FRES "Fiasco"

I've only just got round to reading the Defence Committee's Defence Equipment 2009 report published in February.... and now wish I hadn't.

There have been numerous articles about the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) in recent months and most of them have been saying what a disaster the whole project was turning into. The Defence Committee's report, however, makes even more depressing reading. I quote the FRES summary:

"The FRES programme has been a fiasco. In February 2007 we concluded that the MoD’s attempts to meet its medium-weight vehicle requirement had been a sorry story of indecision, changing requirements and delay. Two years later the story is, incredibly, even worse. We find it extraordinary that, some seven months after announcing General Dynamics UK as the provisional preferred bidder for the FRES Utility Vehicle, the MoD has announced that priority is now to be given to the FRES Scout Vehicle.
Whilst we recognise that the MoD’s equipment requirements need to reflect changing threats, that is no excuse for the MoD’s behaviour in this programme; they have wasted their and industry’s time and money.
The FRES Utility Vehicle programme was, from the outset, poorly conceived and managed. The MoD must work out what its requirements are for medium-weight armoured vehicles and identify lessons from the saga of the FRES Utility Vehicle programme. In its response to our Report, we expect the MoD to set out the cost to date of the FRES Utility Vehicle programme and how it plans to take forward this programme in the future."

This is the MoD's major project for the Army with over 3,000 armoured vehicles involved! What are they playing at? What's also really galling is that the project has been cocked up and delayed for so long now that it's sure to fall victim to Mr Prudence's budget cuts.

Defence Committee: Defence Equipment 2009
General Dynamics UK: FRES microsite
Army Technology: FRES

Defence Committee report on UAVs contribution to ISTAR

The House of Commons Defence Committee has just published the results of its inquiry into Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and their contribution to Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability. The report is both comprehensive and incomprehensible (to me anyway). I think it basically says that the capabilities of UAVs have increased significantly in recent years and they are collecting increasing amounts of ISTAR information for dissemination to commanders on the ground (in Iraq and Afghanistan).

The three main concerns raised by the Committee are

• The current shortage of ground operators (48%) and specialist intelligence analysts (18%) could undermine the potential of UAVs. There are "substantial deficits in the number of UAV operators in the Army and the position may worsen when the Watchkeeper UAV system enters service at the end of the decade. .... The MoD must address the manning deficits in these areas in order to gain the maximum value from its current and future UAV systems,"
• Although UAVs are now providing British troops with "battle-winning" electronic surveillance capabilities, the MoD was slow to appreciate their potential and has had to buy in UAVs (Reapers, Desert Hawks and Hermes 450s ) as a "stop-gap filler" while it awaits the delivery of its new Watchkeeper system in 2010. That these purchases have been made through Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) underlines their unplanned nature. "The MoD must push forward with its planned improvements so that our Armed Forces can continue to achieve information superiority over the enemy."
• It also warned that the MoD needed to improve the way the material gathered by the UAVs was processed and disseminated to commanders on the ground, with one major programme already experiencing delays.
  

Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth said UAVs had proved to be an invaluable asset giving our forces the vital information they need to stay one step ahead of the enemy. "Whether it be targeting Taliban or supporting troops on patrol, their ability to feed back images and videos in real time, loiter over and survey an area for enemy activity means they are an invaluable asset for our ground commanders. They have a crucial role to play in future operations and we will continue to invest in them."

Two interesting innovations in the Robotic Arms Race (RAR) mentioned by the Committee are

• Autonomous UAVs. The development of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) will provide UAVs with battlefield autonomy. "Using on and off board sensors to gain situational awareness of the local battlespace and tactical picture, the autonomous system will then prioritise the vehicle actions taking into account weapon and fuel states, target priorities and deconfliction (?) with other air operations."
• Armed UAVs. The MoD has recently used a Reaper UAV to fire weapons during current military operations in Afghanistan. DEFCOM has asked the MoD to look into the impact armed UAVs could have on future manned aircraft (Joint Strike Fighter). It also asked that the MoD sets out the broad ethical and legal issues which arise from using military UAVs and how it is seeking to address these; whether the MoD is best qualified to do this is debateable.
  

Link> DEFCOM: The contribution of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to ISTAR capability
Link> Armed Forces International: Potential of British Military UAVs Undermined: MPs

Defence Committee report on Recruiting and Retaining Armed Forces personnel

The House of Commons Defence Committee has published its report on Recruiting and Retaining Armed Forces personnel. The report contained few surprises - well-known concerns were re-iterated and in the main the MoD was encouraged to expand on and improve their exisiting initiatives. The Committee found:

• There are serious skill shortages in certain trades and these “pinch points” continue to increase. These trades should be targeted in recruitment campaigns.
• The Armed Forces are overstretched given the resources currently available. The Committee found that the MoD was being complacent and that there is likely to be a “serious weakness in the future capability of the Armed Forces”.
• Failure to meet Harmony Guides is having a negative impact on retention. The current level of operations continues to put Service personnel and their families under considerable strain – need for greater stability and more advance warning of deployments.
• The MoD could do more to raise the general public’s perceptions of the Armed Forces and to counter negative media coverage. The suggestions emanating from the National Recognition Study should be implemented. Engaging with civilian society is “central to ensuring the future success of the Armed Forces”.
• The good work the MoD has been doing working with schools should be expanded particularly with regard to school visits, outreach and promotion of cadet forces. The school recruitment programme needs to be reviewed and further education incentives should be offered to improve recruitment.
• The “recruiting environment” needs to adapt to the changes in the socio-economic environment - the targeting of ethnic minorities, women, older people and EU migrants and the provision of more flexible career structures together with embracing the challenges of diversity (here we go again!) to ensure the “long term credibility and legitimacy” of the Armed Forces.
• More information is wanted on the success or otherwise of the “One Army Recruiting” strategy (integrated Regular and Territorial Army recruiting).
• Initial training programmes need to be reviewed to ensure fewer recruits drop out and that more pass - i.e. standards need to be lowered.
• The improvements the MoD has already made in the operational welfare package need to be expanded. The valuable work carried out by the voluntary sector needs to be better coordinated and given coherence. MoD needs to develop a welfare package that responds to the unique circumstances of Volunteer and Regular Reservists.
• The £5billion (I thought it was £8billion) planned refurbishment and upgrading of service accommodation needs to be pushed forward. The standard of maintenance repairs and level of customer service continues to fall below expectations – a customer-centric approach needed.
• The overall basic pay package does not appear to be a major cause of Armed Forces personnel leaving the Services. Financial Retention Incentives may be expedient in the short-term but may divert investment away from addressing the underlying causes of worsening retention.
• Formalizing the Military Covenant would be counter-productive as it would become a political instrument rather than an instrument to protect the interests of men and women in our Armed Forces. As such, it would divert attention from what is important: ensuring Armed Forces personnel receive what they are entitled to.
• The MoD should consider more constructively the possible benefits which may be gained from an independent Armed Forces Federation.

Interestingly at the top of list of conclusions and recommendations is:
"The use of web fora provide us with an opportunity to hear the experiences of a wide range of current and former Service personnel and their families. We value this interaction. We welcome the Minister’s support for our ability to communicate freely with the Service community. However, this is the second time we have had concerns that the MoD has attempted to undermine a web forum that we have hosted. We look to the MoD to demonstrate its support for our interaction with the Service community by actively promoting web fora we set up for future inquiries." This doesn't sound very politically sensitive of the MoD.

Link> Defence Committee
Link> Defence Committee Report: Recruiting and retaining Armed Forces personnel
Link> The Guardian: Pressure on armed forces unprecedented, say MPs
Link> The Independent: Constant tours of duty leading to exodus of officers
Link> Whitehall Pages: MoD responds to House of Commons Defence Committee

DEFCOM: Recruitment & Retention report [1]