Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE
17 MARCH 2008
Q80 Mr Bacon: Going down the right-hand
side, first of all the lorry, with the £64 million, then
the Sting Ray Torpedo, and then the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket
System. I am just going through those with the same project team
so that you have a like-with-like comparison—you are comparing
apples with apples. In each of those five cases, which total £541
million of the £609 million—so 89% of the total—what
have you found by measuring the way in which the performance has
improved?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue:
What we are able to do is make sure the amount of money allocated
to initial acquisition has been spent on initial acquisition and
is not getting confused with the warranty costs or various other
upgrades that should more properly be taken separately.
Q81 Mr Bacon: I was not asking about
what you are able to do; I was asking about the phrase: "to
better measure". If you have metrics in order to better measure,
presumably those metrics told you something: what have they told
you?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue:
We are getting a lot better at it. We know earlier where projects
are likely to go off the rail. We are able to track them earlier.
My predecessor set up the Project Rehabilitation Unit, and we
can now put that into a project and bring it back on to track
over spending.
Q82 Mr Bacon: You bring me neatly
on to the next question I was going to ask, which is about figure
12, technical factors that arise during the life of a project.
It states there that technical factors typically arise in year
six, and in paragraph 1.15 it is stated: "While the timing
of technical problems is similar on newer projects, the scale
of delay is showing signs of reducing." The MoD says it approaches
that with caution because many of the newer projects have not
reached the six or eight-year point yet. What is it about these
technical problems that are coming relatively late in the day
that surely should be sorted out by better design work and investment
earlier on?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue:
There are two answers to that; the first is, absolutely: when
you rush at a project and rush at setting the main gate, without
going through the assessment phase and the development, you are
likely to be masking technical problems, and those will need to
be sorted out before you agree to go to a production run. The
more de-risking you can do early on, the less likely you are to
have technical problems. Then, at the end of a project, of course—and
the Astute or Type 45, with complex ships and complex air platforms—once
they start doing their sea trials or their flight trials, then
you will inevitably get technical issues coming up at the end
of the project. The main thing is to do de-risking earlier on
in the project to get those technical issues resolved.
Q83 Mr Bacon: I would like to ask
you about the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System in figure 6
where it says: "Existing Operational Analysis indicates that
a total of 4,080 rockets are required." So far, you have
only bought 1,488 rockets. Can you say how many of these rockets
have been used of the ones that you have bought and how effective
they have proved?
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
I cannot say precisely how many we have used, but we may give
you a note on that. How effective have they proved to be? They
proved to be extremely effective and this time last year I made
the point that originally, when we did the analysis to determine
how many we should buy, we were of the view that their accuracy
would be a function not necessarily directly linear but nevertheless
a function of range. We found, because these are guided by GPS,
that we are able to achieve much higher levels of accuracy; and
whereas in the past one might have had to fire three to gain the
necessary effect on the target, we have been able to fire one;
and that has achieved the appropriate effect. They now have the
nickname in Afghanistan of the "long-range sniper" so
this has been a great success.[6]
Q84 Mr Bacon: I heard they had been very
successful too. That begs the question, when are you going to
get the others that your analysis has indicated, because the decision
to go ahead with the Indirect Fire Precision Attack Project has
not yet been taken.
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
No, it has not, but I go back to my previous answer: we need to
strike a balance in the light of the performance of this particular
munition against the performance of the indirect precision fire
munition. We do not want to over ensure, but we do need to have
sufficient, so it is a piece of work, the assessment phase referred
to by the Chief of Defence Materiel in terms of determining what
that outcome should be. It is part of the risk-reduction process
that we carry out.
Q85 Mr Bacon: When will you know?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue:
There is also sometimes merit in not buying things too soon and
storing. Storage has costs and shelf life sometimes means you
have to write them off at the end. There is merit in buying a
smaller number, keeping the production line going and taking advantage
of upgrades and an increase of improvement in accuracy as they
go forward.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: What is happening
is two things. As General Figgures says, these weapons are more
effective than we expected and we can probably manage with fewer
of them. The other is that for the kind of reason that Kevin O'Donoghue
has just given, it makes quite a bit of sense to place our provision
for acquiring more of them in the wider context of the Indirect
fire Precision Attack Programme, where we can weigh the advantage
they would bring us against the advantage that other kinds of
weapons would.
Q86 Mr Bacon: It sounds as though
the advantage these bring to you is very significant.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: Yes.
Q87 Nigel Griffiths: I want to cover
the Light Anti-Armour Weapon, the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket
System and the Bowman communication system. Figure 9 highlights
something that seems to be symptomatic in certain MoD projects.
That is that the next generation of anti-armour weapon is supposed
to be off-the-shelf, but it is enhanced, which I am sure adds
to the cost. It is supposed to be a light anti-armour weapon,
but it is for a type of both heavy and light armoured vehicles.
Is that the reason why it failed its design qualification tests?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue:
It is light because it does not weigh too much to carry. It is
a man portable weapon for taking out armour.
Q88 Nigel Griffiths: Thank you for
that clarification.
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue:
There is a technical issue and it is to do with fusing, and it
will be resolved. We do not need it at the moment. We will need
it in the future, but we do not need it at the moment. We have
something that is perfectly adequate for using in current operations.
This is a capability we will need in the future and is worth persevering.
Q89 Nigel Griffiths: On the Guided
Multiple Launch Rocket System, to follow up a previous question,
what is the immediate requirement for that? Is it 654 or the 156?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: Our view is
that the numbers we are working on at the moment reflect the immediate
requirement.
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
The numbers we have meet the immediate requirement. We have arrangements
in place so that we can buy replacements, so those which we are
using on operations we are replacing to ensure that we do not
have a shortfall there, but I go back to the point that we have
a piece of work to do to strike the balance between the GMLRS
and the Indirect Fire Precision Attack munitions.
Q90 Nigel Griffiths: In terms of
the contract then that we have got for the former, if the Indirect
Fire Precision Attack Programme comes ahead of schedule, how committed
are we to spending and procurement from the supplier of what will
then be the slightly redundant Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System?
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
Because we have not bought as many as we first thought, we now
have the flexibility in the programme to strike that balance,
so we anticipate buying more of GMLRS. That would be bought—is
sufficient for operations. We will make a judgment. As the Chief
of Defence Materiel said, there is a merit in staggering these
buys such that you can exploit the possibility of technology—
Q91 Nigel Griffiths: I am assured
of that, yes, but the question really is: are you going to pay
for them whether you have to buy them or not?
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
No.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: In financial
terms this is a very tight contract, so the delays we have been
seeing do not have significant cost implications.
Q92 Nigel Griffiths: The existing
operational analysis that a total of 4,080 rockets are required—is
that out of date now?
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
That was the analysis that was extant at the time of the original
procurement of the GMLRS. It will be developed further as a result
of the Indirect Fire Precision Attack capability development.
It is part of the piece of work we are doing to work out what
the balance of munitions is going to be.
Q93 Nigel Griffiths: Are the 4,080
rockets for both systems?
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
No, it is not. That was the original assessment for the GMLRS.
Q94 Nigel Griffiths: If it is less
than that, we will pay proportionately less for that system.
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
Yes.
Q95 Nigel Griffiths: The approval
costs have been exceeded on the Indirect Fire Precision Attack
Programme; is that right? That is page 20, figure 6A.
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue:
We are not at main gate yet with that one. We are during the assessment
phase so we are not there yet.
Q96 Nigel Griffiths: So the approval
costs have not been finalised, or committed, or not spent yet
obviously.
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
The approval here states that it relates only to the first stage
of the assessment phase, so this is the work which reduces the
technical risk in the Indirect Fire Precision Attack and it also
funds the analysis to determine numbers.
Sir Bill Jeffrey: The only costs
that have so far been approved are the £24 million approved
at the initial gate for the preliminary assessment phase.
Q97 Nigel Griffiths: Do you have
an assessment of how much is likely to be left over from the 4,080
rockets, the balance that you may not need?
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
We have not got the 4,000.
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue:
That work has not yet been done.
Q98 Nigel Griffiths: You have a bid
in that is costing the 4,080, as part of the costing programme,
is it?
Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures:
We have made an assumption about what we are going to spend on
that overall capability. Once we have done the assessment phase,
which determines the numbers of the respective type of munitions,
we will allocate funding to those munitions, and then the Chief
of Defence Materiel will procure them. In my plan there is a resource
envelope that underpins this capability.
Q99 Nigel Griffiths: The Bowman communication
system, which I well remember from 10 years ago in this Committee,
when was it started?
Sir Bill Jeffrey: It depends what
you mean by started.
6 Note by witness: Current expenditure of rockets
in theatre is approximately 12 a month since deployment, and a
total of 86 have been fired (as at 25 March 2008). The rockets
have proved extremely effective; being accurate within a few metres,
and have predictable collateral damage characteristics. Back
| 
