Philip Hammond, the
defence secretary, has recommended a U-turn on one of the most controversial
proposals of the cost-cutting armed forces reforms, the Guardian has learned.
David Cameron will decide this week whether to agree to an embarrassing
about-face involving the Royal Navy's over-budget aircraft carriers, which are
under construction.
In the strategic defence and security review (SDSR), the
prime minister insisted the carriers would have to be converted to include
"cats and traps" to allow a version of the new Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF) to be catapulted from the decks and caught by arrestor wires on landing. But the Guardian has
been told the cost of the modification has spiralled out of control, to between
£1.9 and £2bn.
With the
"carrier variant" version of the JSF also beset by technical
problems, the MoD has concluded the carrier programme could be delayed by at
least another seven years – to 2027 – unless it abandons the plan.
Though he knows the U-turn will be humiliating for the
coalition, Cameron has been told the best option is to switch back to another
version of the JSF, which was ruled out in the review because it was likely to
cost more and do less.
Having mocked Labour for earlier taking the
"wrong" decision, the government will be taunted by the shadow
cabinet if Cameron accepts the judgment of military chiefs that the MoD's
losses should be cut now before costs balloon again.
"There
will be short-term pain for the government, but in the long run, it is by far
the best option," said a Whitehall source. "Adapting the carriers is
skewing the defence budget out of shape, and there is every likelihood the
costs will continue to rise. It has to be Cameron's decision, but the military
advice is clear."
Hammond's sensitivity on the subject is acute; he has
demanded a vow of silence from all senior MoD civil servants, who have been
told not to speak to the media about any military equipment programmes without
his authority before the budget for next year is approved.
A U-turn would be humiliating for Cameron and his deputy,
Nick Clegg, who both signed off the SDSR. They were withering about Labour's
decision to commit to the F-35B version of the JSF, an aircraft that could take
off and land in a similar way to a Harrier jump jet.
Instead, they argued for the F-35C, saying it was the
better aircraft and equipping the carriers with the accompanying catapults
would make it possible for French and American aircraft to land on them too.
"The last government committed to carriers that
would have been unable to work properly with our closest military allies,"
the document said.
"It will take time to rectify this error but we are
determined to do so. We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier to
enable it to fly a version of the JSF with a longer range and able to carry
more weapons. Crucially, that will allow our carrier to operate in tandem with
the US and French navies."
The SDSR
also claimed the carrier version of the JSF would be cheaper in the long run,
reducing "through-life costs by around 25%".
However, the National Audit Office expressed deep concern
about the cost of fitting catapults. This expense contributed to the
government's decision to deploy only one of the two carriers being built, with
the second being put at "extended readiness" – in effect, mothballed.
If Downing Street sanctions the U-turn, it may try to
blame the former defence secretary, Liam Fox, who championed the decision in
the SDSR in September 2010.
The MoD hopes the savings from abandoning catapults could
allow the second Queen Elizabeth class carrier to be put to proper use after
all, sources said. However, that is not without its problems. One of the two is
being fitted to take helicopters.
Jim Murphy, Labour's shadow defence secretary, said the
government appeared to be in disarray. "This would be one of the biggest
public procurement messes for many decades. David Cameron has potentially
wasted more than a year and squandered millions. A combination of prime
ministerial hubris and MoD incompetence has led to British military power being
degraded."
Admiral Lord West, a former first sea lord and security
minister, said: "I am slightly amazed at the costs of adapting the
carriers, but if they are of that order then you can understand why they are
considering this change.
"You have to make the best of a bad job. The navy
wanted the capability of the carrier version of the JSF, but the other version
is still a good aircraft. And if the navy gets a second carrier operational,
then some good will have come of it."
An MoD spokesman said no decisions had been taken.
"We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and
balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process we are reviewing all
programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate
costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary expects to
announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter."
A senior defence source
added: "Jim Murphy's comments are irresponsible and opportunist. It ill
behoves him to talk about mismanagement of projects. Labour left a carrier
programme that had ballooned in costs and made it more expensive to cancel the
programme than to go ahead with it."
No comments:
Post a Comment