Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
MR SIMON
JEWELL, MR
DAVID BARNES,
MR CLIVE
RICHARDSON AND
DR MOIRA
SMITH
13 MAY 2008
Q120 Robert Key: Given the potential
for UAV systems, do we actually need the Nimrod system and programme?
Mr Barnes: Which Nimrod system?
Q121 Robert Key: The £800 million
eight years over budget.
Mr Barnes: The Nimrod MRA4. There
are two Nimrod systems at the moment: one is an ISTAR collection
facility, 51 Squadron; the other is the current work being undertaken
by maritime Nimrods in Afghanistan.
Q122 Robert Key: I am referring to
the first. Has the technology just overtaken it?
Mr Richardson: You are asking
a question in connection with the overall ISTAR architecture and
the role of Nimrod within the overall ISTAR architecture. I am
absolutely convinced that the architecture, as it is drawn up
today, requires Nimrod. If you want to re-architect the whole
ISTAR environment to do away with Nimrod, perhaps you could do
that but it is a huge task that would take many, many years.
Q123 Chairman: We have a risk here
of going down a rabbit hole.
Mr Barnes: Could I go back to
the original question of where it could be improved. Improvements
are possible across the board and Clive has touched on most of
them. For me the most important area for improvement is in information
management, in the sorting, distribution and earmarking analysis
of information collected by whatever platform. There is a wealth
of work to be done there, which the MoD is conscious of, and those
things are starting to happen.
Mr Jewell: Areas of importance
for me are very much around the deployed logistics footprint of
an unmanned vehicle today. They are called unmanned yet they are
very heavily manned on the ground and, therefore, the next generation
needs to be considerably leaner in the way they operate and deployed
which will fundamentally change the cost benefits of operating
the system.
Q124 Linda Gilroy: I was interested
in what Clive Richardson said about attrition and the relevance
of that. Could you say a bit more about that? I am also interested
in what David Barnes said just at that moment about the platforms
as opposed to the processing arrangements for it. If the processing
is so important, why are the platforms things which we should
consider it necessary to develop our own capability on?
Mr Richardson: On the attrition
side, in the tactical environment closer to the conflict zone
it is clearly going to be a problem for all UAVs. They are not
particularly stealthy. If they were stealthy then you are putting
more money into the development of the airframe itself.
Q125 Linda Gilroy: Can you give the
Committee some idea of what the rates of attrition are in practice?
Mr Richardson: Even if I had the
information I would not be able to give it to you.
Q126 Linda Gilroy: That is a relevant
issue.
Mr Richardson: It is a relevant
issue but it is less relevant the more strategic the asset. The
further away from the conflict zone, so very high altitude, long
endurance UAVs, and the UK has invested quite considerable sums
in HALE systems, they are less vulnerable but also less capable
of carrying the sort of payloads that a tactical UAV is capable
of carrying. There is that constant trade-off. In any analysis
of the development of new UAV capability that trade-off would
be of considerable importance, that calculation.
Mr Jewell: The air-worthiness
component for a systems design is based around equivalents. It
needs to have the equivalent air-worthiness safety as a manned
platform so that is the presumption and, as Clive has described,
if you then place that in a war zone clearly you end up with combat
losses. The basic assumption from industry is it is building platforms
which have the equivalence of safety as a manned platform.
Q127 Linda Gilroy: We took some evidence
about this last week and understand that the MoD does not currently
have any maritime UAV programmes. Are we likely to see the MoD
having a requirement for them in the future and are any UK companies
involved in developing them?
Mr Barnes: Trials have been done
with maritime orientated UAVs, both in the UK and in the States,
and it looks as if the Americans will go for a UAV capability
as part of their maritime detection upgrade. In my view, yes,
we will but that task can be covered by long endurance high level
UAVs such as those currently being used by the US, based on land
in many situations. The MoD would have to make that balance between
ship-borne UAV capability and land-based UAV capability.
Q128 Linda Gilroy: Are the MoD likely
to have a requirement for armed UAVs in the future? If so, is
UK industry likely to be involved or to procure from the US?
Mr Barnes: The MoD currently has
a requirement for Reaper to be armed. Reaper is armed as a basic
part of its capability. Armed UAVs, I believe, are being considered
by the MoD but you would have to ask them what their plans and
intentions are. There is, of course, always the loitering munition
programme which is currently being launched by the MoD.
Q129 Linda Gilroy: Could you tell
us a bit more about the last mentioned capability?
Mr Barnes: The loitering munition
is basically a weapons system. It is basically a guided weapon
but it has a long endurance and would use a UAV-like airframe.
It is, in fact, a flying munition with a longer endurance than
current flying munitions such as Storm Shadow.
Mr Richardson: I think it is part
of IFPA: indirect fire precision attack.
Q130 Chairman: It is a merger between
weapons and intelligence collection.
Mr Richardson: It does not have
the intelligence characteristics, so not really. It could not
carry the payload to collect enough information to be useful really.
Mr Jewell: The indirect fire precision
attack programme looks at the requirements for modern long-range
artillery effect. That is the overall MoD programme. It is in
the assessment phase. The loitering munition capability is a sub-component
of that overall look. As has accurately been described, there
are various options for a vehicle based solution. People do use
the language of UAV based but, in a sense, that creates an impression
that is slightly misleading. It is a munition capable of sustained
flight for a longer period. It is a unitary warhead.
Q131 Mr Hancock: I am curious about
this issue about the loitering munition. Presumably there is also
a defensive capability of the UAV that will bring down another
UAV, and is that being worked on?
Mr Jewell: To my knowledge there
is no current counter-air capable UAV. I am not aware of any in
development. Conceptually, yes, there is absolutely no reason
why, in the future, that should not happen but I am not aware
of any developments, certainly in the UK, taking place on that.
Q132 Mr Hancock: If you can have
a loitering munition vehicle you could have a loitering attack
vehicle that is there to take them out, could you not?
Mr Jewell: Yes.
Q133 Mr Hancock: I was interested
in the paper that Intellect provided, particularly the very interesting
chapter on challenges and the issue about the collecting of huge
amounts of information and how much of it is actually useful and
are the systems on disseminating the information received keeping
pace with the ability of these things to bring back information,
80 per cent of which was already known in Operation TELIC for
example. Are you confident that these UAVs are not supplying so
much information that the system becomes so clogged up with information
that is already known that you actually lose the advantage of
them because it takes so long to get what you really want, which
is new information?
Mr Richardson: There is a problem
in that the more information that is collected then the more information
has to be analysed or wasted and that is just a fact. There are
various sources of information now to increase situational awareness.
Ensuring you are actually using the information intelligently
is the next big challenge in my opinion. Robert Key asked if we
have enough collectors in the air and I think we do. A huge amount
of effort has to go into now ensuring that the information that
is collected is managed effectively, gets to the right place,
can be shown to have got to the right place and is used intelligently.
Q134 Mr Hancock: Has that phenomenon
been known right from the beginning that these things would bring
back so much information?
Mr Richardson: I think it has.
In any reconnaissance technology you are necessarily increasing
potential for collection to an extent that the existing operational
processes would struggle to keep up.
Q135 Mr Hancock: You make a suggestion
that the financing of one thing has not kept pace with the financing
of the other. We are still spending lots of money on UAVs and
their capabilities but we are not spending the money on making
sure that the information is handled probably.
Mr Richardson: The point I am
making is that is a natural cycle. Collecting the information
is always going to be the priority because that will enhance situational
awareness which is the main objective of this entire capability
area. What is now required is the acceptance that we have got
to a point that there is enough data there now for no more to
be needed until we have the spend focused on analysing that data
effectively before we move on to the next collection cycle.
Q136 Mr Hancock: Is there evidence
to support that view, that that is now becoming a priority within
the MoD?
Mr Richardson: I think there is.
Certainly in my interactions with the ISTAR capability area there
is now an acknowledgement that the next phase needs to be on the
efficient use of the information rather than moving on to ever
greater collection capability. Certainly if you look at future
programmes like DABINETT, which is still a key funded element
in the ISTAR budget, that is entirely about using the assets more
effectively, using the information more effectively and investing
in the analysis, data mining and the data dissemination.
Q137 Mr Hancock: What is British
industry doing to help that situation?
Mr Richardson: Certainly we are
all very heavily involved in all aspects of the UAS loop. Some
of us, certainly the SBAC members and BAE, would have a strong
interest in the future platform capability as well. We are all
heavily involved in the other technology areas that would support
unmanned aerial systems.
Mr Jewell: We need to be careful
that we do not over-simplify it and that all the investment should
be on the DCPD process or the vehicle. To take an example, if
you go back a few years the information was collected on wet film.
You would have someone on the aircraft, you would take the film,
you would land the aircraft, you would take out the film, process
it and send it to an attendance bay. Between 24 and 48 hours later
you then had the information you had captured. What is possible
today with the developments of autonomous systems is that process
can be collapsed down to 15 seconds. From actually taking the
information to having the information in the hands of the intelligence
community has come down to that extent and, therefore, it is not
simply to say it is all about the exploitation, which is a massively
important component, and it is certainly not all about the vehicle,
but it is that system component from the capture of the information
in the right place to the exploitation of the information at the
right place, and that needs a balance of investment rather than
a switch from one to the other.
Dr Smith: This is a key point:
the shift towards processing technology and the need for turning
data into actionable knowledge. That is really what it is all
about. The MoD, from the perspective of the small companies and
the DMA, is such that that is noted. There has been a dramatic
shift in the last few years towards research and development and
investment, not in the larger programmes like DABINETT but bringing
through technologies to help in this area to improve data mining,
to cut down the amount of information that is either data linked
and sent back, or else to sift through the vast amounts of data.
In terms of what the UK industry is doing about it, because this
technology is relatively new you are seeing a lot more companies,
and small companies, coming into the field that maybe traditionally
have not been supplying to the MoD. The benefits are coming through
there as well. Simon can probably speak a little more on the Systems
Engineering for Autonomous Systems Defence Technology Centre.
They are funding and putting a lot of emphasis in this area, even
to be able to exploit imagery and listen to images is one of the
examples I would site. There is genuinely a paradigm shift that
is occurring.
Mr Barnes: It is important also
to recognise a simplistic consideration here. It is true that
the UAV in its routine patrol duplicates a lot of information
already held but the important point is because of its persistence
it misses less so there is the potential for much greater coverage.
This is crucially important in force protection where IEDs and
other devices can be laid in moments unobserved. Information missed
is as important as information collected.
Mr Jewell: If I can follow up
on that point on the Defence Technology Centre, the Defence Technology
Centre is co-funded by industry and the MoD 50/50 and, therefore,
the point Moira made at the beginning about seeing the exploitation
routes for that investment is extremely important to the people
who are involved in that. The work breaks into six sectors: algorithms,
mission planning and decision making, sensor exploitation, communications
and control, propulsion power and energy management, and systems
engineering of the overall component. A lot of the work and focus
is going on now. Rather than simply ask a camera to switch on
and 10 seconds later ask it to switch off and you then you present
that 10 second swathe of information back to an analyst, what
we are working on is being able to analyse every single frame
of the information and through techniques such as object recognition
or anomaly detection to have the intelligence in the system itself
such that it recognises that either something is different from
yesterday or something is there which should not be there because
it is a man-made object in an otherwise non-man-made environment.
The systems are having the capability to react to that information
and to then reprogram itself in order to get different shots and
different angles of that information and send it back. That is
the approach I was trying to suggest is the way we reduce the
burden on the system of having another 24 hours of streaming video
which somebody has to sit and go through. This is early work,
it is maturing, but the maturation rates of this technology are
extremely fast. A question which was asked earlier about the ownership
process of whether it should be commercially operated, I would
suggest that given these very fast maturation rates the MoD needs
to be continually upgrading the systems. It is not buy one and
operate it for six years; it will be changing on a monthly basis
and, therefore, that needs to be taken into account in not only
the sovereignty issues of upgrading platforms but also in ownership
questions as well.
Q138 Mr Hancock: Is there a willingness
in the MoD to take on board that principle that this is a continuing
changing pattern and that it is ridiculous to buy something believing
it has a long shelf life because it is just moving so fast?
Mr Jewell: It is fair to say that
through the National Defence Industries Council there are several
joint working groups between MoD and industry looking at the revisions
to acquisition change which need to take place in contracting
and acquisition reform. It is being addressed, and clearly everybody
would like to see a faster pace, but nevertheless it is being
jointly looked at.
Q139 Mr Jenkins: It is a tremendous
area to work in, it is cutting edge, leading the world, and there
are tremendous spin-offs. Do you have any indication how much
is being spent in this process of collecting, analysing and utilising
this information in a non-MoD area? How much of the work is being
done by British industry but funded not by the Ministry of Defence
as a percentage of the total fund? Do you have any idea?
Mr Richardson: I am speculating
but I would say it is insignificant.
| 
