HL Deb 31 March 1980 vol 407 cc1231-48

4.46 p.m.

The Earl of KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the Harrier programme. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel I must almost apologise to the House for coming on again so soon, but I am glad that the time is very early, and I should like to say to my noble friend the Minister that I do not intend to make a long speech in opening this short debate on the Harrier. Besides the very valuable contribution that other noble Lords will be making—and I should like to thank them in advance as I shall not have an opportunity to do so later—it is of course the information that my noble friend can give us which will be of most value. I am glad to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, should have been on the list of speakers and that he will indeed be taking part. I well recall his remarks which added colour and punch to the short debate that we had some months ago on the Tornado, even if he did suggest, after briefing himself with an article from the Financial Times, that we were wasting our time as everything in the programme was splendid. I hope the noble Lord will have an equally cheerful message this evening.

I suspect that I shall not be alone tonight in believing that the Harrier has proved itself over the last two decades as the most remarkable of all British military aircraft designs, and that it now stands on the threshold of an enormous potential export market. It has taken a long time since the first conception of the Harrier was led by the late Sidney Camm from Hawker Siddeley, indicating his unique versatility, and indeed it has taken a long time for the Harrier to be recognised in a strategic role. Experience has been gained from the service with the Royal Air Force over the last 10 years, and indeed inter-service with the United States Marine Corps over the past 5 years. Experience has been gained in the licence agreement with McDonnell Douglas in 1973 to develop the advanced Harrier. But perhaps the most encouraging factor has been the recognition today of its qualities and of defining its role for strategic purposes.

This has perhaps been made easier by the military strategists who now favour the rapid deployment concept, the mobile strike force, the modern through deck cruiser, such as the Invincible class and so on. All these are designed to deal with the all too frequent flash points around the world; and on top of that, of course, one has to think of the experience of Afghanistan. I believe all these points concentrate the mind wonderfully on the value of the Harrier.

That brings me to the first point which I wish to put to my noble friend, concerning the progress of the Sea Harrier. The Sea Harrier is being delivered at the present time to the Navy and indeed to the Spanish Navy. One sees almost continuous articles about the United States Navy's great interest in it as well. Perhaps my noble friend can deal with the potential of the Sea Harrier, how it is performing and whether NATO countries are likely to find a need for it as well.

While I am on the subject of potential orders for the Harrier, perhaps my noble friend could confirm the state of play over the Chinese Harrier order. What has my right honourable friend returned with from his visit to Peking and Shanghai; and what is the next stage of these somewhat protracted negotiations?

My Lords, perhaps the most controversial decision in the development life of the Harrier, and yet the most far-reaching, was the agreement with McDonnell Douglas to develop under licence the advanced type of Harrier. No one quite knew then whether this unique British concept was being simply handed over on a plate to that company or whether its further development was being secured, with not unlucrative future for the home industry, notably, of course, Rolls-Royce. Today that licence agreement looks to be growing more and more healthy, with a potential order from the US Marines, I understand, of 350 aircraft, and l am told funding approved by Congress and the House Armed Services Committee for the long lead materials.

If my information is correct on this and Her Majesty's Government are as optimistic of success as McDonnell Douglas appear to be, I hope they will examine a new framework for a long-term future partnership with McDonnell Douglas, which will give fair terms, which will give fair small print to the contract, and see that the British industry really share the view that they have a fair deal. It is in the interests of all parties to build on this partnership, to build on the orders, to develop together the future of the Harrier, improved Harrier, supersonic Harrier, and so forge for the first time a successful commercial link with a US military aerospace company. There are, I believe, reservations in our industry about this, which I believe are misplaced. I hope that tonight my noble friend can dispel some of those misgivings, so long as the framework is fair, as I say.

Turning briefly to the engine of the Harrier, the Pegasus, it would be helpful if my noble friend could say something about present development updating of the Pegasus, its increased thrust and whether it has now met the requirements of the improved version of the Harrier; that is, the British Harrier and the advanced American-type Harrier.

My final question to my noble friend concerns the Royal Air Force order now being evaluated between the British version and the American version. I hope that the RAF will be left to decide on its own without pressure for either version. If an order of, I understand, some 60 aircraft should go to the British version, may I ask whether a further order for the AVA8 will be out of the question? In conclusion, I hope my noble friend will take this opportunity to reiterate the Government's faith in the Harrier for the RAF and confirm their determination to see that future sales abroad are grasped and strengthened and leave us in no doubt of the importance of supporting our industry and staying with the development of this fine aircraft.

4.54 p.m.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, your Lordships' House, as usual, should be very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who has put his finger on a very important topic tonight—perhaps I should say on two, because he seems to be an equal expert on live fish and mechanical birds. There is one point which he raised about which I would like to ask my noble friend straight away: it is whether he could give us some information as to when the licensing deal with McDonnell Douglas ceases.

It was quite interesting that in The Times this morning the defence correspondent, Henry Stanhope, said practically what I am going to say to your Lordships this evening. I can only conclude that lie or I must have ESP, because I must have composed my speech at the same time as he was writing his article.

If the RAF is to maintain its effectiveness with the Harrier into the 'nineties, I believe it needs Air Staff Requirement 409, known as ASR. But it also, due to collaboration with other countries, supposedly needs the air staff target, AST 403, which is a so-called Harrier-Jaguar replacement. However, unfortunately, the V-stol capability of AST 403 has been shelved, and I believe this has been because of the possible benefit of collaboration between us and France and Germany. So, my Lords, we have the problem; the RAF has two requirements. It wants the ASR 409 and the AST 403. But it only has, I understand, limited cash and at present it looks as if the bulk of this money will go to the AST 403, the Jaguar replacement.

If we are going to maintain the RAF's V-stol force, there are two types for consideration, the British Harrier, the ground attack reconnaisance, GR 5, and the American AV8B. I understand that 60 of these aircraft are required initially by the RAF, with a possible further 40 to follow on. However, one of the main considerations of the RAF is that the aircraft must have self-defence with V-Stol capability—that is, better aerodynamic air combat performance, heat seeking air-to-air missiles, and electronic counter-measures. Should there by chance be an improved payload or range performance, that would be a bonus.

So, my Lords, we have some pros and some cons. The AV8B is further along the production line, although it will not be in service until 1985 or 1986. It is cheaper, as research and development and production are spaced over 400 aircraft, as my noble friend said—340 to the American Marine Corps and 60 to the Royal Air Force. British Aerospace will get about 30 per cent. of the work; Rolls-Royce would build the engine; and other British component manufacturers would bring the work total up to nearly 50 per cent. Furthermore, the aircraft contains large sections of carbon fibre, and British Aerospace would, I believe, dearly like to be associated with this.

Turning to the British area of the GR5, ground attack and reconnaisance, this will provide much needed design work by British Aerospace. The aircraft would probably be better suited to RAF requirements, with particular emphasis on their requirement for air combat performance. However, it may well prove more expensive. Of course, it is slightly heavier because of its metal wing, but it does appear to be more suitable to look after itself. The RAF are evaluating the AV8B prototype at this moment, but that may take some time as there is only one aircraft; the other one crashed. Pressure is also being put on the RAF over the AV8B, because its production would then be much more assured. As my noble friend said, the US Marine Corps seem to have a perennial problem with their Department of Defence as to whether the US Navy can afford the AV8B. At the same time Congress is convinced that it is the right aircraft for the Marines and keeps restoring the money which is deleted by the Department of Defence. So although it has been left out of the American defence budget of 1980–81, they are confident that it will be replaced. Paradoxically, the US Nay has just completed a sea-based feasibility air study and its conclusions are that smaller V-Stol carriers with AV8B's are the right answer, so that it will be prepared for going all V-Stol in the 21st century.

I should like to digress here for a moment. In spite of our three Invincible type through-deck cruisers, perhaps their Lordships in the Admiralty should rethink their policy on Vosper's mini-Harrier carrier, small and cheap and with a great export potential.

Going back to the United States Navy feasibility study, it will, paradoxically, take some pressure off the RAF over the AV8B, which, although a superb aircraft in its own right, is not necessarily the right one for the RAF. So there are two questions. One is how much cash the RAF can spend on the ASR9, and the other is whether it can afford to develop the GR5 or will be compelled to buy the AV8B through lack of funds. We must also remember that the GR5 and the AV8B are both competitors in the V-Stol market for sales to other countries.

At the same time, the right aeroplane for the RAF may not appeal to a world market. However, we do have the multi-role Sea Harrier available now. I think that we really must give it our maximum sales effort in the same way as the French would do if it were their aircraft. They would send President Giscard D'Estaing in one if they wanted to sell it. We have deals with Australia, probably Brazil, Spain and Italy. I have not mentioned China—my noble friend did so—because I do not know the outcome of the Secretary of State's visit there. However, perhaps my noble friend will be able to give us some information when he answers.

So what of the future? British Aerospace would like to build a supersonic V-stol aircraft using plenum chamber burning, which is known as PCB and which, explained simply, means re-heat in the front nozzles. There are theoretical problems with this, but the only way to see that it will work—and British Aerospace say that it will—is to build and fly a full-scale prototype. It should be not just a test bed, but a representative fighter design.

The United States will certainly build and fly one or more V-Stol aircraft as they realise that V-Stol is the future key to survival. However, we, as has been so usual in the past, have the lead in vectored thrust, which is the only method of going vertical successfully. Some 30 or 40 other configurations have been tried throughout the world, but they have all had problems or failed. I agree that it will obviously need finance and time to design, develop and fly such an aircraft, so we should start now so that the technology is "mature" as the Americans say, by the 1990s when it will be needed.

I believe that British Aerospace at Warton is considering an aircraft, but of of a different type from the one at Kingston. Therefore, my last two questions to my noble friend are as follows. Do Her Majesty's Government intend to fund a supersonic V-Stol demonstrator programme either alone or in conjunction with the United States? Secondly, what are the RAF's plans for the year 2000 when anti-runway missiles will make present runways untenable and V-Stol imperative for our survival?

5.3 p.m.

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not here at present, I hope that it will be agreeable if I carry on in the hope that he may arrive before the wind-up. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for introducing another Unstarred Question debate. I think that he does a great service to the House because the complexity of defence is now so varied and so great that, in many ways, it is better to have a series of smaller debates concentrating on different aspects of defence. Indeed, if we were not discussing the Harrier today I suspect that we would have all been discussing it in the forthcoming defence debate after the Defence White Paper is published later this week. Therefore, I think that my noble friend has done the House a service in raising this matter on this occasion.

I have just returned from my annual visit to the United States to study the problems and to further various industrial interests that I have over there. I always try to return via Washington because this is the time of year then one wants to update one's knowledge of the defence picture and what we are selling to them and what they are selling to us. First and foremost, it is a sad fact that, in spite of the memorandum of understanding, we are buying four times as much from the United States as they are buying from us. Therefore, if they decide to go ahead with the Harrier, which will not now have a Pratt & Whitney engine as was thought a year ago but an improved Pegasus Rolls-Royce engine—that will be for the AV8B—it will do something to set the imbalance rather better than it is at present.

I believe that the Harrier has come at a very appropriate time, as my noble friend Lord Kimberley has said. The fixed runway is becoming operationally impractical. Bombs are becoming smarter and missiles cleverer and it is not too difficult to find a strip of concrete three miles long. In fact, so often they form sore thumb targets which one could hardly miss, and with clever delayed action bombs and multi-heads which are now used, I think that the fixed runways will become untenable.

A year ago I was told that Dr. Perry, who was in charge of research and development in the Pentagon, had set up a committee to examine the vulnerability in the longer term of fixed runways. I know nothing of whether he has yet reported, and perhaps my noble friend, when he winds up, will be able to tell me or let me know later by letter what has happened to that report on vulnerability. But, whatever comes out—if it does come out—I think that we can be certain that there will be an increasing demand for the V-Stol type of aircraft.

Unfortunately, as both my noble friends have said, there is a divergence between what is ideally suited to the Royal Air Force for the Western European and British scene and weather and what the US Marines may want for deployment in an amphibious operation, or in support of an amphibious operation, and perhaps for the SWAT team which they are now thinking about, so that they can carry out an Entebbe-type of operation, quickly and effectively.

During my visit to Washington last week I heard a nice story which I believe to be absolutely true. A United State's pilot recently tested the latest version of the Harrier. When he landed he spoke to other test pilots and was prepared to bet them 100 dollars that if they were to get into their F.14s, 15s, or even 18s and have a dogfight with him below 15,000 feet, on every single occasion he would win with the Harrier. That means that, of course, we want an air superiority fighter of some sort for the very high levels, but perhaps below that height the Harrier is very effective in the battlefield in support of our troops and in carrying out reconnaissance and other roles.

As I have said, the difficulty is that there is a slightly different operational requirement. We in Europe—the RAF—want a particular type, and at present we are working towards the improved wing with a slightly lower payload because of the greater weight of the wing and the fact that it is metal rather than carbon fibre. But the Americans are going ahead with the AV8B. The US Marine Corps has always wanted this and has been loyal to it throughout. As my noble friend has pointed out, it is said now that it is contemplating 110 straight away, with a follow-on of another 250 later. The US Navy are also looking at the possibility because, like us, they are now discovering that aircraft carriers of the size of the Forestal class are becoming so expensive, not only as regards building but as regards manning, that they are now coming up against the limitations which we met some 15 years ago when we abandoned the CB01.

I wonder whether we cannot find a compromise. It seems to me that we both want something of the Harrier type. It seems ridiculous that we should be thinking of building 60 and spreading our R and D and continuing our R and D over such a small number, whereas they are thinking in terms of a further 350 and spreading their R and D much thinner over that number. Also, my noble friend has said that it appears that for this reason theirs is marginally cheaper.

So I would ask my noble friend to look at the matter and see whether he cannot pressure the Royal Air Force to narrow the gap between their operational requirement and the operational requirement of the US Marine Corps. I would ask my noble friend not to be discouraged if he reads, as I read, that the AV8B is not included in next year's defence budget. That happened last year and the year before. In both instances it was written back into the budget and I am sure that it will be written back again. I was told last week that they are contemplating now writing back this operational requirement for V-Stol and setting aside 243 million dollars of funds for continuing research and development in engineering, and a further 90 million dollars for long lead items. If that is undertaken, as everyone forecasts it will be, it will be a useful and helpful sign for the future.

Finally—and my noble friend Lord Kimberley has made this point—when my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal replies, can he tell us whether we are going ahead with the research, development and studies into a supersonic V-Stol aircraft? I always felt that it was deeply unfortunate when the Labour Government cancelled the 1154, which was a supersonic version of the Harrier. It is tempting to cancel aircraft; they cancelled the TSR-2, the 1154 and the HS 681 and bought American aircraft as a stopgap: the Hercules, the F1-11 and a helicopter. Then we were prepared to spend £1,000 million on those alternatives.

In the light of the experience and the success of the Harrier, I very much hope that we shall now look ahead and see whether we cannot set some money aside—and in the initial years it is not a great amount of money—to have a supersonic version of that. If that is undertaken, I feel sure that we should be wise to co-operate with the United States in this project. Between us I believe that we would sell very large numbers of this aircraft to all free countries in the world.

5.12 p.m.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for his contribution. He and I do not always agree on defence but basically we agree with defence in a strong way. However, in debates that we have had on previous occasions we have been slightly at logger-heads. He made a very valid point, that it is good to have these short debates. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He and I have just been debating fish, quite a different subject. He has quite rightly raised this matter. Indeed, he mentioned the future of the Harrier in a debate that we had some time ago, on 29th November. We then had quite a long debate on the Tornado, and naturally and quite rightly he spoke about the Harrier as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, posed some important questions, as indeed did the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, who with his committee, does so much for defence. I hope that the Government will take careful note. I was intrigued by the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that we were buying four times as much from the United States. Does the noble Lord mean defence equipment, or equipment on aerodromes, et cetera?

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, I should have made it clear that the memorandum of understanding covers defence only; it is sometimes called the "two-way street"; that was defence equipment only.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I am grateful for that information. I would not want to distort or decry what the noble Lord said. He made a very valid point. I am glad that our friends in the United States look to our aircraft and our technology in many respects—sometimes far ahead—in this area. I noted very carefully his remarks about the supersonic aircraft and the failure of a Labour Government to develop it. I was a member of that Government, so I suppose that I must take part of the blame. Probably there would be a different story today if that aircraft had been allowed. But who knows? Inevitably, all Governments have to consider costs.

Other points were made about the Harrier. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who opened this little discussion, asked about export markets. I hope that any information can be given to the House, but if it is not possible to do so for other reasons, I shall understand. There has been much controversy about whether or not we shall have a Chinese Harrier. The Chinese have been extremely interested in our Harrier development. Again, its potential from the point of view of NATO is obvious. Again, the question is cost; if only we had, and had had, the money.

I believe that this is probably one of the most important developments in the field of aircraft. I am an ex-gunner. When the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, spoke about the bet which an American airman had with a colleague that he would win a combat at 15,000 feet, I immediately started to think what I would have done as a 3.7 gunner. I think that we might have reached that height, but planes travel too fast these days. Technology has moved so fast that many of our reasons for adopting a certain stance are completely out of date.

However, I believe that this is a good aircraft. It is accepted as such. We must capitalise on it, and I hope that the Minister of Defence will be able to give us good information which shows that, from the point of view of research in particular, we lead the world in this particular department.

5.15 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal)

My Lords, I agree with other noble Lords that we must be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for initiating this small debate. It is very much easier to handle these matters in a more or less single-issue debate, because defence debates tend to be very rambling. I can assure the noble Earl that, as one who has to try to wind them up, it is very welcome if we can slough off a few specific points earlier on.

One must always remember that debates of this kind are almost embarrassingly well-informed in this House. Anyone answering has to make sure that he is properly briefed. I shall do my best to answer some of the questions which the noble Earl has posed. Of course, the unique capabilities of the Harrier arose out of the original P-1127 Kestrel series of aircraft in the 1960s. Currently the Harrier forms a very important part of the RAF's front line. As a number of noble Lords have said, its ability to operate from small, natural clearings near the battle area makes it capable of a more rapid, close-support response than is possible from any other aircraft type. In addition, it has the unique capacity not to need an aerodrome at all.

Increasingly, aerodrome denial weapons are considered a serious threat by a number of nations in NATO, and, for all I know, in the Warsaw Pact as well. Of course, in passing it is worth saying that the Warsaw Pact short take-off aeroplane is not so comparable with the Harrier as it looks from the outside, for the specific reason that it does not have vectored-thrust engines; it has two separate lift engines and a propulsion engine. For that reason, it is not a very comparable aeroplane.

The Harrier entered RAF service in April 1969, and we have three squadrons of them at present. A number of improvements have been made to the aeroplane since it was introduced, as might have been expected. The engine performance has been improved—and I shall return to that point again in a moment—and it now has a radar warning receiver, a laser ranger and a marked target seeker. The current version of the Harrier in service with the RAF is known as the GR-3 and is the single-seat version. Then there is the two-seater, the T4 trainer, in which—and I tell this to the Leader of the Opposition—I was taken up and given a ride when I was in Opposition; so I offer the noble Lord that as a possible hint. But one has to be feeling pretty strong.

The role of the aeroplane in RAF service is to render close support to the Army, and that is a point that has already been made. But, of course, the fact that the aeroplane can be dispersed and deployed from so many unbuilt take-off areas makes it very much more difficult for the enemy to seek out and destroy the opposing, aeroplanes. The operational flexibility and the effectiveness of the Harrier is constantly proving itself in exercises. The very high sortie rates which follow from the close deployment of the aeroplane are a feature which is frequently remarked upon. Here I must say to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that I shall have to write to him about Dr. Perry's vulnerability report. I am not sure what the status of that is at the present time.

This has proved a flexible design. A number of noble Lords have referred to the Sea Harrier, the variant which the Navy is going to use for its anti-submarine carriers such as HMS "Invincible", which has just been accepted into service by the Navy. That aeroplane is effective in a number of roles, including air defence, attack, and reconnaissance. Noble Lords may remember that the first Sea Harrier was handed over to the Navy in August last year. The introduction of these aircraft into the Navy is progressing well. The current plan is to have two front-line squadrons fully operational by mid-1981, with a third shore-based training squadron capable of embarkation when required.

Noble Lords asked about interest being expressed in this area by others. They may have noticed that the French Minister of Defence went to look at HMS "Invincible". It was slightly embarrassing to discover that she got her name from a ship captured many years ago from the French. We hope that that is not going to put them off. I think that they are interested not only in the concept of these relatively small aircraft carriers but also in the concept of vectored thrust and short take-off and landing.

Of course the Harrier has also proved attractive to a number of other countries, and, as noble Lords have said, it is in service with the United States Marines. I was told some years ago by an American that there came an occasion when they wanted to fly some American aeroplanes over Kenya in order to demonstrate their support for the Kenyans. The only aeroplanes they could produce were the British designed Harriers being flown by the United States Marine Corps, so that was the American presence that appeared over Kenya.

The Marines have demonstrated—which I do not think was ever envisaged—the ability to do this alarming act when they stick the nose up and vector the thrust and the thing stops dead, and attacking aircraft and missiles go sailing by. As the noble Lord said, it is a remarkably effective vehicle for dogfighting. The Spaniards of course also have this aeroplane. I do not think I should pursue too far the various inquiries that have been made by a number of nations, but there is a good deal of interest now being expressed in the Harrier by a number of countries. In particular, there is this aspect of course, that it enables you to have a relatively small ship to carry and operate the aircraft.

So far the RAF has ordered 133 Harriers, of which 20 are trainers, and the Navy has ordered 34 and 3 trainers. The RAF is about to start taking delivery of 24 Harriers to maintain front-line strength. It is also worth pointing out that the versatility of the Harrier has been demonstrated by the Harriers we maintain in Belize. There they give a small British presence which is capable of operating in those fairly demanding conditions to put off any possibility of aggressive intentions on the part of Guatemala towards Belize.

This has been a successful aeroplane so far. Noble Lords have referred to the debate we had on 29th November. I pointed out then that the RAF was very conscious of the potential importance of the Harriers in the future, particularly in the light of this question of airfield denial weapons. The question now is how to extend the value of the aeroplane to the end of this century, because we are quite confident that we need such an aeroplane to continue to play its part in the front line.

Perhaps I can pursue AST 403, to which my noble friend referred, for a moment or two. This provisionally started by being a design to replace both the Harrier and the Jaguar, but quite early on it became clear that the two aircraft could not be replaced in a single aircraft. Therefore, part of the decision now is to pursue an improvement of the Harrier to deal with the Harrier replacement, and deal with the Jaguar replacement as a separate issue. As noble Lords have said, we are currently pursuing two possible ways of meeting the requirement for an improved Harrier. There is the MKS, which is the British so-called "tin-wing" version of the Harrier. As my noble friend Lord Kimberley pointed out, this aeroplane has been particularly optimised for the RAF requirement of improved range and payload but, above all, improved manoeuvrability and agility. This aims at overcoming some of the relative shortcomings of the existing V-Stol design owing to its small wing and lack of defensive capability.

The alternative, as again noble Lords have said, is the McDonnell Douglas development of the Harrier known as the AV8B. This aeroplane uses the advanced construction technology of carbon composites which, I may say, is a technology with which British Aerospace, for example, is perfectly familiar already. But this aeroplane is being built to a slightly different specification and for a slightly different requirement on the part of the United States Marine Corps, who are principally interested in having increased range and payload and not so concerned with this question of agility to give survivability in the battlefield environment when in the close support role.

These technical and operational issues will have to be examined. Of course there will also be the industrial factors, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. It has also been said, quite correctly, that whichever way the decision goes there will be a substantial amount of work for British industry, because even the AV8B would have a very large part of its components made in this country; in particular, obviously British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, but there are in fact 16 other United Kingdom companies associated with the AV8B project.

It has been said, quite rightly, that the whole issue turns on whether the United States Marine Corps are allowed to have this Harrier variant. From time to time we are told that it would encourage them if we were to order it. There is no doubt at all that we would wish to have a collaborative venture with the United States if we could find the right terms on which to have it, but there are difficulties about entering into collaboration with the United States on projects of this kind. One of the great dangers that we have to guard against is the possibility of committing ourselves to a collaborative venture of that kind only to find that the Americans, for whatever reason, have had to withdraw, leaving us without any project at all. That kind of experience we have had before.

It is difficult to say when we shall be in a positon to reach a final decision on this matter. Unfortuntely, the prototype which represented the nearest to what the AV8B will look like crashed in the United States last year and that has put back the possibility of evaluation by the British of this aeroplane. However, a second aircraft is currently being modified for flight tests and a team of British pilots is to fly it towards the end of April to assess its characteristics. I should perhaps stress that it was not a British pilot who was trying out the last one when it crashed in the United States, I am happy to say. We would hope that before too many months have gone by we shall be able to decide whether or not we will join a collaborative programme with McDonnell Douglas. It was my noble friend Lord Kimberley who asked me what the status of the licensing agreement was with McDonnell Douglas. That was a private licensing agreement as between British Aerospace and McDonnell Douglas; it was not a government-to-government arrangement.

We intend to buy 60 improved Harriers as against, as has been said, the United States Marine Corps need for 350, but we must not overlook the existing fleet of GR3s and T4s. They have quite a lot of service life in them yet and we intend to keep on improving and uprating them to ensure they maintain their capability in the face of the increasing threat from the Warsaw Pact. We have in mind the fitting of self-protection missiles, active electronic counter-measures and improved navigation systems, for example. However, I think we cannot incorporate the larger wing into the existing aircraft on acceptable terms, so the larger wing would be unlikely to be any part of an improvements programme of the GR3. We intend, however, to keep ourselves in the forefront of this important air power capability and we are in the longer-term studying the possible development of a supersonic variant of the Harrier which would replace both the RAF's Harriers and the RN's Harriers, and in all probability, as the noble Lord said, that would need to incorporate plenum chamber burning, which is a fairly difficult, although there is no reason to believe impossible, technology.

A number of noble Lords asked about sales. As we emphasise its importance for ourselves, so we are very conscious of its sales potential. Among other countries, interest has been expressed in China. Negotiations are continuing between British Aerospace and the Chinese, and noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State returned last week after visiting China in connection with the Society of British Aerospace Companies Equipment Exhibition. Besides reaffirming the importance which we attach to our relations with China, defence sales in general were one of the issues he discussed. I do not think this is any longer a contentious issue, so far as the politics of it are concerned, and there is no doubt that the Chinese are looking to the United Kingdom as a major equipment supplier in future. But it will be some time before they can determine their priorities in considering their needs and there is no doubt they are very careful about where they put their money.

I hope I have said enough to make it clear that the Government continue to believe in this aeroplane and in the unique operational benefits it confers. We see a need for the aircraft for many years to come and I know that noble Lords will share my support for this vital machine, which is a great symbol of British inventive success.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question before he sits down? Does he have any news about their Lordships at the Admiralty considering the building of mini-Harrier carriers, a subject which has been discussed in this House on numerous occasions?

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

I do not think I have any news for my noble friend, my Lords, and if I do have any news, I am certainly not in a position to give him any.