A series of parliamentary questions from Conservative MP James Cartlidge has prompted the Ministry of Defence to provide updates on the use and future of the Army’s Watchkeeper WK450 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system.
In response, Defence Minister Luke Pollard outlined recent operational tests in Estonia and ongoing evaluations concerning the Watchkeeper’s mid-life extension programme.
Cartlidge’s questions focused on multiple aspects of the Watchkeeper’s deployment. He inquired about the results of recent training flights in Estonia, the potential for further drone flight tests, and whether the Ministry of Defence (MOD) plans to permanently station a drone-specialist regiment in the region.
Pollard confirmed that a battery from the 47th Regiment Royal Artillery deployed to Estonia in August as part of Exercise ATHENA SHIELD to operate the Watchkeeper system in what he described as a “proof-of-concept exercise.” This deployment allowed the MOD to test the latest build standard of Watchkeeper in a “strategically relevant theatre.”
Pollard explained, “Lessons from this deployment are still being analysed and no decisions about Watchkeeper’s future commitments have been made.” He added that there are no immediate plans to permanently deploy a full drone regiment to Estonia but emphasised the UK’s strong partnership with Estonia through NATO.
“The recently updated defence roadmap with Estonia demonstrates the UK’s continuing commitment to Estonia and securing NATO’s eastern flank,” he stated, underscoring Britain’s commitment to reinforcing NATO’s strategic posture in Eastern Europe.
Further, Cartlidge asked about the effectiveness of the ongoing Watchkeeper mid-life extension programme. Pollard responded that assessments of potential options for the programme are still underway, with no final determination made at this time.
While Exercise ATHENA SHIELD demonstrated the Watchkeeper’s operational capabilities in a NATO-aligned environment, Pollard clarified that the MOD has not yet committed to regular or permanent UAV operations in Estonia.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
I found Cartilges question on a Regiment amusing. With niche assets such as 47RA, and others in FAT and the wider enablers area, we don’t deploy entire Regiments, save all out war. There is not enough mass in the Army for that. A Battery, or a Sqn, of a Regiment is usually assigned to such a deployment and the Regiments Batteries then rotate through the commitment. His question implies either a lack of knowledge, or that he’s heard that the MoD will greatly expand the Surveillance Group they are meant to be forming, or even that the Estonia commitment will… Read more »
Given that this was planned when he was in office he would have known the answer to the question he is asking!!
Yes, so was he as utterly clueless then as well? Sorry, I’m always sceptical of politicians plonked into the MoD, and their mastery over their brief, even if he was MoDP.
He is asking an awful lot of questions since he’s no longer in Main Building. I suppose that shows an interest?
Who is Shadow SoS for Defence anyway, maybe he wants the job!
I think you mean, given the new leader, maybe he wants to keep it.
Ah, ok.
Cartridge is still the Shadow SoS Defence. But Kemi might relieve him of his duties as he is clueless about Defence….and really shouldn’t be!
We have never had an entire RA regiment dedicated to drone operations.
Does Captain Cartridge report to Commander Blank?
Haha. You may well ask. I doubt Captain Cartridge will be reporting to Commander Kemi anytime soon.
Exactly.To be fair both 32 and 47 are UAV Regiments, but it’s his deploying a while Regiments worth comment that made me chuckle.
These politicians I’d respect a bit more if they learned the ORBAT and structure of what they wish to lead.
Thanks mate. I am so out of date. Surprising we have two UAV regiments.
The cynic in me says due to cuts.
47 RA was our second HVM Starstreak Regiment with Stormer and LMM launchers until the 2000s cuts removed them and replaced them with model aeroplanes.
Now days, one Regiment has the short ranged types, while 32 has Watchkeeper. Individual Batteries are assigned to 3 Div, 16AA, and so on.
Thanks. I am sure it might be cuts related – it is one clear reason why we have so little artillery if two whole regiment no longer have any guns or MLRS.
I wonder if 32 and 47 Regts will also take on anti-drone duties when such kit is available.
Talking about trails and proof of concept on a bit of kit that was adapted from an existing system in around 2010.
Would be laughable if it hadn’t of costed hundreds of millions and still isn’t delivering a decent capability!
Truth is it was an entirely new system…the heritage from Hermes 450 is very small.
Always thought the big loss from that time was the BAE Mantis…
Watchkeeper is another Wildcat type procurement, where you take an existing design and redesign it at enormous cost and vastly inflated time line, purely in the name of supporting the defence industry, at the absolute detriment to tne customer…
For God’s sake, give the Army an off the shelf replacement for watchkeeper, don’t let them spend vast sums of money and take 10 years on a mk2, that won’t offer anything that isn’t already commercially available !!!
BOOOM.
What if you used them not for the initial purpose? In France will have the famous eurodrone, a useless twin engine drone. Since we can’t do much about it, we’ll use them for tasks nobody wants to do but is still useful somehow: maritime surveillance. Right now it is of limited use but still can be used at something. May be over time, these drones will be used over vast areas of deserts, with limited AA. May be they will be used as electromagnetic sensor, to warn us of the general axe of approach of an enemy fleet in Pacific… Read more »
Alas watchkeeper is neither fish nor foul, it’s not suitable for many tasks. It’s too small to be adapted for a useful weapons load of any sort. When you start out with a perfectly capable off the shelf Hermes 450 and start pissing about with the airframe, then add a bespoke avionics package, it all unravells. I’ve said it before, this must have come before an MOD procurement presentation that went somthing like this… Defence money blagger: “Gentlemen, I would like to present you with Watchkeeper, your new persist surveillance system” MoD ” Very nice, looks like a Hermes 450?”… Read more »
Surely Watchkeeper has always been an ISTAR equipment. No-one is pretending that it has or should have a weapons fit. That makes it either fish or fowl.
I don’t believe at the time there was a UAV that met the requirements to safely operate in U.K. congested airspace. The need for aerial deconfliction, was a first for USVs. Watchkeeper now has the capability to satisfy the legal requirements laid down by the CAA. Though I don’t expect to see one circling over London any time soon.