The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
programme.422
It asked
the Government to set out how the acquisition of Mastiff
vehicles
for Iraq
and Afghanistan had impacted on the FRES requirement.
806.
In response,
the MOD stated that there was “no impact on the FRES
programme
resulting
from the procurement of Mastiff”.423
The
department had “a coherent two track
approach”
to AFVs which made “a clear distinction between the urgent, short
term need
for
Protected Patrol Vehicles, such as Mastiff, designed for peace
support operations”
and AFVs
needed to “provide an effective FRES capability across the full
spectrum of
future
operations”. The MOD stated that Vector and Mastiff were designed
to address
the risks
faced by service personnel in the short term; FRES was always seen
as a
longer‑term
requirement.
807.
Sir Peter
Spencer told the Inquiry that there had been a difficulty in
specifying a
requirement
for PPVs as the threat developed; and that “one of the major
problems the
Army had
had for over a decade was deciding what it wanted its new fleet of
armoured
fighting
vehicles to be”.424
808.
When asked
about the procurement strategy for PPVs, Sir Peter referred to
the
FRES
programme: “ … a hugely ambitious programme which was never going
to be
delivered
in this decade … There were very difficult requirements stated for
mobility and
protection
and weight.”425
809.
The Inquiry
asked Sir Peter whether the issues with FRES had made it
harder
to deal
with PPVs. He replied:
“… the
difficulty became in the amounts of money which were available and
if you
were going
to use money from the capital equipment programme to deal with
the
short term
… then that had a fratricidal effect on your ability to move the
FRES
810.
Lt Gen Fulton
told the Inquiry that FRES and the replacement for Snatch
were
“two
completely different questions”.427
He said
that “to put something in” to the Defence
programme,
“something ha[d] to come out”; the resources had to be balanced
out.
Lt Gen Fulton
did not think that created a reluctance to give a Snatch
replacement
a high priority.
422
Tenth
Report of the House of Commons Defence Committee, Session 2007‑08,
Defence Equipment
2008, HC
295.
423
Seventh
Special Report from the House of Commons Defence Committee, Session
2007‑08, Defence
Equipment
2008: Government response to the Committee’s Tenth Report of
Session 2007‑08, HC
555.
424
Public
hearing, 26 July 2010, pages 28‑29.
425
Public
hearing, 26 July 2010, page 41.
426
Public
hearing, 26 July 2010, pages 49‑50.
427
Public
hearing, 27 July 2010, pages 70‑72.
138