Memorandum from Les Sword
During the Defence Select Committee hearing, Adam
Ingram and Barry Thomton made it clear that the decision to close
the DARA at St Athan was made purely on assumptions.
The Minister and his board of advisers first
stated that DARA had the capability to carry out the work they
had been doing whilst continuing to make savings to the taxpayer.
They then stated that it would cost less by moving the GR4 work
to RAF Marham and operating a pulse line system, using four separate
hangars. This option is illogical when the alternative is to use
the one hangar (as is currently used) then there would be no requirement
to refit stress panels to ensure the integrity of the airframe
was not jeopardised.
The minister then stated that the new Super
Hangar has paid for itself. I would strongly question that, when
one considers that the MoD is paying rent on this building and
will continue to do so for the next 15 years—or until another
company utilises it and takes over that responsibility.
However, when one considers that it is not viable
for the VC10 workforce with 350 people, to use the super hangar
there is not much hope that a company such as Lashams, which is
roughly the same size as VC10 will find it commercially viable
to use the new hangar. Hence the MoD will continue to be liable
for the rent.
On a more practical note, I would be interested
to know how the Minister and the RAF intend carrying out the support
work, which is currently being done, in the super hangar.
Work such as:
— Specialist machine shop.
— Structural wing and panel repairs
and manufacturing.
This work is of a highly specialized nature
and requires unique equipment Was this taken into account when
the costing was done? If it was not included then we are obviously
playing at different levels! Also I can assure you that if these
services have to be outsourced to industry it will prove to be
extremely expensive, and of course, it will be the taxpayer who
will have to pick up the bill.
As a slight aside to the GR4 transfer, because
the St Athan site will close it will also mean that Components
Facility will close. It is here that the repair and test of the
accessories for the RB1 99 engine are carried out. Items such
as the:
— Main Fuel Control Unit (MFCU).
— After Burner Fuel Control Unit
(ABFCU).
— Exhaust Nozzle Control Unit
(ENCU).
— Thrust Reverse Control Unit
(TRCU).
Again these items use specialist skills and
equipment. A contract was on the point of being awarded to this
facility by Rolls Royce to continue repairing these items, potentially
for 15 years. This incidentally was won fairly on a commercial
basis. If this is stopped the work will go to Goodrich but as
they no longer repair the MFCU in this country, it will be transferred
to their sister company in Germany. Not, in my opinion a very
good idea, particularly with the past record of Goodrich to deliver
the repair work to the RAF. Their priority is to the German Air
Force and the more lucrative deliveries to the Saudi Air Force.
The IPT Tor Prop3 will, I am sure concur with
this.
Given this information and as both a DARA employee
and as a taxpayer I would urge this Committee to call a deferral
on preferred option 40 until there has been a full public enquiry.
My primary reason for asking this is that as previously stated
the Minister has based his decision on assumptions which I believe
are ill founded. DARA has a proven track record of delivering,
not only value for money to the taxpayer, but a time efficient,
quality service. The professionalism of the work force within
DARA proves that we can achieve new goals, and as stated by the
Minister, is not in question.
If that was not the case, why is it economically
prudent to "roll back" the rotary work to DARA Fleetlands
but not to roll back the fixed wing to DARA St Athan? We are the
same work force operating the same systems and methodology?
Surely the minister must be made accountable
for the waste of taxpayers money, bear in mind that any "savings"
he is claiming has to be outweighed by the cost of not only the
super hangar, but the future costs to support the roll forward
of this work.
December 2005
| 
