Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL
ANDREW FIGGURES
CBE AND MR
TIM ROWNTREE
22 MAY 2007
Q160 Willie Rennie: The defence aid
suites. Will the A400M have defence aid suites on it?
Mr Rowntree: Yes, it will be protected.
Chairman: Do you recognise the concept
of the false economy of failing to put in proper full defensive
aid suites and explosive-suppressant foam at the beginning of
a project like this?
Q161 Mr Jenkin: Not least in lives
lost.
Mr Rowntree: We need to be careful
to understand that there is now an absolute defensive aid solution.
Threats evolve over time and sometimes we need to go to radically
different kinds of solution just to keep pace with technology.
Even in an ideal world where we had infinite funding, if you could
embody defensive aids on the production line, that certainly would
not protect us through life anyway.
Q162 Mr Hancock: It would give us
a good start though, would it not?
Mr Rowntree: Yes.
Q163 Mr Hancock: That is what we
are intending to do, is it?
Mr Rowntree: Yes, we are. The
A400M will have a defence aid system.
Q164 Mr Hancock: It will have defensive
aids, but does that mean the most comprehensive defensive aids
that are available today?
Mr Rowntree: Yes, it will have
a very capable defensive aid suite.
Chairman: Thank you. We have made the
point. John Smith.
Q165 John Smith: Thank you, Chairman.
Support for the A400M: what arrangements have been made to provide
frontline support, deep repair and maintenance and overhaul, and
have any contracts been signed?
Mr Rowntree: Yes. The development
and production contract for A400M, in order to make sure that
this risk, particularly during the early years, is managed, includes
what we call support modules so that the Airbus company is obliged,
assuming we accept the options which come up later this year,
to give us support provision on a fairly piecemeal basis, on a
transactional basis that will bring us through the in-service
date and make sure the aircraft is properly supported when it
comes into service. However, those are not a full support solution
of a modern kind. For instance, an availability type of contract
takes some time to mature and, quite sensibly, we need to see
how the technical design is maturing before we can make sure we
take the right judgments on what the support solution looks like.
So, in parallel, we are working on an assessment phase to look
at possible collaborative and UK national options for how we will
support this aircraft, and that is a very active piece of work
at the moment.
Q166 John Smith: Can we be confident
that whatever solutions will provide us with a sovereign national
capability? This is not a derivative airline. We have seen a vast
number of major modifications of the C-130 fleet, some modifications,
special forces modification with security implications. Are we
going to have an independent sovereign national capability either
within the service or in partnership with a British partner, British
industry?
Mr Rowntree: The ability to deliver
urgent operational requirements and special roles, if there are
special roles with this aircraft, is key to our work on the support
solution.
Q167 John Smith: That is not an answer.
Mr Rowntree: Do not forget that
to deliver urgent operational requirements it is not necessarily
the case that we need to have all the means on shore. For instance,
the C-17 has been upgraded with urgent operational requirement
upgrades, and that is entirely supported as part of the global
US fleet. So, it is a matter of thinking about what the aircraft
is there to do and making sure that, considering Andrew's future
plans for the aircraft, we have the means to deliver what is necessary.
Q168 John Smith: You can imagine,
there is considerable concern here: because we have seen a major,
radical overhaul of the whole support programme for all our military
aircraft. In fact, this Committee has reported on it and expressed
deep concern about the arrangements that have been brought in.
We now have this major programme on the horizon, a couple of years
away, but we have not yet reached a decision on how we are going
to maintain and support those aircraft through life.
Mr Rowntree: We need to understand
that the design authority for this aircraft in any case is not
at the moment UK-based. So, we will need to make sure that there
are arrangements with an onshore expert provider if we do decide
that that is necessary, and we are working, along with a number
of suppliers, to make sure that we make those right decisions
to keep the capability that we need.
Q169 John Smith: Will that be made
harder as a result of the fact that BAE Systems are no longer
part of the design authority, as they are disposed of?
Mr Rowntree: No.
Q170 John Smith: Do you anticipate
that the final solution will be a pan-European one because of
the nature of the company?
Mr Rowntree: There are certain
elements of the support solution that sensibly should be pan-European.
It would not make any sense, for instance, to have the technical
publications for the aircraft being fundamentally different between
six nations. It makes sense, for instance, to have common provision
of spare parts, probably, for economy of scale reasons, and it
makes sense, as we have learned hugely from the C-17 experience,
that we keep a configuration control so we have a similar standard
of core aircraft to our European colleagues. Again, that makes
for spreading the cost of modification six ways rather than paying
six times the cost for the UK to go its own way. So, there are
certain core pieces that really make sense to do on a six-nation
or at least a multinational basis. There are other elements, for
instance deep aircraft repair, for which probably you do not get
that same driver to find a collaborative solution.
Q171 Mr Jenkins: When you talk about
support and maintaining aircraft, the contract for support and
maintaining, has it got a start date and does that start date—I
know this sounds silly—coincide with the date we actually
get the aircraft; or, if the aircraft has a two-year slippage,
will we be paying a contractor to maintain aircraft for two years
that we have not got?
Mr Rowntree: No, the logistic
support date is the point of maturity. I know we have had some
projects where we have got into that position in the past.
Q172 Mr Jenkins: You have. Let me
tell you, the Apache helicopter sat in a hanger for two years,
dozens of them, and they dusted them off and we paid 74 million
pounds for maintaining them but they did not turn a rotor-blade
because they had not trained the pilots. That is how good we are
at maintenance contracts. I want to make sure we do not pay to
maintain aircraft we have not got, because our past record shows
that we have done it.
Mr Rowntree: As I said, because
Airbus have those obligations to deliver those support elements
alongside the aircraft, then those two aspects are doved-in, the
development and delivery of the aircraft at ISD, and we will make
sure that we have made the decisions in the right time to take
on those modules as we need them.
Q173 Mr Jenkin: Can I come back to
this question of design authority. It is my understanding that
for certain operations we have to use aircraft over which we have
design authority. Is that the case?
Mr Rowntree: For certain operations
we---?
Q174 Mr Jenkin: We have to use tactical
lift aircraft over which we have design authority?
Mr Rowntree: You are talking about
a particular role for this?
Q175 Mr Jenkin: Yes.
Mr Rowntree: There are ways of
achieving those ends by, for instance, industrial partnership
arrangements. I would not imagine the design authority ship for
A400M moving from the Airbus consortium, certainly in the short-term,
because this aircraft is the first military aircraft that Airbus
have ever built and there will be design and maturity issues to
be managed over the five years. I think the important thing for
us is to keep Airbus very focused on supporting us in a design
authority way, at least for the first few years. As you know,
the C-130K is now supported by a design authority partnership
between Lockheed Martin and Marshals, and I think that is an appropriate
situation for the phase that we find C-130 in now, with it being
an old aircraft and where it is in its lifecycle.
Q176 Mr Jenkin: But my guess is that
maybe for certain operations we will have to extend the life of
C-130K rather than rely on A400M?
Mr Rowntree: It would not be appropriate
for me to get into special roles of aircraft other than to assure
you that we do take those very seriously. In fact, Andrew would
not let me get away with not doing so. We will have plans to mature—
Q177 Mr Jenkin: I think, General,
you know the kind of assurance I am looking for.
Lieutenant General Figgures: Yes.
Our operational capability, in terms of the various roles that
we might use the aircraft, will not be impaired by the support
arrangements.
Q178 Chairman: Moving on to the Future
Tanker Aircraft, when is it expected to enter service? What does
"by the turn of this decade" mean?
Mr Rowntree: Assuming that the
approval comes through very shortly, and we believe that is now
in the approval process, if that happens and the programme runs
as expected, it will start to deliver its first aircraft in 2011.
Q179 Chairman: When did the MoD first
expect it to enter service?
Mr Rowntree: Because it has only
just gone through main gate, we did not have an approved level.
I would have to send you a note on that, I am afraid, rather than
go through my notes.
| 
