Commodore Paul Greenfield-Director General Maritime Development

CDRE Greenfield joined the RAN in 1973 and completed an engineering degree at the University of Queensland in 1974. In 1979, after some years in engineering positions at sea and in shore establishments, he transferred to the submarine service. Following submarine sea-time he had the opportunity to gain experience in different facets of Navy service, including practical experience in the post-overhaul trials of submarines and hyperbaric equipment, test and evaluation of combat and ship management systems, and participation in the development of functional specifications and project definition studies for the New Submarine (Collins) Project between 1984 and 1987.

For the next five years CDRE Greenfield managed in-house and contracted major ship repairs at Fleet Base West, where he also established the Navy's blueprints for major ship repair contracting. In 1993/94, he laid the foundations for policy and practices for acceptance-into-service, in-service support strategy and transition from build to in-service phase for the Collins class submarines and in 1995-97 served as the Submarine Project Director's Representative at the submarine assembly facility in Adelaide during contractors' sea trials of submarines Collins and Farncomb.

CDRE Greenfield took on the role of Chief Staff Officer Engineering to the Maritime Commander in 1997-98, followed by his 1999 appointment as Commanding Officer HMAS Cerberus. This role was overtaken by a posting to assist Dr Malcolm McIntosh and John Prescott in reviewing the Collins submarine program and then an appointment as Chief of Staff to RADM Briggs, Head of Submarine Capability Team, to co-ordinate Defence and industry remedial action to bring the Collins class submarines to a fully operational and sustainable state.

During 2000 he was promoted to Commodore and appointed Director General Undersea Warfare Systems and Submarine Project Director, achieving delivery of two 'fast track' improved submarines (Dechaineux and Sheean) to the Navy within 12 months. CDRE Greenfield took up his current posting in 2002.
He spoke with ADM correspondent Ian Bostock in early March.

ADM: What has been the biggest area of activity for your group over the last 12-18 months and what does the next 12 months hold?

Greenfield: I think without a doubt the big projects for us have been the Air Warfare Destroyer, the amphibious and afloat support ships and we should also mention the patrol boat project.

I think over the next 12 months we'll see a continuation of those. Our chief concern at the moment is the Westralia replacement, but that will be almost paralleled by some very rapid work on the amphibious ships and, of course, there's ongoing work the whole time on Air Warfare Destroyer. We are also being involved in the design reviews of the patrol boats. Not to forget the other stuff - the Future Fleet Enhancement Project, which consists of the upgrade of the FFGs, the anti-ship missile defence upgrade for the ANZACs and some very interesting work with CEA Technologies on their radars.

ADM: What do you see as the key foundation stones which underpin the continued development of the RAN's combat power at sea?

Greenfield: In my view we're a big geographical area, huge coastline, small population and for years and years Defence has said that technology has got to be one of those things that we look toward to help us maintain our leading edge. I would say that one of our key foundation stones would be to maintain that technological leading edge to help us make sure that our fleet is relevant into the future. Because once our capabilities lose their relevance then people will start wondering what the navy's for.

Who our allies are matters to us, not just regionally but further away. The US is our principal ally at the moment and we have a very close working relationship with them - navy-to-navy - and I think that is something that will continue to grow. So in my view, interoperability with the US Navy is probably going to be one of those foundation stones.

I think we also need to make more of what we have. Seeing our ships as not just individual ships but nodes in a networked or netted force in the future has got to be a foundation for the future. When I talk about Air Warfare Destroyer I always say that these ships will be nodes in a netted ADF force which comprises AEW&C, the New Air Combat Capability, air-to-air refuellers, maritime patrol and ground-based air defence. You've got to put all those things together and see these ships in a new light. That focus will help us to continue development of our maritime power.

ADM: What will the Surface Warfare Statement of Principles with the US Navy give us specifically?

Greenfield: It's really a commander's intent between the chiefs of the two navies to facilitate and encourage information flow both ways. It will help us to understand the ways in which we will work together into the future; understand enough about each other to help us improve our warfighting skills; leading into research and development and even into industry, as the Submarine Statement of Principles has.

ADM: Are there any specific projects or initiatives that the Statement of Principles has in sight at the moment?

Greenfield: The immediate, practical use is in Air Warfare Destroyer. It will help us in continuing to develop the details of the combat system.

ADM: What sort of missions/operations will the RAN be better able to conduct in 10-15 years than it perhaps does now?

Greenfield: Really we're talking about amphibious stuff and working in the littoral. We're pretty well served with the LPAs and Tobruk at the moment but we're only babies when it comes to amphibious operations and we're beginning to understand where we can go in the future in that area. I think with two big amphibious ships we will be able to operate with Army much better.

On the littoral side of things, Harpoon Block II, the Air Warfare Destroyers and other upgrades we're doing are all aimed to help us operate more effectively in the littoral areas. Not forgetting SM-2 on the FFGs, that's going to be quite a big advance on what we have at the moment.

ADM: What areas do you think need the most focus in terms of capability development within Navy?

Greenfield: Obviously in amphibious areas and in our littoral work but also in netting our capability. Some of the capability technology demonstration projects that we're sponsoring at the moment really are about the netted force and how we get there. I don't think we realise what it is. That's an area on which we need to focus.

ADM: Would you agree that the impending introduction into RAN service of the amphibious deployment and sustainment platforms in 10-12 years time will completely transform what the ADF can do?

Greenfield: The emergence of amphibious capability which the RAN will bring to the ADF is going to be of huge importance. The Navy and Army are beginning to get a real understanding of what it means to work together. We will have two pretty big ships of about 25,000 tonnes each, and to be able to move what the Army wants us to move and support them 2,000 nautical miles from home for a period is something really important for the Army.

>From their point of view, an Army fellow was telling me last year that there is a "huge psychological advantage in knowing those ships are there supporting us while we're operating inland. If we see those ships sail away we feel sort of alone. With those ships there you know you've got medical evacuation and all sorts of things to support the troops". We're just beginning to learn these sorts of things from Army, and I think this is why the Army is supporting the amphibs so heavily. They might be navy ships, but they're for Army.

You can see that our whole reason for being is not just about protecting sea lines of communication with warships; it's protecting focal points with more than just warships. It's being able to get the Army to come with us and provide a whole new effort.

ADM: What was the principal driver behind the decision to acquire such large amphibious ships?

Greenfield: It was really the Army's requirement. They kept falling back on their MOLE [Manoeuvre Operations in the Littoral Environment] and EAS [Entry by Air and Sea] concepts and as of mid last year they hadn't really been discussed at senior levels within Defence. They were accepted by Army early in 2003 but it really needed to be an ADF concept, and that's what has happened now.

ADM: The nomenclature of the Air Warfare Destroyer is perhaps not entirely indicative of the type of ship it will be. Exactly what kind of ship is the RAN going to get here?

Greenfield: The answer to the question "Should the Air Warfare Destroyer really be described as a sea control combatant?", is yes. Wherever it goes it should be able to have a bubble around it where it controls the environment: the above water environment, the surface and undersea environments and also the ability to operate in the electro magnetic spectrum.

The prime role will be area air defence in support of a task force. I think another important role for it will be in the realm of command and control for a task force commander (not a deployable joint force commander like the amphibs will have). It will have other roles for surface warfare such as land attack. We would like to get an extended range guided munition-capable 127mm gun and that will give you pretty good accuracy over a 50 mile range. Who knows whether our government of the future might require it to have Tomahawk fired from vertical launch cells?

We have to be aware of future growth and ensure that the growth paths are not shut for our government; that we maintain the options.

And, of course, even without any extra addition to the combat system it could participate as a radar detection ship and pass information to a more capable US ship to fire the interceptor missiles against ballistic missiles.

ADM: Has a decision been made about whether to install a ballistic missile defence capability onto the ships?

Greenfield: No, it's not a current operational requirement at the moment. Whether it becomes one in the future, well, the door is being maintained open.

ADM: What kind of work would be required to install and integrate the SM-3 missile into the Air Warfare Destroyers at some point in the future?

Greenfield: If you have the right kind of vertical launch cells, and our ships will have, you can fire them. They are a longer missile but they can still fit inside the cells. You need the control software in the computers and we won't have that. And the other thing you need is the right type of long-range radars and missile guidance systems and we won't really have that. But I understand that the Americans are working on a program to bring the missile defence agencies and Aegis together in about 2010 under the Aegis open architecture program. So at the flick of a switch, perhaps, you might be able to have one of our ships that does area air defence or ballistic missile defence, but not both together.

ADM: Why has the cost of Sea 4000 risen so significantly from a top estimate before the release of the latest DCP of A$3.5-$4.5 billion to A$4.5-$6 billion now?

Greenfield: The budget back then was put together from information obtained in the 2000 studies, when a group of Defence and industry people went to Europe and looked at three European air warfare ships - the Dutch LCF, the German F124 and the Spanish F-100 - and they brought back with them all this information that became the basis of the budget. But this current project [Sea 4000] has a capability requirement which is more than what's being provided in any of those three ships. When you start to fill in those gaps in capability that's when you need a bigger budget.

In addition, in 2000 those ships were yet to be completed and the prices weren't mature and they were done in days of high enthusiasm, shall I say. It has nothing to do with SM-3. SM-3 does not figure in our budget at all and does not figure in our operational requirement.

There is a whole range of extra capabilities that we needed to add. For instance, the F-100 is fitted without ESSM, ERGM guns, co-operative engagement capability, even torpedo defence isn't there, nor is a mine or obstacle avoidance sonar, Nulka is not there. So a lot of those self-defence elements were missing and we've had to add them in.

ADM: Where do you see any sort of outlet for high-speed vessels in the RAN?

Greenfield: I think most people are thinking of HSVs in terms of sealift. When the DCR was announced late last year there was the mention of the two large amphibs and then later on some sort of sealift capability and there was some thought as to whether it ought to be a roll-on/roll-off or ro-pax or a bunch of HSVs, but we don't have any thoughts on that at the moment. We're waiting on the ADF Lift Study and we want to consider that.

What we're learning from the US Navy is that the HSV brings mobility and speed. That is why they're are looking at mission modules that you can plug in and plug out. I think we'll be watching pretty keenly this US Navy transformation, particularly with respect to the Littoral Combat Ship and see how they go with it. Because for sure we'll be able to learn some lessons from that.

ADM: Where would we be able to apply such lessons in the RAN?

Greenfield: The mission modules include such things as mine warfare and anti-submarine warfare, the carriage of special forces or perhaps command and control. So really it's a new way of looking at things. Whether we go down that route or not is something for the future.