EXCLUSIVE
FEARS are growing among senior Royal Navy officers that the Government is trying to renege on its promise to build and equip two large aircraft carriers designed to project British military power worldwide by 2012.
Despite Defence Ministry claims that the project has priority in its ''smart procurement'' initiative, the Treasury is understood to be demanding a cheaper, stopgap alternative, based on extending the life of the three small existing and rapidly ageing carriers for an extra decade, be implemented instead.
Treasury officials are horrified by the estimated #9.4bn bill for 40,000-tonne ships and high-performance aircraft needed to fulfil Labour's pledge in the July Strategic Defence Review. The cost of aircraft alone would top #7bn, according to an MoD memo, and could escalate beyond that.
UK shipyards including Babcock Rosyth in Fife, Harland and Wolff in Belfast and Cammell Laird at Birkenhead are to be invited to submit tenders for a study into the cost of patching up the three 19,000-tonne mini-carriers - Ark Royal, Illustrious and Invincible - to stave off the worst ravages of time and keep at least two of them seaworthy at any time.
The oldest of these ships, built as anti-submarine helicopter platforms for Cold War service, was commissioned in 1980 and would be 32 years old - older than most its crew - by the proposed date for the introduction of modern replacements. The last of the three entered service in 1985.
The regular aircraft complement of each ship is eight Sea Harrier fighter-bombers and up to 11 Sea King helicopters. A handful of extra Harriers can be squeezed on in an emergency.
The average American carrier weighs in at about 100,000 tonnes and has an aerial strike force of 50 aircraft. Each is a floating town with a crew of 5000-6000 and can dominate and control an area stretching 500 miles from the ship in every direction.
Two of the British carriers took part in the Falklands campaign, where their lack of embarked air power meant inadequate fighter cover over the beach-heads and inevitably resulted in casualties among the naval and support vessels supporting the landings.
The new carriers were to be the centrepiece of the new UK strategy of intervention worldwide in support of United Nations or Nato missions. Their advantage is the use of floating airfields without the political problem of persuading allies to provide land bases.
The preferred military option for new aircraft was a stake in the US Joint Maritime Strike Fighter programme, still in its planning and development phase. The MoD, while expressing an interest in the plane, is also looking at converting some of the RAF's 232 ordered Eurofighters for naval use to save money.
Mr John Spellar, Defence Minister, said yesterday that the two proposed carriers were still a priority, but insisted that cost-savings of #2bn over the next decade were a key element in ensuring that new equipment would be purchased.
A Navy insider said later: ''There are growing doubts about MoD resolve in the face of Treasury interference. We will probably end up with a compromise which falls far short of the strategic aim of the exercise and leaves us with second-rate ships and aircraft.
''The three anti-submarine warfare carriers are carrying out tasks for which they were not designed. Their obsolescence and lack of striking power are already apparent. By 2022, they will be antiques incapable of global power projection.''
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