Page 64 - Australian Defence Magazine June 2022

64 FROM THE SOURCE WARREN MCDONALD CONTINUED FROM PAGE 62
assessing. Several of which we are now in contract with. Quality companies like Leidos Australia, QinetiQ Australia, Consunet, Consilium, Silentium, C4I, Penten and Daron- mont. Great Australian companies such as these that do ex- ceptional work will be pivotal to AIR6500’s success.
ADM: How is Aegis into the Hunter-class design progress- ing? Will it be Baseline 9 from the outset?
MCDONALD: Aegis Baseline 9 ensures we are keeping up with advances in technologies and threats. A system design review was done last year. From Lockheed Martin all things are on track. We are focussed on ensuring it will be on the dock ready to install in time for Hunter class integration.
ADM: What are the risks from a Lockheed Martin point of view?
MCDONALD: Anything new has risks and I think it all boils down to integration, making sure you clearly understand that. We have our specialists for combat systems archi- tecture, they’re the cream of the crop in their engineering field, so we employ them to make sure that we’ve character- ised the risk correctly and manage it as we proceed. So, I think it always comes down to mitigating integration risk.
JUNE 2022 | WWW.AUSTRALIANDEFENCE.COM.AU
“THERE’S A SAYING, AND I THINK IT HOLDS A LOT OF WEIGHT, THAT YOU OVERESTIMATE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES IN THE SHORT TERM BUT UNDERESTIMATE IT IN THE LONG TERM”
The company has a good track record of combat system integration and we are working closely with BAE Systems and the Commonwealth to make sure that we can install the system without issue.
I would add, it’s a complex undertak- ing to build a ship or a submarine. I think sometimes in the thrust for sim- plicity we overlook complexity, and this is a complex endeavour. Lockheed Martin is a company that’s used to suc- cessfully working with complexity.
assisted in keeping close hold of technologies that are sensi- tive; then comes computers and then comes cyber effects, which has made it far more complex. But I think the in- tent of ITAR was right and remains so because there are some highly sensitive technologies developed by the United States. I think they’re right to want to ensure a level of pro- tection but with AUKUS we can have a more textured con- versation and help us transition some of those technologies more quickly. And I’d also say with the backdrop of the strategic circumstances, we should drive this more prompt- ly than in the past.
ADM: And speaking of ITAR, how do you see ITAR play- ing out with the sovereign guided missile capability? Is it going to be an obstacle? Can you develop true sovereign capability without being hamstrung by ITAR?
MCDONALD: If it’s truly sovereign, if it’s all Australian, you can because it doesn’t touch US technology or US intellect. So, yes.
Operating within the ITAR framework is not new for LM. We have actively supported the Australian Government and Defence during their engagements with their US counter- parts to address how ITAR can support the GWEO Enter- prise through existing and even new US Policy approaches.
ADM: Will it impact who you are able to work with? MCDONALD: I guess there’s two parts to that question. I think the question, “can you have a truly sovereign capa-
We have a proven process to ensure we deliver, as we did the Combat Sys- tem in the Future Submarine Program (FSP). We were on track and on budget for that program. A submarine combat system is probably the most complex endeavour you could conceive. So, to ensure we remain on track for the Hunter Class we have utilised personnel with the same skillsets as those employed on the FSP. Lockheed Martin’s focus is to
remain on track.
ADM: How will AUKUS affect your relationship with the Commonwealth and how you do business in Australia? MCDONALD: We applauded the AUKUS announcement and the advances that have been made since. I see it contribut- ing to the texture and depth of the relationship between Lockheed Martin and the Commonwealth and obviously the US and UK governments.
I think ITAR comes up a lot and there’s a very good rea- son ITAR was put in place. Whilst people can be critical of it, if you went back and did an assessment it’s probably
DEFENCE