not include
ballistic missile defence (BMD) of long range, high apogee weapons.
Enhancing RBS-70.
On Night Device (COND), new Thales identification friend or foe (IFF)
system, the VLLADWS Alerting and Cueing System (VACS) in the form
of the Lockheed Martin Portable Search and Target Acquisition Radar
(PSTAR) and a new tactical command and control (C2) system. The PSTAR
is a 179kg, man-portable (in two loads), L-band radar with an integral
IFF antenna able to classify targets as either aircraft or helicopters.
Performance against aircraft is allows for detection at over 30km and
helicopters at 17 km. PSTAR is altitude limited to only 10,000 feet (3,000m)
because of the antennas limited look up capability (28 degrees). It can be
assembled for use in less than 10 minutes or within two minutes for a hasty
rapid look capability.
To provide protected mobility for the GBAMD capability 25 Thales Australia
Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles – Medium (PMV-M) will be built
in a new Air Defence variant configuration. Previously 72 unprotected
Landrover Perentie 6x6 vehicles were used for air defence mobility, most
were needed for the Rapier system, but neither system will be capable
of supporting firing from mobile vehicles. The Air Defence PMV-M will
however enable RBS-70 detachments to deploy in operation areas with
the same mobility and protection standards as most of the force they will
shield from air attack.
BOLIDE BASELINE
The current capability for GBAMD was delivered by Phase 6 of Land 19 and
includes an expanded RBS-70 force with two batteries each with 15 tripod
mounted, man portable launcher systems, to provide the ADF a Very Low
Level Air Defence Weapon System (VLLADWS). All systems are equipped
with the Mk 2 ‘Bolide’ missile that increases range from 5km to 8km and
missile speed from Mach 1.6 to 2.0. The Bolide missile also has a new
warhead with both fragmentation and shaped charge, armour piercing
effects with an adaptable proximity fuse. The later combined with new
reprogrammable electronics enables the missile to engage cruise missiles
and UAVs.
Other enhancements to RBS-70 acquired in Land 16-6 include the Clip
26 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
LAND 19 PHASE 7
To replace and/or enhance the current GBAMD capability Defence has
progressed Land 19 Phase 7 to the 2006-16 Defence Capability Plan
and recently revealed more detail of the capability requirement and
procurement strategy. Like all programs progressing at the moment
Land 19-7 is subject to the review of the White Paper but its instrumental
importance in protecting deployed forces is certain to ensure its inclusion.
Land 19-7 is planned to go to first pass in 2012, second pass for endorsement
of preferred solution in 2015 with in service delivery (ISD) in 2018-20.
Estimated Phase Expenditure is between $750 million to $1,000 million.
The basic requirement of the new system will be to offer improved detection
GROUND BASED AIR DEFENCE
and engagement against a broad threat set that includes: fixed and rotarywing aircraft and UAVs, unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs), rockets,
artillery, mortars, air launched stand-off weapons and cruise missiles.
This capability will be required to operate both as an independent unit
or integrated with other Australian, Allied and Coalition air and missile
defence capabilities including fighters, AEW&C, air warfare destroyers
(AWD) and other naval ships. The detection functionality is also expected
to encompass airspace battle management and situational awareness,
threat tracking and interception and battle damage assessment. Land
19-7 will also consider new technologies such as directed-energy weapon
(DEW) systems and soft kill capabilities like electronic attack (EA).
Land 19 Phase 7 will also be the trial project for a high level of early
engagement with industry including a pre tender integrated project team
(IPT) combining the Capability Development Group (CDG), Defence
Materiel Organisation (DMO) and defence industry. This approach in
accordance with the Kinnaird Review recommendations was originally
conceived for Land 400 but has been delayed by the DMO until the later
Land 19-7. The level of this engagement remains to be seen but one option
could be upfront investment in new GBAMD capability or programs to
help inform the Land 19-7 first and second pass decisions.
This could include participation in an international development program
like Land 121 Phase 4 joining of the US Army and Marine Corps Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) project for part of the GBAMD capability. Another
option could be investment in Australian domestic development of air
defence C2 systems for trial purposes. Such a system could also seek to
demonstrate the integration of GBAMD sensors with a PMV-M. To better
understand the systems and technologies that are available for Land 19-7
an innovative Capability Study was conducted.
CAPABILITY STUDY
The Department of Defence contracted Aerospace Concepts to manage
Land 19-7 Capability Study which was conducted from July to October of
2008. Industry was invited to inform the capability options development by
providing a range of operational employment, technical, human systems
integration, logistics and costing information. Aerospace Concepts received
a total of 18 responses to their capability study solicitation including three
from Australian companies.
The Land 19-7 Capability Study was solution independent and asked
for detailed responses to how particular systems or systems of systems
would work in a range of air defence scenarios tailored for indicative ADF
missions. Defence was interested in seeing what kind of systems are needed
to achieve the various GBAMD missions and how they would functionally
respond to the difference scenarios. Also important for determining the
future ADF GBAMD capability is human systems integration (HSI) aspects
including the numbers of people needed for operation and support of
the systems and their skill-sets. Capital acquisition and operating costs
and technical maturity were also gauged as important inputs to possible
procurement strategies.
The respondents were required to provide Defence detailed information
about each GBAMD system’s performance and operational characteristics.
For each type of threat (see the nominal threat parameters chart) the
respondent needs to detail the system’s threat engagement timeline,
including a description of the criteria for track declaration and how
many threat axes can be defended concurrently. Limiting factors for the
number of concurrent threats than can be engaged and the number of
defended threat axes need to be detailed. The robustness of the GBAMD
system was also explored with system redundancy including inherent
deployment redundancy and effectiveness post attrition being queried.
Respondents also had to detail all weather and all day/night operational
capability.
]
Land 19 Phase 7 Nominal Threat Parameters
Threat
Strike Fighter
Altitude
Air Speed
(feet above
ground level)
(Mach)
Radar Cross Spectral Radiance
Section (decibels (watts per steradian per
per square metre)
square metre)
30,000
0.9
0
10
Attack
Helicopter
MALE UAV
50
0.075
+10
50
16,000
0.2
-10
10
Tier I VTUAV
2,000
0.075
-10
5
Cruise Missile
200
0.85
-20
25
107mm Rocket
2,000
(apogee)
variable
-20
10
155mm Artillery
30,000
(apogee)
2,000
(apogee)
variable
-30
1
variable
-30
0.1
81 mm Mortar
The system’s ability to integrate with the larger air and missile defence
environment was queried including system requirements and any
limitations regarding latency of data exchange (time delays between
updates) and track quality. How the system would participate in the
production of a single integrated air picture (SIAP) and both air and land
force common operating pictures (COP) were key questions.
Mobility was also assessed with respondents detailing wether the
GBAMD system can operate (detect and engage) while on the move. Terrain
traversing limitations and any site preparation requirements, including
preparation times, were also questioned. Operational availability, mean
time between failures (MTBF) and mean time to repair (MTTR) of both the
system as a whole and system elements was queried.
FIVE GBAMD SCENARIOS
The performance of each GBAMD system was assessed against five
indicative scenarios to provide detailed and costed capability options for
Land 19-7. Different systems will have different strengths and capabilities
in the varying scenarios.
Scenarios one and two placed the GBAMD system as part of a mechanised
combat team (squadron or company sized sub-unit) in differing operational
environments. Scenario one was to defence the mechanised combat team
as it manoeuvred across open terrain (i.e. rural or desert) against attack
helicopters and scouting Tier I type vertical takeoff and landing tactical
UAVs (VTUAV) like the Honeywell XM156. The mechanised combat team
will have a frontage of 2.5km and a depth of 3km and be moving forward
at a rate of advance of 15kph. Scenario two moves the mechanised combat
team into an urban environment and requires the GBAMD system to
defend against incoming mortar, rocket and artillery shells. The combat
team has contracted to a frontage of 500m and depth of 1km and reduced
its rate of advance to 1kph.
Scenario three was more complex representing GBAMD system
concurrent protection of a fixed forward operating base (FOB) situated in
complex urban terrain occupied by a battle group (regiment or battalion
based grouping) and a mechanised combat team (as in scenarios one
and two) operating from the FOB. The threat is more complex with fixedwing fighter ground attack aircraft launching stand-off weapons, attack
helicopters, cruise missiles, medium altitude long endurance (MALE)
UAVs and incoming mortar shells. To assist the GBAMD system it will be
supported by friendly forces including a remote C2 centre and fighter
aircraft. The fighter aircraft are tasked to protect the FOB but are not
assigned in sufficient numbers to provide cover on a continuous basis. The
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 27
[ GROUND BASED AIR DEFENCE
STAGE 1: SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL
From the feedback from the Land 19 Phase 7 Capability Study, the
Capability Development Group’s Land Development Branch [LDB] has
prepared a three stage acquisition plan for the GBAMD system. The
multiple stages will provide flexibility and prioritisation in light of
the ultimate funding allocation from the White Paper. Stage one will
provide a new C2, threat detection capability and enhance the legacy
Shooting down rockets.
RAFAEL
FOB will cover an area of 500m by 500m while the mechanised combat
team will be manoeuvring up to 100km away from the FOB and have the
same dispersion and rate of advance as scenario one.
Scenario four is to protect an airbase on sovereign territory that faces
all threats. The GBAMD will be supported by a C2 centre but no other
elements will be dedicated to defence of the airfield. The airfield covers an
area of 5km by 5km and threats may arrive from any direction.
Scenario five was the most complex comprising the defence of a brigade
level amphibious lodgement. Forces requiring protection included the
brigade-sized Joint Task Force (JTF) and a light infantry combat team
(company group) undertaking an air-mobile operation concurrently with
the amphibious lodgement. Supporting the GBAMD system is a C2 centre,
an AWD, AEW&C aircraft and continuous on station fighters that may be
reassigned for other taskings. The threat covers all types and can attack
from any direction except rocket, artillery and mortars that can only attack
from the coastline. The amphibious lodgement will cover a frontage of
50km and a depth of 30km (inland) while the air-mobile combat team will
be separated from the lodgement for up to seven days and cover an area
250m by 300m.
To cover all scenarios the overall GBAMD system would require multifunction sensors of great sensitivity, particularly to detect the C-RAMM
threats, and a range of engagement systems. The mechanised combat team
will require a mobile and protected engagement system with a slant range
of at least 10km to defeat the Tier I VTUAV and attack helicopter. It will also
need a C-RAMM capability with minimal collateral damage risk so it can
operate in the complex urban environment.
The FOB and airfield protection will require a longer range engagement
system with a slant range of over 27km to defeat strike fighters before they
launch their stand-off weapons. The C-RAMM system will also need to be
highly mobile so it can be deployed during the amphibious lodgement.
Finally the air-mobile combat team in the amphibious landing scenario
will require a man-portable or very lightweight system to enable helicopter
lifting.
Missiles hitting shells.
RBS-70 capability.
The C2 and detection system is likely to be container-mounted
surveillance and a command system with sensors able to detect and
track the various threats. This would include a long-range radar and/or
a weapon locating radar [WLR] able to detect rocket, artillery and mortar
shells, and closely track their trajectory enabling the plotting of their
probably ground firing location. Combining the functions into a single
multi-mission radar would provide a significant reduction in complexity.
Other sensors could include shorter range radars or infra-red cameras or
infra-red search and track [IRST] systems, mounted on enhanced or new
engagement systems.
Likely contenders for the stage one include the Saab Microwave Systems
(formerly Ericsson) Giraffe AMB [Agile Multi-Beam] mast-mounted
3D surveillance radar, Elta EL/M-2084 advanced artillery radar [AAR],
Raytheon AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel and the Oerlikon Contraves (now part of
Rheinmetall) Skyshield fire control system. Each of these radar systems are
integrated with respective GBAMD systems with complimentary C2 and
engagement systems. The Giraffe AMB and EL/M-2084 AAR have longer
ranges, in the league of 100km, compared to the small and lighter MPQ-64
and Skyshield with 40km and 20km detection ranges (respectively). The
EL/M-2084 AAR is also a WLR, able to calculate the launch point of artillery
shells to a circular error probable of 150m at a detection range of 50km.
Stage one will also look at enhancing the legacy RBS-70 missile system
to provide increased performance. The most likely option is to acquire the
Saab Systems/Rheinmetall ASRAD-R [advanced short-range air defence
system – RBS] launcher that combines the Saab Microwave Systems
HARD 3D radar with the RBS-70’s legacy Bolide missile. These launchers
are containerised or fitted to an armoured vehicle and are in service with
Finland, Germany and Greece.
STAGE 2: C-RAMM
RHEINMETALL
28 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
The second stage of Land 19 Phase 7 will acquire a new GBAMD system
to supplement the RBS-70 by providing a C-RAMM capability to destroy
incoming shells. C-RAMM has been a newly emerging requirement arising
out of counter-insurgency conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel.
The US Army has been the first force to field C-RAMM systems through
the rapid acquisition and modification of US Navy’s Raytheon Mk 15
Block IB Phalanx close-in weapon systems [CIWS]. Designed to destroy
incoming sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, Phalanx combines high rates
of fire with radar tracking of targets and the outgoing rounds to effect
interception of demanding targets. Phalanx has been modified for the
GROUND BASED AIR DEFENCE
C-RAMM mission, and renamed ‘Spartan,’ by integration with WLR and
the use of new ammunition. The armour piercing, discarding sabot [APDS]
ammunition of the Phalanx has been replaced with self-destructing high
explosive ammunition to avoid the risk of fratricide and collateral damage
to local civilians. Interception of incoming shells requires large volumes of
rounds to be fired, and those that do not intercept the shell return to earth
with potentially lethal effects.
The US Army has also funded the modification of the Oerlikon Contraves
Skyshield 35 system for C-RAMM. Using the Skyshield 35/1000 revolver
gun (similar to the naval application millennium gun), high rate of
fire cannon and 35mm AHED [advanced hit energy and destruction]
ammunition, Skyshield 35 is able to put focused tungsten “clouds” into
the target ensuring its destruction. The standard 26 round 35mm AHED
bursts will release 3,952 3.3 gram sub-projectiles, each with up to 800
joules of energy with an optimised density for the particular target. The
sub-projectiles literarily rip the target to shreds. Of course, they create
a very significant threat when they fall to earth so the Skyshield system
provides the human operator with a constantly updated map picture of
where the projectiles will land during the engagement cycle. This enables
the operator to delay engagement to avoid collateral damage as the guns
track the incoming shell through its changing flight path
The Israeli response to barrages of Hezbollah rockets in the 2006 Summer
War and persistent firing of ‘home-made’ rockets from the Hamas control
Gaza Strip has been to develop the Rafael Iron Dome C-RAMM missile.
Since Iron Dome operates with a single interceptor for a single incoming
shell and detonation is controlled to be over unoccupied land, it reduces
the collateral damage risk and increases engagement opportunities. Iron
Dome is guided to the interception point with data-link updates, with
terminal guidance by its own radar seeker. The small missile is carried in
either a lightweight, towed vertical launcher with up to 12 interceptors or a
protected, containerised launcher with 20 interceptors.
Other applications are being developed for C-RAMM use, including
Northrop Grumman’s Sky Guard Laser System. Raytheon have also
mounted a commercial off-the-shelf [COTS] solid-sate industrial laser
on a Phalanx mount to create the Laser Area Defense System [LADS].
Using DEW provides a range of advantages for interception including low
cost of each shot, compared to guided missile. They also suffer reduced
performance in certain environmental conditions like mist, smoke, clouds
and other haze.
Krauss-Maffei Wegmann [KMW] is developing its own C-RAMM solution
which follows a completely different engagement path to the barrage gun
fire, guided missile or DEW approach. Using a precise WLR to plots the
flight path of ballistic threats like rockets, artillery and mortars, KMW’s
Smart Camp Defense System will then use existing 155mm L52 artillery
systems to fire a new interceptor. The artillery shell will fly an intercept
path and use the very high explosive power of the 155mm artillery shell to
defeat the incoming threat. While details have not being released the 45kg
weight of a 155mm artillery shell provides the capacity for an extremely
large blast warhead which would create a large area of over pressure to
destroy the threat shell. The use of an artillery system to intercept the
incoming round also enables synergies for counter-battery fire onto the
location of the threat ground launcher.
]
Raytheon SL-AMRAAM [surface launched advanced medium-Range air-toair missile], Rafael Sypder-MR and the Saab Systems RBS-23 Bamse.
SL-AMRAAM (called ‘Slam-Ram’) has the advantage of using missiles
currently in or on order for the ADF with the AIM-9X Sidewinder,
AIM-120C AMRAAM and the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile [ESSM]
with an AIM-120C seeker called the SL-AMRAAM – Extended Range
[SL-AMRAAM-ER]. SL-AMRAAM-ER provides slant ranges of around 40km
to enable engagement of high flying, stand-off fighters. All three missiles
are launched off a common six rail launcher that can be easily integrated
into a PMV-M type carrier.
Sypder-MR is an evolution of the Sypder-SR system that similar to
SL-AMRAAM combines standard air-to-air missiles with a ground-based
launcher. Spyder-SR uses the standard Rafael Pyhton V and Derby missiles
from a four round trainable, enclosed launcher while Syder-MR adds a
booster to the missiles and a six round vertical launcher. The booster
enables interception at slant ranges over 50km and up to altitudes of
50,000 feet. Spyder can use the same fire control and command and
control system as the Iron Dome, providing a mixed missile solution.
RBS-23 Bamse adds a protected, towed missile control centre [MCC] to
the Giraffe AMB surveillance and control centre [SCC] with its own radar
able to acquire and track targets at a range of 30km. Each MCC has six
ready-fire two stage missiles that can intercept targets at altitudes of 50,000
feet and slant ranges of at least 15km (publicly declared). APDR
MRAD still out of reach?
STAGE 3: MRAD
SAAB SYSTEMS
The final stage of Land 19 Phase 7 is dependent on funding and would
replace the legacy SHORADS [short range air defense system] with a MRAD
capability or provide further long-term enhancement of the RBS-70.
MRAD capability would enable the GBAMD system to intercept MALE
UAVs and strike fighters flying at high altitude before they release stand-off
weapons. Systems likely to compete for the MRAD capability include the
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 29
[ ANALYSIS
GORDON ARTHUR
HONG KONG
The enigma of a Chinese
aircraft carrier
W
inston Churchill was speaking
of Russia when he mused,
“It is a riddle, wrapped in a
mystery, inside an enigma.”
He could easily have been
talking about modern-day China, for when it
comes to military matters there are few countries
more secretive. Mystery certainly surrounds
the issue of development of a Chinese aircraft
carrier, and with nothing in the way of official
announcements this article examines various
shreds of evidence collated from multiple
sources. These tantalising snippets contribute
to an overall picture, though the issue remains
obscure at best. The level of rumour and debate
is illustrated by the stir created when Google
Earth images showed an aircraft carrier-like
structure in a landlocked lake west of Shanghai.
Was it a practice carrier for naval pilots? Or
perhaps a proof-of-concept platform? In fact it
turned out to be an educational display piece
at the Orient Green Boat After-School Camp for
Youngsters!
30 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
EX-SOVIET ACQUISITIONS
The story begins with China’s acquisition of three
ex-Soviet aircraft carriers, although interest was
shown even earlier when Chinese merchants were
first in line to buy the retired HMAS Melbourne.
It must be noted that Russian carriers are not
in the same league as supercarriers such as the
dozen operated by the U.S. Navy. Russia calls
them “heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers”, for they
are smaller than American versions and carry
fewer aircraft.
The Kiev and Minsk are Project 1143 vessels,
the USSR’s first type of fixed-wing carrier, these
being designed to support strategic missile
submarines and other surface combatants. Four
Kiev-class vessels were commissioned, with the
final ship - the Admiral Gorshkov (now named
Vikramaditya) - being sold to the Indian Navy
and presently being modernised. The Minsk
served with the Soviet/Russian Navies from
1978-94, but it was retired after a major accident.
It was eventually sold to a Chinese company that
set it up as the star attraction in a theme park in
Shenzhen, a city bordering the territory of Hong
Kong. The Kiev met a similar fate in Tianjin in
2004.
Only two Admiral Kuznetsov-class vessels were
GORDON ARTHUR
The Minsk is a Kiev-class aircraft carrier,
its foredeck taken up with missiles. It now
resides as the centrepiece of a theme
park in Shenzhen near Hong Kong.
As China grows in global influence, the
acquisition of a carrier at some stage in the
future must surely become a certainty rather
than a matter of pure speculation. Horrendously
expensive to build and operate, an aircraft carrier
is nevertheless evidence of blue-water naval
might…and China would increasingly like to
view itself as a major world power. Considering
its arch-rival India already has a carrier of its
own, China will not want to be left behind.
Chinese military strategy assumes potential
multiple enemies (in descending order of threat):
Taiwan, USA, Japan, India, Vietnam, Southeast
Asia, Russia and NATO. In any conflict carriers
could be used to launch aerial attacks against
Taiwan, as well as protect China’s vital marine
lifelines flowing from the Indian Ocean via the
Malacca Straits.
GORDON ARTHUR
[ ANALYSIS
A scale model of the Russian Navy’s Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. The Varyag, currently anchored in
Dalian, is its only sister ship though it was never commissioned.
built (also known as Project 1143.5), with the
lead carrier continuing to serve as the Russian
Navy’s sole carrier. This is a Short Takeoff But
Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) carrier, meaning
it has a flight deck with arresting wires, but no
catapults. Instead, it has a 12º ski jump, and
because its aviation strike power is limited, it
is heavily armed with surface-to-ship missiles
(SSM) and surface-to-air missiles (SAM). The
Varyag was launched in 1988 in the Black Sea
port of Nikolayev in the Ukraine, but it was
never completed due to the collapse of the
Soviet Union. The Ukraine sold the hull to China
on the condition it would not be refitted for
operational duties, purportedly to serve as a
floating casino in Macau. In fact, the Varyag
(which was only 70-75% complete and lacked
engines, electronics and much of her operating
systems) ended up in a shipyard in Dalian on 3
March 2002. After sitting idle for three years, the
Varyag was moved to a dry dock in early June
2005, her hull sandblasted, her island painted in
marine primer, and an anti-slip surface laid on
the flight deck.
It is obviously too much of a coincidence
for three ex-Soviet aircraft carriers to arrive in
China within a few years of each other. These
vessels have no doubt been dissected in minute
detail in order to gather as much data and
design information as possible, even though
their technology is a generation old. It is thought
China also obtained at least partial design and
structural blueprints of the carriers it now owns.
Designing and building an aircraft carrier is no
32 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
mean feat, especially when being done for the
first time. Thus it was vital for China to acquire
existing prototypes to study. Andrei Chang, a
Chinese military analyst and publisher of Kanwa
Asian Defence, believes the most likely route
for China to take is to use the Varyag as a
training platform and to practise deck takeoffs
and landings. Without effective anti-rust
maintenance, the hull must be suffering from
severe corrosion. Furthermore, under pressure
from the USA, the Ukraine demolished key
structures inside the vessel to make restoration
difficult if not impossible. It would require an
inordinate amount of work and investment
to make it operational, thus the Varyag will
never be commissioned for active service. On
the other hand, it makes an ideal test bed and
experimental platform on which China can base
its first indigenous design. The next stage for
Varyag could be takeoff and landing tests if
landing arrest systems are fitted.
INCREASED SPECULATION
The capabilities of the PLAN are rapidly
increasing, and even though a carrier
programme was on hold for some time, it
appears to be gathering pace again. However,
there are enormous technical and technological
challenges to surmount in such a pursuit, and
costs will be astronomical. A general estimate
is that China’s first carrier would be similar in
size to the Varyag. Some analysts say China
wants to build five carriers by 2020 in three
batches, the first phase involving completion
of the Varyag for use as a training platform.
The second stage would involve building two
ships of the same configuration, with the final
step being two completely new vessels based
on recent operational experience. It is possible
China’s construction will officially begin during
the 2009-12 period, with completion between
2013 and 2017. Sea tests and operational
capability could come as soon as 2015. Some
commentators also suspect China acquired
design blueprints of the Ulianovsk, Russia’s first
nuclear-powered carrier. Construction of the
Ulianovsk began in November 1988 at Nikolayev,
but it was scrapped in February 1992 when
only 45% complete. If such plans were indeed
obtained, it can be assumed China has done
preliminary research into a nuclear-powered
carrier too. After making a conventional carrier,
it may well turn its attention to a nuclear variant,
for China is already producing nuclear-powered
submarines.
However, the above remains pure speculation.
Instead it is more profitable to look at some
known facts and evidence of a Chinese carrier
programme. During the National People’s
Congress (NPC) and Chinese People’s Political
Consultative Conference (CPPCC) sessions in
2007, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman
unexpectedly acknowledged China was
conducting carrier research and development.
The PLAN Vice Admiral told a pro-China
gathering in Hong Kong that China “will
complete building” a carrier in 2010. It seems
China is preparing public opinion at official
levels in order to reduce international clamours
of the “Chinese threat”.
In line with persistent Chinese rumours, Andrei
Chang suggests China launched its carrier project
in 2005. Although Sino-Russian cooperation has
grown in recent years, China is undertaking the
design of its new indigenous carrier without the
involvement of any Russian naval design bureau.
However, any domestic carrier will likely take its
inspiration from the Varyag’s STOBAR design,
so a fundamental premise is that it will have
a ski-jump ramp. Apparently, China has or is
about to set up an Aircraft Carrier Office within
the Department of Naval Equipment under the
codename 048 Project. This department would
prepare subsystem production and coordinate
crew training. No.703 Institute has been linked to
design of the new power plant. One of the most
conclusive pieces of evidence of the Chinese
goal of developing a carrier is the purchase of
four tailhooks for Su-33 fighters in 2006 from the
Proletarskii Factory, supposedly for experimental
purposes. This purchase included complete
systems incorporating under-deck arresting
gear. China’s first aircraft carrier would most
likely serve in the PLAN’s South Sea Fleet.
ANALYSIS
SHIP-BORNE AIRCRAFT
A crucial element in the production of a carrier is
the selection of suitable aircraft. China has been
busy in this department too. There is speculation
the single-engine J-10 could be adapted for a
carrier role, though the naval version would
require a more powerful engine. MMPP Salyut
in Russia has already confirmed it is working
on 14,500 and 15,300kgf variants of the basic
12,500kgf engine used on the J-10. A photo of
a J-10 with a tailhook has already been seen,
though there is no other evidence that landbased ski-jump flight tests with the J-10 have
begun.
However, there is another line of thinking that China wants the Russian-designed Su-33
for its carrier fleet. Industry sources say China is
engaged in early discussions to purchase up to
50 Su-33s and obtain related technology transfer.
Currently fielded by the Russian Navy on its
solitary carrier, the Su-33 is based on the Su-27,
an aircraft China already produces under license
as the J-11, thus offering instant familiarity to
pilots. Despite Beijing’s requests for assistance
with its naval air project, Russia refuses to
comply unless China agrees to a firm framework
agreement. Until that time, Russian companies
are forbidden from sharing any information
such as folding-wing technology. Another
problem is that the Russian Su-33 assembly line
closed in 1993, so China would have to invest
heavily to reactivate it and also insert more
up-to-date technology into the aircraft. In 2005
China acquired a non-operational T10K ship-
borne fighter (an early variant of the Su-33)
from the Ukraine, which allowed it to study
its folding-wing design, tailhook layout and
reinforced landing gear. China may therefore be
intent on developing its own Su-33 based on its
existing J-11B airframe, which would obviously
be a much cheaper solution than buying new
craft from Russia. Until such a time as China
can produce the Su-33 locally or purchase them
from Russia, it can use the fixed-wing J-10 as
a transitional aircraft. Obtaining the necessary
fighters will take a considerable amount of time.
PERSONNEL AND CONSTRUCTION
FACILITIES
The training of personnel is another very difficult
proposition. Naval aviators are almost as valuable
as astronauts, and a special aviation unit will need
to be established before a carrier is commissioned.
A PLAN delegation visited NITKA (Research Test
and Flying Training Centre) in October 2006,
this Ukrainian base once being the training
centre for Soviet naval pilots. Chinese engineers
and pilots have been visiting regularly to learn
about simulation training software and training
management procedures, and it seems Ukrainian
consultancy services are proving helpful at this
stage in China’s quest for a carrier. The fact that
China has asked for training simulation modules
reinforces the notion that its new carrier will
mimic the Russian STOBAR design. The learning
of tactics is another realm that China has no prior
experience to draw upon.
With a carrier on the agenda, Chinese shipyards
]
are competing for production rights. The most
experienced and technically sophisticated
shipyard is in the Shanghai area – the Wai Gao
Qiao Shipyard. It already has the nation’s largest
shipbuilding docks, but two new 300,000-ton
docks currently under construction could house
a vessel up to 340 x 68m. Apparently, China has
been designating specific companies to produce
components for its carrier since 2006, which
would indicate its design has been principally
finalised. For example, reports say Zhenjiang
Marine Electrical Appliance Co Ltd has been
selected to produce carrier switchboards.
To preserve its international image, China
did not wish to reveal anything about a carrier
programme before the Beijing Olympics. But with
the successful conclusion of the 2008 Games, it is
quite possible more information will now begin
to flow from Chinese officialdom. Now that the
military build-up against Taiwan has clearly tilted
the balance of power in China’s favour, the nation
can now afford to divert more resources in other
directions such as establishing an aircraft carrier
fleet. China would like to argue that any carriers
are for “offshore defence”, but it is more likely
related to the aim of securing a maritime zone of
operation around Taiwan to deter American naval
intervention should the Middle Kingdom decide
to forcibly reunite this “renegade province”. The
appearance of any Chinese aircraft carrier would
irrevocably alter the balance of naval power in the
Asia-Pacific region, and many neighbours would
refute China’s claims that it is merely for defensive
purposes. APDR
GORDON ARTHUR
A domestically designed and built J-10A single-engine fighter could possibly form the basis of a carrier-borne variant in the future.
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 33
[ SHIPS
ROBERT BROOKS
LONDON
Sailing out of sight
A
US NAVY
s in other areas of defence spending
Asia is one of the major powerhouses
when it comes to continued
development of naval systems. Attending any defence seminar it is de
riguer for naval officials from around the region
to first state that there is no arms race before
going on to detail high levels of expenditure and
modernisation.
However, there is no doubt that regional tensions
are fuelling the expansion of naval capabilities. On
the subcontinent India and Pakistan continue to
compete to stay ahead of each other in terms of
military capability. There are also larger regional
tensions with many countries, including Taiwan,
suspicious of China’s military build-up. There are
also various disputed territories, mainly small
islands that various countries continue to contest.
As a result, countries continue to invest in their
surface fleets with a whole range of vessels from
small offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) to modern
multi-role frigates and future aircraft carrier
capabilities all on the extensive shopping list in
the region. The spending has been a boon for
ship builders and naval systems manufacturers
34 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
as various countries continue to update these
capabilities. As with other areas of the defence
industry there is also a drive in some countries to
indigenise capability.
Many regional players have maintained coastal
patrol capabilities for some time. However, one
of the key developments in recent years has
been a growing interest in procuring vessels
capable of ‘blue ocean’ operations. In part this
interest has been fuelled by a greater awareness
of the need to protect the extensive economic
exclusion zones (EEZs) in the region. There has
also been an increased desire to become involved
in multinational operations and on the naval side
this needs vessels capable of operating beyond
coastal waters.
In the last year these drivers have been
given a further edge by outside events. Asia’s
economic powerhouses have been given a clear
demonstration of their vulnerability to attacks
on sea lanes far from home in the shape of
attacks on shipping off the horn of Africa. Several
states have sent ships in to the area in order to
protect shipping destined for Asia from attacks by
Somalia-based pirates.
Sailors man the rails aboard the RAN’s
HMAS Anzac as the ship arrives at Naval
Station Pearl Harbour for this year’s Rim
of the Pacific 2008 exercise.
SPANNING REGIONS
In the furthest reaches of the south, both Australia
and New Zealand have looked to modernise their
naval surface fleets. The two countries came
together to develop the ANZAC class frigates. The
Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has eight of the ships
in service while the Royal New Zealand Navy
(RNZN) has a further two.
The Anzac class is based on the Blohm and
Voss MEKO 200 design and the first of class
HMAS Anzac was commissioned in 1996, the
most recent vessel to be launched HMAS Perth
was commissioned in 2006. The frigates are
118m stem to stern and have a displacement of
around 3,600 tons when fully loaded. The ships
are armed with a single United Defense 5in
gun and also carry surface to air and surface to
surface missiles.
More recently, Australia has also begun work
on purchasing three new Hobart class Air Warfare
Destroyers (AWDs). The project is being managed
by the AWD Alliance which includes the Australian
Government, Raytheon Australia and ASC AWD
Shipbuilder. Through a partnership with the
US Navy the AWDs will be equipped with the
Lockheed Martin MS2 AEGIS air warfare system.
The ships themselves are to be based on the
Navantia F100 frigate design, which is in service
with the Spanish Navy.
For its part the RNZN is also in the process
of procuring a more modest capability through
‘Projector Protector’. The project translated the
goals of the 2002 Maritime Forces Review in to
real capability. Under the project the RNZN in
procuring a multi-role vessel (MRV), two OPVs
and three inshore patrol vessels.
The MRV, HMNZS Canterbury, came in to
service in 2007. However, it suffered a number
of problems prompting the government to
launch a review of its acquisition. That report
was made public in September this year and
stated that there were a number of failures in
the procurement process. The report also said
that the vessel was unlikely to meet all the
requirements set out for it.
More successful has been the delivery of
the two OPVs, HMNZS Otago and HMNZS,
Wellington which were delivered in 2006 and 2007
respectively. The 1,600 tonne, 85m long vessels
have a range of 6,000nm and crew compliment
CONTENTS
APDR: The source
We know you have a lot of choices in your reading, your
marketing, your daily professional life in the defence
business environment.
We also appreciate that it is thanks to your choices that
APDR is this year celebrating its 34th year of continuous
publication as Australia’s premier defence business affairs
magazine.
We have pioneered defence business journalism in this
country since 1974 and we take our leadership role
seriously.
L I A N
T R A
A U S
E
E N C
D E F
I N
A
B A L
G L O
T
T E X
C O N
October 2008
VOL. 34 NO.
8
rm DMO Refo er Review
the Mortim
manned
Israel’s Unhicle
Ground Ve
N:
ENCE EDITIO
RE CONFER
LAND WARFA
121
AND LAND
LAND 125
UPDATES
Defe
Defence
business is news, and
that demands a journalism that
is fr
free, fearless and factual.
But it also means an editorial
tea
team that knows understands
th
the defence sector from
th
the inside out. 34 years of
cconstant publishing gives us
a depth of knowledge that is
unmatched in this country.
A U
S T
R A
L I A
N
S e a sp
D E
F E
N C
E
r it e v
I N
A
Seasp
G L
O B
A L
r it e
AEW &
C
9
RADAR
PROBLE
MS
LWC DE
TAILS
SIMUL
ATION
Over the past few months you will have seen a major
process of renewal taking places in these pages. That
effort is just a small part of what we know is going to
become nothing less than a complete re-invention of
how the best of defence business journalism is practiced
in this country.
We know you have plenty of choices, and that’s why we
know that you will join us in this journey. Your choices
are why APDR always was, and always will be, your
premier media source.
Q 2 year A$349 (Inc postage & GST)
Q 2 year A$375 (Inc airmail postage )
Q 2 year US$279 (Inc airmail postage )
Q 2 year US$405 (Inc airmail postage )
Q 2 year US$549 (Inc registered post )
Rank/Title
Job Title
Organisation
Organisation’s main activity
Address
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
City
Expiry Date
Fax (
Date
Q My Cheque Payable to Ventura Media Asia Pacific Pty Ltd for $ __________ is enclosed
Initials
Family Name
Please charge my Q Visa Q Mastercard for $ _________
Signature
. 34 NO.
JLTV
Q Yes, please enter my subscription
Q 1 year A$190
Q 1 year A$205
Q1 year US$153
Q
Q 1 year US$215
Q 1 year US$286
C O
N T
E X
T
Novem
ber 200
8
VOL
APDR is not afraid to ask
hard questions, nor point
out when decisions
A rm y
projec
makers are failing to
ts u p d
a te
adequately deal with
hard issues. That was our
starting premise when ourr first edition
appeared on the streets 34 years ago, and why we
rapidly became the defence business sector’s leading
source of independent news and information.
Subscribe to
Australia
New Zealand
Asia-Pacific
Rest of World
India/Pakistan & Bangladesh.
]
Postcode
State
Country
Phone (
)
)
Email
Phone, Fax or Email Subscription to: Ventura Media Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. PO Box 88 Miranda, NSW 1490 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9526 7188 Fax: +61 2 9526 1779 Email: [email protected] ABN 76 095 476 065
US NAVY
[ SHIPS
of 85. The vessels have been built to operate
throughout New Zealand’s 200 mile EEZ, the
Southern Ocean and the South Pacific.
The four smaller IPVs are being built and
launched at Whangareiin New Zealand.
The vessels will be used to conduct maritime
surveillance in support of civil agencies in the
area from the shoreline to approx 24nm. The IPVs
are based on a Tenix-designed Search and Rescue
vessel in service with the Philippines Coast Guard
and the first of class HMNZS Rotoiti having
been completed and undergoing final sea trials.
A further three IFVs, HMNZS Hawea, Pukaki and
Taupo, are under construction.
REGIONAL CONTEST
Further north in the Indian subcontinent there
have been a number of naval developments. In
the first half of the decade the Indian Navy took
delivery of the first of three new frigates being
built for it at Russian dockyards. India signed a
$1 billion contract for three Project 1135.6 Talwar
class frigates in 1997. However, the programme
experienced delays that meant deliveries were
not completed until 2003.
The three vessels, INS Talwar, INS Trishul
and INS Tabar are some of the most modern
in the INS fleet. The ships are based on the
Severnoye Design Bureau Project 1135.1 design.
The multipurpose frigates displace around 4,000
tonnes. The Talwar class’ major systems are all
of Russian design including the Trebovaniye M
combat information and control platform. The
ships are armed with the Shtil-1 medium-range
airdefence missile system and they also have an
eight-cell launcher outfitted for Novatar 3M54E
antiship cruise missiles as well as a single A-190E
100mm dual-purpose gun.
India is also in a prolonged arrangement with
HMAS Anzac conducts maritime operations in the vicinity of Iraq‚s Khwar Al Amaya Oil Terminal in 2007.
Russia to procure the former Soviet type 1143
Kiev class aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. The
project, which was supposed to augment the IN’s
existing carrier capability has seen prolonged
delays. Most recently Russia said the delivery of
the aircraft carrier to the IN would be delayed
until 2012 as the vessel could be refitted only
sometime in 2010.
India also has a number of indigenous surface
vessel programmes. These include a potential
follow on to the Talwar class frigates and a project
to also build an indigenous aircraft carrier. Steel
for the aircraft carrier project was first cut in 2005,
but progress at the Cochin shipyard has been
painfully slow. Currently, there is little real idea of
when the new Vikrant class aircraft carriers will
come on stream leaving the ageing INS Viraat as
the country’s sole aircraft carrier.
Despite the many delays the IN has suffered in
its shipbuilding programme its main competitor,
the Pakistan Navy (PN), has been left struggling
to keep pace either with its own shipbuilding
programme or in foreign procurement of vessels.
As a result, the PN has, instead of trying to
match the IN, decided on a strategy of selective
deterrence. The bulk of its surface fleet is made up
of six Tariq class frigates procured from the UK.
There are ongoing negotiations with Beijing
about the procurement of a new class of frigate
based on the People’s Liberation Army Navy
(PLAN) Jiangwei II-class. However, the talks seem
to have fizzled on in recent years. Earlier in
2008 Pakistan’s then naval chief Admiral Afzal
Tahir made it be known that the country was in
the market for several second hand frigates to
augment its capabilities.
NAVAL POWER ASPIRATIONS
The PLAN also has major surface vessel projects
underway for itself. The Jiangwei II is one of
a family of frigates collectively known as the
Type 053 with various displacements and several
export customers. However, the PLAN is now in
the process of replacing its own stock of Type
053 frigates with the updated Type 054 (Jiangkai
class), the first of which began construction in
2002.
The latest Type 054A (Jaingkai 2) is larger than
the largest of the Type 053 with a displacement
of 3,450 tonnes. The multri-role frigates are
armed with two four-cell launchers for the YJ-83
sea-skimming antiship cruise missile and also
have an eight-cell launcher for the HQ-7 surface
to air missile. There is a helicopter flight deck
at the stern and aft there is a Russian Ak-176M
76mm automatic gun systems.
One of the major aspirations for the PLAN
is to be able to control the sea routes in and
around the Taiwan Straits. This is recognised by
the Republic of China Navy which took delivery
of its final Cheng Kung class guided missile frigate
in 2003. The ships are based on the USN’s Oliver
Hazard Perry design, but were built indigenously
by China Shipbuilding Corporation. The RoCN
has eight ships of the class in service armed with
the Hsiung Feng II active radar infra-red homing
anti-ship missile. The ships are also armed with
40 Standard SM1-MR surface to air missiles and a
single OTO Melara 76/62 Mk75 gun.
The RSN‚s frigate RSS Formidable steams alongside the IN frigate INS Brahmaputra in the Bay of Bengal.
US NAVY
36 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
SHIPS
HYUNDAI
Early computer generated
design for the KDX-III frigates.
the RoKN’s fleet and like other close allies of the
US in the region it will come equipped with the
Aegis air defence system.
Currently, Seoul is committed to buying three
of the frigates with an option for a further three.
The ships are being built jointly by Hyundai
Heavy Industries and Daewoo Shipbuilding and
Marine Engineering. The 166m long ships have a
displacement of 7,650 tonnes and are capable of
speeds in excess of 30 knots. To complement the
Aegis combat system the ships are armed with
the US manufactured Standard Missile 2.
THE NEW ATHENS
JAPAN GETS READY FOR BMD
In recent years Singapore has also strengthened
its naval forces through the acquisition of six new
multi-mission frigates built by DCN International
and Singapore Technologies Marine. The first of
class RSS Formidable was launched at DCN’s
Lorient shipyard in 2003 and commissioned last
year. This year has seen a rapid expansion of the
fleet with a further three ships, RSS Intrepid,
RSS Steadfast, and RSS Tenacious, all being
commissioned. Two further vessels Stalwart and
Supreme are yet to come in to service with the
Republic of Singapore Navy.
These newest additions to the RSNs fleet are
equipped with stealth technology to complement
their advanced sensor and weapons suite. They
are capable of dealing with multidimensional
naval threats from the air, surface or underwater.
They are also to be equipped with organic naval
helicopters in the form of the service’s Sikorsky
S-70Bs.
The frigates measure in at 114m long with
a displacement of 3,200 tonnes. The ships are
capable of speeds in excess of 25 knots and have
a range of 3,500nm. Although the Formidable
class is being built by DCN and Singapore
Technologies the ships’ multi-warfare combat
system has been developed entirely indigenously
by Singapore’s Defence Science and Technology
Agency (DSTA), which is also the acquisition
authority for the programme.
The DSTA designed system has an impressive
array of armaments to call upon. Each vessel is
equipped with the MBDA Aster15 active radar
homing point-defence missile system, Boeing
Harpoon anti-surface missile system, and
Eurotrop A244/s Mod 3 lightweight torpedoes
and an OTO Melara 76/62 Super Rapid gun.
What is clear is that there is a lot of naval
activity underway in Asia with the majority of
naval powers all looking to upgrade their surface
fleet capabilities. For a region that is apparently
not in the midst of a naval arms race there is
a great degree of interest in getting the most
advanced capabilities possible.
Of particular note in the region is the number
of US allies intent on getting their hands on the
Aegis air warfare system. A number of countries
have already procured the system and others
still would like to get their hands on it. For those
looking to operate in the Pacific theatre the
name would seem somewhat ironic.
At the same time as US allies look to succour
under the US BMD shield other countries in
the region are locked in to the spiral of naval
development fuelled by regional tensions. With
an end to those tensions not yet in sight naval
shipbuilding will continue to be a focus of efforts
for countries in the region. APDR
JS Kongo arrives in Hawaii for its BMD trials last year.
US NAVY
Despite its pacifist stance Japan has also
remained a major naval power in the region
and is also doing much to upgrade its naval
surface fleet capabilities. One of the most recent
editions to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence
Force’s (JMSDF) capabilities is the US furnished
AEGIS system. The system is installed aboard the
country’s Kongo class Aegis Destroyers, which
are being put through their paces to give the
country an initial ballistic missile defence (BMD)
capability.
As Defence Review Asia went to press one
of the destroyers, JS Chokai, had successfully
completed a tracking exercise, in the mid-Pacific,
where its radars acquired a ballistic missile
target, launched from the US Pacific Missile
Range Facility (PMRF), Barking Sands, Kauai,
Hawaii, and was about to undergo an initial
BMD intercept. JS Chokai is the second of four
Japanese destroyers that have been, or will be,
equipped with the Aegis BMD capability.
A similar test was conducted last December
with the first of class JS Kongo. The destroyers are
a modification of the United States Navy’s Arleigh
Burke class destroyer. The ships entered service
in the 1990s, but have had their capabilities
incrementally developed for the BMD role.
Also last year the JMSDF launched one of its
newest vessels, the helicopter carrier JS Hyuga.
However, the ship is almost as large as the UK
Royal Navy’s existing class of through deck aircraft
carrier, which has led to speculation that it could
be used as more than a helicopter carrier by the
JMSDF. In normal service JS Hyuga is expected
to carry three SH-60J Blackhawk anti submarine
helicopters and one MH-53E Super Stallion
multi-role helicopter. Reports suggest that the
ship’s hangar could, however, accommodate up
to 11 medium sized helicopters.
On the Korean peninsula, Seoul has also taken
steps to continue to develop the capabilities of
the Republic of Korea Navy (RoKN). Last year, the
RoKN launched the first of a new class of guided
missile frigate. The KDX-III or SejongdaewangHam class will be one of the most capable in
]
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter | 37
[ SUPER HORNET UPDATE
KYM BERGMANN
CANBERRA
Ahead of schedule
A
38 | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
fairly lethal punch. They can carry around 360 different combinations of
weapons, giving tremendous flexibility. If the mission was purely air-to-air
the jet can carry 14 missiles at any one time.
“Another great feature of these aircraft is their ability to avoid threats.
The US Department of Defense undertook a 3 year study identifying all the
threats out to the year 2024. This has lead to what they call a ‘flight plan’ of
capability enhancements to make sure all aircraft are ahead of the game.
We feel very comfortable against any aircraft coming out of Russia and
some other places through to at least 2024.
“With the sensors we have on board – AESA radar, EW suite and mission
computers in particular – a lot of future enhancements will consist of
software upgrades. There are some additional sensors which will be
added such as an Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST), which has an initial
operating capability date of 2013. These will be mounted on the front of
the centerline fuel tank, slightly reducing its capacity, but adding on a
piece of enormously capable electronics.
“With this sensor we will be able to undertake air-to-air missions in
a passive way – that is carry out combat missions without emitting any
signals.
The other 2 items which will go on the aircraft in the near future are a
distributed target processor and also a mass storage unit. When combined
with the IRST this will be a further major enhancement of the Super
Hornet’s multi-mission capability.
While the RAAF has not formally committed to the upgrade path it
would seem sensible to do so, obviously depending on cost. According to
Gower the RAAF has set aside some funds for these enhancements but he
was unclear about whether this will fully cover the cost of the upgrades.
Bob Gower went on to explain that the Super Hornet is the result
of a great deal of research in the late 1980s and early 90s in the
broad domain of low observability. The resultant aircraft designs
(including F-22 and JSF) combine stealth design and materials with the
capabilities of the AESA radar,
high speed data buses and a
number of other measures. This
means that while the aircraft has
not been optimized purely for
stealth it nevertheless contains
many features reducing its
signature. Even the AESA radar
surface is canted at an angle
of 27 degrees, which slightly
degrades its performance, but
makes a massive contribution
to reducing the Super Hornet’s
radar cross section.
From the information available, Boeing is making very
good progress on an enormously
capable aircraft and it is no
surprise that the company is
proud of the achievement. APDR
USN
ccording to Boeing, the program to produce 24 Super Hornets
for the RAAF is going exceptionally well and is actually ahead
of schedule. Speaking in Canberra, Bob Gower, Vice President
“For Everything Super Hornet” said the first RAAF aircraft
will be rolled out on 16 July 2009 even though the contract
nominates October. On several occasions during the briefing
he referred to the “date certain, cost certain performance” of Boeing.
Work commenced on the first Australian aircraft in February 08 and a
number of milestones have been reached on, or ahead, of schedule. These
include: work on the high performance electronically scanned APG-79
radar (July 08); the start of training RAAF maintenance teams (September
08); delivery of the next release of software to the USN (November 08); and
the start of aircraft assembly at St Louis (December 08).
Providing some performance details of the aircraft, he described the
Super Hornet as the world’s most balanced fighter because of its unique
blend of characteristics:
“The USN didn’t just put all their money into stealth. We are a
low-observable platform with significant stealth, however a lot of money
has also been invested in the AESA radar, the electronic warfare suite, the
redundant systems on the platform and then the ability to network the
platforms.
“It’s this balanced approach that I think makes this the world’s premier
multi-role fighter.
“The USN just finished their first deployment of a full AESA squadron. I
like talking to the pilots and the words they used were better than from our
marketing department: ‘We are like King Kong out there – with this radar
nobody can touch us.’”
The squadron has been flying against a number of 4th generation aircraft
such as F-16s and F-15s and Bob Gower explained that the performance of
the Super Hornet against these older aircraft types has been similar to the
results achieved by F-22s. Mainly because of the superior performance of the
APG-79, the Super Hornets were
USN Super Hornet.
able to detect other aircraft and
target them while at the same
time remaining unobserved.
Because of the electronically
scanned array the aircraft were
also able to simultaneously
carry out air-to-air and air-toground operations.
As well as performance, the
AESA radars are far more reliable than legacy systems and
are 8 times less prone to problems, according to operational
experience to date. This is
largely because the radars have
far fewer moving parts than a
mechanically scanned system.
He continued:
“The Super Hornets carry a
Be a Part of Asia-Pacific’s
Premier Event on Maritime Defence
Participate In IMDEX Asia 2009!
Contact our international representatives:
EUROPE/THE AMERICAS/
MIDDLE EAST/INDIA/ AUSTRALIA
IMDEX Asia Ltd
Mr Roger Marriott, Managing Director
Tel: +44 (0) 1959 565869
Fax: +44 (0) 1959 563512
Mobile: +44 (0) 7767 783237
Email: [email protected]
NORTH ASIA/S.E.A./
SINGAPORE
IMDEX Asia Ltd
Ms Constance Lee, Project Director
Mobile: +65 9180 8008
Fax: +65 6822 2614
Email: [email protected]
Ms Carolyn Chew, Project Manager
Mobile: +65 8163 6777
Fax: +65 6822 2614
Email: [email protected]
www.imdexasia.com
ORGANISED BY
IMDEX Asia Ltd
OFFICIAL SUPPORT
HELD IN
OFFICIAL AIRLINE
MEDIA PARTNERS
AVALON MEANS BUSINESS
The Asia Pacific region is undergoing major growth in defence and aviation, with the budgets in many countries continuing to
rise and an ever increasing level of sophistication in technologies, equipment, systems and operational methods.
Leading the way to access these important markets every two years is the Australian International Airshow and Aerospace
& Defence Exposition staged at Avalon Airport, Geelong, Victoria.
First held in 1992, the biennial Australian International Airshow and Aerospace & Defence Exposition is one of the Asia Pacific’s
most prestigious aviation, aerospace and defence events.
In 2009 it will again present a unique opportunity to showcase products, technologies and services to an informed target audience
and to demonstrate a marketing presence in this vibrant and vital region.
THE AVIATION, AEROSPACE AND DEFENCE SHOWCASE FOR
AUSTRALIA AND THE ASIA PACIFIC REGION
Telephone: +61 (0)3 5282 0500
Email: [email protected]
Supported by
Website: www.airshow.com.au