New warplanes 'less capable', secret paper shows

Britain’s Armed Forces will be less able to undertake future military operations with the fighter jets ministers are preparing to buy in a cost-saving exercise, secret defence plans have revealed

10:00PM BST 20 Apr 2012

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

The Daily Telegraph has seen a Ministry of Defence document setting out secret contingency planning for future British military operations in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Falklands and Africa.

The highly-classified report which shows that planners have grave doubt on the jump-jets ministers now want to buy for the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers.

David Cameron is poised to approve a decision to abandon plans to buy the conventional take-off variant of the US-made Joint Strike Fighter in favour of a jump-jet model of the aircraft.

The decision to buy conventional take-off aircraft instead of jump-jets was at the heart of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Reversing the decision will raise fresh questions about the defence review and the Coalition’s handling of the Armed Forces.

The U-turn has been made because the cash-strapped MoD says it cannot afford the growing cost of installing the catapults that would be required to launch the conventional jets from the decks of Britain’s new aircraft carriers.

The Labour government ordered the carriers to be built without catapults, but the SDSR ordered the ships to be redesigned and fitted with the launch gear.

The cost of that conversion is spiralling towards £2 billion, forcing ministers into a U-turn on the warplanes that is expected to be confirmed within weeks.

The MoD document, marked “Secret - UK eyes only” makes clear that the aircraft Britain will now buy are less militarily effective and more expensive than those originally ordered.

“The conventional variant is more effective than jump jet in almost all cases,” the paper says.

Because of the shortfall in jump jet capabilities, the MoD will have to spend an extra £2.4 billion buying 136 jump jets compared to 97 of the conventional versions, the paper says.

Defence planners overseeing the UK’s top-secret “scenario-planning” for potential future military missions have concluded that in every one of the operations that the Armed Forces are likely to have to undertake in the coming years, the new jet is less useful than the original one.

The document, an “Operational Analysis Supporting Paper” prepared by the Defence Science and Technical Laboratory last year, warns that the jump-jet has “considerable technical risks” and is less useful than the conventional variant.

The “key issue” is that the jump-jet can carry much less fuel than the conventional plane, meaning it can carry fewer weapons and fly less far.

Crucially, the reduced range means the jump jet can spend less time over its target than the conventional jet.

For a target 300 nautical miles away from the aircraft carrier, the jump-jet can spend only 20 minutes over its target before turning back, compared to 80 minutes for the conventional jet.

The paper also reveals the findings of a sensitive planning exercise which looked at Britain’s military requirements for a range of possible future missions.

The document reveals that Britain has “scoped” deploying British warplanes in scenarios including:

<>A “medium scale enduring stability operation” in Saudia Arabia, undertaken in conjuction with allies and codenamed MASD8.

<>High-level British military operations in Afghanistan continuing until 2025, with UK warplanes deployed for a decade after David Cameron’s deadline for an end to combat operations. The codename is MASD7.

<>A mission to retake the Falklands after a successful Argentine invasion and occupation of the islands: “The conventional variant provides a more robust capability.” The scenario is named PP1

<>An operation to destroy an “international terrorist organisation” camp in Chad and support British Special Forces sent to capture its leader. Codename F19.

<>A military intervention in Somalia. Codename F15.

<>A “small scale enduring power project” in Nigeria and Cameroon, with UK forces undertaking “joint fires to reduce criminal activity” and helping prevent “cross-border incursions”. Codename PP13a

The document sets out how many British aircraft of each type would be required in each case.

The Daily Telegraph has agreed to withhold those numbers, but each of the scenarios, planners concluded that each conventional jet will be at least as effective as a jump jet, and in most cases more effective.

In some scenarios, up to twice as many of the new aircraft would be required to accomplish the same mission.

The paper said: “The results consistently show that each scenario required fewer conventional variants or the same number as [the jump jet]; in no case were fewer [jump jets] than conventional aircraft needed.”

The report concludes that the decisive difference between the aircraft is the “range and persistence of the conventional aircraft.”

“It can therefore be concluded that the conventional variant is more effective than jump jet in almost all cases and the difference increases with the more demanding scenarios (both in terms of either range and/or threat).”

The paper also suggests that the long-term costs of the more-complex jump-jet are higher than its conventional equivalent. That means Britain would save £3.5 billion in long term costs by opting for the conventional jets.

The MoD said no decision has yet been taken about switching to the jump-jet, and played down the paper’s findings.

A spokesman said: “Unsurprisingly the facts and technical details have matured significantly since any previous assessments of the aircraft types. As you would expect, the MOD works up a wide range of scenarios, many of which are highly unlikely, to scope contingency work as fully as possible.”

“The Government has been clear that UK combat operations in Afghanistan will cease by the end of 2014.”