The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
27 October
2004 – A Statement
of Requirement (SOR) for all three projects was
raised,
including
the number of vehicles required.
21 February
2005 – A revised
SOR for a Type B vehicle was raised as a result of
funding
allocated
through the Equipment Programme.
7 July
2005 – The
Investment Approvals Board (IAB) approved a business case
to
upgrade the
remaining Snatch Land Rovers to the latest variant but cautioned
that it had
still not
seen any operational analysis to support a way
forward.
November
2005 – ECAB
discussed concerns about the state of protected mobility
for
UK forces.
January
2006 – ECAB decided
to approach Lord Drayson with concerns about the
armoured
vehicle fleet following a meeting that had focused on further
delays to the
FRES programme.
3 March
2006 – A USUR and
business case for the first tranche of Type B
expeditionary
Vector
vehicles was submitted. Those vehicles were intended for deployment
to
Afghanistan.
26 June
2006 – Mr Browne
announced an armoured vehicle review.
5 July
2006 – Lord Drayson
sought clear confirmation from Lt Gen Houghton as to
whether
there was a requirement for a medium weight armoured
PPV.
7 July
2006 – Lt Gen
Houghton confirmed the requirement for a medium weight
PPV.
Lord
Drayson sought further advice that same day about the number of
vehicles
necessary
to meet current operational requirements.
19 July
2006 – Lt Gen
Houghton produced the USUR for a medium weight PPV.
24 July
2006 – Mr Browne
announced the outcome of the review.
33.
The Inquiry
recognises that, during the period covered by its Terms of
Reference,
there were
a number of attempts to improve the process through which
equipment
requirements
were identified and articulated.
34.
Attempts to
make improvements to the process began in 2005.
35.
In February
2005, an Equipment Capability (EC) branch was created in
theatre.
It enhanced
communication between those in need of new capabilities and those
who
helped to
articulate the requirements, although there was some lack of
clarity regarding
the EC
cell’s precise role.
36.
In November
2006, Lt Gen Houghton recognised that the UK needed “to
improve
our
processes for identifying the EC dimension of emerging theatre
CONOPS [concept
of
operations] which lay in the domain of the early years of the EP
[Equipment
Programme]
rather than in the UOR process.”14
14
Minute CJO
to MA/VCDS, 9 November 2006, ‘Emerging Capability
Requirements’.
234