MoD plans raid on landmine removal fund to keep Tornados flying in Iraq

· BAE Systems to do work of closed repairs facility
· Union demands inquiry as cost-cutting plan backfires

• David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
• The Guardian,
• Monday March 10 2008

The costs of servicing the RAF’s Tornado planes will be subsidised by the Conflict Prevention Fund, a confidential memo shows. Photograph: Murdo Macleod

Money set aside to clear landmines and remove arms from conflict zones is to be raided to pay a private defence contractor to keep Tornado jets flying in Iraq, according to a confidential memo seen by the Guardian. The Ministry of Defence plans to pay BAE Systems from the multimillion-pound Conflict Prevention Fund - which covers projects such as destroying weapons in Bosnia and landmines in Mozambique - to subsidise the £5m-£10m cost of servicing each of the six planes.

The move follows a cost-cutting plan which has backfired for the MoD because of increased military action in Iraq.

The memo acknowledges that the emergency measure is needed because the MoD has closed its own state-of-the-art facility for servicing Tornado jets as a way of saving £500m over 10 years. A scaled-back facility is still not fully equipped for the job. Memos sent to ministers reveal that the ministry has decided to make the request to BAE Systems because the alternative facility, at RAF Marham in Norfolk, has "insufficient capacity".

The decision to close the fast jets and engines business of Dara, the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, based at St Athan, Glamorgan, from last April provoked a huge row in 2005. Trade unions, MPs and the all-party Commons defence committee condemned the move. At the time the committee concluded it was "perverse and wasteful for the MoD to invest large amounts of public money to renovate the facilities at RAF Marham when it has at its disposal a state-of-the-art facility at St Athan". The committee said:

"It is doubtful that the facilities at RAF Marham will ever match those at Dara [in] St Athan."

A memo sent to Lady Taylor, the minister for defence equipment and support, reveals that the RAF has had to increase its operations in Iraq, and six Tornados have required servicing this year. "The net result is that there is insufficient capacity available at RAF Marham to meet the full requirements of the operational and training task," the memo says.

The memo proposes, and the minister accepts, that BAE Systems in Warton, Lancashire, should take over the work because it has a "gap" between completing an order for Saudi Arabia and new Tornado capability trials. It goes on:

"The use of BAE Systems Warton will incur additional costs. BAE Systems are in the process of calculating these costs, but there is yet no timescale for their presentation to MoD. The additional monies will be subject of a claim against the Conflict Prevention Fund." The memo acknowledges there will be anger about the decision, which will attract "adverse comment from the unions".

It adds:

"Defensive news briefs are being developed to counter adverse media comment."

Yesterday the Guardian showed the memo to the union Unite, which called for an inquiry by MPs on the defence committee and said it would seek an urgent meeting with the minister.

Ian Waddell, Unite's national officer, said:

"We are angered and dismayed by the MoD's transfer of Tornado support to BAE Systems but not surprised. The decision to close a multimillion-pound, state-of-the-art facility and roll support forward to an ill-equipped RAF base was lunacy.

"It is now clear that everything we said has been vindicated. Unite maintained throughout the closure of Tornado support at Dara St Athan that RAF Marham could not cope with the work, and would fail to meet surge requirements. We believe parliament and the Commons defence select committee were misled over the closure of St Athan.

"Only a few weeks ago the government announced their decision to sell off helicopter support to Vector Aerospace, which we have warned could have serious consequences for the UK's battlefield helicopters. That decision looks even more ludicrous now that our concerns over fast jet support have proved to be true."

James Arbuthnot, Tory chairman of the defence committee, said yesterday:

"We will consider holding an inquiry to see how the MoD have handled this and will also want to look into the wider issue that equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan is much more heavily used and what stepPublish Posts are the MoD taking to deal with this."

The MoD confirmed the decision. A spokeswoman said: "This is a short-term measure only, due to Tornados' increased use on operations. From April 2009 all Tornados will undergo depth maintenance at RAF Marham."

SIGNS OF THINGS TO COME FOR THE US

Cannot provide the link as it appears that stories relating to military activities are being monitored . the number of

404 Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.

remarks is ESCALATING !! Virginia

Britain's Defense Ministry Face Tough Choices On Weapons Cuts

2008-02-01 00:44:19 (1 days ago) Posted By: Intellpuke Submit to Digg

Ministers and officials in Britain's Ministry of Defense (MoD) are drawing up plans for sweeping cuts and delays in most of country's big weapons projects as they face the biggest crisis in the defense budget since the end of the cold war, according to government and independent sources. Huge orders for aircraft carriers, ships, fighter jets, and hi-tech vehicles are accumulating at a time when operating costs are rocketing because of grueling military operations and large increases in the cost of fuel, they say. Defense officials say ministers will be confronted with "painful options" next month. While army chiefs have been fighting for - and belatedly getting - better armored vehicles and helicopters to protect and support their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as more pay for their soldiers, the Royal Navy and RAF insist that past promises for multibillion pound platforms such as new carriers and more Eurofighters must be kept. The army and marines are so stretched that exercises and what defense sources call "non-essential training" are being scrapped. However, the Ministry of Defense Thursday denied a report that combat training for new recruits bound for Afghanistan is being cut by half.

"There are no plans to change training for regular forces," said a spokeswoman. "The option for more focused, concentrated training is being looked at for reserve forces, not regular forces ... no decisions have been taken." Military commanders admit that they did not anticipate what they would be up against in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We were slow to recognize that we need lighter, more agile forces," said a senior defense official. He contrasted the army's urgent needs for more manpower and low-tech kit with costly prestige projects agreed for the British navy and air force many years ago. The defense budget, now about £34 billion (about $68 billion), is to grow by 1.5% in real terms over the next three years. However, the cost of defense equipment and personnel is rising faster than the general level of inflation. "Even with a 1.5% increase it is insufficient," said Mark Stoker, defense economist at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, referring to current demands on the defense budget. Most analysts say the shortfall amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds a year. General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue, the senior military officer responsible for defense equipment, this week gave a clear signal of what is in store. "I suspect we will have to [delay or cut some major programs]", he told the House of Commons Defense Committee. Asked when the situation had been so tight, he replied: "Back in the late 1970s, we had some pretty challenging times then." David Gould, the MoD's top official responsible for equipment, said the current review demanded by pressures on the defense budget was "not an atmosphere where it is easy to take decisions on big commitments". Along with a new Trident nuclear missile submarine fleet, which could cost more than £20 billion ($40 billion) over a minimum 25-year lifespan, the £3.9 billion ($7.8 billion) project to build two large aircraft carriers, the biggest warships to be built in Britain, is sacrosanct for political and industrial reasons, say defense officials. More likely to be cut is the navy's Type 45 destroyer program. The original plan was to build 12, a figure which was then reduced to eight. The navy will be lucky to get six, say defense officials. It is also unlikely to get more than four of the original eight Astute nuclear-powered submarines planned. The Type 45 and Astute projects are already years late and more than £2 billion ($4 billion) overspent. Also likely to be cut are the number of Eurofighters, now called Typhoons, for the RAF, while the delivery of others will be delayed. Some Tornado squadrons may be disbanded. The long-delayed Future Rapid Effects System, or FRES - a £14 billion ($28 billion) program for army battlefield vehicles - could be cut. A delay in the carrier program need not cause problems for the Scottish shipyards which plan to build them. Their yards might be already busy building auxiliary supply ships needed by the navy, say officials. If the first carrier is built on time - by 2014 - it will have to fly ageing but cheaper Harriers rather than the increasingly expensive U.S.-made Joint Strike Aircraft which the MoD is scheduled to buy, but this will simply put off an even larger bill for a future year, say analysts. Intellpuke: If Britain's defense budget numbers seem smaller than our U.S. readers are used to seeing, this is because its military is smaller. There are more active military personnel in the U.S. Marine Corps than there are military personnel in the British army, navy and air force combined. You can read this article by Guardian corresondent Richard Norton-Taylor, reporting from Manchester, England, in context here: " target="_blank">www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2250488,00.html