§ 2. Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Aviation what nav-attack system is to be fitted to the British version of the F111A; whether it will meet the full British operational requirement; and what the basic price for the aircraft equipped for the British requirement is now likely to be.
§ Mr. MulleyThe definition of this system is being carried out in consultation with the U.S. Government. It will 401 meet the R.A.F. requirement completely, and its cost is included in the estimated unit cost of £2.5 million for the aircraft which I have given to the House on several occasions.
§ Mr. HastingsIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be glad to hear that assurance, particularly since there has been widespread suspicion that the system at present installed in the F111A is capable only of a degree of accuracy consistent with nuclear strike and not with tactical strike? Secondly, it is—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. There is a reasonable length for supplementary questions.
§ Mr. HastingsSecondly, is the Minister aware that it has also been widely believed that the price may be escalating to about £3 million rather than £2½, million?
§ Mr. MulleyI have already said that the system will meet the R.A.F. requirement and that it will be within the estimated unit cost. If the hon. Gentleman has other information which he wishes to bring to my notice, I will consider it.
§ 17. Mr. R. Carrasked the Minister of Aviation to what extent the modification of the F111A required by the Royal Air Force involves the use of major components, such as the undercarriage, designed for the FB111 nuclear bombers being developed for the United States Air Force.
§ 19. Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Aviation approximately what proportion of the modifications to the F111A necessary to bring it to Royal Air Force specification are common to the F111B.
§ Mr. MulleyNone of the modifications to F111A necessary to bring it to the R.A.F. specification are common to the Fl 11B. Nor will the R.A.F. aircraft—designated F111K—have any major components specifically developed for the FB111 other than the strengthened undercarriage.
§ Mr. CarrDoes the right hon. Gentleman, then, deny the report which was published in the Daily Telegraph in February that the undercarriage of the Royal Air Force version would be the same as the undercarriage of the FB111, 402 similar information having been given, we understand, to the public in the United States?
§ Mr. MulleyQuite apart from denying that, that is exactly what my Answer in the House said, that components would not be common to the FB111 except the undercarriage.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopCan the Minister tell the House whether the contract has yet been signed for the aircraft with the Royal Air Force specification?
§ Mr. MulleyOne does not sign one contract for the lot, but, as the hon. Member knows, because he is not unfamiliar with these matters, quite a number of contracts are involved, and the basic contracts are in any event with the United States Government, of which we have the benefit.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonWhen we get it, if we get it, it will be able to carry nuclear bombs, will it not?
§ Mr. MulleyI think the hon. Gentleman's question should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
§ Mr. SpeakerI called the hon. Member to ask the next Question on the Paper.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonIn view of the insulting answer—
§ Mr. SpeakerYes. I have already said that these notices must be given conventionally.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.