Select Committee on Defence Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)

AIR VICE-MARSHAL SIMON BOLLOM, AIR VICE-MARSHAL STUART BUTLER AND AIR VICE-MARSHAL CHRIS NICKOLS CBE

6 MAY 2008

  Q40  Chairman: In the United States, do they provide a service, or do they provide a certain number of hours of Reaper, or do we have the equipment which they fly for us?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: No, we are in a slight transition phase at the moment, but when the full equipment is established for Reaper we will have our own ground stations flown by our own crews, we will use predominantly US satellite links, for example, but that makes it easy because it is a US platform, and the Reapers we will own. So we own all of the constituent bits of the system. If the worst came to the worst, we could probably bring the ground control stations back here and fly it here over UK satellite links, so it is always a compromise, but at the moment, because it is a strategic asset and it is easier to link it into the air space control and the command and control piece, we actually operate it effectively over exactly the same system that the US operate it on, and again there is significant advantage by us being closely coupled with the US in the strategic environment because it makes things like tasking—we get the information from the totality of the Reaper system rather than just our own. So, again, there is significant advantage from doing it that way anyway.

  Q41  Mr Crausby: What about maintenance and upgrades? It is operated in the US by our personnel but to what extent will we have an influence on the future processes?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Again, almost as much as we like. We are almost entirely free from the US in terms of how we maintain the vehicle, we have got our own maintainers at the moment, but we do get the advantage, for example, of a wider upgrade programme, so, if the US upgrade their Reapers, we get the advantage of being able to buy into that at a relatively low cost. Again, if they are upgrading something like their ground stations, for example, the same deal. Of course there is an element of dependency there, but certainly in terms of the actual maintenance, we are doing all that ourselves for Reaper. There has been a transition phase that we have gone through where we have relied very heavily on the US, but we are slowly coming away from that.

  Q42  Mr Hancock: Do you have complete operational control over the deployment of these vehicles?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: It depends on what context you are talking about there. We have entire freedom as to where we task them.

  Q43  Mr Hancock: Do the Americans veto the use of these vehicles?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: No.

  Q44  Mr Hancock: They are wholly owned by us. Do we have to tell them when we are deploying them?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: No, we do not.

  Q45  Mr Hancock: Is it easy to change the task of these vehicles.

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Relatively. In terms of Watchkeeper and below no problem, but in terms of Reaper, bearing in mind they are a theatre asset, so they are allocated on a theatre basis, we do not actually dictate where they are operated. They are operated against the highest theatre need, and bear in mind the people that decide that are both UK and US. In fact, they are kept generally---. The organisation is run by coalition forces, and in fact both Chris and I have run the air operations centre where that activity is done. I do not know if you have anything to add.

  Air Vice-Marshal Nickols: No, I think the benefit we get from putting them into this pool of assets is that, given that our area, particularly in Afghanistan, is one of the busiest areas, we gain more than we lose from that. We get more ISTAR out of the system than we, UK Limited, contribute to the system.

  Q46  Mr Hancock: So are there any restrictions on the use of them put on them by the Americans?

  Air Vice-Marshal Nickols: Not on the Predator Bs at the moment, no.

  Q47  Mr Hancock: On any of our vehicles that we have purchased?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: The only restrictions that we would have are restrictions that we would place on the system anyway.

  Q48  Mr Hancock: Would have. I am asking have we got restrictions placed on any of our systems that we have purchased from the Americans that the Americans have caveated?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: That is quite a wide question and I could not answer that in open session. I am afraid I could not answer that in open session because there are some areas where I would have to say, no, and I cannot do it here. However, I would say that in general terms restrictions that are imposed on us—and they are very few—would be restrictions that we would impose on ourselves anyway and they are things like overflight of particular countries and things that we would not want to be looking at. They are fairly commonsense things we would be restricted to. The only other thing that I might add is that 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.

  Q49  Mr Havard: Would it not be right to say, however, that there is an overriding veto on this, should the US deny any one of these assets the GPS system?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: The denial of the GPS system across the whole of the ISTAR domain would be an issue but again, for example, we get an awful lot of ISTAR information from the US which if they chose to deny it we would be less effective operationally.

  Q50  Mr Havard: The question about whether they choose to do it or not is a different issue but technically that is the case, is it not, all of these assets are dependent on the GPS system?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Not wholly dependent, no, and in fact in the vast majority of cases we have been running a project in the last couple of years to actually look at what are the dependencies on GPS and what is the fallback option should it be denied. Of course it may not be the US that denies it.

  Q51  Mr Havard: Exactly, but you mentioned the different satellite capabilities and so on, so it could still theoretically be used in some way, however, it might have a slightly altered but diminished capability?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Indeed. The thing you have to understand is things like what is the accuracy if you are denied GPS.

  Q52  Mr Havard: Which is particularly important if you are going to have target acquisition and weaponisation and are going to start shooting people with it.

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Yes indeed, but on the other hand of course if you are operating a system where you have got laser guidance down to a target, then GPS is actually irrelevant. It is only when you are using a GPS-initiated weapon or it is a matter of getting it on-task.

  Mr Havard: I guess we will return to that.

  Q53  Mr Hancock: It will still interfere with the target. The laser is only any good when you have got GPS.

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Absolutely, but bear in mind that GPS is only one of the systems that we use and in fact for example the vast majority of our systems have got inertial navigation systems which do not require GPS.

  Q54  Mr Hancock: But they can be jammed.

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Of course they can[7]. Part of the enemy's philosophy is to deny us use of the things that we require, and again we always work at mitigating these risks.

  Q55 Mr Hancock: Are you suggesting that these things are easily overcomeable, because I think they are unstoppable?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: If I gave that impression, I apologise, I certainly did not mean to do so.

  Mr Hancock: I think you did to Dai.

  Chairman: Moving on to the Watchkeeper and Robert Key.

  Q56  Robert Key: Can you update us on the Watchkeeper programme and the new capabilities that the system will deliver?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Watchkeeper brings many of the capabilities that we have currently in Hermes 450 but better because clearly it is a longer term programme, so for example, just to quote one of many, it will have an anti-icing system. Why is that important in Afghanistan? Surprisingly, you do need an anti-icing system in some cases so it is more robust. It will have better rough-field landing characteristics; it will have better sensors because they will be better integrated and they will be a better system, so it is a significant advancement over the current Hermes 450 that we are using on the UOR.

  Q57  Robert Key: Is Watchkeeper done and dusted and is that the end of it or are you making changes based on the experience of using it in Afghanistan?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Wherever possible, and we do not infringe on the capability that we will eventually acquire, yes, we are taking forward the lessons that we are learning with Hermes 450, as we do, I have to say, across the whole of operational theatres where we have a fairly rigorous lessons identified process and we take that forward into procurement trials, tactics, procedures, et cetera.

  Q58  Robert Key: Is the in-service date still 2013?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: No, 2011, and in fact we are fairly hopeful that we will get something in towards the end of 2010, all things being equal.

  Q59  Robert Key: Which no doubt depends to some extent on the Civil Aviation Authority?

  Air Vice-Marshal Butler: Yes to an extent although that is not one of the major drivers.

  Robert Key: Thank you, Chairman.

  Chairman: Moving on to maritime UAV programmes and Linda Gilroy.



7   Note by witness: inertial navigation systems cannot be jammed. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 5 August 2008