The claim
“We have increased the number of helicopters in Afghanistan. We have increased the flying time by more than 100 per cent.”
Gordon Brown, PMQs, 7 April 2010
Cathy Newman checks it out
Gordon Brown has got his facts wrong on defence spending before, so it was no surprise to see David Cameron return to the theme in the last Prime Minister’s Questions of this parliament.
This time he trained his fire on the thorny issue of the number of helicopters in Afghanistan. Brown boasted that both helicopter numbers, and flying-time, had increased. Was he right?
The analysis
The problem with trying to examine Brown’s claims is that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) won’t say how many helicopters they’ve got in Afghanistan. They say it would prejudice the efficiency, security and capability of the armed forces.
The government is, however, much more keen on telling us how many new helicopters will be sent to Afghanistan in the future. That’s 22 new Chinooks for the record.
But official figures published last year on helicopter numbers across the military – ie not just in Afghanistan – paint a somewhat different picture to the PM’s boast today. They show that in April 1997, the army had 342 “in service” helicopters; and that by February 2009 that total was down to 223.
During the same period the navy’s “in service” helicopter numbers dropped from 199 to 174, while the air force’s numbers increased just slightly from 119 to 127.
If the comparison is restricted to the four types of helicopters currently used in Afghanistan, the numbers dropped from 369 to 343 during the 12 years.
Moreover, in the light of Brown’s bullish comments today it is also worth recalling that former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told the Chilcot Inquiry that he blamed funding cuts in 2003 – when Brown was chancellor – for the poor supply of helicopters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That led in turn to an overreliance on Snatch Land Rovers – something which Brown’s opponents say put lives at risk.
Let’s look in more detail, though, at Brown’s use of the phrase increased “flying time”. The MoD told FactCheck that helicopter flying hours in Afghanistan have risen by more than 140 per cent since November 2006.
For some observers, the point of controversy here is that extra flying hours does not necessarily translate to an increase in airlift capacity – the crucial ability to carry significant numbers of troops by air rather than on dangerous roads.
That’s because not all helicopters are designed to transport troops. For example, Apache helicopters are used for find and attack functions, and Lynx Mk7 and Mk9, are primarily used in a reconnaissance role.
It is only Chinook, Merlin and Sea King Mk4 helicopters which deliver vital airlift capacity in the battlefield.
The MoD will not give FactCheck details over any increase in airlift capacity, again citing security concerns.
Cathy Newman’s verdict
Brown is party to information that we aren’t – so there’s no way of knowing for certain if his claim is correct. But the overall figures for the types of helicopters currently used in Afghanistan suggest the PM could be vulnerable on this point.
It’s worth bearing in mind too General Sir Richard Dannatt, former head of the British army, had to fly round Afghanistan in an American helicopter last year because there wasn’t a British one, and the former foreign office minister Lord Malloch-Brown’s admission that British troops need more helicopters.
So while we can’t say Brown’s got his facts wrong, we can’t be certain he’s right either.
