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
| 
