Back to news

April 29, 2019 | International, Aerospace

Australia Makes Moves to Grow its Defense Industry

By Stew Magnuson

GEELONG, Australia — Very little excites the aerospace industry and the media that covers it more than the announcement of a new jet fighter program. So when the curtain went up in a Boeing tent at Avalon — The Australian Air Show revealing a full-size model of a new robotic jet fighter, the camera flashes popped off as if it were a star on a Hollywood red carpet.

“It is a red letter day,” Australian Minister of Defence Christopher Pyne said while standing in front of the Airpower Teaming System, Boeing's name for the loyal wingman jet fighter, an unmanned aircraft intended to fly in formation with the nation's F-35A joint strike fighters and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

It was also an auspicious day because the unmanned system would be the first indigenously developed aircraft Australia produced since the CAC Boomerang fighter during World War II.

The program makes a statement to the world that Australia is no longer content to be merely a buyer of military equipment, but has ambitions to be a developer and exporter as well, said Pyne. “This is all testament to the fact that we are undergoing our largest buildup of our military capability in our peacetime history — $200 billion over the next 10 years.”

While Australia is still buying pricey F-35s from the United States, attack-class submarines from France and armored fighting vehicles from a European consortium, it wants a significant portion of that $200 billion to stay in the country and help it create aerospace and defense sector jobs, officials said.

The nation last year released the 2018 Defense Industrial Capability Plan spelling out how it would build a “broader and deeper defense industrial base” over the next decade.

“The government's goal by 2028 is to achieve an Australian defense industry that has the capability, posture and resilience to help meet Australia's defense needs,” the plan stated. One of its main goals is to turn the nation into an exporter of military goods rather than just an importer.

The day before the airshow, U.S. and other foreign contractors gathered in nearby Melbourne to hear from State of Victoria and Defence Ministry officials about the new ways of doing business in Australia.

Damien Chifley, executive director of the defense industry branch in the Australian Department of Defence, said the approach now is to partner. The country's defense contractors are predominantly medium to small companies who can't go it alone. They need help bringing their innovative ideas to prime contractors.

If a U.S. or other foreign company wants to vie for an Australian contract it must now submit an “industry capability plan,” which spells out exactly how they will work with local firms to bring the project to fruition, Chifley said.

“The idea is they go out the main gate with Australian industry,” he said.

These plans are not offsets, which is the mechanism used by some nations to make contractors invest a certain amount of dollars in the local economy as a condition of winning a contract. However, these industry capability plans will be weighed by the contracting authority when selecting a winning proposal, he noted.

Claire S. Willette, CEO of the Australian Defence Alliance, said in an interview that the nation's effort to bolster its aerospace and defense sector should be seen in light of its losses in manufacturing jobs — particularly the automotive industry — rather than security concerns.

Australia wants a “sovereign capability to support itself” in the defense industrial sector, she said.

“From a long-term sustainable economic perspective, you need to build something. You need to have a growth area,” said Willette, an American who served in the Pentagon for 20 years before moving to Australia.

“Because we did have this burgeoning defense industry and because we have some really niche, high-tech areas of excellence, I think that [the government] saw that this was a natural fit and something they could grow off of,” she said.

Australian government officials and locally based U.S. contractors at the airshow were eager to promote the nation as a spot where they can find the talent to develop programs.

Boeing, by far, has the largest and longest presence with more than 90 years experience doing business in the country and some 5,000 employees in its defense and commercial sectors.

It features two large research facilities — Boeing Research and Technology-Australia and Boeing Phantom Works International in Brisbane — where work on the robotic jet fighter will take place. The company invested $62 million in research and development in Australia in 2018, company officials said.

“We're going to prove that we can do big, audacious programs like this here in Australia,” said Darren Edwards, vice president and managing director of Boeing Defence Australia.

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin and local officials touted the country's success in winning F-35 sustainment contracts.

As a partner nation in the program, Australian contractors can compete globally with other F-35 customers for component maintenance contracts. They received 343 out of a possible 388 such contracts in the latest round, building on the 64 they had received in the first round. Australian contractors have received a total of $1.3 billion in F-35-related contracts so far, said Royal Australian Air Force Air Vice-Marshal Leigh Gordon, head of the joint strike fighter division.

“That is a really great example of the strength of Australian industry and its competitiveness in the global sphere,” Gordon said.

Going hand in hand with Australia's ambitions in the defense realm is its renewed focus on space.

In July 2018, it established the Australian Space Agency, which brought together about 11 different agencies spread out within the government at various ministries, said Kim Gina Ellis, senior lecturer on space industry engagement, governance and law at Swinburne University of Technology in Victoria.

The government wants a central point to coordinate and bring all the civilian activities together, she said. Again, the long-term goal is job creation, she told National Defense.

The government wants to add about 20,000 to the approximately 10,000 space sector jobs already in Australia, she said.

Meanwhile, as is the case in the United States, the nation has a growing private sector launch industry with a handful of companies building small rockets and launch facilities for small satellites, she said.

Along with telescopes and communications systems that have been positioned on the continent since the beginning of the space age, Australia features a favorable geographic location for inserting spacecraft into polar orbits, Ellis noted.

The new agency will “help build the industry and show the rest of the world that we have these amazing capabilities and that we support most of the major space exploration programs,” Ellis said.

Jeff Shockey, vice president of global sales and marketing for Boeing Defense, Space and Security, said in an interview that Australia is growing very close to investing 2 percent of its GDP in defense. “They are doing the right things. There is a lot going on down here in this region and they are at the forefront.”

Boeing has ambitions to export the Airpower Teaming System to the other “five-eye” partners: the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.

Shockey said Boeing is an international company and Australia is an enduring ally and partner. Building a new jet fighter outside the United States should not be seen as “off-shoring” work, he said. “We're a global company and we're doing work throughout the enterprise on this project and others, both domestically and abroad,” he said.

“There is a great high-tech talent base here,” he added. And the wide-open spaces will be a perfect proving ground for unmanned aircraft, Shockey and other company executives said.

Willette said: “We're never going to have the assembly lines for an F-18, an F-16 or a JSF, but we do have the componentry, the systems and the systems integration and the skilled engineering. Designing and fabrication and machining — and the professional services that back all that up — those are huge strengths for this country.”

The government has several new programs to spark innovation that would be recognizable to the U.S. defense industry. It is setting up grand challenges, cooperative research centers, university research networks and small business research grants. It has what would be called in the U.S. “broad agency announcements” with pots of money dedicated over the next 10 years for organizations with ideas in fields such as intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, electronic warfare, cybersecurity, amphibious warfare, maritime and anti-submarine warfare, and air and sealift.

The 2018 Defense Industrial Capability Plan was just one building block in a larger plan, said Willette. The Australian government is continuing to produce more policies surrounding manufacturing skills and science, technology engineering and math education.

“Having a level of sovereignty, and integrity and resiliency in your supply chain is incredibly important from a national security perspective,” Willette added.

The ideas for the new programs are based on long-established U.S. or U.K. acquisition programs, said a government official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

The Australian government is keen to partner with U.S. universities and has established the Australia-U.S. Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative Program to help Australian schools establish themselves with the Pentagon's Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative. It will provide Australian colleges with grants of up to 1 million Australian dollars per year if they can team with U.S. counterparts in the MURI program.

Willette said: “The message very clearly coming from Australia is: ‘partner with us.'”

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/4/29/australia-makes-moves-to-grow-its-defense-industry

On the same subject

  • FCC and Ligado are undermining GPS – and with it, our economy and national security

    April 23, 2020 | International, C4ISR

    FCC and Ligado are undermining GPS – and with it, our economy and national security

    Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Jack Reed, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Mac Thornberry Right now, the coronavirus is rightly our country's most immediate concern. But the Federal Communications Commission has used the crisis, under the cover of darkness, to approve a long-stalled application by Ligado Networks — a proposal that threatens to undermine our global positioning system (GPS) capabilities, and with it, our national security. The FCC granted Ligado (formerly known as LightSquared) permission to repurpose spectrum adjacent to GPS frequencies for a terrestrial cellular network — framing this proposal as essential to “winning the race to 5G.” But what Ligado has done is conflate two different and important spectrum issues: the sharing of mid-band 5G spectrum by the Department of Defense and commercial industry, and harmful interference of Ligado's signal with the low-band GPS signals used in nearly every aspect of daily life. The result: some members of Congress, members of the administration, and the public are now confused about the real and immediate impacts of Ligado's proposal. So, we wanted to clarify things: domestic 5G development is critical to our economic competiveness against China and for our national security. The Pentagon is committed working with government and industry to share mid-band spectrum where and when it makes sense to ensure rapid roll-out of 5G. [Editor's note: C4ISRNET first broke the news that the FCC would move forward with Ligado's request on April 10.] The problem here is that Ligado's planned usage is not in the prime mid-band spectrum being considered for 5G — and it will have a significant risk of interference with GPS reception, according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The signals interference Ligado's plan would create could cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars and require the replacement of current GPS equipment just as we are trying to get our economy back on its feet quickly — and the FCC has just allowed this to happen. Think of all the ways Americans use GPS each and every day. GPS satellites provide free precise timing and navigation that powers thousands of functions: making financial transactions at our banks, keeping the lights on in our homes, traveling around the country — the list goes on and on. Studies show GPS satellites contribute at least $1 billion to our economy every single day. GPS also forms the backbone of countless military operations and applications — to get supplies to our war fighters on the battlefield, guide unmanned aircraft and vehicles, target its precision weapons, and much more. It would be practically impossible to identify and repair or replace all of the potentially adversely affected receivers. It would “needlessly imperil [Department of Defense] GPS-dependent national security capabilities,” per Secretary Esper, putting the war fighter, U.S. Space Force, military readiness, and even the defense of our homeland at risk. American families and businesses would lose coverage or be forced to use systems from our strategic competitors, China and Russia, jeopardizing our global leadership in precision timing. We're not the only ones with serious concerns. Nine federal departments and agencies have completed extensive engineering tests and analyses on Ligado's proposal; and the results are clear: Ligado's plan would interfere with millions of GPS receivers across the nation. The Departments of Defense, Commerce, Interior, Justice, Homeland Security, Energy, and Transportation — as well as NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration — all strongly object to Ligado's plan. What kind of precedent is the FCC setting by disregarding near unanimous opposition of federal agencies to this proposal? It's not just the government, either — industry leaders representing GPS, satellite communications services, automotive companies, commercial aviation, and weather data have also voiced concerns over Ligado's proposal. We would expect that the FCC listen not just to Ligado's privately funded research, but also broad-based, in-depth research from experts in national security and other fields. This makes it all the more confusing — why is the FCC ignoring all the evidence, especially now, at the height of a global crisis? The Ligado application highlights the need to use a technical, data-driven approach to balance the use of the spectrum between war fighter requirements and commercial needs, rather than strong-arming a proposal through the process like the FCC just did. We can expect this issue to be an ongoing national security challenge. If we want to strike a responsible balance moving forward, the U.S. government must modernize the infrastructure needed to manage and share spectrum efficiently, promote policy and technology innovation, and improve the ability of military systems to operate alongside commercial systems. Considering the risks, it's clear the FCC commissioners made the wrong decision regarding Ligado's plan, which will set a disastrous precedent while impeding ongoing work on spectrum sharing. The vulnerabilities to our national and economic security are not worth the risk, particularly for a band of spectrum that isn't necessary to secure a robust 5G network. We encourage the FCC to withdraw its approval of Ligado's application and take this opportunity to work with the NTIA and other federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Transportation, to find a solution that will both support commercial broadband expansion and protect national security assets. Moreover, we expect the FCC to resolve Department of Defense concerns before moving forward, as required by law. If they do not, and unless President Trump intervenes to stop this from moving forward, it will be up to Congress to clean up this mess. Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. https://www.c4isrnet.com/breaking-news/2020/04/22/fcc-and-ligado-are-undermining-gps-and-with-it-our-economy-and-national-security/

  • Lockheed names new F-35 fighter jet program leader

    October 9, 2024 | International, Aerospace

    Lockheed names new F-35 fighter jet program leader

  • Le SCAF, un programme crucial pour la France

    July 16, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Le SCAF, un programme crucial pour la France

    Safran et Dassault Aviation ont qualifié le programme du Système de combat aérien du futur (SCAF) de « projet existentiel », selon un rapport d'information du Sénat d'Hélène Conway-Mouret (PS) et de Ronan Le Gleut (Les Républicains) sur ce projet. « Le programme SCAF n'a sans doute pas tout à fait le même degré d'importance et d'urgence pour chacun des partenaires, notent pourtant les deux auteurs. Pour la France, le SCAF est existentiel à la fois pour Dassault et pour Safran, qui ne peuvent pas se permettre de rester sans projet d'avion de combat et de moteur d'avion de combat. Les industriels allemands (Airbus et MTU au premier chef) ou espagnols ne sont pas tout à fait dans la même situation : il s'agit plutôt pour eux de monter en compétence dans ces domaines ». Surtout, estime le rapport, si le développement d'un avion européen n'est pas lancé, « la France et l'Allemagne devront sans doute se doter d'une solution non souveraine en 2040, rappellent les deux sénateurs. La France renoncerait ainsi à son autonomie stratégique ». La Tribune du 15 juillet 2020 – Le Figaro du 15 juillet 2020

All news