§ 33. Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to scrap the Government's stock of Mark I Bloodhound missiles; what was the total cost of production of that stock, including research and development; and what were the dates between which these missiles were manufactured.
§ 57. Mr. Mulleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the decision to withdraw the Bloodhound I missiles from British air defences and on the proposed deployment of Bloodhound II missiles; and what is the estimated cost of procurement of the Bloodhound II missiles.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftBloodhound Mark I has been withdrawn from service because it has fulfilled its purpose. Some parts of the missiles and some of the associated equipment will continue to be of use to us; apart from minor sales the rest are being scrapped. Research and development expenditure on Bloodhound I and its launching system began in 1949 and totalled £32 million. The production cost 1196 of the R.A. F.'s Bloodhound I missiles was £23 million; these operational missiles were manufactured between 1958 and 1962. A proportion of the expenditure on Bloodhound I has, of course, contributed to the development of Bloodhound II which is already coming into service and will be deployed primarily for the defence of our bases and squadrons overseas.
§ Mr. HealeyThe House will surely be disturbed by the facts which the right hon. Gentleman has just given us, particularly in the light of the unhappy history of the contract. Can he tell us how many years—perhaps he had better tell us in months—Bloodhound I has been in squadron service? Is it true, as widely reported, that Bloodhound was found to be vulnerable to switch jamming even before it was first made operational?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftI do not think that anybody will be disturbed by an announcement of facts already known to most Members. Bloodhound I came into service in 1958. It was the first weapon of its generation and it has been remarkably successful. Bloodhound II will be an even better weapon.
§ Mr. MulleyCan the right hon. Gentleman clear up a question about whether there were any technical defects in Bloodhound I? Can he give us an assurance that Bloodhound II will be able to deal with attacks, even if electronic counter-measures are used by the attacking planes? It has been reported that Bloodhound I could not deal with switch jamming.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftOne does not want to believe everything said about British missiles, but I can say that we learned a tremendous lot, as is inevitable and right, from the development of Bloodhound I and a great deal of that has been incorporated in Bloodhound II.
§ Mr. DanceWould not my right hon. Friend agree that the important feature about modern weapons is that their success lies in their never being used except as a deterrent?