Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
MR QUENTIN
DAVIES MP, MR
ADRIAN BAGULEY
AND COMMODORE
RUSS HARDING
2 JUNE 2009
Q160 Chairman: I do not think you
said quite that; you said that a decision was yet to be made.
Mr Davies: I did say that a decision
had yet to be made. I simply want to ensure that we have explored
all possible avenues before we take that decision. Therefore,
I have instituted a rather last-minute re-examination of the problem.
I do not believe that crashworthiness is a concept we recognise
when applied to aircraft, whether rotary or fixed wing. I do not
like the sound of that. I assure you that we would not dream of
flying any helicopter that we were not absolutely certain was
as safe as it possibly could be. One of the many considerations
that must be looked at in terms of re-examining the procurement
of the FMH as against the life extension programmes is the safety
aspect. We may well find that the safety agencies that provide
airworthiness certificates say we must do something much quicker
with the Puma and perhaps the Sea King. Therefore we cannot possibly
go straight away to procure the Future Medium Helicopter because
we cannot know whether at some time they will withdraw airworthiness
certificates. That is one of the many considerations in all of
our minds as we go forward on this one. We take safety very seriously.
Perhaps Commodore Harding would care to comment.
Commodore Harding: Perhaps at
the beginning I may deal with the statistics and then Mr Baguley
may say something further on your comment about crashworthiness.
One thing we do in defence over time—I have a particular
background in this—is work with the statistics agency to
determine reasonable assumptions about the attrition of our aircraft.
In the Navy we used to have what was essentially a management
plan which bizarrely was called the Naval Data Book. The reason
for it was that we used to put into it exactly the sorts of statistics
you mentioned. You said that we had lost 40% in 40 years. We could
have a little debate about whether 40 years is exactly the length
of service of the aircraft, but as you go through it you do two
things. The two compelling statistics that you work out are: how
many aircraft will you lose over time irrevocably because you
bend it or crash it. We do damage categories from one to five.
Category five means that probably you will not return the aircraft
to service; that is a major loss of the aircraft. For categories
three and four you would probably return the aircraft to service
if it was economic to do so. To give an example, in the case of
Sea King we used to assume a category five about every 55,000
hours. That was what we did with the Sea Kings from 1967 when
it was introduced into service and took it through. Sometimes
unbelievably it holds true over time that you will suffer damage
operationally and in basic accidents. In the past I have caused
an aircraft to suffer a small amount of damage in respect of propellers.
Those things happen.
Mr Davies: It did not damage your
career, did it?
Commodore Harding: Some would
say it did, others that it did not. But one expects those things
to happen. Without trying to elongate this, you take out car insurance
because you tend to have small accidents. Therefore, we make that
assumption. I would say that the reduction in the Puma force over
time is not remarkable. I would have to look at the 40-year service;
I think that may be at the top end and that the aircraft has not
been around for that length of time; Sea King certainly has been.
But it is not unreasonable to look at those statistics. We then
make assumptions, certainly with fast jets, about attrition provision.
In the past we have bought sufficient aircraft in advance at a
good UPC with the manufacturer to make sure we have those attrition
aircraft in place.
Q161 Robert Key: Minister, would
it be fair to say that part of the reason for your review of this
decision is that there are implications here flowing from the
Human Rights Act and recent court decisions and also the Corporate
Manslaughter Act and you would not wish to put RAF personnel or
any service personnel into aircraft which did not have a very
good record?
Mr Davies: Of course, none of
us would wish or dream to put air crew into aircraft in whose
safety we did not have complete confidence. I can give you the
quick answer that considerations of human rights legislation and
so forth did not play any part at all in the thoughts I have just
expressed and the decisions I have made so far.
Mr Baguley: For clarity, we have
a duty of care to our people under the Health and Safety at Work
Act to ensure that the capabilities that they operate are safe
and that we have reduced the risks of any major injuries or fatalities
to as low as reasonably practicable. With the life extension of
the Puma fleet, if we go down that route, there will be an extended
exposure to risk. One of the key things we look at in extending
the aircraft are the safety aspects. The principal safety hazard
on Puma at the moment is associated with its engines and particular
handling characteristics which is why, if we extend the life of
the aircraft, we will replace the engines.
Q162 Robert Key: That will deal with
the anticipatory issue?
Mr Baguley: That will have a full
digital flight control system with digital engine control which
will remove the anticipatory issue. We are also looking at part
of the LEP to replace the cockpit instrumentation with modern
digital instruments. We will also introduce a digital flight control
systems. All of these things will improve the overall safety of
that fleet, so safety is a paramount consideration whenever we
consider extending the life of a helicopter fleet.
Q163 Robert Key: Minister, if you
go ahead with the Puma life extension programme, all the work
that Mr Baguley has described will be carried out in Romania.
Would it not be better to do more life extension of the Sea King
which would at least provide British jobs for British workers?
Mr Davies: My job is to try to
spend the taxpayers' money to achieve maximum effect in defence
capability terms. There are obvious constraints on where we can
procure equipment. We will not procure military equipment from
China, Russia or somewhere like that for reasons you will appreciate,
but I have no problems at all about work being done in Romania
if that gives the best value for money. That is not a consideration.
The other day there was a newspaper article suggesting that that
was a consideration in somebody's mind, possibly mine. That is
not true at all. Whichever route we go down we will apply consistent
principles and get best value for the taxpayer. We need sovereign
capability in this country in the areas of ability to maintain
our platforms and upgrade them and military technology insertion.
We need the design authority and systems engineering capability
here. We do not necessarily need metal-bashing capability here.
We need only what is necessary to buy here competitively, but
I would be concerned about buying components, let alone sub-systems,
from outside the European Union or NATO for obvious reasons. The
broad arithmetic is that at the present time we are embarked on
a course which would lead to our extending the lives of the Sea
King to about 2018 and the Puma to 2022, in other words not a
very long time for the investment required. As against that, we
have the Future Medium Helicopter arriving perhaps in 2017. These
figures have not been to the Defence Board; they are just provisional
ones to give the Committee a sense of the orders of magnitude.
I am not in any way committed to these particular numbers. Obviously,
if we decided that we were able to forgo the life extension programmes
that would require an earlier introduction of the Future Medium
Helicopter by whatever means. If an alternative is not practicable
we would have to revert to the original plan. I believe I have
now set out the main criteria which we will be looking at in taking
a decision on this matter.
Mr Baguley: To clarify the position
on where the work will be done if we go forward with the Puma
life extension, the bulk of the engineering design will be done
in France where Puma was originally manufactured. A significant
proportion of the installation of the engines and the basic work
of refurbishment will be done in Romania and some of the theatre-specific
and UK-specific issues will be addressed within the UK. Broadly
speaking, in economic terms 30% of the work by value will be done
in the UK, 60% by value will be done in France and 10% by value
will be done in Romania.
Q164 Robert Key: How big will be
the dip in capability while we wait for the decision on Puma or
Sea King and the arrival of a Future Medium Helicopter?
Mr Davies: We are trying to avoid
dips in capability. At the present the Pumas are not being employed
in Afghanistan; they represent a contingent capability to deploy
if we really need them. We are looking at the issue of the extent
to which we have that contingent capability in reserve, how much
we need it and what risk we may place against it. But I do not
anticipate or accept that there would be any great difference
in the risk we took in the two scenarios. If there was a very
great difference in the risk that itself might be a determining
factor in deciding how to go forward.
Commodore Harding: A very good
example, if you look at the written evidence submitted in advance,
is the Sea King LEP. We have some older Sea Kings, the Mk6, which
we have been operating to support Commander Helicopter Force in
the past. It is up to Mr Baguley to conduct that review for the
Minister and let him see all this background data. With the Sea
Kings, I can probably buy into the life extension programme those
Mk6s for use at Yeovilton to do the basic baseline training. They
are not at the standard for Afghanistan but there are two ways
to do training: that which you are about to do with all the display
night vision goggles and basic instrument flying, engine off landings
and everything else. Therefore, the IPT team leader for the Sea
King is very confident that we will not see a dip and not reduce
what Brigadier Abraham and others want in Afghanistan. If you
look at our immediate support helicopters of which we have three,
the Merlin Mk3 and Mk3A are just about to deploy and at the end
of the year we have the Sea Kings and there will not be a dip.
It means that with Puma as we take it back it will go through
a rather more intrusive capability. The other point about Puma
is that it is a step change in capability; with its engine the
difference in what the aircraft can do over time will be quite
amazing in terms of platform choice. We are underscoring that
and saying to PJHQ that we believe we can deliver what they need.
Q165 Mr Jenkin: It would have been
far easier to make these decisions if we had not taken £1.4
billion out of the helicopter programme in the early part of the
decade and we would not have been messing around with a patch-up
job on Puma; we would have gone straight for a new helicopter.
But the real question is: why not take the opportunity now to
reduce the number of helicopter types and buy new?
Mr Davies: We are where we are.
We have to take decisions now in the light of the circumstances
at the time. I do not want to waste too much time going back and
rewriting history to see what might have happened if we had not
done this, that or the other.
Q166 Mr Jenkin: We opposed that then
and I presume you did, too.
Mr Davies: That could very well
be the case. I am not even defending the decision now from where
I sit. I simply say that I am not going to go back over that.
My concern is to take the right decisions now.
Q167 Mr Jenkin: What about the reduction
in helicopter types?
Mr Davies: I have a lot of sympathy
for what you have been saying. I believe that the answers given
by Commodore Harding and Mr Baguley also confirm that. All things
being equal, it is better to have a smaller number of helicopter
types. As my two colleagues know very well, several times I have
pressed them on the issue of trying to make some helicopters which
now have a single role have dual, even triple, capability. There
are some possible opportunities for that. Therefore, all things
being equal it would be a good idea. If we went for the more rapid
procurement of the Future Medium Helicopter and dispensed with
the life extension programmes, unless we procured several different
types of Future Medium Helicopter off the shelf, which is a possibility,
we would probably end up de facto with a smaller number of helicopters
in our fleet. You will be aware that the Gazelles are running
out of service and they will not be replaced. There is no reason
to replace their capability; we do not need it any more. Again,
that will be the elimination of a new type of helicopter, so we
are moving in that direction. I agree that that is a favourable
direction in which to move.
Q168 Mr Jenkin: We have 550 helicopters
in the current fleet. How many helicopters do we plan to finish
up with in 2020?
Mr Davies: That is a very good
question but I cannot answer that precisely today.
Q169 Mr Jenkin: Approximately?
Mr Davies: I would rather not
do that.
Q170 Mr Jenkin: Because it is embarrassing,
is it not?
Mr Davies: It is not embarrassing
at all. We are reviewing the whole of this and until we know which
of the two routes we shall take I cannot answer that question.
Q171 Mr Jenkin: It is likely to be
fewer than 300, perhaps 250?
Mr Davies: I should like to repeat
what I said yesterday in the House. I am interested in outputs
rather than inputs; I am not interested in counting platforms
but buying capabilities.
Q172 Mr Jenkin: It will be fewer
than 300, will it not?
Mr Davies: It will certainly be
fewer than 550.
Mr Holloway: Can you say to the nearest
50?
Q173 Mr Jenkin: Do you not know?
Mr Davies: It is not a question
of my not knowing. The numbers will flow from the establishment
of the capability, so I really cannot give a precise answer.
Q174 Mr Jenkin: Eleven years is not
a very long time in the timescale of helicopter capability.
Mr Davies: I will not make any
commitment today. Let us see if we can give you some idea.
Q175 Mr Holloway: Can you give it
to the nearest 50?
Mr Baguley: If I may, the intention
at the moment is to acquire over 120 new helicopters in the next
decade and we have plans in place to upgrade over 200 helicopters
over that period. That gives you a minimum number that we shall
be looking at. The decision on the final numbers for any of those
fleets will be made only when we make the formal investment decision.
Q176 Mr Holloway: You must have some
idea of the number to the nearest 50.
Mr Davies: I think that gives
a number of between 300 and 400, does it not? I am not prepared
to be tied down to any figure today, but we shall make an announcement
in due time. Some of the helicopter types we have we shall run
through to 2040. We have 48 Chinooks at the moment and they will
go past 2040. We have 67 Apaches and unless we have attrition
we shall keep those until after 2040. Therefore, a lot of the
current helicopter types we have will go right the way through.
Some of the helicopter types cannot go all the way through. We
have already explained our plans to change that. To some extent
it depends on which helicopter types we go for, which ones we
purchase if we go for the Future Medium Helicopter, what capability
we are purchasing and how many platforms we need. Therefore, the
number of platforms should be a function of the capability you
require, not the other way round. We start with capability.
Q177 Chairman: Yesterday you said
you were more interested in outputs than inputs. I understand
that while you are still making these decisions you do not want
to be tied to any particular number of platforms, but there is
something to be said for numbers as well as quality, is there
not? There is something to be said for having the helicopters
available to allow for increased tempo. Recently, Major General
Barney White-Spunner said that, "In land operations, mass
and tempo are key elements in tactical success and two available
frames will always be better than one". We understand the
benefits of increasing the number of hours from the helicopters
we have, but do you accept that there are genuine benefits in
increasing the number of helicopters that we have in order to
provide for that tempo and flexibility?
Mr Davies: I agree that there
are certain minimum numbers that you tend to need for any particular
tactical purpose, but I do not agree that two airframes are always
better than one. For example, I do not suppose for a moment that
two Gazelles are better than one Apache. That would be crazy.
One Apache is probably better than 10 Gazelles. You can play this
game for as long as you like, but it is not true to say that two
airframes are necessarily better than one. There is another reason
for my reticence in this matter. We have not decided which way
we are going forward; we have not entirely decided on the contractual
mechanism with which we will go forward. We will be going to suppliers
and asking what they can offer us. I do not want to say in advance
either how much money we are prepared to spend or exactly how
many units we will buy. That is not a sensible way to go into
commercial negotiation. We will enter into some commercial negotiations
if we go the different route that I have outlined that we may
possibly be considering at the present time. I am afraid that
I am not prepared to give the Committee today any precise figures
or a much better indication of the numbers than the ones I have
just given to Mr Holloway. It may be that in a few months' time
we shall be able to give the Committee something slightly more
precise about our projections.
Q178 Chairman: I have not been asking
about precise figures but the general direction in which defence
seems to be going with an incredible uplift in the capacity and
capability of each individual platform but a general reduction
in numbers so that the quality of numbers tend to be ignored or
left behind. Do you not accept that that is a worry in the helicopter
fleet as well?
Mr Davies: I totally accept that
that is a trend in defence with improving technology. I also accept
that in World War II we had perhaps 5,000 Lancaster bombers. We
will probably get far more capability out of two or three JSFs
in terms of the ability to strike the targets required with precision
and effect. That is perhaps an extreme example but it is an accurate
one; it is an instance of how technology drives the process that
you have just described. Is that a worry? It is not a worry because
I accept it. Does it mean that eventually we can have just one
or two combat aircraft or helicopters in operation? Of course
not. There comes a point when the graph begins to curve rather
sharply and you no longer get advantage by replacing numbers with
improved technology and effect. We have to look at it pragmatically
case by case, weapons system by weapons system and platform by
platform. The question is a very sensible, intelligent one and
one we should always ask ourselves. It is not one that is susceptible
to a very precise answer, but it is an issue to which we should
be alive. It certainly means that we should not be in the business
of just counting platforms or encouraging the public to play Dover
patrol, if you like, if they want to estimate what kinds of capability
their taxpayer money is being used to purchase because that would
not be a sensible way forward. We need to look at capability.
What I want increasingly to contract for is capability through
availability and capability contracts. We shall return to that
in this particular context as perhaps in others.
Q179 Chairman: Against the background
of the increasing capability of each platform but a reduction
in the number of platforms we know that a gap is emerging. There
will be a reduction or dip in the next few years, will there not?
Mr Davies: There will be a trend
towards a smaller number of platforms in helicopters as in other
systems for exactly the reasons you have described and we have
both been talking about.
Commodore Harding: I go back to
what I said about frontline commands telling us how well we are
doing and everything else. In some areas when you have capability
going out of service particularly during operations we the military
want the old capability at this level and the new capability—that
may not be numbers—at the same level. Occasionally, you
have to accept the fact that it is not possible to do that. There
is one example in the grey fleet which is the Merlin Mk1 to Mk2
programme where we are changing processes, bits of the cockpit
and the aircraft down at Culdrose. There will be a dip down to
a level that we have deemed to be as low as we can go while the
aircraft are returned to the manufacturer for rework. They are
not building new aircraft. A number of aircraft will go back into
the factory to be reworked and there will be a dip over time that
you have to live with. If you have new aircraft coming in you
will try all aspects to make sure that those numbers go down and
numbers come up. Over time in real life that is quite a tall order
and it is expensive. I go back to the point that during operations
you have to get that right. Outside operations you can take what
we call capability holidays where we accept that as a big aircraft
or new project comes in we might have to transfer over the people.
A good example is the Navy's future carriers. You have to take
the older carriers out of service earlier to get the people off
them retrained and refamiliarised with the new ships and put them
to sea. There is no other way of doing that other than by employing
vast numbers of additional people. Therefore, on some aspects
there are things we are able to do. Perhaps I may add one thing
about the numbers about which you asked. Over the period since
we built Gazelles, Lynxes and everything else—I refer to
the different roles and everything else as the Minister said—one
bit we sometimes forget is that when we speak of the Defence Helicopter
Flying School those aircraft are leased; the contractor delivers
the service and everything else. There are other areas in the
world where we have contractors providing the aircraft as well—Brunei,
Belize and in the future, Canada for the British Army training
range at Suffolk—because it is a better way of doing it.
Sometimes there is a considerable number of aircraft in those
three or four areas. Those numbers appear to show a huge fall-off,
whereas we are just doing it in a different way as the Minister
said and it is effective, if not more so.
Mr Baguley: For the record, we
currently lease 67 light helicopters. If we look at the overall
numbers we also need to consider which helicopter types we are
reducing. It is at the light end of the scale and that is because
some of those roles are being taken over by other assets such
as UAVs.
| 
