Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Another screwed up procurement process
Aussiegunneragain    2/14/2009 7:57:01 PM
Wedgie is seriously on the rocks now, apparently the new radar doesn't look like it wants to work. Why Defence can't learn our lesson that we just aren't big enough to pull off major bleeding edge technology projects without unacceptable risks to our defence capability and budget is beyond me. What would have been wrong with sticking the latest version of the E-2's radar on top of a 767 airframe, or some other similar COT/MOTS solution? --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25052188-31477,00.html PROJECT Wedgetail, the RAAF's $3.8 billion hi-tech airborne surveillance and early warning system, is in deep trouble and may never achieve the performance levels expected by the air force. So fundamental are the problems surrounding Wedgetail that Defence has had to commission a top US laboratory to conduct an independent design and performance review of the aircraft's radar developed by US defence giant, Northrop Grumman. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory is undertaking the review, assisted by a small team from Australia's Defence Science and Technology Organisation. Australia is the leading customer for the Wedgetail airborne early warning system that will see six modified Boeing 737-700 aircraft, mounted with a specially developed phased array radar, delivered to the RAAF under a contract originally signed in 1997. The worry for the Government is that, if the Wedgetail system can't meet the RAAF's requirements, it will become a procurement nightmare far worse than the $1billion Seasprite helicopter debacle finally cancelled last year. The Defence Materiel Organisation urgently sought an independent review by Lincoln Laboratory after the prime contractor, Boeing, had further significant problems integrating Wedgetail's multi-role electronically scanned array radar with other systems on the aircraft. Already running at least 38 months late, Project Wedgetail is designed to be the nerve centre of Australia's air defence system over the next generation. The Wedgetail's radar is designed to track hundreds of targets in the air and at sea simultaneously, including cruise missiles at a range of more than 400km. Senior defence sources say the problems with the radar go beyond simple target identification and software integration issues to the basic performance and geometry of the system, which sits on top of the 737's fuselage. The Lincoln Laboratory assessment is due to be completed by the end of March and will be followed by flight testing over northern Australia in May. Lincoln is a US government-funded research and development lab that works on cutting edge defence technologies, such as ballistic missile defence. Subject to further tests later this year, Boeing expects to deliver an initial 737 aircraft to the RAAF for training tasks in November with the first two planes achieving full capability by March next year. Parliamentary secretary for defence procurement Greg Combet said last night there was still a "long way to go and many hurdles to overcome" with Wedgetail's radar and integrated system performance. "The Wedgetail early warning and control aircraft are, by their very nature, extremely complex, given the range of cutting-edge radar technology and sensors that will be incorporated into each aircraft," Mr Combet told The Weekend Australian. Mr Combet said Boeing had not sought, nor had the commonwealth agreed to, any change in the Wedgetail contract prior to the completion of the review by Lincoln Laboratory and the operational evaluation. He said a "high-level summit" involving the commonwealth, Boeing and Northrop Grumman to determine the way ahead for the program was planned for later this year. Boeing and Northrop Grumman remain confident the performance of the Wedgetail system will easily exceed any existing airborne warning system.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
HERALD1357       2/18/2009 1:58:04 PM

Project WEDGETAIL -


 


The important questions and discussions here... are how quickly can it be fixed?


It has to be tested in the air. Part of the reason it was screwed up was because there was no flight testing to verify the computer simulations and ground benchtesting of the conflicting systems. When NG and Boeing put the jigsaw puzzle together it didn't work as predicted.  This may take as long as two years to sort out. The heck of it, was that the same exact thing happened to HAWKEYE and to JSTARS when they first flew. It isn't as if this hasn't happened before.


What needs to be done to get this platform online?


Test and modify. Some of it needs hardware redesign. Some of its is simple coding that needs rewrite  I can't go into detail, because part of it I frankly don't know, and part of it I won't say.


Entering the second decade of the 21st Century without an effective AEW&C should be a major concern for the RAAF!!! Particularly with the 4.5 Generation fighters?finding there way into the region, effective fighter control may be the tactical edge our aging F/A -18 need to retain air dominance over the next few years; until the F-35 Lightning II becomes available. Which will inevitably; be delayed!  
I think Dropbear can ally your fears about the great Sukhoi menace better than I can. Still I don't see that many Flankers buzzing around before Wedgetail sorts out. 


Herald

 



 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       2/18/2009 9:48:56 PM

Project WEDGETAIL -


 


The important questions and discussions here... are how quickly can it be fixed?


 


What needs to be done to get this platform online?


 


Entering the second decade of the 21st Century without an effective AEW&C should be a major concern for the RAAF!!! Particularly with the 4.5 Generation fighters?finding there way into the region, effective fighter control may be the tactical edge our aging F/A -18 need to retain air dominance over the next few years; until the F-35 Lightning II becomes available. Which will inevitably; be delayed!  
 


http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emcry.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" /> 
 


 


Other: F-100


 


While it is true nobody has ever expended anything close to 48 VLS launched SAM's on one cruise and we have an air-force to conduct land strike. In recent years ADF (Army & Navy) have deployed to a number theatres far from our shores, without RAAF support. It is likely that this will happen again; the ability to call on some surface launched long range (precision) cruise missiles may become not a nice to have; but vital in the next 20 years. (especially since the development of advanced AA systems by potential aggressors; is moving along like steam train)


 


Only 48 Cells leaves little room for growth in this area.



The F-100 series only has room for 48x "strike length" VLS cells. 
 
There is more room for "tactical" length VLS cells so that you don't have to load up the strike length VLS cells with ESSM...
 
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser    Hmm...   2/19/2009 2:32:16 AM




Project WEDGETAIL -




 




The important questions and discussions here... are how quickly can it be fixed?




 




What needs to be done to get this platform online?




 




Entering the second decade of the 21st Century without an effective AEW&C should be a major concern for the RAAF!!! Particularly with the 4.5 Generation fighters?finding there way into the region, effective fighter control may be the tactical edge our aging F/A -18 need to retain air dominance over the next few years; until the F-35 Lightning II becomes available. Which will inevitably; be delayed!  


 






http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emcry.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" /> 


 






 




Other: F-100




 




While it is true nobody has ever expended anything close to 48 VLS launched SAM's on one cruise and we have an air-force to conduct land strike. In recent years ADF (Army & Navy) have deployed to a number theatres far from our shores, without RAAF support. It is likely that this will happen again; the ability to call on some surface launched long range (precision) cruise missiles may become not a nice to have; but vital in the next 20 years. (especially since the development of advanced AA systems by potential aggressors; is moving along like steam train)




 




Only 48 Cells leaves little room for growth in this area.








The F-100 series only has room for 48x "strike length" VLS cells. 

 

There is more room for "tactical" length VLS cells so that you don't have to load up the strike length VLS cells with ESSM...


 




Got a source for that.....?  Never have been able to find the side-launching cells that Abe was on about......don't want to think about it too much or I'll get back on my SuperF-100 hobby-horse. :p
 
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/19/2009 2:51:57 AM
Got myself a nice little model of the AF100, looks pretty good to.
 
Quote    Reply

AMTP10F       2/19/2009 3:28:23 AM


The F-100 series only has room for 48x "strike length" VLS cells. 
 
There is more room for "tactical" length VLS cells so that you don't have to load up the strike length VLS cells with ESSM...


No there isn't. That is one of the reasons why the previous CN didn't want the F100.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       2/19/2009 4:09:03 AM
Is their any room for 2 x Armored Box Launcher (ABL) [four-round protected launch container for the BGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missile.] ???? 
 
Might be worth considering this now!!!  before everything is welded and super glued!
 
If a couple of  ABL ( BGM-109)  & Fire scouts could be squeezed in ..... id be pretty happy with the F-100s
 
With regard to the Fire scouts Spain are said to be integrating them ( this might be one occasion where, someone else gets the pain... and Aus can just plug & play.)  
 
If there is room? ABL intergration shouldn;t be huge risk... given the US did it on a number of classes.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Bluie   2/19/2009 4:52:56 AM


While it is true nobody has ever expended anything close to 48 VLS launched SAM's on one cruise and we have an air-force to conduct land strike. In recent years ADF (Army & Navy) have deployed to a number theatres far from our shores, without RAAF support. It is likely that this will happen again; the ability to call on some surface launched long range (precision) cruise missiles may become not a nice to have; but vital in the next 20 years. (especially since the development of advanced AA systems by potential aggressors; is moving along like steam train)


 Only 48 Cells leaves little room for growth in this area.


If the Army and Navy have been deployed without Airforce fast mover support it has always either been in a Coalition operation where there is more than enough allied strike assets in theatre or in benign environments like Fiji. That isn't going to change. The real use that I see for TLAMS (especially tactoms) for the RAN is to provide a persistant option to hit high-value, time critical tactical targets like radars, SAM's, shore based ASM's, command/control facilities, or terrorist targets that are out of range of the ships Harpoon 2's or extended range gun. I don't see that a ship is going to need more than 6 or 8 TLAMs on board for that like the Spanish are doing, as there aren't likely to be that many of those types of targets in a theatre and most of them would be dealt with by other capabilities. That still leaves 40 cells and the ESSM can be quad packed. You are looking at a potential loadout of say 32 ESSM, 32 Standards (TABM capable if we go for SM-2IVA's), 8 Tactoms and 8 Harpoon 2's or 3's. That's more capability than we are ever likely to use on one cruise. I also don't see how improved AA systems are going to counter the likes of the F-35 or a 200nm (or further in the ER version) range JASSM.
 
The other consideration is that if extra capability is needed in 15 or 20 years time wouldn't you rather the RAN had the option to buy extra platforms of whatever the latest in navel technology is at that time, rather than being locked into having 3 early 21st century AWD's whose only benefit is 80 cells and two helecopters each? Money saved now (which could be substantial if the extra risks of the G and C project played out) does impact on the position of the budget in 15 or 20 years time and by saving the money we are more likely to have that option. Our population will have grown by then too so we would be likely to be able to crew extra ships.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/19/2009 5:11:07 AM
The other consideration is that if extra capability is needed in 15 or 20 years time wouldn't you rather the RAN had the option to buy extra platforms of whatever the latest in navel technology is at that time, rather than being locked into having 3 early 21st century AWD's whose only benefit is 80 cells and two helecopters each? Money saved now (which could be substantial if the extra risks of the G and C project played out) does impact on the position of the budget in 15 or 20 years time and by saving the money we are more likely to have that option. Our population will have grown by then too so we would be likely to be able to crew extra ships.
 
Yes you get it!
 
Spending big on gear in the expectation it is going to last for 30 to 40 years is more than false economy, it is stupidity.  You are much better off developing and maintaining the capability to efficiently build platforms to intergrate the latest and greatest systems into rather than trying and sometimes failing to shoe horn the same into a 20 year old shagged platform.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Volkodav   2/19/2009 5:22:19 AM

Yes you get it!
 
Spending big on gear in the expectation it is going to last for 30 to 40 years is more than false economy, it is stupidity.  You are much better off developing and maintaining the capability to efficiently build platforms to intergrate the latest and greatest systems into rather than trying and sometimes failing to shoe horn the same into a 20 year old shagged platform. 

Thanks but I should hope so, I wouldn't be much of an economist if I didn't would I ;-).
Incidentally, this is the very reason why I like the Singaporean "rolling acquisitons" model far better than our "replace them all at once" approach. Much less chance of block obsolescence, total fleet failure and the need to crystal ball gaze 30 years into the future when determining what our needs will be.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Volkodav   2/19/2009 5:26:17 AM




Yes you get it!

 

Spending big on gear in the expectation it is going to last for 30 to 40 years is more than false economy, it is stupidity.  You are much better off developing and maintaining the capability to efficiently build platforms to intergrate the latest and greatest systems into rather than trying and sometimes failing to shoe horn the same into a 20 year old shagged platform. 




Thanks but I should hope so, I wouldn't be much of an economist if I didn't would I ;-).


Incidentally, this is the very reason why I like the Singaporean "rolling acquisitons" model far better than our "replace them all at once" approach. Much less chance of block obsolescence, total fleet failure and the need to crystal ball gaze 30 years into the future when determining what our needs will be. 

You are much better off developing and maintaining the capability to efficiently build platforms to intergrate the latest and greatest systems into rather than trying and sometimes failing to shoe horn the same into a 20 year old shagged platform. 



The only caveat that I would make is that I would say,
"You are much better off developing and maintaining the capability to efficiently build platforms to intergrate the latest and greatest systems into, or maintain the financial capability to buy them from somebody else ready made and proven, rather than trying and sometimes failing to shoe horn the same into a 20 year old shagged platform."

 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics