Australian Government: Department of Defence
Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version
     
 
 

Plan Composition

DCP 2009 contains equipment acquisition proposals planned for Government consideration (first or second pass approval) in the next four years, covering a range of Defence capabilities, including Land Forces, Air Forces, Maritime Forces (both surface and sub-surface), Strike and Network Centric Warfare. It does not include details on approved projects. Information on approved capital investment proposals can be found in the ‘Projects’ section of the Defence Materiel Organisation website at www.defence.gov.au/dmo.

DCP 2009 contains project specific information in the following subsets:

  • Phase Scope – describes what is to be acquired under the indicated phases of the project.
  • Background – details how each specific project phase relates to the overall capability requirement.
  • Australian Industry Opportunities – identifies potential opportunities for Australian industry involvement in the acquisition and through-life support stages of the proposal. This section also identifies the Acquisition Categorisation (ACAT) level of the project, which is a measure of the scale, complexity and risk in the project.
  • Planned Schedule Highlights – provides indicative first pass approval (if applicable), Year-of-Decision (second pass approval) and Initial Operating Capability years.
  • Points of Contact – for both the proposal sponsor (usually Defence’s Capability Systems Division) and the capability acquirer (Defence Materiel Organisation), along with website information if applicable.

Further information on the content of some of these sections is provided below.

The proposals are listed in alphanumeric order (i.e. AIR, DEF, JP, LAND and SEA proposals in number order). Indexes are also provided - these categorise proposals by Year-of-Decision and ACAT. Summary tables provide consolidated information on Australian Industry Opportunities and Points of Contact.

Australian Industry Opportunities

This is a major focus of the DCP and reflects the potential opportunities for Australian industry to participate in acquisition or through-life support activities. The Government expects Defence to ensure best value for money in Defence spending, based on open and effective competition. The Government has also stated that, consistent with the principles of value for money and the need to consider off-the-shelf solutions, its policy is to ensure that as much of the Defence budget is spent in Australia as is practical. Finally the Government seeks to improve our Defence self‑reliance through maintaining a focus on the local provision of a broad set of strategic industry capabilities. Through the application of the Australian Industry Capability (AIC) program Defence seeks to ensure that Australian defence industry is given the opportunity to be part of all contracts over $50 million, or where the contract involves a designated strategic industry capability. In such contracts, the RFT will include industry requirements, and tender responses will be expected to include an AIC Plan. Through this system, Defence seeks to maximise Australian industry participation in the acquisition and sustainment of ADF capability and to achieve the required strategic industry capability outcomes where this represents value for money.

Acquisition and Through-life Support

These sections are intended to provide information that will support industry’s strategic planning. A key element of that strategic planning will be to identify opportunities for participation, and to that end, where possible, the currently planned acquisition and sustainment concept has been described.

Industry Capabilities and Activities

This section contains information on the industry capability opportunities associated with each project. This is presented in a series of matrices that outline areas of industrial capability where it is anticipated that Australian industry could participate, together with corresponding activities expected for each industrial capability. To provide additional granularity, the tables provide an indication of the likely criticality of local industry activity to the ADF:

  • D – The industry capability and activity is likely to be desirable in Australia.
  • O – The industry capability and activity is likely to be optional in Australia.

These indicators do not imply that all the designated industry capability must be in Australia, but only that some level of local capacity is likely as part of project acquisition and / or ADF sustainment needs.

The industry activities listed in the matrix are those that are used in the Defence + Industry ePortal1

(www.dplusi.defence.gov.au). The industry capabilities identified in these matrices are those that have been highlighted in the White Paper as being the broad range of strategic industry capabilities that the Government will monitor. The tables may also contain additional project specific industry capability entries. Below is a further explanation of the major capabilities contained in the matrices:

  • Acoustic technologies and systems. This capability includes the world class capabilities Australia has in the development and through-life support of underwater acoustic systems.
  • Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft systems. This capability relates to the repair and maintenance of specialist AEW&C systems including the airborne tactical data system, Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar, IFF, communications and electronic support systems.
  • Anti-tampering capabilities. These capabilities are incorporated into components or systems to prevent the unauthorised opening of the system, access to the internal workings or Intellectual Property.
  • Armoured vehicles. This capability relates to the repair, maintenance and some upgrades of specialist military vehicles i ncluding tanks and armoured personnel carriers.
  • Combat clothing and personal equipment. This capability encompasses the ability to undertake ongoing development of the combat uniform and personal equipment fabrics, to include multi-spectral and other signature reducing characteristics, along with other enhancements to personal survivability.
  • Communications security. This capability encompasses emanations security testing, which protects against unintentional emissions from communications and IT equipment, commonly known as Tempest testing, and the provision of support to cryptographic equipment.
  • Composite and exotic materials. This is the ability to repair specialist alloys and composite materials, to develop new repair techniques and to undertake precision machining of such materials.
  • Electronic Warfare. These industrial capabilities include Electronic Warfare (EW) counter-measures development and validation, EW re-programming, system integration and ‘tuning’ of overseas developed EW systems to meet our operational needs, the management of threat libraries and, importantly, selective strategic product development to maintain high-end EW knowledge and capability.
  • HF and Phased Array Radars. This capability includes the ongoing development and support of the locally developed world leading capabilities embodied in the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) and the Phased Array Radar systems currently being installed on ANZAC frigates.
  • ‘High end’ system and ‘system of systems’ integration. Relates to the integration of complex electronic and software systems onboard platforms and to conduct ‘system of systems integration’ of off-the-shelf capabilities into the broader ADF networks, which is critical to achieving the ADF’s network centric warfare goals.
  • Infantry weapons and remote weapons stations. This capability is the provision of the required level of support to the ADF direct fire weapon fleets (pistols, rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers), and the relatively new capability of remote weapon stations.
  • Protection of networks, computers and information including in the field of cyber defence. These capabilities safeguard ADF information, through the incorporation of encryption techniques, firewalls, anti-virus software and anti-tampering capabilities and devices.
  • Rotary and fixed wing aircraft. These capabilities relate to the ability to provide repair and maintenance services to maintain operational availability of military aircraft and undertake some selected upgrade, overhaul and rebuild activities.
  • Secure test facilities and test ranges. This capability relates to the availability of maritime, air and land based ranges for test and evaluation of weapons, signatures and electronic warfare systems. Test ranges are likely to be owned by the Commonwealth with industry providing testing equipment and services.
  • Selected ballistic munitions and explosives. This capability relates to the manufacture of some high usage munitions, ammunition components, propellants and explosives.
  • Signature management. Includes the capabilities and coatings used for signature management on submarines, naval vessels, land and air platforms including sound minimisation, radar absorbent materials, infrared absorbent paint and materials, and other stealth technologies.
  • Submarines. This capability includes specialist submarine design knowledge to enable Australia to be a smart buyer and the capabilities to enable construction of the future submarine in Australia. While Australia will not design a submarine from scratch, the ability to adapt an overseas design, or utilise ‘best of breed’ technologies to meet Australian requirements will be critical to the development of an effective submarine capability. There is also a repair and maintenance capability to maintain operational availability of submarines and to undertake some selected upgrade, overhaul and rebuild activities.
  • Surface naval vessels. This capability incorporates naval design and engineering services, the construction of ships and ship modules and the repair and maintenance capabilities to maintain operational availability of naval vessels and undertake some selected upgrade, overhaul and rebuild activities. A specific need within this capability is for adequate access to dry dock facilities and common user facilities in strategically important locations around the Australian coastline for the repair and maintenance of ADF naval vessels in peacetime and in credible contingencies.
  • System assurance capabilities (both hardware and software). Capabilities that assure ADF IT and software driven systems as suitable and available for service. This includes assessing the reliability of hardware and software, to ensure it is fit for purpose and function, and free of malicious code.
  • System life cycle management. These capabilities extend the service life of ADF systems by undertaking active life management, including life extension, fatigue management and the development of novel repair techniques.
  • Targeting and precision navigation. This capability relates to the provision of geospatial information and systems including software development. The capability is associated with both GPS based systems and inertial navigation systems.
  • Through-life and real-time support of mission and safety critical software. These capabilities are for real-time, or near real-time, adjustment to software associated with critical systems (combat systems).
  • Through-life support of guided weapons. This capability involves the inspection, repair, maintenance and testing of missiles and guided weapons to ensure that they are in working order and safe to use.

Acquisition Categorisation (ACAT) Scores

In accordance with the recommendations of the Defence Procurement and Sustainment Review 2008 (the Mortimer review), the Estimated Phase Expenditure bands of previous DCPs have been replaced by the Acquisition Category (ACAT) scores for the projects. The Defence Materiel Organisation has been using the ACAT framework since 2004, as it provides a consistent methodology for categorising projects. The ACAT framework operates in conjunction with the Project Manager Certification Framework to align the complexity of projects with the experience and competencies of project managers.

The ACAT framework is based on four Acquisition Categories that provide a graduated scale from the most demanding and complex projects to those that are less so. The largest, most demanding and complex projects are categorised as ACAT I and ACAT II, and the less demanding projects are categorised ACAT III and ACAT IV. The specific description of each level is as follows:

  • ACAT I projects are major capital equipment acquisitions that are normally the ADF’s most strategically significant. They are characterised by extensive project and schedule management complexity and very high level of technical difficulty, operating, support and commercial arrangements.
  • ACAT II projects are major capital equipment acquisitions that are strategically significant to the ADF. They are characterised by significant project and schedule management complexity and high levels of technical difficulty, operating, support arrangements and commercial arrangements.
  • ACAT III projects are major or minor capital equipment acquisitions that have a moderate strategic significance to the ADF. They are characterised by the application of traditional project and schedule management techniques and moderate levels of technical difficulty, operating, support arrangements and commercial arrangements.
  • ACAT IV projects are major or minor capital equipment acquisitions that have a lower level of strategic significance to the ADF. They are characterised by traditional project and schedule management requirements and lower levels of technical difficulty, operating, support arrangements and commercial arrangements.

The ACAT level of a project will provide industry with a more robust description of the scale, complexity and risks in the project. It should be noted that over the life of a project the ACAT score is continuously reviewed, especially as it passes through decision or milestone gates (such as first pass approval, critical design reviews, etc) and as the complexity or risk reduces, the ACAT score is expected to change.

The ACAT score consists of six attributes. Table 1 is the matrix which project staff use to assess the complexity levels of each attribute. This table will be useful to reference when consulting the ACAT score for each project. The attributes are scored and a calculator provides a weighted rating for the project. The attributes are:

  • Acquisition Cost. The acquisition cost includes the cost of the materiel system (i.e. mission system plus support system), plus facilities costs. This does not include ongoing sustainment budgets. This is based on the current ‘constant dollar’ budget for the project.
  • Project Management Complexity. This highlights complexity beyond that associated with traditional project management knowledge areas, which are characterised by a project execution environment which is novel and uncertain with very high-level political interactions.
  • Schedule. This recognises the complexity brought about by schedule pressures on the project requiring the application of varying levels of sophistication in schedule management.
  • Technical Difficulty. There are inherent complexities which are associated with technical undertakings of design and development, assembly, integration, test and acceptance.
  • Operation and Support. An often neglected complexity is associated with the readiness of the organisation and environment into which the system will be operated and supported.
  • Commercial. This attribute recognises the capability of industry to deliver and support the required system / equipment, the complexity of the commercial arrangements being managed including the number and level of interdependency of commercial arrangements managed by the DMO.
Table 1: The Acquisition Categorisation Framework Decision Support Matrix
Attribute Complexity Level 4 (Low) 3 (Moderate) 2 (High) 1 (Very High)
Acquisition Cost (Note 1) <$100m $100m–$500m $500m–$1,500m >$1,500m
Project Management Complexity Relies predominantly on traditional project management knowledge Relies predominantly on traditional project management knowledge Significant Extensive
Schedule

Routine schedule management issues

Requires the application of routine project monitoring and control measures

Difficult schedule management matters expected to arise from time to time

Requires the application of difficult remedial schedule management measures

Complex schedule management issues with competing priorities and persistent pressure on delivery date(s)

Requires the application of innovative schedule management initiatives

Extremely complex schedule management issues with competing/ conflicting priorities and persistent high-level pressure on delivery date(s)

Requires the application of innovative schedule management initiatives and frequent high-level management intervention

Technical Difficulty

Low system complexity

Limited hardware and/or critical software development

Limited amount of systems integration

Moderate system complexity

Moderate level of hardware and/or software development

Moderate systems integration

High system complexity

High level of hardware and/or software development

High systems integration

Very high system complexity

Very high level of hardware and/or software development

Very high systems integration

Operation and Support

Very similar system/ equipment exists in ADF

No new operation and support infrastructure changes needed

Sustainment can fit in an existing SPO

Similar system/ equipment exists in ADF

Some operation and support infrastructure changes needed

Sustainment can fit in an existing SPO with minimal change

Some systems/ equipment do not exist in ADF

Major operation and support infrastructure changes needed

Sustainment may require moderate changes to an existing SPO

Most major systems/ equipment do not exist in ADF

Significant operation and support infrastructure changes needed

Sustainment could require a new SPO to be put in place or major changes to existing SPO(s)

Commercial

Existing companies have supplied almost identical systems

Contracting arrangements and contracts are complex but contract management is routine

Companies have previously demonstrated capability to develop and produce systems

Contracting arrangements and contracts are complex and require a high level of contract management

Individual company capabilities exist but not previously combined to produce required capability

Project will challenge extant industry capabilities

Contracting arrangements are complex or there is high level of interdependency between a number of commercial arrangements being managed by the DMO

New industry capabilities may need to be introduced

Project is at the margins of extant industry capability maturity levels

Contracting arrangements are highly complex and there is very high level of interdependency between a number of commercial arrangements being managed by the DMO

Novel commercial practices required to undertake the project

Examples

SEA 1351 Ph 1, Replacement East Coast Tugs

JP 129 Ph 4, Tier 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

AIR 9000 Ph 5C, Additional Heavy Lift Helicopter

JP 157 Ph 1, Replacement Refuelling Trucks

SEA 1439 Ph 6, Collins Sonar Replacement

LAND 75 Ph 4, Battlefield Command Support System

SEA 1000 Program, New Submarine

AIR 6000 Ph 2A/2B, New Air Combat Capability

Note 1: Not all acquisition ACAT scores will correlate with project dollar size. E.g. a large purchase of an established capability will be rated at a lower ACAT level.

Planned Schedule Highlights

This section provides indicative first pass approval, year-of-decision (second pass approval) and Initial Operating Capability years. These dates are indicative only. Where the first pass approval and year-of-decision dates are the same this may indicate the project is undertaking a single second pass approval. The timing of some of the projects may be adjusted for a variety of reasons including a change in priorities, modified development timescales, or a change in project intent (e.g. from upgrade to replacement). As also highlighted earlier, there is an element of over-programming built into the DCP. This over-programming is a long-standing practice designed to provide flexibility and to aid in ensuring that best use is made of available funding in the event of delays to the development of individual projects.

The schedule highlights include new attributes from previous DCPs including an indication of when the project is expected to seek first pass approval under the two-pass approval process, as this is seen as a key date for industry strategic planning. It is usual for a RFT, or some other type of industry solicitation or cost refinement activity to be undertaken post first pass approval.

Also included in this section is an indication of when the Initial Operating Capability is required. This replaces the previous ‘In-service Delivery’ dates which indicated when the first major items of the system were to be delivered, to a measure that highlights when the first elements of the new system need to be operationally ready. This puts the planning and delivery focus on all elements of the system, including training and support, not just on the delivery of the equipment.

Points of Contact

The position and phone number of the points of contact are provided should additional information on specific proposals be required. The points of contact are from the Capability Staff and, where applicable, the Defence Materiel Organisation - or in some instances the Chief Information Officer Group. Project websites are also provided where applicable. Project information should in the first instance be sought from the Capability Staff contact or Chief Information Officer Group contact where they are the sponsor of the project.

1.The Defence + Industry ePortal provides improved opportunities for companies and Small to Medium Enterprises to join in defence acquisition and sustainment programs.

Defence Capability Plan / 2009 / Public Version