Previous page | Contents | Next page
6.3  |  Military equipment (pre-conflict)
329.  ACM Pledger wrote:
“No strategic issues, that would deny UK the option to conduct a military campaign,
arose within the UOR/Operational Sustainability staffing, hence it has not been
raised at COS(O) by CDL or DCDS(EC). However, regular briefing has occurred
through the established DCMO [Defence Crisis Management Organisation] process
(Iraq Stocktakes and through SPG); PJHQ briefings (both at CJO’s Jt Comd’s
Seminars and through the range of staff level planning meetings, which includes
FLC representation). These briefings repeatedly flagged the consequences of
defining force packages without the full knowledge of the impact of the associated
logistic and capability enhancements on the basic plan.”
330.  ACM Pledger added that Adm Boyce “should feel assured” that the DLO was
“wholly focused” on its delivery of UORs and would “continue to make every effort to
synchronise the delivery of these equipments to theatre in a timely manner”.
331.  Lord Bach chaired his first meeting about UORs on 27 January.157 The points
recorded from the introductory discussion included:
Given that “authority fully to engage industry had only been received on
2nd December, the time scales were challenging.”
The high priority requirements for Packages 0-2 were “capable of being met by
28th February”. The “key risks” were now the UK’s ability to “deliver, fit and train
on UOR equipment whilst the force was deploying to or in theatre”. In respect to
Packages 0-2, these risks were considered “manageable”.
The compression of timescales and expansion of Package 3 meant an
“increased risk that package 3 UORs would not be delivered before operations
commenced”. None of the resultant shortfalls were assessed as being a
“showstopper” but “we would only be clear of the operational implications once
detailed plans had been worked up”.
“[W]hatever the operational significance of delays in delivering UORs”, it was
expected that media would focus on “equipment shortcomings”; being well
prepared to win the “presentational argument was vital”. That was not just
to preserve the MOD’s reputation, but was “a key aspect of securing and
preserving public support for the whole enterprise”.
A “key question for the future” was why the forces “were not better prepared for
the kind of operations now in prospect”, given the conclusions of the SDR about
the likelihood of operations in the Middle East. The UK “needed to be more
intelligent” about its holdings of certain long-term lead items such as desert
clothing, NBC filters and COLPRO, and about “the extent to which equipment
was capable of operating at a range of environmental conditions”.
157  Minute PS/Minister(DP) to MA/DCDS(EC), 27 January 2003, ‘Iraq: Op TELIC UORs’.
51
Previous page | Contents | Next page