House of Commons - Defence - Thirteenth Report

Select Committee on Defence Thirteenth Report

5 UAVs: industrial issues and future requirements

112. The Defence Industrial Strategy[121] (DIS) was published in December 2005. Section B8 of the DIS covers C4ISTAR (Command, Control, Communication and Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) and states that:

The ISTAR component constitutes a combination of sensors, weapons systems, IT hardware & software, people and processes that collectively enable the ISTAR cycle (Direct, Collect, Process & Disseminate). The technologies associated with these capabilities are often leading edge, draw extensively on research activities, exploit developments in the civil sector, and place a premium on innovation, rapid technology insertion and effective integration. It is this sector that the principle of spiral development to enable continued operational performance is most relevant given the rapid pace of technological development.[122]

113. The DIS states that in support of the forward programme of C4ISTAR capabilities, the ability to design and manufacture equipment does not generally need to reside in the UK. However, there is a need "to develop a cadre of system engineering skills to enable industry to understand our systems and in particular to support them through-life".[123] The DIS states that "in terms of technologies there are a number in which C4ISTAR are dependent, and in which there may, case by case, be a need for targeted investment to ensure a continued understanding of emerging developments or to have assurance regarding their security of supply". These technologies include: Data Fusion; Electro-Optic / Infra-Red Imaging; and Synthetic Aperture Radar.[124]

114. The DIS concludes that the C4ISTAR industrial sector is broadly in good health with significant potential for enduring earnings across defence and commercial customer bases. However it recognises that there is a continuing need to maintain "awareness of the depth and breadth within the UK industrial base of those skills necessary to meet and support high-end defence requirements. In those areas there is a risk that unless the skills are exercised regularly, they and/or their currency will diminish". The DIS sets out the strategy for C4ISTAR which includes:

work with all areas of industry to target defence and commercial research expenditure to activities that offer the greatest potential Defence benefit and which have clear exploitation paths;
continue to encourage wider civil industry to explore the potential application of its knowledge and products to the defence market;
give industry visibility of our forward plans, and where appropriate the opportunity to help develop potential solutions from an early stage.[125]

115. With regard to UAVs and Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) the DIS acknowledges that MoD and industry share a close alignment of interest in UAV and UCAV technology. It states that:

Although at present we have no funded UCAV programme, targeted investment in UCAV technology demonstrator programmes would help to sustain the very aerospace engineering and design capabilities that we need to provide assurance of our ability to operate and support our future fixed wing aircraft. Such investment would also ensure that we can make better informed decisions on the future mix of manned and uninhabited aircraft which will need to be taken in the 2010-2015 timeframe.[126]

116. The DIS refers to some successful company and MoD-funded UAV technology demonstration programmes. Building on the success of these, the MoD planned to move forward "with a more substantial TDP (Technology Demonstrator Programme) designed to give us and industry a better understanding of key technologies of relevance to UAVs and UCAVs more broadly".[127]

117. The Defence Industrial Strategy published in December 2005 acknowledged the importance of capabilities and technologies relating to ISTAR and UAVs. In its response to our Report, we expect the MoD to provide us with an update on the progress made to date in taking forward the strategy relating to ISTAR and UAVs. We consider it vital that industry is kept updated on the industrial strategy relating to ISTAR and UAVs to help it retain its position in those technologies where it is currently considered leading edge.

DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY

118. The Defence Technology Strategy[128] (DTS) was published in October 2006. Section B3 of the DTS covers C4ISTAR and includes tables setting out priority technologies and national capability requirements relating to the following functions: command and battlespace management; collection; processing; and communications and information systems.[129] The DTS sets out the "way forward for C4ISTAR Technology Development".[130]

119. Section B9 of the DTS covers UAVs. In terms of the UK's position regarding UAS/UAV technology, the DTS states that:

The UK is world class in several aspects of UAS/UAV technology and systems development, including the areas of sensor payloads and synthetic environment based operational concept development. Through procurements such as the Watchkeeper tactical ISTAR UAV programme, and through a structured series of demonstrator programmes, the UK is progressively raising its capability to assess and develop integrated total unmanned system concepts, including autonomous operation for future UAS systems.[131]

120. We asked whether UK industry was still considered "world class" in the areas identified in the DTS. AVM Butler considered that the UK was "certainly world class" in these areas and led in some of them. He added that:

We do a good array of sensor technologies which are utilised around the world in a number of UAVs. We do well across a number of industry players and there are some capabilities which we have which are pretty unique. For example we have got one very high-altitude UAV which is looking to fly somewhere in the region of 30-odd days once it is fully developed. It is a technology that has been developed in the UK, so again it is something that we are leading in.[132]

121. John Brooks told us that there were certainly areas where Northrop Grumman recognised the technologies in some UK companies as advanced and leading edge. There were cases where Northrop Grumman had entered into discussions "about perhaps capitalising on that capability".[133] Dr Graham Thornton, Managing Director, Northrop Grumman UK, raised the issue of "affordable sovereign capability". In his view:

Somebody has just got to map out what we really mean by "sovereign capability" and can we afford to be the best, because there is no point in fielding second-best, particularly in a coalition situation. If you have a sensor that is only half as good as somebody else's they will tend to use the other guy's better sensor, it is just commonsense, so maybe we should become a niche player in certain technologies so we really are leading edge and stand up to proper benchmarking against the best. In the area of electro-optics and radars, UK stands out amongst the best.[134]

122. In its memorandum, BAE Systems said that "we staunchly support" the DTS. The company considered that "there is a national imperative for the UK to develop and retain its world-class sovereign autonomous systems engineering skills and system design capability…. The question for the UK is therefore whether it wishes to nurture a national capability to meet its long-term needs or whether to be beholden on generations of off-shore supply".[135]

123. At our evidence session on 13 May 2008 with representatives from UK defence trade associations, we asked how important the technology relating to UAV systems was to UK industry. Dr Moira Smith said that it was a key technology to UK industry at the moment and emphasised that the technology was wide ranging and covered "communications, electronics, processing, platforms and novel materials". These were very important to the UK, not just for the military but also for "commercial applications". She told us that Small and Medium-size Enterprises (SMEs) and the large prime contractors were "investing in this technology heavily because they do see this going forward".[136]

124. The Defence Technology Strategy published in October 2006 set out the "way forward for C4ISTAR Technology Development". In its response to our Report we expect the MoD to provide us with an assessment of the impact which the Defence Technology Strategy has had to date in the C4ISTAR technology area and, in particular, the impact relating to UAS/UAV technology.

UPDATED VERSION OF THE DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

125. In our Report Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2006-07,[137] published on 28 January 2008, we examined the reasons why the updated version of the DIS had not been published in December 2007 as planned. The new Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Rt Hon Baroness Taylor of Bolton, wrote to our Chairman on 20 November 2007 and said that:

I am determined that DIS v2.0 should offer the clarity on our future strategy that Industry is looking for and that it reflects a realistic view of our assumptions and plans. Although the original intention was for DIS v2.0 to be published in December I am convinced that it would be more appropriate for the strategy to be aligned to the ongoing planning round and am therefore in the process of reviewing the publication date to reflect this. Industry has indicated support for this approach.[138]

On 19 June 2008, the Minister for the Armed Forces, announced that "Planning Round 2008 is complete".[139]

126. The updated version of the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) was not published in December 2007 as planned, as the MoD considered that "it would be more appropriate for the strategy to be aligned to the ongoing planning round". The MoD announced on 19 June 2008 that the planning round had been completed. We consider it vital that the MoD ensures that the updated version of the DIS is published without further delay, so that industry is provided with the clarity it requires about future work and where it needs to invest. This is particularly important for those parts of industry working in high technology areas, such as those relating to ISTAR and UAVs. In its response to our Report we call on the MoD to set out the publication timetable for the updated version of the DIS.

Future requirements

CAPABILITY INVESTIGATION

127. To help identify future UAV requirements, "the MoD Equipment Capability Customer is sponsoring a UAV capability investigation in collaboration with industry which will seek to establish the military requirement for UAVs out to the early 2020s and define how this could best be delivered".[140] AVM Butler provided the following overview of the possible future role of UAVs:

I can envisage in the far future much of what we do today can be done by UAVs. At the moment we are not quite into that technical bracket but for example we have a study ranging out into the 2035 era which says how much of a mix can we have between manned aircraft platforms and unmanned aircraft platforms in terms of both providing ISTAR but also in terms of providing a strike capability, so an unmanned combat air vehicle as against an unmanned air vehicle for ISTAR purposes, yes, you are absolutely right, and as sensors get smaller and UAVs get more capable then there will be an element of what we do at the moment we can do with an UAV. Out into the 2035/2040 era, I cannot imagine that there will not be a requirement for an element of manned because it gives you some flexibility that an UAV simply cannot give you and also UAVs simply cannot produce the power, the lift, all of the things you need for some of the sensors that we have to carry in a big platform.[141]

128. The aim of the capability investigation was:

to make sure that industry is able to deliver the sort of capability requirements we need in this area in the future, so it is a two-step process: we are identifying the sorts of things we will need in UAV terms into the future; and then work out how best to deliver them through industry, and of course that will require us to look at industrial sustainability and how we would take that forward.[142]

The capability investigation was expected to "turn out" around the end of September / early October 2008.[143]

129. We welcome the capability investigation that the MoD is sponsoring to identify the long term military requirements for UAVs and how these might be best delivered. We will wish to be kept informed of the outcome of the investigation once it is completed.

MARITIME UAVS

130. In April 2008, Northrop Grumman won a system development and demonstration (SDD) contract for the US Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) programme. The US Navy chose Northrop Grumman's RQ-4N UAV, a marinised version of the company's RQ-4 Global Hawk.[144] The marinised version of Global Hawk UAV is a land based capability[145] and will provide the US Navy with a persistent maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance system to protect the fleet and provide a capability "to detect, track, classify, and identify maritime and littoral targets".[146] The issue of UK maritime UAVs was raised in Intellect's memorandum, which states that "Other UAS programmes (such as the Naval ISTAR UAV) have been initiated only to later be cancelled by MoD due to lack of Departmental buy-in, leaving industry to question why time and resource was spent developing a programme without an agreed role in the overall capability."[147]

131. Given that Naval forces are often the first in theatre or are used to gain access to a new theatre, we asked about the MoD's requirement for maritime UAVs. AVM Butler told us that:

Clearly we keep our requirements constantly under review across all of the three domains including the maritime domain. Given that the UAV is a relatively new concept in naval parlance as well, the one thing we have done is some trials work to make sure you can physically launch and recover a UAV to a deck which, as I am sure you can imagine, is not necessarily as easy as it is launching it from a standard runway and recovering it back to the same. We did some trials work run out of the Air Warfare Centre at Waddington to prove that we can do that launch and recovery concept. We are now keeping maritime UAVs under consideration as we look at the capability required across the breadth of the naval maritime requirement. Again if in filling some of the capability gaps of the future it is decided that a UAV is the best way to fill them, then we will expand on the research work that we have done already to include a UAV programme in the future defence programme.[148]

132. One approach to addressing the issue of launching and recovering a UAV from a ship deck was a rotary wing UAV. Northrop Grumman had an advanced rotary wing UAV [Fire Scout] which had demonstrated the ability to autonomously land and take-off from ships at sea.[149] The US Navy had a requirement for a rotary wing UAV that could land on ships. The requirement was initially for littoral combat ships, but the requirement had expanded to other classes of ships.[150] Dr Graham Thornton considered that there was a need for maritime surveillance on board all classes of vessels:

particularly in areas such as the Straits of Hormuz in the Gulf of Arabia one needs forward-looking sensing for any group of ships. There is no point in taking ships into dangerous areas if there are small rubber boats with dangerous people and payloads on board.[151]

133. The MoD's UAV capability investigation will examine the UAV requirement in the maritime domain. AVM Butler pointed out that:

many of the UAVs we are using in the land environment, if they are in the right place, can equally be employed in the maritime environment, so again there is some flexibility, particularly with Reaper where you can operate it at some distance from land and still provide the same capability that you would if you had launched it from a carrier for example.[152]

134. We are both surprised and concerned to learn that the MoD does not have a requirement for a maritime UAV given the ability of UAVs to supplement the limited helicopter availability in warships. In its response to our Report we expect the MoD to set out what consideration it has given to the need for a maritime UAV and the reasons why the naval ISTAR UAV programme was cancelled.

Autonomous Systems

135. The DTS refers to autonomy in relation to UAVs and states that:

Autonomous UAS control systems will maximise the effective tactical employment of the unmanned platform. Using on and off board sensors to gain situational awareness of the local battlespace and tactical picture, the autonomous system will then prioritise the vehicle actions taking into account weapon and fuel states, target priorities and deconfliction with other air operations.[153]

136. The memorandum from BAE Systems highlights autonomy in relation to UAVs:

Our support to current operations has shown how Autonomous Systems can transform military and security operations by providing discriminating capabilities more cost effectively than current Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) solutions or other manned solutions to surveillance, tracking and reconnaissance problems. As a result the company continues to invest in the UK to develop leading edge Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) that demonstrate increasing levels of autonomous behaviour…. most previous and current generation UAVs only displaced the air vehicle pilot and payload commander to a remote location, the crew remain an intrinsic part of the solution. As a result, UAVs are often just as labour intensive as their manned counterparts and have operating costs to match…. The UAS meanwhile is specifically designed to address these limitations.[154]

137. BAE Systems predicts that "autonomy will be the way of the future for generations to come".[155] Simon Jewell told us that the core technologies that underpinned autonomy in the air were "just as applicable to autonomy on the land and on the maritime surface and sub-surface".[156]

138. Northrop Grumman shared the view that autonomy will be the way of the future.[157] John Brooks said that the Global Hawk UAV, flies itself and "allows the entire crew to focus on the value of what it is you are trying to accomplish. Perhaps that is a good definition of "autonomy". It is not autopilot".[158]

139. AVM Butler told us that "we already have examples where the UAV will get itself airborne, take itself to an operating area, fly a very set route, come back again, and land itself entirety autonomously of an operator". The MoD had programmes examining issues such as "coherent change detection where if you fly over a route once and you then fly over it again, you look at what has changed". One advantage of autonomy was that it took pressure off UAV operators. He considered that, while autonomy was the way to go in some areas, in others:

it is not what you need, you need that dynamic tasking that you get from having somebody there able to steer it, albeit the vast majority of the way we do UAVs now is a mouse click, it is not actually a physical stick as you would have flying an aeroplane.

He thought that autonomy would be a major contributor in the future, but would not be the answer to everything.[159]

140. Autonomous UAVs can offer substantial advantages over traditional UAVs and many key industrial players see autonomy as the way of the future. In its response to our Report, we expect the MoD to provide us with details of the programmes it is funding relating to autonomous UAVs.

Armed UAVs

141. The MoD's memorandum states that planned enhancements to the Reaper UAV "include electronic surveillance and weaponisation of the UAV with multiple Hellfire missiles and GBU 12 precision guided bombs to improve prosecution of time-sensitive targets".[160] On 6 June 2008 the MoD announced that an RAF Reaper UAV had used its weapon system in support of coalition forces in Afghanistan for the first time and that "as with any other munitions this was carried out under strict Rules of Engagement".[161]

142. At our evidence session with MoD officials, AVM Butler referred to the debate that had taken place about the weaponisation of the Reaper UAVs:

we have been going through a debate for some time about weaponised Reaper because you will be aware in open source that there are plans to weaponise the platform, and again we have been going through some debate there because clearly a release of weapon would be done from Creech Air Force base which is US sovereign territory, so we have to have an agreement with the US that we can do that. There is no problem there and that again has been sorted in the very recent past, so no major problems.[162]

143. Our inquiry has focussed on UAVs and their contribution to ISTAR capability. The MoD has recently used a Reaper UAV to fire weapons during current military operations in Afghanistan. We did not seek to examine the ethics and legal implications of armed UAVs. In its response to our Report, we look to the MoD to set out the broad ethical and legal issues which arise from using military UAVs and how it is seeking to address these. We expect the MoD to develop fully its thinking relating to the future role of armed UAVs and how this impacts upon future manned armed aircraft, such as the Joint Strike Fighter.

121 Ministry of Defence, Defence Industrial Strategy Defence White Paper, Cm 6697, December 2005 Back

122 Ibid, para B8.1 Back

123 Ibid, para B8.43 Back

124 Ibid, para B8.47 Back

125 Ministry of Defence, Defence Industrial Strategy Defence White Paper, Cm 6697, December 2005, para B8.69-71. Back

126 Ibid, para B4.45 Back

127 Ibid, para B4.46 Back

128 Ministry of Defence, Defence Technology Strategy for the demands of the 21^st century, October 2006 Back

129 Ibid, pp 66-73 Back

130 Ibid, p 75 Back

131 Ministry of Defence, Defence Technology Strategy for the demands of the 21^st century, October 2006, para B9.42 Back

132 Q 104 Back