Former British Secretary of State for Defense John Hutton says it is “hard to imagine a worse procurement shambles” than the British Army’s Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) armored vehicle program.
Hutton, appearing before the Iraq Inquiry Jan. 25, says the FRES program was a “pretty grim episode,” underscoring the need for a “shake-up” of how the Defense Ministry goes about procuring equipment.
Hutton was referring in particular to the FRES Utility vehicle procurement debacle. The ministry shelved the procurement at the end of 2008 and shifted focus to the so-called specialist vehicles (SV) element of the FRES program, for which it is now nearing a selection. It also has tried to incorporate failings of the utility vehicle project in managing the SV procurement.
The government-commissioned inquiry is being used to identify lessons from British involvement in the Iraq war and its aftermath.
Problems with FRES — meant to produce a family of armored fighting vehicles — included the inability to “settle on the specification,” along with a “lack of clarity” as to what was required, Hutton says.
The ministry is aiming to select a preferred bidder for the specialist vehicles element of the program in the next couple of months, known as “Recce Block 1.” BAE Systems and General Dynamics are competing for the program.
The ministry’s Investment Approval Board was expected to meet to consider the FRES SV recommendation this week, with its choice then being submitted for ministerial approval.
Around 600 vehicles will be purchased in the first phase of the SV program, worth a total of $3.2 billion.
Along with the SV procurement, the ministry also is nearing a decision on the choice of a manufacturer for its Warrior armored vehicle upgrade program. Taken together, the two programs will shape the future of Britain’s land systems sector.
– Aviation Week
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
For a minute there I thought this was an FCS article. Are we sharing acquisition personnel with the Brits?
Nope, just this Labour Government differing as usual, at one moment one starving the Armed Forces of vital equipment and then wasting billions on AFV's while constantly changing it's mind on what type of vehicle. First we helped develop the Boxer, then we pulled out, then we wanted a vehicle that could fit in a C-130, then a A400M because it's was felt that a smaller vehicle would not be protected against IED's. Then they put together a very expensive consortium to build it. Then they put it on the back burner until we could afford it and at the same time to replace all the other the vehicle we had either had bought like M-RAV's or upgraded like the 432's.
Dont for get the brit chinook disaster.
All military procurement is *fucked up, which is why when a program delivers on time, at cost and at spec, it's considered a minor miracle … it seems our (UK) efforts recently have been even more shambolic than usual … type 45, astute submarines, fres, jsf f-35 (we'll share that with you ;-)), a400, nimrod … the things we seem to be getting right are small scale (individually) and whatw e call UOR – urgent operating request – items, like minimis, ugl for the sa80, 40 gmgs, mraps and supacats (to replace snatch land rovers) – these are fairly specifical demands by the guys on the ground – could there be something in listening to these guys a bit more often, hmmm?
The costs of mega-project procurement on a tiny budget – if it barely works when we in the US throw billions of dollars at Lockheed it's going to be an unmitigated disaster for the UK to try to do the same thing.
Now, we in the US have Secretary Gates and many other heroes of justice working to fix a broken procurement system dominated by a handful of mammoth defense contractors on decadent cost-plus contracts that reward failure to deliver with additional funding. The experience of buying huge amounts of desperately-needed equipment for the War on Terror has demonstrated that procurement does not need to be a difficult, lengthy and horrifically expensive process. I hope something similar happens in Europe, which seems to constantly produce defense procurement disasters that make American ones look mild in comparison. Never-flying A400M, anyone?
put Russia also in this list and India and Switzerland and and…….
The A400M is flying just, the problem with it is that like the Nimrod AEW, they tried to be overambitions and build it in such short time scale. Having Airbus build it was a good idea, the main problem is the engines, the original design called for four TURBOFANS like the C-17, they switched the design for four turboprops, a brand new engine design more powerful than what was available on the market and then have a politically correct consortium design and build it. Consequently due to the problems with the engine development the aircraft is late. But the aircraft design is damned good and once it is in service, it will be a great airlifter and a worthy successor to the C-130.
Sorry just dont see it as a successor to the Herc. The C130 is good at so much and so reliable and more fuel efficent than and jet engined transport i just dont see it.
Add to that the fact that it is always being made better and well….why should we buy the A400M?
Who ever the legal entities on the Gov's side are should be shot- in corporate business, if one company fails to produce adequate equipment on time, there are huge penalties- the Gov's should be following suit. Instead, the failures are rewarded- more funding, tax breaks, etc. You know those CEOs are laughing how stupid the Gov's are- no "little guys" have a chance to break in- they can't supply the demand, or afford the investment- and whenever someone tries to break the mold, one of the big ones throws a fit and a lobbies for a "redo" (USAF Air Tanker replacement).
"for Defence" and not "for Defense". He is British, you know.
Its long been known by those on the inside that Labour's procurement strategies have been diabolical – as with everything they touch domestically, not just military.
for the last 12 years we've seen countless black holes for billions of £££.
The treasury also play a large part in ruining these plans..they did under Brown and they continue to do so under Darling.
The problem with the Herc is that when designed during the Korean War, the vehicles that is was designed to carry were a lot smaller, it can carry pints in other words, however today's military vehicles are a lot bigger, e.g.quarts, the A400M can carry quarts while the Herc can't. Standard C130 can carry 19 tonnes, A400m 37 tonnes as can the Japanese C-X (turbofan powered), C-17 78 tonnes.
I have to agree with Russ, Brown has broke Britain, he failed to effectively and properly fund the Armed Forces and the strain is showing,
The Armored Vehicle groups have a hard time making a reasonable cost & weighttarget. FCS was tracked Vehicles, this FRES is better mine resistant for being 8 wheeled like our stryker. If the A499M does as the requirements stated it would then this could work at one at a time and another Aircraft bringing the kits, for survivability & Armor.