Examination of Witnesses (Questions 195-199)
MR JOHN
HOWE CB OBE, MR
VICTOR CHAVEZ,
MR NICK
MILLER AND
MR CHRIS
DAY
3 JUNE 2008
Q195 Chairman: Good morning. I wonder,
Mr Howe, if you could possibly introduce everybody?
Mr Howe: Good morning. I am John
Howe, Vice Chairman of Thales UK; Victor Chavez, on my left, is
our Vice President for Business Development, Sales and Marketing;
Chris Day, on my right, is head of our UAV Systems operation;
and Nick Miller on my far left is the Head of Business Development
for our UAV Systems operation.
Q196 Chairman: Thank you for coming
to give evidence on our inquiry into ISTAR, and UAVs particularly.
Can you begin, please, by telling us how important UAVs and unmanned
aerial systems are in terms of Thales's business; how important
the technology is; and how you expect it to develop in the future
in terms of the importance to you?
Mr Howe: I will start, if I may,
and then I will turn to Victor. We do operate in Thales at several
levels which are relevant to your inquiry about ISTAR, and about
the role of UAVs in ISTAR. We are a prime contractor, a systems
integrator, across a wide variety of platforms; and we provide
a lot of high technology equipment and systems in the communications
area; sensors; and in the field of ISTAR we provide systems including
ones which are based upon UAVs. We believe we have particular
strength in the integration of UAV ISTAR systems. We are at the
moment, as I think you are aware, providing the Hermes 450 to
the British Army in operational theatres; and we are the prime
contractor for the MoD's Watchkeeper programme which will provide
the UK Armed Forces with a persistent tactical UAV ISTAR capability
for the future. I will turn to you, Victor, if I may to add to
that.
Mr Chavez: I would just like to
stress the breadth of Thales's involvement in C-4 ISTAR. Many
companies have a C-4 ISTAR division, but if you actually look
across almost all of Thales's divisions there are elements of
C-4 ISTAR in there. That is because we are a systems integrator
and an electronic systems provider. As John said, that goes from
base technology through to being system of systems integrator
on projects such as FRES, for example. In that context we are
not a platform provider. To us a platform is merely a mechanism
for getting a set of sensors and communication equipment around
the battlefield to a particular location in space whereby we can
gather the information that we need, we can process that information
and we can turn it into usable intelligence for the end user.
From the very outset we are a company that specialises in the
systems elements of C-4 ISTAR, and the systems element of UAVs.
I would just like to reinforce John's point on that.
Q197 Chairman: In the last evidence
session I asked whether we were doing the wrong inquiry into the
platforms, as opposed to all the other issues involved in UAVs.
In view of your answer, Mr Chavez, what would you say to that?
Mr Chavez: I think it is interesting
to understand the platform dimension. As we look at UAVs, you
cannot have a UAV system without the UAV platform; and, therefore,
the platform is an important part of the system, clearly. I think
it is important to differentiate between those systems where the
platform represents the highest risk element of a particular system
and those where, in the case of ISTAR surveillance systems that
Thales is involved in, the platform is a relatively low-risk element
of the mix of the system and the innovation, and the complexity
and the potential risk lies in the maturation of the sensor technology
and the bringing together of a coherent system, rather than in
the platform. So platforms do have an important role to play;
and, it is very important to understand, particularly in the field
of UCAVs, in terms of combat air vehicles, that the platform complexity
tends to be greater; because what you are actually asking of the
platform tends to be much more substantial.
Q198 Chairman: Of the three most
recent urgent operational requirements two of the UAV ones were
procured from the United States. Does that suggest there is a
shortfall in British technology, or in European defence technology?
Are British or European defence companies falling behind the United
States? Is there something we should be doing to catch up?
Mr Chavez: I think if you look
at the UAV systems market you have a distinct set of different
layers of the UAV programme. When you look, for example, at the
strategic end and you look at the bigger UAV systems, such as
that which is used in the Reaper system, Global Hawk and so on,
it is fair to say that the US has invested a vast amount more
than any other country in those strategic UAV systems. If you
look at the middle level, where we see Watchkeeper and the Hermes
450, the country that has invested more and has greater operational
experience of that than almost anywhere is Israel. You see that
in terms of the US, because many of the US programmes, at that
sort of tactical UAV level, are based around Israeli-originated
designs. When you look at the small, handheld, man-portable UAVs
you see it is a much wider market. Because of the scale of the
UAV there are interesting platforms being provided by people almost
out of their backyard and garages. It is not too far different
from model aircraft technology; and you see strong usage
by the US, strong usage by Israel and growing offers from around
the world. In terms of the UK's knowledge, when we look at programmes
like Watchkeeper, there is no doubt in my mind that Watchkeeper
is absolutely state of the art. There is nothing in the States,
I believe, that is significantly in advance of Watchkeeper. Watchkeeper,
even though it was based originally on an Israeli UAV design,
the system components, the communication systems, the sensor systems
and so on are derived on a best in class basis from around the
world: the data links, for example, very important in terms of
international interoperability, are bought from the US; the radar
system is being manufactured by Thales in the UK; so there is
a wide range of systems issues that come together. In terms of
the broader systems, I think the UK systems thinking is very advanced.
Mr Howe: On the point of platforms
versus systems, in the case of Watchkeeper the actual platform
is a relatively modest part of the total value of the system—round
about 30 per cent, I recall from memory. Secondly, the vehicle
for Watchkeeper, though derived from the Hermes 450 which is an
Israeli product, is being developed and produced in the UK, in
a joint venture we have with Elbit which is contracted to Thales.
Even the air vehicle is at least partly a British development.
Mr Chavez: I think it is very
important to recognise that right at the outset of Watchkeeper
MoD placed upon us some fairly stringent requirements in terms
of sustainability of supply of all aspects of the system in the
UK, because obviously we wanted to ensure that the UK had ownership
of the intellectual property associated with all aspects of that;
and hence the creation of the joint venture, which is based in
the UK, to manufacture and to own and to hold that IPR for the
air vehicle.
Q199 Chairman: Do you have anything
you wish to add?
Mr Miller: I can concur that the
elements of Watchkeeper for the UK have put Thales and the UK
in an excellent position from our current operations with Hermes.
The UK, MoD and Thales on the industrial side have learnt a lot
from those operations. Through Watchkeeper for the future we are
now at the forefront of the UAV market and ISTAR market in the
UK.
|
