Previous page | Contents | Next page
14.1  |  Military equipment (post-conflict)
494.  Mr Jeffrey promised a progress report after the DMB in March, stating:
“My aim is to put the Secretary of State and you in a position to make a clear
early public statement on FRES and plans for armoured vehicle capability in the
intervening period before FRES comes into service, to give confidence that we are
addressing the issue responsibly.”
495.  The MOD has not been able to provide a complete record of the DMB meeting held
on 9 March, but the summary of conclusions makes no specific reference to FRES.260
496.  The summary of the record did state that the DMB had concluded “that there was
a stronger continuing operational requirement for FV430 overhaul and upgrade than
had been assumed in STP05”. It was decided that sufficient additional resources should
be provided to cover this cost in 2006‑2007 and the longer‑term requirement would be
reviewed in STP/EP07.
497.  ECAB met on 16 March.261
498.  The minutes of the meeting stated that Lord Drayson’s:
“… visit to Land had gone well, and the Minister understood the importance of FRES;
the implications of the new ISD [In Service Date]; the need for an interim solution to
plug the gap … and the requirement to improve Protected Patrol Vehicles (PPVs).”
499.  On 17 March, Mr Jeffrey wrote to Lord Drayson with an update on armoured
vehicle capability following the DMB’s discussion of the subject on 9 March.262
500.  Mr Jeffrey stated that the discussion was “set in the context of the wider financial
position in 2006/07 and the other demands on our resources; including the desire to
bring forward the buy of the 5th C17, higher fuel prices … and a range of other matters”.
501.  The DMB view was that “the majority of issues should be resolved in the wider
EP/STP planning round, but that there were grounds for taking some decisions early”.
That included replacing Saxon and the overhaul of the FV430 series of vehicles “to
provide a better capability for mechanised infantry”. The resources for the conversion
of vehicles for use on Op TELIC would be sought through a UOR.
502.  Mr Jeffrey said that the DMB had discussed the “high priority” of ensuring
FRES was delivered “as early as possible”. Lt Gen Fulton was tasked to prioritise
the requirement for FRES funding in 2006/07 in the context of “other capability
requirements, and any other cost pressures on the Equipment Programme” in 2006/07.
503.  Other issues relating to armoured vehicle capability were to be taken forward
within STP/EP07.
260  Minutes, 9 March 2006, Defence Management Board meeting.
261  Minutes, 16 March 2006, Executive Committee of the Army Board meeting.
262  Minute PS/PUS [MOD] to Min(DP), 17 March 2006, ‘Armoured Vehicle Capability – DMB Decisions’.
83
Previous page | Contents | Next page