Two drones, two crashes in two months: MoD still won't say why A damning Ministry of Defence report into the UK government department's safety oversight systems has revealed when two unmanned aerial vehicles crashed into the sea off Wales. The Watchkeeper WK450-series drone fleet, built and partially operated by French defence contractor Thales, has been marred by a number of crashes in …
Honesty is not a virtue that comes naturally to people at the Ministry of Defence.
The political imperative of needing to put a positive slant on everything the Government does or will do, irrespective of whether it is true or not, is the reason why spin has become the centrepiece of this Government’s communications strategy. And because Government has got a monopoly on inside information (enabling it to maintain extremely tight control), it uses spin to divert attention away from the key issues that really matter to citizens and consequently, succeeds in suppressing alternative views and criticism from those on the outside, including Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
The Ministry of Defence is particularly apt at this dark art of spinning – a skill perfected whilst defending a particularly appalling record of performance, over the last several decades. Increasingly, there is a lack of trust in the claims made by MoD about its work and achievements. MoD is able to get away with blatant lies and cover-ups because it relies on spin as its primary tool to deflect criticism – reinforced by the weapon of secrecy.
Indeed, there is a massive gap in the minds of interested observers outside the Ministry of Defence such as those in the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, BEIS, the National Audit Office, academic institutions, think tanks and the press & media on how it supposedly functions on a day-to-day basis, as depicted in official UK Government publications (which remain within the editorial control of MoD), and how it actually operates in reality.
In addition, the culture of intense secrecy within MoD has not only allowed its leadership to extend this discrepancy even further, but also conceal appallingly poor policy-making and huge failings in its defence procurement procedures, from select committees of the House of Commons – such as the Public Accounts Committee, Defence Select Committee and Public Administration & Constitutional Affairs Committee – severely undermining their parliamentary function of scrutinising the performance of MoD.
What’s more, MoD discourages free thought and self-criticism of its internal business processes, and is consequently completely reliant on outsiders to identify, and point out shortcomings in its defence equipment procurement policy.
The more secretively it works, the more incompetent it becomes. The simple fact of the matter is that secrecy breeds incompetence, whilst openness breeds competence.
@JagPatel3
MoD discourages free thought and self-criticism of its internal business processes, and is consequently completely reliant on outsiders to identify, and point out shortcomings in its defence equipment procurement policy.
And those outsiders are ignored, their questions deflected, and business proceeds as usual.
In the case of Watchkeeper, the programme unit cost is about £22m each. I accept that's (supposedly) a whole life cost, but Watchkeeper is based on the Hermes H450 that the Israelis had flying back in 1998 and that has a publicly reported unit cost of $2m. I struggle to see how MoD manage to make it cost so much.
And worse still with this spate of crashes, it isn't as though we haven't used similar drones already - MoD leased a fleet of H450s and these racked up 86,000 hours of lying in Afghanistan, losing 8 of them (so one per 11,000 flying hours in a war zone - that doesn't look too bad?). Meanwhile, in the hostile badlands of mid Wales, the Watchkeeper programme has lost 4 so far, and with the reported 146 hours of active duty, that's roughly one per 36 hours of duty. Does anybody spot anything odd there?
"Reason? Trainee pilots.
They need a better flight simulation system."
Except the article notes that there is no actual piloting involved, the "pilot" simply puts waypoints on a map and the drone itself does all the flying. This was over the sea, so no chance of accidentally telling it to fly into a mountain, and I'd hope the software would complain if it's given a negative altitude, so it seems virtually impossible for the controller to actually cause a crash, no matter how inexperienced they might be.
MoD leased a fleet of H450s and these racked up 86,000 hours of lying in Afghanistan, losing 8 of them (so one per 11,000 flying hours in a war zone - that doesn't look too bad?). Meanwhile, in the hostile badlands of mid Wales, the Watchkeeper programme has lost 4 so far, and with the reported 146 hours of active duty, that's roughly one per 36 hours of duty. Does anybody spot anything odd there?
The H450s in Afghanistan didn't have to deal with dragons.
Or perhaps the drones are having trouble with drones!
I remember many happy hours hill walking in Wales where throwing a rock off a cliff could easily have taken out a state of the art fighter and can easily imagine some photographer enjoying the freedom of the hill to take a sweeping drone shot of a valley and being a victim pauli's exclusion principle.
HMS Sheffield, Falklands
Sinking of the fleeing Argentinian ship.
Earlier: Deliberate targeting of German civilians in WWII so Hitler would switch from attacking aerodromes. Continued use so Hitler would waste resources on V weapons. Dresden.
Selling of Harriers, pointless naval procurements. F35.
Rent nukes from USA and cancel UK nukes and UK space program.
Mistreatment of recruits, esp. women and then cover-ups.
Mistreatment of Cadets.
@ DamnedIfIKnow, I did not write the original post but then again I haven't been sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting "la la la" whenever the news mentions MOD failures
"HMS Sheffield, Falklands" MOD buys the idea of warships armor made out of materials normally associated with fireworks
"Sinking of the fleeing Argentinian ship." sunk even though outside of exclusion zone, not really MOD fault as the order to send (from UK government) came after target had already left the zone.
"Earlier: Deliberate targeting of German civilians in WWII so Hitler would switch from attacking aerodromes. Continued use so Hitler would waste resources on V weapons. Dresden." clear enough if you can read, I didn't hear about this one but given politics of the time it would make sense and I wouldn't put it past them.
"Selling of Harriers, pointless naval procurements. F35, Rent nukes from USA and cancel UK nukes and UK space program" shutting down homegrown technology and relying upon a different country to provide your solutions, this is an IT forum need I say any more about how that worked out?
"Mistreatment of recruits, esp. women and then cover-ups, Mistreatment of Cadets" turning a blind eye to the perverts in your ranks and then using "if we tell you why we have to kill you" to prevent discovery.
@AC "Except that contrary to aluminium-foil-hatted myth, Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel." and yet aluminum foil was one of the ingredients of the fore mentioned "light weight" armor perhaps they were waiting for the iron in the steel to rust so they had a thermite clue as well as the Standard Fireworks logo on the side.
I was not aware that any steel superstructure details were of consequence once the armor started burning. Whole episode was like a take on the Emperors New Clothes
what exactly is your point? HMS Sheffield caught fire after being hit by an exocet. Most of the crew were rescued.
The Belgrano wasn't fleeing anywhere - it was beyond the exclusion zone yes, but a potent weapon within a few hours sail of the Falklands (where our very small fleet was waiting) is a viable target in wartime.
Tinfoil hattery re targeting civilians - any citation for that or just revisionist hearsay? German bombers were under strict instructions not to bomb civilian targets until they accidentally hit London. Hitlers V weapons were developed as a last gasp attempt to swing the war in the Nazis favour, far too little and too late, nothing to do with a deliberate policy by the UK, unless you're suggesting we have access to intelligence in 1940 that somehow let us know they would develop the V2. Germany, specifically Hitler, refused to build enough fighters to counter the allied bombing campaign, and by the time they relalised it was too late, their infrastructure and industry was shattered. Dresden again? Have a look where your casualty figures come from. I assume you're going to quote 250,000 ? Interestingly those figures were created by Goebbels to whip up international revulsion - he multiplied his own ministry's casualty figures by a factor of 10. Sadly Dresden suffered no worse and in some cases far less than many German cities in 44/45.
That aside, the MoD is renowned for making massively expensive and dubious procurement decisions. I agree, selling the Harrier to the US is a stupid shortsighted idea. Yet again, follow the money and see who gets a fat salary as a consequence.
The Uk space program was cancelled as we couldn't afford it, preferring to spend money on things like pensions. It's also cheaper to have US built nuclear missiles than spend money developing our own. You can argue the foolishness of both these ideas and I'd agree with you.
As to the treatment of cadets and women, that's a whole different matter - the Army has a very closed mindset about training. What worked in the past must surely still work, or so they like to think. The Deepcut business was buried to keep the army's reputation intact, and has become so ingrained they now cant even consider revealing what happened.
Wtf are you on about? There aren't any nukes "rented" from the USA. And building new ships is pointless naval procurements? Yeah sure it is.
Hitler bombed cities before the RAF ever did you imbecile. Meaning the RAF couldn't have, and didn't, deliberately target civilians to divert his attention.
Complete fucking idiot.
"Honesty is not a virtue that comes naturally to people at the Ministry of Defence."
Especially, it would appear, when looking after the safety of the soldiers at the sharp end in combat zones.
No, the welfare of the blood suckers (literally) in the defence industry are MUCH more important.
A lot of civil servants and their defence contractor pals need to be on murder / manslaughter charges.
Or conscripted and made to use the equipment they specified / provided ....
This post has been deleted by its author
Absolutely - I'm not sure whether the article is saying "Duh! Why are they testing anti-icing if the temperature is 9°C!"
A statement that "temperatures on the day averaged about 9°C" tells you nothing without knowing the altitude of the drone, its airspeed (i.e. airflow over its flying surfaces and hence chill) and whether icing conditions were prevailing at that time (e.g. humidity).
Also - being pedantic - the period of the "average temperature" is important too - it could have been 9°C for 24 hours, or 0°C for 12 hours and 18°C for 12 hours or any other combination....
They may well have proved that the airframe is prone to icing, and/or the deicing does not work (twice!) but the fact that they are saying nothing implies it is more stupid than that (e.g. out of fuel, batteries ran out on drone, flew at negative altitude over the sea for too long, wings on back-to-front).
I agree with you. If I'd been able to find public METAR data for 3rd February I'd have quoted that for daylight hours, but sadly a generalised summary for Aberystwyth was the best I could find.
Assuming the usual British temperature distribution, we can probably assume the temperature that day peaked in mid-afternoon. But as the MoD refuses to say anything at all about the Watchkeeper's flight profile, the cause of the crash could be anything.
If the MoD had lost nearly 10% of a manned aircraft fleet we'd be seeing a lot more transparency. But here it seems to be NHI, NFI.
It certainly does sound like a case of the anti-icing equipment they were testing failed and the drones iced up and dropped out. Perhaps the MoD don't have the telemetry to tell them definitively and since the drones are now the property of Davey Jones the best they can do is say the cause is uncertain as they have no absolute evidence. One day there may be an explanation that involves the phrase "more likely than not".
"
(i.e. airflow over its flying surfaces and hence chill)
"
Airflow will *increase* the temperature of the airframe (from friction). "Chill factor" applies only to things that are hotter than the air (e.g. warm-blooded animals, soldering irons etc).
Airflow will *increase* the temperature of the airframe (from friction). "Chill factor" applies only to things that are hotter than the air
If the airframe is hotter than the air due to friction, the "chill factor" will cool it back down again.
Since flying in cold air is a unique technical challenge that no previous aircraft have mastered, perhaps the answer is to copy nature and give it a warm furry coat?
"Feathers, surely?"
Bats use fur quite effectively, though interestingly not much on the wing membranes. Though they probably regulate wing temperature through blood flow. Bats are not great gliders and soarers, so they flap the wings generating muscle heat which could be radiated through the wing membranes reducing the need to sweat.
Alternatively they could be like penguin's feet and have a counter current heat exchange mechanism by which cold venous blood is warmed by incoming arterial blood so little to no heat is lost. How King and Emperor penguins manage to stand for long periods on very cold ice. The bottom of their feet are the same temp as the ice, with antifreeze.
'an airframe that contains an engine etc'
The engine is hotter than the air, the wings and fuselage not so much. The problem with icing is that it changes the shape of the aerofoil adversely affecting its lift characteristics. At the speeds the Watchkeeper is going I wouldn't think friction would give much of a heating effect, the main problem is usually an airframe/wings that are cooled below freezing which then flies through a cloud or rain leading to a rapid build up of fairly solid ice.
I don't know off the top of my head what sort of anti-icing system the Watchkeeper has, some aircraft heat the wings and other vulnerable area, either with engine bleed air if it's got a gas turbine, or heating mats. Others use pneumatic boots which have to wait for ice to start forming and then expand to break it off.
Not in any major sense below Mach 1.
Concorde (and any M1+ vehicle) got pretty hot due to skin friction, but it's a very minor factor sub sonically.
Mind you if you're going to fly over Blighty at high altitude (or indeed anywhere at high altitude) and fairly slowly anti-icing gear sounds like a good thing to fit as standard.
"
Not in any major sense below Mach 1
"
Not major enough to be a design consideration, but it is certainly not insignificant. At normal light aircraft cruising speeds the increase in the airframe temperature due to air friction can be several degrees C - certainly the difference between ice and no ice in many situations. In larger subsonic aircraft, ice can appear when the aircraft reduces speed from, say, 250kts to 150kts even though the outside air temperature has not changed. I have taken off in a light aircraft having de-iced the wings mechanically as best I can, and watched as the remaining ice melts away after a few minutes' flying, despite the fact that I have climbed into colder air.
"then the temperature decreases by about 5.4°F for every 1,000 feet up you go in elevation."
Shouldn’t that be in approved Vulture Central units? “then the temperature decreases by about 3.5Hn for every 2178lg up you go in elevation.” You’re welcome.
The two drones, tail numbers WK042 and WK043, crashed within seven weeks of each other, in February and March this year. Both "remotely piloted aerial systems" (RPAS) were lost in Cardigan Bay, immediately west of West Wales Airport, Aberporth
I would start by looking for a guanera island in the immediate vicinity. If it happens to be owned by a crazy German-Chinese ex-gangster with prosthetic hands calling himself Dr. No, you've hit the jackpot.
And yes, as much as I like Sean Connery, I much prefer the book to the movie.
Close, but no coconut.
Those of us who live here are aware of the legends of "Cantre'r Gwaelod" - the sunken land. Cardigan Bay used to be dry land, with people living there, but it was protected by a large wall to keep the sea out. One night, the gatekeeper (name of Seithenyn) was drunk and forgot to close the gates and it was lost to the sea. On a quiet night you can still hear the bells ringing under the sea.
There's also a semi-submerged causeway running out into the bay north of Aberystwyth, Sarn Cynfelyn.
I reckon they were just using out-of-date maps.
Daft question here:
If the gates had to be closed to keep the sea out, then at any point they were open, it would have flooded - drunk gatekeeper or not.
If the tide had to be in for the gates being open to matter then surely he would just leave them open then to let the tide go out and everything unsubmerged, but damp.
(I am also sometimes referred to as a legend - I am getting old and no-one really believes in me any more....)
"One night, the gatekeeper (name of Seithenyn) was drunk and forgot to close the gates and it was lost to the sea."
"Seithenyn ap Seithi, the valiant, the bold
Drinks the wine of the stranger from vessels of gold..."
In Peacock's book, The misfortunes of Elphin the flooding is due to government incompetence, maintenance failures, and corruption. In fact, it could be a satire on the MoD, had there been one at the time.
As the article mentions, the Watchkeeper avionics, sensors and software seem to have been designed as if the aircraft will only ever fly in perfect sunny weather.
It struggles to deal with the realities of the Welsh climate, especially when in the landing phase, where its Laser altimeter gets very confused if flying over water, more so if it's windy and raining.
For these reasons, landing at Aberporth, where the final approach is over Cardigan Bay, is, you might say, sub-optimal...
It therefore doesn't much surprise me that the drones have successfully landed in the sea a few times.
As the article mentions, the Watchkeeper avionics, sensors and software seem to have been designed as if the aircraft will only ever fly in perfect sunny weather.
Possibly. The weather in Afghanistan is pretty hostile, with significant rain and snow in winter, cold temperatures, and the added joy of dust storms and summer heat, but the predecessor Hermes UAV was used successfully in 'stan.
So you have to wonder WTF have Thales and MoD done that has screwed up something that should have been an off-the-shelf purchase?
Toulouse, where a lot of the French aircraft industry is based perhaps?
Probably not bad over large bits of the Middle East as well.
Not so good over say Northern Europe, like that US "stealth" plane bought down in the former Yugoslavia when it's radar invisibility coating rusted.
"like that US "stealth" plane bought down in the former Yugoslavia when it's radar invisibility coating rusted."
It wasn't that the stealth coating was damaged (I'm pretty sure anything iron based would make a terrible radio-wave absorber so 'rusted' is definitely the wrong word). Instead it was a combination of the F-117's using the same routes night after night, and modifications made to the radars to use longer wavelengths.
The predictable routes (and poor radio discipline) allowed the Serbs to site their AA battery right under the flightpath, and their older radars weren't the sort of system that the F-117 was designed to guard against.
"allowed the Serbs to site their AA battery"
A technical term which has somewhat changed its commonest meaning over recent years.
Mind you, at supersonic speeds an AA cell could do quite a lot of damage.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
