The cost of British military operations in Afghanistan is now officially estimated at more than £18bn, figures released on Thursday show. The cost of imposing a no-fly zone and bombing targets in Libya is so far officially estimated at £260m.
The figures are contained in a report by the Commons defence committee which makes it clear the sums are no more than estimates. "The total cost of operations in Afghanistan is not known", it states. The Ministry of Defence told the committee: "It is too early accurately to forecast the cost of UK operations in Libya".
The defence committee revealed that the MoD estimates that military operations in Afghanistan this year will cost more than £4bn.
However, the figures for Afghanistan , and the £260m estimated for Libya - more than half spent on bombs and missiles - are described as "additional costs" of operations to be paid for by the Treasury out its reserves.
The figures do not include what the defence committee describes as "additional costs in terms of training opportunities cancelled or deferred and equipment wear and tear that will eventually have to be met".
The committee added that it was "disappointed" by the MoD's inability to provide information it asked for about some £12bn worth of "write-offs" as a result of equipment, including a fleet of Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and the navy's type 22 frigates, scrapped as part of last year's strategic defence and security review. Asked for a breakdown, it received a reply "which left us little the wiser", the committee said.
It also expressed concern that the armed forces voluntary redundancy programme was over-subscribed and that applications, and even resignations, have been received from individuals who might have achieved "high command".
More than 900 officers and men have applied for redundancy, though the army had asked for just 500 volunteers. The army is also likely to lose a significant number of experienced NCOs.
The committee has asked the MoD to show how it will ensure that the voluntary redundancy programme "does not impact on the future leadership capability and effectiveness of the armed services".
James Arbuthnot, the committee's chairman, said: "In some instances the department appears to be unable or unwilling to provide the kind of detailed information we ask for, notably in respect of the total cost of military operations and the detail of savings proposed. This prevents proper parliamentary scrutiny. We expect these gaps to be filled."
British troops in Afghanistan are to be issued with waterproof "bacteria-zapping socks" designed to help keep their feet dry when wading through ditches and streams, the MoD announced on Thursday.
And in a new addition to their "pelvic protection system", troops will be equipped with "ballistic knee-length shorts" for troops operating lead metal detectors in search for improvised explosive devices.
The figures are contained in a report by the Commons defence committee which makes it clear the sums are no more than estimates. "The total cost of operations in Afghanistan is not known", it states. The Ministry of Defence told the committee: "It is too early accurately to forecast the cost of UK operations in Libya".
The defence committee revealed that the MoD estimates that military operations in Afghanistan this year will cost more than £4bn.
However, the figures for Afghanistan , and the £260m estimated for Libya - more than half spent on bombs and missiles - are described as "additional costs" of operations to be paid for by the Treasury out its reserves.
The figures do not include what the defence committee describes as "additional costs in terms of training opportunities cancelled or deferred and equipment wear and tear that will eventually have to be met".
The committee added that it was "disappointed" by the MoD's inability to provide information it asked for about some £12bn worth of "write-offs" as a result of equipment, including a fleet of Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft, and the navy's type 22 frigates, scrapped as part of last year's strategic defence and security review. Asked for a breakdown, it received a reply "which left us little the wiser", the committee said.
It also expressed concern that the armed forces voluntary redundancy programme was over-subscribed and that applications, and even resignations, have been received from individuals who might have achieved "high command".
More than 900 officers and men have applied for redundancy, though the army had asked for just 500 volunteers. The army is also likely to lose a significant number of experienced NCOs.
The committee has asked the MoD to show how it will ensure that the voluntary redundancy programme "does not impact on the future leadership capability and effectiveness of the armed services".
James Arbuthnot, the committee's chairman, said: "In some instances the department appears to be unable or unwilling to provide the kind of detailed information we ask for, notably in respect of the total cost of military operations and the detail of savings proposed. This prevents proper parliamentary scrutiny. We expect these gaps to be filled."
British troops in Afghanistan are to be issued with waterproof "bacteria-zapping socks" designed to help keep their feet dry when wading through ditches and streams, the MoD announced on Thursday.
And in a new addition to their "pelvic protection system", troops will be equipped with "ballistic knee-length shorts" for troops operating lead metal detectors in search for improvised explosive devices.
