Select Committee on Defence Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-218)

LIEUTENANT GENERAL ANDREW FIGGURES CBE AND MR TIM ROWNTREE

22 MAY 2007

  Q200  Willie Rennie: Could you elaborate on some of the difficulties in extending the life and what the cost would be?

  Mr Rowntree: A lot of it is to do with ageing aircraft issues and making sure that the systems have the right sorts of lives and the structural type for modifications. If you would like more detail on that, I could send you a note.

  Chairman: I think we would.

  Q201  John Smith: We had the decision earlier this year on a preferred bidder for the defence training academy. It is going to be sited at St Athan, where the VC10 is currently maintained and serviced. There is, as I understand, a three to five year running period for the construction and occupation of the academy. Is that going to impact on your ability to extend the life of the VC10?

  Mr Rowntree: The contingency plans for the extension of the VC10 are being factored into the DTR planning at St Athan.

  Q202  Chairman: Could I ask about other countries. France is considering the Airbus A330 aircraft for their refuelling and air transport needs. What is the possibility of other countries taking part in our FSTA programme? What would be the advantages of doing such a thing? Are these being explored? What would be the disadvantages?

  Mr Rowntree: We are in dialogue with other countries, including France. As you say, we certainly are on track for an A330 solution, and we will need to see where those discussions go.

  Lieutenant General Figgures: We have discussed these arrangements with the French. Indeed, I am going to Paris on Thursday and this will be on the agenda—not with respect to a joint programme but with respect to whether there are lessons that the French could take from us in terms of providing this service. They have shown great interest in that and we have kept closely in touch.

  Q203  Chairman: Mr Rowntree, earlier you said that Eurofighter "has been a painful experience for all of us". We heard that the delays in the A400M were caused not by industry but by budgetary and approvals processes grinding through six countries. Do you think there is an inherent disadvantage in trying to mount these huge projects across national boundaries with different national procurement processes and different timetables in mind and different expectations and goals as to how these are to be used?

  Mr Rowntree: Collaborative programmes have very significant advantages in terms of sharing cost with partners, but, as you say, also very significant complications in the sense of aligning requirements with other nations and making sure that national approvals and funding processes work at the same pace as ours do and making sure that national commitments stay lined up through life. So they are challenging, but for A400M we have taken the judgment that the advantages are worth taking on.

  Q204  Mr Jenkins: In answer to a previous question you mentioned that with regard to this PFI we had value for money.

  Mr Rowntree: Yes.

  Q205  Mr Jenkins: Since we offset the risk, I understand totally the argument, because I know there are three stages to a decent PFI: the funding, the building and the maintenance afterwards. I presume you are doing it in three sections. If you are doing it in three sections and getting value for money, you have obviously done all the figures.

  Mr Rowntree: Yes.

  Q206  Mr Jenkins: Could you supply us with a note of what the PFI is going to cost us over that time and what the calculated figure would have cost us anyway over that time. We will therefore we have a chance to establish how much we are paying for the risk. If you could let the Committee have that, we would be very grateful.

  Mr Rowntree: The cost of the PFI is commercially sensitive. Let me take that away and I will take advice on what is releasable to the Committee.

  Mr Jenkins: Thank you very much.

  Chairman: That is a helpful answer.

  Q207  Mr Crausby: Turning to the C-17 transport aircraft, can you update us on how the procurement of the five C-17s is progressing? Will the fifth C-17 be in service in May 2008?

  Mr Rowntree: May 2008 is the declared in-service date for the fifth aircraft. The aircraft is in production now and it is going satisfactorily. It leaves the production line next February and then it goes through some further upgrade work to make sure it is at the right configuration to be delivered to us. So it is on track and we expect it to be delivered by May next year as planned. The other four, of course, are already in use, so that is a financial exercise in buying out the lease. The funding is in the budget, the contracts are placed and, again, that process of buying those four aircraft is well advanced and proceeding to plan.

  Q208  Mr Crausby: We are advised that the four C-17s currently in use and being leased are performing well. Are there plans to procure any further C-17s in addition to the five that have already been procured?

  Lieutenant General Figgures: I am looking at all these options as part of this constant review of how we deal with the risk to the strategic air bridge, so I am in the process of producing advice for ministers. In due course they will decide and all this will become apparent. That does not say we are going to buy x, y or z but, if I could ask for your understanding in this, I cannot constrain them in any way within the propositions being put forward to them.

  Q209  Mr Jenkin: This would seem to be, I hope, going to reflect the fact that, contrary to the SDR assumption that we do one major operation and one smaller operation alongside, we must be capable of doing two large operations concurrently quite a long way away. Would you agree with that and that it is something we have to factor into consideration?

  Lieutenant General Figgures: The planning assumptions are currently subject to a piece of work interim guidance. It is a fine decision: Do you plan for the future in the light of what is happening today or do you plan for the future in the light of what you anticipate happening tomorrow? Has the world changed since the strategic defence review? Yes, it has. Has the Ministry of Defence changed its approach? Yes, it has, with the new chapter and the last Defence White Paper. So we have adjusted capabilities required to meet the new threats and, indeed, we will continue to do so.

  Q210  Mr Holloway: Is there an issue of trust or competence on either side between the MoD and Boeing after the debacle with these warehouse Chinooks?

  Mr Rowntree: Certainly we keep a very close dialogue with Boeing. Boeing understand that these are difficult, complicated decisions for us and of course Boeing are alongside us in taking those decisions forward from where we reached. They are happy to inform our work on the recovery of these aircraft and the options that we have.

  Q211  Mr Holloway: Do you mean the Chinooks?

  Mr Rowntree: Yes.

  Q212  Mr Holloway: I know we are not talking about that, but it is relevant to the C-17 programme. Why is that not moving rather more quickly then?

  Mr Rowntree: It is moving pretty quickly. Work is in hand.

  Q213  Mr Holloway: How long have they been sitting in the warehouse for?

  Mr Rowntree: It is moving quickly now. I would prefer not to go over that ground because I think you have dug into it well and truly in the past, but the minister has made the decision: we are going to turn these helicopters into support helicopters.

  Q214  Mr Holloway: The question really is about trust and competence on either side. Is there an issue between you and Boeing in terms of either our competence or our trust in them or vice versa?

  Mr Rowntree: Boeing understand that our key priority is support operations and they are very happy to work alongside us to turn these aircraft back into support helicopters and back into use as quickly as possible.

  Q215  Mr Crausby: In the event of further delays in A400M, is there scope within the equipment programme to purchase more C-17s? At what point would we have to make that decision? If Boeing have closed the production line, surely that decision would have to be a pretty quick one, would it not?

  Mr Rowntree: If I go back to my previous point—

  Q216  Mr Crausby: I am trying to ask it in a different way.

  Mr Rowntree: Even I recognised that. We are back to looking at the demand, the supply, timeframes, money and so on. All that will be wrapped into the advice which I shall put to ministers.

  Q217  Mr Crausby: We can expect a fairly early decision on that then, can we not? Because, as I said, if the production line is closing, we should soon know.

  Mr Rowntree: I am sure the ministers will make a decision.

  Q218  Mr Crausby: Do you anticipate any problems on spare parts for the C-17s?

  Mr Rowntree: No. We are part of a global fleet of some 180 or so C-17s. One of the benefits of joining a global fleet as big as the C-17 fleet, with such a big, powerful customer for it as the US, is that there is an economy of scale and a surety of spare parts into the future. As you have seen from the figures, I am sure, the delivery of support to our C-17 has been extremely good to date.

  Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. We are most grateful to you for coming to give evidence. It has been most helpful. We now move on to representatives for Airbus.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 5 July 2007