UK Watchkeeper Surveillance Programme
Interesting Questions …

As the Joint UAV Experimentation Programme (JUEP) for the Watchkeeper UAV system got underway, it was interesting to see the two bidding teams – led by Northrop Grumman and Thales – lay out their stalls at the DSEi defence trade show. In theory – well, let's wait and see about this! – there is meant to be quite a stiff canter-in towards an element of downselect in 2004, for early introduction into service of some element of capability in 2005. On this basis, we should see some interesting lobbying. So let's look at some of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the offerings.

TEAM: It can never be a mistake within the next five or so years to get General Dynamics in your team, especially if you are trying to integrate into Bowman. Bearing in mind programmes such as NITEworks, having BAES aboard is far from bad either. Both represent the varsity of UK land systems programmes and systems integration. For watchers of such matters, inclusion of Ultra Electronics is also a sound move.

HISTORY: NG has an excellent UAV track record in the US and is arguably that nation's choice-of-prime in the field – not a bad position to be in. It also has an excellent ISTAR pedigree with the US Department of Defense, rather like a "quality badge".

TECHNOLOGY: The choice of a helicopter UAV in the shape of the Fire Scout (shown left) theoretically opens a wide variety of options for operations and basing. It enables the drawing upon wide-ranging knowledge of UAVs from other test programmes, lowering risk as systems are selected.

BUT:

TECHNOLOGY: Why put sensitive surveillance equipment onto such a vibrating vehicle as a helicopter unless you simply have to? It merely adds to system complexity. After examples from Iraq, how safe is a helicopter UAV from ground fire? USMC studies tend to show that things hovering or moving slowly up to 5000 feet and even higher are ready targets to MMGs and HMGs. Also, if Fire Scout is so good, how come it lost the US Coastguard Deepwater contest – and was not selected by the USMC either?

ATTITUDE: There is a feeling abroad that – pardon the French! – NG is running this competition de haut en bas. Seasoned observers look back to NG's competition management for the ASTOR programme and shake their heads sadly. The competition would aver that much of the IP will rest in the USA, and that the UK would become a technology vassal of the USA via technology transfer agreements – or the lack of these. Perhaps too "soft" a factor, but a perturbing lack of Watchkeeper detail on NG's website heightens such perceptions.

DOCTRINE: NG believes that altitude is all and that high-level operation will ensure system safety. But what happens when one must dip below cloud base into that HMG envelope? How many $3- million Fire Scouts (not including payload) can you afford to lose?

THALES

UAVs: If you are going to go for air vehicles then at least opt for the best. This means Israel, as the user with the highest number of hours – indeed years – of operations. Promise for UK manufacture neutralises one objection to acquisition of Israelidesigned equipment. Another asset is the fact that the UK has little ethical concern over Israeli equipment (a) if it is UKsourced via a large-enough purchase, and, (b) is of a defensive nature. Defence Analysis knows of a good dozen UORs for Iraq that were of Israeli origin – but they were all defensive, armour packs, EW, decoys etc.

HISTORY: Thales has a sound history of system integration practically everywhere – SAM systems in Saudi Arabia, ships in Saudi Arabia and Taiwan, aircraft in UAE. Arguably, it is one of the best with results – but least known as far as PR is concerned.

BUT:

PEDIGREE: What is Thales's pedigree as a UAV system integrator, or even as a knowledgeable facilitator of UAV systems? After all, Sagem is France's preferred UAV system supplier, followed – under pressure – by EADS and Dassault. Thales is operating from a weak base when it comes to that allimportant "trust us" test.

BACKGROUND: Will Thales make the mistake of offering "A French solution, with Israeli content," as dismissively-described by one commentator (no, he didn't work for NG!)? See elsewhere in this edition for questions about Thales' UK position. It is a matter for concern.

TECHNOLOGY: Is the Hermes 180 UAV a technologically mature item? Although the Hermes 450 is combat proven, is its smaller brother sufficiently seasoned to meet stringent, paranoid Ministry of Defence requirements for system maturity?

These are the immediate questions that various Defence Analysis personnel have unearthed following a variety of discussions both at DSEi and afterwards. But some elements create an additional extra layer of matters for consideration:

ARMY/RAF: There were worries that the Royal Air Force would wish to opt for as big a UAV system – range, payload, endurance – as possible, ignoring the tactical aspects. Practically everyone says that both services are now reading off the same hymn sheet. But … the RAF does need a replacement for the Canberra recce aircraft, and a UAV looks so likely – will it try to drag Watchkeeper into that programme, rather than vice-versa?

RN: A concern for some. Will the RN try to slant Watchkeeper towards "littoral operations" with a requirement driven by decklaunched rotary UAVs? Or will the fact that for the Maritime Airborne Surveillance Capability (MASC) has seemingly ruled out use of helicopters for airborne surveillance act here? Concerns that the RN are the new "Dog In The Manger". The first squeals of delight or pain ought to start to come into hearing range by November. And don't rule out the possibility that the nature of the JUEP means that threw won't be a "winner takes all" approach, but a "best of breed" selection.

• UK Procurement System Fault Lines - THE PURE PRIESTHOOD OF PREVARICATION?
• Dismounted Close Combat Equipment Procurement - GROWING LIGHT
• Equipment Planning Theory - THE HIGHER, THE EASIER
• De-Conflicting Deep Strike Claims - EVERYONE WANTS THE SAME POT OF GOLD
• UK Budget Trades - NOT THAT DIFFICULT REALLY…
• Thales Business Position - SAME OLD STORY OR NEW VERSION?
• ROUND MID-EASTERN BAZAARS
• Spanish 2003-04 Defence Budget - THE KNEE IS NEARER THAN THE SHIN
• British Army Future Rapid Effects System Procurement - WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM HERE?
• Off-The-Shelf Future Rapid Effects System - RETAIL THERAPY TIME!
• UK Future Surface Combatant Programme - WHOSE SHIP IS IT?
• UK Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft Programme - NOW IT'S TIME TO WAIT
• Observations on Digitisation - IS ANYONE FOLLOWING ALL OF THIS …?
• DEFENCE INDUSTRY NEWS
• DEFENCE DIVERSITY

REF XQQDA XQQAS XQQEE XQQLD XQQAR XQQSA