back to article We 'could' send troubled Watchkeeper drones to war, insists UK minister

The British Army's troubled Watchkeeper drones "could still be deployed on operations", a defence minister has insisted. Labour MP Kevan Jones, a member of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, asked the Ministry of Defence "what assessed capability gaps have been created as a result of the Army's Watchkeeper …

  1. SkippyBing

    Disingenious

    Sure you could deploy the Watchkeepers on actual operations, it's even just about in the spirit and letter of the MAA's regulations. It doesn't mean you wouldn't have a capability gap though as if they haven't been able to conduct peace time training they won't have much capability when they get to the benign war zone* of your choice.

    *Anywhere without any sort of vaguely competent anti-air threat.

    1. Tikimon
      Devil

      Re: Disingenious

      Oh stop bashing the poor misunderstood things. They're quite capable of successful operational deployment! It just depends on how you define the mission. They would be simply breathtaking in the right roles, such as:

      Target Drone - They can draw off fighter opposition and force both ground and air elements to waste time and ordnance trying to shoot them down. Given the amazing random-number direction changes built into the navigation system, they're well-equipped to evade missile attack.

      KamiKaze - Highly effective ground attack strategy. If they're going to crash anyway, may as well take out a target. It might only need slight changes to the automatic landing profile, no new approach method is needed so a huge cost-saver there.

      PsyOps - Relentless buzzing attacks can destroy the morale and fighting effectiveness of poorly-rested and enemy combatants. This little-used effect can be worth a regiment of troops! Program costs can also be offset by posting advertisements on the drones, which will be seen by a large audience of consumers during repeated passes over the target.

      Area Denial - Given the high percentage of "pork" involved in the construction of the drones, anywhere one crashes will be "unclean" and off-limits to Arab opponents. This can be a knock-on effect for KamiKaze operations, or a specially-targeted strike on enemy headquarters, assembly areas, or recreation facilities.

      Politicians never have the imagination for military matters...

  2. Pen-y-gors

    So...

    they were due to be operational five years ago, and still aren't ready. They've gone way over budget. The Army has been on continuous active service in Iraq, Afghanistan and places around there for many years, but have managed without them. Time to cancel the order and get a full refund under the Sale of Goods Act - not fit for purpose. And add in a charge for doing their system testing for them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So...

      Time to cancel the order and get a full refund under the Sale of Goods Act - not fit for purpose.

      Watchkeeper, Astute, F35, Brimstone....the same applies to everything touched by the pox-ridden hand of MoD Abbey Wood. I can explain to a small extent why this happens. A few months back I met a couple of senior old dears from the Civil Service at that place, and the most abiding thing was not any sense of contrition or desire to change, nor any sense of common purpose and dogged effectiveness, but of staggering and misplaced self-importance, with one of them referring to herself as a "one-star equivalent". Obviously on a pay grade that could be true, but having met and worked with many military people, I've yet to come across any civil servant of any seniority with more presence and ability than a pilot officer or second lieutenant.

      1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

        Re: So...

        Oi careful which civil servants you tar with that brush

        Mind you, down in research engineering, we had a cunning plan to avoid a lot of the cockups...... we contacted each science group and when they had a project to build, come down to engineering and discuss it with us lot, then we build it.

        Saved a whole heap of trouble than doing it the official way and having the 15 layers of bureaucracy between us and the science groups involved....

        Oh and time

        "We need this for the war"

        "Ok we'll build it this afternoon and test it tommorrow"

        "Eh... the site administrator said it would take a minimum of 6 weeks...."

        "Ahh thats 5 weeks 4 days to fill out the forms, then we get a day to build it"

        1. aberglas

          The MoD has had some great successes

          We only focus on their failures. So let us think about their successes. Hmm. The Spitfire seemed to work pretty well!

      2. DaveTheForensicAnalyst

        Re: So...

        This is true to the point of being the word of god!

        I used to frequently spend my time in a brigade headquarters, wearing green a lot at the time, and actually remember a conversation with an AA (Administrative Assistant) Typist (Lower grade than Whale poo, which resides at the bottom of the ocean) who insisted the Brigade couldn't deploy without the civilian support teams doing anything. Funny thing is, they weren't around on the bank holiday weekend that we deployed to Kosovo, and we managed to get there okay! Turns out the typist in question didn't even manage to write up the Part One Orders on the Tuesday, must have had a case of the civil service snuffles!

        Fact of it is, civilian staff, be it Sodexo in the cook house/mess, or the Civil Service in Abbey Wood, are largely clueless about military requirements, and couldn't give a hoot when they bugger off on flexi at 2pm on a Friday,

        1. Alfred

          Re: So...

          " couldn't give a hoot when they bugger off on flexi at 2pm on a Friday"

          That said, I'm sure I recall the CO of Collingwood in Fareham having to direct the gate to not let any sailors out before at least midday on Friday, as it was getting silly.

          1. DaveTheForensicAnalyst
            Trollface

            Re: So...

            "That said, I'm sure I recall the CO of Collingwood in Fareham having to direct the gate to not let any sailors out before at least midday on Friday, as it was getting silly."

            Well, that is the Senile Service for you, I assure you 'other' arms have been known to work a little harder ;)

      3. Adrian Midgley 1

        Re: So...

        I have.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So...

      "they were due to be operational five years ago, and still aren't ready. They've gone way over budget. The Army has been on continuous active service in Iraq, Afghanistan and places around there for many years, but have managed without them"

      So, a normal military procurement program, then.

      You have to get to F-35 levels of cost over-run / failure / stupid / won't work / cover-up before you're into star territory.

  3. Geekpride

    Precise words

    There's a big difference between "deployed" and "deployed successfully".

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Missing 5

    Last seen heading confidently out across the Irish Sea. Since they were never seen again, they can't be recorded as "crashed". Another triumph for the navigation system.

    1. Rich 11

      Re: The Missing 5

      Another triumph for the navigation system.

      It wasn't the nav system's fault, not at all. The poor machines fell victim to the Barmouth Triangle, and are lost now to time and space.

      I suppose there's a chance they'll be returned when the UFOs make contact, landing as scheduled at Aberystwyth Golf Club.

  5. TechnicianJack
    Facepalm

    I never understand why military projects always seem go massively over budget and still produce a product which doesn't work. Perhaps I'm being naive, but what does this thing actually do? It's a small aircraft that can fly itself and has a camera on it. That's pretty much it in simple terms. Considering you can go into a shop and buy a drone that can do this (without crashing) I never understand why these large defence companies can't produce something that works for a reasonable price. I can only assume that the companies drag the development out and charge tons of money as it allows them to fill their pockets while the government is still happy to pay. Either that or they don't get the requirements right to start with, then charge even more money to get things changed later.

    It must be endlessly frustrating to be the boots on the ground that has this sort of crap equipment dumped on them and told they have to use it.

    1. Tigra 07
      Black Helicopters

      RE: Jack

      Military Industrial Complex

      We must be spending on war at all times and the pressure must be kept up on the public at all times that this is for their own good.

      1. TechnicianJack

        Re: RE: Jack

        I can understand keeping your armed forces up to date with new technology, but the new technology always seems to be a replacement for something else that didn't work properly to start with or is worse than what it's meant to be replacing. Not to mention that by the time the tender processes and contracts have all been agreed, the technology is either obsolete or no longer fit for the environment it's being used in because it's taken so long to procure. In comparison, I remember being told (whether this is true or not) that in WWII there was a requirement for a new radio, and in three weeks a team of electronics engineers had designed and built a prototype of the Wireless set 19 ready for mass production.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE: Jack

          "in WWII there was a requirement for a new radio, and in three weeks a team of electronics engineers had designed and built a prototype of the Wireless set 19 ready for mass production."

          It is easy to prototype a one-function device that just uses newer parts and existing technology. (I've done it several times, as have many others).

          The problem nowadays is everything has to talk to everything else, and when one contractor is designing the comms protocol and others are designing different parts of the system all supposedly acting on a need-to-know basis, things get very complicated very fast.

          The operation of the #19 set needed quite a lot of operator intelligence; stuff did in those days. It still got redesigned several times.

          I suspect that what really happens in a war is that stuff sitting around for years as uneconomic suddenly gets started because it may give an advantage. The economic rules change. But when there isn't really a war on it's all speculative, so most development is really just guessing what will be needed. Which is fuzzy. And as all programme managers know, it's the fuzzy front end that is slow and expensive.

          1. Dave 15

            Re: RE: Jack

            oh come on, defining a comms protocol is not difficult and implementing it these days is childs play, we have done it so often before. As for navigating and flying missiles have managed this for decades, heavens the only difference between this and a cruise missile is that this should come back, land and not explode on impact. coming back is just the same thing as going there and landing without exploding is just coming is slow enough. Give me 10 minutes and a c compiler.

            as for specs and spec changes, come up with a basic spec.. it goes where we tell it, waits there for as long as we told it and comes back.... build that, then add while it is there it takes a photograph and build that as a mark 2. We didn't wait for spitfire mk10s before flying them

            basically put the requirement out to British companies and wait for them to send you something that works

    2. Dave 15

      simple explanation

      our lovely government likes to hand all the projects to massive foreign firms who then pass it to india. The government procurement lovlies fail to do a fixed price fixed spec contract and pay out continually for changes that arent needed and overruns that are blamed on the changes.

      Write a spec, let people build to it (anyone who wants) when the object is delivered and is satisfactory order a number of them. Worked in previous generations and got us spitfires, hurricanes, most of the royal navy etc.etc.

    3. Mark 85

      I never understand why military projects always seem go massively over budget and still produce a product which doesn't work.

      It's the nature of the procurement process. The military says "we need X". Procurement says "we need X" and "let's add Y". Then after the contract is signed, there's the prototype. Then the big cost/profit jumps into play. In some circles it's called "gold plating" where over a year or two, procurement says "add Z, Z1, ad nauseam ad infinitum ad mortem". And it's the last that keeps changing.. add more cost, more research, more testing. Meantime, the troops are going "Where the hell is our X?". When they finally take delivery, it's "What the hell is this?". And so it goes.]

      I worked in defense for about decade and a half, I saw this happen repeatedly. Some of the ideas procurement tossed out were beyond absurd for the system being bought but we had to investigate it and bill for it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        re: it's "the fuzzy front end" that is slow and expensive

        Slow and expensive maybe, but still the best lap dancing club in town!!

    4. Alfred

      I was working for a company that got a piece of this in the early days, and that would have been around 2002. I suspect that in this case, the civil drone industry has come a very long way in the last 16 years; often, there's just no way to know in the early days of a programme that by the time it finishes, the civil industry would have produced a cheap alternative.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    so watch keeper is as reliable as my parrot AR Drone 2.0

    It suffered terminal loss when the software acted on a non existent wind when hovering after loosing contact with the controller ... it tilted to compensate and shot off in a south westerly direction at a rapid rate of knots.. last seen heading over Blackpool pleasure beach towards the Irish sea..

    "The Missing 5 - Last seen heading confidently out across the Irish Sea. Since they were never seen again, they can't be recorded as "crashed". Another triumph for the navigation system."

    I bet they licenced the navigation software from parrot, and are heading to some place where drones can live a happy existence without having to kill anyone...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      My suggestion

      British drones all want to go to Ireland where they can get Guinness at source and experience irish music

      (Uilleann pipes have multiple drones)

  7. Arachnoid
    Mushroom

    Rename the damn thing.......

    Call it the Kami- KarZee and use it for single flight missions

    1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

      Re: Rename the damn thing.......

      Kami- KarZee

      Isn't that the name of the army's stealth portaloo? Oh no, hang on, I@m thinking of the Camo Khazi

  8. John Robson Silver badge

    Still yet to hear...

    A defence minister say that they can't afford to do something this year.

    They're all about cuts to jobs, but expensive projects and missiles never seem to be short of cash, however much they go over budget by...

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Still yet to hear...

      They did have money to demolish empty sheds and an unused office block to comply with participation requirements in an American run PR exercise.

      So any claims they do not have money should be considered with a bucket of salt.

      If they really did not have money they should have found some real targets to shoot at or not shoot at all.

      1. Grikath
        Mushroom

        Re: Still yet to hear...

        Could have been they saw an opportunity to get rid of ordnance near its expiry date..

        Icon because..

  9. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    What war?

    Everyone and their dog is upgrading their AA systems and even village gangs are carrying shoulder launched missiles which can take out a Su-25 or even a Su-24 despite it deploying active countermeasures. I am not even talking about things like ZPU-2. Every second truck in Syria, Libya and Iraq carries one. Range of that is 8k, kill altitude is 5k.

    Sure, Watchkeeper can be deployed in a real combat environment. It will save on dismantling it. Instead of a scrap yard it will simply undergo rapid unscheduled disassembly.

  10. heyrick Silver badge

    "However, procedural mitigations have already been put in place to reduce the likelihood of re-occurrence."

    Is that a polite way of saying keep the buggers on the ground?

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Black Helicopters

      "Is that a polite way of saying keep the buggers on the ground?"

      Who have you been talking to?

  11. Pen-y-gors

    Centre for Alternative Technology?

    Given that these things are costing £25 million a pop and don't actually do anything, is it time for lateral thinking? How about a static met balloon on a long string with a camera attached? Or even a basket and a bloke with binoculars and a camera and parachute in case any of the Taliban Focker Triplanes get a bit close. A lot less than £25 million.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Centre for Alternative Technology?

      "Or even a basket and a bloke with binoculars and a camera and parachute in case any of the Taliban Focker Triplanes get a bit close."

      Sadly by about 1917 both sides had worked out that shooting down barrage balloons (which went "pear-shaped", hence the expression) was a bit of a waste of effort, whereas shooting expensive trained observers was very effective. The parachute simply means the Fokker triplane has a relatively static target to aim at.

  12. Filippo Silver badge

    Reducing the likelihood?

    "Reducing the likelihood" of a software flaw doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Does this mean they don't know how to fix it?

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "Does this mean they don't know how to fix it?"Re: Reducing the likelihood?

      Of course not.

      It means they can't afford the bill to fix it that Thales want them to pay.

      Like those Chinooks that were a flying death trap. "Uncommanded engine shut offs" is not something you want to read in a helicopter accident report.

      1. Jemma

        Re: "Does this mean they don't know how to fix it?"Reducing the likelihood?

        Would those be the ones where you wanted to have red hydraulic fluid dripping everywhere because when it stopped you *were* really in trouble? Generally because the whole thing had run dry. Which is, unsurprisingly "bad m'kay".

        "Boeing - British Leyland is our role model" - at least in this case..

  13. Jemma

    The holy hand grenade of Antioch

    "... Neither press thee F2 excepting that you then proceed to F3..."

    "... F5 is *right out*...."

    "Oh , bless this thy holy Drone, that it mayst blow thine enemies* into tiny bits, in thy mercy*²..."

    * Gas explosions- really? Still you need practice before you join in the Alliance of the Willing all comers Whack-a-Wedding championships (AW³C)... It's like Robot Wars with Gore!

    *² limited time offer - not available in the Republic of Ireland or to Windrush passengers.

  14. Dave 15

    so is that...

    4 flown 4 crashed and we haven't dared fly the rest?

    or all flown hundreds of times and 4 accidents we understand and have a fix for?

    1. aberglas

      That is the air force's job.

      To bring down aircraft.

  15. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Coat

    GateKeeper

    They could be retired off to become Gate Guardians

  16. The Nazz

    Is this a modern mathematics A level question, an A* guaranteed?

    "Jones also asked other questions of the MoD, which confirmed that only four Watchkeepers have crashed – though the ministry's confirmation does leave a question hanging over five "missing" aircraft. The MoD ordered 54 Watchkeepers, of which 45 have been delivered. Four have crashed, as the minister told Parliament."

    Q1) How many WK's have not yet been delivered?

    Q2) If four have crashed, how many do the MOD still have?

    Q3) Where the fuck does the matter of five missing WK's come from?

    If you can provide all three answers, any answers, you too can have a prosperous career in the Civil Service.

    Mind you, it makes a former Scottish Highers question, involving (IIRC) a crocodile, a zebra and, for integer values in a range of 0-20, solving an equation T=sq root (36+X squared) + (4X-20) seem sensible. (say 15 marks)

    The one where the examining board reduced the overall pass mark by the full 15 marks as the question was a) too difficult b) not understandable or c) both.

    1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

      Re: Is this a modern mathematics A level question, an A* guaranteed?

      Typical Civil Service answers:

      - They were lost in recent floods.

      - The numbers are not completely accurate due to a change in bookeeping standards.

      - We cannot provide any information about these 5 items for security reasons.

      - Of the 5 items in question, 2 are disassembled and exist as collections of parts, 2 are currently undergoing long-term environmental testing at the bottom of the Irish Sea, and one was transferred to the Department of Education and Sport by mistake.

      - These items are subject to an ongoing court case, and to comment further woud be sub judice...

      Add to these as required...

      1. Alister

        Re: Is this a modern mathematics A level question, an A* guaranteed?

        "Ah Simpkins, come in, stand at ease."

        "Thank you sir"

        "Now, as you know, I have to prepare a report for the Ministry about these five missing aircraft"

        "Yes Sir"

        "So can you tell me what happened, exactly?"

        "They were brought down by an overwhelming enemy force, sir"

        "Really, Simkins? And why didn't the enemy squadron appear on our radar, exactly?"

        "Uh, it wasn't exactly a squadron, sir... more of a flock, kind of thing..."

        "A Flock, Simkins?"

        "Yessir... But they were terrible, sir, mad staring eyes and great sharp beaks and everything, our aircraft didn't stand a chance!"

        "I see... Just to clarify then, the enemy force was comprised of what, exactly?"

        "Seagulls sir, a great flock of seagulls."

        "Thank you Simkins, that will be all."

  17. J P

    You could have someone's eye out with that

    For some reason I have an urge to go and rewatch Stephen Fry's "This is David Lander" - 'The Rocketing Cost of Defence', investigating the trials and tribulations of the Sea Demon rocket, its unorthodox live-fire sea trials and the Royal Navy's unexpected purchase of several square miles of seabed off the coast of Wales. And refusal to answer questions about where one of its destroyers has gone...

  18. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Cancel the program. Gut them, paint them bright yellow and...

    ....cement them in place in kiddies playgrounds.

    Everyone wins.

  19. spold Silver badge

    Missing 5 - they didn't crash they were just pining for the fjords and presumably buggered off there on their own accord. Given the navigation system they might have ended up in Slough which at least welcomes friendly bombs.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like