JANUARY 30, 2020

Australian Defence Capability Analysis Project LAND 4503 - ARH Replacement Program

SCOTT LOVELL

About the Author

Scott Lovell is an ex-Army Officer (RAEME) and an Electrical, Aerospace and Systems Engineer with 20 years Defence aerospace engineering experience. He has worked on several Defence helicopter acquisition and sustainment projects, including AIR9000 Ph2/4/6, AIR87 and AIR9000 Ph5C. At the time of writing Scott was working as an independent contractor on various civilian aerospace and infrastructure projects under his company LAESE Pty Ltd.

Copyright © Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies – Australia and the author. All rights reserved.

Capability Analysis – LAND 4503 ARH Replacement Program

Contents Introduction ...... 1 Capability Requirements ...... 1 Options Under Consideration: ...... 1 ARH Tiger Upgrade (Incumbent) ...... 2 Bell AH-1Z Viper ...... 2 Boeing AH-64E Apache Guardian ...... 2 Capability Assessment ...... 2 General Specifications...... 2 Mission Systems ...... 4 Weapon Systems ...... 6 Transport and Amphibious Operations ...... 8 Interoperability ...... 11 ROM Cost Assessment ...... 12 Other Considerations ...... 13 History ...... 14 Commonality ...... 14 Program Complexities ...... 15 Life-Cycle Upgrades ...... 16 Leverages ...... 17 Sponsorship and Configuration Management ...... 18 Conclusion ...... 18 References ...... 19

P a g e | 1

Introduction 1. General Specifications – details about the platform’s make, history, In July 2019, the Helicopter Systems Division operators and performance data (HSD) of Defence’s Capability Acquisition and 2. Platform Systems – details of the Sustainment Group (CASG) released a Request major systems, subsystems, for Informationi in relation to Project architecture and specific mission LAND4503 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter systems capabilities (CNS-ATM, C4ISR, (ARH) Replacement. There is already a strong EWSP, etc) belief within Defence Industry that the 3. Weapon Systems – current and future findings of the ARH ANAO Performance Audit armament details Reportii may have sealed the fate of the Tiger. 4. Survivability – design details about the platform’s self-protection against The project is currently in the information battlefield threats and crash gathering phase to assess the available ARH survivability replacement options on the market. 5. Interoperability – ISR and The incumbent Airbus Australia Pacific is communications systems proposing for Defence to keep and interoperability with current and incrementally upgrade the current fleet of future UAS platforms ARH Tigers. They are advocating to leverage 6. Transportability – details about the selected features of the European Tiger Mk.3 platform’s ability and readiness to be upgrade program currently under transported by air, land and sea development by France, Germany and Spain 7. Amphibious Operations – history of under OCCARiii. So far, two other strong amphibious operations and specific contenders have publicly declared their platform marinized design details intention to respond to the RFI. The following factors are also to be addressed This paper provides a project and capability in the RFI responses: analysis of the three known options being 1. Production and delivery projections presented to Defence for Project LAND4503. 2. Through Life Support concepts, Publicly available data is presented against a including maintenance, engineering, summary of the requirements stated within logistics, IP provisions, training, the RFI. There is also a discussion on other facilities requirements, information relevant factors that should be considered for support systems and Australian this program before contract award. Industry involvement 3. In Service Support concepts 4. ROM costings for acquisition, Capability Requirements operation and through life support

As per the Statement of Requirement attached to the RFIiv, the respondents must address how their platform can satisfy the Options Under Consideration: requirements of the three primary missions For the purposes of this paper, it is assumed for LAND4503 (reconnaissance, attack and that the following platform options shall be security operations) with a fleet of up to 29 considered for LAND4503. aircraft, ensuring to address the following capability criteria:

P a g e | 2

ARH Tiger Upgrade (Incumbent) and beginning production for international customers.

Boeing AH-64E Apache Guardian

Description: The ARH Tiger is a European four- bladed, twin engine, two seater attack helicopter, manufactured by Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) and “Australianised” Description: The AH-64E Apache Guardian is a under the AIR87 program by Australian land combat proven American four-bladed, Aerospace. The Australian Tiger has made one twin engine, two seater attack helicopter. recent, albeit minor LHD deployment outside Manufactured by Boeing it is based on the Australia, but has yet to see combat much less AH=64A which was initially produced for the deploy outside Australia for any length of US Army beginning in 1983. time.

Capability Assessment Bell AH-1Z Viper The following is a direct comparison of the three platforms. Of note, this comparison uses only publicly available data – in some cases, data is incomplete or may be outdated and may not fully represent the capability that shall be presented in response to the RFI. Care has been taken to source the most recent available data, however this comparison is for academic purposes only and in no way is meant to be an official representation of any potential respondent.

Description: The AH-1Z Viper is a land and General Specifications amphibious combat proven American four- bladed, twin engine, two seater attack Table 1 shows a direct comparison against the helicopter. Manufactured by Bell, it is a new General Specifications of the aircraft: design helicopter that is nearing completion of initial production for the US Marine Corps P a g e | 3

General Specifications Eurocopter ARH Tigerv Bell AH-1Z Vipervi Boeing AH-64E Apachevii

French Army US Marine Corps US Army German Army Bahrain Air Force UK Spanish Army Czech Republic Air Force UAE Operators (current and future) Chinese Army (Taiwan) South Korea Saudi Arabia + 3 other

No. Produced 1801 141 (total will exceed 215) 56 (new) + qty upgraded D models

Empty – 3,060kg Empty – 5,433kg Empty – 5,165kg Weights Max T/O – 6,000kg Max T/O – 8,390kg Max T/O – 10,433kg

Cruise – 146 knots Cruise – 160 knots Cruise – 143 knots Speed Max – 160 – 170 knots Max – 200 knots Max – 158 knots

Standard – 430 nmi Standard – 390 nmi Standard – 257 nmi Range Ferry – 700 nmi Ferry – 780 nmi Ferry – 1,024 nmi

Table 1 – General Specification Comparison

1 This figure refers to a baseline version of the Eurocopter Tiger (EC655) – several specific modifications to the baseline configuration have been made to the ADF fleet of 22 aircraft that has resulted in a divergent “orphaned” configuration. P a g e | 4

Table 1 suggests that against the general specifications for history and performance for the three aircraft, there are few discriminating factors between them. Where one aircraft type can carry more, it can’t fly as far or as fast. There are significant quantities and respective flight hours of each type and all could be considered in their own right as mature aircraft that have met their FOC (noted that the ARH Tiger had 9 x FOC caveatsviii). For these general specifications, it will be up to the ADF to determine which performance factors meet the intended ARH replacement CONOPS best and how much weight they give to a platform’s fleet size and usage history.

Mission Systems

Table 2 shows the comparison between the aircrafts Mission Systems, including CNS-ATM and EWSP: P a g e | 5

Mission Systems Eurocopter ARH Tiger Bell AH-1Z Viper Boeing AH-64E Apache

Obsolescence issues with radios – new AN-ARC-210 UHF/VHF COMSEC radio (SATCOM VHF/UHF SATCOM COMSEC Comms models on order optional) radio

Data link iTDL Link 16 (due 2022) Viasat Link 16 STT

Thales Topstar EGI – Obsolescence Integrated nav suite including MSO-145 Integrated nav suite including Navigation and integration issues for Mode S and certified EGI (M-Code GPS upgrade due 2022) EGI (M-Code Ready) IFF

Roof/helmet mounted sights Target Sight System with: IHADSS Laser/EO guided weapons targeting • 3rd Gen IR Sensor MTADS Sensors / Targeting FLIR • Low-light level TV Camera FLIR • Laser range-finder / designator Top Owl integrated helmet display sight system

ADS-B Out ADS-B Out (due 2022) ADS-B Out ATCRBS Mode S (ELS) Mode S (EHS) Mode S (EHS) Mode 5 L1 (TBC) – 2-D GPS Mode 5 L2 Mode 5 L2

RWR RWR RWR UV missile sensors UV missile sensors UV missile sensors EW Suite Chaff/flare Chaff/flare Chaff/flare IR suppression IR Suppression IR Suppression Future DAIRCM

Table 2 – Mission Systems Comparison P a g e | 6

Based on the information available, the following SAASM chipsets installed in European comments can be made about the above mission EGI’s) systems comparison: • As previously mentioned, the ARH has limitations to its ATCRBS Mark XIIA compliance • Although ARH Tiger has seen difficulties due to the limitations of its current EGI. The full with regards to radio communication ATCRBS capability of the Tiger is pending a system obsolescence, the three contenders future EGI upgrade. Both US options have are expected to put forward a solution that achieved (or are pending) full ATCRBS provides sufficient modern aircraft secure capability certification. voice and data communications capabilities. • All three aircraft have a capable EWSP suite. Consideration should be made as to which Consideration should be given to the ADF’s systems offered have sustainable through ability to support these three suites with their life support and perhaps commonality in service electronic warfare support agency throughout the ADF inventory. (JEWOSU). The ARH Tiger already has a • The standard NATO TDL for interoperability certified RF and IR EW programming capability is Link 16. The Apache has a proven Link 16 and has matured the effectiveness of the TDL with the Viasat STT. The Viper has a programs with in-country trials at EX planned Link 16 upgrade due for service SURFRIDER over the last decade. It is currently release in 2022. ARH Tiger has already had unknown as to how the US options EW support an upgrade to its TDL capability with an shall be undertaken, but the main two options Elbit Systems Australia developed “interim are: TDL”. It has been rumoured that the Tiger o In-country design and programming Mk.3 upgrade may offer a Link 16 option, capability at JEWOSU – additional cost and but it is yet to be confirmed. will take several years to develop and • All three aircraft have the minimum mature into combat readiness status. This navigation suite to achieve an IFR option does however allow the ADF to certification and Military Type Certificate. optimise their libraries for individual Both US aircraft have fully integrated MSO- missions and flight profiles and a quick c145 compliant M-Code ready EGI’s library development turn-around upon (currently SAASM), which not only gives request; or them a certification advantage with regards o Use of standard EW libraries and pre- to navigation and ATCRBS (Mode S, ADS-B designed programs to be delivered under and Mode 5), but it also future proofs their an EW support agreement from the US upgrade capability to the next generation DoD – the ADF may lose ability to optimise protected GPS technology. The ARH’s EGI operational effectiveness of EW programs has provided difficulties for the ARH’s Mode (unless the support arrangement allows 5 upgrade program and is planned to be for user feedback and customisation – e.g. upgraded as part of the Tiger Mk.3 upgrade. JSF) and have increased turn-around times The integration of an upgraded EGI for the from request to delivery. This option ARH Tiger should be considered as a however, has a significantly lower significant risk for the following reasons: sustainment and setup cost. o History of integration issues with the ARH avionics suite o Access to US protected (M-Code) Weapon Systems technology for integration on European designed aircraft can be Table 3 shows the comparison between the difficult (there were major political platform’s Weapon Systems, Survivability and UAS and logistics issues originally getting Interoperability: P a g e | 7

Eurocopter ARH Tiger Bell AH-1Z Viper Boeing AH-64E Apache

30mm turret canon (450 rounds) 20mm M197 turret canon (650 30mm M230 (1,200 rounds) rounds) 4 x external weapons pylons: 4 x external weapons pylons: 6 x external weapons pylons: 70mm rockets (x52 max) 70mm rockets (x76 max) Weapon Systems 70mm rockets (x76 max) AGM-114 Hellfire (x16 max) AGM-114 Hellfire (x16 max) AGM-114 Hellfire (x16 max) AIM-9 Sidewinder A-to-A (x2 max)

Survivability

Ballistic protection optional config Redundant systems (engines, Multiple ballistics hardening design hydraulics, electrical system, features (shielding, ballistics selected avionics), ballistically- protection kit, self-sealing fuel hardened/damage-tolerant systems system, etc) Battle Damage (drive system components, rotor blades & controls, fuel cells) and crew seats with wrap-around ballistic armour.

Crashworthy modular design Certified to US Navy Certified to MIL-STD-1290 Crash Crashworthiness Specifications Self-sealing tanks

Not with current design Yes (due 2022) Yes (RQ-7 Shadow / MQ-1C Grey UAS Interoperability Eagle)

Table 3 – Weapon Systems, Survivability and UAS Interoperability Comparison P a g e | 8

With regards to the aircraft available weapon includes impact absorbing landing gear, systems, there is little to no difference in the crashworthy fuel-cells and stroking crew amount of available firepower to each platform, seats. and would thus have a similar battlefield effect. It The requirement for UAS interoperability and should be mentioned though that both US control is a relatively new concept. Very little is platforms can carry significantly more ordinance in publicly known about the possible CONOPS the its fully loaded configuration than the ARH. Also, ADF will employ with this capability, however it the AH-1Z can carry two AIM-9 air-to-air missiles has been issued as a requirement of LAND4503 simultaneously with air-to-ground ordnance thus and the respondents must answer. providing an organic air-defence capability. It will be up to the ADF to weigh this factor with respect The Apache has a known UAS interoperability to the aircraft’s CONOPS. capability with the RQ-7 Shadow and the MQ-1C Grey Eagle. Neither of which were mentioned by Some discussion points on the aircrafts design the RFI as possible UAV options, however it is with respect to survivability are: expected that it would be a similar (if not • All three platforms have taken ballistic and identical) data link interface for the options under kinetic weapon damage into consideration consideration for the ADF, which gives it a clear for their design. The ARH has an optional advantage in this RFI. ballistics protection configuration, which The Viper currently has UAS interoperability as a does in fact reduce the effective lift and planned upgrade due in 2022, which is in line with range capability of the platform. The Viper the delivery timeframe of the project and also has taken the design route of system allows for ADF design specific requirements to be redundancy and ballistically hardening incorporated prior to service release (low risk of critical flight components of the aircraft, fleet integration, lower design change cost if taken including wrap around armour protection up early in the design phase). for crew seating. The Apache has significant ballistic protection in its design features, There has been no public mention of the ARH which is a main reason for its high MTOW Tiger planning this upgrade. It is assumed it will be and the requirement for uprated T700-GE- addressed in the RFI response, however the issue 701C engines, which provide more power should be considered to be in a similar risk and burn more fuel than the standard and category as other yet to be confirmed integration more common 401C engines. and upgrade options. • Crashworthiness is a major requirement for

modern aircraft and is a DASR Part 21 design requirement for initial airworthiness Transport and Amphibious Operations certification. The ARH Tiger has a crashworthy modular design, self-sealing Table 4 shows the comparison between the three tanks, stroking seats, etc and famously had platform’s transportability and amphibious a controlled flight into terrain incident at operations capability: night in 1998 in Townsville, where both pilots walked away unharmed while the platform burned to the ground (definition of crashworthy!). The Apache has been certified to MIL-STD-1290 for crashworthiness, which meets the requirements of DASR. The Viper was designed and tested to meet the US Navy’s specifications for crashworthiness and P a g e | 9

Eurocopter ARH Tiger Bell AH-1Z Viper Boeing AH-64E Apache

Transportability

Air C-17 certified (x2) C-17 certified (x2) C-17 certified (x2)

No rotor brake Rotor brake Rotor brake Land Manual blade fold only Semi-auto blade fold (included in basic config) Blade fold kit optional Tie down points Tie down points Tie down points

Not fully marinized for transport or Fully marinized for transport and operations, Not fully marinized for transport operations includes EMC with naval ship systems (e.g. or operations Sea radars, comms arrays, etc) Additional maintenance actions required Additional maintenance actions for corrosion prevention required for corrosion prevention

Amphibious Operations

Conducted FOCFT on HMAS Canberra First fully marinized attack helicopter No public information found (sea state 5) History Regular conduct of amphibious ops with US Marines

Composite fuselage Corrosion resistant No specific amphibious design considerations No specific amphibious design Semi-auto blade fold considerations Significant post amphibious Small compacted footprint mission maintenance overhead Design Maintenance conducted in aircraft shadow Over water operation specific design features (e.g. quick release canopy, explosively detonated windscreen)

Table 4 – Transportability and Amphibious Capability Comparison P a g e | 10

Based on the information available, the ARH and Apache have extensive post- following comments can be made about the sea transport preventative transportability comparison: maintenance procedures that must be conducted ASAP following exposure to • All three aircraft types are rated for C- a seagoing conditions. 17 airlift and can be configured to allow two aircraft to fit the C-17 cargo hold. Following on from the last point on sea Consideration should be taken as to the transportability, it is clear from the RFI airlift preparation requirements of the “Amphibious Operations” requirement that three aircraft. Features like blade fold the ADF intends to include operating from procedure, additional ramp naval platforms to the ARH replacement requirements, parts removal CONOPS. This was to be expected with the requirements, specialised lift and tow introduction of the Canberra Class LHD’s vehicle requirements, etc are a entering service recently for the RAN. significant factor for operational There are many factors of an aircraft that lend effectiveness. As deployment support itself to amphibious operations, such as would becomes more complex, aircraft flight be conducted from an LHD. The following and cargo prep times can effect points should be considered: operational availability and readiness. Transport preparation and post • Corrosion protection – is the aircraft transport maintenance times can vary susceptible to corrosion at sea? How from less than an hour to a full day or does that effect the aircraft life of type? more, which can be the difference What penalty maintenance is required between a rapid deployment capability for continued operations (compressor and a cumbersome logistics burden. washes, sacrificial anode installations, • All three aircraft are certified for additional lubrication schedule, etc)? surface transport. The only • Maintenance operations – How easy / discriminating factor, again would be difficult is it to maintain the aircraft in a the transport preparation limited space environment? Does the requirements. If the recovery of an aircraft require any bulky tooling that unserviceable aircraft is taking place in would take up valuable deck and a forward operational environment, storage space on the ship? What are quick preparation with a minimum of the intervals between deep level maintenance procedures can be critical services and can they be conducted at to minimize exposure to danger. sea? • For sea transport, there is a clear • Stowage and Launch – How long does it standout in the Viper. Although the take to prepare the aircraft for below ARH and Apache can be transported by deck stowage from landing (factors sea, there are no specific marinisation mainly include rotor braking and blade design features that protect the fold)? Vice-versa, how long does it take airframes from extended exposure to for the aircraft to be ready for launch corrosive environments like sea once retrieved from stowage? transport. The Viper was specifically • Flight over water – Is the aircraft rated designed to be the first fully marinized for flight and navigation over open attack helicopter for the US Marine water? What safety design features are Corps and has various features that included for over water operations lend it to be suitable for sea transport (floatation, canopy release, underwater (and extended maritime use)ix. Both the escape rating, etc) P a g e | 11

• Electromagnetic compatibility – Ship- For deployed support purposes and logistics borne operations expose aircraft to supply chain leverage, historically our US DoD high levels of electromagnetic energy counterparts have provided invaluable (Naval platform radars, deployed support for ADF operated versions communications, etc) and ship systems of their aircraft types (e.g. Afghanistan – CH- can also be susceptible to aircraft EM 47D). If history is any indication, the likelihood energy emissions (weather radar, of deploying within the vicinity of US coalition weapons radar, etc). What design forces afloat or ashore in current and future features of the aircraft take these EMC conflicts is far higher than that of German, factors into account? Are the aircraft Spanish or French forces, and their good will is rated for HIRF / HERO? yet to be tested in regards to aviation deployed support assistance. Again, based on the information available, for this requirement the Viper is the standout aircraft. It will be up to the ADF to determine the weight they give to this requirement, most likely to be based on an estimated percentage of intended amphibious operations. Interoperability

Interoperability is a critical enabler for Defence. It defines the extent of force integration and cooperation within the ADF and with non ADF forces. Australia participates in, and even leads, multinational operations in support of national security objectives.

The ability of the ADF to operate alongside other defence forces is an important political consideration and, therefore, an increasingly important factor in major acquisition programs, as reflected in the different ways it is referred to in this paper.

In addition to the operational benefits, from a logistics perspective, common systems across platforms also provides sustainment efficiencies.

While the RFI requirements includes a specific mention on UAS interoperability, a broader view of each platform’s interoperability is worth examination. For example, consideration should be given to the operators list and interoperability with coalition partner nations. P a g e | 12

ROM Cost Assessment

Eurocopter ARH Tiger Bell AH-1Z Viper Boeing AH-64E

Apache

ROM Costings

Per platform $58.57M AUDx $45.26M AUDxi $51.83M AUDxii

$34,482 AUD (FY $7,208 AUD (2018 $10,567 AUD (2018 18/19)xiii FMS User Rate)xv FMS User Rate) xvi Per flight hour $20,000 AUD (Govt target)xiv

Life Cycle (assuming 29 $145M AUD/year $52.26M AUD/year $76.61M AUD/year a/c @ 250 hours per year each)

Life of Type Cost (Total $3.31B AUD $2.36B AUD $3.035B AUD Procurement + Usage) – Assumes 20 year program (does not include through life upgrades)

Table 5 – ROM Program Costing Comparison P a g e | 13

Based on the most current available platform Note: This ROM costing model does not take costing information, let’s crunch the numbers into consideration the additional cost of for each potential program solution (Note: support equipment, training or facilities AUD figures are based on exchange rates required to achieve FOC (e.g. Mission planning current at time of authoring): system architecture, EWSP programming capability, hangars, fly-away kits, etc), nor any ARH Tiger: through life upgrades that may be required Current costing per platform - €36.1M = Apache AH-64E Guardian: $58.57M AUD Current costing per platform - $35.5M USD = Assumption that another 7 aircraft will be $51.83M AUD required to meet the stated 29 in the RFI Total platform procurement cost = $1.503B Total additional platform procurement cost = AUD $410M AUD Cost per flying hour = $7,177 USD = $10,567 Cost per flying hour – historically improving AUD (calculated for ashore operations only) from $40k AUD/hour to $27k AUD/hour. Government target is $20k AUD/hour (assume Cost per year of fleet at 250 hours per aircraft best case scenario of $20k for life of type) = $76.61M AUD (calculated for ashore operations only) Assuming a 20 year life of type; Program total Cost per year of fleet at 250 hours per aircraft cost = $3.035B AUD = $145M AUD Note: This ROM costing model does not take Assuming a 20 year life of type; Program total into consideration the additional cost of cost = $3.31B AUD support equipment, training or facilities required to achieve FOC (e.g. Mission planning Note: This ROM costing model does not take system architecture, EWSP programming into consideration the additional cost of capability, hangars, fly-away kits, etc), nor any platform modifications to the ARH Tiger through life upgrades that may be required required to meet the requirements of the RFI (e.g. EGI, Comms, Link 16, UAS control, etc), Although there are multiple unknowns at this their associated in-service costs, nor any stage on the final costing considerations for through life upgrades that may be required. each platform, based on the most current available pricing data, again, there appears to Bell AH-1Z Viper: be a clear standout for the Viper with respect Current costing per platform - $31M USD = to value for money. $45.26M AUD

Total platform procurement cost = $1.312B Other Considerations AUD

Cost per flying hour = $4,896 USD = $7,208 Without knowing the specifics of each AUD (calculated from combined afloat and contending platform’s response to the RFI, ashore operations) the above comparisons were compiled to best address as many of the released requirements Cost per year of fleet at 250 hours per aircraft as possible using available public data. The = $52.26M AUD finer details describing the individual Assuming a 20 year life of type; Program total respondent’s ability to meet the stated cost = $2.36B AUD system requirements, delivery projections and P a g e | 14 concepts of through life support will only be Bell AH-1Z Viper: known once the responses are received by the • Relatively new airframe with minimal ADF. proven combat record Aside from the information directly requested • Based on the very successful AH-1W by the RFI, there are several other factors and Super Cobra considerations that the ADF may take into • US Marine Corps increased order account when it comes to selecting a numbers due to successful testing and preferred respondent for LAND4503. The delivery following discussion points describe just some • Some modernised avionics systems additional factors that could be considered in yet to be integrated the ADF’s deliberations. • A mixed history of accidents, shoot- downs and crew losses/survivals History AH-64E Apache: • Most successful and proven make of What are the known factual and relevant any attack helicopter in history histories of all three platforms and their • Currently most advanced avionics suppliers? What can be said about these suite certified entities that may have bearing on their future • History of delivery on or ahead of performances? Many promises can be made schedule to FMS customers on how a program will unfold and how • A mixed history of accidents, shoot- capability and performance targets shall be downs and crew losses/survivals met, but what has history said about the validity of these claims? Some notable All three aircraft have positive and negative examples are: points to their histories, and the future is no guarantee of like performance, however ARH Tiger: history is the best teacher and should be • FOC delivered 20 months behind considered relevant to this decision, as long as schedule with nine attached caveats the following assessment methodology is • A long list of issues with serviceability adhered to: and logistics supportability • Is the historically relevant point • Successful local weapons integration positive or negative? and EW support capability o If positive: Is there any reason development projects as to why this would no • Significant local Industry involvement longer be valid in this case? and investment o If negative: What has been / is • Development and commissioning of being done to address this local aircraft software support issue? Are the rectification capability actions sufficient / successful? • Issues with a locally developed and orphaned mission planning system (GMMS) Commonality • Limited but positive crash survival history It is always advantageous to consider a procured system’s commonality with other systems within the ADF inventory. These advantages include, but are not limited to: P a g e | 15

• Pre-accepted materiel advantages success and/or failure of these projects. The (pre-loaded part numbers, NSN’s, and project type and the associated complexities usage certification within MILIS, etc) is right at the top of the list. • Established and proven logistics Let’s have a look at the two main types of support networks acquisition under consideration here: • Reduced item management overhead through pooled resourcing ARH Tiger – Direct procurement from OEM + • Accepted training, usage and Complex upgrade program: maintenance systems in place • Two separate projects – Buying The following describes a limited view of additional platforms to reach the 29 common sub-system items for each platform required PLUS agreed, multifaceted under consideration: systems upgrade project to meet capability requirements. ARH Tiger: • Original AIR87 procurement contract • Armaments: 70mm rockets, AGM-114 was extremely complex (>1000 pages), Hellfire with many detailed and caveated DID’s • System Support: ASSC/MSSC software and CDRL’s that required legal support centre interpretation and constant negotiation • Maintenance: Airbus DLM facility to determine an agreed performance (Brisbane) and capability baseline. • Had a very large “Acceptance” AH-1Z Viper: overhead, where Commonwealth • Armaments: 70mm rockets, AGM-114 representatives were required to do Hellfire, AIM-9 Sidewinder multiple levels of acceptance activities • Airframe Systems: Engine (T700-GE- throughout the project lifecycle 401C – same variant as MH-60R) (accepting requirements, accepting test procedures, witnessing test activities, • Avionics: Top Owl helmets, AN/ARC- accepting test reports – plus additional 210 radios workload for any failed steps along this • Mission Planning System: JMPS process). AH-64E Apache: • Included a high Airworthiness Certification overhead as well. Although • Armaments: 70mm rockets, AGM-114 recognition of prior acceptance (RPA) Hellfire was heavily leveraged, many systems The ADF should do a full systems review of did not meet the required DGTA each aircraft and identify all common items standards for a local Military Type and sub-systems that are already supported Certificate – significant instrumentation within the ADF inventory to gauge any and flight testing was required. significant advantages or savings that can be • The upgrade program would most likely exploited. follow this complex performance and delivery pattern, requiring significant effort on behalf of Defence. Program Complexities • All this aside, the ARH Tiger currently has a significant in-country support Anyone with military weapon system capability, including DLM facilities in acquisition experience can tell you that there Brisbane, type training capability in are many factors that contribute to the Oakey and a fully manned operational P a g e | 16

unit in Darwin, which represents Life-Cycle Upgrades significant investment on Defence’s behalf and is quite a head start to All modern platforms will be required to consider abandoning. undergo upgrades throughout their operational lifespan. As new threats emerge, AH-1Z Viper and AH-64E Apache – FMS technologies mature and obsolescence sets in, Procurement: military platforms need to modify, replace or • Low complexity contract – basic FMS add additional capabilities to maintain combat terms and conditions with a line-item superiority on the battlefield. delivery annex. Some questions that should be considered in • Tried and proven procurement regards to these technology advances are as method (CH-47F, MH-60R, etc). follows: • Low risk of airworthiness issues – US Military Airworthiness Authorities are • Who develops the majority of these recognised under DASR (Type military technology advancements? Certificates: Apache – US Army MAA; • Who controls the release of these Viper – US Navy MAA). technologies to allied partner nations? The main complexity faced by adopting a new • Who sets the standards for airframe type whilst transitioning from an in- implementation and interoperability service platform comes from the of these technologies? requirements associated with the stand-up of • How will my platform integrate these an all new through life support capability, new technologies? including: For the majority of all military platform • All new support systems (e.g. AMO, advancements in communications, navigation, AEO, facilities, tooling, training, etc). surveillance, weapon systems and electronic • A new NPOC with many positions to warfare, the US DoD has been the source fill (project office, operational units, (most likely due to their Defense budget being headquarters, etc – difficult to find higher than all other allied nations combined). qualified staff). • Operational units having significant The US Defense Advanced Research Projects operational preparation overhead Agency (DARPA) has been responsible for (training both maintainers and developing a significant percentage of all operators, establishing new common allied nations military technology maintenance and logistics support advancements since 1958 (including GPS, procedures, achieving and sustaining computer science technologies, required ROE, etc). telecommunications standards, material advancements, precision munitions, stealth The ADF must weigh their options in this case. technology, unmanned vehicles and advanced Are we prepared to undergo the growing sensor and targetingxvii). At any one time, pains of establishing yet another weapon DARPA has over 50 active and publicly system into the ADF inventory, or is it “better acknowledged projects developing new the devil we know”? technologies for military application. Outside of DARPA, there are several other US DoD agencies that are developing and trialling advanced military technologies. P a g e | 17

Some examples of future technologies that Leverages will be in consideration for the platform selected under LAND4503 are: It is always a consideration as to how to leverage current in-place systems to your • ATIRCM / DAIRCM advantage when it comes to selection of any • Assured PNT – Augmented navigation procurement option. systems • M-Code GPS Existing agreements, relationships, support • IFF Mode 5 L2B and beyond networks, facilities, infrastructure, etc should • ADS-B (In) / ADS-C be considered in this case as well. The • Advanced target recognition optics following points may provide attractive • TDL network upgrades leverage for the LAND4503 project: • Modular weapon system advances ARH Tiger:

The US supplied platform sponsors work As discussed previously, it cannot be directly with DARPA and US DoD projects to overlooked that the ARH Tiger currently has ensure that they know what technology shall an entire in-country support and operational be available within the platforms active capability, with established facilities, training lifespan. They also select specific technologies and manning. No other option can offer this that meet the platform’s capability kind of pre-existing capability as leverage for requirements and schedule in their upgrade this project programs up to 10 years in advance. Leading up to the release of the capability to customer AH-1Z Viper: nations, the platform sponsor tends to cover The Australian Army has a continuous all developmental, certification and testing exchange pilot program with MAG-39 in Camp costs and simply releases the upgrade as an Pendleton, CA and has numerous AH-1W optional Service Bulletin or Modification Cobra and AH-1Z Viper trained pilots. Order once accepted into service. Additionally, the USMC sends an exchange st Historically, designs that originated elsewhere pilot to the 1 Aviation Regiment in Robertson in the world have had to firstly wait until the Barracks. technology has become releasable to allied As a US Marine Corps platform, the Viper has nations, be assessed by the OEM for already been operated out of Darwin by the integration compatibility and then optioned US Marine Rotational Force. Leverage could to customer nations as a developmental be gained utilising the US Marines rotational project that must be funded by the customer presence in Darwin for: in order to make it available for their platforms. Then follows the requirements for • Training design, testing, certification and design • Logistics acceptance prior to releasability to the • Interoperability customer. • Operations and tactics development

In this case, it can be assumed that for the AH-64E Apache: majority of Life Cycle Upgrades that the Previously, there was a continuous pilot and LAND4503 platform shall be facing, a US FMS engineer rotation with the US Army 101st supplied option will deliver these upgrades far Airborne which operated various models of sooner and at a significantly lower price than Apache. Five or so years ago, the AUS Army – the European option. US Army exchange was cancelled. The AUS Army now sends its pilots on exchange with P a g e | 18 the USMC at MAG-39 in Camp Pendleton, CA continue to suffer from corrosion issues that for training in the AH-1Z Viper. will drastically reduce the life of the platforms, or do we diverge from the US Army configuration and risk future interoperability Sponsorship and Configuration and upgrade integration issues? Management

Platform sponsorship was touched on briefly Conclusion within the Life-Cycle Upgrade section above, but is worthy to be its own discussion point. The RFI released to Industry has shown the There is a significant increase in cost, risk and intent of the ADF to seriously consider management overhead throughout the life of replacing the entire ARH Tiger fleet with a a platform if your nation is the single or joint proven, in-service attack helicopter that is Lead/Sponsor of that platform or a divergent capable of providing reconnaissance, security configuration thereof. operations and air-attack on the modern battlefield. Whilst two very capable and A lead or sponsor nation not only bare proven contenders have declared their intent significantly more costs in the support, to respond to the RFI, the incumbent Tiger management and upgrade of a platform’s shall be fighting hard to retain its place in the configuration (typically including ADF inventory. developmental costs), but there is also a significantly increased capability risk. Firstly, There are multiple defendable and justifiable the risk of sponsoring a new technology reasons to select any one of the three aircraft project that may or may not succeed (there under consideration for LAND4503. Each are several historical examples where option presents its own unique advantages integration projects have failed). over the others, be its general characteristics, Furthermore, you will generally have to advanced avionics suite, sustainability, sacrifice one or two operational platforms for operational agility, suitability for specific roles several months due to instrumentation, or even operational costs and value for testing and certification activities. With a money. small fleet of 29 helicopters, it is rare that an This paper outlines just some of the factors operational authority will have aircraft to that may be taken into consideration during spare. the Defence evaluation and selection process. Additionally, what effect does a platform In the end, the final selection decision that having multiple sponsors have on the way the the Government makes will depend firstly on ADF would manage its configuration? Should how well each contender presents their the ADF just choose one main sponsor and solution against the various declared and lock their configuration to theirs? Take for undeclared requirements and secondly on example the AH-64E Apache – if it is selected how each requirement is weighted by for LAND4503, it may initially appear to be Defence. sensible to configuration lock it to the main sponsor version utilised by the US Army. But, what if the ADF’s Apache’s start spending a lot of time on-board LHD’s and there is a marinisation modification option that the Augusta-Westland versions operated by the UK have ready for integration? Do we P a g e | 19

References i HSD/RFI/10701/1 – Armed Reconnaissance xi Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates, Aircraft Helicopter Replacement – 28 June 2019 Procurement, Vol.I, BA 1-4 – US Department of the ii ARH ANAO Performance Audit Report (No.11 Navy – Feb 2010 2016/17) – 1 September 2016 xii United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year iii Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation 2015 Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By (Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en Weapon System – Office of the Under Secretary of matiére d’Armement) Defense – March 2014 iv Attachment A to Annex A of HSD/RFI/10701/1 – xiii Cross referenced the Defence Annual Report 18- Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Replacement – 19 table 3.1 flying hours (4,205) with Web Table 28 June 2019 D.1: Top 30 Sustainment Projects by expenditure, v Wilson, Stewart. Combat Aircraft since 1945. 2018-19 ($145M) Fyshwick, Australia: Aerospace Publications, 2000. xiv ARH Tiger Helicopters – Project Data Summary P58 Sheet – ANAO Report No. 40 2016-17 vi Bell Specifications, Bell Helicopters – 16 July 2012 xv Memorandum: Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Department vii Boeing AH-64 Apache – Janes Information Group of Defence (DoD) Fixed Wing and Helicopter – 13 Oct 2000 Reimbursement Rates viii ARH Tiger Helicopters – Project Data Summary xvi Memorandum: Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Department Sheet – ANAO Report No. 40 2016-17 of Defence (DoD) Fixed Wing and Helicopter ix Bellflight.com/products/bell-ah-1z – Modern Reimbursement Rates Marinization xvii Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency: x Projet de loi de finances pour 2014: Overview and Issues for Congress – Congressional Défense :équipement des forces et excellence Research Serrvice – 24 July 2018 technologique des industries de défense - Senate of France. 21 November 2013.