Government carrier strike rethink a shambles – Toby Fenwick
We can all welcome Nick Harvey’s work with the defence secretary Phillip Hammond in producing what appears to be the first balanced MoD budget since at least the 1997 defence review. Time will tell if their projections hold water. However, the armed forces minister’s recent article on Liberal Democrat Voice is redolent of MoD press office spin, and has several important elements that need debating. Moving back to the vertical take off and landing variant of the joint strike fighter (JSF) – known as the F-35B – is hardly the panacea Nick Harvey pretends. There were several reasons why the military warmly welcomed the switch to a conventional cats ‘n’ traps carrier and aircraft (F-35C) in the 2010 defence review.
First, there have been no figures released to substantiate the massive increase in conversion costs that Mr Harvey refers to. Nor do we know on what basis these figures have been calculated. Are they for the conversion alone? Are they through life costs based on an assessment of the differential operating costs and training requirements of the jump-jet F-35B and conventional take off and landing F-35C? If so, where are the data sources, what are the assumptions and how were they calculated?
Second, performance: the F-35C carries a larger payload further than the F-35B. Radius of action is critical to projecting carrier airpower, so buying the shorter range jet significantly constrains your military options. This was demonstrated 30 years ago in the Falklands, where the Harriers were limited to short periods over the islands, and the carriers had to be kept at a safe distance from the Argentine air bases. Not only will this choice constrain UK military options now, it will do so for the next 30 years.
Third, the joint strike fighter carries much of its weaponry internally to ensure that it can evade radar through its stealth technologies. The F-35C has larger internal bomb bays so that all of the UK’s existing bombs and missiles can be carried inside the stealthy bays. However, the F-35B has smaller bays and cannot carry the larger bombs in the UK inventory, nor, reportedly, can it carry the RAF’s current long-range AMRAAM missile or the new air to air missile (METEOR) without modification.
Fourth, the F-35B is the most complex and most expensive JSF variant. It was also placed on technical probation by the US Dept of Defense in 2011, and it remains a work in progress. Moreover, with the US marine corps already reducing their orders in favour of the more capable F-35C, not only will the unit cost increase, but at a time when the US government is looking for large defence cuts, the F-35B is also the most likely to be cancelled after the 2012 presidential election. If it is cancelled, the UK will have no other fixed wing aircraft to purchase, rendering the carriers impotent. And were this to happen, the government would then have to convert the carriers to cat ‘n’ trap configuration if it wanted any fixed wing aircraft to fly from the decks. A strange case of a U-turn on a U-turn on a U-turn.
Fifth, carrier airpower is about much more than just the fast jets. The support aircraft – tankers, radar aircraft, transport aircraft as well as helicopters – are critical. Unfortunately, scrapping cats ‘n’ traps means that all of the off the shelf options for tanking, airborne early warning and carrier on board supply delivery are unworkable. The UK will be reliant on helicopter based options instead, which are much less capable, as well as being unique to the UK, and thus comparatively expensive. The entire capability of the UK carrier programme will be significantly and permanently downgraded, and we will lose interoperability with our French and US navy allies.
Sixth, the suggestion that the government’s decision makes the carriers operational sooner is both misleading and a red herring. It is apparently the case that if the Royal Navy stuck with the F-35C, the converted carrier would not be operational with its airwing until 2023; if the F-35B is ready on time, this could be 2021. However, if the UK were to order a different aircraft with cats ‘n’ traps, the carrier could enter service as soon as the carrier was converted – well before 2023, and probably by 2019. Two aircraft could fulfil this requirement: France’s Rafale or the US F-18 E/F Super Hornet.
With a probable price of at least £100m each, (around twice as expensive as the Eurofighter Typhoon) the F-35 is both enormously capable and enormously expensive, meaning that even in the US forces there is pressure for cheaper options. This is at least one of the reasons that the US Navy continues to order F-18E/F Super Hornets at a third of the cost of the F-35C, let alone the more expensive F-35B. With a 25 year life, the US Navy clearly assesses that these aircraft will remain viable beyond 2030.
Given that the probable cost of the carrier programme’s ships and aircraft is above £15bn, and represents a 30 year investment, it is critical to get the choice of aircraft right. Therefore, if the F-35C was technically better for the UK’s needs – as it was in 2010 – it would seem reasonable to wait 18 months to ensure that the UK secures the best possible value for money. But if the cost was so high that the F-18E/F Super Hornet was good enough for the UK – as it is for at least part of the US Navy – then we could have the carriers in service well before the F-35B, even allowing the time to convert it to cats ‘n’ traps.
The suggestion that the change back to the F-35B will get the carrier into service quicker is unlikely to be the key driver. Indeed, if it was, it smacks of poor stewardship of defence value for money.
So, far from the sunny language used by Mr Harvey about “changed facts”. What appears to have happened is a straight cost driven decision because of a budget crunch. Strategic considerations clearly lay second to cost, not least given the coalition government’s criticism of the previous government for opting for the F-35B instead of cats ‘n’ traps in the 2010 defence review.
It would be refreshing if Mr Harvey could at least admit this. But to do so would be to admit that there were other savings options in the MoD budget to make the money available for the cats ‘n’ traps conversions, which he and Phillip Hammond declined to make, resulting in this expensive fiasco. At CentreForum, we published a report [pdf] in March advocating the scrapping of Trident and transferring the funding to recapitalise the armed forces. Item one? A fully equipped pair of carriers with their aircraft and supporting equipment. Sadly, a major opportunity missed.
Toby Fenwick is a research associate of CentreForum. A version of this article appeared on Liberal Democrat Voice on 31 May 2012.
It is interesting that no comments have been left, in these hard times this is an area where the UK should be reluctant to flex its muscles overseas and to move towards conflict resolution and sensitive diplomacy to earn greater respect in the world. The USA is hated across the developing world and so are we for being seen as one of its poodles.
This does not mean we should abandon any defense capability but that should not be offense capability unless the industries which benefit from the blood of the poor cannon fodder dying in futile conflicts overseas contribute significantly towards the costs of such conflicts. They must be quids in using what little tax they pay to cover some of the costs of a war. The UK citizens on the other hand subsidise that war with no return other than dead soldiers and a tarnished name from the blood of innocent civilians in developing countries caught up in the crossfire or as a result of blunders on the part of the military alliance.
Our engagement in such conflicts is not a moral one but essentially basic economics, so the Government should refrain from suggesting otherwise. The attrocities in Africa, Syria, Burma and N.Korea to name a few are ones we cannot address because of their alliances, complexity and cost but also do not yield any current or future economic return. A location like the Falklands for instance which whilst costly and distant to fight a war is in terms of oil exploration and access to ice free ports and expoitation of Antartica (when we get round to ignoring global treaties) becomes economic.
If we are aiming to counter terrorism then we need to be investing in intelligence and investing in the hearts and minds of people so they see us as allies and not the enemy, everytime civilians get killed in a distant land we effectively recruit more converts to terrorism. We need to use our resources for aid and the elimination of global poverty and the enormous inequalities which cause such hatred and mistrust.
Instead of discussing which type of aircraft or ships or types of bombs we should invest in like some sick schoolboy game of soldiers we should decide exactly what our role is in the world and how we intend to address issues in the future, and to have that as a public debate not something behind closed doors where the military industrial complex has a vested interest in the outcome. We desperately need a mature debate which looks at the whole spectrum of activities diplomacy, conflict resolution, intelligence gathering world aid, national treasury and budgetary pressures, as well as investment in the military where necessary. I do not see any holistic debate, why can’t the Government grow up and start one with its allies and try to understand its enemies. What price are we prepared to pay on future conflicts at the expense of meeting the increasing needs of a nation facing economic crisis and hardship. It is at precisely such times when Europe and the rest of the world are facing economic hardship that the potential for conflict exists it is now that we need to have that public debate and to reduce fear and hatred across the world.
If that debate is not to be had we need to scale down our expenditure on conventional conflicts overseas and to invest in those parts of our intelligence and military so it has the capability for rapid response and strike action to address issues such as kidnapping citizens, piracy, drug and human trafficking, taking out known terrorists, arms smuggling, delivering humanitarian aid following conflicts or natural disasters and an ability to evacuate citizens from hotspots overseas. We need to establish ways of sharing and not duplicating resources with our strategic and trusted allies. We need to recognise that China and Russia are not likely to align with us on the UN Security Council and that resolutions are going to become increasingly difficult but that as time progresses we need to remind ourselves of our history and what hardship derives from global conflict, our European colleagues are so pro-European because they remember what it is like to be occupied by a foreign nation and see the merits of sustaining a united Europe and have gone to great lengths to do so. As an Island nation we have always managed to remain separate and have not truly supported this objective. I think it is in our interests to continue to try and make this work. The collapse of the Euro is something we cannot afford and what may happen in terms of conflict between nations, what are we doing to address xenophobia and racial hatred across Europe especially in the former Warsaw Pact countries. If we allow such views to spread we could face a rfascist revival and a serious conflict situation, we have a multi-racial society and a greater Commonwealth as part of our heritage where would we stand these are fundamental human rights we will uphold.
Please lets have a proper public debate about the future where defense is just one part of the equation and where we decide what our future role is in a complex world and how we make it safe for our nation and our citizens.
Brett, hi
Whilst I suspect that we’ll disagree on many things, we do agree that there needs to be some detailed work to inform a debate on the future of UK foreign policy through to 2050. One of the major flaws common to both the 1997 and 2010 defence reviews was the lack of analytical rigour around the UK’s role in the world – something that I’d like to fix. Watch this space!
Kind regards,
Toby