If you read through to the text at the bootom, you will see that the site on the card is named in the document below.
I found the cavalier attitude quite shocking, to say the least.
you decide...
I found the cavalier attitude quite shocking, to say the least.
you decide...
this is the real deal
everyone o.k. with this?
You are here: Publications and Records > Commons Publications > Commons Hansard > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page
Canberra PR9
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of the Canberra PR9 reconnaissance aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [67142]
Mr. Ingram: For the last financial year 2001–02, the total resource running costs of the five Canberra PR9 aircraft in 39 Squadron was approximately £15.5 million.
9 Jul 2002 : Column 853W
Army Vehicles
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the content of British manufacturing in vehicles used by the Army. [67140]
Dr. Moonie: Information relating to a selection of vehicles used by the British Army (Warrior Armoured Personnel Vehicle (APV), Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank
9 Jul 2002 : Column 854W
(MBT), Landrover and the Demountable Rack Off Load and Pick up System (DROPS) vehicle) is set out in the table.
Information on the content of British manufacturing for every vehicle used is not held centrally and as such an overall assessment could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The British manufacturing content of each of the vehicles, set out in the table, is 85 per cent. or more.
Vehicle Manufacturer
Warrior APV
Vehicle design authority Alvis Vehicles Ltd. (UK owned)
Hull manufacture Alvis Vehicles (UK manufactured and owned)
Engine and transmission Perkins (UK manufactured—now owned by Caterpillar, a US company)
Turret design authority Vickers Defence Systems (UK manufactured and owned)
Track William Cook Defence (UK manufactured and owned)
Challenger 2 MBT
Vehicle design authority Vickers Defence Systems (UK owned)
Turret design authority Vickers Defence Systems (UK owned)
Track William Cook Defence (UK manufactured and owned)
Engine Perkins (UK manufactured—now owned by Caterpillar, a US company)
Transmission David Brown Defence (US owned and UK manufactured)
Laser Range Finder Simrad (Norwegian owned and manufactured)
DROPS Vehicle Medium Mobility Load Carrier (IMMLC)
Parent company PACCAR (US owned)
Vehicle design authority Foden (UK owned)
Manufacturer Foden (UK owned and manufactured)
Engine manufacture (UK manufactured now owned by US company—Caterpillar)
Transmision manufacturer ZF (German owned and manufactured)
DROPS Vehicle Medium Mobility Load Carrier (MMLC)
Parent company PACCAR (US owned)
Vehicle design authority Leyland (UK owned)
Manufacturer Leyland (UK owned and manufactured)
Engine manufacture (UK manufactured now owned by US company—Caterpillar)
Transmission manufacturer ZF (German owned and manufactured)
Landrover
Parent company Ford (US)
Vehicle design authority Landrover (US owned)
Manufacturer Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured)
Engine manufacture Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured)
Transmission manufacturer Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured)
Armed Forces Pension Scheme
Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the proportion of the rise in Government liabilities resulting from unfunded parts of the armed forces pension scheme in the last five years due to (a) wage inflation, (b) longevity, (c) extension of the rights of part-time workers and (d) other factors; and if he will make a statement. [67023]
Mr. Ingram: A detailed breakdown of reasons for the increased liabilities of the armed forces pension scheme cannot be provided. However, the most significant factors in the increase from 43.7 billion at 1 April 1997 to 51 billion at 1 April 2001 have been price inflation and real wage increases. Trends in pensioner longevity will also have had an impact but the effect of rights of part-time workers is considered to have been minimal.
Tank Warfare
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to conduct a cost and effectiveness comparison of alternatives to using depleted uranium in gun-launched Kinetic Energy penetrator projectiles to defeat threats from tanks; and if he will make a statement. [67840]
Dr. Moonie: Operational analysis (OA) studies into the cost-effectiveness of tank-launched depleted uranium ammunition have taken place since the 1970s when it was assessed that the existing tungsten Kinetic Energy (KE) projectile for our main battle tank would not be able to penetrate the frontal armour of the next generation of battle tanks. OA and scientific research showed that a battle winning UK capability against emerging armour technologies could be achieved by replacing the tungsten penetrator with one made from DU.
Although research to identify more effective alternative KE tank rounds has been undertaken, no satisfactory alternative to DU has yet been identified which achieves the level of penetration needed to defeat the most modern battle tanks. At this time, the use of DU ammunition remains the most operationally effective capability and the
9 Jul 2002 : Column 855W
use of non-DU ammunition would significantly threaten operational success and potentially could lead to increased UK casualties.
We will, however, continue to carry out work on alternatives to DU. The DU research proposal which was announced earlier this year, 14 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1177–78W—also published on the web at www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/du_research.htm— includes, at section 2.5, OA studies on the types of engagement where DU ammunition is required and the consequences of not using DU, together with cost-effectiveness studies into other means of defeating heavy armour. The proposal also includes, at section 2.6, work into radical alternatives (for example, guided missiles) to DU KE penetrators to defeat heavy armour.
Previous Section Index Home Page
Canberra PR9
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of the Canberra PR9 reconnaissance aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [67142]
Mr. Ingram: For the last financial year 2001–02, the total resource running costs of the five Canberra PR9 aircraft in 39 Squadron was approximately £15.5 million.
9 Jul 2002 : Column 853W
Army Vehicles
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the content of British manufacturing in vehicles used by the Army. [67140]
Dr. Moonie: Information relating to a selection of vehicles used by the British Army (Warrior Armoured Personnel Vehicle (APV), Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank
9 Jul 2002 : Column 854W
(MBT), Landrover and the Demountable Rack Off Load and Pick up System (DROPS) vehicle) is set out in the table.
Information on the content of British manufacturing for every vehicle used is not held centrally and as such an overall assessment could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The British manufacturing content of each of the vehicles, set out in the table, is 85 per cent. or more.
Vehicle Manufacturer
Warrior APV
Vehicle design authority Alvis Vehicles Ltd. (UK owned)
Hull manufacture Alvis Vehicles (UK manufactured and owned)
Engine and transmission Perkins (UK manufactured—now owned by Caterpillar, a US company)
Turret design authority Vickers Defence Systems (UK manufactured and owned)
Track William Cook Defence (UK manufactured and owned)
Challenger 2 MBT
Vehicle design authority Vickers Defence Systems (UK owned)
Turret design authority Vickers Defence Systems (UK owned)
Track William Cook Defence (UK manufactured and owned)
Engine Perkins (UK manufactured—now owned by Caterpillar, a US company)
Transmission David Brown Defence (US owned and UK manufactured)
Laser Range Finder Simrad (Norwegian owned and manufactured)
DROPS Vehicle Medium Mobility Load Carrier (IMMLC)
Parent company PACCAR (US owned)
Vehicle design authority Foden (UK owned)
Manufacturer Foden (UK owned and manufactured)
Engine manufacture (UK manufactured now owned by US company—Caterpillar)
Transmision manufacturer ZF (German owned and manufactured)
DROPS Vehicle Medium Mobility Load Carrier (MMLC)
Parent company PACCAR (US owned)
Vehicle design authority Leyland (UK owned)
Manufacturer Leyland (UK owned and manufactured)
Engine manufacture (UK manufactured now owned by US company—Caterpillar)
Transmission manufacturer ZF (German owned and manufactured)
Landrover
Parent company Ford (US)
Vehicle design authority Landrover (US owned)
Manufacturer Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured)
Engine manufacture Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured)
Transmission manufacturer Landrover (US owned, UK manufactured)
Armed Forces Pension Scheme
Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the proportion of the rise in Government liabilities resulting from unfunded parts of the armed forces pension scheme in the last five years due to (a) wage inflation, (b) longevity, (c) extension of the rights of part-time workers and (d) other factors; and if he will make a statement. [67023]
Mr. Ingram: A detailed breakdown of reasons for the increased liabilities of the armed forces pension scheme cannot be provided. However, the most significant factors in the increase from 43.7 billion at 1 April 1997 to 51 billion at 1 April 2001 have been price inflation and real wage increases. Trends in pensioner longevity will also have had an impact but the effect of rights of part-time workers is considered to have been minimal.
Tank Warfare
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to conduct a cost and effectiveness comparison of alternatives to using depleted uranium in gun-launched Kinetic Energy penetrator projectiles to defeat threats from tanks; and if he will make a statement. [67840]
Dr. Moonie: Operational analysis (OA) studies into the cost-effectiveness of tank-launched depleted uranium ammunition have taken place since the 1970s when it was assessed that the existing tungsten Kinetic Energy (KE) projectile for our main battle tank would not be able to penetrate the frontal armour of the next generation of battle tanks. OA and scientific research showed that a battle winning UK capability against emerging armour technologies could be achieved by replacing the tungsten penetrator with one made from DU.
Although research to identify more effective alternative KE tank rounds has been undertaken, no satisfactory alternative to DU has yet been identified which achieves the level of penetration needed to defeat the most modern battle tanks. At this time, the use of DU ammunition remains the most operationally effective capability and the
9 Jul 2002 : Column 855W
use of non-DU ammunition would significantly threaten operational success and potentially could lead to increased UK casualties.
We will, however, continue to carry out work on alternatives to DU. The DU research proposal which was announced earlier this year, 14 March 2002, Official Report, columns 1177–78W—also published on the web at www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/du_research.htm— includes, at section 2.5, OA studies on the types of engagement where DU ammunition is required and the consequences of not using DU, together with cost-effectiveness studies into other means of defeating heavy armour. The proposal also includes, at section 2.6, work into radical alternatives (for example, guided missiles) to DU KE penetrators to defeat heavy armour.
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following 6 comments