THE UK Government was called on last night to provide clarity on whether it intends to push ahead with a different kind of jet for Britain's new aircraft carrier after fears rising costs will mean the UK will be without a carrier with jets for more than a decade.
Labour's defence spokesman, Jim Murphy, wrote to Defence Secretary Philip Hammond demanding answers after reports the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is reconsidering its decision.
In last year's defence review the Coalition decided to buy the so-called "cat-and-trap" version of the US joint strike fighter (JSF); this involves a catapult and arrester mechanism.
However, it has now been suggested the MoD might revert to its original decision to buy short take-off and vertical landing jets as redesigning the carrier to take cat-and-trap jets could be too expensive.
According to current plans, HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, will be mothballed as soon as it is launched in 2016. The second, HMS Prince of Wales, will be put to sea by 2020.
Together, the two carriers, which were to have cost £3.5 billion, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn with MPs saying the price-tag could eventually double to £12bn. They are both being built on the Clyde.
To add to concerns, leaked Pentagon documents suggested there was a design flaw in the new JSF, making it unable to land on aircraft carriers.
The papers said the plane had failed eight simulated landings. Any redesign is likely to prove costly and delay Britain's carrier project for several years.
The MoD is finalising its 2012/13 budget and is "reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article