Analysis: Scrapping carrier programme would be a risk too far for coalition

AS YOU would expect with a £5 billion contract and 4,000 jobs in Scotland at stake, everyone is playing politics.

BAe chief executive Ian King is correct is stating that he has had to provide scenarios relating to the various carrier options – this is an element in the Secretary of State for Defence's policy of making all three armed services provide him with a range of scenarios relating to what would happen under budget cuts of, say, 10, 20 and 30 per cent.

There is no doubt that Scotland is going to suffer following the Strategic Defence Review, as will other regions of the United Kingdom.

However, there are two good reasons why the carrier programme will almost certainly go ahead. The first is the operational requirement and the sense behind having two carriers and not one. In military terms, having one carrier is a total waste of money. If you only have one carrier the only military certainty is that it will not be available when you really need it. It will be in refit (this could happen every five years or so and may mean the vessel is in dock for up to 18 months) or it could be damaged, or the engines could fail. Liam Fox, the Secretary of State is no fool and he knows just what sort of political storm would follow if having spent a fortune on a carrier and its hugely expensive aircraft, it was not available in a crisis.

The second reason is the politics. The possible loss of 4,000 jobs in Scotland would be a disaster for the coalition, especially at a time when Scotland's place in the Union is under pressure from the SNP.

Charles Heyman is editor of The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom.