DSR urges change of direction to RAAF’s integrated air defence system

The chances of Australia becoming a global hub for developing integrated air and missile defence systems has just received a major blow.

A radar network system at CEA Technologies, Canberra. Picture: Department of Defence

The Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) signature programs for defending Australia against aerial threats – including ballistic and cruise missiles and hostile aircraft – are the AIR 6500 series, the first phase of which is well under way.

The plan is to develop a layered, seamless defensive umbrella made up of a radar network from Canberra company CEA Technologies, command and control nodes and the co-ordinated employment of friendly land, sea and air assets. These include F-35s and Super Hornets, Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft, Aegis-equipped ships with short and medium range missiles and Army’s air defence system being acquired through project LAND 19 Phase 7.

The guiding philosophy has been to put in place sequential capability building blocks, ultimately able to protect Australian military and civilian infrastructure from large scale aerial attacks.

The first step is getting the command and control architecture right, then adding increasing functionality, then medium-range ground-to-air missiles such as PAC-3 – and eventually a mobile version to support deployed forces.

The current activity – AIR 6500 Phase 1 – aims to field a Joint Air Battle Management System, and Defence was on track to choose a system integrator in the next few months, until the DSR came along.

The two competitors are US defence technology giants Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, working through their Australian subsidiaries. Both companies are used to developing cutting-edge solutions and both have a wealth of experience working on highly complex projects that are among the most advanced in the world. Northrop Grumman is building the B-21 bomber – and Lockheed Martin is delivering fifth generation F-35s and Aegis naval radar and fire control systems.

Without having access to their competing bids – submitted to Defence late last year – it seems that they have taken slightly different approaches to meeting the very complex and innovative requirements set by the RAAF. Northrop Grumman have structured their offer around an existing product currently being rolled out by the US Army – the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS).

The impression that Lockheed Martin give is that their bid is more about developing an Australian capability, drawing on their vast corporate experience. Where necessary they can draw on their experience with Aegis and other networked systems to develop tailored solutions.

Both companies have put together strong local teams, though Lockheed Martin appears to have gone further with a $74m commitment to invest in creating an Australian Integrated Air and Missile Defence Ecosystem.

The intention is to bring together Australian companies, research institutes and elements of Defence to build a world-class network able to develop cutting-edge defensive systems.

This is not corporate altruism; this is an investment based on the calculation that global demand for these types of products will exceed $80bn in the next decade. As the Russian invasion of Ukraine is proving with salvos of missiles, rockets and glide bombs, having an effective air defence system is vital for national survival. Other countries well aware of the nature of these sorts of threats include Israel, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan – so the decision by Lockheed Martin looked to be a shrewd one.

However, the DSR says while it supports the overall aim of the project, it does not support its relative priority: “The program is not structured to deliver a minimum viable capability in the shortest period of time but is pursuing a long-term, near perfect solution at an unaffordable cost.

“In service, off-the-shelf solutions must be explored.”

Neither company is mentioned by name, but these two sentences must send a shiver up the spine of Lockheed Martin because as things stand there is only one solution that can be considered off-the-shelf – and that’s the one from Northrop Grumman.

Why the DSR believes that the RAAF’s “perfect solution” is at an unaffordable cost is unknown.

There has been a consistent theme in the DSR that what Australia needs are rapid, non-developmental solutions for numerous capability shortfalls. That’s fine, but often these come at the expense of Australian industry and the words “off-the-shelf” have become barely concealed code to buy whatever the US is using.

It is always possible that the classified version of the DSR has taken a more adventurous approach to some projects than what has been made public, but it’s hard to imagine why.

Since the government has already accepted all the recommendations, the chances of Australia becoming a global hub for developing integrated air and missile defence systems has just received a major blow.