Joint Strike Fighter Decision Was Flawed - The House of Commons Defence Committee (Chairman James Arbuthnot MP, Conservative) have accused the Ministry of Defence of making a "rushed and flawed" decision to switch fighter aircraft for the Royal Navy's new Aircraft Carriers.   The Defence Committee said the 2010 decision to opt for the Carrier variant of the joint strike fighter, rather than the jump jet, had been a mistake and that millions of pounds was wasted and delays caused.   The Government the decision, which was reversed back to jump jets last May (2012), had been "right at the time".    The previous Labour Government had placed orders for two new Aircraft Carriers to be equipped with the F-35B variant of the American built joint strike fighter, which is capable of short take off and vertical landing.

James Arbuthnot Chairman of the Commons Defence Committee said the decision came amid fears the costs of fitting necessary equipment were spiralling out of control and the Committee went on to say it was clear the Government's decision to change the variant of fighter jet for the UK's new carriers had been "rushed and based upon incomplete and inaccurate policy development".    The decision had been taken "without the MoD understanding how the change could be implemented", the Committee said.   The Chairman of the Committee also described it as a "bit of a shambles" and said it was "not the way the MoD should be making decisions".   "[It] was a mistake which cost many millions of pounds and caused a lot of upset and delay and concern and it's not a mistake that should happen again - it's a mistake from which lessons should be learned," he said.   The Shadow Defence Secretary (Jim Murphy MP) said the wasted time and money had led to a serious capability gap, and meant the UK had paid at least an extra £100m to have no aircraft to fly from the carrier for years.   

Responding to the comments in the report, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology (Philip Dunne MP) said: "The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review decision on carrier strike was right at the time, but, faced with unacceptable cost growth, technical risk and project delays, the decision to revert to the STOVL [short take off and vertical landing] configuration was in the best interest of Defence.   "Purchasing STOVL aircraft ensures the UK will regenerate a carrier strike capability earlier than planned, with the first Lightning II jets arriving in 2016 and the first flights off the Queen Elizabeth in 2018."  He went on to say "This government has worked tirelessly to eliminate the multi-billion pound black hole we inherited and transform the way we fund and manage the delivery of military equipment.    Our recently published £ 160 billion ten year equipment plan will deliver fully funded hardware for our Armed Forces, giving them much more certainty. The increased financial contingency will help cover future risk and make our equipment programme affordable. There is also greater information for industry about our priorities, helping them to invest in the future capabilities our troops need.     The reform of Defence Equipment and Support will further improve our procurement process. As announced last year, a government-owned contractor-operated organisation is our preferred option but further analysis is being carried out before a final decision is made."

The United Kingdom is the sole "Level 1" partner, contributing US$ 2.5 billion, (which was about 10% of the planned development costs under the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding) that brought the UK into the project.     In July 2012 the Secretary of State for Defence stated that an initial 48 F-35Bs LIGHTNING 11 will be purchased to equip the Carrier fleet, but a final figure of F-35 purchases will not be decided until the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2015 — it was also suggested that the UK may later purchase F-35A LIGHTNING 11 variants to replace the TYPHOON fleet.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation just like the Rail Franchise fiasco we as taxpayers has seen the loss of £ 100 million from the Defence budget which can only be described as a waste of money if it is due to rushed or incomplete and inaccurate information.    With the staffing of the MoD labyrinthine procurement organisation  that is hard to fathom and is little short of a criminal waster of  money which could be better used in so many different ways.