14.1 |
Military equipment (post-conflict)
replacement
to Snatch was in part caused by their concern over the likelihood
of
FRES
budgets being cut to fund a Snatch replacement
vehicle.
“The
impression I gained was the delivery of FRES by 2012 was a higher
priority
for the
Army than finding funding for Snatch from the core equipment
budget.
I was
concerned that the Army were focusing on the Vector … for
Afghanistan and
upgrading
the FV430 (Bulldog) and that no requirement had been identified
for
a new
medium weight protected patrol vehicle.
“The push
to replace Snatch or to procure a new medium weight PPV so
that
commanders
would not have to use Snatch came from Ministers, not the military
…”
820.
General
Sir Michael Walker, CDS from 2003 to 2006, told the Inquiry
that there
was no
difficulty in securing funding for Iraq UORs but that the spending
round in 2004
threatened
longer‑term “big ticket items”.437
He said
that there was “a list of stuff” where
decisions
had to be made but he could not recall what was
included.
821.
Gen Walker
told the Inquiry that the procurement process for the
FRES
programme
had been “horrid” and a “sorry saga of debates and delays; delays
because
of the lack
of money”:
“… it was
not as advanced as many other projects, it seemed to me to get
delayed
and delayed
and delayed, time after time, because the funding, and … if we
had
gone with
it originally, we might well have saved ourselves quite a lot of
pain and
agony and
death by having a vehicle that we could have used in the
appropriate
circumstances
in places like Afghanistan.”438
822.
Lord Drayson
was explicit that the decision to fund the Mastiff programme
as
a UOR
had been an important factor in reaching agreement on the
requirement for
a medium
weight PPV:
“There was
concern that the FRES programme would be delayed or lose
resources
as a result
of buying a new vehicle. Ministers ensured that the funding … came
from
a new UOR
funded separately by the Treasury thus ensuring that the purchase
…
had no
detrimental impact on the FRES project.”439
823.
Lord Drayson
wrote that there was resistance from within the MOD to
reprioritisation
of the core Equipment Programme to support current
operations:
“… because
the Services were concerned that their long term programmes
would
be
cannibalised and lose funding to short term operational needs … it
was quite
unusual for
core equipment funding to be redirected to operational needs. This
only
happened
when the military had a strong desire for it – for example with
Vector …”
437
Public
hearing, 1 February 2010, pages 42‑43.
438
Public
hearing, 1 February 2010, pages 48‑49.
439
Statement,
15 December 2010, pages 6‑7.
141