Northrop Grumman international head John Brooks speaks in slow, measured tones. His carefully spoken insights reflect a thoughtful, probing intellect - decades of experience in the defence industry. For nearly 30 years Brooks served in the US Air Force, rising to the rank of major general, with experience flying in the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules and C-141 Starlifter.

An 11-year veteran with Northrop Grumman, Brooks has served as the company's vice-president of international business since 2007. Here he discusses the international outlook for Northrop, as well as the thorny issue of the Missile Technology Control Regime, a possible stumbling block to sales of his company's high-end unmanned air systems such as the iconic RQ-4 Global Hawk.

Northrop Grumman makes about 40% of the Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and has a significant role in the avionics of the Lockheed Martin F-16. Both were recently eliminated from India's medium multi-role combat aircraft competition. Does this suggest the USA needs to review its export controls?

This is a given. The USA needs to review its controls, and the leadership from the business community side has clearly called for this. Government leadership from the president to the secretary of defence have also highlighted the need for this. How directly this is tied to the MMRCA competition is, however, a matter of speculation. But I find the MMRCA results of concern. There was an opportunity missed to strengthen the relationship with India, and we're all sorting through it to try and understand it.

Is there any interest among the world's F-16 users for Northrop's Scalable Agile Beam AESA Radar for the F-16.

There is interest in our AESA technology. We're working with the US government on the export of those capabilities.

How about international interest for Global Hawk and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned air systems?

I think it's substantial. We've seen the maturing of Global Hawk, and it truly provides a unique capability, with its ability to fly long ranges, provide exceptional persistence, and a flexible payload. South Korea is interested and there is dialogue going on between the US and South Korean governments.

Both governments have yet to make a decision. Other countries with Global Hawk are Germany with Eurohawk, and we're in dialogue with NATO for a regional agreement for the NATO alliance ground surveillance programme. Those are the most mature discussions. Beyond this there are a variety of enquiries. As an unmanned system, Global Hawk falls under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

Do you see MTCR being changed over the years?

Everyone that I talk to believes MTCR is a construct that serves a valuable purpose. Many of us believe, however, that it was created at a different time, when UAVs - particularly intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance UAVs - were not the important contributor to knowledge that they are today. Many in government and industry think it's time to take a look at the regime. We need to see if it can be updated to continue to serve its important purpose, but update it in a way that allows systems that are inherently stabilising, such as ISR systems, to be exported to partners. All defence exports are subject to review and they should be. The question is whether the MTCR should be applicable to all UAVs. When MTCR was created the biggest concern was ballistic missiles with weapons of mass destruction, and a corollary concern was cruise missiles with weapons of mass destruction.

At that time there was no system such as Global Hawk whose payload is purely about information. But the way MTCR is written it even captures lighter than air vehicles. I don't believe there is a high probability that there will ever be a focus on lighter than air vehicles delivering WMDs. The MTCR was written for what made sense at the time. The question is do you deal with it in a measured and appropriate manner without undermining the fundamental principle of the regime? None of us want to see the proliferation of destabilising systems. MTCR will change, but it will take time; some of the signatories are not big advocates of change.

Do you see requirements in the Asia-Pacific for the long-endurance multi-intelligence vehicle (LEMV) and the Firebird optionally piloted surveillance aircraft?

We see worldwide requirements for these capabilities. In terms of LEMV, it is a potentially a major leap ahead to provide a significant, flexible payload for an extended length of time in a relatively affordable way. In an environment where you have a defined surveillance requirement the LEMV's ability to provide long endurance is a significant capability. It focuses on defined areas, and thus complements the high-altitude, long-endurance systems, which can travel long distances and cover very large areas.

Firebird has captured a lot of people's imagination. It's the next generation in that it provides two elements of significant flexibility: the open architecture and modular payload bays mean that it is very flexible in terms of the kinds of payloads it can carry. This makes it easy to swap and upgrade payloads. Changing payloads was a major problem with MALES in the past. It will be more flexible and affordable in that sense. It will also be more flexible with optional manning.

To my knowledge this is the first time a platform such as this has been designed from the ground up as a true, optionally piloted aircraft. When it's advantageous to have a pilot, for example owing to airspace issues or testing issues, you can do this. MALEs fly in the same airspace envelope as commercial aircraft. It's one thing to fly in Afghanistan where airspace is highly controlled for military purposes, it's a very different thing in US or partner nations. The ability to have a pilot an fly like a normal aircraft can be very valuable.

What are Northrop's major international opportunities?

Our portfolio is focused on C2ISR and unmanned systems. The focus of many nations is on gaining better situational awareness and more decision quality information. Every nation needs weapons to defend themselves, and many have weapons they can bring to bear. The real challenge is to better understand what is happening and what you can do about it and in the proper time. The endurance and flexibility of our systems really make a difference.

How about the major international challenges?

Global economics and economic concerns influence the ability of nations to pursue things that they need. Economics has always been a factor and always will be. This challenge is not uniformly spread across the world, but it is an issue in most places. While the international security arena is challenging, the number of different issues nations are facing seems to be diversifying. We have challenges from terrorism, failing nations, and challenges such as piracy and cyber security. Fifteen years ago some of the challenges we today face were beyond comprehension. Meanwhile, the more conventional sorts of warfare that have not gone away.

Source: Flight Daily News

Topics