Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 3:02:18 to 3:11:43
Discussion on the LAND 6504 project, including potential systems like Patriot and the process for identifying mature military off-the-shelf capabilities.
Topics: ADF, Procurement
Speakers: James Paterson, Robert Chipman, Meghan Quinn, Racheal Kuczma, Unknown Speaker, Hon Murray Watt
>> Thanks, Chair. Um I have questions about integrated air and missile defense if the relevant officials could come
>> Uh can I just clarify what aspect because it might depend on
>> uh good question. Uh the medium range groundbased air and missile defense land 6504. Thank you. Um, could someone take me through what options we are considering as part of land 6504?
Uh Senator Emor Rob Chipman, vice chief of the defense force. Uh at the moment we have done uh some market analysis uh to determine what options are available. Um we have not yet gone to the point of uh of identifying which systems will compete for 6504. So we we we're just not advanced enough in the project to be able to be conclusive on what systems are in and are not in our our analysis for taking 6504 forward. What can you
say about the systems that you've identified as you know potential uh candidates for this
>> that we are looking for mature military offtheshelf options that we can build as rapidly as possible >> and and where there are opportunities for us to take advantage of integrated air and missile defense capabilities that are in service today then there's a we see advantage in being able to do
that. So there's no short list or pre-identified you know prospects or
>> we have looked at what options are available um and and they are they're options that would be known to you systems like Patriot and are certainly in the mix for our consideration.
>> Okay. Can you take me through the others? So Patriots one, what are the
>> I don't have the others to my knowledge, Senator. I'd have to take that on notice.
>> Okay. Um I'll come back to that. Um what are the uh just as part of that are we considering for foreign foreign military sales? Obviously if Patriots's one of them that would be Yes.
>> Yes. That would be one of the options that we consider for acquiring.
>> Okay. And what are the major milestones for this project?
>> Uh at this stage our our plan is to come back to government late in 2027 for consideration of options to take forward. uh we are planning to do a competitive evaluation process uh in line with Talisman Sabre next year where we will assess a shortlisted group of of candidate options.
>> So late 2027 for advice to government.
>> That's right.
>> Um and what are the milestones after
>> in terms of when they can be delivered? We're in the process at the moment. Senator, our ambition is to deliver medium-range air defense as quickly as possible. Part of our discussions with industry is to understand how quickly that can occur, but we haven't yet got to the point of of of concluding when they might be able to deliver.
>> So there's no existing timelines or plans or on on timing. We
>> we will be establishing milestones such as initial operational capability and final operational capability and we'll be putting those to government as part of their second pass considerations but we haven't established those milestones.
So there are no tender documents for example which specify dates or times or delivery goals or anything like that.
>> We have an operational concept document. We haven't prepared tender documentation
at >> and in this operational concept document there are no timelines for delivery
>> only to the extent that we are delivering medium-range air defense as quickly as possible.
>> Right? So there's no it doesn't say by 2032 by 2035 by the mid 2030s anything
like that. Our ambition is to field a medium-range air defense capability in the early 2030s.
>> Right? So there are dates in this
>> only to the extent that only to that vague extent not to not to any detail and certainly not to a contracted level that you would expect at a gate 2 submission for initial operational and final operational capability.
>> Okay. Can is that a document that could be provided is it that a public document that can be provided to the committee?
>> Uh we would not normally release cap development documentation. we would normally have a security classification that that protects the the nature of the capabilities and and the vulnerabilities
been provided with a document that doesn't have any classifications on it. Uh it is entitled land 6504 medium groundbased air defense industry engagement. Would that be a classified document or is that a public document?
That is not Rachel Klutchma, acting deputy secretary of the capability acquisition sustainment group. No, that is not a classified document. It was discussed at land forces as part of the industry engagement to start this process of understanding what is actually achievable.
>> Okay. So that document could be provided to the committee.
Senator, that is not an operational concept document. That is a a document that seeks industry solicitation so that they can provide options to us. I I
asked you to nominate what documents are available that specify this and you you told me about that that version of it. If there's other documents that specify timelines or capabilities, that was the question that I asked.
>> Senator Pessim, we will provide to the committee the the information that was provided as part of the industry engagement activity.
>> Okay. So, in this document, are there any timelines specified?
I think to to the vice chief's testimony, it says 2030s is what we're aiming for, but I'll have to confirm
>> Right. >> And in this document, are there any particular um capabilities identified?
>> I think Senator, we're soliciting that information from the market. So, so we're not, for example, going to go to the market and say we want X, Y, and Zed. we're going to the market to say we want this type of capability and inviting them to come back and sell us how they might fulfill that requirement.
>> Do you want to clarify that answer at
>> Yeah, that document also included the work that we're doing with the US government in terms of what the foreign military sales process and and the price and availability information that we're going out for
>> because my understanding is there are three foreign military sales uh identified in this document. Three specific capabilities that are named in this document. Is that correct? Yes. >> Okay. I'm getting contrary evidence here and I'm having difficulty reconciling
>> Senator, I think to be clear, the information that we're seeking is not part of a tendered process. What we're doing is trying to shape and understand what's available in the market. So the testimony that the um vice the vice chief gave is absolutely correct. We're in in a stage of actually looking at what's available. We have explored with the US government what those existing systems are to be fair to industry so that they understand what we're doing both from a direct commercial sales potential outcome and through a foreign military sales lens. We advise what systems we are looking at because we
know they exist
to make a point. Some of this is obviously subject to current government considerations. So it may not be possible to provide quite the level of detail you're seeking. >> Sure. I'm sure the officials will do what they can, but we may not be able to provide everything you're after.
>> Sure. But the questions I asked were open-ended. They weren't specific about any particular document. I said I asked if there were any capabilities we' identified. I was told no. I asked if there were any timelines specified. I was told no. It turns out there is a document. It does specify particular capabilities and there are timelines in it.
>> Can I just clarify, Senator J. Um the the maybe there's a different interpretation of identified here. Um the the as as uh the witnesses have have discussed that we're in the pre-tender process of going to market testing things talking to industry talking to other partners of course uh military to military discussions around uh what other forces are using etc. So that process um there is uh identification uh of options um that is different from formal identification within a particular program where there's been a decision on what we're doing. So just to be clear that that um that the difference between interpretations of that single word uh would explain the answers that witnesses are given to you.
>> When does identification not mean identification?
identification within the program within the specificities that the government has decided XY Z that is we are not at that stage of the process as the witness has said with in terms of broad identification of what's in the market that that that process is going on and an open process with industry and other partners asking for information. So I
didn't specify that it had to be that level of you know
>> I'm just I'm just proposing that the interpretation of what you're asking might not have been what you were asking and so I've just explained uh the the confusion here. There is no there there there is no uh intent to prevent information being provided to the committee.
>> Okay. So Ben Pachamin the Australian reported today that uh this project does not anticipated to be fully operational until the mid 2030s. Is that fair?