Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
MR JOHN
HOWE CB OBE, MR
VICTOR CHAVEZ,
MR NICK
MILLER AND
MR CHRIS
DAY
3 JUNE 2008
Q200 Mr Crausby: Hermes 450 UAVs
are currently operating in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Can you
outline what capability they are delivering and what feedback
you are receiving from our own Armed Forces?
Mr Day: Today, if we look across
both theatres (and I will speak generally about both theatres
and specifics when we get to a particular point) we have now achieved
somewhere in the region of about 9,000 operational hours, which
is a significant total when we look at historic data. We support
the MoD across a whole range of different types of operation.
When we entered the journey, pretty much just over a year ago,
the targets were tough and very difficult to meet; we had about
six months to get this capability up and running, the regiment
trained and ready to deploy; and more specifically, which has
been one of the key areas that we have learnt probably most about,
is the logistic support that we need in order to support our guys
out in both theatres; and we have picked up an awful lot of information
associated with that. We have to work closely with the guys because,
at the end of the day, they are using it on average for about
14 hours a day—that is two air vehicles up each day for
about 14 hours a day, every day of the year—sometimes for
durations of 100 hours consistently. In order to support that
we need to make certain that as the requirements on them change
and evolve (and they will depending on how the operations are
going) we can look at how we might reflect changes within a system,
specifically when we look at Watchkeeper, in order to support
those. One of the most significant benefits of this particular
UOR—and in the MoD we call it "lines of development",
so we mean the infrastructure, the training, the way they deploy
them at CONOPS—we have started to learn very significant
lessons out of these particular operations and how they might
be reflected on Watchkeeper. What we are doing all the time is
talking to the military; we are talking to our guys in theatre;
and we must remember that we actually have a small team out in
each theatre supporting the guys, so when there are technical
challenges we are in a strong position to make certain that we
can address those issues very quickly. From that perspective we
are learning 24/7, and it is 24/7; every day of the week something
else is coming back. We also get involved and we work closely
with the regiment down on Salisbury Plain, attend regular meetings
and we work closely together to make certain this thing works
in the best possible way for the guys on the ground.
Mr Miller: This is a fundamental
capability that is being provided. Feedback from operations have
said that this is extremely advanced, and an enhancing capability.
It provides full motion video; and an electro-optic and infra-red
camera is onboard the unmanned vehicle, and provides that video
and intelligence throughout the battlespace command for the land-based
commander, both through forward air controllers, through remote
viewing terminals or laptops, but also into the ground infrastructure
in both theatres. So it is providing that battle-winning capability
with electro-optic infra-red intelligence.
Q201 Mr Havard: You said 9,000 hours,
on how many frames?
Mr Day: In each theatre we have
five aircraft. Basically how that operates is we keep pretty much
two ready to go all the time. That is spread over about four airframes.
Occasionally when we have got vehicles down for servicing then
we will use the three we have got.
Q202 Mr Havard: Each airframe will
not have done an equal amount of hours, will it?
Mr Day: No.
Q203 Mr Havard: In the extreme, one
of them will have been used more than any of the others; so you
have got an extreme testing, have you, of one or two of these
vehicles?
Mr Day: We keep very, very detailed
logs associated with the air vehicles themselves, the ground stations,
the data links and the sensors. We know exactly how many hours
we have got on each of the platforms in each of the key equipments.
In terms of the environments, that has been one of the most significant
areas of learning for us all. I give you two examples: when we
originally deployed the equipment into theatre last summer they
pushed the boxes off the back of the aircraft into Iraq and immediately
were met with 50 degree plus temperatures. Today that is outside
of the specification of most UAV systems—clear to about
49 degrees. The moment we arrive—55 plus degrees—everything
is thermally stressed. In Afghanistan one of the most significant
challenges, although it is not immediately apparent, is that the
whole country is covered in a very fine dust. What does that mean
to us? It means with things like computers and laptops you have
to clean filters twice a day. You can imagine, on a piece of high
technology equipment that changes the way you want to do maintenance;
it changes the way you want to support the equipment. We then
wait five or six months and then we are trying to operate the
same equipment in Afghanistan. Today we are now operating in temperatures
of minus 10/ minus 15 degrees, significant humidity, so we are
working in icy conditions. We are working in temperatures where
people on the ground are actually freezing to death, and the system
is up there pushing hard and it is delivering to the guys on the
ground. Out there we also have issues I think the Afghanis refer
to them as "the day of a hundred winds", where up in
the mountains the winds are over 100 miles per hour for days on
end. The guys have got to plan and be able to operate and use
the equipment in those environments, and that is where Watchkeeper
comes in. Watchkeeper was designed from the outset to actually
address those types of environments and give our guys the best
possible chance when those conditions exist.
Q204 Mr Havard: That is why you are
testing off the coast of Wales, no doubt! Have some of these airframes
been in both environments?
Mr Day: At this moment in time
we do not generally move platforms or equipment from one theatre
to the other; but we actually keep a very detailed log of the
equipment in both theatres. We identify all the issues that arrive,
and we do have the ability to pull information about the system
as it is located in both theatres.
Q205 Mr Crausby: In a recent article
in Jane's Defence Weekly you said that Hermes 450 was initially
seen as a collector of intelligence, but the company was "widening
what it can do and moving out to full network connectivity".
Can you tell us what that means, and what the benefits and the
future will be for UK Armed Forces personnel?
Mr Miller: The Hermes 450 system
is basically a collector at the moment of image intelligence,
and provides the basis of that intelligence to the land component.
What Watchkeeper brings as a system is much more of a dissemination,
communication and network system. What we are learning from the
Hermes 450 is how we grow that path towards the full integrated
system where the information is passed throughout the intelligence.
Hermes is a collector; is providing the right imagery, down to
the right ground operator at the right time; but the next step
forward is to pass that information to all the necessary players
across ground infrastructure, across air vehicles, across all
the different land component commanders. There is a difference
between the collector system of Hermes and the Watchkeeper system
of the future; which is why the ground infrastructure is so important
in Watchkeeper.
Q206 Mr Holloway: What are we actually
doing? How are we using it in Iraq that is different from Afghanistan?
Presumably in Iraq it is mainly for intelligence; and presumably
in Afghanistan it is being used far more for targeting?
Mr Day: In Iraq today its predominant
role, as you rightly identify, is just intelligence; and a lot
of that is gathered pretty close to where the guys are based around
Basra. Effectively it feeds its imagery straight into the main
operating base, straight into where the commanders require it.
In Afghanistan the CONOPS, the way the military use it, are different;
in that it has several roles. It performs a similar role to that
in Iraq, but it has the additional roles of supporting our guys
when they enter complex and difficult scenarios. The greatest
attribute of a UAV is to give the commander on the ground a bird's
eye view of actually what is happening on the ground. The vast
majority of operations will request that the Hermes 450 is over
the top and giving that information. The way it works is, we have
the ground station back in Camp Bastion, which could be up to
150 kilometres away, and they are responsible for mission controlling
it, and they will actually receive what we call the primary information,
the primary imagery. That is linked via several networks into
the commanders that are fundamentally in command and control of
the operations. They receive that pretty much real time, within
just a matter of a second or so. Where it gains its most significant
value for the British Army is to the guys that are actually in
contact. How we can provide support to them is they have something
called a "remote video terminal", which in reality is
just a television screen, a manned, portable television screen
with a simple antenna; and those guys on the ground are actually
seeing what the aircraft is actually doing overhead. They get
a clear view of what is going on in compounds. They get a clear
view of what is going on over the hill. They get a clear view
of what is around the corner. For the guys just about the enter
that difficult compound, not knowing what is around the back of
that wall, what is likely to be hiding in the corner, they get
a clear view before they actually enter that building; and that
is fundamentally one of the key roles that Hermes 450 is fulfilling
at this moment.
Q207 Mr Jenkins: I understand, I
think, but could you make it clearer for me. I get the feeling
that the bigger the platform we produce the more stuff you are
going to bolt onto it until the thing will not fly, and then you
take the last bit off and it flies. When I see these soldiers
coming out with the little model aircraft and sending them up
and around, that can go around the compound and take pictures
and send the pictures back. Of all the platforms we have got and
are developing, I did not realise the Hermes 450 was called the
450 because it weighed 450 kilograms, so that is a big machines
and we can bolt more bits on. What does the military want; what
can they use; what is the bottom line? Is it a full video streamed
down; is it infra-red? What is the machine and platform that would
take the necessary capability? If you take us from the small one,
through Hermes to Watchkeeper, will you tell us why each one is
important and what it actually does and try and make it so I can
understand it?
Mr Day: I will start, if I may,
and take us on a journey from the small, the mini UAVs. We have
only got two effective capabilities in theatre. We have only got
two air vehicles on the Hermes 450 that can be used with operations.
They tend to use those for the more complex operations. At the
end of the day, there is a lot of activity going on by the guys
in the infantry who are walking the ground who actually want to
know, in very quick time, what is immediately ahead of them. That
really means they have got to have command and control of it themselves.
They have got to be able to hand-launch it. He wants to know what
is 200 metres down that road; so he hand-launches his little UAV
and within 25-30 seconds he knows what is ahead of him. That is
what the mini UAV gives him. It gives him an ability to have command
and control, and for him to actually be able to use that air vehicle
to gain that information extremely quickly; but it places constraints
on the system. It means it has to live with the infantry, the
guys who are actually walking the streets on the operation. He
cannot push around a 450 kilogram air vehicle; he needs something
that can live in his pack—and that is where minis come from.
When we are talking about operations in urban environments, built-up
areas, little mini UAVs are absolutely the right thing to have.
The key message to get across there is the mini UAVs can normally
have a daylight sensor, just like normal televisions at home,
or a thermal imager; they cannot have both. They do not have the
ability to lift both sensors. If it is night-time you have got
to sit there, break it apart and put a thermal on it. If it is
daytime you put the TV on it. The other thing is, because they
are model airplanes, and if any of you have seen model airplanes
fly, they are not very stable; so the imagery is not particularly
good, but it gives you the snapshot, and it gives you that bit
of information that may make a difference. As we go up the tree,
the big driver for moving from minis, to slightly larger platforms,
to a Watchkeeper, is all about the quality of the imagery and
the range at which we can operate it. Now we are talking about
a sensor that is very stabilised, that can sit and look at my
face for 12 hours of the day; it can move very quickly through
the environment, perhaps a speed of 100 knots, perhaps less. The
little minis do 30 or perhaps 40 knots so they are a lot slower.
The big platform also has the ability to carry other sensors,
and the one I would like to talk about is something we call "synthetic
aperture radar". What that really means, it is a radar that
gives us an image that looks pretty much like something you would
see on a television; it gives you an image. The real attraction
is, when there is cloud most television cameras cannot see through
cloud—no ability at all; you can leave your air vehicle
on the ground—cloud, fog or mist, no capability at all.
You put synthetic aperture radar on it and it sees through cloud;
it gives the guys a clear image of everything that is stationary
on the ground. We then link it to another bit of technology that
allows us to see everything that is moving on the ground. Those
radars weigh about 40 kilograms as a minimum. The moment you say
to me, "Chris, we now want to have that imagery in those
poor conditions", I need a larger platform to lift it in
the air. I am talking about lifting half a man. I cannot do that
with a mini; I need a bigger platform. You can start to see that
the critical variable with UAVs—that is the air vehicles
themselves—is the more payload you want, the larger the
air vehicles. I have a little equation in my head that says, "Depending
on your payload size, the payload you represent is between ten
and 20 per cent of the platform mass". If you want a 40 kilogram
sensor you probably need an air vehicle of about 400 kilograms.
The more sensors you want, the more capability, the larger the
general platform. The other driver that links to things the Americans
do is they like to fly higher. Little mini UAVs, those poor little
television sensors, they are only good from about 300 or 400 feet
to a 1,000 feet above the ground; if you fly higher than that
imagery is not very good. You might say, "I want to fly at
5,000 or 10,000 feet", but you need a better sensor, so you
move into the Hermes system. If you have then got a very large
platform like the Predator, the Reaper or the Global Hawk, they
operate at significantly higher altitudes, and one of the reasons
is they carry a very significant sensor sweep. They have to operate
higher in order to keep them safe. Those are the sorts of variables
which define where you pitch your UAVs.
Mr Chavez: Just to add to some
of the key variables, Chris touched on persistence—the ability
to remain on-task for very extended periods of time—when
you are actually gathering intelligence you will frequently want
to watch one locality for 24 hours a day: you cannot do that with
a mini UAV. The other thing is to do it in a totally undetected
manner. You need to get your UAV up to an altitude where it is
not visible and it cannot be heard; and, again, mini UAVs just
cannot do that. Things like Hermes 450 and Watchkeeper are designed
to operate so you can see and gather very usable intelligence
without being detected at all for very extended periods of time.
You can watch that building and you know that the white Mazda
that drove in has been parked there, a person got out, nobody
else has gone into that building and then he gets back into the
White Mazda and he drives off 12 hours later. It is that sort
of long-term persistent ISTAR that is very important.
Q208 Mr Holloway: It might be very
interesting to visit Mr Day's team when we are in Afghanistan
if there is time. Mr Miller in his excellent article referred
to "imagery exploitation". Just quoting from Mr Day
again, in Afghanistan is there a conflict with the use of this
kit between, for example, the JTAC teams that are in contact and
the higher commanders who always want to know exactly what is
going on? Also, to what extent can the troops in contact dictate
or request where the machine should be looking in order for them
to get rounds on the ground from indirect fire weapons or aircraft?
Mr Day: In terms of the overall
way the MoD uses their CONOPS, this is another driver behind the
way that the MoD has structured UAVs with the minis, the tactical
and the more strategic; that, at the end of the day, Watchkeeper
or the H-450 is a brigade or a battle group commander's assets.
Basically what will happen is the commander will say, "You
have that asset for the duration of that particular activity".
So there is no conflict with higher commanders wishing to take
it away. It has been dedicated to that commander for his particular
operation and he has command and control over it. The way that
it operates at the moment: at the end of the day it is about the
guy who is in contact; it is about the guy who wants to look inside
that compound; and the way he achieves it is through things like
our Bowman communications. He has a means of talking back to the
HQ to say, "Okay, guys, the aircraft's not in the right position;
we're not seeing what we want. Can you move it left a little bit;
right a little bit; or, will you hold on where you are?"
That is basically how the commanders in the field use it today.
If, as a consequence, a higher priority issue came along and there
was a debate and they said, "Look, guys, we've got a more
significant issue happening elsewhere and we want to redeploy
your assets", what might happen is the commanders in the
field would default to their minis and accept the penalties of
the poorer imagery and the shorter range.
Q209 Mr Holloway: The JTAC teams
then effectively have to talk the surveillance asset onto the
target in the same way in the old days you had to talk aircraft
onto a target. In the development of Watchkeeper, is this a kind
of thing you might try to integrate? If so, are there likely to
be any delays? I would have thought it is quite important to give
the guys electronically on the ground some way of positioning
it in the right place and then calling for whatever they want?
Mr Day: People often ask me the
question, "What is the difference between 450 and Watchkeeper?"
It goes back to the Chairman's first question actually, which
is: how do we find UAVs? Is this the right question we are asking?
UAV aircraft have been around for a fair amount of time and we
have a pretty comprehensive understanding of them. One of the
key differences for Watchkeeper is how we integrate the whole
system into the rest of the UK infrastructure, the COMMS, the
air traffic management, the logistics chain. That is what Watchkeeper
brings to the UK. Today the MoD is looking at various ways of
achieving that. One way is that most commanders in the field have
a Bowman radio of some form or another, which is both the voice
and the data. One of the things we have been looking at, and working
with MoD on, is a guy can have a simple map display of exactly
what is going on, with a clear lay-down of who is where and what
is going on. That guy can tap on that screen and potentially say
to them, "I want to view that particular geographic point
on the ground". He can then identify where he wants that
to go, which could well be the Watchkeeper ground station, and
that information is then sent back via the Bowman network to the
guys in the ground station and they can react accordingly.
Q210 Mr Holloway: In the future it
is likely that we will be dealing with rather more sophisticated
enemies than tribesmen in southern Afghanistan. To what extent
are you putting on equipment and ensuring that people could not
electronically disrupt our UAVs in the future? Obviously you will
consistently update it, but is it a consideration now on the equipment
we are getting, in case we have to move it from Afghanistan to
somewhere else?
Mr Day: Watchkeeper itself when
it was originally conceived was thought about as 15 years for
the platform and 30 years for the system life. We had to consider
that, like everything else in the military domain, as people understand
the technology they find ways of countering it. We have done things
within the system to specifically make certain that, as these
issues arise—and I will give you one particular example—on
Watchkeeper the data link is encrypted, so it has got a high grade
encryption on that which will inhibit some of the very issues
that you mention. Also, in addition, we have done some clever
things with the data link to effectively bury it in the noise
within the ether, rather than make it stand out like a particular
electromagnetic lighthouse. We also look carefully at things like
the noise it makes; and we pay particular attention to silencing
the engine. We look carefully, and we will look carefully, at
the next evolutions at how we would use all its signatures. Yes,
you cannot enter the UAV field today expecting that your technology
is going to last particularly long. You have got to make certain
that as you understand as an organisation, and this is one of
the key strengths of Thales, we do have a significant knowledge
base, across a significant area of technology, we can pull that
into these sorts of programmes and give us a future-proof solution.
Q211 Mr Hamilton: Are there any additional
things that Watchkeeper does you have not already mentioned which
are better than Hermes 450?
Mr Miller: This is really key.
There are two elements of Watchkeeper that are different from
the Hermes. There are the advancements in the air vehicle itself;
and of course there is the network ground infrastructure which
we have been talking about. The air vehicle itself is a dual payload
configuration, so it can take the EO/IR camera as well as the
radar together—electro-optic and infra-red—and additionally
more sophisticated SAR GMTI radar. It has an all-weather operational
capability; so it has de-icing systems built in. It has got enhanced
structure integrity with an adapted wing fuselage construction.
Autonomous flight capability and auto take off and landing. Of
course, the additional maintenance and access to subsystems is
improved. The advanced duplex avionics on board and the enhanced
landing gear. So there are many aspects within the air vehicle
of a significant difference. On the ground infrastructure side
you have got the exploitation, communication dissemination that
we discussed as a fundamental difference of the Watchkeeper system;
and of course dual data links; the ability to pass information
securely around the battle space. All this is required because
Watchkeeper has got to provide a worldwide capability. Armed Forces
can be deployed anywhere in the world and in climate conditions
that are different from current theatres. Of course it has got
the ability to be flexible for additional operational sensors
in the future. You can see we have built into the growth future
of Watchkeeper not only the air vehicles but also the ground network
enabled infrastructure.
Q212 Mr Hamilton: At the evidence
session on 6 May we were told that the MoD was fairly hopeful
that the in-service date would be achieved towards the end of
2010. Are you confident that is going to be achieved?
Mr Day: Yes, today the programme
is on schedule and we look to deliver the capability into MoD
on that date.
Mr Miller: We are very pleased
actually because, since our Contract award in 2004, we have achieved
the design phase; we have been through all the critical design
reviews throughout 2006/07; we have met all the milestones for
the Watchkeeper programme; we have achieved our first flight of
the new Watchkeeper air vehicle in April this year; we are now
starting the integration phase and testing; it is currently going
on and will eventually come to the UK at Aberporth at the end
of this year, beginning of next year, ready for the 2010 in-service
date as planned.
Q213 Richard Younger-Ross: This is
obviously a great advantage for our Forces, to have this ability
to see behind walls. Even on a simple basis it cannot be long
before even in a place like Afghanistan that Afghani forces should
not have their own device which will try to spy on our Forces.
If we come across a more sophisticated foe then certainly they
will have UAVs to spy on our Forces. Are you developing countermeasures
against UAVs for spying?
Mr Chavez: Perhaps if I take that
as a question because it relates to broader military capability.
Certainly one of the developing threats that Armed Forces see
around the world is the threat of UAV systems being used widely
against them. The traditional response to that comes from enhanced
air defence systems. Thales, for example, in Belfast have been
responsible for modifying the Starstreak air defence system to
adapt it to work with smaller radar across section targets, because
UAVs do present very difficult targets because they are so small;
they have very small amounts of metal in them, so they are very
difficult to see on radars, and missile systems, because of their
size, find it difficult to hit them. The traditional response
is to actually look at upgrading your air defence systems, and
that is what we have been doing using the Starstream missile.
Q214 Richard Younger-Ross: The sort
of foe we may face which we are trying to use UAVs against would
have the same difficulties in trying to detect you?
Mr Chavez: Absolutely. The survivability
issues, as Chris touched on with Watchkeeper, have been very carefully
thought through. Indeed, when you actually come to mission planning—because
you do not just launch a UAV and pilot it, typically with Watchkeeper
one of the major advantages is that you can actually set the mission
plan—you are not flying the aircraft round the sky, but
saying, "I'm interested in surveying this area of land",
and the aircraft will go off and it will steer the sensor, rather
than you fly the plane. It will automatically go off on that track.
There is a lot of automation in how we extract that information.
Q215 Chairman: Just a brief question
about trialling the Watchkeeper and flying it in UK airspace.
Are your discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority going well?
Is there an issue about delay or anything in terms of the extent
to which you can trial the aircraft?
Mr Howe: Could I comment on that.
This, of course, is a subject on which it is the MoD, rather than
us, which is leading. The MoD, as I understand it, is putting
together a proposal in relation to air space which it is in discussion
with the CAA about. We, of course, are very interested in the
outcome of that; but we are not, as it were, the sponsor or owner
of that process. As I understand it, there is a fairly elaborate
process for considering changes to air space arrangements; the
CAA is quite well advanced with that. The next stage, I believe,
is public consultation about the sort of solution the MoD has
been proposing. I believe that is likely to start quite shortly;
I do not know precisely when.
Q216 Chairman: But you would not
describe it as a significant clog in the process?
Mr Howe: I do not think so, no.
It is a significant issue but I do not think it is a clog in the
process. I think it is being addressed sensibly and very methodically
and thoroughly, and we will get through the process.
Mr Miller: There are two aspects:
this is permanent airspace change which is being discussed; but
you can at the moment fly in temporary restricted airspace. For
instance, in 2005 we flew the Hermes at Parc Aberporth in a temporary
restricted airspace; and we could do that now if we wished in
consultation with the CAA. There are two differences between what
we can do now—controlled and permanent air space change
that John was talking about.
Q217 Mr Hamilton: You indicated,
Mr Chavez, that Israel has developed the Hermes 450. Will the
UK be able to maintain and upgrade the Watchkeeper as we move
forward; and will we be able to work independently?
Mr Chavez: Absolutely, and that
was entirely behind the reason we created a joint venture in Leicester
which holds the intellectual property.
Mr Howe: Held here in the United
Kingdom. Watchkeeper is being built in the UK, whereas Hermes
450 is an Israeli product.
Q218 Mr Jenkins: One thing that strikes
me, Chairman, is that you have built this new Watchkeeper platform
that you bought in bits and pieces: why did we not go for the
American Global Hawk? Is that not a better platform? Would it
not have carried all your sensor equipment? If we had got the
basic platform from America the deal with have been done now,
and it would have been trialled and proven airworthiness, and
it would carry the loads you want of Watchkeeper. Why did we go
down the Watchkeeper route?
Mr Chavez: They are very different
classes of UAV and they are rather different. The Reaper UAV is
much more similar to Global Hawk. It is quite clear, the Watchkeeper
competition was an open competition. There was a competition with
UAV systems offered by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE
systems as well as ourselves; so it was a truly international
competition against the Watchkeeper requirement. It comes back
to this: there is a significant difference between how you use
these three different levels of UAV. It is an operational concept
issue.
Q219 Mr Havard: On that point, what
about weaponising this thing; because then it does become a very
different vehicle, does it not; and the point about its use and
airspace becomes a different set of questions. In summary, we
are having bits of material flying about that might bump into
one another, but if they have not got explosives on them it is
less of a problem than if they have. Is it able to do that? Reaper
does that; is Watchkeeper going to do that?
Mr Howe: If I may, I think that
is really a question for MoD rather than us. We are not under
contract to provide a weaponised UAV. We are providing an intelligence
gatherer. Obviously vehicles that can fly could well have the
potential to carry weapons; but we have not been contracted to
do that—that would be in the future. The question about
the military requirement is for MoD rather than for us.
|
