Type-45 Destroyer
60. In our inquiry this year we have taken the opportunity
to get a progress report from the MoD on the programme we examined
last year—the Common New Generation Frigate (CNGF), and
its 'PAAMS'[244]
missile system and 'Horizon' warship components. In our report
we called on the MoD to distil lessons from the failures of the
CNGF programme, and the MoD's evidence to our current inquiry
includes the results of that work.[245]
Our report last year also examined the MoD's plans to acquire
a national fleet of Type-45 destroyers in place of the aborted
collaborative Horizon frigates.
61. Since our report, the MoD has let the prime contract
for the Type-45 programme to Marconi Electronic Systems (now part
of BAE Systems) to complete the ship's 'preparation for demonstration'
stage. The MoD sees this selection as minimising project risk
and maximising the opportunities for taking forward the work that
the firm had invested in the now aborted Horizon project,[246]
70% of which is now expected to flow into the Type-45.[247]
62. Later this year, the MoD aims to let the prime
contract for 'demonstration and first-of-class manufacture', which
will involve Vosper Thornycroft at Southampton and Marconi Marine
(YSL) Ltd on the Clyde to allow the possibility of ship construction
at either yard.[248]
The MoD intends to keep control of the competitions for follow-on
ships, as our report last year recommended.[249]
CDP described how these measures were intended to maintain competition
for the production of the Type-45—
... competition does in many
ways stimulate innovation. We have learned from that and we will
insist on competition for the Type-45. As you know, many years
ago it was designated that the first [vessel] would be built at
Yarrow. You cannot have a fair competition between one shipyard
that has built one, and one shipyard that has not. ... Although
BAE Systems are the prime contractor ... an absolute condition
of that is to involve Vosper's in the design team first of all
to give Vosper's absolute transparency on what is going on in
terms of designing the ship ... By having Vosper's present in
the design team we will ensure first of all that this ship will
be built, can be built, at both shipyards. We are also now moving
to quite an interesting idea, that bits of the first ship, which
we call intermediate products, that is to say blocks, large chunks
of hundreds of tonnes, could be built at Vosper's. We have not
settled that yet. We thought that might be quite a neat way of
getting them into the construction processes for this ship ...
That way we think we can envisage a strategy for building these
ships where there is competition both for final assembly and to
build these intermediate products.[250]
63. The contract for the first-of-class would be
for one, two or three vessels.[251]
The first vessel should be available for sea trials in late 2005
or early 2006, but the contractor (rather than the Royal Navy)
will be responsible for the successful completion of these trials
(probably over a period of about 15 months) and for meeting the
vessel's 2007 target in-service date which is defined in terms
of its availability for operations.[252]
64. In our report last year, we recommended that
the MoD should take full advantage of the opportunities now offered
by having a national rather than collaborative vessel, including
designing-in the possibility of fitting missile launchers which
could house a wider range of missile types, and not just the anti-air
PAAMS 'Aster' missiles. Specifically, in our report we highlighted
the advantages of later Type-45 vessels being able to use Tomahawk
land attack missiles, in view of their successful use in the Kosovo
campaign.[253]
Although there are currently no plans for the Type-45 destroyer
having a land-attack capability,[254]
we were pleased to be told that it is 'being designed from the
outset to allow the fitting of a vertical launcher suitable for
a variety of weapons (including missiles such as Tomahawk) to
every ship in the class, should a funded requirement be raised
for this capability'.[255]
The Future Carrier and the Future
Carrier Borne Aircraft
65. In this inquiry we also briefly reviewed the
position regarding the future carrier programme and its aircraft.
The two new carriers and their complement of aircraft were amongst
the most important elements of the Strategic Defence Review, central
to the UK's concept of expeditionary warfare, and in our report
on the SDR we undertook to monitor progress on these programmes
on an annual basis.[256]
With an in-service date still 12-15 years away, work so far has
been focussed on studies to determine the broad parameters of
each programme. It is likely to be a focus of our monitoring exercise
next year, however, as these decisions become closer. In the meantime,
the Committee is visiting the Carrier and Future Carrier Borne
Aircraft (FCBA) project teams in the near future to discuss the
current work.
66. The next important stage for these programmes
comes at the end of the first phase of the Carrier's 'Analysis
of Options' studies, currently being undertaken by the two competing
contractors for the carriers—BAE Systems and France's Thomson-CSF.
At that point—'late 2000/2001'—the carriers' aircraft
will be selected, allowing the second stage of the Analysis of
Options to focus the ship design on the requirements of the selected
aircraft.[257]
The design of a carrier to accommodate a 'short take-off and vertical
landing' (STOVL) aircraft will be very different from one for
a conventionally launched and recovered aircraft, and this will
be the driving factor in their design. Admiral Blackham told us
that this was, for example, the main determinant of the likely
size of the vessel—
I know there is a great fascination
with the tonnage of a ship which personally I do not share. The
key issue is what is the aircraft going to be, and what numbers
are we going to deploy. ... Once we have decided on the aircraft
we will have to build a carrier to accommodate it. ... Depending
on the size of the aircraft we will have to consider the size
of the flight deck and the size of the hangar arrangements. ...
It does not make sense to determine exactly what the size of the
carrier will be until we know what the aircraft is.[258]
Similarly, CDP told us—
A carrier is not a complicated
ship, it is basically a big box with a big hangar inside it and
a flat deck and a sufficient degree of command and control arrangements
to enable the ship to communicate, as it has to. It is not going
to have lots of other weapons. It is not full of systems like
a destroyer that is stuffed full of the most complicated electronics,
etc.. When you go on board a carrier it is basically empty, it
is just a box. What is complicated is the aeroplane. I do not
want to allow us to create an impression in your minds that the
construction of the ship is an immense technological achievement.[259]
67. The short take-off and vertical landing version
of the US-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme is currently
'a strong contender' for the FCBA, with 'other options being studied
in order to compare them with JSF'.[260]
There have been press reports that the US Department of Defense
are encountering technical and industrial problems with the JSF
programme and may delay their selection between the bids from
the Boeing and Lockheed-Martin consortia. Admiral Blackham acknowledged
that if such a STOVL aircraft were chosen and a STOVL-compatible
vessel had been selected, and the aircraft programme then ran
into serious delays, there would also be difficulties for the
carrier programme.[261]
If the STOVL route were chosen, it would also be more difficult
to switch to an alternative aircraft programme.[262]
68. In practice, we were told, the FCBA decision
could involve two consecutive selections—first, whether
to take the JSF or an alternative aircraft such as derivatives
of the Eurofighter, Harrier or the F-18, and, second, whether
it should be a conventional aircraft or a short take-off and vertical
landing aircraft.[263]
The JSF programme involves both sorts of aircraft, and although
development of the lower risk 'conventional' variant is being
pushed ahead of the other one,[264]
we were assured that at the moment the US remains committed to
the STOVL Joint Strike Fighter.[265]
244 'Principal Anti-Air Missile System' Back
245 Ev
p 88 Back
246 Ev
p 78, para 8 Back
247 Ev
p 79, para 23; HC Deb., 10 January 200 c91w Back
248 Ev
p 78, para 9 Back
249 Eighth
Report, Session 1998-99, op cit, para 35 Back
250 Q
262 Back
251 Q
249 Back
252 QQ
249-253 Back
253 Eighth
Report, Session 1998-99, op cit, para 31 Back
254 HC
Deb., 18 May 2000, c205w Back
255 Ev
p 94, para A7 Back
256 Eighth
Report, Session 1997-98, op cit, para 236 Back
257 Ev
p 54, para 10 Back
258 Q
286 Back
259 Q
288 Back
260 Ev
p 62, para 2 Back
261 Q
279 Back
262 Q
280. The only STOVL programmes are the JSF and a possible Harrier
derivative Back
263 Q
275 Back
264 ibid Back
265 Q
276 Back
