The Australian government is taking steps to ensure Australia has one of the most advanced maritime patrol and response aircraft fleets in the world. The government has approved the acquisition of a fourth MQ-4C Triton Remotely Piloted Aircraft System, and upgrades to the Air Force’s fleet of P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The estimated combined value of these decisions is over $1.5 billion.
The MQ-4C Triton will provide long-range, persistent surveillance across Australia’s maritime region. The first aircraft, including the relevant ground and support systems, is due to be delivered to Australia in 2024. When in service, the Triton aircraft will be based at RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory, and operated by the newly reformed Number 9 Squadron, located at RAAF Base Edinburgh, South Australia. The Northrop Grumman Corporation manufactured MQ-4C Triton aircraft are being developed and acquired by the Australian Defence Force in cooperation with the US Navy.
Australia’s fleet of 14 Boeing P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol and Response aircraft will be upgraded, delivering enhancements to anti-submarine warfare, maritime strike and intelligence collection capabilities. Defence expects the first Poseidon aircraft to enter the upgrade program in 2026, with the final aircraft to be completed in 2030. The ADF will work with Boeing Defence Australia on options for domestic installation of the new Poseidon capabilities, increasing Australian industry opportunities.
In addition, the signing of an Interim Sustainment Support Contract with Northrop Grumman Australia valued at $220 million will establish a strong maintenance workforce at RAAF Base Tindal and RAAF Base Edinburgh for the fleet of Triton aircraft.
Overall, these decisions will create an additional 140 high-skilled jobs in South Australia and the Northern Territory. It is estimated around 40 of these jobs will be in the NT with the remainder in SA.
Throughout their life, the P-8A Poseidon and MQ-4C Triton fleets will contribute over $1.4 billion in acquisition and at least $6 billion in sustainment to Australian industry.
These decisions reflect the government’s determination to provide the Australian Defence Force with the capabilities it needs to defend Australia while also supporting local defence industry and jobs.
Minister for Defence Industry, Pat Conroy said: “The purchase of an additional Triton will enhance operations from Australia’s northern bases, a priority under the Defence Strategic Review. The upgrades to the fleet of Poseidon aircraft strengthens our ability to secure and protect Australia’s maritime interests. The investment in both these aircraft will deliver more jobs, capability and security for Australians. Australian industry can expect more work and opportunities to develop a highly skilled workforce through sustaining these aircraft, helping to ensure our Defence personnel have the capabilities they need to keep Australians safe.”
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Director of Sales Graham Joss at graham.joss@venturamedia.net
This is interesting news about the Triton, I was under the impression that the U.S. had canceled it’s order (or some of its order) due to production cost and capability shortfalls, due the length of time it has taken to get off the ground. We ordered ours in 2014,confirmed the buy 2016 and the first was seen in 2020, so it’s taken almost 10years to get just one, How long before they’re all operational and will they been up to the job when we get them. I’m not all that knowledgeable about the Triton but wouldn’t have the Global Hawk been a simpler option to begin with. At least we would have had something in the air. When it finally arrives I’m sure it will be a very useful asset. The on every question I want answered is why does every Australian Defence acquisition seem to be Decades away before we actually get them.
That’s a fair comment about schedule – and I have never been able to find out why Defence has been ordering them one at a time rather than placing a single order a decade ago for the entire buy of 6 or 7.
It could have been because the government and or defense wanted to make sure they weren’t stuck with a fleet of white elephants. By ordering them in piece meal fashion they were trying to mitigate risk on a what is a risky platform.
I think they just wanted to make sure the US Navy was going to be committed to the aircraft.
Perhaps. But I’m not aware of another comparable project – not one. To avoid risk the usual approach is to wait until something has entered production and then place an order for a few of whatever it is.
That requires a very complex answer along the lines that Triton has a number of features optimised for operations in the maritime domain, such as radar performance, which actually seem valid. That’s why the USN wanted Triton rather than simply going with Global Hawk. There are some other features such as the ability to work in conjunction with P-8A that are also part of the equation. I’m not qualified to speculate on why the development of Triton has taken so long other than to comment that the USN is a demanding customer.
Aside from the delay in receiving the capability do we know for sure that the our budget for this particular program has blown out?
It strikes me as odd that defence analysts say the Triton is “not survivable in contested environments”. Would these same analysts prefer our P8’s in harms way instead? With it’s AESA radar at high altitude and long endurance it complements the P8 as an extended sensor. Of course if the program rises in price significantly due to the USN exiting then it may be wise to seek alternatives.
I can’t answer the budget question – but I agree 100% with your contested airspace comment. As well as a P-8A you could add Wedgetail and KC-30A to the list. At least if a Triton gets blown out of the sky by a long range SAM all that you have lost is a bit of fibreglass, some fancy electronics and a jet engine.
As we both know Kym, defence will try and reinvent the wheel at every turn given the opportunity. How many technological dead ends and inferior platforms have defence invested in to date. The Tiapan comes to mind immediately and there are quite a few others.
Great article by the way.
I disagree about Taipan – and Tiger. I have written quite a bit about both and I’ll have a lot more to say in my next podcast. Taipan had some problems, particularly in it’s early years, but reliability issues are just as much to do with Army/CASG support processes – if not more – than with the helicopters themselves. Many countries, including little New Zealand, are able to keep their helicopters flying with only minimal problems.