Examination of Witnesses (Questions 145-159)
MR QUENTIN
DAVIES MP, MR
ADRIAN BAGULEY
AND COMMODORE
RUSS HARDING
2 JUNE 2009
Chairman: Minister, before I ask you
to introduce your team I call on Mr Jenkin.
Mr Jenkin: There is an interest on the
Register of Members' Interests that I want to declare. I organised
a fund raiser for Combat Stress in March of this year and Finmeccanica
was the main sponsor.
Q145 Chairman: Welcome back, Minister.
Would you introduce your team?
Mr Davies: With pleasure. It is
very nice to be before the Committee again. On my left is Commodore
Russ Harding who is in charge of the equipment capability aspects
of helicopters, littoral manoeuvre and the sorts of things we
shall be talking about. On my right is Mr Adrian Baguley who is
in charge of the relevant IPT. Both of them have been closely
engaged with me and advised me on the subject that is before the
Committee today for quite a long time.
Q146 Chairman: Would you begin by
saying where in your list of priorities you put helicopters?
Mr Davies: It would be quite invidious
for me to set out a list of priorities in the sense that I think
armoured vehicles, combat aircraft or ISTAR assets are number
one, something else is number two and something else is number
three, because military capability requires an awful lot of things
which are interlinked. You really cannot have one without the
other; you cannot deploy troops on the ground without equipping
them properly. You also cannot deploy them without air support,
so you need fire and close air support for them. Helicopters are
immensely important right across the board and they are enormously
important in the Navy. They are called the grey fleet and they
consist of helicopters which carry our central antisubmarine capabilities,
for example the Merlins, the anti-surface capabilities with the
Lynxes and the AWACS capability which is particularly important
when you deploy a carrier force. We have helicopters that are
amphibious in the sense that they operate on ships but also on
land. The Sea King Mk4s are a very interesting example of that.
The littoral manoeuvre helicopter is being deployed purely in
a land environment in Afghanistan at the moment in support of
our operations there. We need to have lift helicopters; we cannot
operate without them. We have the wonderful Chinooks to carry
out that role primarily which you know about. We need utility
and close fire support helicopters, and the Apaches have done
an absolutely wonderful, heroic job there. I believe that in battles
like Musa Qala, for example, they played an absolutely decisive
role. These things are enormously important; they are not just
the platforms but the weapons systems and sensors that go with
them. Above all, it is the men and training behind them and the
motivation and courage of those people. You can imagine sitting
in an Apache giving close fire support and being terrified in
case you do a blue on blue, which would be a nightmare for everybody,
or kill civilians which obviously we try desperately to avoid.
We want to make sure that we win the engagement and save the lives
of our people. It is difficult to imagine fully the intensity
with which decisions must be taken in the heat of battle with
bullets literally flying past you. We depend upon all these assets
and the people who are doing a heroic job. My job as Minister
of Equipment and Support is to try to make sure we support them
to the greatest possible degree.
Q147 Chairman: That is a fair answer,
but with some assets you can see their relevance and priority
rising and falling in different operations. For example, submarines
are of reduced relevance if we are concentrating heavily on Afghanistan.
Would you say that helicopters are rising or falling in importance?
Mr Davies: Helicopters are absolutely
key assets. We could not contend with the challenges in insurgency
and counter-insurgency operations like those in Iraq and Afghanistan
without helicopters.
Q148 Chairman: That sounds like a
rising priority.
Mr Davies: They have already risen
to a very high plateau of importance. I am not quite sure how
they could rise to a higher level of importance than they currently
or prospectively will have.
Q149 Mr Crausby: Can you tell us
something about the current single service approach to procurement?
The Committee is a little concerned that the single service approach
does not really address the cross-service requirement for helicopters.
While I completely understand that you cannot put priorities in
a league table in that simple way, does not the current single
service approach to procurement mean that helicopters are everybody's
second priority?
Mr Davies: No. We do not have
a single service approach to procurement in this country. Some
countries do. I know that the United States has much more of that
but we do not. For a number of years we have had a system of joint
or cross-service procurement and it is very important that that
happens. We always take a cross-service view. We have two organisations.
First, the Equipment Customer Capability organisation (ECC) is
run by General Andrew Figgures whom you have met. It is his responsibility
to look at the equipment and logistical needs of the Armed Forces
as a whole. Second, we have the procurement agency now called
the Defence Equipment and Support organisation and that is where
the integrated project teams are located. Mr Baguley runs the
relevant one. That takes a completely cross-service view as to
its role and the needs of the Armed Forces. We have an all-service
procurement system in this country; we do not have a single service
procurement system, nor do we want it.
Commodore Harding: I am no better
example of that. I sit here this morning as yet another Naval
Officer. Mine is a competed purple appointment and amongst littoral
manoeuvre I am responsible as the sponsor and owner of the requirement
for air manoeuvre, ie all-battlefield helicopters from Chinook
down to Apache, Lynxes and everything else. To back up what the
Minister has just said, we do not take any form of single service
approach to procurement. Of course the single Services have a
view; the frontline commands are not averse to popping a letter
in the post and telling you where they think you have got your
priorities wrong. In another example of the joint approach we
take in areas such as anti-submarine warfare, for Merlin we take
a programme approach. I own the platform aspects of that capability,
ie the air vehicle itself, and my team looks across that and liaises
with the other directorates in delivering that capability.
Q150 Mr Crausby: But each of the
Services is bound to be focused within Treasury limits on its
own issues, the Navy on aircraft carriers, the RAF on strategic
air lift and the Army on armoured vehicles. How do we ensure that
helicopters come to the top of all those priorities when each
of the Services is so concerned about what it might see as being
more important?
Mr Davies: Helicopters are terribly
important for each of the Services. It is perfectly true that
each is conscious of the particular role performed by a helicopter
type. I have already given the example of the Sea King Mk4 where
a helicopter type was used as both a naval asset and land asset.
There must always be a theoretical danger of a particular service
capturing the agenda and having excessive influence. I assure
you that we are very alive to that. The whole culture of the Ministry
of Defence is against that. It is my responsibility to make sure
that I am not unduly influenced by one service and I keep in touch
with all of them. It is important that you should ask that question
and we should be alive to the danger even if it is merely a theoretical
one but I do not think it is more than that. I should like to
ask Mr Baguley to speak from his vantage point of the IPTs in
Abbey Wood because again that is deliberately structured as a
cross-service organisation.
Mr Baguley: It is. At the Defence
Board level the Vice-Chief of the defence staff has a particular
role to champion the cause of helicopters when it comes to debate
about cross-departmental priorities. We often brief the Vice-Chief
on the role and needs of helicopters. As the Minister said, within
Defence Equipment and Support we have an organisation for the
delivery of helicopter capability to all services. That is not
in any way Service-driven.
Q151 Mr Jenkin: Does not each of
the various competing Services looking for its particular requirement
with a high determination to satisfy all the roles mean that we
buy a rather expensive helicopter? Should we not be a bit more
bog standard in our approach and try to give people 80% as opposed
to 95 or 98% of what they really want? We could buy much cheaper
helicopters and perhaps have fewer classes and run the fleet much
more cheaply as a result.
Commodore Harding: I absolutely
agree. I will let Mr Baguley answer on the question of cheapness
and the cost. One of the things we must be careful about is that,
in my first year of appointment, I have on more than one occasion
been presented with windscreen sticker prices that you see in
car show rooms which say, for example, that for only this much
you can have all of this. We need to look below that. Mr
Baguley can perhaps comment on that. I absolutely agree that we
must be wary of complexity driving the cost and go to the 80%
solution in that respect. If we take an example of procurement
that we amended recently, it is well known that last summer we
took a long hard look at the future Lynx with AgustaWestland and
many of its equipment programmes. I with colleagues from industry
and DE&S looked at the example of Lynx and determined that
we could drive up the commonality of the aircraft between the
Army and Navy for the benefit of defence. Beyond that, I recommended
that we put them together in the same base despite others in the
past saying that the level of commonality between them and the
overlap in the training was only 15%. Perhaps I took a slightly
brutal approach in saying that we would learn to drive up the
commonality of training and everything else. But one of the key
questions that Chief of Defence Materiel put to me was that I
needed to assure him that should defence priorities change in
20 years' we could use those aircraft in other environments, ie
the maritime aircraft over land—it goes without saying—and
potentially the battlefield Lynx over the sea. I believe that
we did that last year.
Q152 Mr Jenkin: Even so, the future
Lynx is a very bespoke requirement and it is hardly a matter of
buying it off a production line rather like Mr Ford wanted us
to buy model Ts. That is the other extreme. But if we are looking
for a multi-role combat helicopter should we not seek to buy something
that is much more basic?
Commodore Harding: If we go to
the roles that that aircraft must perform, it has to go over the
land in a battlefield reconnaissance aircraft role and lift some
troops. When it is over the sea it must do two missions that we
talk about: first, it must find, which is as easy and simple to
understand as the meaning of the word, that is, it must find where
the enemy combatants are; second, it must attack them. There are
two quite broadly-based requirements for one aircraft in two subtlety
different variants, ie carrying radar and electrical optics and
carrying missiles in the maritime role and then taking it across
to the land role.
Q153 Mr Jenkin: The difficulty is
that you have to buy them now; you cannot buy them when you need
them. Looking at the Future Medium Helicopter perhaps we can come
up with the concept that we just buy it off somebody's production
line as and when we need it rather like we do with armoured vehicles
now?
Commodore Harding: I think we
have a good story in relation to that. Perhaps Mr Baguley wants
to comment.
Mr Baguley: Certainly, for the
Future Medium Helicopter we are looking to reduce the number of
types that we operate within defence. I think you have already
been briefed that along with any type comes a range of fixed costs
associated with owning that type of helicopter. Our plan for the
Future Medium Helicopter is to move towards fewer types. As to
buying off a volume production line, there are not many military
volume production lines around in the world. We are looking at
whether we can buy either from some of those volume military production
lines or volume civil production lines where helicopters can be
modified for military use. That is all part of the strategy we
are looking at in delivering the Future Medium Helicopter. I absolutely
share your view. Commodore Harding and I are regularly pressing
down on the requirement to make sure that it is not gold-plated
and it is the minimum required to deliver the range of capabilities
required of that platform.
Q154 Mr Holloway: To go back to what
Commodore Harding said, what does the Minister think are the main
concerns currently of frontline Commanders with regard to helicopters?
Mr Davies: I am sure you had an
opportunity to talk to frontline Commanders in Afghanistan. They
would recognise that the provision of helicopters has been steadily
improving.
Q155 Mr Holloway: I am referring
to their concerns.
Mr Davies: Their concerns are
that they continue to have good helicopters and in sufficient
numbers with sufficient crews to operate them. That may have been
a major constraint. I think the story is a pretty impressive one.
I do not think Commanders have great concerns. Obviously, everybody
is interested in the Future Medium Helicopter and how we specify
that and so forth.
Q156 Mr Holloway: I was trying to
see how in touch you were with what they were concerned about.
Even if they are relatively small matters, what sorts of things
are they worried about?
Mr Davies: I go to Afghanistan
every six months. We have a six-month roulement, so during the
course of every roulement I am there. Obviously, I talk to the
commanding officer and his staff; I talk to all sorts of people
including helicopter pilots and people of all ranks. That is an
opportunity to do more than I can do here just by interrogating
PJHQ in England to understand people's real concerns. If you want
a frank answer, I would not say that any of the sorts of concerns
expressed to me have been about helicopters. Helicopters are an
area where people feel we have made good provision and are making
better provision. They know what is in the pipeline and what we
are trying to do. There have been problems in the past about spares
which I believe have been largely resolved. There are still problems
about crews. I have had long conversations with Admiral Johnstone-Burt
about trying to improve that. He has taken measures to increase
the throughput of new trained crews. We are working on all of
that. Nothing has been expressed to me as an urgent concern in
the helicopter area by Commanders in the field, but I am very
open-minded. When I go there again within the next two months—for
reasons you will appreciate I cannot tell you the exact date—you
can be certain I will ask that question once again.
Q157 Robert Key: Can we look at the
whole question of life extension? I start by reporting from my
constituency how pleased everybody is that the eight Chinooks
that have been languishing at Boscombe Down are now being worked
on very satisfactorily. I have been in them myself to see what
is happening. That is very good news. Mr Baguley referred to the
need to reduce the number and variety of helicopters. I believe
I am right in saying that there are 15 major types of helicopter
in service at the moment and about 13 marks or variations within
that. Does that have anything to do with the delay in the decision
on what is happening to the Puma extension project which was due
to be announced on 31 March?
Mr Davies: To take those points
in turn, thank you for your kind remarks about the sorting out
of the problem of the Chinook Mk3s. I share your delight in the
progress in that regard. In the next few months those aircraft
will be available for deployment in Afghanistan or wherever, so
as you rightly say that is excellent news. As to the number of
helicopter types, you include things that we lease such as Squirrels
and that sort of thing but I understand that you have made the
calculation. Ideally, for the reasons Mr Baguley has already given
we would have fewer types of helicopter. As to the Puma life extension
programme, the Committee knows very well what our plans have been
over the past two or three years. We have sought a life extension
programme for the Puma and Sea King and to buy a little time in
that way before we bring into service the new Future Medium Helicopter.
We do not know exactly what that will be and to what extent it
will be off the shelf or modified or will be something new. I
have strong views on that which I am happy to talk about now if
you wish. That is the position at the present time. I think I
would be fully within the letter of my rights if I just left it
there, but that is not the right way to treat a Select Committee.
I did not think that was when I was a member of a Select Committee
and I do not think it is the case now when I am reporting to this
Select Committee. I shall tell you the reason for the delay which
is not a very long one. I have asked for a complete re-examination
of this matter which admittedly is at the eleventh hour. It does
not mean to say that we are to go in a different direction; we
may go back to the model that I have just set out which is the
formal position of the Department today. We do not have any consents
from the Treasury or anywhere else to go in any other direction
and I may not seek them. It may be that we shall decide to go
in another direction, even at the eleventh hour, but we shall
do it without holding up matters at all, so we shall take decisions
very rapidly. The alternative, which I want to ensure we fully
explore, is the possibility of dispensing with the need to spend
the taxpayers' money on upgrading aircraft which have reached
a certain age. The Pumas must be 30 years' old.
Q158 Robert Key: They were being
designed when I was at school.
Mr Davies: It cannot be that long
ago.
Q159 Robert Key: It was in the 1960s.
Mr Davies: There is the possibility
of dispensing with those two life-extension programmes and bringing
forward the Future Medium Helicopter procurement which would then
certainly need to be done on a modified off-the-shelf basis. That
is my strong preference for meeting that commitment anyway to
avoid technical risk and some of the agonies we have had in the
past with new projects of this kind. It would also mean an accelerated
process of procurement. It would not be quite a UOR but possibly
not the rather laborious full-scale classic international tender
which up to now has been the policy and formally remains the procurement
policy for the Future Medium Helicopter. I know this Committee
does not like long answers, but I think you need to know the present
state of affairs. I repeat the formal position of the department
remains exactly as it was. We may well decide that that is the
best way to meet the country's needs in this area, but I want
to make absolutely sure we have fully explored the alternative
before we sign contracts. In any event we shall be signing contracts
in the course of this year.
Chairman: In this case that long answer
was extremely helpful.
Robert Key: Indeed it is, Minister, and
it is very good news for the taxpayer. To spend £300 million
on 28 airframes for an eight to 10-year extension, which is about
£11 million each, when you can buy a new helicopter with
a life of 40 years for £20 million seems to be rather strange
arithmetic. Given that the crashworthiness, not airworthiness,
of the Puma is not very good compared with a modern design—after
all, we have lost 40% of the British military Puma force in 40
years' service—surely it is time to press ahead with the
new Future Medium Helicopter. I was delighted to hear you say
what you did.
| 
