Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 8:34:31 to 8:44:14
Concerns regarding Iran's capture of an Anduril Dive-LD vehicle and potential security risks to the Australian Ghost Shark project, despite assurances of significant differences between the platforms.
Topics: National security, Procurement
Speakers: David Shoebridge, Speaker 15, Meghan Quinn, Sheryl Lutz, David Hanley, Robert Chipman
>> That's great.
>> Yeah. All right. Thank you. >> Um in September, Iran captured a dive LD autonomous underwater vehicle made um and operated by Andrew. We know that Iran has a history of reverse engineering drones when it captures them. And this will likely happen again now because the photos seem to show a very intact device. The diveldd shares a great deal in common with the ghost shark. Has Andrew provided you andor the US uh government provided the Australian Defense Force a briefing about the security impacts of the capturing of the dive LD by Iran?
Sorry, first secretary major service combatants and combat systems. Uh the dived is not the same as goat. There are quite a few differences. Um and it is not the same
um now if I could I'm happy to repeat the question but could I is it necessary to repeat the question?
>> I think the I think the witness was just referring to your in your question you you made a characterization that there was shared or common um elements between the ghost shark and the um device. Uh
>> I I think the exact words were shares a lot with the ghost shark.
>> Yeah. and and she and
>> do you disagree with shares a lot with the ghost?
>> I disagree. Yes.
>> All right. They have they have a common ancestry and they have common features. Um I'm not suggesting they're the same, but they have common ancestry and common features. And if you could please answer my question about Andrew andor the US providing a briefing about the security risks of Iran capturing an intact dive LD autonomous underwater vehicle.
>> We have not had a briefing from Andrew about that specific capture. However, we are aware that dived and ghost shark go Sharks um approximately um has been designed for different operational requirements, mission sets and capability outcomes and they the two um vehicles differ significantly in their size, complexity, autonomy systems, communications architecture, sensor suites, payload options and security classifications. So they are significantly different. Um,
and is this because you've had a briefing from Andrew about the differences between the diveldd and the ghost shark?
>> We understand the differences and with from Andrew Australia between diveldd and ghost shark.
>> Um, did Andrew Australia provide you since the capture of the diveldd autonomous any um information to give you comfort about the differences? um to give you comfort that any commonalities would not place a security risk on the ghost shark.
>> Uh Senator, Vice Admiral Buckley, Chief of Navy, I had a briefing from Mr. Goodrich, who is the general manager and CEO of Andrew Australia, not Andrew in the US. in Sydney when I was up there a couple of weeks ago in relation to the matter you were talking about. In that specific briefing, which was I would characterize as a short brief of 5 to 10 minutes, he identified that there were none of the mo none of the most sensitive elements which were uh in our Ghost Shark submarine resident within the dive XL um capability, which as Miss Lutz has indicated is a very significantly different capability. It's half the size of the ghost shark. it has a different control system etc. So in that particular verbal brief he sought to give me asurances that the sensitive elements of the go shark were not common to the other vehicle.
>> Um Vice Admiral Buckley thank you for that. You you said initially none of the most sensitive and then you said afterwards none of the I just want to be clear. What did he say
to you? What he said to me was none of the sensitive elements of the go shark were common to the dive XL. That's uh that was how he would characterize the briefing. >> And um
>> did he describe to you the elements that were common?
>> He described in the broad the common type of elements which are to do with some of the general form of the whole type of the of the vessel etc. So if I could describe them as you know they might use some common fiberglass materials or some common type structures um you know to operate the chassis potentially as as opposed to the sensitive control systems the sensitive payloads which are different to the ghost shark.
>> Now Vice Admiral Buckley I appreciate you telling us about the verbal briefing that went for between five and 10 minutes. Um and when did you say this
happened? this uh it was in the order of two to three weeks ago, Senator, when I was up at the Androl facility for another um activity and which was you know a week or two after um within a week or so I should say of the of the capture of the dive XL
>> and and is it true is that nobody in defense has sought a formal briefing from Andrew about the potential security risks or the impact on the shark of Iran's capture of the dived autonomous underwater vehicle is there's not not been requested anywhere across defense.
>> So I'm I'm happy to take that on notice because there's different elements of connections. We have our defense scientists connecting to the system. We have our defense intelligence connecting to the system etc. So rather than uh take it from the uh different individuals who are present here, um happy to take it on notice and provide you an accurate
>> but to be clear, no one sitting here sought has sought a um a briefing from Andrew. Um apart from the oral briefing given to Vice Admiral Buckley, no one sitting here has saw one.
>> Senator David Hanley, Deputy Secretary, Neighborhood Building Sustainment Group. I was with um Vice Admiral Buckley when we got that brief and Vice Admiral Buckley and I um had heard from David Goodrich on the day of the capture as well and we have both had a verbal briefing. So the two of us have been briefed on the topic.
>> What did he say on the day of the capture?
>> The same information that I have Buckley has just espoused. So
>> um but I mean this is a very serious matter. The ghost shark is a very expensive project. there is a common ancestry. I would have thought standard practice would be to get a formal briefing to see whatever risk is associated. And I do find it pretty extraordinary that it appears there's been one phone call and one 5 to 10 minute oral briefing. And you
>> Senator, you misheard. We both got the same verbal briefing together at Andrew facilities >> and we both got the same message and the same phone call with David Goodrich.
Well, that that's one phone call. Or did you each get parallel phone calls?
>> He sent a message to both of us on the occasion of the event.
>> Alo, so was it a phone call or a text?
>> It was a text message. I called. I can't confirm if I said Buckley also called, but I certainly called.
>> You know, text message, phone call, 5 to 10 minute old briefing. It's not materially different to my proposition that I put to you
>> except the
>> but in the face of the um um what I think any fair-minded external observer would think this would require at a minimum some kind of detailed considered briefing to ensure that a what is likely to be a multi-billion dollar project hasn't had a significant security breach. But you're satisfied with what you've done so far. Is that right Vice
Shoebridge, you've made some characterizations that have not been supported by the evidence provided by witnesses um about the how how common or not they they the two different capabilities are. Um we have had assurances from the capability development manager and the industry that's providing this the the capability to us uh about their assessment of the risks. um we we we work closely with this partner on and there would be conversations at working level on a regular basis. There's detailed understanding of the capabilities etc. Um there would have been discussions through the organization with the organization and I've already taken on notice in relations to other aspects of connections between the system. Um we take seriously uh any potential breaches of technology and options. uh and we've you've heard today from the witnesses about the actions they've taken which is an assurance that there are no sensitive matters at risk. Um we would of course you know go through our usual processes. So I'm happy to take it on notice but I just want to collect correct the the insinuation that I I heard. You might not have been meaning that that somehow we we were not taking this seriously that the issue is we are commensurate with the risk and the knowledge we have in terms of the capability and the concurrence between the two. We we we know >> platforms.