Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
WEDNESDAY 24 MAY 2000
SIR ROBERT
WALMSLEY AND
VICE-ADMIRAL
SIR JEREMY
BLACKHAM
180. Can I ask you, Admiral, how significant
is the reduction now being sought in Bowman's protection to you
as somebody who might have to order men and women into action
using this facility?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Well, you would
expect me to say, I think, that we would take very good care not
to expose our people to undue risk. To say that we would expose
them to no risk would be false. You cannot engage in combat at
no risk, and equally, you cannot guard as well as we would expect
against every conceivable eventuality. What we do do is look at
the balance of investment made across a range of activities. Bowman
is a service, it is part of an entire land combat system. We look
at the balance of investment that we make and look at what is
it worth investing in communication support. What we should be
investing in is actual fire power and in protection, and in close
consultation—because one of the important virtues of our
organisation is that it consults closely with the front line,
and indeed we formed a working group specifically to ensure that
we do take full account of the views of the front line—decide
what is a reasonable level of risk to take in the circumstances
and where to put our investment. That is what we have done with
Bowman. So I am quite satisfied that what we have now specified
has the agreement and support of the army, who are the ultimate
users, and my own staff are quite satisfied that that it is the
right thing to be procuring.
181. Have your front line commanders been fully
appraised of the down-grading of the equipment, and what has their
response been to that?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) As I just said,
they are fully involved in the process of development.
182. They have been fully consulted?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) They have been
fully consulted. They are members of the working groups which
develop all our requirements. So they are fully consulted. It
is true to say that I am accountable for the cost of the programme
and so in the event of a disagreement I have to make a decision,
but we would hope that that situation does not arise. In the case
of Bowman the specification has been agreed with the army.
183. Has cost played a significant part in the
down-grading of the protection factors within this piece of kit?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Cost plays a part
in everything that we do.
184. Is the cost significant?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) There is only a
certain amount of money that any government will allocate to any
activity.
185. This has had a lot.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) What I have to
do is make a judgment as to what the right balance is across a
whole range of systems and capabilities. It would be foolish of
me, irresponsible of me, and silly to specify a system which left
our people unable to do their work or at excessive risk, and we
do not do that.
Chairman
186. When was the decision made to change the
specification?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Reduce the specification,
which is now known as Bowman LITE, about 18 months ago.
Mr Hancock
187. How much have you saved do you think by
degrading of the original concept?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) That is not really
the issue.
188. It is to me. I want to know the answer.
How much is now going to be saved?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) That is not the
way the problem has been approached. What we have done is specify
a system which we believe is the right system and worked out what
that is likely to cost.
189. Admiral, your predecessors came to the
previous government asking for X amount of money to be spent on
this system. It is far exceeding that original cost and the time
delay is enormous. I am asking the question now. A piece of kit
that was originally agreed has now been seriously degraded from
what it was originally. I accept that you claim to have very good
reasons why that happened. I want to know simply how much less
is now going to be spent on this? How much are you saving?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Firstly, I must
take exception to "significantly degraded", because
I have spent quite a while explaining that that is not what we
have done. We have produced a system, in consultation with the
army, which they accept and we accept meets their operational
needs. Clearly, the system we are now procuring, because it has
different specifications, is going to cost less than the previous
one. I do not actually have any bids for the previous system—Sir
Robert may be able to help here—but the actual cost of the
present system is likely to be significantly less than was originally
specified, because the original specification had requirements
which we do not believe are necessary.
Chairman: We will move on. We have the
next 15 years to come back to that.
Mr Viggers
190. We started with a very high specification
which we are told was actually higher than necessary and higher
than appropriate, and we now have a different specification, presumably
based more closely upon what is currently available. To what extent
did you consult Archer Consortium, who are the people producing
the kit? To what extent did you consult the prospective supplier
to find out what they can supply, as opposed to starting from
the higher specification, which is what you originally wanted?
Initially the question goes to Admiral Blackham.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) The reason I hesitated
there was because I do not deal with Archer, that is the role
of the DPA and advice on that subject would come through the individual
project team.
191. From your point of view you would not be
involved in discussions with Archer as such, but to what extent
were you advised through the DPA as to what was available?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) We are always in
consultation with the IPT, and clearly we cannot specify something
that is incapable of being manufactured. So to that extent we
discuss what is available and see how that lies alongside our
requirement, but the consortium with whom we are dealing have
access to a huge range of technology. I am not aware that the
technology per se has been difficult.
192. In that case, a slightly different question
to Sir Robert. To what extent have the adjustments which have
been made been influenced by the capabilities already available
in the off-the-shelf communication system? In other words, have
you changed the requirement to generate an affordable solution?
(Sir Robert Walmsley) I certainly have not changed
the requirement, but it is of course true that we have adjusted
the requirement to make the solution affordable. The budget has
not been reduced, I just want to make that quite clear, because
I thought the line of Mr Hancock's question was that we tried
to, so to speak, take money out of the Bowman budget. The budget
has not been reduced. We received a bid from Archer, and it is
worth just reminding the Committee that it is now a single tender
action. We once had a competition. Two companies got together
and turned themselves into Archer, and we are now dealing with
quite a difficult organism—a joint venture, project specific,
owned by three shareholders, each of whom has an interest in securing
orders from Archer—in competition with the other shareholders.
I can go into that in detail if you wish. The point I would make
is that Archer is a relatively new animal, it is about two and
a half years old, and actually in effectiveness terms it is probably
only about eight months old, and we can go into the reasons for
that. Nevertheless, today I have at least 20 people in and out
of Archer every day. We are working hand-in-hand with them. This
is a new method of undertaking single tender action pricing. Instead
of Archer, so to speak, posting a pile of paper over the wall
to us after a year's work and us saying, "We don't understand
it", and batting questions backwards and forwards for another
year, my people are there working with Archer's people now, pricing
components of the Bowman system as they define the specification.
We are expecting—subject to various pieces of progress which
we have asked Archer to make—them to produce a good bid
by the end of next month. The issue of whether Archer have been
involved in changing the specification over the years is not really
relevant because they have not existed, but we are in touch with
them today.
193. As to the overall specification, is Bowman
still as originally specified, to provide the single integrated
battlefield communication system? Has there been any change or
reduction in the number of troops, ships or aircraft who are to
be equipped with Bowman?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) We are expecting
to provide some 55,000 Bowman sites in vehicles, ships and aircraft.
Of course, the number of aircraft, tanks and ships has declined
substantially since the Bowman specification was first produced,
as a result of a series of reviews over the last 15 years. So
it is almost impossible to compare the number now to the number
that was originally first thought of, but the number that we are
producing will equip all of those units that we think need to
be part of it.
194. And it is still intended to be an over-arching
communications system, and no class of ships, troops or aircraft
has been eliminated from the original plan?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) No. There will
be some smaller ships which do not have a worthwhile role to play
in integrated joint battle space, but significant of our units
do and they will be so equipped.
195. Some smaller ships?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Well, there are
small vessels—mine sweepers and so forth—who simply
do not have a need to be part of that. They are operating in a
particular area, under the control of a commander and do not have
the staff or the need to have access to the full range of information.
Larger vessels—aircraft carriers, amphibious vessels and
command vessels—do need that access, and they will get it.
196. Were the smaller ships like mine hunters
originally in the specification but have been deleted from it?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) No, originally
all of those notions were in the specification. Of course we have
proposed a great deal in our joint prospectus since then too.
Chairman
197. We have the same number of vehicles as
planned five or ten years ago.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) The same classes
of vehicles as planned, but the number of the vehicles has declined.
198. Has it?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Yes.
199. From what to what?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) It has declined
as our force structure has shrunk. The type and nature of vehicles
remains the same.
| 
