| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Canberra PR9
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of the Canberra PR9 reconnaissance aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [67142]
Mr. Ingram: For the last financial year 2001–02, the total resource running costs of the five Canberra PR9 aircraft in 39 Squadron was approximately £15.5 million.
9 Jul 2002 : Column 853W
Army Vehicles
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the content of British manufacturing in vehicles used by the Army. [67140]
Dr. Moonie: Information relating to a selection of vehicles used by the British Army (Warrior Armoured Personnel Vehicle (APV), Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank
9 Jul 2002 : Column 854W
(MBT), Landrover and the Demountable Rack Off Load and Pick up System (DROPS) vehicle) is set out in the table.
Information on the content of British manufacturing for every vehicle used is not held centrally and as such an overall assessment could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The British manufacturing content of each of the vehicles, set out in the table, is 85 per cent. or more.
| Vehicle | Manufacturer | |
|---|---|---|
| Warrior APV | ||
| Vehicle design authority | Alvis Vehicles Ltd. (UK owned) | |
| Hull manufacture | Alvis Vehicles (UK manufactured and owned) | |
| Engine and transmission | Perkins (UK manufactured—now owned by Caterpillar, a US company) | |
| Turret design authority | Vickers Defence Systems (UK manufactured and owned) | |
| Track | William Cook Defence (UK manufactured and owned) | |
| Challenger 2 MBT | ||
| Vehicle design authority | Vickers Defence Systems (UK owned) | |
| Turret design authority | Vickers Defence Systems (UK owned) | |
| Track | William Cook Defence (UK manufactured and owned) | |
| Engine | Perkins (UK manufactured—now owned by Caterpillar, a US company) | |
| Transmission | David Brown Defence (US owned and UK manufactured) | |
| Laser Range Finder | Simrad (Norwegian owned and manufactured) | |
| DROPS Vehicle Medium Mobility Load Carrier (IMMLC) | ||
| Parent company | PACCAR (US owned) | |
| Vehicle design authority | Foden (UK owned) | |
| Manufacturer | Foden (UK owned and manufactured) | |
| Engine manufacture | (UK manufactured now owned by US company—Caterpillar) | |
| Transmision manufacturer | ZF (German owned and manufactured) | |
| DROPS Vehicle Medium Mobility Load Carrier (MMLC) | ||
| Parent company | PACCAR (US owned) | |
| Vehicle design authority | Leyland (UK owned) | |
| Manufacturer | Leyland (UK owned and manufactured) | |
| Engine manufacture | (UK manufactured now owned by US company—Caterpillar) | |
| Transmission manufacturer | ZF (German owned and manufactured) | |
| Landrover | ||
| Parent company | Ford (US) | |
| Vehicle design authority | Landrover (US owned) | |
| Manufacturer | Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured) | |
| Engine manufacture | Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured) | |
| Transmission manufacturer | Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured) | |
Armed Forces Pension Scheme
Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the proportion of the rise in Government liabilities resulting from unfunded parts of the armed forces pension scheme in the last five years due to (a) wage inflation, (b) longevity, (c) extension of the rights of part-time workers and (d) other factors; and if he will make a statement. [67023]
Mr. Ingram: A detailed breakdown of reasons for the increased liabilities of the armed forces pension scheme cannot be provided. However, the most significant factors in the increase from 43.7 billion at 1 April 1997 to 51 billion at 1 April 2001 have been price inflation and real wage increases. Trends in pensioner longevity will also have had an impact but the effect of rights of part-time workers is considered to have been minimal.
Tank Warfare
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to conduct a cost and effectiveness comparison of alternatives to using depleted uranium in gun-launched Kinetic Energy penetrator projectiles to defeat threats from tanks; and if he will make a statement. [67840]
Dr. Moonie: Operational analysis (OA) studies into the cost-effectiveness of tank-launched depleted uranium ammunition have taken place since the 1970s when it was assessed that the existing tungsten Kinetic Energy (KE) projectile for our main battle tank would not be able to penetrate the frontal armour of the next generation of battle tanks. OA and scientific research showed that a battle winning UK capability against emerging armour technologies could be achieved by replacing the tungsten penetrator with one made from DU.
Although research to identify more effective alternative KE tank rounds has been undertaken, no satisfactory alternative to DU has yet been identified which achieves the level of penetration needed to defeat the most modern battle tanks. At this time, the use of DU ammunition remains the most operationally effective capability and the
9 Jul 2002 : Column 855W
use of non-DU ammunition would significantly threaten operational success and potentially could lead to increased UK casualties.
We will, however, continue to carry out work on alternatives to DU. The DU research proposal which was announced earlier this year, 14 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1177–78W—also published on the web at www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/du_research.htm— includes, at section 2.5, OA studies on the types of engagement where DU ammunition is required and the consequences of not using DU, together with cost-effectiveness studies into other means of defeating heavy armour. The proposal also includes, at section 2.6, work into radical alternatives (for example, guided missiles) to DU KE penetrators to defeat heavy armour.
Skyguard Radar
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to bring back Skyguard radar to the Somerset area in the next year. [67590]
Dr. Moonie: Use of the Skyguard mobile radar system to monitor military aircraft activity is covert and details are not made public in advance of deployment. As is customary, I shall let the hon. Member know in confidence when the next deployment of Skyguard is imminent in his area of Somerset.
Eurofighter
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what extra costs (a) have been and (b) will be incurred by the delayed introduction of the Eurofighter into RAF service until the end of the year. [67707]
Dr. Moonie: No additional costs have been incurred by the delayed introduction of the Eurofighter into Royal Air Force service, and none are expected to be incurred. Initiation of contract support of initial flying will not commence until the first RAF aircraft has been accepted. We believe we will be able to maintain the planned operational employment date for Eurofighter, therefore, allowing existing aircraft to be withdrawn from service as scheduled.
Warship Construction
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department intends to spend in each of the financial years from 2004 to 2008 inclusive on new warship construction; and what the cost of refit and repair work will be. [67567]
Dr. Moonie [holding answer 8 July 2002]: Based on current plans, we expect to spend the following sums on new warship construction (including submarines):
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 2004–05 | 735 |
| 2005–06 | 1,890 |
| 2006–07 | 1,146 |
| 2007–08 | 1,126 |
The planning cycle for naval support expenditure covers four financial years. We estimate that the cost of planned maintenance (including refits) and repair work on warships (including submarines) and Royal Fleet
9 Jul 2002 : Column 856W
Auxiliary vessels will be in the region of £500 million in each of the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. These figures exclude the cost of upgraded equipment. Estimates for 2006–07 and 2007–08 are not available.
Figures are for planning purposes only and are subject to regular review.
Overseas Naval Procurement
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent expressions of interest he has received from the Government of Thailand about the purchase of Royal Navy warships; and if he will make a statement. [67568]
Dr. Moonie [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Ministry of Defence's Disposal Services Agency (DSA) has received no formal expressions of interest from the Government of Thailand about the purchase of Royal Naval warships in recent years.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expressions of interest he has received from the Chilean Government in respect of the possible purchase of type 23 frigates. [67569]
Dr. Moonie [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Chilean Government have expressed an interest in the possible purchase of type 23 frigates in the future. Discussions are currently ongoing.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |