The Ministry of Defence has declined to explain why the RAF’s new Protector RG Mk1 remotely piloted aircraft has not yet reached Initial Operating Capability (IOC), despite the programme previously being expected to achieve that milestone in 2025.
In a written parliamentary answer published on 11 February, Defence Minister Luke Pollard responded to a question from Conservative MP James Cartlidge on the reason the aircraft had not declared IOC.
Pollard said:
“I am withholding the definition and specific criteria for achieving Initial Operational Capability as it would harm the security and capability of the Armed Forces.” He added that: “The milestone is clearly defined and the Ministry of Defence is working to ensure the necessary supporting requirements are in place so that it can be met at the earliest opportunity.”
However, while declining to provide the specific criteria, Pollard acknowledged that the aircraft itself represents only one element of the wider capability. He said: “In general terms, the air vehicles are but one part of the air system and therefore milestones will be achieved when requirements are met across a number of areas including; personnel force growth, infrastructure and support contracts, crew training and competence in role, and interoperability.”
The latest response follows earlier UK Defence Journal reporting that the Protector programme had still not declared IOC, even though the platform has already been used operationally. In a previous parliamentary answer published on 30 January, Pollard stated that: “Protector RG Mk1 has yet to reach Initial Operating Capability programme milestones.”
He added that the system: “has already deployed on operations and is providing valuable Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance support.”
Protector RG Mk1 is replacing the RAF’s MQ-9A Reaper fleet in the Armed Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance role. The aircraft is based on the General Atomics MQ-9B SkyGuardian platform and is designed to be the UK’s first certified remotely piloted air system capable of routine operation in controlled airspace.
The platform is designed for medium-altitude, long-endurance operations, with an endurance of more than 40 hours and a maximum operating altitude of up to 50,000 feet. It is powered by a Honeywell TPE 331-10T turboprop engine and is operated by a crew consisting of a pilot, sensor operator and mission intelligence coordinator.
Oh come on now, give It a chance, it’s only been 11 years since It was announced.
I wonder if the reason for withholding info is because there is a design defect that the UK government doesn’t want to embarrass the US about. I can’t really see any other realistic explanation on why they would need with withhold the info.
If there was a design defect then it would be public as other operators (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Taiwan, India, and the U.S. Air Force/Marine Corps) would all have encountered it.
No this sounds like a parallel situation to the Astutes. Great kit, but we’re lacking the support structure necessary. With the Astutes it’s dry-docks for maintenance.
With the Sky Guardian it could be lack of trained personnel, which is mentioned in the article. Or it could be issues with where they based. Whatever, it’s an embarrassing cock-up (just like the lack of docks for the Astutes).
What does IOC even mean nowadays? the platform is already in use.
Ajax had IOC and then its was withdrawn. Crows-nest was flying missions for years before IOC.