1-20 of 78 results for subject:"Identification friend or foe systems"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 2.04 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Identification friend or foe systems"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Identification friend or foe systems" OR subject_ses:480793
Type
+
Members' contributions (14)
-
Oral answers to questions (7)
-
Oral questions (7)
+
Parliamentary committees (5)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
-
Select Committee reports (3)
+
Parliamentary papers (12)
-
Command papers (2)
-
Deposited papers (3)
-
House of Commons papers (7)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (4)
+
Debates (2)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
+
Statements (2)
-
Written statements (2)
+
Parliamentary questions (57)
-
Oral questions (7)
-
Written questions (50)
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress has been made on measures to prevent blue on blue engagements by armed forces units.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress has been made on measures to prevent blue on blue engagements by armed forces units.
Asked by
Ben Wallace
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Hutton of Furness
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
3 October 2008
For answer on
6 October 2008
Answered on
13 October 2008
The MOD has a Combat Identification programme to improve its capability in this area and is working with NATO working groups and Coalition allies to develop interoperable solutions. Recent progress has included equipment procured for operations in response to specific theatre requirements, such as an improved aircraft targeting pod capability and improved forward air controller equipment, as well as further developing combat ID awareness and pre-deployment training. Further information can be found on page 103 of the MOD annual report and accounts 2007-08 at:"http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/AnnualReports/MODAnnualReports0708/"A copy is available in the Library of the House.
Subjects
Identification friend or foe systems
Date
13 October 2008
Reference
223823; 480 c905W;480 c899W
House
House of Commons
Type
Command papers
Author
Treasury
Laid on
4 July 2007
Subjects
Armed forces; Administration; Armed conflict; Defence equipment; Fraud; Maladministration; Overpayments; Ofwat; Management; Procurement; Military alliances; Welfare tax credits; Standards; Water supply; Standardisation; Committee of Public Accounts; Identification friend or foe systems
Commons Library location
CS 192
Date
4 July 2007
Reference
Cm 7151
House
House of Commons
What assurance they have received from allies involved in the development of joint combat identification solutions that decisions on the system will be taken in a timely manner, with particular reference to the battlefield target identification system; and what financial investment the United Kingdom has made to date in developing...
What assurance they have received from allies involved in the development of joint combat identification solutions that decisions on the system will be taken in a timely manner, with particular reference to the battlefield target identification system; and what financial investment the United Kingdom has made to date in developing...
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
2 July 2007
The department’s combat identification programme includes an implementation strategy. For the target identification element of capability, it is clear that no single system would address all the issues within the priority areas of ground-to-ground and air-to-ground engagements. Together with allies, we have therefore identified a range of potential target identification technologies. Credible target identification systems based on these interoperable technologies will be considered and timetabled plans developed as appropriate for approval at investment decision points.
We are working closely with allies to co-ordinate the fielding of interoperable national combat identification solutions, such as the battlefield target identification system (BTIS). Through NATO, we receive information about allies’ plans and we continue to press as necessary for timely decisions, although ultimately each nation’s planning process will determine outcomes.
To date, expenditure of some £11 million is attributable to the UK BTIS programme and associated risk reduction work.
Exercise Urgent Quest in 2005 provided allies with the key information to enable decisions to be made on the selection of solutions for target identification requirements, including the UK’s BTIS programme. Moreover, it identified the technologies that should not be pursued as they were immature or lacked utility.
Subjects
Defence equipment; Expenditure; International cooperation; Procurement; Military alliances; Military exercises; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
2 July 2007
Reference
4326; 693 c165WA
House
House of Lords
Whether they have developed a strategy for the implementation of the combat identification policy and a timetabled plan for developing a credible target identification system; and
Whether they have developed a strategy for the implementation of the combat identification policy and a timetabled plan for developing a credible target identification system; and
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
2 July 2007
The department’s combat identification programme includes an implementation strategy. For the target identification element of capability, it is clear that no single system would address all the issues within the priority areas of ground-to-ground and air-to-ground engagements. Together with allies, we have therefore identified a range of potential target identification technologies. Credible target identification systems based on these interoperable technologies will be considered and timetabled plans developed as appropriate for approval at investment decision points.
We are working closely with allies to co-ordinate the fielding of interoperable national combat identification solutions, such as the battlefield target identification system (BTIS). Through NATO, we receive information about allies’ plans and we continue to press as necessary for timely decisions, although ultimately each nation’s planning process will determine outcomes.
To date, expenditure of some £11 million is attributable to the UK BTIS programme and associated risk reduction work.
Exercise Urgent Quest in 2005 provided allies with the key information to enable decisions to be made on the selection of solutions for target identification requirements, including the UK’s BTIS programme. Moreover, it identified the technologies that should not be pursued as they were immature or lacked utility.
Subjects
Defence equipment; Expenditure; International cooperation; Procurement; Military alliances; Military exercises; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
2 July 2007
Reference
4325; 693 c165WA
House
House of Lords
What were the results of Exercise Urgent Quest held in September and October 2005; and what are the implications for the battlefield target identification system.
What were the results of Exercise Urgent Quest held in September and October 2005; and what are the implications for the battlefield target identification system.
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
2 July 2007
The department’s combat identification programme includes an implementation strategy. For the target identification element of capability, it is clear that no single system would address all the issues within the priority areas of ground-to-ground and air-to-ground engagements. Together with allies, we have therefore identified a range of potential target identification technologies. Credible target identification systems based on these interoperable technologies will be considered and timetabled plans developed as appropriate for approval at investment decision points.
We are working closely with allies to co-ordinate the fielding of interoperable national combat identification solutions, such as the battlefield target identification system (BTIS). Through NATO, we receive information about allies’ plans and we continue to press as necessary for timely decisions, although ultimately each nation’s planning process will determine outcomes.
To date, expenditure of some £11 million is attributable to the UK BTIS programme and associated risk reduction work.
Exercise Urgent Quest in 2005 provided allies with the key information to enable decisions to be made on the selection of solutions for target identification requirements, including the UK’s BTIS programme. Moreover, it identified the technologies that should not be pursued as they were immature or lacked utility.
Subjects
Defence equipment; Expenditure; International cooperation; Procurement; Military alliances; Military exercises; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
2 July 2007
Reference
4327; 693 c165WA
House
House of Lords
What plans they have for the operational implementation of the battlefield identification system following its prototype test in 2001.
What plans they have for the operational implementation of the battlefield identification system following its prototype test in 2001.
Asked by
Lord James of Blackheath
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
11 June 2007
Answered on
11 June 2007
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Rodney Wilson, who was killed on operations in Iraq last Thursday, and of Lance Corporal Paul Sandford and Guardsman Neil Downes, who were killed on operations in Afghanistan last Wednesday and Saturday respectively.
Following the US decision last year to proceed with the NATO standard STANAG 4579 on battlefield target identification devices, the UK battlefield target identification system is progressing to field a compatible system at the same time as the United States.
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1459
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Rodney Wilson, who was killed on operations in Iraq last Thursday, and of Lance Corporal Paul Sandford and Guardsman Neil Downes, who were killed on operations in Afghanistan last Wednesday and Saturday respectively.
Following the US decision last year to proceed with the NATO standard STANAG 4579 on battlefield target identification devices, the UK battlefield target identification system is progressing to field a compatible system at the same time as the United States.
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Rodney Wilson, who was killed on operations in Iraq last Thursday, and of Lance Corporal Paul Sandford and Guardsman Neil Downes, who were killed on operations in Afghanistan last Wednesday and Saturday respectively.
Following the US decision last year to proceed with the NATO standard STANAG 4579 on battlefield target identification devices, the UK battlefield target identification system is progressing to field a compatible system at the same time as the United States.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord James of Blackheath
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
What plans they have for the operational implementation of the battlefield identification system following its prototype test in 2001.
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1459
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure that he will agree with me that this has been a very long and draining resource on our forces for many years. In the present hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have so far lost, as a result of what I think is now called brotherly fire, eight dead and 30 seriously injured out of a total of 151 deaths. In Afghanistan, there is one suspected death in that way. In the first Gulf War, we lost nine out of a total of 16 deaths in the whole war as a result of friendly fire. Incidentally, at the same time, the USA lost 35 out of 148, so it was not showing favouritism to us. In the Falklands, we lost eight out of 22, due entirely to ourselves. As we are now apparently looking towards Raytheon and Thales for alternative methods of dealing with this problem, is there a serious lack of confidence in the Bowman system, on which we have already spent so much money?
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure that he will agree with me that this has been a very long and draining resource on our forces for many years. In the present hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have so far lost, as a result of what I think is now called brotherly fire, eight dead and 30 seriously injured out of a total of 151 deaths. In Afghanistan, there is one suspected death in that way. In the first Gulf War, we lost nine out of a total of 16 deaths in the whole war as a result of friendly fire. Incidentally, at the same time, the USA lost 35 out of 148, so it was not showing favouritism to us. In the Falklands, we lost eight out of 22, due entirely to ourselves. As we are now apparently looking towards Raytheon and Thales for alternative methods of dealing with this problem, is there a serious lack of confidence in the Bowman system, on which we have already spent so much money?
Asked by
Lord James of Blackheath
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 June 2007
My Lords, there is a misunderstanding of the difference between situational awareness and battlefield target identification. The Bowman system is intended to give situational awareness of our forces on operations. It does not tell our forces whether they are friends or foe, as an IFF system would with an aircraft. Therefore, it is not the Bowman system but the fielding of the battlefield target identification system—a different system—that is key here. With regard to the statistics that the noble Lord quoted, again, I believe that he is confusing cases of fratricide, in which there is a failure to identify the enemy properly, and deaths caused by soldiers moving into the lineof fire or a ricochet. No cases of fratricide—wrong targeting—have been suffered or perpetrated by United Kingdom forces since March 2003.
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; BOWMAN combat radio system; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1459-60
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, there is a misunderstanding of the difference between situational awareness and battlefield target identification. The Bowman system is intended to give situational awareness of our forces on operations. It does not tell our forces whether they are friends or foe, as an IFF system would with an aircraft. Therefore, it is not the Bowman system but the fielding of the battlefield target identification system—a different system—that is key here. With regard to the statistics that the noble Lord quoted, again, I believe that he is confusing cases of fratricide, in which there is a failure to identify the enemy properly, and deaths caused by soldiers moving into the lineof fire or a ricochet. No cases of fratricide—wrong targeting—have been suffered or perpetrated by United Kingdom forces since March 2003.
My Lords, there is a misunderstanding of the difference between situational awareness and battlefield target identification. The Bowman system is intended to give situational awareness of our forces on operations. It does not tell our forces whether they are friends or foe, as an IFF system would with an aircraft. Therefore, it is not the Bowman system but the fielding of the battlefield target identification system—a different system—that is key here. With regard to the statistics that the noble Lord quoted, again, I believe that he is confusing cases of fratricide, in which there is a failure to identify the enemy properly, and deaths caused by soldiers moving into the lineof fire or a ricochet. No cases of fratricide—wrong targeting—have been suffered or perpetrated by United Kingdom forces since March 2003.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord James of Blackheath
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure that he will agree with me that this has been a very long and draining resource on our forces for many years. In the present hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have so far lost, as a result of what I think is now called brotherly fire, eight dead and 30 seriously injured out of a total of 151 deaths. In Afghanistan, there is one suspected death in that way. In the first Gulf War, we lost nine out of a total of 16 deaths in the whole war as a result of friendly fire. Incidentally, at the same time, the USA lost 35 out of 148, so it was not showing favouritism to us. In the Falklands, we lost eight out of 22, due entirely to ourselves. As we are now apparently looking towards Raytheon and Thales for alternative methods of dealing with this problem, is there a serious lack of confidence in the Bowman system, on which we have already spent so much money?
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1459-60
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, all of them.
My Lords, all of them.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Earl Attlee
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, is it proposed that the future system will be fitted to all our land platforms, or just selected ones, such as headquarters vehicles?
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1461
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is it proposed that the future system will be fitted to all our land platforms, or just selected ones, such as headquarters vehicles?
My Lords, is it proposed that the future system will be fitted to all our land platforms, or just selected ones, such as headquarters vehicles?
Asked by
Earl Attlee
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 June 2007
My Lords, all of them.
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1461
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I am quite happy to address delays caused by poor management of a project in the Ministry of Defence but I do not think that that is the case here. There is a difference between identifying as friend or foe a civilian, a military aircraft or a ship at sea and identifying a friend orfoe on land. As the House will recognise, the landis a cluttered environment with very many more targets and there are often obstructions with ground being hidden. Putting an IFF system into a land environment is a major technological challengeand there have therefore been delays in reaching international agreement on the standards. However, such a system will work only if all coalition partners buy into a common standard. The noble Lord is correct: it took a considerable time for the United States to make a decision. It decided last year to adopt the NATO standard, and we now have a programme that can exploit that agreement. I do not believe that the SRO lacks the necessary controls or influence over the project. He has the necessary controls. I discussed a project with him this morning and he feels that he has everything that he needs to manage this project effectively.
My Lords, I am quite happy to address delays caused by poor management of a project in the Ministry of Defence but I do not think that that is the case here. There is a difference between identifying as friend or foe a civilian, a military aircraft or a ship at sea and identifying a friend orfoe on land. As the House will recognise, the landis a cluttered environment with very many more targets and there are often obstructions with ground being hidden. Putting an IFF system into a land environment is a major technological challengeand there have therefore been delays in reaching international agreement on the standards. However, such a system will work only if all coalition partners buy into a common standard. The noble Lord is correct: it took a considerable time for the United States to make a decision. It decided last year to adopt the NATO standard, and we now have a programme that can exploit that agreement. I do not believe that the SRO lacks the necessary controls or influence over the project. He has the necessary controls. I discussed a project with him this morning and he feels that he has everything that he needs to manage this project effectively.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Chidgey
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the Answer that the Minister gave at the beginning of this Question, when he mentioned that the United States has now agreed to the NATO specification. Is it not the case that there was a six-year delay before that position was reached? That being the case, does he not accept that, although the MoD has appointed an individual who is responsible for championing the combat identification programme in the department, it is rather a hollow exercise when that individual has no budgetary control, no line-management powers and no direct authority at all? What action are the Government taking to address what appears to be a shortfall in leadership and oversight within the MoD to tackle these unacceptable delays, which apparently have been going on for six years?
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1460
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the Answer that the Minister gave at the beginning of this Question, when he mentioned that the United States has now agreed to the NATO specification. Is it not the case that there was a six-year delay before that position was reached? That being the case, does he not accept that, although the MoD has appointed an individual who is responsible for championing the combat identification programme in the department, it is rather a hollow exercise when that individual has no budgetary control, no line-management powers and no direct authority at all? What action are the Government taking to address what appears to be a shortfall in leadership and oversight within the MoD to tackle these unacceptable delays, which apparently have been going on for six years?
My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the Answer that the Minister gave at the beginning of this Question, when he mentioned that the United States has now agreed to the NATO specification. Is it not the case that there was a six-year delay before that position was reached? That being the case, does he not accept that, although the MoD has appointed an individual who is responsible for championing the combat identification programme in the department, it is rather a hollow exercise when that individual has no budgetary control, no line-management powers and no direct authority at all? What action are the Government taking to address what appears to be a shortfall in leadership and oversight within the MoD to tackle these unacceptable delays, which apparently have been going on for six years?
Asked by
Lord Chidgey
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 June 2007
My Lords, I am quite happy to address delays caused by poor management of a project in the Ministry of Defence but I do not think that that is the case here. There is a difference between identifying as friend or foe a civilian, a military aircraft or a ship at sea and identifying a friend orfoe on land. As the House will recognise, the landis a cluttered environment with very many more targets and there are often obstructions with ground being hidden. Putting an IFF system into a land environment is a major technological challengeand there have therefore been delays in reaching international agreement on the standards. However, such a system will work only if all coalition partners buy into a common standard. The noble Lord is correct: it took a considerable time for the United States to make a decision. It decided last year to adopt the NATO standard, and we now have a programme that can exploit that agreement. I do not believe that the SRO lacks the necessary controls or influence over the project. He has the necessary controls. I discussed a project with him this morning and he feels that he has everything that he needs to manage this project effectively.
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1460
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, from these Benches we join the Minister in sending condolences to the families of the two corporals and the guardsman whom he mentioned. In the light of the Minister’s last response and the criticism fromthe Public Accounts Committee in the Commons, will the Government consider an interim programme for the battlefield target identification system?
My Lords, from these Benches we join the Minister in sending condolences to the families of the two corporals and the guardsman whom he mentioned. In the light of the Minister’s last response and the criticism fromthe Public Accounts Committee in the Commons, will the Government consider an interim programme for the battlefield target identification system?
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 June 2007
No, my Lords. We often operate in coalition with the United States and, on such operations, the US provides more than 90 per cent of the air cover to forces on the ground. The system would be useless without the inclusion of the US. Therefore, a system developed uniquely for UK forces would have no real utility and would be a waste of money.
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1460-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
No, my Lords. We often operate in coalition with the United States and, on such operations, the US provides more than 90 per cent of the air cover to forces on the ground. The system would be useless without the inclusion of the US. Therefore, a system developed uniquely for UK forces would have no real utility and would be a waste of money.
No, my Lords. We often operate in coalition with the United States and, on such operations, the US provides more than 90 per cent of the air cover to forces on the ground. The system would be useless without the inclusion of the US. Therefore, a system developed uniquely for UK forces would have no real utility and would be a waste of money.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, from these Benches we join the Minister in sending condolences to the families of the two corporals and the guardsman whom he mentioned. In the light of the Minister’s last response and the criticism fromthe Public Accounts Committee in the Commons, will the Government consider an interim programme for the battlefield target identification system?
Subjects
Defence equipment; Procurement; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
11 June 2007
Reference
692 c1460-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Ministry of Defence envisages a future operational capability being developed beyond, or in conjunction with, the Bowman combat infrastructure platform programme 5 as a result of the coalition blue force situational awareness demonstrator.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Ministry of Defence envisages a future operational capability being developed beyond, or in conjunction with, the Bowman combat infrastructure platform programme 5 as a result of the coalition blue force situational awareness demonstrator.
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
30 April 2007
Following the success of the Coalition Blue Force Situational Awareness demonstrator in showing it was technically possible to exchange tactical situational awareness data generated by the Bowman combat infrastructure platform system with United States systems, we expect that future enhancements of Bowman CIP capability will address the requirement to exchange coalition blue force situational awareness information.
Subjects
Armed forces; Radio; Military alliances; Telecommunications; BOWMAN combat radio system; Identification friend or foe systems
Date
30 April 2007
Reference
3201; 691 c171WA
House
House of Lords
Type
Select Committee reports; House of Commons papers;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Committee of Public Accounts
Notes
See also NAO report HC 936 2005-06
Subjects
Armed forces; Armed conflict; Defence equipment; Procurement; Military alliances; Standardisation; Identification friend or foe systems
Commons Library location
CS 246
Date
23 April 2007
Reference
HC 486 2006-07
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2007, Official Report, column 54W, on identification friend/foe systems, why he has no plans to fit Successor IFF to Hercules C130J and Tornado GR4 aircraft; and whether he plans to fit Successor IFF to Typhoon...
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2007, Official Report, column 54W, on identification friend/foe systems, why he has no plans to fit Successor IFF to Hercules C130J and Tornado GR4 aircraft; and whether he plans to fit Successor IFF to Typhoon...
Asked by
Gerald Howarth
(Conservative)
Answered by
Adam Ingram
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
20 March 2007
For answer on
22 March 2007
Answered on
27 March 2007
To confirm the answer of 12 March 2007, Official Report, column 54W that Tornado GR4 is in the process of being fitted with the Successor Identification Friend or Foe (SIFF) system transponder capability.Hercules C130J and Typhoon aircraft are both supplied with an integrated IFF capability that is fully compatible and inter-operable with SIFF.
Subjects
Identification friend or foe systems
Date
27 March 2007
Reference
129788; 458 c1438W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he expects the Battlefield Target Identification System to supersede the Bowman and Coalition Blue Force Situational Awareness Demonstrator;
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he expects the Battlefield Target Identification System to supersede the Bowman and Coalition Blue Force Situational Awareness Demonstrator;
Asked by
Gerald Howarth
(Conservative)
Answered by
Adam Ingram
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
19 February 2007
For answer on
21 February 2007
Answered on
21 March 2007
The Battlefield Target Identification System (BTIS) is intended to help identify friendly forces, helping to reduce the risk of fratricide. It will complement other systems providing better situational awareness and also contributing to reduced risk of fratricide, such as Bowman and the Coalition Blue Force Situational Awareness Demonstrator, not replace them.The BTIS programme has not yet reached its main investment decision point and in line with our normal practice no in service date will be confirmed until that point. We fully recognise the importance of any UK combat identification system being interoperable with US and other NATO and coalition partners.
Subjects
Identification friend or foe systems
Date
21 March 2007
Reference
458 c926W; 122218
House
House of Commons
(3) when he expects the Battlefield Target Identification System to come into service; and if he will make a statement.
(3) when he expects the Battlefield Target Identification System to come into service; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Gerald Howarth
(Conservative)
Answered by
Adam Ingram
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
19 February 2007
For answer on
21 February 2007
Answered on
21 March 2007
The Battlefield Target Identification System (BTIS) is intended to help identify friendly forces, helping to reduce the risk of fratricide. It will complement other systems providing better situational awareness and also contributing to reduced risk of fratricide, such as Bowman and the Coalition Blue Force Situational Awareness Demonstrator, not replace them.The BTIS programme has not yet reached its main investment decision point and in line with our normal practice no in service date will be confirmed until that point. We fully recognise the importance of any UK combat identification system being interoperable with US and other NATO and coalition partners.
Subjects
Identification friend or foe systems
Date
21 March 2007
Reference
458 c926W; 122221
House
House of Commons