Every government has one and although the last one was a reasonable attempt and meeting the conflicting needs of UK Defence and UK Plc the general perception was it was never funded properly and overtaken by events.

National Security Through Technology: Technology, Equipment, and Support for UK Defence and Security

The new strategy takes a different approach but oddly seems very similar.

The first thing to note is that it draws an explicit link between the defence and security sector which given the grey areas around the margins seems very sensible.

The main headline that has drawn the ire of the unions is the significant, or so it would seem, change in baseline policy that sees off the shelf as the default posture for new equipment.

One the best quotes came from Mike Clancy, deputy secretary general of Prospect union.

waffle seeking to justify the cuts that are already destroying the UK’s capability

At 60 odd pages there is plenty of scope for waffle and if one is looking for all the latest management jargon, you won’t be dissapointed.

The timing is somewhat poor, coming on the back of the disappointing decision in the Indian fighter competition.

The definition of value for money does not seem to include the indirect benefit to the nation of defence spending.

The problems with any defence industrial or technology strategy, made worse by the distinct lack of cash, is that the MoD has to reconcile too diametrically opposed interests.

If you are the armed services you want equipment, in quantity, in a timely manner and as cheap as possible. This often leads to compromise on specification and buying off the shelf on the global defence market.

If you are the government you want a vibrant defence industry because it has a wide range of economic and strategic benefit.

So the MoD has to try and balance both these needs and however one tries to fudge it, the result will always be flawed.

The nation and Treasury get the benefit of a strong defence industry but the MoD and service personnel have to pay the price.

So lets see how this one pans out.

]]> http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/industrial-and-technology-matters/feed/ 45 http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/consultants-on-five-grand-a-day-at-the-mod/ http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/consultants-on-five-grand-a-day-at-the-mod/#comments Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:52:57 +0000 Think Defence http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/?p=13088 Here is an interesting parliamentary question and answer from the last few days

Question

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 19 January 2012, Official Report, column 940W, on Harrier aircraft,

(1) what monetary value was given to the associated support equipment included in the sale of the Harrier aircraft;

(2) what the original cost was of the associated support equipment included in the sale of the Harrier aircraft to the US; and if he will make a statement;

(3) which company or companies invoiced his Department for (a) £0.7 million and (b) £0.4 million for consultancy services associated with the sale of Harrier aircraft to the US; what the consultancy services provided were; and how many hours of work, by how many consultants, these payments were for.

Answer

Question

Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the aims and objectives are of the Government’s policy on Turkey.

Answer

vid Lidington (Minister of State (Europe and NATO), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Aylesbury, Conservative)

The Government’s Strategic Partnership with Turkey directly contributes to the UK’s and Turkey’s security and prosperity. We are making good progress towards the Prime Minister’s goal of doubling trade within five years of his visit to Turkey in 2010—trade figures for 2011 show an increase of 40% since 2009. We will continue to develop our already close collaboration on security issues in those regions where the UK and Turkey share significant interests, including the middle east, north Africa and Afghanistan-Pakistan. The UK and Turkey will also implement new defence agreements on training and defence acquisition, signed during the State visit, and develop our active programme of co-operation to counter irregular migration and organised crime.

Question

Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on improving co-ordination between defence diplomacy and the Government’s wider diplomatic efforts to ensure national objectives are delivered.

Answer

Alistair Burt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Afghanistan/South Asia, counter terrorism/proliferation, North America, Middle East and North Africa), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), and the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend Mr Hammond, meet regularly in the National Security Council and other fora to discuss how to use all the levers of government to achieve our objectives. Last March, both Secretaries of State agreed to produce jointly a Defence Engagement Strategy to ensure we exploit fully the opportunities that our defence assets and activities provide for the adjustment of our wider international objectives. This strategy is being reviewed by Ministers and an announcement will be made in the House in the coming weeks.

Question

Michael Ellis (Northampton North, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much funding he plans to allocate to defence of the Falkland Islands in each of the next three years.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

The current, provisional, forecast for provision of funding for British Forces South Atlantic Islands, through the Joint Forces Command Top Level Budget which will shortly assume this budgetary responsibility, is as follows:

From 2011-12, responsibility and funding for estates management, including accommodation costs and utilities such as electricity and fuel oil, transferred to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation; this and funding in the other top level budgets is not shown in the table, to provide each top level budget’s expenditure in relation to the Falkland Islands would incur disproportionate cost.

Question

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to recognise the service of military veterans through a medal.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 January 2012, Hansard, column 11W, to Martin Horwood.

Question

Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department is providing to veterans who are experiencing mental health disorders as a result of their service in the armed forces.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

Medical care for our former armed forces personnel remains the responsibility of the national health service. However, the Ministry of Defence continues to work closely with the Department of Health to implement all the recommendations contained in the ‘Fighting Fit’ report produced by my hon. Friend Dr Murrison. These include the launch of a 24-hour helpline, the introduction of an enhanced mental health assessment in discharge medicals, the introduction of an online early intervention service, the Big White Wall, and the launch in April 2012 of a Veterans Information Service.

We also greatly value the work being done by the mental health charities, such as Combat Stress, and look forward to continuing to work with them.

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 14 November 2011, Official Report, column 526W, on disclosure of information, if he will publish the findings of the inquiry into the unauthorised disclosure of the letter between the former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister which appeared in The Daily Telegraph on 28 September 2010.

Answer

Philip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

holding answer17 January 2012

The investigation remains open. The person responsible for the leak has not been identified.

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to his Department’s finance transparency dataset,

(1) for what reasons £1,260.95 was spent on trips to bowling alleys by his Department; and who was present on those trips;

(2) for what reasons £69,923.26 was spent on music and piano stores by his Department;

(3) for what reasons £48,057 was spent on bars, pubs and nightclubs by his Department; what the dates were of such trips; who was present; and which venues were visited on each occasion;

(4) for what reasons £6,012.82 was spent on shopping trips to cosmetic stores by his Department;

(5) for what reasons £8,769.02 was spent on jewellery by his Department;

(6) for what reasons £2,004.80 was spent on cinema trips; and who was present on those trips;

(7) for what reasons £55,316.41 was spent on theatrical producers;

(8) for what reasons £16,584 was spent on trailer parks; and who was present on those trips;

(9) for what reasons £9,215.62 was spent at tourist attractions and exhibits; and who was present on those trips.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Ministry of Defence expenditure paid for by Government Procurement Card is, for security and administrative reasons, reported against merchant transaction categories of VISA‘S own taxonomy. The categories, which are designed to provide VISA with data on their customers’ business sectors, do not always accurately explain the nature of goods or services procured by the Department, and do not in themselves represent the full audit trail.

Expenditure listed as ‘trips to bowling alleys’ incurred between1 Apriland30 September 2011relates to leisure activities organised for Army new recruits as part of their induction into their training programme.

Expenditure listed as ‘music and piano stores’ (totalling £296,198.34) was incurred between 1 Apriland 30 September 2011in support of the Royal School of Music‘s training programme and on musical instruments for military bands.

Expenditure listed as ‘bars, pubs and nightclubs’, incurred between1 Apriland30 September 2011, represents the costs of accommodation and meals provided for military and civilian staff on detached duty, military operations and training exercises. I am withholding information on venues to protect the safety of our staff and suppliers.

Expenditure listed as `shopping trips to cosmetic stores’ incurred between 1 Apriland 30 September 2011relates to the purchases of demineralised water for a search radar in service with the Royal Navy and the purchase of air fresheners for waiting rooms and toilets in Careers Offices throughout the country.

Expenditure listed as `jewellery’ incurred between 1 Apriland 30 September 2011relates to the maintenance of a clocking-in machine at an MOD establishment, the purchase of new signs at an MOD establishment and for the provision of infantry dog tags and MOD police warrant card holders.

Expenditure listed as `cinema trips’ incurred between 1 Apriland 30 September 2011relates to the hire of a local venue for the Army Presentation Team and a leisure activity for new junior soldiers.

Expenditure listed as `theatrical producers’ incurred between1 Apriland31 October 2011relates to:

Car parking fees for Army and RAF Careers Offices in the west country.

Cultural awareness training for Army Officers.

Conference facilities for a staff awayday.

Exhibition stands for the disposal of surplus military equipment.

Local education services for a Service school.

Corporate hospitality for visiting VIPs from overseas.

Ferry tickets for Red Arrows‘ support vehicles.

RAF recruitment activities.

Activity in support of new junior soldier training.

Expenditure listed as ‘trailer parks’ incurred between1 Apriland30 September 2011relates to:

The use of a local swimming pool by an RAF station to provide sports facilities for new trainees, sports afternoons and rehabilitation therapy.

Accommodation for an RAF adventure training course.

Accommodation for a Joint Service Mountain Training Centre adventure training course.

Duke of Edinburgh award scheme activities in support of new junior soldier training.

Expenditure listed as ‘tourist attractions and exhibits’ incurred between1 Apriland30 September 2011relates to:

Annual car parking for an armed forces careers office.

Army officer training.

Acquaint visits to the Portsmouth Naval Base and Museum for potential recruits to the Royal Navy.

The annual Navy Day.

An RAF adventure training course.

Leisure activities in support of new junior soldier training.

Question

David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents of data loss or breaches of confidentiality occurred in his Department in 2011.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

holding answer25 January 2012

I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 November 2011, Hansard, columns 545-46W. During 2011, in 13 cases which involved the loss of personal data, the information involved was assessed as protected personal data and so can be considered to involve a breach of confidentiality.

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) how much the (a) Chief of the Defence Staff, (b) Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, (c) Chief of the Air Staff, (d) Chief of the General Staff and (e) First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff have spent on (i) gardening, (ii) entertainment and (iii) renovation and decoration of their official residences in 2011;

(2) how many staff were employed in the official residences of the (a) Chief of the Defence Staff, (b) Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, (c) Chief of the Air Staff, (d) Chief of the General Staff and (e) First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff in 2011; and what the cost to his Department was of such staff;

(3) how much his Department spent on accommodation for the (a) Chief of the Defence Staff, (b) Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, (c) Chief of the Air Staff, (d) Chief of the General Staff and (e) First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff in 2011.

Answer

Philip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

holding answer10 January 2012

Under previous arrangements, Official Service Residences (OSRs) were provided for senior officers in posts which required them to undertake official hospitality for defence purposes. As announced by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend Mr Robathan, on 12 December 2011, Hansard, column 63WS, these arrangements have now been discontinued and a new Domestic Assistance policy will realise savings of at least £3 million per year from April 2012.

Figures for expenditure on Official Service Residences in the financial year 2010-11 are currently being finalised. For the financial year 2009-10, the costs associated with the properties occupied by the senior officers specified are set out in the following table. It should be emphasised that responsibility for decisions on expenditure relating to these properties lies with the Ministry of Defence, and not with the officers who occupied them at the time, or the current occupants.

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on dry cleaning and laundry since May 2010; and what his Department’s policy is on allowing its staff to claim for such expenditure.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer20 January 2012

This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

The MOD’s military and civilian staff do not claim reimbursement for dry cleaning and laundry services, although they are permitted to use the flat-rate incidental expenses allowance for this purpose when on official business involving an overnight stay.

Where dry cleaning and laundry services are otherwise a permissible charge to the public purse, they are provided under contract (mainly as part of multi-activity contract arrangements), under local arrangements, through unit laundry facilities or by operational hygiene troops under field conditions.

Question

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons his Department does not have contingency plans for the event that the outcome of the review of the legality of the CHARM3 weapon system under Article 36 of the Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 concludes that its use could breach international humanitarian law.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

CHARM3 provides our armed forces with a unique tank-based anti-armour capability which cannot be provided by other munitions.

Question

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 10 January 2012, Official Report, column 15W, on Challenger tanks, whether it is his policy that the CHARM3 weapon system could be used before the outcome of the review under Article 36 of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

Should the security situation demand it, before the legal review is ready at the end of February 2012, then Challenger 2 tanks would be deployed in combat operations with appropriate anti-armour capabilities that provide our service personnel with the best possible protection.

Question

Hugh Bayley (York Central, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) how many (a) Yorkshire Regiment and (b) Gurkha (i) full-time soldiers and (ii) reservists were based in (A) Yorkshire and the Humber, (B) North Yorkshire and York and (C) City of York in (1) May 2010 and (2) December 2011; and how many such soldiers he expects to be based in each of these areas at the conclusion of Tranche 2 of the Armed Forces Redundancy Programme;

(2) how many (a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) RAF (i) full-time personnel and (ii) reservists were based in (A) Yorkshire and the Humber, (B) North Yorkshire and York and (C) City of York in (1) May 2010 and (2) December 2011; and how many such personnel he expects to be based in each of these areas at the conclusion of Tranche 2 of the Armed Forces Redundancy Programme.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The information requested in respect of Regular armed forces personnel is shown in the following tables.

Location information in respect of reserve forces is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Tranche 2 of the Armed Forces Redundancy Programme was launched on17 January 2012 and the outcome will not be known until June of this year. It is therefore too early to say at this stage how many people in each of these regions will be affected.

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel were killed in action in each country in each calendar year since 2000.

Answer

Question

Jim Shannon (Strangford, DUP)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to continue additional payments for daily rates for service personnel in Afghanistan at the present level.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

Yes. Our armed forces are currently deployed to the most demanding areas of conflict. It is right that they receive allowances, such as the tax free operational allowance, for the day-to-day demands of a deployment in Afghanistan.

Question

Lord Jones of Cheltenham (Liberal Democrat)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many seats are reserved for civilians on the Falklands Air Bridge service; and what changes have been made since 2010.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they make available Falklands Air Bridge service seats unused by service personnel to civilian island family members and tourists; and if they do not, whether they have considered the impact of such a move on Government revenue.

Answer

Lord Astor of Hever (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defence; Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence operates a twice weekly military air service to the Falkland Islands via Ascension Island. The air service is also used by passengers accessing St Helena. Under a joint agreement with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a number of seats are made available on each flight to the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island Governments. Those Governments are able to sell their seat allocations to local residents, and to commercial passengers wishing to visit these locations. These allocations are kept under review to ensure that they meet the needs and actual usage of those non-service personnel travelling to and from these locations. The following table sets out the current and previous seat allocations since 2010:

Where there is spare capacity over the allocations to the Ascension and Falkland Islands Governments and military requirements, additional seats are made available to non-military passengers on a paying basis.

Question

Lord West of Spithead (Labour)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there are plans to ensure future refitting and maintenance work on the new aircraft carriers can be conducted in English, Welsh and Northern Irish yards, and to ensure that the Valiant Jetty can easily be moved to Devonport or a similar deep water port such as Milford Haven.

Answer

Lord Astor of Hever (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defence; Conservative)

As part of work to develop a support solution for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, a number of locations are currently being assessed. We expect an initial decision to be taken around the middle of this decade.

The Ministry of Defence has not undertaken any work on how easy it would be to relocate the Valiant Jetty.

Question

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) what funding was provided by his Department to service leavers studying for (a) a first full level 3 or (b) a first higher education qualification free from tuition fees in each of the last four financial years;

(2) how many service leavers studied for (a) a first full level 3 or (b) a first higher education qualification free from tuition fees in each of the last four financial years.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The MOD promotes lifelong learning among members of the armed forces, and this is encouraged through the Learning Credits schemes. The Enhanced Learning Credit scheme is designed to complement the Standard Learning Credits scheme by providing larger scale help to personnel who qualify, with a single payment of £1,000 or £2,000 (dependent upon length of service) in each of a maximum of three separate financial years, to help pay towards the cost of higher-level learning. It remains available for up to 10 years after discharge.

The opportunity to undertake full time higher education free from tuition fees was introduced in July 2008, and is widely advertised and briefed to all eligible service leavers. Fewer than five (rounded) service leavers entered full time education in 2010 at a cost to the MOD of some £420. About 10 (rounded) service leavers entered full time education in September 2011 at a cost to the MOD of some £21,000.

Question

Michael Ellis (Northampton North, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many university graduates the armed forces have recruited since the end of the 2010-11 academic year.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

Records indicate that between August 2011 and18 January 2012, 623 graduates have entered the armed forces.

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which posts have been filled or created within his Department to oversee work on the military covenant in the last 12 months.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

holding answer25 January 2012

The armed forces covenant is a high priority for the Government, and this is reflected in the Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s business plan. Resources to take forward work on the covenant have been made available through the reallocation of existing duties across MOD head office and the services. Overseeing this work is the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel and Training).

Question

Hugh Bayley (York Central, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many full-time (a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) Royal Air Force personnel there were in (i) May 2010 and (ii) December 2011; and how many he expects there will be in the armed forces of (A) the UK and (B) other NATO member states in May 2015.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The requested information, where available, is presented in the following table:

As was made clear in the announcement on the strategic defence and security review, the Royal Navy will decrease to a total of some 30,000, the Army to some 95,000 and the RAF to some 33,000 by 2015.

We do not hold comprehensive information on the armed forces of NATO member states on a comparable basis.

Question

Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) nature and (b) extent of military links with the Government of Argentina are.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

The Defence section in the British embassy in Buenos Aires liaises with Argentine defence officials at appropriate levels in support of UK interests. There is no current bi-lateral defence activity.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Statement of Intent on Carrier Co-operation and Maritime Power Projection with the US;

(2) if he will estimate the cost of the operations with the US on training covered by the Statement of Intent on Carrier Co-operation and Maritime Power Projection in each year up to 2020;

(3) if he will estimate the cost of the number of personnel who will be assigned to training covered by the Statement of Intent on Carrier Co-operation and Maritime Power Projection; and what training they will receive.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Statement of Intent, jointly signed at Defence Secretary level on 5 January 2012, provides a high level framework for US/UK co-operation as the UK regenerates a carrier strike capability. Principal co-operative activities, including training, will be taken forward progressively through the working group structure established by the Statement of Intent and may, if necessary, be subject to separate and specific agreements. It is not possible at this early stage to provide estimates of costs that might arise from co-operative activities undertaken within the framework of the Statement of Intent.

The document will be placed in the Library of the House.

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) how many of the soldiers who served in the conflict in (a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq were covered by PAX life insurance but with fewer than 15 units of insurance;

(2) how many soldiers who have served in the conflict in (a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq did so while being covered by PAX life insurance;

(3) how many soldiers who have served in the conflict in (a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq served without having PAX life insurance or any other life insurance;

(4) how many soldiers who have served in the conflict in (a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq were killed without having either PAX life insurance or any other life insurance.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

I will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.

Substantive answer from Andrew Robathan to Jim Murphy:

I undertook to write to you on 16 January 2012, Hansard, column 437W, in answer to your question about PAX, and other insurance held by service personnel serving in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, the data requested can be found as follows:

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has any plans to remove the London allowance for its civil servants who live in London.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

holding answer30 January 2012

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) remunerates civilian staff through a London pay scale and through the payment of London weighting allowance. Both allowances are paid to staff who work in London. The MOD has no current plans to remove either of these payments.

Question

Menzies Campbell (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) pursuant to the answer of 12 January 2012, Official Report, column 416W, on aircraft carriers, whether his Department has conducted, or plans to conduct, investigations into the compatibility of advanced arresting gear with the Joint Combat Aircraft; and whether it has contributed, or intends to contribute, resources to investigations carried out by the US;

(2) on what date his Department was first made aware of compatibility issues in relation to the advanced arresting gear and the Joint Combat Aircraft.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence is aware of the F35C Arrestor Hook compatibility issues, which came to light during Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) testing in August 2011. Discoveries of this nature can only be expected during development of such complex technology and design solutions to the Arrestor Hook arrangements are already well advanced. These will be tested and proven as part of the ongoing JSF development test programme, in which the UK is fully engaged as a level one partner, with approximately 40 civilian and military personnel embedded across various US sites.

Question

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft of each type are in service in each branch of the armed forces; and where each such aircraft is based.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer30 January 2012

The number of fixed wing and rotary aircraft in service with each branch of the armed forces, and where each such aircraft is based is shown in the following table:

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) on how many occasions Combined Air Operations Centre Finderup has directed Quick Reaction Alert flights from each RAF base;

(2) how many UK service personnel are assigned to each Combined Air Operations Centre.

Answer

ck Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

To identify unknown aircraft in the NATO Air Policing Area, the NATO Combined Air Operations Centre Finderup issued direction to United Kingdom Control and Reporting Centres for the launch of UK military Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) aircraft on 10 occasions in 2011. The choice of the QRA base or bases used for each incident is at the discretion of the tactical commander and forms part of the deterrent value of our QRA posture. Therefore, this figure includes launches from both RAF Coningsby and RAF Leuchars.

The number of UK service personnel currently assigned to Combined Air Operations Centres (CAOC) is 47. The following table details the locations of each CAOC and the personnel numbers at each:

Question

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the careers advice provided to service personnel upon the conclusion of their service.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence fully understands that making the transition from the armed forces into civilian life can be daunting and we remain committed to supporting service leavers in making this important step. Critical to this is having in place a robust and effective resettlement system that allows our service personnel to serve secure in the knowledge that they will receive professional and tailored assistance upon leaving.

To monitor the quality of the careers advice we offer our people, there are in place a number of governance procedures, through nationally recognised accreditation standards as well as internal monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. As a result, 95% of entitled service personnel who are leaving the armed forces elect to use the advice we offer them.

Question

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 19 January 2012, Official Report, column 940W, on Harrier aircraft,

(1) what monetary value was given to the associated support equipment included in the sale of the Harrier aircraft;

(2) what the original cost was of the associated support equipment included in the sale of the Harrier aircraft to the US; and if he will make a statement;

(3) which company or companies invoiced his Department for (a) £0.7 million and (b) £0.4 million for consultancy services associated with the sale of Harrier aircraft to the US; what the consultancy services provided were; and how many hours of work, by how many consultants, these payments were for.

Answer

Question

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2011, Official Report, column 947W, on military aircraft, when he expects to publish the findings of the capability investigation on maritime surveillance capability; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence has completed its capability investigation into its long term requirements for maritime surveillance capability, but I am withholding the information as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.

Statement

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I am pleased that we are publishing today our White Paper on “National Security Through Technology: Technology, Equipment, and Support for UK Defence and Security” which has been developed jointly with the Home Office. This fulfils one of our commitments in the strategic defence and security review and follows on from the Green Paper “Equipment, Support and Technology for UK Defence and Security:

A Consultation Paper”. As its title implies, the White Paper emphasises the contribution that using, sustaining and developing technology makes to our security.

This is the first time that the UK Government have set a formal statement of our approach to defence and security technology, equipment, and support. This is our high-level policy until the next strategic review, which is expected to be held in about 2015. It supersedes the defence industrial strategy 2005 and the defence technology strategy 2006.

We must ensure that our armed forces, national security, and law enforcement agencies have the best capabilities we can afford at the best value for money for the taxpayer. Balancing these considerations appropriately is even more important given the economic situation we face.

Wherever possible, therefore, we will seek to fulfil the UK’s defence and security requirements through open competition in the domestic and global market, buying off-the-shelf where appropriate. We will look first for products that are proven, that are reliable and that meet our current needs. This is the best way of ensuring that our armed forces and security services have access to the equipment they need at the time they need it and at a price the nation can afford.

However, and importantly, where essential for national security, we will protect the UK’s operational advantages and freedom of action; when we do this it will mean sustaining the necessary people, skills, infrastructure, and intellectual property that allow us to build and maintain our national security.

Technology underpins this approach so it is our intention to end a long period of declining budgets and maintain MOD’s investment in science and technology at a minimum of 1.2% of the defence budget as protection for our future.

Defence and security procurement has a significant industrial and economic impact. Our policy on technology, equipment and support for UK defence and security also supports our wider economic policy objective to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth for the UK. A healthy and competitive defence and security industry in the UK contributes to growth and a re-balanced economy.

The White Paper reaffirms our commitment to doing our utmost to assist UK-based suppliers in obtaining export orders and to increase opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to fulfil their potential. We will continue to create the right conditions for SMEs to deliver the innovation and flexibility that we need and which they bring. We are doing this because of the benefits to the companies themselves, to the wider UK economy and to the security of the United Kingdom.

This assistance for SMEs is part of our wider work to ensure public procurement promotes growth, and includes publishing medium-term procurement pipelines; simplifying procurement processes to reduce burdens on industry, and engaging with potential suppliers at a much earlier stage, before formal procurement begins, to increase their opportunities to participate.

The defence and security sectors are vital to the success of the UK economy. In 2010 the UK was the second biggest exporter in the world with £6 billion of sales and the UK security industry was the fifth most

successful exporter of security products with £2 billion of sales. The Government remain committed to robust and effective national and global controls to help prevent exports that could undermine our own security or core values of human rights and democracy; to protect our security through enhancing strategic defence relationships; and to promote our prosperity by allowing UK defence and security companies to operate effectively in the global defence market.

We are proud of the strength of the UK defence and security industries. They help provide the UK armed forces, national security, and law enforcement agencies with some of the very best kit available. They are better equipped now than they have ever been. We recognise the wider impact that Government spending choices on defence and security can have and we are therefore establishing a new ministerial working group to co-ordinate the cross-Government aspects of our new approach.

This White Paper, alongside the publication later this year of the MOD’s 10-year equipment plan, is intended to be a high-level guide to our approach to meeting the requirements of our armed forces. At a time of financial constraint across Government, it is even more important to provide the clarity that will help industry to invest in the right areas, protecting both our security and the contribution these companies make to the UK economy. We plan to continue to invest a significant amount in defence equipment and its support: over £150 billion over the next 10 years.

The White Paper is part of a broader defence transformation programme, which also includes implementation of the Levene review, the Materiel Strategy, and Lord Currie’s review of Government Single Source Pricing Regulations.

As the companies offering defence and security products and services become increasingly aligned, these steps will encourage a vibrant UK-based industry that is able to win a significant share of the world market, and to meet the varied and changing capabilities required by our armed forces and security services.

Technology moves on, these three videos shows the rapid pace of development and whilst it is a stretch to look at the clever acrobatics on display here and a militarily useful system it is something we should be paying attention to, simply because it is disruptive and blasting CAMM and Starstreak at a swarm of weaponised UAV’s has only as much life as it takes to run out of missiles.

Our enemies do not need to play by the same rules as us, cluster munitions or chemical weapons with a simple fuse or remote detonation system could cause disproportionate losses. Go up a notch and consider what would happen if a couple of hundred of these were flew over an armoured formation, each one equipped with an explosively formed munition.

Consider the cost differential as well.

It doesn’t even need to be weaponised either, a simple camera and frequency hopping transmitter provides the kind of real time intelligence that has usually been the sole preserve of nation states militaries.

Lift performance might be limited to showing off and not much more but this will change and the really clever stuff embedded in the control systems will equally move fast.

Are we ready?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

When one digs into the detail of the announcement it would seem that it majors on price, the Rafale package coming in cheaper. Now, given the track record of the Rafale and its development background it would seem on face value to be quite surprising, I haven’t seen any allegations of subsidy but no doubt someone will.

Alternatively, it could simply be a bargaining device to get the price of the Typhoon down.

From the BBC

Dassault Aviation will now enter final negotiations before any deal is signed for supplying India with 126 Rafale aircraft. Officials at the British High Commission in Delhi said they were disappointed with the decision and would now study the details. A statement read: “It was expressly said this was about the cost of the contract, not a reflection on the health of bilateral relations between India and the countries.” The officials said they “genuinely believed the [Eurofighter] Typhoon offered the best capability now and in the future”. They also said it was “not beyond imagination” that India might decide the Rafale was not the right option as it continued the process.

Who knows where this will end but I don’t think the rotund lady has sung just yet.

One of my favourite clips is one on the Royal Army Service Corps, the forerunner of today’s Royal Logistic Corps.

Click here for an interesting 17 minutes and 22 seconds.

A number of design drivers informed the requirement for the MGB, an increasing desire for air portability for example, but what made it possible was a rapid advance in aluminium alloy composition and aluminium welding techniques. Aluminium had of course been used extensively in aerospace industry but this was largely confined to cast or sheet parts, the new aluminium zinc magnesium alloys had excellent heat recovery properties and could therefore be welded. Different types of alloy were experimented with including Hiduminium 48, Impalco 720 and the French Superalumag 75 but none of these proved to be completely satisfactory so MEXE decided to create its own formulation, the DGFVE Specification 232. DGVFE Specification 232 contained 4% zinc, 2% magnesium and 0.35% manganese and the latest version is still widely used, DEFSTAN 95-31 contains 0.15% of copper to improve resistance to stress corrosion.

Not content with developing new material MEXE also pioneered the welding thick sections of aluminium alloy using the Metal Inert Gas (MIG) and Tungsten Inert gas (TIG) systems.

Design work for the MGB, a replacement for the HGB and EWBB except on lines of communication, started in the early sixties in response to a requirement for a hand built bridge that could carry a Class 60 load over a 100 foot span and be used on battle group supply routes, not in the direct fire zone.

At about the same time Sir Donald Bailey left to become the Dean of the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham and was replaced by Brigadier Jarret-Kerr (mentioned in the post on Bailey bridges). Leading the MGB design project was the former Royal Engineers Major, Eric Longbottom, who had helped to design the Mobile Bailey, the Heavy Girder Bridge and, yes, the MEXEFLOTE!

The original single storey proposal was changed to a double storey to enable greater flexibility and the design specification called for a Class 60 load in single storey construction at 30 feet span and the same Class 60 load at 100 feet span but in double storey construction. The concept is similar to the Small Box Girder bridge, that is two longitudinal girders with decking panels, that of course is where the similarity ends.

Basic Design and Features

One of the key aspects of the MGB’s success is its simplicity, this does not mean it was simple to design, far from it, but users have to contend with a mere 7 major components and a number of supplementary components like curbs and footways.

Only 4 of these major components are used in the single storey configuration.

MGB components

MGB components

The longitudinal girders are built connecting multiple top panels and deck units used to connect them. Bankseat beams connect the girders at either end of the bridge and ramps are hooked on to these. For a single storey bridge, that is all that is needed.

Adding the triangular shaped bottom panel, junction panel and end taper panels turn the bridge into a double storey configuration.

MGB Configuration

A great deal of thought was also given the speed of construction; there is even a special trailer where pallets can pulled onto the ground, the same roller bearings are used for single or double storey construction and when building the frame, jacks allow it to accommodate uneven ground.

Medium Girder Bridge Frame

A building frame is used to assemble and launch the sections

All bridges are launched ‘undecked’ and a launching nose used with long and double storey bridges in a similar manner the Small Box Girder bridge, this is a specially designed component available in light and heavy flavours.

Medium Girder Bridge Launching nose

MGB Launch Phases

The panels themselves are designed to be very quick to fit together and the outer jaw of the panel will fail first, thus any stress or fatigue failures will be detected early.

The MGB is shot through with clever design features.

MGB Pallet

In comparison with the Extra Widened Bailey Bridge, at a Class 60 100 foot span, the MGB weighs less than a third, needs just over a quarter of the manpower and less than 20% of the time.

To say the MGB was a significant advance is rather an understatement.

The MGB was fast, teams from the UK, Holland and the USA would compete for the Fairey Engineering Silver Cup at annual ‘Sapper Games’ and the World Record is (I think) just over 6 minutes for a 5 bay single storey by a Royal Engineer regiment, 4 Squadron 21 Engineer regiment I think, although the rules changed often and with modern safety regulations unlikely to ever be bettered even though it will provide hours of debate and discussion about rules, whether teams could use fewer (big strapping) men on the build to reduce timing etc.

Click here to view the embedded video.

What does the manual say?

30 minutes!

Wikipedia has some good pictures of the construction sequence, click here

The component parts on their pallets are air portable by Chinook and in some configurations a complete bridge without decking panels can be placed into position by air although there would still need to be time allowed to prepare the bridge site and finish it off with other components either driven or flown in separately.

The image below shows an Australian trial conducted in 2002 with a 22m single span MGB.

Australian MGB Heli Bridging trials

To summarise, the MGB can span 9.8m in single storey configuration, 31.1m in double storey, 76m using multi span equipment and 49.4m using the link reinforcement set, all built by hand and in very short times.

The MGM entered service in 1971.

Although the Medium Girder Bridge was officially replaced by the General Support Bridge it has been retained in use for training and has also been deployed on recent operations a number of times, it seems the Mean Green Bridge just won’t go away!

Mechanized Brigades Royal Engineers, 26 Engineer Regiment, are pictured putting their trade skills to the test by building a bridge at Swinton Barracks in Perham Down in the run up to their deployment to Afghanistan this year. Photographer: Cpl Paul Morrison RLC

The modern form of the MGB is the medium Girder Overbridge, or MGOB.

Multi Span

To accommodate longer gaps a set of multi span equipment was designed and introduced. The multi span equipment consists of two major components, the span junction set and portable pier set. Any length bridge can theoretically be built from MGB components but for more than three spans the practical launching procedure is complex and places a great deal of stress on the bridge so for these reasons, a limit of 3 spans is enforced, 76 metres.

MGB Multi Span

Bridge sections are joined together using the span junction set, it being essentially a linking adapter for double span bridges and the bridge is supported on multiple piers, not dissimilar in concept to the pontoon piers I looked at earlier in the series.

The pier has a maximum height of 18m and can be used in wet or dry gaps, built up in sections with articulators being jacked into position to adjust position. Improvised or existing piers can also be used.

Floating

For longer spans the MGB can be to create a floating or pontoon bridge, at Class 70. It can be used in single storey or double storey configuration depending on the distance between pontoons. Where a large rise and fall of the river is expected due to flooding or tides double storey construction allows the landing span to be longer and thus accommodate this variation. A double storey floating bridge can accommodate bank heights of up to 5m.

Floating MGB

Any type of pontoon can be used but WFEL produce a dedicated MGB Pontoon but I don’t think these ever came into service with the British Army.

MGB pontoon

The same span junction set used in multi span bridges is also used to connect multiple bridge sections to provide articulation when being supported on pontoons or other floats.

MGB’s can also be used to create floating ferries at Class 90.

Reinforced

To increase the load capacity of single span MGB’s a Link Reinforcement Set was introduced. The LRS uses pinned reinforcing links that are attached underneath the bridge and tensioned using steel cables and Tirfor jacks although the tension is kept to a minimum, enough to remove slack from the links and move them into a vertical position.

MGB Link Reinforcement Set

The LRS does not increase the load carrying capacity but maintains it over a longer distance, up to 49.4m.

This all sounds very simple but have a read of this manual to dispel any of those thoughts!

Mechanically Aided Construction

In order to reduce the personnel needed to construct MGB’s the MACH MGB (Mechanically Aided Construction by Hand) is used. MGB modules, a 3 bay double storey panel for example, are built away from the bridge site and built on site using suitable cranes or hydraulic jibs.

Manufacturing

Fairey Engineering Limited were contracted to manufacturer the MGB and still do to this day. Fairey Engineering are now called WFEL Limited and for a comprehensive history of WFEL, their web site has the details, click here to view.

Bridging the World

WFEL have applied their expertise to the design and construction of a demountable ski jump for the Joint Strike Fighter programme and were recently awarded a contract to supply an additional MGB for the British Army and associated repair services.

MGB was increased to Class 70 at some reduction in lifespan with the introduction of the heavier Challenger tank in the eighties.

Operations

Soldiers from 73 Armoured Engineer Squadron 21 Engineer Regiment Royal Engineers construct a 5 Bay Medium Girder Over Bridge over a tributary of the river Euphrates near the village of Al Latifiyah as the Black watch extend their operations north of the Euphrates and enable the the locals to cross the river in safety. It took the Engineers 21 miniutes to construct the bridge under the protection of Warriors from A Company The Black Watch

The MGB is still in service with the British Army, US Army, USMC and many more.

The video below shows 29 Armoured Engineer Squadron, part of 35 Engineer Regiment, in preparation for Afghanistan building an MGB

Click here to view the embedded video.

and in Afghanistan

Demonstrating their versatility, MGB’s have been used in Afghanistan as footbridges, joining together undecked top panels to form a narrow bridge.

MGB in Afghanistan. Now the patrol base we are building required a Medium Girder Bridge to bridge the gap over a small irrigation channel. It was about a 5-6 metre gap and without the bridge no building supplies or stores could be brought in by the 60 vehicle Combat Logistics Patrol. It also had to be sturdy enough to take some significant weight from containerised lorries. We started building it at 0530 and it took us a day to complete.

They are still widely used and there is a great example of one being used in the aftermath of the recent tsunami in Japan (anyone have a clue what they are saying?)

Click here to view the embedded video.

To summarise, the MGB was a significant step forward in military bridging, still sold today and still in wide service today, yet another testament to MEXE, WFEL and the Royal Engineers.

OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES

UK Military Bridging – Introduction

An introduction to the series

UK Military Bridging – Definitions and General Terms

A look at terminology and general requirements

UK Military Bridging – Early Days

From Edward I to Afghanistan with a diversion to ancient Greece and Rome

UK Military Bridging – World War I

Including the immediate post war period

UK Military Bridging – World War II (Far East)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

UK Military Bridging - World War II (North West Europe)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

UK Military Bridging - World War II (Italy)

Split into three campaigns, North West Europe, Italy and the Far East

UK Military Bridging – Post War

Immediately after WWII and the recent flooding in the UK

UK Military Bridging – Iraq and Afghanistan

Both recent theatres

UK Military Bridging – Load Classification

The specifics of how bridge load classification works

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – Floating Equipment

Equipment from the earliest pontoons to the modern M3 Rig

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Assault Bridging)

Ushered in by the emergence of the tank, assault bridging covers the equipment used from Cambrai to Iraq

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Construction Bridging)

Building bridges from scratch and improvised bridging

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Pre WWII Equipment Bridging)

The Inglis, Hopkins, Callender Hamilton, Large Box Girder and Small Box Girder bridges

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Bailey Bridge)

The legendary technological marvel of the modern world and its modern descendants!

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (The Medium Girder Bridge)

The Medium Girder Bridge or MGB

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Air Portable Bridges)

The Class 16 and Air Portable Ferry Bridge

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (BR90)

BR90, today’s bridging system

UK Military Bridging – Equipment – (Trackway)

Bridging support equipment

A recent Janes Defence Weekly reported on a Royal Navy lessons learned document in which the two major shortcomings were a lack of precision land attack capability and organic unmanned ISR.

Janes quoted Colonel Pierson RM, the Deputy Director of NATO Operations in Libya;

It was evident that the Libya campaign showed the need for precision fires, [perhaps the Lockheed Martin] Guided Multiple Rocket Launch System (GMLRS), from the sea base, deep into enemy littoral territory.

He added that there was a requirement on RN Warships for;

Unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), such as the brilliant live feed, full motion video provided by [Boeing] Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle

Looking at both these lessons learned it is obvious that both these clear gaps in capability are where the Royal Navy has lagged behind many other naval forces.

Incidentally, I note we discussed the issue some time ago, how very bloody clever we all are!

I know I might get accused of sounding like a stuck record but these are the kind of obvious capabilities that get left beyond whilst pursuing a certain large programme, it crowds out investment in moderately priced equipment that delivers huge value in likely operations.

We might also reflect on the cost, especially in comparison with carrier borne or land based fast jet aircraft and Apache helicopters. Whilst not replacing either, the simple fact that we keep getting reminded how much the world population coalesces around coastlines when discussing CVF/JCA is something that cuts both ways.

If we can improve our ability to deliver strike up to a couple of hundred kilometres inland from surface vessels does it reduce the demand for the RAF and RN’s fast jets?

Anyway, onto the post…

Organic ISR

The ability to extend the sensor reach beyond the horizon is of obvious benefit and usually this would be carried out by a frigate or destroyers helicopter but when there is a threat from ground fire helicopters become more difficult to deploy so many solutions exists for deploying sensors (and sometimes weapons) using unmanned systems.

It is depressing to think that the Royal Navy has been so slow to unmanned party, the reasons are of course largely financial but despite testing a number of systems like the Insitu Scan Eagle several years ago nothing has been introduced into service.

One might assume that an unmanned air vehicle operating from a ship must be vertical take off and landing, like a helicopter, but that is not necessarily the case although the emerging VTUAS requirement would seem to dictate a vertical take-off and landing solution.

The initial target date seems to be around the 2020 to 2024 mark, incredible given the range of low cost off the shelf solutions available and obvious need now.

The debate seems to be whether to opt for something that is just used for ISR or a system that offers a greater payload for weapons or even stores. Greater payload generally means shorter endurance and range so there is a balance to be struck. Whilst carriage of larger payloads may be useful, to match the endurance of the smaller ISR systems would mean multiple vehicles, increasing cost and of course, most ships are not overflowing with space.

A few options;

Schiebel Camcopter

Similar to Skeldar, the Camcopter S-100 from Scheibel has an hour longer endurance than Skeldar at 6 hours and can carry a range of sensor and communication payloads weighing 34kg in total. An external fuel tank can also be fitted to extend endurance to 10 hours.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Camcopter and LMM

It has also been shown armed with a single Lightweight Multirole Missile from Thales.

Lightweight Multi-role Missile

The Camcopter is in service with the UAE, being introduced in German naval service, has been demonstrated from a French Gowind class offshore patrol vessel and Libya also ordered 4 systems in 2009, wonder where they are now!

Gizmag wrote a good article on the Camcopter, click here, in which they describe the cost of a two air vehicle system complete with control station, payload, ground equipment, logistics package and training to be in the order of $2m

Click here to read the brochure which includes an interesting picture of the Camcopter being used to drop leaflets.

Saab Skeldar

The Saab Skeldar V-200 is the latest version of the Skeldar rotary wing UAV in both land and maritime variants. Although having a much shorter endurance than the ScanEagle the advantages of VTOL and hover in flight are obvious.

Saab have also demonstrated the Skeldar operating from a CB90 which highlights an interesting combination of smaller patrol craft operating at distance from the host vessel and extending their ISTAR reach even further.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The maritime version has a 40kg payload, an endurance of 5 to 7 hours and uses a diesel engine, important for ship safety reasons.

The Skeldar has an interesting ISO Container system that houses the air vehicle, all maintenance equipment and spares and can be configured to have a roof mounted landing and take off platform so the whole system can be easily hosted aboard a variety of vessels and transferred just as easily.

Firescout

The Northrop Grumman MQ-8B is a mature vertical take off and landing unmanned system with a long development background and proven deployment credentials with US forces. Developed from the Schweizer 333 it is a much larger aircraft than the Camcopter or Skeldar as shown by a comparison of payloads, for short missions the Firescout can lift over 300kg. Normal endurance is between 5 and 8 hours.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Its stub wings also allow the carriage of a variety of missiles such as Hellfire or guided 70mm rockets.

MQ-8B Fire Scout

RQ - MQ 8 FireScout

Click here for brochures.

Hummingbird

Although still a rotary winged UAV the Boeing Hummingbird is very different from the others and arguably, much more cutting edge. Its unique propulsion system allows the rotor speed to be varied and this provides advantages in altitude and endurance, where it can operate at 15,000 feet for in excess of 20 hours carrying a payload of up to 130kg.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Hummingbird was tested with the FOliage penetrating REconnaissance, Surveillance, Tracking and Engagement Radar (FORESTER) system, click here for an in depth article, although it had a few problems in Belize

Click here to view the embedded video.

Moving beyond Gorgon Stare is the DARPA sponsored ARGUS-IS project being developed byBAe.

This ambitious programme will create a 1.8 Gigapixel camera system able to cover a 40 km2 area at 15 frames per second from an A160 Hummingbird or Reaper UAV. To process this enormous data volume it will use an airborne processing system to deliver up to 65 windows that users can zoom into or out of on demand. The software makes the difference; its advanced target recognition algorithms provide movement detection and target tracking.

Other payloads might include the ubiquitous EO sensor pod, SAR or multiples of the same.

It is ARGUS that has been in the news recently with a planned deployment to Afghanistan very soon.

Click here to view the embedded video.

If one compares the Hummingbird with the Fire Scout, the former can fly higher and longer but carry less.

Boeing / Insitu Scan Eagle

The ScanEagle has an interesting history, initially introduced in 2001 to assist tuna fishing fleets it has evolved into a mature, low cost, flexible and highly effective family of vehicles and payloads. A few months ago it notched up its half million flying hours milestone.

In Libya the Scan Eagle demonstrated its capabilities and after, Insitu released a press release

“What happened over that period of time, no one expected,” says ScanEagle Detachment Officer in Charge Lt. Nick Townsend. “ScanEagle was locating contacts of interest that no one else could find. After the dust settled, ScanEagle was credited with locating a host of contacts of interest due to its ability to capture superior image quality and to operate covertly at relatively low altitudes.” Captured imagery was delivered from the ship to the task force via secure networked channels provided by the Secure Video Injection system from The Boeing Company, Insitu’s parent company. The UAV-provided, near-real-time video helped enable quick, tactical decisions.

The video below demonstrates just how compact and easy to use the launch and recovery equipment is, incidentally shot from the same USS Mahon that operated the Scan Eagle in Libya.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Scan Eagle launch

To reinforce just how compact the Scan Eagle launch mechanism the image below shows one being launched from US Navy Mark V Special Warfare boat.

To see the full specs, loads of video and images click here to go to the Insitu website.

ScanEagle can be upgraded to NightEagle specification only a few hours.

The Scan Eagle is a mature system and has many optional extras and a full range of sensors and supporting payloads in addition to mission planning and image analysis tools. It really is an off the shelf system.

Integrator

Scan Eagle has a bigger brother, the Integrator that can carry a larger payload yet still use the same launch and recovery method. The Integrator has been selected by the USN and USMC to fulfil the Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (STUAS) requirement.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Boeing Integrator

One of the strengths of the Scan Eagle and Integrator is the modular payload bay that has had many systems already integrated; electro optical, infra red and synthetic aperture radar as imaging payloads for example. Other useful payloads include communications relays of various types and an intelligent ships AIS interrogator that matches a received AIS signal with imagery to confirm the identity of a ship.

The 24 hour endurance is certainly impressive but limited to sensor payloads.

Click here for a brochure.

Gazelle and SW-4

These are interesting not only because they are conversions of existing manned helicopters (like many of these rotary UAV’s) but because of their UK connection, which makes them likely contenders for any RN programme.

Northrop Grumman and QinetiQ proposed an unmanned Gazelle and described their solution as ‘short term and low cost’

The unmanned Gazelle would use the control systems of the Northrop MQ-8B Firescout which does kind of beg the question why not just buy the much more mature Firescout in the first place.

Using the Gazelle as a platform makes sense – it’s a proven system with low support and operating costs. We could bring in a capability a lot sooner than the navy currently believes is possible,” he said.

Re-inventing the wheel?

Speaking at DSEi 2011, Qinetiq’s assistant technical director of avionics, Jeremy Howitt, said;

Qinetiq would be responsible for programme management and integration activities under the proposal, which would also include flight test activities from the West Wales UAV Centre at Aberporth. Unmanning an aircraft is the relatively easy part. The difficult part is providing the multiple levels of redundancy and failure management required that allows you to deliver military effect. We could do an initial demonstration within 12 months, and within the order of £10 million

12 months and ten million quid for a demonstrator, mmm

Given that Gazelle is due out of service soon and the maturity of competing systems it is hard to see the advantages of reinventing the wheel.

At around the same time Agusta Westland (now owners of the Polish helicopter manufacturer PZL-Swidnick) announced a possible conversion of their SW-4 light helicopter.

SW-4 Unmanned, that will another directorship please!

The first unmanned flight was scheduled for early this year.

Both these were aiming for an endurance of 8 hours depending on the payload weight.

Precision Land Attack

The Future Maritime Fires Concept Phase is due to complete in around mid 2012 so no doubt the lessons from Libya will play a large part in informing the study. With the cancelling of the BAe 155mm TMF project the choice of a naval gun has narrowed but there are also missile and UAV delivered systems worthy of consideration.

Question

Julian Lewis (New Forest East, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the replacement of existing warship guns by ones of 155mm; and if he will make a statement on his policy, with special reference to (a) the future frigate fleet and (b) Type 45 destroyers.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

No decision on the calibre of the new Maritime Indirect Fire System (the new naval gun) has yet been made. This will be taken when work to consider the available options under the Future Maritime Fires Concept Phase is complete in around mid-2012.

The Maritime Fires Concept, of which the Maritime Indirect Fire System (MIFS) is part, is being delivered in conjunction with the Niteworks Partnership and is expected to be met by a medium calibre gun or MCG. The other part of MFS is the Maritime Indirect Fire Precision Attack (MIFPA) is expected to be delivered using missile systems, potentially Fire Shadow.

Guns

The existing 115mm/4.5” Mark 8 Mod 1 gun aboard Royal Navy vessels has its origins in the late sixties and has given excellent service. The HE Extended Range round uses base bleed to propel the round to a maximum range of 27.5km and the existing illumination nature is also still available. In order to maintain a sustained rate of fire of 16-20 rounds per minute and accommodate the more powerful ammunition types the barrel is 62 calibres long. It has seen extensive service including action off the Falkland Islands (8,000 rounds), Iraq and Libya.

As we know though, there is not a large installed base on which to spread development costs of precision, proximity and IR illumination or smoke natures so the open market seems an obvious place to look, especially given the 155mm TMF concept has been cancelled.

There are a number of options but probably only two realistic ones, the BAE 5” Mark 45 and the Oto Melara 127mm Compact and Lightweight.

The Mark 45 Mod 4 from BAE, as used by the US Navy, South Korea, Denmark, Australia and others, is a 5”/127mm system with a 62 calibre barrel and is capable of a rate of fire up to 20 rounds per minute.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Oto Melara system comes in a Compact form and the newer Lightweight version with a 64 calibre barrel.

In 2010 Babcock and Oto Melara signed a Memorandum of Understanding to offer the Light Weight Medium Calibre Gun System to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) for the Type 26 frigate.

To quote the sales blurb;

The Oto Melara 127/64 LW gun is capable of firing up to 35 rounds per minute. The production turret weighs less than 29 tons and the ‘peppered’ muzzle brake with an aluminium shield keeps cost down, improves maintenance and reduces radar cross-section. The gun uses an advanced ammunition handling system, consisting of four revolving drum magazines holding 56 ready-to-fire rounds of more than four different types, allowing flexibility in ammunition selection and a high rate of sustained fire. It is capable of anti-surface and anti-air defence, and area engagement. The new Vulcano ammunition is capable of precision engagement at ranges previously only achievable by missile systems but at a fraction of the cost.

Very impressive.

After many years of very expensive trials the US Extended Range Guided Munition was cancelled, leaving the USN without precision gun launched land attack but Oto Melara have continued to persevere and have introduced the Vulcano range of munitions.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Vulcano has both an extended range unguided and long range guided nature that is used with the 127mm to deliver rounds out to 120km.

I don’t think it is in service yet though.

There is also of course the mental 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) from BAE that will equip the USN DDG-1000 Destroyer but given that we seem unlikely to build a new ship class around the needs of this gun, it’s for interest only.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Guns have several distinct advantages, the ability to fire different natures, apply their effects over a wide area (pin point precision is not always desirable) and to sustain operations over a longer period are just a few of them but missiles generally speaking, at least in this context, can fire at greater ranges and potentially apply a larger warhead with greater precision.

Missiles

Off the shelf there are surprisingly few options.

The report that sparked this post mentioned GMLRS, the famous 70km sniper.

Click here to view the embedded video.

A maritime MRLS/GMLRS is not a new concept, the US Navy initiated a study into something similar called the Precision Over the horizon Land Attack Rocket (POLAR) that used the MRLS rocket as its base, although the motor was nearly a third larger. This was cancelled in favour of the Land Attack Standard Missile that was also itself, subsequently cancelled.

Navalising a land based system is no trivial task and the principle problem with this idea is managing the corrosive exhaust. Others include maintaining corrosion resistance, re loading and compensating for the ships movement (the guidance system may not be able to cope with a moving launch platform)

There may be simple design rather than scientific research answers to some of these or simply accepting compromises. Instead of reloading at sea, simply accept that it is an alongside task, instead of expensively making everything corrosion resistance design in semi protected components and accept a higher frequency of replacement and instead of creating a complex exhaust gas management system or replacing the propellant design the system so that it can only be fired (not sure what the proper nautical term is) at right angles to the axis of the ship, thus venting the majority into the sea.

Now, none of these might be feasible and there might be other issues but could some of the disadvantages be overcome with compromise?

Not sure.

What is certain is that a naval GMLRS would be invaluable, potent, have some degree of commonality with land forces and be relatively low cost.

What is even more intriguing is that should we be able to integrate a GMLRS launcher aboard an RN vessel open up the possibility of using the same launcher for the 300km BROACH warhead variant, ATACMS, 1 per pod. The Israelis also make the 150km EXTRA rocket that fits two to a G/MLRS pod.

Standing 25km offshore (with that indefinite poise thing) a ship launched ATACMS would be able to attack targets up to 275km inshore.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The images below shows a 300km radius circle.

300km radius, San Carlos Water as centre

There are minimum range and many more thorny issues to consider with ship launched ATACMS/GMLRS but they remain an intriguing prospect.

A more conventional and off the shelf option is the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM3), in service with Norway and Poland.

Click here to view the embedded video.

With a 150km range the NSM weighs 400Kg with a 125kg warhead and can attack a mix of land and surface targets. This would also have the added benefit of being integrated onto the F35 for commonality all round. The Stand Off Land Attack Missile, based on the Harpoon is another option.

Another system that is likely to be a shoe in is the Team Complex Weapons Fire Shadow that is a difficult system to characterise, half missile and half UAV it is called a loitering munition.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Fire Shadow will be deployed to Afghanistan this year. I must admit to being a sceptic on the Fire Shadow in a land environment but in a maritime environment it has many plus points.

If we really want to spend a fortune the CVS401 Perseus concept missile from MBDA will also provide plenty of options, potentially replacing Storm Shadow, cue, an enormous bunfight between the RAF and RN.

Click here to view the embedded video.

We might also consider that our ISR UAV may also be used to deliver precision ground attack at range. The Camcopter has been shown with the Lightweight Multirole Missile and the Fire Scout has also been demonstrated with a wide variety of missiles.

The LMM is now in manufacturing phase and will be deployed on Royal Navy Wildcat helicopters. Arming a UAV with multiple missiles would provide a low yield land attack system.

Summary

To summarise, there seems a tremendous variety of military off the shelf equipment that we could take as a base and integrate into UK systems, the UAV into the Watchkeeper infrastructure for example so it does not look to be a compelling case for a UK development.

The need to extend the reach of surface vessels, I carefully avoid the use of the term major combatant because vessels lower down the flightiness ladder can equally benefit, with both ISTAR and attack capabilities is obvious.

We could still deliver improved land attack capabilities without an investment in maritime UAV’s because target identification and guidance can come from other ‘platforms’ but the availability of an organic UAV would greatly enhance the ability of a frigate or destroyer without requiring others or relying on a manned helicopter where it might be difficult to deploy.

The Gazelle and SW-4 unmanned developments from QinetiQ and Agusta Westland look interesting but what do they really bring over and above the Fire Scout, Camcopter or even the Scan Eagle, all of which are available now.

Land attack from surface vessels is a capability area that the Royal Navy is comparatively weak in but this can be addressed without resorting to a mahoosive project. We should not forget, whilst bemoaning the lack of capability in this area, that the RN is one of the few nations able to deliver cruise missiles from submarines, a fearsome capability if there ever was one.

Whilst we might consider cruise missiles as strategic in their effect the ability of the lower cost systems should not be dismissed.

Let us equally not forget how CVF with Apache and in the future JCA will also provide a significant land attack from the sea capability, however costly.

With a relatively modest investment the RN could have a multi layered system of systems (sorry) that can deal with a wide variety of operational needs.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether WE.177 munitions have been stored at (a) RAF Kinloss, (b) RAF Lossiemouth, (c) RAF Leuchars and (d) RAF Machrihanish.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

Due to the length of time that WE.177 munitions have been out of service, a search of archived records is required. I will write to the hon. Member when this search is complete.

Substantive answer from Peter Luff to Angus Robertson:

I undertook to write to you on 10 January 2012(Official Report, column 6W) in answer to your question about WE177 munitions.

WE177 munitions were brought into service in 1966 and were in continual service with the RAF for 32 years before being withdrawn in March 1998. My officials have completed a search of archived records and I can confirm that WE177 munitions were never permanently stored at RAF Kinloss, RAF Leuchars or RAF Lossiemouth. Relevant records are no longer held for RAF Machrihanish although aircraft specified to deploy WE177 were not permanently based at that station and therefore it is highly unlikely that the munitions would ever have been stored there.

Question

Richard Drax (South Dorset, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the F35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review has concluded that the arrestor hook used to stop the F35 overshooting a carrier’s landing deck once it has touched down is too close to the plane’s wheels.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer23 January 2012

The joint strike fighter quick look review commissioned by the US Department of Defence highlighted deficiencies in the F-35C arrestor hook that had already been identified during testing in 2011. Such discoveries are common during a development programme and work is well advanced to develop the required modifications to correct this deficiency.

Question

Julian Lewis (New Forest East, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment his Department has made of the suitability of the Joint Combat Aircraft to operate from aircraft carriers; what assessment has been made of the prospects of rectifying any design deficiencies in that aircraft for carrier operations; what contingency plans his Department is preparing in the event of the non-availability of Joint Combat Aircraft for the Future Aircraft Carriers; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The UK‘s commitment to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft requirement was confirmed in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review.

As a Level one partner in the Joint Strike Fighter development programme, the UK has constant access to data from the development and test programme. We are confident that the F-35C aircraft will be able to operate successfully from aircraft carriers and that any design deficiencies discovered during development will be resolved.

Question

Richard Drax (South Dorset, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the top speed will be of the aircraft carriers currently being manufactured for his Department; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the speed of such aircraft carriers for F35 striker jets taking off in still conditions; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer23 January 2012

The Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier will be capable of a top speed in excess of 25 knots, which is considered more than sufficient to be able to launch the F-35C and other fixed-wing aircraft regardless of wind speed conditions.

Question

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of personnel in each armed service have been in breach of their harmony guidelines since March 2011; what assessment he has made of the effect of Operation Ellamy on the number of such people; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

It should be noted that Harmony is defined differently by each service, so direct comparisons can be misleading. Accordingly, the information requested is shown in the following three tables, along with each service’s harmony definition. Where available, figures for 2010 have been included for comparison with Operation Ellamy dates (19 Marchto31 October 2011).

UK Regular Naval Service Separated Service

Personnel on the trained strength are considered to be in breach of harmony guidelines on a particular date if they have spent more than 660 days away from home during the preceding 36-month period.

UK Regular Army Separated Service

Personnel on the trained strength are considered to be in breach of harmony in the final month of the specified reporting period if they have spent more than 415days in a 30-month period.

UK Regular Royal Air Force Separated Service

Personnel on the trained strength are considered to have breached harmony guidelines if they have spent more than 280 days away from home in a 24-month period.

The armed forces contribution to Operation Ellamy did not place such a burden on our manpower that individual harmony breaches were widespread. Unfortunately at a time of high operational commitment, breaches of harmony guidelines do occur but initiatives and regulators are used to help ameliorate the situation. These include flexible appointing between ranks, mobilisation of Reservists, use of contractors, and regular review of the numbers of posts required for each operation.

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dogs owned by his Department were working in the Falkland Islands in the most recent period for which figures are available; how many were euthanized in 2011; and for what reasons.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

holding answer23 January 2012

During 2011, there were 13 military working dogs and one mascot dog employed by the Ministry of Defence based in the Falkland Islands. During the same period three military working dogs were euthanized for veterinary medical reasons although the exact reasons are unknown.

Decisions to euthanise dogs are only taken as a last resort and in reaching these decisions both the welfare of the dog and public safety are carefully considered.

Question

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the maximum annual contribution made to service personnel towards learning activities through (a) the Standard Learning Credits scheme and (b) the Advanced Learning Credits scheme.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The Standard Learning Credits scheme is valued at £175 per year. The Enhanced Learning Credits scheme offers three separate payments of £1,000 or £2,000 per year (depending on length of service accumulated) for a maximum of three years. As an incentive to complete a course of study, we require a minimum of 20% personal contribution. Given the difficult fiscal position the Government inherited, there are no plans to increase the value of either scheme.

Service leavers entering full-time higher education utilising Enhanced Learning Credits are not required to contribute towards tuition fees. Where the tuition fees exceed the sums mentioned above, the balance is met by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In cases, therefore, where educational institutions are increasing their tuition fees, the value of the Government contribution will rise accordingly.

Question

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which training providers his Department contracts to provide the Enhanced Learning Credit Scheme.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence is not in a contractual relationship with approved providers for training. However, our commercial partner G4S, which administers the scheme on our behalf, maintains a list of approved providers. As this contains the details of approximately 900 providers the document will be placed in the Library of the House.

Question

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence is not in a contractual relationship with approved providers for training. However, our commercial partner G4S, which administers the scheme on our behalf, maintains a list of approved providers. As this contains the details of approximately 900 providers the document will be placed in the Library of the House.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

Lord Hutton‘s independent Public Service Pensions Commission published its report on pensions reform in March 2011. It set out recommendations for future pension arrangements that are sustainable and affordable in the long term, fair to both the public service work force and the taxpayer and consistent with the fiscal challenges ahead, while protecting accrued rights. The Government accepted Lord Hutton’s report as a basis for consultation on the various schemes it covered. Work on a new armed forces pension scheme is going forward with a view to producing outline proposals in the next few months. The armed forces (and other interested parties) will be fully consulted before a decision is made.

Question

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings if any Ministers in his Department have had with PTSD Resolution since May 2010.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

Defence Ministers regularly meet representatives of charities which raise money for, and represent the interests of, current and former members of our armed forces and their families, either on a one to one basis or as part of wider events organised by organisations such as Confederation of Service Charities or the Ministry of Defence‘s Welfare Conference.

Details of Ministers’ meetings with external organisations are published on the Ministry of Defence website at the following address:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/FinancialReports/Expenses/MinistersHospitalityReceived.htm

The information currently published covers May 2010 to June 2011 arid is being updated on a quarterly basis in accordance with the Government’s transparency programme.

Ministers from the Ministry of Defence have had no meetings with representatives from PTSD Resolution.

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel were seconded to the armed forces of each foreign government in 2011; and what the cost to his Department was of such secondments.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The MOD seconded 13 service personnel to the armed forces of foreign governments in 2011. 11 were seconded to the Saudi Arabian National Guard and two to the Bermudan Defence Force; although this reduced to one in July 2011.

There is no cost to the Department against personnel seconded to the armed forces of other governments. Their full manpower costs including salary, allowances, national insurance and pension contributions, are met by the host nation.

Question

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the military will have in the provision of security for Olympic events taking place in Dorset.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

The Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Hammond, announced to the House on 15 December 2011, Hansard, columns 116-17WS, that the Ministry of Defence has been working closely with Dorset police to scope the provision of specialist support for maritime security operations in Weymouth Bay. It is currently planned for HMS Bulwark to be based there during the games, providing maritime surveillance and a temporary maritime command, control, communications and co-ordination centre. Defence will also be providing support to the police for above and below-water venue search, the capability to interdict vessels and assets for maritime logistic support.

Question

Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what resources his Department will provide for bomb detection during the period of the London 2012 Olympics; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

The Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Hammond, announced to the House on 15 December 2011, Hansard, columns 116-17WS, that the Ministry of Defence will increase the normal capacity of the armed forces in several specialist areas which are routinely provided to civil authorities in order to enhance their security capabilities. This includes the provision of Explosive Ordnance Disposal, military working dogs and specialist military search capability for, vehicles and buildings at Olympic venues across the UK.

Question

Gareth Thomas (Harrow West, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on (a) Christmas trees and (b) other Christmas decorations in 2011; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

We do not permit public expenditure on Christmas trees and decorations, with the exception of expenditure which is covered by the Family Welfare Grant. This supports activities that enhance the morale of families of service personnel who are separated from their loved ones serving in operational theatres.

We have identified expenditure of £172 on Christmas trees and £428 on decorations in 2011 from this grant.

Question

Paul Flynn (Newport West, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent estimate he has made of the asset value of the Royal Armaments Depot at Coulport.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The most recent estimate of the asset value of the Royal Armaments Depot at Coulport is £133.6 million.

This original thinking envisaged 8 identical Brigades and 3 deployable Divisional HQ’s, each larger than a conventional Brigade and broadly configured for enduring operations like Iraq or Afghanistan.

In 2009 a report in Daily Telegraph;

He announced that the time between fighting on operations would be increased from two years to two-and-a-half years by re-ordering the Army’s brigade structure into larger units that could be sent away less often.

In a speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank, during which he addressed the issues of equipment, troop numbers and training, Gen Dannatt said: “Many families and marriages have unfortunately fallen victim to the relentless pace of operations.

“A gap of one year between operational deployment is not unusual. Often soldiers are spending much of the year before deployment away from home in training and preparation. This is unacceptable.”

It was a question of how much could be asked of soldiers, he said, adding: “We have seriously stretched our soldiers – both their good will and their families’.”

Clearly, the underlying thread was to ensure sustainability for a long operation or even continuous operations with each Brigade deploying for 6 months every 3 years.

From the existing brigade/divisional that defines the function of a Brigade as armoured, light role or mechanised the Multi Role Brigade will be homogenous. The final composition is not yet known and even well past the SDSR much of it was still under discussion, there have been reports that the final establishment of each brigade will be announced soon.

I find it rather silly to try and speculate which units will be disbanded or which ones will be where and what unit, the details will reveal themselves soon enough.

The SDSR described the MRB’s as

We will restructure the Army around five multi-role brigades, keeping one brigade at high readiness available for an intervention operation and four in support to provide the ability to sustain an enduring stabilisation operation. Key to the utility of these multi-role brigades is their “building block” structure, allowing greater choice in the size and composition of the force that might be deployed, without having to draw on other elements from the rest of the Army as has been the case in recent times. With suitable warning time, the brigades could be combined to generate a larger formation.

The multi-role brigades will include:

Reconnaissance forces to gain information even in high-threat situations;

Tanks, which continue to provide a unique combination of protection, mobility and firepower; and

Infantry operating from a range of protected vehicles.

The brigades will be self-supporting, having their own artillery, engineer, communications, intelligence, logistics and medical support. Territorial Army personnel will be fully integrated into the new structures, in both specialist roles and reinforcing combat units.

The basing review reported on the location of the 5 MRB’s

Army brigades currently stationed around Catterick and Salisbury will make up three of the five multi-role brigades. The other two MRBs will be based in the east of England, centred on Cottesmore, and in Scotland, centred on Kirknewton, south-west of Edinburgh. The MRB centred in Scotland will require a new training area, and positive discussions are being taken forward with the Scottish Government. Two major units and a formation headquarters will be based at Leuchars, increasing the number of posts there from 1,200 to more than 1,300. Consequently, the Typhoon force due to be built up there will instead be built up at RAF Lossiemouth. Other MRB units will be moved into Glencorse, Caledonia, Albemarle barracks and eventually Arbroath, as we intend over time to bring the bulk of the Royal Marines together in the south-west. We are also planning to place Army units in Kinloss in around 2014-15, continuing its long-term relationship with defence.

Taken together, this represents a significant increase in the defence footprint in Scotland of well over 2,000 posts. This is in line with the Scottish tradition of supporting our armed forces and is a recognition that these are United Kingdom forces under the Crown, protecting the citizens and interests of this United Kingdom. With the move to five multi-role brigades, we have concluded that 19 Light Brigade in Northern Ireland will be disbanded. Other units returning from Germany will move into the vacated bases and we remain committed to maintaining a permanent military garrison in Northern Ireland; 160 Wales Brigade will remain in Brecon.

In addition to the historic pattern of enduring operations the influencing factor in the MRB concept is that in those same operations a range of capabilities have been used, from heavy armour to light infantry including artillery, engineers and the other enabling functions.

When these other capabilities have been used they have been pulled in from all over the Army, creating disruption and upsetting established rotation patterns.

So it is these three factors that have informed the creation of the Multi Role Brigade; sustainability within harmony guidelines, likely operations and reduction in disruption.

I must add that I think there is another factor at play, that is the retention of Regiments by dispersing them but that of course is a cynics view!

Iraq and Afghanistan have informed the Army structure, thinking and equipment for over a decade and the MRB is recognition that the future may well encompass an Afghanistan style enduring operation but also something that requires a more traditional combined arms manoeuvre approach.

Each Multi Role Brigade (MRB) will consist of 6,500 personnel and comprise a mixture of an armoured regiment, brigade reconnaissance regiment, armoured infantry battalion, mechanised infantry battalion, light role infantry battalion and a cast of supporting functions. The Combat Support functions such as artillery have also started the transformation process with RA Close Support Regiments, for example, likely to comprise both Light Gun and AS90.

Incidentally, the Australian Army is walking the same path, I think they may have actually come up with the original idea, under Project BeerSheba.

From this article in Defense Update

Planning for the next phase of the Adaptive Army Campaign, the Army will form three new Multi-role Maneuver Brigades with the 1st, 3rd and 7th Brigades. Each brigade will be supported by two reserve brigades. Adapting to a mission dependent formation, each brigade will be able to generate 7-10 subunits. Under Plan BeerSheba ten battle group maneuver units will be formed to support this formation. The Multi-Role Maneuver Brigades will include infantry, armor, artillery, engineers, logistics and communications and will be fundamentally alike in structure, to enable sustained operations within a new 36-month Force Generation Cycle. The six Army Reserve Brigades currently operating under the 2 Division forming the Reserve Force will be more focused on stability operations. These units will be structurally aligned with their regular counterparts. Through the training cycles they will be involved in major exercises with their partnered Multi-role Maneuver Brigades.

I wonder if this is similar to what the British Army will actually end up looking like.

What I find hardest to understand in this is exactly how it is going to be achieved with 82,000 regular soldiers.

The SDSR based 5 MRB’s on a total Army number of 95,500, not 82,000.

The only way I can square the circle is by assuming that CSS will be sliced to the bone, the Territorial Army will play a considerably larger role than even the SDSR considered and what we consider a battalion or regiment will no longer look the same in FF2020.

Another possibility is merging some of the CSS functions to reduce the rank overhead, the Royal Support and Everything Else Corps remains a distinct possibility although this will provide a relatively small saving.

If the CSS functions are going to be sliced in order to preserve historic regiments and the illusion of numbers then this is nothing short of a re run of Options for Change and Frontline First, a reorganisation the Army has been rowing back from constantly since it happened. Afghanistan has shown that the British Army at the scale as configured for that theatre is not sustainable without extensive ‘partner’ support, i.e. US logistics and transport.

So beyond the ‘how are we going to do this’ question we might also ask if the concept of the MRB is sound anyway.

If you envisage a horizontal line that represents the span of possible operations, the MRB is designed to cover as much of that line as possible. At the margins are where the MRB will be either too heavy, too light or comprising not enough of capability x or y.

If the MRB’s does not cater for those margins then it is logical to assume that the deployed MRB will have to pull formed units and/or personnel  from non-deployed Brigades, thus throwing those carefully planned rotation schemes out of sync. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, we have been doing it for centuries, but it is a problem that the MRB was supposed to solve.

Of course the MRB may mean it is less of a problem than normal and that may be acceptable.

I have also not seen any mention of the enduring deployments of Brunei and Cyprus, where they fit into the grand plan, perhaps they will sit outside of the MRB.

It also takes the path of least resistance with 3 CDO and 16AAB, i.e. leaving them alone.

I am not sure if this is wise.

The Army has an image problem, its performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, rightly or wrongly, is perceived to have fallen short and its leaders equally assumed to be politically astute but essentially spineless careerists with not a creative thought in their bodies.

The ability to change its own future is very limited.

Whilst the official line is that the MRB is the only game in town, General Nick Carter has been looking at alternatives and although details are sparse it seems they are getting a little traction. General Nick Carter is a proper military thinker and anything he comes up with should be taken very seriously indeed.

Underpinning the this thinking is that the armed forces should not be configured for the most likely type of operation but one that presents the most danger to the UK or the most operationally challenging situation.

This, the armed forces in general, and Army in particular, must provide genuine options against things that cannot be foreseen or easily prepared for. They must therefore be configured for high intensity operations against competent enemies. Reading between the lines, he believes that the MRB is mediocre and does not provide enough combat power to do anything much at all, or offer sufficient deterrent or even much worth in a coalition.

In my previous posts on the Future of the British Army I have wondered the same thing about the MRB and suggested a return to the Heavy and Light formations, concentrating combat power, modularising the supporting functions rather than attaching them to formed brigades and concentrating the capability at a Divisional level.

General Carter envisages more numerous but smaller infantry and armoured brigades with very little or no permanently attached CS and CSS.

He also sees a greater forward role, mentoring, building local security and generally seeking to prevent rather than react with a more integrated approach with DFiD and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Hi concept seems to be forming around the idea of 4 brigades structured in heavy and medium formations with those being predominantly regular soldiers. The basic position is that the TA cannot be safely relied upon to provide infantry and armoured capabilities but CS and CSS could take a higher proportion of a reserve element although this is difficult to see with highly specialised trades.

I find myself agreeing a lot with this newer concept, especially concentrating combat power, moving CS/CSS to a divisional level and engaging in more conflict prevention activity.

Some thoughts and questions…

What roles are an increased reserve component going to fulfil and how exactly are they going to play a greater role without additional primary legislation. Not sure the new Engagement Model and Whole Force Concept have this question adequately addressed.

Could the Royal Armoured Corps and Royal Artillery merge, many of their roles in ISTAR seem to have a lot of crossover and with the likely reduced need for the Queen of the Battle to engage in monster counter battery and battlefield preparation activities their shift to ISTAR and fire support (artillery, air coordination etc) would not be a wholly bad thing.

Tour lengths, the MRB nails up the 6 month tour but as we have seen from Afghanistan in some cases this is too long and some, arguably too short. We need to retain flexibility rather than put uniform boundaries around everything.

To what degree do we go purple, a tri service electronics, communications and vehicle support command for example. Or is this far enough, the problem seems to have been presented as an Army rather than MoD problem. A look at the units deployed in Afghanistan will show that all three services have representation, not necessarily in their traditional roles.

Contractorisation, how much of the Royal Engineers, Royal Logistic Corps, Royal Signals and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers can we outsource to civilian contractors or hybrid units with retained reserves like the RAF’s FSTA aircraft fleet.

Can we extend the Whole Fleet Management concept to people for certain support functions?

These may save personnel but would have a significant impact on morale and unit cohesion so in a final analysis may not actually be worth it but it still leaves the problem behind.

Does an MRB have enough combat power and sustainability given it is likely the original 1-2 Light Role infantry battalions will likely be 1 and not 2?

Does the General Carter vision of mainly regular combat brigades (inf, armour) with non-organic CS/CSS that have a greater proportion of reserves and an increased concentration on conflict prevention appeal to anyone, I find it compelling?

One thing is for certain, creative thinking is needed because having the same but smaller is not really an option.

What is encouraging is that the latest generation of officers with experience of the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan know full well what the problem is and I have no doubt there is some creative thinking going on.

My fear is that the creative thinking and bold solutions will be stifled by political influence, careerism and vested interests.

Let’s hope not.

Nigeria has been facing a recent surge of violence which has been encapsulated most clearly by the Christmas Day Bombings of 2011, the attacks of 5-6^th January 2012 against Christian churches and businesses, and attacks last Friday against Police stations in the city of Kano, that were followed by seemingly random shootings around the city that resulted in almost 180 deaths and approximately 50 further woundings. We’re going to take just a brief look at this and how it could be of interest to the UK.

Situation

Nigeria is the third largest economy on the African continent (by GDP), has the highest population on the continent (7^th largest in the world), and is considered by the investment bank Goldman Sachs to be one of its “Next Eleven” – countries that hold the promise of becoming economic powerhouses in the 21^st century.

Much of this stems from Nigeria’s ties to the United States. According to the US Energy Information Administration, as of October 2011 Nigeria was just slightly ahead of Russia as one of the top five exporters of Oil and Petroleum products to the United States (1. Canada, 2. Mexico, 3. Saudi Arabia, 4. Venezuela, 5. Nigeria).

Inward investment into the country has been reasonably significant (including Bedford motors) and it has experienced rapid growth over the years of its financial, legal, transportation, infrastructure, and tourist sectors. It also has significant mineral resources, which currently are massively underexploited.

The problem as far as Nigeria is concerned is that much of its wealth is concentrated in the south of the country. The Niger Delta is the focus of the countries hydrocarbon industry, while its financial, legal and corporate sectors are naturally centered on the largest city, Lagos (population; almost 8 million). By comparison the north of the country is relatively poor.

It’s at this point that we introduce the “People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad”, who are more commonly known by their Hausa name “Boko Haram” (“Western education is forbidden/sinful”). Boko Haram is a Salafist Jihadist group that has its roots in Northeastern Nigeria, but is by no means confined to this region, and indeed the group itself is divided into a few sub-factions.

While it’s official history only really began in 2002 with Mohammed Yusuf (who was killed by Nigerian security forces in 2009), underlying tensions in northeastern Nigeria that stem from the days of British Colonial rule have served as a backdrop that led to the rise of men like Yusuf, and there has been plenty of prior dissent in the region regarding issues such as religion and education.

Boko Haram is opposed to the secular style of government that currently serves Nigeria and seeks to replace it with an Islamic state that uses the Sharia system of governance. Generally speaking its ideology is roundly rejected and even mocked by most Muslims. Like many extreme groups – including ones here in the UK – their actions and opinions are considered non-representative of true Islam and detrimental to the wider image of Islam among those of other faiths and beliefs.

The key to Boko Haram’s recruitment is the subtle blending of Jihadist rhetoric with anti-government sentiment. Preying on the genuinely tough economic conditions of the north, including high levels of unemployment among young males as well as the acknowledged issues regarding corruption in the Nigerian government (sound familiar?), Boko Haram is able to create a narrative that demonizes the government and blames it for the hardships suffered by the people, while promising a better, more morally upright future for the country.

While at first the group was relatively quiet, increasing government suspicion eventually led to clashes with security forces starting in 2009, around which time Yusuf was killed. Early in the following year Boko Haram began conducting terrorist attacks which progressively became bolder, more complex, and more frequent with time, ranging from simple shootings to bombings and coordinated attacks on multiple targets, expanding their influence and notoriety further west and south.

And it’s here that Nigeria finds itself in 2012 with a new year bringing a fresh round of violence, just as the Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan presses ahead with the widely condemned removal of the state fuel subsidy, an action that prompted massive, nationwide strikes between the 9^th and 13^th of January.

The president himself is aptly named, being that he originally came to power (from the position of Vice President) when his predecessor died of complications related to Pericarditis. Last April President Jonathan did win a democratic election, but in the aftermath there was significant violence in the north of the country among accusations of vote rigging.

All of this tension and trouble provides a potentially explosive mix that could cause serious problems for Nigeria in the year ahead and as result disrupt supplies of hydrocarbons out of the country (an OPEC member), with resulting knock on effects to the US and indeed the global economy.

Opportunity

As a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, Nigeria retains reasonably strong diplomatic ties with the United Kingdom. We all know that the Foreign Office has a hard won reputation for the quality of its diplomatic work and I think Nigeria poses an interesting chance to test many of the governments ideas regarding “soft power”.

With a situation brewing in the north of the country that could potentially descend into a counter-insurgency campaign, the UK is poised with plenty of experience and support that it can offer the Nigerian government, doubtless in exchange for something further down the line, even if that just means a close friendship with one of the countries that could potentially be sitting at the table of a future G8 summit in the place of the UK.

Obviously there is the economic aspect, whereby the UK can assist Nigeria in funding projects targeted at the north of the country in those regions where Boko Haram has the most current influence. Of course, if the situation in Afghanistan has taught UK forces anything then it has to be that security is a key component of any bid to bring stability and growth to a distant province.

Thus there is also a military aspect with which the UK can lend a hand. Overt use of a large scale force – especially with operations in Afghanistan ongoing – is basically off the table, so a more subtle application of UK forces must be considered.

Naturally there are many avenues that this approach could take. From cooperation with Nigerian security forces in areas such as policing, to training and assistance in the more “traditional” military tasks such as intelligence gathering, offensive operations, hearts and minds work, logistics, engineering and maintenance.

A small, select task force made up of UK specialists in these areas could go a long way to helping the Nigerian government nip in the bud any chance of Boko Haram spreading to become a populist group. By aiding the Nigerians to control this Jihadist group and to ensure the ongoing security and stability of the country, a lasting alliance can be formed with one of Africa’s most promising nations.

There is also a wider view that needs to be considered here. Although current intelligence is sketchy and tenuous, there is a suggestion that Boko Haram has links to other terrorist groups on the continent such as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania and Tunisia) and Al Shabab in Somalia, and then through them links to the wider Al Qaeda network.

Thus any operations against Boko Haram can also potentially yield results elsewhere, through intelligence gathered that leads back to members of other groups. It also brings to attention the risk that members of Boko Haram could be deployed abroad to conduct terrorist activities, or that Boko Haram could themselves become future hosts of terrorist training facilities, an attractive prospect to Al Qaeda given how vigorously the United States has pursed higher level members of its organization in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and the Arabian Peninsula.

Conclusions

All in all Nigeria poses some interesting if not always obvious problems for the future of the global commons. It at once has the potential for quite significant further economic growth over the course of the 21^st century – growth which will naturally eat away at the strength and prestige of traditional powers – and yet at the same time it also has a sinister under current that threatens to undermine one of the worlds’ largest exporters of oil and provide a haven for Jihadist groups that seek to export terror across the globe.

To what extent the UK will lend a hand to the Nigerian government remains to be seen, but the potential to secure a very useful ally in both the near term and the future, as well as the opportunity to test and validate (or refute) future COIN concepts derived from the experience in Afghanistan is certainly a very tempting prospect and one that should promote considerable debate among the corridors of power in Whitehall.

And hopefully here at Think Defence.

Most of these studies have been consigned to the round filing cabinet but I thought this was an amusing video!

Click here to view the embedded video.

It strikes me that it has become the universal excuse for anything to do with reducing defence funding, blaming the previous government is an all too easy excuse.

The number is repeatedly said to be £38 billion but the government has never published the make up of this number, is it a mixture of capital and support costs, if so what is the split, over what period is it measured and what is the current status are many interesting questions that don’t seem to attract any answers.

The latest news from the Telegraph indicates that the scale of the black hole was underestimated (the gift that keeps on giving) and more cuts will be needed. The figure reported was an additional £2 billion to be found in Planning Round 12 (PR12)

One might expect to see the usual round of leaks and speculation in the next few months and again, nothing seems to be off the table except the Red Arrows, public duties and a certain large ship currently being built somewhere up North.

Rumours persist about greater reductions in MoD civil servants, Army manpower and FRES, FRES in particular has been absent from recent communications from the MoD, unlike the Warrior upgrades. BAE of course got their digs in early with an announcement about reviewing the Portsmouth shipbuilding facility, convenient timing given the stage that the Type 26 frigate is nearing announcement time and PR12.

The games they all play

Question

Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average expenditure per Army recruit was of recruiting and training to identical roles recruits who were aged (a) under 18 years and (b) 18 years or above in the latest period for which figures are available.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The average cost of recruiting an Army recruit in financial year (FY) 2010-11 was £10,000; this covers the full recruitment process, including selection, and does not vary between those who are under or over 18 years of age.

The following table provides the average expenditure for the full cost of providing Phase 1 training, including accommodation, meals, welfare, health and other support per Army recruit for FY 2010-11.

The average unit rate varies depending on both the number of recruits being trained and the course duration at each training site.

Information relating to the average expenditure per recruit for Phase 2 training is not available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. This is because Phase 2 (trade training) varies for each of the over 220 trades offered by the Army, both in terms of content and course length. However, as Phase 2 training is not age dependent, there would be no difference in any average training cost for a specific trade between those who are under or over the age of 18.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of upgrading the two purchased F-35B variants to the standards required by the US Marine Corps after the completion of testing.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The previous Government ordered three F-35B aircraft for test and evaluation purposes. One has been exchanged for a F-35C variant. The mission systems for the F-35B and F-35C are largely the same but, the UK is upgrading the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for its own purposes in order to conduct initial operational test of JSF alongside US Services. We have included sufficient funding within the original financial approval for these aircraft to ensure that they are upgraded to the appropriate standard for these tests. The US Marine Corps have no input to these decisions.

Question

Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the completion date for the two aircraft carriers that are currently under construction have changed; and what the causes of any such delay are.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The currently approved planned in-service dates for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are quarter four of 2016 and quarter four of 2018 respectively.

The completion dates for construction have not changed. However, the Strategic Defence and Security Review called for one operational Queen Elizabeth class carrier to be converted to support the more capable Carrier Variant of the Joint Strike Fighter and we are investigating the optimum solution to meet that requirement. On current plans, we expect to conclude work to enable firm decisions on the optimum conversion solution for the operational carrier in late 2012. Depending on the outcome of that work, the completion date for the construction of the carriers may change. Either way we will have an operational carrier from around 2020.

Question

Lord Janner of Braunstone (Labour)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they anticipate that British military operations in Libya will end.

Answer

Lord Astor of Hever (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defence; Conservative)

The UK‘s support to NATO‘s Operation Unified Protector in Libya has ended. In terms of bilateral military support to Libya, we have a small defence advisory team in Tripoli and a separate small team of military counterproliferation experts working with the Libyan authorities and United States to locate, disable, and secure man-portable surface to air missiles. We stand ready to respond to any formal request for defence and security assistance from the Libyan Transitional Government, and will ensure that any assistance is co-ordinated with key partners.

Question

Lord Judd (Labour)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking bilaterally and multilaterally regarding access through the “buffer zone” imposed by the Government of Israel around the perimeter of Gaza.

Answer

Lord Howell of Guildford (Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Conservative)

The current situation in Gaza fosters radicalisation and empowers Hamas, while punishing the ordinary people of Gaza. We are clear that an improved Gazan economy is not only essential for the people of Gaza, but firmly in Israel’s security interests.

We frequently raise with the Israeli authorities the issue of easing restrictions on Gaza, urging Israel to comply with her international obligations. This was most recently raised at ministerial level during the visit to the UK by Israeli Defence Minister Barak on 3 November 2011. The UK continues to push Israel to ease restrictions on exports, construction material imports and movement of people to improve the lives of the Gazan people. We are working alongside our European Union partners to achieve real changes on the ground.

Question

Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to install the Co-operative Engagement Capability in Type 45 destroyers.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Department’s planning assumption is that the Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC) is fitted on to Type 45 Destroyers and Type 26 Global Combat Ships. However, the decision on the ship fit plan will not be taken until the project achieves Main Gate approval. This is currently planned for mid-2012. If approved, it is anticipated that CEC will be installed on to Type 45s from 2018.

Question

Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the potential effect of implementing the Strategic Defence and Security review on the (a) overall capability and (b) in- service dates of Type 26 frigates.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The strategic defence and security review (SDSR) decided to merge the two classes of Future Surface Combatant, previously known as the CI and the C2 variants, into the Type 26 Global Combat Ship. The Type 26 combines advantages of both variants into a versatile ship, designed to readily change roles and capabilities depending on the strategic circumstances. The Type 26 in-service date has not been changed by the SDSR.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost to the public purse was of the recent purchase of Danish Merlin HC.3A helicopters.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The previous Government purchased six Danish Merlin helicopters in 2007 to boost the UK fleet to 28. The cost of acquiring the helicopters was £203.3 million. This figure includes the cost of converting the ex-Danish aircraft for UK operational use, purchase of an initial stock of spares and the cost of procuring six replacement Merlin aircraft for Denmark. The modified UK Merlin Mk3a helicopters entered service in 2008 and the replacement aircraft were accepted by the Danish in 2009.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on the ability to conduct helicopter operations of the postponement of the Defence Rotary Wing Capability Study decision until 2012.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Defence Rotary Wing Capability Study reported to the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in November 2011. The Vice-Chief asked for some further work to be done before the study is finalised, and this work is currently in progress.

The study has had no negative impact on current helicopter operations and completing the study will help us to continue to conduct helicopter operations in the most effective and efficient way into the future.

Question

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) what costs his Department incurred in respect of (a) legal, (b) consultancy and (c) currency brokerage costs associated with (i) the sale of the Harrier aircraft to the US and (ii) the retirement of the fleet; and if he will make a statement;

(2) whether his Department is likely to incur any costs or receive any further invoices from the retirement of the Harrier fleet and sale of 72 aircraft to the US; and if he will make a statement;

(3) whether payment for the 72 Harrier aircraft being sold to the US Marine Corps has been received in full; whether payment is being made in cash or in kind; and if he will make a statement;

(4) what revenue has accrued to his Department from the sale of Harrier aircraft spares and other associated support equipment; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

No external legal or currency brokerage costs were incurred by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for the retirement of the Harrier fleet or for the sale to the US Government. The external consultancy costs for these two activities were £0.7 million and £0.4 million respectively. We do not expect to incur any further costs relating to the retirement and sale to the US Government of the Harrier fleet.

The value of the sale is $180 million (around £110 million). This figure includes 72 Harrier airframes, spares and associated support equipment. The MOD will receive monetary payment from the US Government for the full value of the Harrier sale before 1 April 2012. Overall £1 billion will be saved from removing the Harrier from service. We continue to operate Tornado, Typhoon and, in the future, JSF.

As agreed with HM Treasury as part of the spending review process, the revenue from the sale of Harrier assets will be retained by the Ministry of Defence and reinvested by the Department in key priorities as part of the Defence Budget.

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the size of the Army will be at the end of each calendar year from 2011 to 2015.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

holding answer23 November 2011

The outcome of the strategic defence and security review in October 2010 announced a reduction by 7,000 personnel in the Regular Army, so that by 2015 the size shall be 95,000. Subsequently, the Defence Transformation announcement made by the then Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Fox, on 18 July 2011, Hansard, columns 643-645, confirmed that there would be an integrated Army of around 120,000 by 2020, comprising a trained strength of 82,000 Regulars and at least 30,000 Reserves, with a training margin of 8,000 Reserves. Across Defence, the Reserves will benefit from £1.5 billion investment over 10 years to reinvigorate their contribution to all three services.

Specific detail on the size of the Army by year from 2011 to 2015 is the subject of further work and has not yet been determined.

A redundancy process has already started, but natural turnover of personnel and a reduction in recruitment will be used before compulsory redundancy is applied.

Question

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to assess whether levels of (a) alcohol dependency, (b) substance dependency, (c) homelessness, (d) mental health problems and (e) crime perpetration are higher than average among ex-service personnel.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence fully supports the need for high quality research in these areas. We have commissioned a number of well-received studies over a number of years into various aspects of Defence health, including mental health. One such ongoing study carried out by King’s college, London has, since 2003, researched the experiences of armed forces personnel who served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. The study has over 20,000 participants and it monitors the effects of operational service against a cohort group who did not deploy. Key findings to-date are:

The overall mental health of the armed forces is good and prevalence of disorders among service personnel is generally in line with the rest of the population.

Some 13% of respondents displayed evidence of alcohol misuse, compared to a similar figure in the general population. Increased use is associated with operational deployment.

Some 4% of respondents displayed symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (compared with 3%-7% in the general population).

Common mental health disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are more prevalent, with 19.7% of service personnel studied experiencing them.

The deployment on operations was associated with a small increase in symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder in reservists (5%). This should be viewed against the very low prevalence of symptoms for reservists (1.8%) who did not deploy on operations.

We currently estimate that about 3.5% of the prison population in England and Wales has previously served in the armed forces. We are committed to playing our part in supporting the Ministry of Justice and our voluntary and community sector partners, in identifying and supporting ex-service personnel who come into contact with the criminal justice system.

Question

Andrew Smith (Oxford East, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future management and conservation of the wreck of HMS Victory 1744; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

An agreement has been reached with the Maritime Heritage Foundation for the trust to undertake the future management of the Victory (1744) wreck site. The remains of the vessel have been gifted to the trust, with safeguards to ensure that any actions taken in respect of the wreck are consistent with the archaeological principles set out in Annex A to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage.

Question

Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RFA tankers are to be ordered in the MARS programme.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer19 January 2012

We have received the final bids for the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) Tankers programme and anticipate announcing the winning bid later this spring. Up to four MARS tankers are expected to be ordered.

Question

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 14 December 2011, Official Report, column 799W, on rescue services, what the minimum altitude was of the maritime patrol aircraft provided by the Irish Air Corps during the search and rescue operation for the Swanland; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

The fixed wing aircraft support to the Swanland rescue operation was provided by the Irish Coast Guard, part of the Irish Department of Transport. The Ministry of Defence does not hold information on the minimum altitude of the aircraft during the operation.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on unrest around the town of Gharyan in Libya.

Answer

Alistair Burt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Afghanistan/South Asia, counter terrorism/proliferation, North America, Middle East and North Africa), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is aware of recent reports that a militia from the town of Gharyan clashed with members of a militia from the neighbouring town of Alasabah. Reporting of the incident remains unclear, however, we are aware of at least five deaths. Libyan Defence Minister Juwayli intervened and secured a ceasefire although the situation remains tense. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Question

Lord Chidgey (Liberal Democrat)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to facilitate the integrated approach advocated in the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the Building Stability Overseas Strategy.

Answer

Lord Astor of Hever (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defence; Conservative)

The integrated approach has already been facilitated by new Whitehall processes and structures. The National Security Council meets regularly in order to ensure that decisions are made based on cross-Whitehall considerations. Beneath this, the governance of HMG activities on instability and conflict overseas has been rationalised, as announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Instead of three separate structures dealing with conflict, peacekeeping and stabilisation, there is now a single, cross-government board to deal with conflict overseas: the Building Stability Overseas Board. The tri-departmental Stabilisation Unit reports to this board and remains key to delivering expertise on the ground.

The integrated approach is broader than cross-government-it is also multi-agency and multinational. Among others, HMG works with:

United Nations/North Atlantic Treaty Organisation/ European Union/African Union;Foreign governments;the International Committee of the Red Cross;intergovernmental organisations (IGOs);non-governmental organisations (NGOs);international non-governmental organisations (INGOs); andlocal nationals.

Question

Lord Laird (Crossbench)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ask the Government of Ireland to pardon the citizens of Ireland who were court marshalled for fighting on the side of the United Kingdom in the Second World War and compensate them and their families.

Answer

Lord Howell of Guildford (Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Conservative)

The Government have no plans to make representations on this matter at this time. The matter of pardons for Irish citizens who fought on the side of the United Kingdom in the Second World War is a matter for the Irish Government and one to which the Irish Minister for Defence recently stated in the Dail that he was “giving active consideration”. The Government are grateful for the contribution made by Irish service personnel during the Second World War. During the state visit in May, Her Majesty the Queen and President McAleese laid wreaths together at the Irish War Memorial Gardens in memory of the Irish soldiers who died in the world wars.

Question

Lord Chidgey (Liberal Democrat)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the review of the Stabilisation Unit, due to take place early in 2012, will link to efforts to ensure that the United Kingdom has adequate capability regarding security and development issues overseas.

Answer

Baroness Northover (Whip, House of Lords; Liberal Democrat)

A review of the Stabilisation Unit has been agreed by the tri-departmental Building Stability Overseas Board.

The purpose of the review is to consider the best arrangements for the UK Government‘s use of the Stabilisation Unit capability both after conflicts and in conflict prevention work.

The review will take account of existing strategies, including the National Security Strategy, the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Building Stability Overseas Strategy and the Defence Engagement Strategy.

Question

Matthew Offord (Hendon, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made on the possible financial benefits to the economy of Torbay from the sale of HMS Ark Royal to the Wreck the World organisation.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I have been asked to reply

on behalf of the Department for Defence.

All proposals received to buy HMS Ark Royal are being evaluated solely against published technical, financial and commercial criteria.

Work to evaluate the proposals is at an advanced stage and we hope to make a decision about the successful bid in the near future.

Question

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) what estimate he has made of the cost of the Standard Learning Credit scheme in (a) 2011-12, (b) 2012-13, (c) 2013-14 and (d) 2014-15;

(2) what estimate he has made of the likely cost of the Enhanced Learning Credits scheme in (a) 20011-12, (b) 2012-13, (c) 2013-14 and (d) 2014-15.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

We continue to promote lifelong learning and estimate the following will be refunded to claimants through the Standard, and Enhanced Learning Credits scheme:

Question

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to encourage more service personnel to take advantage of the funding assistance provided by his Department through schemes such as the Enhanced Learning Credits Scheme and Standard Learning Credits Scheme.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The MOD promotes lifelong learning among members of the armed forces, and this is encouraged through the Learning Credits schemes. Recruits undertaking phase one training are provided with a briefing on the schemes and are automatically enrolled. These briefings are routinely followed up by learning and development officers and service resettlement advisers. In addition Learning Credits are regular features in the “Courses 4 Forces” and “Quest” publications, both of which are widely distributed by service establishments and also online.

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the National Security Council has discussed the Arms Trade Treaty; and whether he has asked the Council to discuss it.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Alistair Burt, on 10 January 2012, Hansard, column 75W.

Question

Greg Knight (East Yorkshire, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much funding from the public purse has been spent on provision of accommodation, hospitality, transport or other facilities to enable showbusiness personalities, radio presenters and others in the entertainment industry to visit Afghanistan in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

Answer

Philip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

holding answer19 January 2012

Entertainment of members of the armed forces is, and has for many years been, an important element of the deployment welfare package. It helps to maintain morale and thereby combat effectiveness of service personnel. The Ministry of Defence has a contract with Combined Services Entertainment to provide entertainment to members of the armed forces deployed overseas, including Afghanistan. The value of entertainment provided for Afghanistan against this contract during 2011 was £437,637. This figure does include an element for UK travel and mobilisation costs, however, entertainment personalities who visit Afghanistan under this contract or under other auspices are transported and accommodated alongside armed forces personnel at minimal extra cost to the public purse.

Question

Menzies Campbell (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what alterations will be required to RAF Leuchars to transform it to an operational Army base; what estimate he has made of the cost of any such alterations; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

Work has begun to determine the precise capacity of the defence estate as we seek to maximise its use and rationalise where appropriate. Until this work is completed it is too early to say what alterations will be required to RAF Leuchars or how much this will cost.

Statement

Philip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

The Government have agreed that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) will support the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by making a significant contribution to the security and safety of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympics games. The safety and security operation for the games remains police-led. Work continues on the precise details and numbers of the defence contribution. However, the MOD now expects to provide up to 13,500 service personnel in London, on the Thames, in Weymouth and across the UK, delivering a range of military support to the police and other civil and Olympic authorities.

The MOD has been working very closely with the Metropolitan and Dorset police forces to scope the provision of specialist support to maritime security operations on the Thames and in Weymouth bay. It is currently planned for HMS Ocean to be based at Greenwich and HMS Bulwark in Weymouth bay, providing maritime command and control, accommodation, helicopter and small boat basing, and logistics supply.

We have been building on our existing arrangements to ensure that there will be an appropriate and scalable air security plan. A multi-layered plan has been developed and will include Typhoon aircraft, forward-based at RAF Northolt, helicopters operating from HMS Ocean and appropriate ground based air defence systems.

The MOD will increase the normal capacity of the armed forces in several specialist areas which are routinely provided to the civil authorities, in order to provide an enhanced level of capability and response, including explosive ordnance disposal, military working dogs and the capability to search vehicles and buildings.

In addition to this support to wider security activity, the armed forces will provide 3,500 personnel to support the venue security operation for the Olympic and Paralympic games, rising to 7,500 for the 17-day period of the Olympic games themselves. They will form part of a total venue guard-force of up to 23,700.

A further 1,000 strong military contingency force will be available to respond to Olympic-related civil emergencies. Military personnel will also provide command and control and logistics support for the range of military capabilities involved.

In providing this support. Defence will contribute up to 13,500 military personnel at times of peak demand. These numbers will be in addition to the ceremonial role which the armed forces will play during the Olympics, which will showcase our armed forces to the world. I am also pleased to note that a number of service personnel hope to compete on behalf of our nation.

This defence contribution is on a similar scale to that deployed at other recent Olympic games and will contribute to ensuring a safe, secure and enjoyable 2012 Olympics.

Defence will continue to be able to support current and contingent operations during the games and my priority will remain the troops we have deployed on operations, including in Afghanistan, before, during and after the Olympics.

Statement

ip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

In a written statement on 24 May 2011, Hansard, columns 49-50WS, my predecessor, Dr Fox, informed the House that, further to the strategic defence and security review, a separate review of the British sovereign base areas in Cyprus would be undertaken.

The study has been completed. The Government accept its recommendations and confirms Her Majesty’s Government’s enduring commitment to the sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The key considerations in affirming this commitment were:

The sovereign base areas are in a region of geo-political importance and high priority for the United Kingdom’s long-term national security interests.

The sovereign base areas provide an adaptable and capable forward mounting base, the utility of which has been amply demonstrated: for example, the basing of RAF aircraft that participated in operations over Libya; the regular deployment of Cyprus-based military personnel to Afghanistan; and the key role played as a logistic hub for operations in Afghanistan.

In addition, the sovereign base areas are expected to make a significant contribution to logistic draw-down from Afghanistan, as well as to wider humanitarian and conflict prevention activities in the region. They also continue to provide excellent training opportunities in this important region.

The strategic defence and security review 2010 emphasised the fundamental importance of an “ability to remain adaptable for the future”. The sovereign base areas provide the United Kingdom with a unique contribution to our ability to achieve this goal.

Our military personnel, United Kingdom civilians and locally employed personnel in the sovereign base areas make a major contribution to the national security of the United Kingdom and will continue to do so in the future. In administering the sovereign base areas, the United Kingdom will continue to have as its main objectives—the effective use of the areas as military bases, maintenance of a constructive and co-operative relationship with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, and protection of the interests of those resident or working in the areas.

Statement

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

I wish to inform the House of the latest position regarding the future basing requirements for the RAF aerobatic team (RAFAT) known as the Red Arrows and of the RAF’s air surveillance and control system (ASACS) units.

The previous Administration announced on 21 May 2008, Hansard, columns 23-24WS, that subject to trade union consultation, the RAFAT would in future operate from RAF Waddington, rather than RAF Scampton by31 July 2011, although they would continue to use the dedicated airspace above RAF Scampton to enable training for their acrobatic displays.

The previous Administration announced on 28 October 2008, Hansard, columns 25-26WS, the relocation of two air surveillance and control system satellite units. Number 1 Air Control Centre at RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey and the Control and Reporting Centre at RAF Scampton, to RAF Coningsby by the end of 2014.

The strategic defence and security review (SDSR) considered a range of constraints on defence basing plans—the available estate, funding provision, plans already in train and the operational commitments of forces. In the light of the changes resulting from the SDSR, and against the background of the budgetary pressures defence faces, I have concluded that it makes sense to review the planned moves of the RAFAT and the control and reporting centre. In the meantime both units remain at RAF Scampton.

No 1 Air Control Centre has now merged and collocated with the Control and Reporting Centre at RAF Scampton and RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey will be closed by the end of March 2012, other than some service families accommodation and a combined mess for personnel at RAF Scampton.

The RAF will now consider future basing options for both the RAFAT and the ASACS units and make recommendations on options to deliver operational effectiveness and value for money. This will include recommendations on whether RAF Scampton should

draw-down by 2014 as previously announced. This work is expected to complete in 2012 and I will report the outcome to Parliament at that time.

Service and civilian personnel at RAF Scampton will be briefed on the progress of this work; we will also engage with the trade union.

Some of these were from a few weeks ago, I missed them!

One such example is how Col. Shane Openshaw, the Army’s AH-64 Apache program manager is eyeing F-35-style distributed aperture sensor (DAS) tech for use on the Apache. “We’re thinking about how to do integration” with DAS-style technology on the third development phase of the Block III Apache sometime later this decade, Openshaw told me this week. “It’s very much in the realm of the possible.”

The F-35’s DAS system consists of six infrared cameras mounted in the airplane’s skin providing a 360-degree sphere of coverage around the jet. Video filmed by the cameras is fed directly onto a screen on the pilots helmet visor allowing him to literally look down through the bottom of his aircraft. Now, the system is still having its teething issues, especially the helmet part, but an F-35 flying over Maryland and Virginia recently tracked a missile launch in Florida by using its DAS system.

Now, the Apaches may not necessarily use the same system as the F-35, but its the concept that Openshaw likes. The miniaturization of sensor tech could someday allow him to install a network of tiny but powerful sensors around the Apache’s airframe and feed their data back to the cockpit. He pointed out that this could allow him to remove the 400-pound sensor turret on the helo’s nose. The reduced weight would improve the aircraft’s speed and fuel and weapons load.

Combine this with advancements in engine and blade tech that are already in the works — and possibly even pusher propellers mounted on the aft of the chopper — and modified versions of the basic Apache design could inch Army aviation ever closer to achieving the speed, altitude and maneuverability breakthroughs that the service wants from its next generation helo fleet, said Openshaw.

The UK’s Apache AH1′s are in many ways the most advanced model in existence anywhere, in others perhaps less so, but the problem the UK’s faces is that it has a relatively large fleet of Apache’s with some elements approaching block obsolescence but very little money to upgrade. With the coming reductions in Army manpower, continuing uncertainty about the future of the Multi Role Brigade, FRES and Future Force 2020 it may soon come down to choices between historic Regiments and an upgraded Apache fleet.

Perhaps the outcome will be an announcement where only part of the fleet is selectively upgraded with the rest being used for spares, oh, isn’t that happening now?

Click here to view the embedded video.

The obvious answer is yes of course it, would with the reason being energy, oil and gas.

To put this in context it worth looking at the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s annual statutory report on Supply Security because it shows a number of trends and figures that might disprove, prove or more likely, be ambiguous about the degree of strategic UK interest in the Middle East, at least from an energy perspective.

The Demand for Energy

One might think the demand for electricity is only going to increase but this is not the case. As heavy industry declines and transport becomes ever efficient they have a large impact on demand. Although car use is increasing, the efficiency per vehicle is also increasing. Both these factors point to a demand reality that might not conform the expectation of many although one would imagine the demand for diesel and aviation fuel will increase.

The National Grid estimate the UK has a steady state demand for 60 Giga Watts per year with a generating capacity of 90.2 Giga Watts (the difference being due to seasonal variations) but with the CO2 reduction legislation and impending closure of many nuclear plants there could be a reduction of in excess of 19 GW by the end of 2020.

New generating plant is scheduled to fill the gap using both gas and renewables.

Europe is also increasingly becoming connected for large volumes of electricity transfer. The latest example of this is the electricity interconnect between the UK and the Netherlands called BRITNED. This 1000MW capacity system allows electricity to be passed both ways. Increasing connectivity is not all good news because it has the ability to put everyone in the same boat.

One of the traditional problems with electricity is that one cannot store it cheaply so demand at peak always has to be closely matched to generating capacity.

This again is where international ‘connectivity’ is making the whole system much more resilient. Norway has a huge pumped storage hydro-electric generating capacity and is starting to be used a what in effect is a huge battery, charged with intermittent power from wind and used to even out the variability.

LNG is still a major part of the UK energy mix and will remain so.

Oil

Since 2005 the UK has been a net importer of oil as yields from the North Sea decline.

Imports come from a diverse range of countries, mostly Norway. Imports from OPEC countries only account for 15% and of course, no all OPEC countries are in the Middle East or directly affected by the Straits of Hormuz.

Although aggregate demand for oil products has fallen the mix has changed, less petrol and more diesel and aviation fuel. UK refining capacity has not matched this trend so we export petrol and import diesel and aviation fuel.

Aviation fuel is sourced from a wide number of countries but taking those in the Gulf region, it is over 50%. Very little diesel is imported from beyond the shores of Europe.

Emergency oil stocks are EU and IEA obligations, 67.5 days of consumption for the EU and 90 days of net imports for the IEA. At the end of 2010 the UK held stocks equivalent to about 84 days final consumption.

The North Sea may be seen as a washed out resource but there may be surprises yet, the recent discovery of the Aldous Major South field in the Norwegian area is the largest ever discovered (in the North Sea)

Gas

The Security of Supply Report suggests that market diversity and an increasing capacity in infrastructure is not vulnerable to most disruption scenarios, including one must assume, a closure of the Straits of Hormuz for a short period.

Currently, gas for power generation contributes to both base load and peak loads. Gas is sourced from dwindling North Sea fields, pipeline delivered gas from continental Europe (Norway and Russia) and ship delivered Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from the USA and Middle East (mostly Qatar)

In 2006 Qatar overtook Indonesia as the world’s largest exporter of LNG and its North Fieldreserve is the largest in the world with an equivalent capacity of 150 years UK peak demand. The Qatargas II supply chain is a quite staggering project, the South Hook LNG terminal in Milford Haven, 14 new LNG tankers, 30 wells, 2 onshore processing facilities and the supporting infrastructure. It is the largest LNG terminal in Europe and can satisfy 20% of the UK’s demand alone.

The agreement with Qatargas is for a 20 year, non divertable supply. Within the terms of the agreement, supply cannot be diverted elsewhere if they pay more. Nearby is the Dragon LNG terminal, similar to South Hook although smaller, there are other large terminals on Teesside and the Isle of Grain.

In addition to Qatar, the UK imports LNG from, Kuwait, Algeria and Trinidad although the UK is the largest export destination for Qatar LNG.

Major gas pipelines include the Langeled and Vesterled routes from Norway, the IUK pipeline to Belgium and BBL pipeline to the Netherlands. These pipelines link the UK to the wider European gas infrastructure and at the height of the Russian supply crisis even allowed the UK to export gas into Europe.

Despite the noise about Hormuz and Qatar, the single largest import source for gas used in the UK is Norway but LNG has rapidly increased in importance. LNG imported using ships accounts for about 40% of imported gas (about 20% of total consumption), the vast majority being from Qatar.

Advancing technology with both liquefaction and regasification have enabled the distance that LNG can be transported economically viable has increased. This increases resilience because it allows a greater range of sources to be used.

Iran, Her Neighbours and Customers

What strikes me more about events of the last few weeks is the evidence that Iran has once again tried to play in the big leagues with threats about closing the Straits of Hormuz but this time has found that the rules have changed, the opposing teams, grounds and even the home fans have changed a great deal since the last time.

Those changes have culminated in a very harsh lesson in energy politics being meted out to Iran, a lesson she would do well to heed. That lesson has nothing at all to do with how many carriers are in the area, whether a submarine or speedboat will be effective or even the aftermath of such an action.

I have always said the principle victims of disruption in the Straits of Hormuz would be Iran, China, Japan and India.

Iran, as incredible as it might seem, is wholly reliant on imports of refined oil products, its creaky infrastructure, restrictive business environment and basket case economy would be dealt a severe blow by a shooting war, one which it might not recover from for a long time. Those in charge might hold a grip over the population now but a wholesale reduction in electricity generation, fuel for vehicles and other products would no doubt see yet more internal strife that may be successful this time.

It has even got to the point where the government is urging people to drive less, ride the train and convert cars to LNG. A recent parliamentary bill paves the way for a raft of measures that taken together will reduce imports of oil products. Iran for many years has heavily subsidised petrol prices which has encouraged inefficiency and encouraged smuggling to neighbouring countries. Fill up your car, drive it over the border and double your money on an industrial scale. It is hard to pull back from this.

Iran has the third largest oil reserves in the world but its poor management of this resource means its economy remains weak and vulnerable, exports, whilst large, are small in comparison with other countries.

Iran actually has a relatively weak military capability, despite all the flashy ostentatious parade ground displays, formation speedboat manoeuvres and photoshopped images of rockets being launched there is not a great deal of depth, certainly not against punitive strikes from her much better equipped neighbours, particularly Saudi Arabia.

The Gulf States have been on a prolonged weapons shopping spree and if their prosperity is threatened or an attack is launched against the oil and gas production facilities things would very quickly resolve themselves.

A prolonged period of disruption is not likely when income is threatened.

China has in the last few weeks been very visibly making supply agreements with Saudi Arabia which sends a strong message to the Iranian leadership; patience is beginning to get threadbare. Carry on your nonsense and we will shop elsewhere. This might be a simplistic view, China has a very complex and deep rooted relationship with Iran, but the signs of impatience are there.

Speaking a couple of days ago after a visit to the region the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said;

China has normal trading relations with Iran, but will not bargain away its principles. We support the UN resolutions related to the Iranian nuclear issue. Iran would not have wanted China to make this statement, but Iran must understand that if it comes down to a choice China will not alienate itself from the rest of the world for the sake of single country

Whilst Iran may be all bluff and bluster, as they edge closer to being a global ‘billy no mates’ sense does seem to be prevailing with signs of a gradual stepping away from the hard lines.

Many interpret the recent softer tones coming from Iran as a direct response to the US carrier but I find this unconvincing, China and the realities of energy economics seem to have a much greater impact, although let’s not dismiss completely the sobering thought of a US carrier battle group and attendant UK/French naval vessels in the area.

Price Volatility

Oil and gas are global commodities and whatever local arrangements are in place a global price increase would affect everyone.

Except would it?

The UK’s commercial gas contracts for example, are a mix of divertible and non-divertible at agreed prices. There are people who think disruption in the Gulf would increase oil and gas prices beyond the short term but others point to the global economic downturn and EU problems depressing the market, keeping prices down and supply outstrips demand.

A sustained price increase as a result of disruption in the Gulf is certainly not a foregone conclusion.

Normally, price increases would be in the interests of Iran but as they run out of customers they might find that an increase in prices is not offset by a reduction in sales volume.

Predicting energy prices is difficult at the best of times and there are very few certainties.

Long Term Options

The very simple long term option is to relegate the whole area to a backwater of strategic irrelevance.

Take the heat out of the situation, remove the tension and avoid the problem.

The only way the West can do this is to remove its dependence on Middle East oil and gas.

So that was Monday, what would we do on Tuesday!

It doesn’t need saying that is easier said than done and if there is one positive to come from the whole climate change debate it is a renewed vigour on the quest for alternative and renewable energy.

Perhaps this is a better argument for renewables than CO2 reduction and man-made climate change, certainly less divisive and a lot more clear cut.

If one follows the energy technology news there is activity every single day, new technologies, new applications, means of reducing demand and a whole load of creative thinking. I am more optimistic for the long time than many, if the human race has shown anything it is a knack for adapting and overcoming big challenges.

Long term there is no alternative, although hydrocarbons will be continually extracted in one form or another for some time to come, and again, we seem to be able to tackle the increasing difficulty in extraction, the future clearly is wind, wave, hydrothermal, shale gas, underground coal gasification, hydrogen, various forms of nuclear and solar.

The UK is well blessed for some of these, particularly wave and tidal but there is a long way to go before we can stop sucking on the teat of Middle East oil and gas, particularly gas.

This is not an overnight option and therefore the issue of Iran has to be addressed.

The best option for Iran is for Iran to stop being an arsehole and reconnect with the world.

Economic prosperity, with its attendant power are easily within the reach of Iran and her people.

By stopping the pursuit of nuclear weapons, sanctions would soon disappear.

This would then put Iran on normal trading relations with the rest of the world and if it could then reform its poor economic management and business environment inward investment into its shockingly poor refining and exploration infrastructure would follow.

Net result, buyer meets seller and everyone concentrates on making money, talk of sanctions and air strikes become a thing of the past, Gucci handbags and internet access all round.

A Prescription

We should therefore be investing time, energy, creativity and resources in five areas;

Remind Iran of the Consequences of Continued Shenanigans

This does not need overt brinkmanship, cruising around the Gulf in carrier battle groups edging closer to the inevitable, but it does need a concerted and determined effort to remind Iran that whilst we wish to de-escalate and avoid confrontation if it wants a fight it is going to be the loser. Appearing weak and divided is the very last thing we should be doing but let’s not be throwing petrol on the fire either.

The Gulf States need to get off the fence as well; it is their region and their economies that would be disrupted. We should be clear that we are committed to supporting them but they need to be equally committed, no sitting on the side lines, no conditional access. If we are to be engaged so must they, if they cannot find justification for regional conflict then why should we?

To support his, any mission must be focussed laser like on maintaining the free flow of goods through the area, nothing more, nothing less. However, the tactics to ensure this free flow must be flexible enough to be effective.

Having made the point, Western forces should rapidly wind down their major naval presence in the area i.e. carriers should not be in the Gulf beyond the next few weeks.

Reduce Vulnerability to Supply Disruption

As the report referred to above shows, the UK has an extremely flexible and diverse gas and oil supply infrastructure and equally flexible trade and regulation environments but with a few hot spots, with over 50% of imported aviation fuel and over 20% (and rising) of imported natural gas coming from the region. We must understand, despite these relatively high figures, they represent yearly figures, would not be overly vulnerable to short term disruption and could be replaced with other sources.

This may be optimistic so security of supply regulation should examine means of reducing vulnerability to medium term disruption by investing in greater refining capability, especially for aviation fuel, and LNG storage, an area in which, despite recent improvements, we lag far behind other nations with lower gas dependence.

Vulnerability to supply disruption applies both home and away.

There is no reason why the extensive pipeline network in the Middle East cannot be expanded with inward investment from the UK to the region. Investment in pipelines based on the simple premise of increasing infrastructure resilience and diversity whilst reducing vulnerability to single points of risk concentration I.e. the Straits of Hormuz would not be a bad use of public money.

There are already extensive gas storage facilities with three more under construction in Cheshire and more awaiting planning consent. Gas storage is a strategic issue and planning processes should be streamlined/barged through depending on your view. These storage facilities allow us to build extensive reserves which compensate for supply disruption and increasing winter demand. Import rates continue at a steady pace with more than is needed during the summer and less than is needed during winter, with the storage taking up the slack.

An overall increase in storage is another wise investment for the UK to compensate for supply side disruption to availability and subsequent price fluctuations.

Who would pay for this increasing infrastructure diversity is an easy question to answer, everyone, but then that is the price to pay for resilience.

Help Regional Partners with Their Security

We already do this superbly well, the MCM task force in the Gulf, as supplemented by survey, RFA and a small number of frigates or destroyers do a magnificent job with little public acknowledgement or resource. Building relations, developing regional capabilities and demonstrating a publicly visible commitment do more for regional security and the security of the UK than wading in all guns blazing.

The other two services also have a role, although necessarily different.

It is ‘forward presence’ personified and quite simply we should do more.

Invest in Diplomacy and Intelligence

The current belligerent stance simply makes no sense for Iran, the challenge for Western and regional diplomats are to make them realise it. At every opportunity we should be talking, showing their people and leaders alike how they can prosper with a more engaged approach with world affairs. To do this we need to develop a much greater understanding of their issues and this can only come from overt and covert intelligence gathering and engagement.

China, India, Russia and Japan need to play a greater role and the West needs to put efforts into finding common ground and common approaches with them.

Reduce demand for Middle East Oil and Gas

It’s a bit of a no brainer this one and should go hand in hand with whatever policy direction we take in the CO2 reduction space. I tend to find myself increasingly unconvinced by the argument for manmade global warming but a increasingly convinced by the need for the UK to take energy security more seriously than it does.

Our increasing reliance on imported gas can only lead to strategic vulnerability

Take you pick from a cast of many technologies, until we find the most promising, investment diversity makes sense. We have intelligent and enterprising engineers and scientists, lots of natural resources and it is about time the government got to grips with coordinating this effort at a national level.

A Final Thought or Two

So we can see that although there are hot spots, the UK is not wholly vulnerable to disruption in the area and it would be a folly to think otherwise or use it as an excuse to push one agenda or another.

Finally, we must ask the basic question, is Iran a threat and if so, why?

Maybe the answers to those questions might be a little uncomfortable for those marching us to war.

Another question to ponder is, would a nuclear armed Iran necessarily be a bad thing,  would it temper Israel’s power and maybe bring about a maturing of relationships and attitudes?

Don’t know!

Most of us reading this will have heard of the US system called Gorgon Stare and I think we can all appreciate the benefit of persistent surveillance for all spectrums of military operations.

One of the limiting factors with existing systems is that in general, they can only look at one place at a time. Even accepting the wide area radar view being able to cross cue optical sensors from different or the same collector platform we are still suffering from looking through the proverbial soda straw and in general, full motion video is used for the ‘here and now’ rather than piecing together a long term wide area picture. You may have heard of the term ‘patterns of life’ and this is used to describe this wide area medium term view, by understanding how people move (or not), distribution of indicators like crop harvesting and other fiendishly clever analysis a great deal can be ascertained. Although we have used this in the context of COIN type operations where analysing patterns of movement of the civilian population can deliver vital clues about enemy activity, contraband smuggling and IED emplacement it also has utility in more intensive combat operations as well as long as the aerial platforms can remain aloft.

The UK has used this a great deal in Afghanistan, with the Royal Navy ASaC Mk7′s playing a particularly vital role.

Understanding that a local villagers always use a particular route to their fields and being able to determine that they are no longer conforming to their norms might indicate that enemy forces are operating in the area, the presence of IED’s or other suspicious activity. It is a tremendously useful and innovative technique, stitching together various sensors feeds and other intelligence to create a big picture and changes in this picture stick out like a bulldog’s dangly bits.

In response to this need US forces have fielded the Gorgon Stare system.

Gorgon Stare, or to give it its proper name, Wide Area Airborne Surveillance (WAAS) pod is a Sierra Nevada system of five electro-optical still cameras and four infrared cameras for day and night wide-area surveillance. It provides multiple views of the battlefield and is mounted in a couple of pods on the Reaper UAV. Operating in conjunction with the Distributed Common Ground System it stitches together the multiple views into a single composite feed. Displayed as multiple tiles or if needed, single or smaller number of tiles can be composited. Because of the huge data rate it would not be possible to transmit at the full motion video of 25-30 frames per second so instead scales this down to 2 frames per second, which is entirely adequate for its intended use. The initial versions monitor everything in a 4km by 4km square but this will be increased with later versions. Coupled with this wide area view is its ability to provide forensic replays, an IED goes off in a particular area for example and an analyst can simply rewind the image square for that area, picking up the people who laid it, where they came from, how they moved and potentially, where they are now. Automated image analysis tools are also being used to maximise the benefit of all this data and video compression technology based on fourier transfoms is also improving, better compression effectively means more data down a limited bandwidth pipe.

With constant improvement in solid state storage and video compression techniques it could be feasible to provide video storage/caching as part of the observation payload, thus reducing the amount of backhaul bandwidth.

In effect, the aerial platform becomes a large Sky Plus / TIVO box or town centre CCTV system

Click here to view the embedded video.

Commercial SSD storage, 60Gb for example, costs about £80 and weighs less than 250g. That’s about £1.50 and 0.005Kg per gigabyte. H.264/MPEG4 for example, can have embedded XML metadata (location, time date etc), is adaptive, able to change bitrate depending on bandwidth available, able to use cheap single chip encoders and can squeeze a standard digital TV resolution video/audio stream into a very small data stream. Depending on quality settings and other factors it could be about 4-5 Gb per hour of footage. Change from full motion video to CCTV frame rates and the storage capacity is significantly increased.

All the storage vendors are now offering a range of SSD based storage appliances and using the very rough figures above, 24 hours of video footage would be less than a kilogram and £200. MPEG4/H.264 might not be the most ideal codec but I have used this example to illustrate how rapid advances in civilian technology, squeezing video down mobile and broadband links combined with the demand for solid state storage, can deliver tangible military benefits.

The key difference is that the system is available for the ‘customer’ to pull down, rather than pushed forward by request. This is a fundamental change in the way video imagery is provided, the existing stove-piped ‘knowledge is power’ structure is completely turned on its head, a paradigm shift if you want a ten pointer!

Gorgon Stare did have a number of problems, perhaps unsurprisingly for such an advanced system.

Moving beyond Gorgon Stare is the DARPA sponsored ARGUS-IS project being developed byBAe.

This ambitious programme will create a 1.8 Gigapixel camera system able to cover a 40 km2 area at 15 frames per second from an A160 Hummingbird or Reaper UAV. To process this enormous data volume it will use an airborne processing system to deliver up to 65 windows that users can zoom into or out of on demand. The software makes the difference; its advanced target recognition algorithms provide movement detection and target tracking.

Other payloads might include the ubiquitous EO sensor pod, SAR or multiples of the same.

It is ARGUS that has been in the news recently with a planned deployment to Afghanistan very soon.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The combination of ARGUS and the innovative long endurance high altitude Boeing A160 Hummingbird unmanned helicopter looks to have enormous potential, both at sea and overland.

Click here to view the embedded video.

There are also a number of reports that ARGUS is due to be mounted on the ginormous Blue Devil 2 airship, a week long endurance and all seeing eyes, combined with other sensors and an airborne radio relay is something that is hard to dislike!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Airships are not without their problems but the technology is rapidly maturing.

As a bit of an afterthought, we discussed the on/off Sea King ASaC Mk 7 replacement and noted a podded solution from Lockheed Martin called Vigilance as a front runner.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Given the Hummingbirds increasing maturity and the technology behind the Vigilance Pod, the same radar as the F35, would combining the two provide another option for CVF?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click the image to read more.

This is a fascinating subject, they have calculated that 28% of equipment and services sourced from UK, or where the supply chain is largely UK based, is returned to the government in income tax and national insurance contributions alone. Add in corporation tax and other factors and the figure rises, one would assume.

It is a hugely complex subject but the simplistic view is that when buying British the government gets an effective third off the sticker price. Whether this is valid in a globalised defence market where supply chains or complex and where international corporations have subsidiaries is another complex issue.

Buying off the shelf may seem superficially attractive but it is fraught with risk, as we have experienced with items as simple as Mastiff spares or ammunition.

From a non joined up MoD only perspective, it never sees direct revenue from these inflows, in effect, the MoD is subsidising the Treasury, so why should it pay the premium when it never sees the benefit but again, one could argue that is rather simplistic because it all comes and goes from the same pot.

No doubt this will add fuel to the debate on the upcoming defence industry strategy policy that is supposedly ‘imminent’, signposted by the Green Paper Equipment, Support and Technology, on  and various reports have indicated that the policy will largely focus on buying off the shelf products from overseas where there is a financial saving to be made.

Hilary Clinton is driving the outrage bus and a coalition of the ‘disgusted’ are packing out the seats.

I join him in condemning the deplorable behavior that is reflected in this video. It is absolutely inconsistent with American values, with the standards of behavior that we expect from out military personal

They say a picture tells a thousand words but if there are a thousand words about this picture/video there are ten thousand words that might put it in context; had one of their comrades just had his legs blown off by an IED, how long had they been on operations, what lead up to it?

Without condoning it, when you put young men into situations like Afghanistan, train and equip them for extreme violence and subject them to equal levels of violence there are always going to be incidents like this.

Perhaps we need less outrage and more understanding, put things in context, have some semblance of perspective and show support. Those doing the sniping from the comfort of their keyboards might perhaps like to sign up for a tour.

There are very real operational implications of these incidents, they cannot be brushed under the carpet and ignored, and there should be no doubt that we hold our values at a higher level than the Taleban.

Failures of local leadership obviously need to be addressed and no doubt the USMC will deal with them as it sees fit.

We should leave it there though and find a bit more space in the outrage bus for stories like this, which never seem to warrant the same degree of spleen venting.

Over to you Hilary