Navy carriers without radar cover: Damning report finds new warships could enter service without systems that will warn of enemy planes and missiles

  • HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales risk entering service without aerial coverage and vulnerable to attack when they are put to sea
  • Parliament’s spending watchdog also warns the cost of the aircraft carriers could spiral 'uncontrollably'
PUBLISHED: 01:00 GMT, 3 September 2013 | UPDATED: 06:51 GMT, 3 September 2013
The Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers could set sail without a crucial radar which warns commanders of incoming enemy warplanes and missiles.
A damning report by MPs reveals the Crowsnest early warning system will not be ready until six years after the first of the £5.5billion Queen Elizabeth-class warships enters service in 2016.
Delays in fitting the ‘eyes in the sky’ system to military helicopters until 2022 were a ‘concern’, the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee (PAC) says today.
Concern: New aircraft carriers the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, shown in this artist's impression, may be vulnerable to aerial attack
Concern: New aircraft carriers the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, shown in this artist's impression, may be vulnerable to aerial attack
This risks leaving HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales without aerial coverage and vulnerable to attack when they are put to sea.
The 65,000-tonne floating fortresses are due to be fully operational from 2020 meaning they could be deployed to trouble spots around the world.
 

More...

Last time the Navy did not have an airborne early warning system was in place was during the Falklands conflict in 1982 when five ships were sunk, with dozens of service personnel killed and hundreds injured.
The cross-party committee - Parliament’s spending watchdog - also warns the cost of the aircraft carriers could spiral ‘uncontrollably’.
The bill for the two new warships, given the green light in 2008, is almost twice the original £3.6billion - and there are ‘huge risks’ it will increase further, says the report.
MPs heap criticism on the Coalition for wasting money after a U-turn over the type of warplanes to fly from the aircraft carriers.
In 2010 ministers controversially decided to scrap the last Labour government’s plans to buy a fleet of jump jets, which take off and land vertically.
Instead, Prime Minister David Cameron ordered conventional versions of the US-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that would need catapults and arrester gear to take off from and land on the vessels.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond
On target: Defence Secretary Philip Hammond says that Crownest is expected to be working by the first operational service
But this was based on ‘deeply flawed information’, say the committee. When the cost of fitting the ships with ‘cats and traps’ more than doubled to £2billion, Mr Cameron flip-flopped and returned to buying the jump jet.
The move cost a staggering £74million in squandered in lost man hours, administrative costs and needless planning.
Labour MP Margaret Hodge, the PAC’s chairman, said: ‘The Committee is still not convinced that the MOD has this programme under control. It remains subject to huge technical and commercial risks, with the potential for further uncontrolled growth in costs.’
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: ‘Crowsnest is expected to deliver an initial capability by the time the first carrier is in operational service.
‘Maritime surveillance will also be provided by other platforms and systems.’
He said the Ministry of Defence ‘acted swiftly’ to switch back to the jump jet as soon as it became clear ‘the alternative would cost more money’.
The Coalition left Britain without carrier strike when it controversially scrapped the iconic Harrier jump jets in 2010 as part of defence cuts.
Labour defence spokesman Kevan Jones said: ‘The chaos of the Government’s carrier u-turn gets worse and worse. 
‘David Cameron has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and has left the country without aircraft on an aircraft carrier for a decade. When defence budgets are tight, this looks incompetent and wasteful.’