Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
asked Brig Moore to identify the options to fill this gap until FRES was able to enter
service.
476.  In considering whether PPVs could offer a solution, Brig Moore outlined the
differences between the FRES APC requirement and PPV capabilities:
“… PPV [sic] has a limited degree of protection and mobility, and is designed around
a patrol mission of up to 8 hours. These vehicles are not organic to units, but are
issued in theatre as required. Originally designed as a specialist NI capability, the
requirement for PPV in all theatres is becoming enduring …”
477.  Brig Moore wrote that the in service PPV capability was provided by Snatch
vehicles, which were being upgraded and completion was expected by August 2006.
The Vector programme would deliver “about 80” vehicles. The original requirement had
been for 153 but “further risk” had been taken “for reasons of affordability”. Vector would
not replace Snatch and its protection levels would be “less than Saxon”.
478.  Brig Moore stated:
“Whilst new PPVs cannot fill the APC gap, they may help to mitigate its impact,
especially on operations in the short term. The longer term plan for PPVs is currently
being scoped by DCI(A) [Brig Inshaw].”
479.  Brig Moore concluded that the “most effective way” to address the issue was by
“a combination of upgrading and managing in‑service AVs”. That would have an impact
on the AV fleet, but further work was necessary to “confirm the most operationally
appropriate and cost effective mix” and to assess how much risk could be carried.
480.  Gen Jackson stated at the meeting that the Army was “disappointed by the
conclusions” of the review, “but it was vital that ECAB understood how such conclusions
had been reached and the implications for the in‑service armoured vehicle fleet”.253
481.  ECAB agreed:
“FRES was the Army’s highest priority and that, given the future threat, the
requirement was fully justified. It would be important to get the DMB engaged in
the whole Armoured Vehicle Fleet issue so that it was seen as a priority in terms
of resources.”
The FRES Fleet Review Outcome Paper with some amendments, including that:
{{The programme should “aim to achieve the earliest possible” ISD and
full operating capability by “challenging traditional acquisition models and
seeking an incremental introduction of capability”.
{{It would be necessary to update and upgrade FV430 and CVR(T) and
replace Saxon.
253  Minutes, 19 January 2006, Executive Committee of the Army Board meeting.
80
Previous page | Contents | Next page