Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260
- 279)
WEDNESDAY 24 MAY 2000
SIR ROBERT
WALMSLEY AND
VICE-ADMIRAL
SIR JEREMY
BLACKHAM
Mr Viggers
260. I recently read an article about concern
being expressed over the stability of stealth designed ships.
I wonder if this has caused you any concern or whether you noted
the comments?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) As a matter of
fact I have no concerns about that. I am clear that this ship
will be built not like the Vosper stealth models, it will be a
more conventional hull, a development from what we have previously
done.
Mr Hancock
261. Can I just go back to the points you were
making on Bowman and the lessons you have learned. Are you absolutely
sure you have tested the Type-45 against your new criteria to
make sure that what you were seeking was what you were going to
get and the customer was actually asking for the right product
here bearing in mind the experience of working in co-operation
and the whole thing falling apart? There were very good reasons
for that happening, I am sure, but we are now left with the Type-45.
Are you and Admiral Blackham convinced that this is the product
that the navy needs? Is it of the quality that we should have?
(Sir Robert Walmsley) Let me answer in terms of transferring
lessons. The structure we have got in Archer now and the way it
works is basically the PAAMS model from the Type-45 programme
being imported on to Archer. We do not often have new ideas, we
look at ideas that we already have and we transfer them. So there
is that connection between the PAAMS success and the Bowman consortium
and that has been very important. Is it the right ship? From a
solution point of view this ship is built to carry the PAAMS missile.
I am absolutely happy that that is the right missile system. Britain
has a very good record of building ships. We have perhaps a less
glittering record in terms of weapons systems. I have no doubt
that we will do this ship well.
262. As we are talking about ships and I have
a constituency or city interest in Vosper Thornycroft, are they
involved in any way in the Preparation for Demonstration work?
(Sir Robert Walmsley) Very much so. We have achieved
starting benefits for the Royal Navy and for the Ministry of Defence
through the use of competition for ship production. This has not
been just grinding down the price, this is innovation, this is
doing things in new ways, and nobody more than Vosper's espouse
that principle. What they have achieved in terms of productivity
improvements on the single role Minehunter order has been most
gratifying and they are to be hugely commended for that. As the
Chief Executive himself quite cheerfully admits, this is because
they had to win the order. So competition does in many ways stimulate
innovation. We have learned from that and we will insist on competition
for the Type-45. As you know, many years ago it was designated
that the first Type-45 would be built at Yarrow. You cannot have
a fair competition between one shipyard that has built one and
one shipyard that has not. We have worked on that. Although BAE
Systems are the prime contractor, having been appointed in November
of last year, an absolute condition of that is to involve Vosper's
in the design team first of all to give Vosper's absolute transparency
on what is going on in terms of designing the ship. It is no good
if some cunning component of the design means that it could not
be built at Walston, say, because the cranes are not big enough
to pick it up. That is a trivial point. One way and another, by
having Vosper's present in the design team we will ensure first
of all that this ship will be built, can be built, at both shipyards.
We are also now moving to quite an interesting idea, that bits
of the first ship, which we call intermediate products, that is
to say blocks, large chunks of hundreds of tonnes, could be built
at Vosper's. We have not settled that yet. We thought that might
be quite a neat way of getting them into the construction processes
for this ship. People are very good now at moving chunks of ships
around on barges, it does not cost anything compared with the
actual work of doing the build. That way we think we can envisage
a strategy for building these ships where there is competition
both for final assembly and to build these intermediate products.
I think we might get Vosper's involved in the first one. For sure,
there is far deeper involvement by them in this first of class
than we ever envisaged for an alternate shipyard.
Mr Hancock: I think that is excellent
news. Your outline of that concept begins to redeem you in some
way in my eyes.
Mr Cann: That is the nicest thing he
has ever said to anybody.
Mr Hancock
263. It will not last, I am sure. What you are
actually saying is that the design of the ship is such that it
is compatible to be built at Yarrow and at Walston and for that
matter at any other suitable British yard if they wish to succeed?
(Sir Robert Walmsley) The word "suitable",
yes, but not any other British yard, no.
264. Any suitable yard. As a final point on
this one, can you tell us how the French and the Italians are
doing without us, so to speak? Is their commitment to ships in
the water as big today as it was when we were collaborating?
(Sir Robert Walmsley) My information is that the programme
is going on better than as well as can be expected. I was about
to say something rather ungenerous. I think they have had some
difficulties but my information now is that programme is pretty
secure.
265. You support that?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) I can speak much
more for the French than the Italians but that is my understanding.
266. If I could just go back to what Peter Viggers
asked you about the stealth thing. I am sure I read somewhere
recently about the American stealth ship that they have constructed
which is a fairly large ship. I understood that the Royal Navy
were involved in taking part in some of the trials of that ship.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) We keep watch on
a great deal of American technology and, as I think you know,
they are quite generous with it. We are involved in their technology
certainly. This is the class of ship that we do not want to build
when the technology has been evaluated in five years' time, we
want to start building it this year, as Sir Robert has already
said.
267. Are there not some lessons already being
learned from the construction of that ship and its performance
in the water that leads you to believe that we ought to be incorporating
some of the stealth qualities of that ship into the Type-45? As
Sir Robert said, it has a very big radar capability which makes
the ship in some ways vulnerable.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) We will incorporate
suitable stealth techniques. Obviously I have an interest in the
ship being as stealthy as it can be made but, with things like
a very high powered large radar, they are going to give themselves
away by other means than the design of the radar itself.
Chairman
268. On the French and Italian programmes, are
their numbers the same as they signed up for with HORIZON?
(Sir Robert Walmsley) No.
269. They have reduced them?
(Sir Robert Walmsley) Yes.
270. As they might have done with HORIZON?
(Sir Robert Walmsley) The thought crossed my mind,
Chairman.
Chairman: We really do think alike.
Mr Cann
271. I want to talk about missiles more than
anything else. Is the Type-45 going to be as capable of naval
anti-aircraft work as the 42s were, or more so or less so?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) I hope it is going
to be significantly more so.
272. Is there a case for the design of it to
include the capability of land attack missiles, like Tomahawk?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) There could be.
One of the things about the world as it is now, about technology
as it is now, is that events can change quite rapidly.
273. The ships cannot though, can they?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) They can if you
think about it before you start and if you provide space. For
example, it is possible to consider launchers for the missiles
that can launch more than one kind of missile, and we are thinking
about it.
274. So it is in the specifications that we
could reasonably easily mount Tomahawk on these ships?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) It is not specified
that we should but it is certainly one of our intentions that
we should be able to do that and, indeed, other things should
that turn out to be the right thing to do.
Mr Cann: Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman: We will now move on to the
carriers and the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft. As you know, we
are coming down to visit you, Sir Robert, in Abbeywood on 4 July
and, not as born sceptics but as people who have acquired scepticism
on the basis of experience, we view this programme as being eminently
adjustable by the Treasury in future years. We are absolutely
determined to follow progress on an annual basis to ensure that
there is no prevarication or being pushed to the right even though
obviously we know—there is no need to state it—the
Ministry of Defence are totally, totally committed to the programme.
So we have a number of questions on this programme and I will
ask Julian Lewis to lead on this
Dr Lewis
275. We understand that not only is the Joint
Strike Fighter the preferred option at the moment for future carrier
borne aircraft but that the short take-off and vertical landing
version of it is preferred additionally. It has been suggested
to us, however, that the conventional take-off and landing version
is making better progress in development than the short take-off
and vertical landing version. Is that correct?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) I think you are
ahead of me, Dr Lewis, because we have not actually made the decision
yet as to what the aircraft should be and, in fact, there are
about half a dozen potential competitors, of which the Joint Strike
Fighter is one. We are not due to make the decision to down select
to a single type of aircraft until later this year. When we make
that decision that will be a decision whether or not to go with
the Joint Strike Fighter programme. There is then a separate issue
as to whether, if we do do that, we should go with the VSTOL version
or the carrier version which is being developed. The nature of
the Joint Strike Fighter programme with both companies who are
involved in that competition is that the conventional aircraft
will be the first to fly. They are developing both, conventional
and vertical take-off aircraft and the VSTOL one will fly later,
around the turn of the year I hope. It will be a separate decision
as to whether to go for VSTOL or to the carrier version, having
first decided whether JSF or something else, a derivative of Eurofighter,
the advanced Harriers or F18 or some other aircraft might be the
right answer. So we are actually some way from deciding what the
aircraft ought to be, although it is true that we have an involvement
in the Joint Strike Fighter programme to ensure that we can exert
some leverage on it.
276. We are well aware of the fact that decisions
have not yet been taken, indeed one of the later questions I want
to put to you is to ask you if you can tell us a little bit about
some of the other options that are being considered besides the
Joint Strike Fighter. What I am trying to get at here is in terms
of JSF having been described as a front runner in this competition.
Is it true, as has been indicated to us, that the reason for the
differential times in the progress of these two versions of the
JSF is a result of problems with the short take-off and vertical
landing version, or is it more, as you seem to be implying, that
it has always been planned that that version will be coming along
further down the line in comparison with the conventional take-off
and landing version?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Sir Robert may
want to add to this. The vertical take-off arrangements for the
two candidate JSFs are quite different from each other. One is
of a relatively conventional sort and the other is very novel.
The programme is not our programme, the programme belongs to the
United States and they have determined that it shall run in the
order that I have described: conventional aircraft should take
off first, which is perhaps not surprising, it is in some ways
an easier thing to engineer, and the VSTOL one should come second.
No-one should doubt the commitment of the United States to the
VSTOL aircraft.
277. It is not the case then that the VSTOL
aircraft has run into problems, it is just planned to come later
down the line?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Indeed.
278. Moving on to the JSF programme in general,
how well do you think that is progressing? Are there any indications
from our membership of the JSF programme that it may have to be
delayed? Are there any other problems with the programme of which
you might be aware?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) As I said to the
people involved in the programme, that is giving us a considerable
amount of leverage. We have agreed a joint operational document
with the United States, the UK have, and we are involved in the
full details of the programme. This is a new aircraft and it has
not yet flown, so we do not yet know what some of the problems
might be, but I anticipate that the thing will fly in the summer
as planned by both consortia. I visited both factories myself
about two months ago and came away rather heartened.
279. I am glad you are heartened and I do not
wish to be a Jeremiah but we also have to consider what happens
if things do not go according to plan. Supposing there were to
be a delay in the JSF programme, a significant delay, what would
the effect of that be on our Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft programme
and, perhaps more important than that, on the Future Carrier programme
itself?
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) If the JSF were
significantly delayed quite clearly it would be available to us
later. I think that is obvious. I have no reason to suppose it
will be and we are not going to be the determiners in that, there
are far bigger interests involved than ours in this programme.
I am pretty confident that a huge amount of effort will go into
keeping it on track. Indeed, the Programme Director of the JSF,
who is a US Marine Corp General, is one of the most energetic
people that I have come across. I can see no reason why this programme
should be markedly different from others, but of course there
is a degree of risk in it. From our point of view the design of
the new carrier depends pretty critically on the aircraft that
we select and on the type of aircraft that we select. In other
words, is it a conventional take-off or a vertical one? We will
have to make that decision in the not too distant future. Obviously
if there is a serious delay to the VSTOL aircraft, having selected
that particular version, this could give us difficulties which
we will have to manage but we are used to managing risky programmes,
indeed we have been talking about it for the last couple of days.
| 
