When it comes to defence procurement, there are no minor decisions. Complex technology, long time frames and staggering sums of money mean that any acquisition is a significant commitment. Sometimes, though, events conspire to turn that decision into a microcosm of the hard questions facing overall defence policy.
The Royal Air Force is about to lose a significant proportion of its combat strength. It currently has a total of 179 fighter/strike aircraft, 143 Eurofighter Typhoon F2s and FGR4s and 36 Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightnings. However, almost a quarter of those – 32 Typhoons from the original Tranche 1 – will retire this year. Ministers had a choice to make good the capability gap: replace the Typhoons with newer versions of the same aircraft, or order more Lightnings from US-based defence company Lockheed Martin instead.
This is a difficult call for the Ministry of Defence,
Given recent debates over the future of the UK’s close military cooperation with the United States, this has become symbolic. Europe or America – where will the future take us? The Times reports that the Ministry of Defence has chosen the American option and will fulfil an existing commitment to acquire another 100 Lightnings. Has it made the right decision?
The trade union Unite made strong representations to the government in favour of buying more Typhoons, which are manufactured by BAE Systems at Warton in Lancashire. It argued that placing a new order with the company would not only preserve employment in the short term, but also sustain jobs and skills for the future. This is particularly important as BAE Systems is one of the three current partners with Japanese firm Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Leonardo S.p.A. of Italy in the global combat air programme (GCAP). This trio is developing a sixth-generation fighter to enter service with the RAF as the Tempest in about 10 years, and additional Typhoon orders would bridge any potential gap.
The other argument in favour of the Typhoon is that Britain is a full partner in the production, rather than a customer of an American firm. Recently, concerns have arisen about the US administration potentially using access to American technology as a way to influence other countries, after it was reported that US-made equipment could be fitted with some sort of ‘kill switch’. Unite warned of a possible situation in which ‘Trump wakes up in a bad mood and locks us out of using our own fighter jets’.
The arguments in favour of the F-35 Lightnings largely outweigh the concerns. The idea of a ‘kill switch’ has been exaggerated; the F-35 relies on continuing access to American software to remain in operation, and in theory Washington could seek to withhold this. However, the UK is the only ‘Tier 1’ partner in the development of the aircraft and thereby – in theory – guaranteed access to software unlike countries in Tier 2 (Italy and the Netherlands) or Tier 3 (Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway). As one unnamed source told The Times, ‘We were involved in testing the plane and understanding it. I would not be so relaxed if I were Danish.’
The F-35 is also considerably more advanced and capable than the Typhoon, a fifth-generation stealth aircraft as opposed to a fourth-generation fighter more than a decade older in design. The RAF could even save money if it bought the standard F-35A variant of the Lighting rather than the aircraft carrier-capable F-35Bs it currently operates, as the former is believed to cost around $10 million (£7.7 million) less per airframe than the Typhoon.
These are proxies for bigger questions, however. What is the RAF’s equipment strategy over the next 20 or 30 years? Will the UK maintain close technological cooperation with America, or look more to other partners as it has done with Italy and Japan for the Tempest programme? (It is worth noting that Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Australia have all expressed interest in joining the GCAP.) More fundamentally, how long a future is there for piloted aircraft as opposed to autonomous systems? One element being explored for the Tempest is teaming conventional aircraft flown by human pilots with a number of uncrewed aerial vehicles.
MoD sources argue that ‘Typhoon is not the future’. They are right. While the UK has too often ignored the possibility of buying existing competitive equipment quickly and affordably, the cost of the Typhoon does not offer a substantial saving to justify its ageing technology and lack of development potential.
There must be a degree of anxiety, however, that the Lightning, while clearly more advanced and capable than the Typhoon, is the last iteration of an era coming to a close. President Trump recently announced a contract with Boeing to acquire its sixth-generation F-47 fighter for the US Air Force, and the new aircraft is likely to be able to operate with UAVs in the same way as the Tempest is exploring.
This is a difficult call for the Ministry of Defence, trying to balance cost, availability and capability. In a straight choice between the Typhoon and the Lightning, it has probably made the correct decision. But the timing could hardly be worse, with technology developing at an extraordinary pace and our long-standing and intimate collaboration with the United States suddenly no longer a rock-solid assumption. In truth, the big decisions lie ahead; this is just the tying-up of loose ends from a vanishing era of crewed flight.
Comments