The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
463.
In introducing
his paper to ECAB on 20 June, Maj Gen Rollo said it “was
a
realistic
approach which recognised that requests for extra investment might
require
the identification
of compensating reductions”.245
464.
Gen Jackson
said that ECAB was content with the priorities listed
and
“emphasised
that war‑fighting must continue to determine the Army’s
equipment
priorities”.
He said that there should be “a sharper focus on FRES, emphasising
the
delivery of
the programme”.
465.
At the ECAB
meeting on 22 September, Gen Jackson explained that,
whilst
progress on
the FRES programme continued, “he feared a slip in the
ISD”.246
That
“would be
very damaging to the Army”. The minutes record that
Gen Dannatt “reinforced
this
point”. ECAB would “need to make strong representations” to the
Chief of Defence
Procurement
and DCDS(EC).
466.
On 14
November, ECAB discussed a report of the Army’s performance
between
1 July
and 30 September.247
467.
Maj Gen Rollo
had produced a paper on the areas of
under‑performance,
which
reported that Gen Dannatt had emphasised “an equipment issue
of immediate
concern”.248
Gen Dannatt
was quoted as saying:
“Our patrol
vehicles routinely deployed on current operations … are vulnerable
and
we are
suffering casualties. Snatch has poor mobility, inadequate
protection and is
unreliable
due largely to its hard use. We are working with PJHQ to address
vehicle
and ECM
issues and to develop TTPs, but there is a need to bring a clarity
to the
requirement
for protected patrol vehicles. In addition, I am concerned at the
lack
of [Type] B
vehicle protection more generally. I recognise that it may take
time to
deliver a
solution, but we face the prospect of continuing operations in Iraq
into 2008
as well as
in Afghanistan.”
468.
Maj Gen Rollo’s
asked ECAB to note Gen Dannatt’s concern and
“consider
whether any
additional measures can bring greater clarity to vehicle
protection
requirements”.
469.
The minutes of
the ECAB meeting on 14 November do not record any
specific
discussion
of Gen Dannatt’s concerns at the meeting but the subject of
protected
mobility
was discussed more broadly.249
245
Minutes, 20
June 2005, Executive Committee of the Army Board
meeting.
246
Minutes, 22
September 2005, Executive Committee of the Army Board
meeting.
247
Minutes, 14
November 2005, Executive Committee of the Army Board
meeting.
248
Paper ACGS,
10 November 2005, ‘The Army Second Quarter Performance Report AP
05/Army Risk
Register
Discussion Paper’.
249
Minutes, 14
November 2005, Executive Committee of the Army Board
meeting.
78