Reality Check!

The costs of the Tornado/Harrier decision: Was the advice given to the Prime Minister in private accurate?

Introduction.

1.         It is understood that the Prime Minister was advised that the savings to be made from withdrawing either Tornado GR4 or the Harrier GR9 from service were similar and that the Tornado GR4 aircraft was more important to our strategic defence posture. He was also advised that withdrawal from service of HMS Ark Royal would provide further overall savings if the Harrier GR9 was to be withdrawn.  The efficacy and wisdom of this advice has now been challenged by current events (the Libyan crisis) and by certain financial figures released by the government.

Financial.

2.         In a written response to Menzies Campbell (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat), 2 December 2010, Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat) gave the detailed figures on how much was spent on running costs for each RAF base in the UK in the last five financial years and also gave equivalent figures for the financial year 2010-11. These figures (in £ millions) show the following [RAF Marham and RAF Lossiemouth for Tornado: RAF Cottesmore and RAF wittering for Harrier].

Base costs for Tornado GR4 over six years were £1.468 billion.

Base costs for Harrier GR9 over six years were £1.065 billion.

3.         Had wisdom and fiscal common sense prevailed, the Prime Minister should have been informed that the Royal Navy Harrier GR9 Strike Wing could easily be transferred from RAF Cottesmore to RAF Wittering.  Had this taken place during the last six years, the cost of associated Tornado [RAF Marham and Lossiemouth] and Harrier [RAF Wittering] bases would have been as follows.

Base costs for Tornado GR4 over six years would have been £1.468 billion.

Base costs for Harrier GR9 over six years would have been £0.492 billion.

4.         Even with the closure of RAF Lossiemouth, the associated cost of RAF bases would have been as follows.

Base costs for Tornado GR4 over six years would have been £0.835 billion.

Base costs for Harrier GR9 over six years would have been £0.492 billion.

5.         On the best government information available therefore, it is reasonable to assume that over the next four years:

a)     RAF base support for Tornado GR4 at RAF Marham would cost approximately £557 million.

b)    RAF base support for Harrier GR9 at RAF Wittering would cost approximately £328 million

 – a saving of £229 million with Harrier.

6.         If you subtract from this saving the declared cost of running on HMS Ark Royal for four years at £105 million (Mr Robathan, Minister of Defence, House of Commons), there remains a saving of £124 million.

Operational.

7.         Significant savings would also accrue from the lower operating cost of the Harrier GR9 which is:

a)     Single seat as opposed to twin seat.

b)    Single engine as opposed to twin engine.

c)     A newer airframe that is not beset by the severe airworthiness and maintenance problems of the Tornado GR4.

d)    Carrier capable and are therefore not reliant on expensive air to air refuelling assets for deployment to combat theatres such as Libya.

8.         It cost the taxpayer at least £200,000 in fuel alone to get one Tornado to the Libyan Theatre and back using air to air refuelling (£1.4 million on the first two nights of operations to Libya). One Harrier mission from the deck of HMS Ark Royal would have cost less than £6,000 in fuel. Even from its base in Italy, each Tornado mission will require air to air refuelling and will cost in excess of £22,000. 50 Tornado flights over Libya from Italy will therefore cost in excess of £1.1 million. 50 Harrier flights over Libya would have cost less than £300,000.

9.         One must add to these figures the major cost of pre-positioning the Tornado detachment in Italy with all its necessary logistic and maintenance support.  No such costs would be attributable to operations of the Harrier from the deck of HMS Ark Royal.

10.       It should also be noted that the suppression of Gaddafi’s heavy and light armoured resources and artillery will best be conducted by a timely response from ground attack aircraft. 12 Harrier GR9 aircraft in HMS Ark Royal would be able to generate such a capability, flying up to 24 single aircraft missions per day and being only a short distance from the target area. The Tornado GR4 aircraft based in Italy have a much slower response time to “wheels off the ground” and have a transit time of at least one hour to the target area – reducing the likelihood of the target still being available for attack.

Conclusions.

11.       It is clear from all the above that the Harrier/HMS Ark Royal option is by far and away the most cost-effective option and the most operationally effective option for servicing the needs of the Libyan operation, “Odyssey Dawn”.

12.       For operations further afield than Libya, it is probable that the land-based Tornado GR4 will not have access to friendly airfields close to the combat theatre – leaving Britain without any capability to deter or respond to such crises with land-based air power.

13.       The Prime Minister was given the wrong advice concerning the wisdom of withdrawing Harrier/HMS Ark Royal from service instead of Tornado GR4.

STOP PRESS.

In tomorrow’s Sun newspaper:

In the strongest statement of our progress in Libya yet, Air Vice Marshal Greg Bagwell said: "We've blown up all their airplanes.”

Really, Air Marshal? Much as I respect your frontline aircrew, it is sad that I have to remind you that it was the Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy Tomahawks that blew up all Gaddafi’s aeroplanes on the ground – not your Tornadoes! Four Tornadoes did indeed launch Storm Shadow from way out at sea against hardened buildings and well done them on achieving three hits out of four!

"Our RAF planes are now operating across the entire country of Libya."  Do you really need to exaggerate so wildly? Libya is 700 miles x 900 miles in dimension and your one or two aircraft are everywhere?