Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 303)
WEDNESDAY 24 MAY 2000
SIR ROBERT
WALMSLEY AND
VICE-ADMIRAL
SIR JEREMY
BLACKHAM
300. We are visiting the Italian Defence Ministry
shortly so we shall pass on your message to them. I am interested
in the concept of wild card questions and the winner is Mr Viggers
who was not here yesterday. He is going to ask a question you
could not possibly have anticipated for this morning's session.
(Sir Robert Walmsley) WEAG you do not want to know
about, Chairman, is that right? You asked me about that.
301. Oh, yes, WEAG.
(Sir Robert Walmsley) The Western European Armaments
Group involves the WEU nations plus, I think I will get this right,
three observers: Austria, Sweden and Finland. Rather curiously,
just as we see the umbrella treaty begin to pass into the deep
freeze at the last WEAG meeting, which was in Porto just nine
days ago, Sweden and Finland and Austria, all with various degrees
of firmness, expressed their intention to join WEAG. So I think
it is a flourishing organisation because people see it as the
father of the potential European Armaments Agency. WEAO, the Western
European Armaments Organisation, is a body whose legal personality
derives from the WEU Treaty which allows it to place research
contracts. It is the only field in which it operates. The present
situation is we are not quite sure how these bodies will find
a new, so to speak, home in the new environment you describe.
Pro tem there is no difficulty with retaining the WEU Treaty
as the legal basis for those organisations continuing until we
find a better home for them and that is what we are thinking about.
Mr Viggers
302. The Defence Committee meeting yesterday
clashed with a meeting I was due to go to with my leader, William
Hague, and also tea with my constituents. I know where the true
power lies so, of course, I was having tea with my constituents.
That is why I would like, if I may, to ask a question about the
Eurofighter-Typhoon Mauser cannon. I feel very concerned about
this. I know that the concern is shared by many in the Royal Air
Force. I think the decision to eliminate the cannon from the Eurofighter
Typhoon is a mistake. It is a multi-role aircraft and its roles,
of course, include ground attack as well as air to air. Whilst
it does have missiles it is possible, of course, to divert missiles
and, indeed, we are ourselves procuring a towed decoy to fox missiles
and to seek to divert them. As the role of the Ministry of Defence
in foreign affairs changes I can envisage very many circumstances
in which a pilot would wish to have a gun on his aircraft, many
circumstances in which a gun would be extremely useful. The F4
Phantom was procured without a gun and it was retrofitted at considerable
expense. The Lightning fighter was procured without a gun and
it was retrofitted at considerable expensive. On current procurement
the French are fitting guns on the Rafale, the Russians are fitting
guns on their Sukhoi 27 and Mig 29. The Chinese have guns on their
aircraft. The United States are even fitting guns on their F22
Stealth Fighter. Our partners in the Eurofighter Typhoon project,
Germany, Italy and Spain, are fitting guns on their Typhoons.
Therefore, I put it to you that the deletion of the gun from the
British Eurofighter-Typhoon is clearly a bad decision and one
which in due course will have to be rectified. I put that to you,
Admiral, as a rhetorical question. I do not expect you to change
your mind but I am glad to have the opportunity of putting that
question on the record.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Thank you. No,
I have not changed my mind.
Chairman
303. Since yesterday afternoon.
(Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham) Since yesterday
afternoon. One of my staff, Air Vice Marshall Nicoll, wrote to
the newspapers, you may have seen this letter, in which he explained
what he very generously claimed was his decision but of course
it was not it was mine, so I have to be accountable for it. I
must say that I have more difficulty in seeing where such a weapon
would be used and perhaps more importantly my RAF 2 Star has even
more difficulty than I do in seeing where it should be used and
does not have any difficulty with the notion we should dispense
with the gun. I think a number of things have changed of late
but perhaps the most important thing that has changed is that
we have now got a very much higher level of confidence in our
missile technology than we used to have and we are procuring a
missile, the ASRAAM, specifically for short range combat. I think
that is a very important change in recent years, we have got a
much better confidence in our missile technology. As far as ground
attack is concerned, we have a range of other options for ground
attack which we are constantly reviewing. We are looking, indeed,
at quite a complex programme of ground attack of all ranges from
short to very long for which we are providing a range of weapons.
We do not envisage the Eurofighter having a role as a ground attack
striking aircraft.
Dr Lewis: A brief comment. You will recall,
Admiral, I was taking a very similar line to Mr Viggers yesterday
and I would like to endorse wholly everything he has said today.
I am not an expert on technical matters, as I have often pointed
out, but I do know something about military history and I think
military history is littered with examples of wars and conflicts
which take on a different form from any which were anticipated
in advance. I really would urge you to reconsider the degree of
assurance that you seem to have at a time when we are moving away
from set-piece large-scale war-type planning towards, as I said
yesterday, expeditionary planning, to reconsider this view that
just because you cannot at the moment envisage a scenario where
a weapon of this sort might be useful, that such a scenario may
not easily come to pass over the anticipated lifetime of the Eurofighter-Typhoon.
I would urge you to reconsider.
Chairman: Perhaps you could send us a
copy or a sanitised version, if you wish, of some of the documents
to counter the arguments used. Without being exceptionally critical,
this is one occasion where I think I agree with the Ministry of
Defence. I can envisage a scenario where a gun would be used,
an aircraft shot down in the jungle, a pilot on his own being
attacked by the locals. He cannot use a missile. He feels like
defeating Baron Von Richtoven but frankly, in deference to my
colleague, if a gun is required then I feel that is an aircraft
lost, his range is too short. Your adversary is far more likely
to have more serious weaponry than we would have. Frankly, although
I would like to see the document, it is to convince my Conservative
colleagues rather than me. Thank you so much for coming. It has
been a very informative and very frank and sometimes not heated
but there were slight disagreements between us. I do appreciate
the frankness with which you have spoken to the Committee. Thank
you very much.
|
