Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
AIR VICE-MARSHAL
SIMON BOLLOM,
AIR VICE-MARSHAL
STUART BUTLER
AND AIR
VICE-MARSHAL
CHRIS NICKOLS
CBE
6 MAY 2008
Q20 Robert Key: Will the RAF be manning
them, operating them?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: As you
may well know, the Predator system actually is to an extent jointly
manned anyway, but it is predominantly manned by the Royal Air
Force, and I would suggest that if we expand the current Reaper
crop, and that is certainly not a given at this stage, again we
are constantly reviewing our requirements, the chances are it
will be led by the Air Force, because again it fits into the air
tasking order and we are best able to integrate it into the wider
system, bearing in mind in the battle space it is occupying air
space that is also occupied generally by Royal Air Force platforms.
Q21 Robert Key: The Government has
told the committee that in January 2008 there was a 48 per cent
deficit in unmanned aerial vehicle operators in the Forces. Why
is that deficit so big? [4]
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Can I,
firstly, address the deficit because it is certainly not at that
level now. It has improved considerably. Again, there was a transition
phase for the Army between when they were flying the Phoenix unmanned
air vehicle, which as I mentioned earlier was not suitable for
hot and high in Afghanistan, so there was a transition period,
so we have had to work quite hard to get the right people with
the right training to operate the air vehicle, so it is certainly
nowhere near that deficit now. The other thing, the important
thing in this case is to say that there is no impact at all on
the operational theatres. What we are doing on the odd occasion
is stretching people a little bit much but we do not actually
have a deficit for supporting current ops.
Q22 Robert Key: No doubt that is
because of the take-up of the £10,000 golden hello that you
have offered, but if you have managed to attract people towards
the UAV programme, they must therefore have come out of some other
part of the Royal Air Force or other technical branches in the
Services, leaving deficits with them.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Indeed.
I can cover the RAF one because in a previous job I did look after
it. I am afraid we will maybe have to write to you on the Army
side about where they specifically came from.[5]
On the Air Force side they have tended to be air crew that have
come from other types or operators that have come from other types.
It has been a little bit of a learning process for us, I am afraid,
because we have not previously operated UAVs in any great numbers,
we have started to learn the types of people that we need. So
we have taken them from other air crew types and, again, we have
done it primarily to meet an urgent operational need in Afghanistan
and Iraq, and likewise with the Army. The Army, as you know, with
one of their regiments, had a regiment supporting the Phoenix
which was the predecessor to Watchkeeper, and again they used
the same people.
Q23 Robert Key: Are you seeking to measure
this deficit, where they have come from, to fill the UAV requirement,
because this must have some impact on the operations of the military
in Afghanistan, for example?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: As you
know, for a number of years we have been a shrinking force across
all three forces. In the vast majority of cases we have managed
to cover the deficit by people that are part of a shrinking force.
So, again, it is not an easy equation to make. We have not kept
the same numbers, we have actually gone down slightly in terms
of the overall service numbers and some people have been reemployed.
Again, to an extent we move a deficit around to make sure we can
man the forces that are of the most urgent operational need in
theatre, and that is what we have done and I am pretty sure that
is what the Army will have done as well.
Q24 Robert Key: Chairman, I think
this is an important area because I had not realised. We talk
glibly about a UAV, but in fact I learn, again from the Defence
Security Co-operation Agency, that actually, forgetting unmanned
aerial vehicles, you have got ground control stations, multi-spectral
targeting systems, Lynx synthetic aperture radar ground moving
target indicator systems, satellite earth terminal substations,
embedded global positioning systems and initial navigation systems,
et cetera. There is a vast amount of test equipment needed and
all the rest.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Yes.
Q25 Robert Key: So you are talking
about an awfully big number of specialist technological specialists
just to man one UAV.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Indeed,
but do bear in mind that, for example, if you have a UAV delivering
imagery, to take an example, we already have imagery analysts
that have been doing that work on things like targeting pods,
so it is not a new trade per se, it is just putting them
into a different area where they can utilise their expertise.
Q26 Mr Jenkins: You say that Reaper
is run from America and Hermes is run from a particular battle
field station. Where does all this information get collected?
Is it one central location always doing the processing and analysis
at that station? Is the link into it and out of it strong enough?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Again,
as I indicated earlier, it really depends. It is not quite that
simple. There are a number of methodologies where the information
is distributed to.
Chairman: I think it would probably be
wise for you to hold this answer until we come back. Can I invite
members of the committee to vote now and, if there is one vote,
to come back as soon as possible, if there are two votes to come
back as soon as possible. We are therefore on tenderhooks and
in suspense.
Committee suspended from 5.01 p.m. to 5.27
p.m. for a division in the House
Q27 Chairman: We were in the middle
of a question from Brian Jenkins, but I wonder if I could ask
you to hold fire on answering his question while I ask one slightly
frivolous question of my own. Aircraft in the Royal Air Force
are flown by officers; in the Army they are flown by non-commissioned
officers. Does this difference extend to unmanned aerial vehicles?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Yes and
no, as always. They are generally flown by the people that are
best placed to do it. For example, if you look at Desert Hawk,
because of the level they are flown at, they are invariably flown
by the ground troops that are controlling; whereas if you take
something like a Reaper, because it has much more strategic impact,
then, yes, they are generally flown by officers, but they are
flown by a mixed team of pilots, sensor operators and technicians
and, again, they can be across all ranks and all services, so
it does not necessary follow. Watchkeeper, I would have to check,
but I am pretty sure they are flown by a mix of the two, again,
depending on where they are flown. One of my colleagues tells
me NCOs primarily, so senior non-commissioned.
Q28 Chairman: Okay. Do you think
that UAVs will form the spear point of changing the differences
between the RAF and the Army in this respect?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Again,
I think the reason we have a slight difference is the strategic
impact of the platform that is being employed. Again, I see no
reason why that should be any different in employment of UAVs.
Again, it is something that we constantly keep under consideration
and we would change as befitting the circumstances.
Q29 Chairman: I thought the original
reason was that the RAF flew the strategic deterrent.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Again,
many of these things are steeped in history and I would not like
to go into the details of how we eventually ended up where we
are, and there are a number of reasons why we do what we do, but
I think the strategic impact of the platforms that we tend to
fly generally dictates that we have officer crews, or certainly
officer commanders, whereas the Army have taken a slightly different
approach to this and they have a mix.
Chairman: Thank you. Now that Brian Jenkins
is back, would you like to repeat your question or shall we rely
on Air Vice-Marshal Butler to answer it, remembering what you
said?
Q30 Mr Jenkins: I think it is pointless
repeating the question, Chairman.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: I did
promise I would remember. You asked, effectively, where all of
this information comes together. The first thing I would say is
it does not always need to come together, because, for example,
if you have a UAV on task whose primary role is to provide direct
support to a troop on the ground with his small Rover terminal,
his small laptop where he is taking the direct information, that
is the point of impact, that is where it comes together; whereas
if, for example, you are doing something more strategic intelligence-oriented,
then the point where it comes together would largely be back in
London within the Defence Intelligence Organisation. So, again,
it really depends on what the need is for that particular type
of intelligence and whether it needs to be fused with other data
or the direct picture is actually sufficient for the commander's
needs. So it really depends on the need.
Q31 Mr Jenkins: So you feel very
confident that a person making the decision at point A, without
any link up with the person at point B or point C, is not facing
the same type of condition at the present time and, therefore,
needs to inform the headquarters that we have got the multiple
situations occurring now?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: If you
take something like Watchkeeper, for example, generally the information
is being provided concurrently to two sources. For example, it
may well be providing direct support to the individual on the
ground with his small laptop, but, equally, it is invariably back
into at least the ground station, if not into the sort of wider
intelligence distribution system, so you have always got two.
Again, I think the one thing it may be worth putting our hands
up about that we are not quite as good as we would like to be
as yet is storage and analysis of that information at a later
date; but you can imagine with something like Reaper, on task
for something like 15 or 16 hours, there is an awful lot of data
that we pull in and, again, it comes back to my earlier point:
if we want to improve and we clearly do, then it is that type
of thing that we would ultimately like to be able to get a better
handle on.
Q32 Mr Jenkins: That is the nub of
the question, is it not? How many analysts have you got in station
and have we got a deficit in the analysts?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Yes,
we have. We are short of analysts. Again, it is an area which
is one of our pinch points. They are quite difficult to train,
it is quite difficult to get the right people and at the moment
we do not have as many as we would like, but we are working through
processes to ultimately get us up to the level that we need.
Q33 Mr Jenkins: The next question
is what percentage are you short?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: I am
afraid, off the top of my head, I do not know. We could certainly
find out and provide you with that information, but I do not know
in detail at the moment.[6]
Q34 Mr Jenkins: If you could, please,
and could you tell us what you are doing to rectify the situation?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: There
is a number of initiatives out there. We are looking at doing
a wider search across defence to find out, for example, whether
we have got one. We have got current analysts that are employed
in jobs which are not analyst oriented. We are looking at how
we---. We may in the longer term, for example, look at something
like a financial incentive, again, if that is what we are required
to do. So, again, within the manpower organisation, we are constantly
looking at where the pinch trades are and the sort of actions
that we might take to enhance them, just like we are always looking
across the equipment arena to try and provide better equipment
whenever we can.
Q35 Chairman: If you could write
to us with that information it would be helpful.
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Certainly.
Q36 Mr Jenkin: One of the problems
of flying UAVs in combat operations is the friend or foe identification,
particularly when operating alongside allies. Could you say something
about that?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Yes,
you are absolutely right. The vast majority of the way we task
UAVs on task is via the air tasking order. In many respects, in
terms of where they fly, what they do, et cetera, they are tasked
as if there are a fixed-wing, manned aircraft, and they are encompassed
within an air tasking order, which goes out on a daily basis,
which actually lets all of the other air users know where that
particular platform is at any one time, and the way the system
works, it allows that platform an element of flexibility in terms
of where it goes and what it does. Of course, for all intents
and purposes, it would be very difficult to know from an air traffic
control perspective that it is a UAV and not a fixed-wing aeroplane
because clearly we communicate through the UAV as if it is an
airborne platform. We also have systems already on the UAV to
an extent which does an element of identifying where the platform
is, so very similar to the ones we use in fixed-wing aircraft,
and the final bit of that puzzle is what we call "sense and
void", which is an area of technology we are working quite
hard on to try and bring forward, but at the moment we do as much
as we can to make sure we have got that deconfliction within the
air space.
Chairman: We will be coming on to air
traffic control issues in several minutes time, but there are
other aspects of this that I wonder, Bernard, if you could pursue.
Q37 Mr Jenkin: How do we make sure
that we are not just duplicating effort in terms of what other
allies are already doing, particularly as we are buying the same
programmes and operating in the same areas?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: I am
not sure whether this will get to the nub of your question, but
if you consider the Watchkeeper and Desert Hawk issue, they are
clearly operating with the Army, so the support we are providing
to the Army is wrapped up within the brigade or the battle group
that is operating the system; so, clearly, that is providing a
unique capability to that particular unit. If you look at Reaper,
Reaper is what we call a theatre asset, so it is allocated across
the theatre to the ISTAR requirement of most need, so it is planned
on a daily basis to make sure we hit the most important theatre
asset and it is hence co-ordinated in terms of both priority and
air space usage. So, again, there is no real conflict there. In
terms of the equipment procurement programmes, when you look at
how much we are able to do in theatre, there is always a thirst
for more. The decision that we have got to make is just how much
do we need to satisfy that thirst and how much do we need to buy
equipment to do so? Then again, it is not just UAVs. We collect
information, intelligence, in a lot of different manners, UAVs
just being one of them. So it is making sure we have got a balance
between the need of what we require but then also the balance
across the different collectors as to how we provide that particular
bit of information to the war fighter.
Q38 Mr Jenkin: Interoperability with
allies. One has the impression that we are automatically interoperable
with the United States, but what happens with the other allies
who have got UAVs?
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Indeed
we are very much on key with the US. If you look at Reaper, for
example, it is operated fundamentally over a US tasking system.
On the wider issue of interoperability with other nations, we
have number of fora where we get together, and I represent the
MoD on many of them, where we have UAV focus groups to make sure
that, as best we possibly can, we avoid any overlap of things
like tasking, for example, and how we do command and control,
and many of the other nations work very similar systems either
to us or to the US. In actual fact, in theatre at the sort of
tactical level there is not a problem because they tend to be
supporting their own troops; at the strategic level we do tend
to work it across a US/UK predominant battle space. So they tend
to link in with us rather than us having to link in with them,
but, as I say, there are a number of UAV groups that are together
across both bilateral arrangements and "five eyes" and
NATO arrangements where we are seeking constantly to make sure
we are interoperable with other nations.
Q39 Mr Jenkin: Your answer also raises
possible questions of operational sovereignty. Are we over dependent,
particularly on the United States, on the question of—
Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Arguably
at the moment we are very heavily dependent, because clearly we
are using US systems. As you may well know, Reaper, for example,
is flown out of Creech Air Force Base in Nevada when it is actually
on task, so, yes, we are heavily reliant, but that is not uncommon,
and we are across quite a lot of our collectors. The balance there
is, in affordability terms, to do it all in-house would be unaffordable.
It is quite simple. So, where there is a logical fallback and
a sensible fallback and where we need to retain UK sovereignty,
we seek to do so, but generally we are fairly comfortable in my
arena working closely with the US particularly.
4 See Ev 86 Back
5
See Ev 87 Back
6
See Ev 87 Back
|
