This is a regular round up of Parliamentary questions and answers from ministers relevant to defence issues In addition to oral questions, MPs and Peers can ask government ministers questions for written answer. These are often used to obtain detailed information about policies and statistics on the activities of government departments. In the House of Commons ‘ordinary’ questions do not have to be answered on a specific date. An MP will date a written question for two days after they have tabled it (ie, submitted it for answer via the Table Office). The convention is that the MP can expect it to be answered within seven days of the question being tabled.
Contents
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
- Question
- Answer
Question
Laura Sandys (South Thanet, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on food procurement in each year from 1997 to 2011.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
At any one time, some 70% of UK based armed forces personnel are catered for under a number of Catering, Retail and Leisure (CRL) and other multi-activity contracts (incorporating Pay As You Dine arrangements) to deliver this and other services. Food is procured at the contractors’ risk and the only payment received in respect of this is at the point of sale. The price of the core meal, covering breakfast, lunch and dinner is capped by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
For UK based armed forces personnel not covered by these contractual arrangements and those serving on operations and overseas exercises, there is a single food supply contract for which the following information is available:
| Single food supply expenditure | |
| Financial Year | £ million |
| 2001-02 | 113 |
| 2002-03 | 114 |
| 2003-04 | 139 |
| 2004-05 | 128 |
| 2005-06 | 139 |
| 2006-07 | 135 |
| 2007-08 | 145 |
| 2008-09 | 176 |
| 2009-10 | 165 |
| 2010-11 | 199 |
These figures include the cost of food, administration and transport.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has also procured Operational Ration Packs over the same period for which the following information is available:
| Operational ration pack expenditure | |
| Financial Year | £ million |
| 2001-02 | 14.6 |
| 2002-03 | 16.6 |
| 2003-04 | 26.7 |
| 2004-05 | 23.7 |
| 2005-06 | 15.6 |
| 2006-07 | 15.3 |
| 2007-08 | 18.1 |
| 2008-09 | 25.4 |
| 2009-10 | 23.3 |
| 2010-11 | 36.4 |
Financial records prior to Financial Year 2001-02 are no longer available.
Increases to expenditure are attributable to food price inflation, implementing improvements in the nutritional quality of provisions and enhancements to the pre-deployment training package to ensure it reflects all aspects of the operational environment, including the catering system available.
Question
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts his Department has awarded through the Framework Agreement Technical Support process (a) since the Strategic Defence and Security Review and (b) in the financial year 2011-12; and what the value is of each such contract.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The number of tasks awarded to companies providing technical support services under the Framework Agreement for Technical Support is 897 since theStrategic Defence and Security Review, (SDSR) and 345 in the financial year 2011-12 to date.
The following table shows the number of tasks awarded by value band:
| Tasks | |
| Since Strategic Defence and Security Review | |
| < £50,000.00 | 416 |
| £50,000.00 to £99,000.00 | 230 |
| £100,000.00 to £199,000.00 | 137 |
| £200,000.00 to £299,000.00 | 42 |
| £300,000.00 to £399,000.00 | 16 |
| £400,000.00 to £499,000.00 | 9 |
| £500,000.00 to £599,000.00 | 10 |
| £600,000.00 to £699,000.00 | 5 |
| £700,000.00 to £799,000.00 | 5 |
| £800,000.00 to £899,000.00 | 5 |
| £900,000.00 to £999,000.00 | 2 |
| £1 million to £1.999 million | 11 |
| £2 million to £2.999 million | 3 |
| £3 million to £3.999 million | 3 |
| £4 million to £4.999 million | 1 |
| £5 million+ | 3 |
| Financial year 2011-12 | |
| < £50,000.00 | 125 |
| £50,000.00 to £99,000.00 | 101 |
| £100,000.00 to £199,000.00 | 65 |
| £200,000.00 to £299,000.00 | 12 |
| £300,000.00 to £399,000.00 | 9 |
| £400,000.00 to £499,000.00 | 4 |
| £500,000.00 to £599,000.00 | 4 |
| £600,000.00 to £699,000.00 | 3 |
| £700,000.00 to £799,000.00 | 2 |
| £800,000.00 to £899,000.00 | 5 |
| £900,000.00 to £999,000.00 | 1 |
| £1 million to £1.999 million | 6 |
| £2 million to £2.999 million | 2 |
| £3 million to £3.999 million | 2 |
| £4 million to £4.999 million | 1 |
| £5 million+ | 3 |
Question
Ian Austin (Dudley North, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from (a) trade unions and (b) individuals on the announcement of redundancies by BAE Systems.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The Ministry of Defence has not received any formal representations from trade unions or other staff networks following the announcement of job losses at BAE Systems. The Department has received some correspondence on this issue, it has been raised during other parliamentary and ministerial business and the Minister for International Security, my hon. Friend Mr Howarth, met the trade unionists representing workers at both Brough and Warton at the Conservative party conference. This limited correspondence reflects the fact that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have taken the lead within Government for working with the company, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to make sure everything possible is done to help those affected at Brough, Warton and Samlesbury and other sites.
Question
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 3 November 2011, Official Report, columns 413-4W, on the Navy, when the announcement was made that HMS Trafalgar had been declared surplus; and what the status is of HMS Turbulent.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 24 November 2011
HMS Trafalgar was withdrawn from service on 31 December 2009 and is currently being decommissioned and prepared for storage afloat at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport prior to final disposal through the Submarine Dismantling Project. It is not normal practice to formally announce the decommissioning of Royal Navy submarines. HMS Turbulent is currently deployed on operations.
In my answer to the hon. Member on 10 November 2011, Hansard, columns 413-14W, I stated that HMS Triumph has been declared surplus. It has since been brought to my attention that this is not the case. I apologise for the error made and this answer corrects the Official Report
Question
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) original budget, (b) projected final cost, (c) expected timescales for delivery, (d) primary contractor and (e) identity of additional consortium members are in relation to the Astute Nuclear Submarine project.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 22 November 2011
As recorded in the Major Project Report 2011 recently published by the National Audit Office, the original approved budget and projected final costs for the Astute Class submarines are as follows:
| £ million | ||
| Original budget | Projected final cost | |
| Boats 1 to 3 (Batch 1) | 2,223 | 3,480 |
| Boat 4 | 1,279 | 1,404 |
| Boat 5 | 623 | 586 |
| Boat 6 | 255 | 253 |
The current approved level of spend on Astute Boats 5 to 6 do not reflect the total costs of these boats as they undergo incremental approval. The Boat 5 approval includes the nuclear reactor, other long lead items and the initial build work. The Boat 6 approval includes the nuclear reactor core and long lead items.
The cost increases are well documented through previous Major Projects Reports; however, the programme is now on a much firmer footing.
HMS Astute achieved its in-service date in 2010. The timescales for in-service delivery of the remaining boats are shown in the following table:
| Delivery date | |
| Ambush | 2013 |
| Artful | 2015 |
| Audacious | 2018 |
| Anson | 2020 |
| Boat 6 | 2022 |
| Boat 7 | 2024 |
The Astute Class submarines are not delivered by a consortium but by the prime contractor, BAE Systems Submarine Solutions.
Question
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) original budget, (b) projected final cost, (c) expected timescales for delivery, (d) primary contractor and (e) identity of additional consortium members are in relation to the Typhoon Future Capability Programme.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 14 November 2011
The original budget for the Typhoon Future Capability Programme was £449 million. The projected final cost is £458 million as at 31 March 2011. This increase is due to foreign exchange rate fluctuations. Both of these figures include the assessment, and demonstration and manufacture phases. The expected time scale for delivery, as set out in the 2011 Major Projects Review (in-service date) is June 2012. The primary contractor is the Eurofighter GmbH consortium, which comprises Alenia, BAE Systems and Cassidian.
Question
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) original budget, (b) projected final cost, (c) expected timescales for delivery, (d) primary contractor and (e) identity of additional consortium members are in relation to the Maritime Composite Training System Phase 1 project; and if he will make a statement.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The original budget for the Maritime Composite Training System Phase 1 was £75.61 million. The project was delivered in August 2011 and within budget at a final projected cost of £73.75 million.
The Maritime Composite Training System project was not delivered by a consortium but by the prime contractor, BAE Systems Mission Systems.
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) how many personnel are taking part in the Seedcorn initiative; what the location is of each; and with what equipment they are training;
(2) what capabilities are being maintained through the Seedcorn initiative;
(3) what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the Seedcorn initiative in each of the next five years.
Answer
Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)
The Seedcorn initiative will sustain the Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s capability to operate high level fixed-wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) and maintain the associated skills of its personnel. Qualified RAF aircrew will be on exchange with a variety of Allied MPA forces, where they will maintain their anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, long-range search and rescue, and Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) skills.
The estimated cost of the initiative on average is £2.4 million per year for the next five years; this includes salary and allowances.
Retaining skills and MPA knowledge is vital if the United Kingdom is to be in a position to regenerate our own MPA capability at some point in the future.
The number and location of personnel and equipment to be used is as follows:
| Location | Aircraft | Number of personnel | |
| Canada | Royal Canadian Air Force Greenwood | CP-140 Aurora | 7 |
| New Zealand | Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Whenuapai | P-3K Orion/P-3K2 Orion | 5 |
| Royal New Zealand Air Force Base Ohakea | Beech King Air B200 | 1 | |
| Australia | Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh | AP-3C Orion | 4 |
| United States | Naval Air Station Norfolk | Non-flying appointment related to maritime operational staff duties. | 1 |
| Naval Air Station Patuxent River | P3C Orion | 2 |
Additionally, discussions are ongoing with the US Navy on an exchange initiative for fully qualified RAF aircrew to support the US P-8A Poseidon programme.
Question
Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much he expects his Department to save from the re-basing in the UK of troops based in Germany in each financial year until 2030.
Answer
Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)
holding answer 22 November 2011
We expect to make substantial savings as a result of returning forces currently based in Germany to the UK. The additional costs to the Ministry of Defenceof stationing forces in Germany are at least £250 million a year in allowances and education and medical support. However, a detailed implementation plan for the return of British forces is in the process of being developed, so we do not yet have a profile for the delivery of savings as these additional costs are reduced.
Question
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish his Department’s organisational redesign strategy.
Answer
Philip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
We have agreed the recommendations in Lord Levene’s Defence Reform report and are working on a detailed departmental blueprint setting out how we will implement them. This will be coming forward for ministerial consideration shortly. We will publish our conclusions once they have been agreed. We have already established the Defence Infrastructure Organisation in April 2011, Defence Business Services in July 2011, and we will set up the new Joint Forces Command in April 2012.
Question
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) civilian and (b) military redundancies his Department had forecasted would be made in the 12 months following the Strategic Defence and Security Review; and how many such redundancies were actually made.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 23 November 2011
The Strategic Defence and Security Review set a savings target equivalent to a reduction in the civilian workforce of 25,000, and a reduction of 17,000 posts in the regular armed forces by 31 March 2015. The Department’s aim is that, so far as possible, those savings will be made without recourse to compulsory redundancy.
For the civilian workforce, allowing for the effects of normal staff turnover and the current civil service recruitment restrictions, it was estimated that the Department would need to agree some 15,500 paid releases between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2014. Accordingly, a voluntary early release scheme was launched in February. By the end of October 2011, 2,589 individuals had left under this scheme. It is important to note that these are not redundancies.
In respect of reductions within the armed forces, no specific forecast was made for the number of redundancies in Tranche 1, within the overall envelope of 3,600 posts within the different redundancy fields. Some 2,859 were selected for redundancy of whom 1,770 were applicants. Notifications were issued by the Army and Royal Air Force on 1 September 2011, with the Royal Navy following on 30 September 2011. Applicants were given six months’ notice to leave and others 12 months. Further tranches are planned, with the second due to be under way in early 2012.
Question
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officials in his Department received a pay rise other than by promotion in the last two years; and what the average increase was in each such year.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
In financial year (FY) 2010-11, 51,603 employees who are covered by the Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s main pay arrangements received a pay rise, which was the last year of a three-year pay deal agreed in 2008 under the previous Administration. The average increase was £1,259 (full-time equivalent). From FY 2011-12 these employees are subject to a two-year pay freeze except for those earning less than £21,000 per annum who are entitled to receive a pay increase of at least £250. For FY 2011-12, 24,518 employees earning less than £21,000 per annum received an increase of an average value of £357, which included an element for shortening the length of the pay scales.
In addition to its main pay arrangements, the MOD has a number of separate pay arrangements covering specialist grades (such as fire service personnel, police, teachers, doctors and nurses) where pay is analogued to comparators in other Government Departments. In 2010-11, 4,988 employees were entitled to pay rises under these arrangements which included revalorisation and incremental progression under existing pay deals. The average increase was £1,160 (full-time equivalent). For FY 2011-12, 1,288 employees in this group received an average increase of £906. These employees are now subject to a two-year pay freeze in line with the arrangements for their comparators in other Government Departments.
MOD trading funds, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and locally employed civilians working overseas have their own delegated arrangements for pay and grading and are excluded.
Question
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has lost any (a) computers, (b) mobile phones, (c) BlackBerrys and (d) other ITequipment since May 2010; and if he will make a statement.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) takes any loss and theft of Communications and Information Systems (CIS) and associated media storage devices very seriously. We have robust procedures in place to mitigate against such occurrences and to manage such losses when they do occur. This is reflected in the level of detail we record, and our policy of including in our figures incidents when equipment may have been securely disposed of without the correct records being kept, where missing items are subsequently located and where incidents involve the loss of contractors’ equipment which was being used to process Defenceinformation.
The size and complexity of the MOD, more than 250,000 individuals operating all round the world, from permanent bases and in theatre and with frequent movement of kit between locations in support of operations, means it is almost inevitable that equipment will go missing. Our challenge remains to reduce the number of such incidents and minimise the risk of any incident resulting in the loss of information by ensuring that devices are encrypted or where this is not possible that additional security measures are in place. Processes, instructions and technological aids are being continually reviewed, revised and implemented to mitigate human errors and further raise the awareness of every individual in the Department of their vital role protecting MOD information and assets.
The following table details how many computers, mobile phones, BlackBerrys and other IT equipment have been reported lost or stolen since May 2010.
| CIS asset | Number |
| Desktop computers | 99 |
| Laptop computers | (1)188 |
| Mobile phones | 18 |
| BlackBerrys | 10 |
| Disks (CD/DVD) | 194 |
| Removable hard disk drives | 72 |
| Printers | 6 |
| Tapes (Backup) | (2)150 |
| USB memory sticks | 73 |
| Other IT(3) | 135 |
| (1) Includes 21 laptops stolen in one incident during transit in Germany and 20 laptops reported lost in another incident which have subsequently been recovered. (2) Includes 80 legacy backup tapes unaccounted for in one incident. (3 )The majority of the “Other” category refers to USB tokens but it also includes radios, 3G cards, cameras, keyboards and monitors. | |
For comparison, using laptops as an example, 326 were lost in 2008 and 129 in 2009.
Question
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) original budget, (b) projected final cost, (c) expected timescale for delivery, (d) primary contractor and identity of additional consortium members are in relation to the Type 45 Destroyer Project.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 15 November 2011
As recorded in the Major Project Report 2011 recently published by the National Audit Office, the original projected cost for six Type 45 destroyers, including the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) was approximately £4.75 billion. Currently, the forecasted final cost is approximately £5.66 billion. The in-service schedule for all six Type 45 destroyers is as follows:
Daring: 2010
Dauntless: 2010
Diamond: 2011
Dragon: 2012
Defender: 2013
Duncan: 2014.
The Type 45 destroyers are not delivered by a consortium but by the prime contractor, BAE Systems Surface Ships. The PAAMS system is delivered and supported byMBDA.
Question
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) original budget, (b) projected final cost, (c) expected timescales for delivery, (d) primary contractor and (e) identity of additional consortium members are in relation to the A400M project.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 14 November 2011
The initial approved cost for the A400M aircraft was £2.498 billion, and the current forecast cost to the UK of the A400M is £3.105 billion (including training and initial support). This increase is largely due to macro-economic factors including the foreign exchange rate against the Euro. The first UK A400M delivery is expected in September 2014 with the final UK aircraft delivery expected in September 2021. The A400M prime contractor is Airbus Military Sociedad Limitada. In addition to the United Kingdom, the other A400M partner nations are Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and Turkey.
Question
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) original budget, (b) projected final cost, (c) expected timescales for delivery, (d) primary contractor and (e) identity of additional consortium members are in relation to the Land Environment Picture Provision project.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 15 November 2011
The original cash approval for the Land Environment Air Picture Provision (LEAPP) Project was £138 million, final cash costs are projected to be £150 million. The cost growth is a result of a contractual claim settled and agreed between the prime contractor and the Ministry of Defence. For delivery, at the main gate decision point this was initially February 2012. At the most recent approval, delivery is now projected for September 2012. The primary contractor is Lockheed Martin UK, and there is no consortium.
Question
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) original budget, (b) projected final cost, (c) expected timescales for delivery, (d) primary contractor and (e) identity of additional consortium members are in relation to the Chinook Project Julius.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 15 November 2011
The original approval for the Chinook Julius project Design and Manufacture (D and M) phase, for eight aircraft was £132 million. This initial requirement was subsequently expanded by £158 million to enable the Julius Cockpit to be integrated into the remainder of the current total Chinook fleet of 46 aircraft, giving a total budget of £290 million. The current expected outturn cost remains, at £290 million as of 31 October 2011. The first of these helicopters will be delivered to the RAF in December 2011.
The prime contractor for the Chinook Julius D and M is The Boeing Company. They have sub-contracted the design of the cockpit system to Thales (UK) Ltd.
Question
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what budget his Department allocated for Defence Equipment and Support in the financial year 2011-12; how much of that budget has already been spent; and what estimate he has made of likely out-turn at the end of the financial year.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The full year near cash budget for Defence Equipment and Support in financial year 2011-12, as at October 2011, is £150,201 million. As at October 2011, spend to date totalled £75,722 million and the current forecast for outturn at the end of the financial year is within budget allocation. Both figures exclude depreciation, write offs, urgent operational requirements and the net additional cost of military operations. Fully audited out-turn figures will be provided as part of the annual accounts.
Question
Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) what the cost of Gurkha recruitment has been in each of the last four years;
(2) how many Gurkhas have been recruited in Nepal in each of the last four years.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
The cost of Gurkha recruitment in each of the last four years was:
| Financial year | £ million |
| 2007-08 | 2.4 |
| 2008-09 | 2.2 |
| 2009-10 | 2.5 |
| 2010-11 | 2.5 |
The following numbers of Gurkhas have been recruited in Nepal in each of the last four years:
| Number | |
| 2007 | 230 |
| 2008 | 230 |
| 2009 | 176 |
| 2010 | 176 |
Question
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department discusses regularly with the NHS trends in psychiatric problems experienced by former armed services personnel.
Answer
Philip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Officials from the Ministry of Defence and the UK Departments of Health meet regularly, via the Partnership Board, to discuss issues including the mental health of our former service personnel.
At a local level, Defence officials meet regularly with their colleagues in the health services and devolved administrations to ensure our former service personnel receive the healthcare they are entitled to.
Question
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of staffing reductions on his Department’s performance and productivity.
Answer
Philip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The Defence Transformation programme, which is taking forward the structural and organisational changes flowing from the strategic defence and security review and the Levene review, is intended to enable the Department to manage the impact of the planned staffing reductions by providing the mechanism to match resources and outputs.
Priorities will be rigorously examined, non-essential work will be stopped, and other work will be done in different ways—including through outsourcing, organisational restructuring, and rationalisation. The single services are modelling their future manpower to minimise the effect on operational effectiveness.
Question
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations (a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department have received from the French Government on the withdrawal of emergency towing vehicles covering the English Channel.
Answer
Michael Penning (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Roads and Motoring), Transport; Hemel Hempstead, Conservative)
The French Government have made representations both at ministerial level and at official level in relation to the decision to withdraw provision of publicly funded emergency towing vessel (ETV) services.
The French Minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing wrote to the UK’s Secretary for State for Transport. My officials have met with the French Defence Attaché to the UK, their Permanent Representatives to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in London, as well as attending the Anglo-French Safety of Navigation Group (AFSONG) and the Anglo-French Accident Technical Group (AFATG) meetings; ETVs were discussed at both meetings.
Question
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the capital receipt his Department is likely to receive following the transfer of theMet Office from his Department.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
The Met Office was transferred to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on 18 July 2011 as part of a wider machinery of government change which was undertaken as a first step to establishing a public data corporation (PDC). One of its aims is to create a vehicle to facilitate private investment. Proposals for a PDC are still under development and the shape and nature that the PDC takes will impact on the source and nature of any capital receipts realised by Government.
Question
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the aims and objectives are of UK policy towards Jordan.
Answer
Alistair Burt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Afghanistan/South Asia, counter terrorism/proliferation, North America, Middle East and North Africa), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; North East Bedfordshire, Conservative)
The UK’s policy towards Jordan reflects the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s priorities of Safeguarding Britain’s national security; building Britain’s prosperity and supporting British nationals around the world.
The Arab Spring has shown that increased political participation by citizens and greater economic opportunity offering them a greater stake in their state is the surest route to long-term regional stability. To this end the UK continues to support the implementation of political and economic reforms in Jordan, including through the Arab Partnership. Additionally the UK works closely with Jordan on issues of mutual interest, including regional foreign policy, counter-terrorism and defence.
In support of building Britain’s prosperity, on 15 November the Prime Minister and King Abdullah agreed to launch a UK-Jordan Economic Dialogue; which will seek ways to support both the Jordanian economy and the prosperity agenda.
Question
Jim Cunningham (Coventry South, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide long-term support to Libya.
Answer
Philip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
holding answer 22 November 2011
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has a small Defence Advisory Team as part of the UK embassy in Tripoli.
The UK is currently contributing £1.5 million to fund civilian experts assisting in a weapons disposal programme. As part of this commitment, the MOD has provided a small team of UK military specialists to work alongside the Libyans and United States in preventing the proliferation of surface to air missiles.
We stand ready to respond to any formal request for defence and security assistance from the new Libyan Government and will ensure that any support is coordinated with key partners.
Gerald Howarth’s reply to the “Seedcorn initiative” question.
“Additionally, discussions are ongoing with the US Navy on an exchange initiative for fully qualified RAF aircrew to support the US P-8A Poseidon programme”.
Also mentioned was the fact that the majority of 20 people are on exchange with P3 squadrons in Canada, Austailia and New Zealand. Obviously keeping the core MPA elite alive!
It appears that the current Government is following the same principals as the previous one, still moving projects to the right to make short term savings but with long tern cost increases. I knew the Astute programme was being stretched out but having the sixth boat not delivered until 2024 is rediculous even if it is to maintain skill until the Vanguard successor programme picks up speed.
I also read yesterday that the NAO has critisised the MoD for the gap in carrier aviation growing until 2030, which is now seen as the earliest that the single Cat and Trap CVF will be available for operational deployments with its intended airgroup!
Finally given that any growth in the economy will now be minimal up to 2017 with budget reductions now planned to continue until then, the propects of the MoD being able to fund the majority of the programmes to meet FF2020 seem less and less likely, leading to the probability that FF2020 in becomming an aspirational pipe dream. This adds more credibility to articles referring to delays forcast for the CVF programme, whether the 2nd CVF will get Cats and Traps and the afforability of the F-35C to operate from them.
As for maintaining MPA skills, buy the time any new platform is purchased if at all the majority of currently train aircrew will be retired or desk bound. The whole seedcorn initiative seems more an exercise to placate those who have critisised the decission to scrap the MR4, leaving a capability gap that cannot be effectively covered by other means.
I think we already need to be looking at what further cuts could be on the way up to and including the 2015 SDSR. The MoD’s budget will be very vulnerable if the economy is still up the creek. It is very hard not to be a “Glass half empty” person the way things are and are going to be. Mind you some or all of the additional funds given to the OSA programme whould lessen the blow.
A bit I left out!
Included in the 20 people were 1 desk job at Norfolk VA, and 2 flying with USN on P3C at Patuxent River. This makes me wonder if a buy of 2nd hand Orions is being considerd as most of the exchange aircrew are flying them.
Now where was that video about refurbished Orions…
Wiki tells us “With delivery of the first Air Seeker to the Royal Air Force not due until 2014, the gap in operational capability will be filled by joint operations between the RAF and USAF’s 343d Reconnaissance Squadron…
The conversion of three KC-135R airframes to RC-135W standard is to be undertaken by L3 Communications”
The interesting angle into Orions and the folks on exchange with the RAAF is that their AP-3Cs also fulfill the function of the retired R1s (claimed to be superior in capability) and the conversion/upgrade was done by L3 and BAE
airbus do orion P3 upgrades as well
http://airbusmilitary.com/Surveillance/P3Modernisation.aspx
Boat 7 2024
I thought only 6 Astutes were ordered??
Yes 7 is still to be ordered. Everybody just talks like it is going to happen.
Who would’ve though you could build submarines so slowly? If only it was possible to calculate the cost of maintaining an eleven or ten boat Silent Service versus the sixteen or so “required” in 1998- any savings in running costs or production must be absorbed by industrial subsidy and delayed production. Or, perhaps, we could just accept that our Navy is so small we cannot maintain domestic nuclear submarine production, then either sell it to the Yanks or go diesel and stay at home.
Hi BP,
Yes, and work-in-progress will have to be funded, too, while it is not yielding any benefit. As the schedule for each boat overlaps the previous by about 50%, the average is not much short of of 1 through to 2024. This has already been going on a while (rather than the natural rate of building them) and as they cost 1.2 bn a piece, calculated over one and a half decades… what would be the interest rate (not quite the 15% used in corporates for opportunity cost, not quite what the gilts carry, call it 10% times 15 years times 1.2 bn
- needs to be netted against what it would otherwise take
The 7th boat (even though not funded yet)is of course the “bridge” to the delayed SSBNs, so that the capacity & skills are there
Then what happens to the SSBNs? Ten years for the class until Astute needs replacing? HMS Vengeance would, potentially, be 36 Years old when replaced (launched in 1998 and replaced in roughly 2034). Or will they speed up production and try and fit in a sub-class or batch two Astute? Cake and arse party comes to mind.
The current Astute production rate is entirely logical and sensible, let us not forget that the boats are being progressively improved between hulls. Let us also not forget that these are effectively now capital ships both in terms of status and cost. The current build policy ensures UK nuclear submarine industrial capability and provides the RN with a VERY capable fleet that evolves with technology.
I didn’t even ask for compounded interest!
- there would be no basis for that, as one way or the other it needs to be seen as a steady state programme (preserving the capability for the next round as stated), over whatever the life of it is/ turns out to be
Hi all
On MPA Seedcorn
Interesting stuff isn’t it and reflective of an acknowledgement that the capability holiday we are currently enjoying! is only temporary. Seems to me the writing is on the wall that the P8, for all its flaws, is on the long term horizon. Of course it might be perceived as a fig leaf for a shocking poor decision but better that than nothing I guess
On Astute
It is probably fair to say that if we wish to have a nuclear deterrent capability that is based on an SSBN then we need to maintain the capability to design and build them so slowing the production rate down goes hand in hand with this. If ever we decide to leave the SSBN business then it becomes impossible to justify the retention of this unless we want to have such a slow build rate that each one costs 2 or 3 billion each. The alternative of course is sharing with our new friends across the channel or buying from the US. Astute is the jewel in the RN crown and I would afford it a greater priority than CVF or the surface fleet but these are not easy decisions are they. Again, this is hardly an ideal situation we find ourselves in but in the context of the budget reality, it’s understandable and Derek makes a good point about evolution of a common base platform.
RE “Derek makes a good point about evolution of a common base platform”
- I want a couple of CLCs behind the sail of the next edition…
- without affecting the noise or sonar signature of the boat
… that’s what I call Constant Improvement (an accepted manufacturing discipline?)
For current fleet numbers I agree the current rate is logical. I was wondering whether the marginal cost of producing a few more boats would be that large, or to see the size of returns to scale. I did, however, overlook the progressive improvement, which assuages the long production time somewhat. I was hesitant to mention how many more Astutes could we have bought for £7 billion; we’ve been down that road a thousand times before.
Hi BP,
One can put it from another perspective, like NAO did, that the industrial (maintaining the niche capacity)considerations have cost as much as inserting an extra boat (that is not the 7th)into the production run (same end result cost-wise but getting more for it), REF your
” I was hesitant to mention how many more Astutes could we have bought for £7 billion”
Panties,
Upgrading the design through the build is almost entirely done by upgrading the subsystems (things that so many here do not understand) for instance, Sonar 2076 stage 5 being the baseline for Astute Batch II with it being retrofitted to the earlier boats. Also, SMCS-NG is being installed now and has already been retrofitted across the fleet; further upgrades can be expected. In the mean time, Trafalgar Batch II (as the Astute class was originally known following the abandonment of SSN20/W Class in 1992) are one of the most outstanding submarines ever built and offer incredible capability to the UK (when they are not stuck on shingle banks).
As to the build rate; If the submarine based deterrent is abandoned the obvious choice is to push the SSN fleet to 9-10 boats to compensate, they are fantastic assets so it would make perfect sense.
Of course it is, Bob.
Now I also now that your next pseudonym will have two “A”s in it, to complete the “B”s and the “E”s.
Accountants learn to dissect quantity and price in Accounting 101, but they have not mastered the same for quantity and quality. Whereas the BAE PR department can move from land to sea without too much difficulty …saving the “A” for later?
Derek
I though the big “change” that led from Trafalgar BII to Astute was the reactor?
RE “led from Trafalgar BII to Astute was the reactor?”
- the SSBN design has already had its reactor swapped out for a safer (and more expensive)design
- this is bound to have ramifications on the Astute side of things, too?
ACC,
A new development, usually I am accused of working for GD here- the variety is nice though.
Vanguard, SSN20, and Batch 2 Trafalgar (to be Astute) were to/do use PWR2- Astute is being fitted with Core H which means it does not have to be refuelled (assuming it is only in service for 25 years max and is not over-used). PWR3, derived from a US design so not indigenous like the previous 2 (though to be fair there has always been considerable cross-fertilisation), has been selected for the successor SSBN.
The relationship between Trafalgar Batch I and Astute appears to have been broken in multiple ways, as a demonstration of just how much- Astute has a displacement *approximately* 50% greater than a Trafalgar.