Eurofighter Typhoon

– in Westminster Hall at 4:20 pm on 12 November 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Anne McIntosh Anne McIntosh Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), Shadow Minister (Transport) 4:20, 12 November 2003

I am delighted to have secured this debate on the programme for the jet fighter, known as the Typhoon. It is my first in this Chamber, so it is a great honour to present the case in favour of the programme this afternoon.

May I declare a modest interest, in that I have a personal equity plan in British Aerospace? I also have a local constituency interest, as there are two RAF bases in the area, RAF Leeming and RAF Linton-on-Ouse, as well as Allenbrook barracks at Topcliffe and Dishforth airfield. I would like to record once again not only the phenomenal service that the military provide to the country, but the mark that they have made in the Vale of York and their contribution to the conflict with Iraq.

RAF Leeming is one of three bases that expect to receive the Typhoon over the longer term. We have two squadrons of Tornado F3s, 11 squadron and 25 squadron, numbering 16 aircraft in total, with 40 aircrew in each squadron. The Tornado F3 is a variant of the Tornado GR1 ground attack aircraft, and first flew in 1979. One hundred aircraft have recently been upgraded to incorporate new weapons systems. I am sure that the Minister will confirm—I do not think that it is subject to argument—that it is widely recognised that the Tornado F3s are reaching the end of their service lives. The aircraft is expected to remain in service until 2007. They still have no full use of the AMRAAM long-range missiles, and use of the new ASRAAM short-range missile is hindered by the fact that the aircraft is not fitted with the recommended helmet mounted sights.

The Jaguar aircraft is a ground attack aircraft, 38 of which are based at RAF Coltishall and eight at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland. It first entered service in 1973. My understanding is that it was originally planned that the Typhoon frontline would comprise seven squadrons, of which four would be primarily air defence, two swing role and one offensive support covering a wide range of combat operations. The Minister will be aware of my interest, as I have raised the subject on a number of occasions in the House.

I wish to put on record my enthusiasm for the Eurofighter, which will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that it is an excellent project and its capabilities still have a lot to offer. I am seeking a commitment from the Minister on when the total tranche is expected. I would like to repeat some of the contradictory messages to him. Perhaps, not being very bright, I have misunderstood—through no fault of his—the mixed messages given out by the Government.

On 8 September, I had the opportunity to question the Minister's superior, the Secretary of State for Defence, on the date of entry into service of the Eurofighter. I was mildly surprised when he told us:

"Test flying is now under way to establish the safety parameters for RAF pilot training, and we hope to start operational evaluation activities next month."—[Hansard, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 1.]

We learned in October that a number of technical failures regrettably grounded the aircraft. Perhaps the Minister could update the Chamber on where we stand.

I went on to recognise the contribution that this country had made, and asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that the commitment to purchase a total of 232 Typhoon aircraft would be carried out in full and delivered on time. I then asked him when he expected those aircraft to enter into service at RAF Leeming. He replied:

"I give her the assurance that there will be no changes in the Government's plans for procuring Eurofighter Typhoon. We anticipate changes to the way in which those aircraft are configured, but those matters will be set out more clearly in the forthcoming White Paper."—[Hansard, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 2.]

Will the Minister give further clarification on that, and will he give advice on which other partners to the project may seek changes to the configuration of that scheme?

Last Monday, I asked whether the Minister would

"respond to newspaper reports that he is being asked to make a 20 per cent. cut in the budget".

The Minister replied:

"The United Kingdom is party to international arrangements under which we are set to order a total of 232 Typhoons. Of those, 55 aircraft are already on order, and we are working towards an order for the second tranche of 89. The third and final order is not due to be placed before 2007, and we shall keep our requirements under continual review. We are working towards meeting those deadlines."—[Hansard, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 530.]

I seek clarification on the expression

"we shall keep our requirements under continual review."

Every time the Government use such an expression, it normally heralds a change.

Photo of Gerald Howarth Gerald Howarth Shadow Minister (Defence)

My hon. Friend mentioned the delphic words of the Secretary of State for Defence in answer to her oral question when he said:

"We anticipate changes to the way in which those aircraft are configured".—[Hansard, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 2.]

In the debate on procurement on 23 October, I specifically asked if the second tranche would be converted to the ground attack role. In the article in The Sunday Telegraph to which my hon. Friend referred, I read that

"the second tranche of 89 will be capable of undertaking a ground attack role."

Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that the Minister will address that when he winds up?

Photo of Anne McIntosh Anne McIntosh Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), Shadow Minister (Transport)

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, and I seek further clarification from the Minister on the point he raised. There are now three points that require clarification: whether the second tranche will have a ground attack capability; whether the Secretary of State was right that there would be no plans for procuring Eurofighter Typhoon; or whether the Minister of State is right that they will keep the matter under review.

It is my understanding that Eurofighter Typhoon is a new generation aircraft that will be the most advanced swing role operational fighter in the world, and that it was always envisaged that there would be three distinct tranches. The first tranche is air defence, the second is the air defence and ground attack swing role, and the third is the full multi-sensor air and ground attack role, especially suppression of enemy air defence.

Eurofighter is destined to be the RAF's principal fighting system over the next 25 years. Its huge significance to UK jobs and technology, especially the ability to design future military air combat systems, cannot be overstated. There is an obvious correlation between Government support for the programme, and the chances of exporting it. I hope that the Minister will put our minds at rest that the technical difficulties have been overcome and that one particularly important export order in the pipeline will proceed.

Will the Secretary of State for Defence confirm when he anticipates that the Typhoon will come into existence? I understand that two reports are in the public domain. One was a Financial Times report, with which I am sure the Minister is more than familiar. It refers to a 20 per cent. cut in the budget for the Typhoon. Where did that story come from and is there any truth in it? Did it emanate from his Department? How can he hope to complete the programme in full by making a 20 per cent. cut? Will the Minister take this opportunity to put my mind at rest and those of the people in the front line—the jet fighter pilots and navigators who are currently at RAF Leeming working on the Tornado? This is a very important point for me, as I represent a base that is very important to the UK defence strategy. Currently, we have two-seater Tornado planes. Presumably the navigators will have to be retrained and requalify to perform other functions, I hope, in the air force, but they will need a lead time. What lead time does the Minister envisage, and how does he expect those people to be deployed?

Could the Minister also put my mind at rest by saying that there is no prospect that the forthcoming White Paper will confirm the 20 per cent. cut? The RAF is expected to receive not the original 232 Typhoons that we were promised, but only 143, given a 20 per cent. cut. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is being asked to make a cut in its budget, as a result of which a third of the aircraft are not in the pipeline.

Will the Minister be good enough to answer the following questions? Deliveries to the customers of Eurofighter tranche 1 should have been 50 per cent. completed by now. Can he confirm that deliveries will be completed as planned, and that continuation of production to Eurofighter tranche 2 is assured? Can he confirm that the RAF will receive the Eurofighter tranche 1 weapon system at the end of 2005, as contractually agreed? The Minister will be aware of concerns among other Eurofighter nations about delays to tranche 2, stemming from the UK. When will the Government approve the order for Eurofighter tranche 2, to ensure delivery of the first tranche 2 aircraft in 2006?

The MOD has ordered a study on Eurofighter, which is currently commissioned by a consulting firm. Will the Minister assure me that that does not jeopardise production continuity, and that the retention of the skills base is secure? There was talk on yesterday's excellent BBC 2 documentary on the Eurofighter that the only reason that the Government secured such a large order—232 aircraft originally—was to secure the skills base. That was a rather cynical allegation, which I hope the Minister will say is unfounded.

Despite the UK's solidarity with the US as an ally, America has not been prepared to grant the UK a specific technology transfer waiver, known as an international traffic in arms regulations waiver, and there is mounting protectionism of defence technology in the US. At such a time, are the Government being careful when making hard choices about programme cuts, so that they do not cut programmes involving UK jobs and technology, while leaving unscathed the programmes that favour US jobs and technology? The Prime Minister may wish to take that up with President Bush.

Following my introductory remarks, can the Minister tell us how long the Tornado F3 will continue to be in service? What cover and capability will there be from the Tornado F3 and Jaguars until the Typhoon comes into operation? Can he assure us that the final Typhoon that comes into service will be as up to date and capable and in the same numbers as originally envisaged? What is the lead time required to retrain navigators from Tornadoes before Typhoons come into service?

Finally, what message would the Minister like to give, through me, to RAF Leeming about the future of the servicemen and women there, particular the jet fighter pilots and the navigators? There is a lack of clarity about when the Tornado will be phased out and when the Typhoon is expected to come into service. I am sure that he shares the immense pride that we feel in our servicemen and women, particularly those front-line fighter pilots. They deserve the best aircraft, and I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to provide them.

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence 4:34, 12 November 2003

I congratulate Miss McIntosh on securing the debate. I share the views that she expressed about the role played by the RAF—including, obviously, those servicemen and women from the bases in her constituency—in the recent conflict in Iraq. I take great pride in what they have achieved.

The hon. Lady raised some non-Typhoon issues. I think that I had better write to her on those because, although there is an interrelationship, this debate deals specifically with the Typhoon programme.

The hon. Lady raised fundamental questions about the future of that programme. I am genuinely sorry that she did not find the answer that I gave her last week during Defence questions satisfactory. I hope that this short debate will set her mind at rest. I recognise that it is the Opposition's role—I was in Opposition for 10 years myself—to try to find failure, even where none exists, rather than to identify and applaud success. In some of her remarks she recognised success, but she believes too much in what she reads in the newspapers, and bases her case on that. She asked me whether I would comment on the Financial Times article. I will not read the whole article; that would take up all the time available. However, at the end it states:

"The MoD denied both claims. 'There is no question of smokescreening. Neither has the UK over-ordered—we remain committed to the programme.'"

My contribution will deal with the aspects of that programme.

Photo of Lindsay Hoyle Lindsay Hoyle Labour, Chorley

Obviously, we share concerns about future orders. Lancashire is the home of the Typhoon, and has a manufacturing base and manufacturing skills. The convincing argument that will be put about the 232 aircraft is welcome, but has the Minister considered whether we could order further aircraft by introducing the sea variant, which can operate from carriers? Thus an opportunity to give that unique plane—which will be a world leader—a dual role will not be missed.

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence

My hon. Friend has raised that issue time and again. I give him credit for continuing to take every opportunity. However, he has already had his answer and I do not want to go down that route. The best answer will be the one already given to him. It may not be one that he likes, but it is the most accurate.

The Typhoon achieved a major landmark in June this year, when all four nations—the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain—agreed to type acceptance of the aircraft, clearing the way for individual aircraft to be accepted into service. The determination and resolve shown by those European nations in working together to bring that about should not be underestimated. The memorandum of understanding between the four nations covers the purchase of 232 aircraft in three planned production tranches. As part of the first tranche, the United Kingdom has a contractual commitment to purchase 55 aircraft. That contract was let by the four nations in 1998. The second tranche, about which we are currently negotiating, covers 89 aircraft. The third tranche covers 88 aircraft, but a contractual commitment for those is not needed or expected before 2007.

However, teething problems arise and there have been a number of them during the Typhoon programme. That is not surprising, given the technically complex nature of the Typhoon platform. The most recent, to which the hon. Lady referred, relates to the undercarriage, but I am sure that she would accept the need to ensure that our aircrews are provided with airworthy aircraft because safety is paramount and more important than the production needs of industry.

The temporary suspension of flying due to the landing gear problem is delaying deliveries of individual aircraft to the Royal Air Force. The first aircraft was due to be delivered in October. We now expect that flying will recommence later this month and that the first aircraft will be accepted off contract very shortly afterwards. I say that in the context of the complex nature of the platform.

It is important that we keep these issues in perspective. Typhoon is in full-scale production. It is here to stay. The fact that we are identifying and resolving problems as they arise underlines the measured and prudent approach we adopt for introducing new advanced systems into service. Others clearly recognise the aircraft's merits. Austria has ordered 18, and will join the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain as a member of the Typhoon club. Singapore announced in October that it has included Typhoon on a shortlist of three aircraft to meet its demanding requirement for a future fighter. That is all welcome news, and must be good news for BAE Systems.

I am fully conscious that we are approaching a key milestone in the procurement process. As I mentioned earlier, the four nations have ordered 148 aircraft, including 55 for the Royal Air Force. Their construction is well advanced. Under the four-nation agreement, we are due by the end of the year to place the order for the second tranche, which comprises 236 aircraft, 89 of which are destined for the RAF.

This will be a huge contract by any standards, and I make no apology for the fact that we are determined to get it right. To do otherwise would be wrong for the partner nations, the air forces that will operate Typhoon and the industry. To get it right, we need to reflect on the problems and delays that we have experienced, and consider what smart procurement principles can be brought to bear to minimise the risk of similar difficulties with tranche 2.

Tranche 2 is arguably more important to the RAF than the first tranche of aircraft, because we have deliberately adopted an approach of incremental procurement of capability, with enhancements built in as they are developed and demonstrated. The main development of tranche 2 will be to enhance the aircraft's ground attack capability. In an intervention, Mr. Howarth asked about that, as did the hon. Member for Vale of York. It will provide the true multi-role flexibility that is the key to both operational effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Most of the tranche 1 aircraft will be mainly used for training and evaluation purposes, so it is an evolving capability project based on the overriding aspect of cost effectiveness.

The important thing is to be able to plan reliably—I stress that word—by knowing when industry will be able to deliver those aircraft and capabilities.

Photo of Anne McIntosh Anne McIntosh Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), Shadow Minister (Transport)

Will the Minister answer the key question? Was the original order of 232—or 89 for the RAF—made because that was what was required for our military and defence capabilities, or was it to secure the key skills set?

Photo of Adam Ingram Adam Ingram Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence

We plan for the future based on the assessment of need. The hon. Lady referred to the answer that I gave her last week, which somehow raised a doubt in her mind.

The point that I was making is that we have to be able to plan as best we can with certainty when industry will be able to deliver those aircraft and capabilities. That embraces a wide range of military planning, including the standing down of existing systems and the significant personnel implications of introducing a new aircraft into service. It also entails the preparation of infrastructure at the RAF stations where Typhoon will be based. The hon. Lady will be aware that, on current planning, RAF Leeming will be the second base to receive Typhoon after RAF Consingsby and before RAF Leuchars. On current plans, the aircraft will arrive there around 2007.

These preparations are complex and they need to be properly orchestrated. From the RAF's perspective, any delay in the delivery schedules or any failure to deliver mature capability can cause significant problems. We can accommodate change, and we develop contingency plans to avoid any gap in our operational capability. If we are to avoid placing unreasonable demands on our people, we need a firm baseline from which to work.

For those reasons, before we place the order for the next tranche of aircraft, we must be satisfied, as must our partner nations, that industry's designs and technologies are likely to be ready, that the aircraft is fit for its purpose and that delivery timetables will be met.

As I have said, the purpose of Typhoon is to provide necessary operational capability; it is not to support industry, although we are naturally proud of what British industry has achieved. Typhoon's purpose is not to provide activity for any one or other RAF station; it is to provide defence capability. Achieving that in a cost-effective and operationally effective manner remains the priority of Defence Ministers. It is a priority that matches the needs of the RAF.

Having said that, delays and unforeseen technical difficulties during production are not in the best interests of industry. The Ministry of Defence recognises that they are expensive for the companies involved, and that is why establishing a firm foundation for tranche 2 must be a priority for all of us. I will not try to predict exactly when we will be ready to order tranche 2. However, all necessary resources are being dedicated to the task and to working with our international and industrial partners.

There will be a gap in production if there are delays before we order tranche 2, and that is clearly not desirable. To mitigate those effects, we have already committed £200 million to early work on the next tranche of aircraft. Our determination to get it right should not be interpreted as any lessening of our commitment to the programme; it is quite the reverse, as we have allocated around 10 per cent. of our procurement expenditure over the next 10 years to Typhoon. That is around £8 billion, which makes it the biggest single procurement in the MOD.

We have learned that it is worth investing time and money now to get the technology, the planning and the contract right. That will be more than repaid in time and money saved later. Careful planning and procurement pay dividends, especially against an order as complex and expensive as the Typhoon.

Contrary to the central charge made by the hon. Lady, it is not the case that delays have been caused by budget constraints. My earlier comments illustrate the complex nature of international relationships and the interrelationship with industry. We are driven by a desire to ensure that we get the project right because, at the end of the day, we are trying to enhance defence capability.

That underscores our commitment to Typhoon and to preserving the battle-winning capability of the RAF. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would have welcomed that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock.