Regulations Complicate U.K. Navy Scan Eagle Purchase

By Angus Batey
Source: AWIN First
September 10, 2013
Credit: Boeing

Buying an off-the-shelf system and partnering with its manufacturer to deliver the capability ought to bring maximum benefits in terms of reduced cost and swifter entry into service. But, as Britain’s Royal Navy is finding as it works to field the Scan Eagle UAV, even the most apparently straightforward procurements can raise complicated issues that require more time and investment to resolve than may originally have been anticipated.

Though a small number of Navy officers have served as part of the RAF-led 39 Sqn, which flies the UK’s MQ-9 Reaper fleet from Creech AFB, Nev, and RAF Waddington, Lincolnshire, the service lacks a sizeable cadre of experienced UAV operators. So the decision to acquire an undisclosed number of Scan Eagle systems was made, in part, because of the Insitu platform’s proven track record, and because the manufacturer’s experience could be brought in to the Navy via a COCO (contractor-owned, contractor-operated) arrangement.

“Scan Eagle has been fielded now for many years, and is closing in on 40,000 operational hours in the maritime,” Lt Cdr Pete Whitehead, an information superiority specialist in Naval Command, told the UAS 2013 conference here today. “We’re looking to field the system within six to nine months of being on contract, so [we asked], ‘What’s the quickest way of getting this in while minimizing the training burden?’ The easy solution is to go contractor-owned, contractor-operated.”

Under this model, Insitu takes much of the risk -- “If they put one in the sea, we don’t care: we wouldn’t have to pay for it, they would have to replace it,” says Whitehead -- and the navy reduces its training burden by paying for contractors to operate the air system. But that is where things start to get tricky.

“The man who’s going to sign off on flying this capability is one of the admirals,” says Whitehead. “Well, actually, two admirals. We’re going to have to assure them. So while we de-risk ourselves in terms of the platform, [we have] to assure ourselves that we’re going to operate in a safe manner.”

After first thinking contractors would deliver a simple product, officials soon ran up against regulations that required additional rules for operations, he says.

“We would have to put some form of go-between betwixt contractor and customer -- and somebody who has some knowledge -- to assure our aviation duty-holders that what they’re doing is right.”

To solve the problem, some navy personnel will have to be trained in operating the system, but not nearly as many as would have been required had the system been procured to be operated solely by the customer.

“We want one aviator, who knows how to operate the system, who is going to be, to all intents and purposes, the safety link in the chain,” Whitehead explains. “The contractors will still be responsible for maintenance, piloting the system, and operating at our request. But where does that boundary lie? This is another issue we’re still wrestling with.”

Comments On Articles