Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL
ANDREW FIGGURES
CBE AND MR
TIM ROWNTREE
22 MAY 2007
Q140 Mr Hancock: Who actually pays?
Where was the money—
Lieutenant General Figgures: I
would have to find the money to enable Tim to do the work.
Q141 Mr Hancock: You have had to
find it, because we are extending the—
Mr Rowntree: We have found the
money that covers the 15-month slip that is reported now.
Q142 Mr Hancock: Why did not Airbus
have to contribute to that?
Mr Rowntree: The slip that we
have got up until now, as I said earlier, was to do with the approvals
process, so from the contract award.
Q143 Mr Hancock: If it went beyond
2012, if there was a further delay, that would all be now presumably
down to Airbus (so finding a stop-gap between 2012 and the eventual
in-service date), and is the in-service date for one plane or
for several of them?
Mr Rowntree: It is for several.
Q144 Mr Hancock: What: five?
Mr Rowntree: I believe it is seven.
Q145 Mr Hancock: So the in-service
date is when we get seven handed over, fully operational A400Ms?
Mr Rowntree: Yes.
Q146 Mr Hancock: So, if that was
delayed from 2012, presumably Airbus would have to pick up the
tab for whatever else we had to do to cover our capability gap?
Mr Rowntree: The contract does
not work exactly like that. As I said, it is a commercial approach.
Airbus is working to a fixed price contract. We have deferred
payments if they are not delivering against milestones and there
is provision for liquidated damages. However, whether or not the
remedies against Airbus would be sufficient to continue the Hercules,
I could not say.
Q147 Mr Hancock: So what is your
fallback then?
Mr Rowntree: The forecast is it
goes back into the planning round, as soon as we identify it with
General Figgures and his team and we make the provision by readjusting
priorities across defence to make that happen.
Q148 Mr Hancock: Is that a long process
of being able to acquire aircraft to fill that sort of gap?
Mr Rowntree: No, because the C-130K
is already in-service and well-known and the IPT are keeping tabs
on the fatigue management of those aircraft, and they make known,
through me and to Andrew's team, when the decision points are
when we would retire an aircraft, or we could preserve it, so
we do keep those levers and those dates at which we would need
to make investment decisions in those aircraft very closely in
mind.
Q149 Mr Hancock: Is there any preference
in the overall plan—Airbus deal with various countries on
these aircraft—to give some preference to the UK? If there
were aircraft destined for other countries, could they be made
available to the UK in advance?
Mr Rowntree: The UK has very early
deliveries anyway. There is only France and Turkey in the front
of us and, once the UK programme starts to be delivered, we do
have a high rate. France and Turkey are also very keen to get
these early aircraft, so I would not think there is any real scope
to do that.
Q150 Willie Rennie: When Air Vice-Marshall
Leeson came before the Committee in April he said, "Conscious
of the security situation we are now in, it is a considerable
worry that with each threat change there is an inexorable rise
in the weight of armour or protection that our various vehicles
are carrying."
Mr Rowntree: Yes.
Q151 Willie Rennie: Do you think that
with the evolving situation of FRES that the A400M will be able
to cope with what we come up with?
Mr Rowntree: As you may be aware,
we have increased the floor strength of the A400M recently to
make sure that we can carry FRES. The A400M is clearly at a higher
state of development than the FRES, so the way this now works
is that the FRES is working to around a 25 tonne total size, and
that would enable 400M to move it around about 2,000 miles, which
would be a very useful lift capability. There is a little bit
of growth beyond that. If it creeps towards 32 tonnes, that would
just reduce the range that a 400M could move it, but very much
at the moment the FRES team and the A400M team are in very close
dialogue. FRES knows where the bounds are for 400 and FRES is
working within that 400M envelope.
Q152 Willie Rennie: So if there are
changes once it comes into service, there will be certain limitations
on how far it could go because of the A400M?
Mr Rowntree: Yes. Of course, we
do not know to what extent the A400M may be upgraded through life,
but, yes, there is a planning assumption that, if FRES grew significantly
through life, it could create problems and we would have to very
carefully manage the weight of FRES as it goes through life.
Q153 Mr Jenkin: Can I come in there.
We have heard evidence about the FRES programme that it may go
considerably over 32 tonnes. What would be the implications of
that?
Lieutenant General Figgures: Could
I answer that. Clearly, as a threat changes we have to adjust
the protection, develop the protection, and we would have to tune
it to a particular threat; so we would have different mixtures
of armour for different threats. One of the implications of that
is that you have to be able to take it off and put it on. So,
we would be in the position, if indeed we did arrive at 32 tonnes
plus, of being able to fly the base vehicle with a base level
of protection and then we would increase that protection once
we got into theatre.
Q154 Mr Jenkin: That rather suggests
you are going to need twice as many aircraft to deploy the same
number of FRES vehicles?
Lieutenant General Figgures: It
might if we deployed all our FRES vehicles by air, but the proposition
would be that we would fly FRES, if necessary, for say a small
scale focused intervention where speed of reaction was important,
and we would have sufficient air fleet to be able to air land
the appropriate sub-unit and framework of the battle group that
was going to be deployed.
Q155 Mr Jenkin: So the "R"
of "FRES", which means rapid, only applies to part of
the deployment?
Lieutenant General Figgures: For
a small scale focused intervention, yes, we require that rapidity.
For a more deliberate intervention or a police enforcement, the
strategic lift could well be provided by sea.
Q156 Mr Jenkin: I do understand you
have inherited all these programmes and we cannot hold you personally
responsible, but is this not cart before the horse stuff and does
this not underline what the Royal Aeronautical Society have said,
that this was always a political aircraft and we have been desperately
trying to match our other equipment capabilities to fit into this
aircraft even though there were quite a lot of people who would
have preferred us to stick with C-130s and C-17s?
Lieutenant General Figgures: Being
a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society and, indeed, I have
to take responsibility for the FRES programme and, indeed, I was
a member of the Joint Capabilities Board for the A400, you are
looking at someone who is responsible for providing the appropriate
advice.
Q157 Chairman: That makes a change.
It is usually me!
Lieutenant General Figgures: But
there is always a balance. We have aircraft capable of outsize
lift—C-17, the A400 is hugely capable in comparison with
the C-130. Currently we do tactical air landing with the C-130;
we will be able to do that with the A400M. We will have to balance
protection and threat. There are no absolutes in this.
Q158 Mr Jenkin: One very final question.
If the A400M cannot actually carry the FRES vehicle, then the
A400M is more than we need and the C-130 would have done because
that does the tactical lift as well as the small strategic lift?
Lieutenant General Figgures: It
does for CVRT, but FRES with a higher level of protection, we
anticipate—
Q159 Mr Jenkin: That is assuming
we can get it in?
Lieutenant General Figgures: As
I said, we can tune the armour to the threat. If the all-up weight
is 32 tonnes max, then we can provide the appropriate protection,
which will not be possibly the same as if it were 35 tonnes, but
the application of force is about the balance of risk.
| 
