14.1 |
Military equipment (post-conflict)
{{Purchasing new
MOTS [modified-off-the-shelf] vehicles such as to
meet the
Mechanised Infantry APC gap, such as Stryker, “should not
be
considered
further”.
{{It
endorsed the “aspiration” to withdraw Saxon from mechanised
brigades
and take it
out of service “as soon as was practicable”.
•
“The
requirement to improve our PPV capability should be addressed
as
a related
but separate piece of work.”
482.
Reflecting
ECAB’s discussion, Gen Jackson wrote to Lord Drayson,
on
23 January,
inviting him to note the delay in the forecast FRES ISD and that
ECAB had
commissioned
further work on maintaining adequate military
capability.254
483.
Gen Jackson
set out how the FRES programme had failed to keep up with
planned
timescales,
with the earliest ISD being delayed from 2012 to “2015‑2018” as a
result of
the
requirement to meet the threats it would likely face. He described
that conclusion as
“extremely
unpalatable”.
484.
Gen Jackson
wrote that ECAB had concluded that there was “an
urgent
non‑discretionary
requirement to maintain adequate military capability and
protected
mobility”
until FRES came into service, and that there was “a clear moral
responsibility to
do the best
we can to safeguard soldiers’ lives in the interim”. That would
include plans
“to run on
– and upgrade” FV430 and CVR(T) vehicles to fill the
gap.
485.
Lord Drayson’s
Private Office recorded that he had discussed the advice
with
Gen Jackson
on 24 January and was not content to note the
delay.255
Lord
Drayson
viewed:
“… the
suggested slip in (FRES) In Service Date as entirely unacceptable
and, as
agreed,
intends to work with CGS [Chief of the General Staff] and IAB
[Investment
Approval
Board] members over the next months to ensure a way ahead is found
that
meets the
Army’s requirements.”
486.
Lord Drayson
spoke to Mr Bill Jeffrey, MOD Permanent Under Secretary,
on
30 January,
about armoured vehicle capability including those in use on
current
487.
Lord Drayson
told the Inquiry that he had asked Mr Jeffrey:
“… to grip
the FRES situation because I was not content with the proposal to
further
delay the
project and because I was concerned that the MOD was not giving
the
issue of
armoured vehicles sufficient priority.”257
254
Minute CGS
to PS/Min(DP), 23 January 2006, ‘Future Rapid Effects System (FRES)
Fleet Review’.
255
Minute
APS/Minister(DP) to MA/CGS, 24 January 2006, ‘Future Rapid Effects
System (FRES) Fleet
Review’.
256
Minute
DCDS(EC) to PUS [MOD], 3 February 2006, ‘Armoured Vehicle
Capability’.
257
Statement,
15 December 2010, page 5.
81