• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Excelitas Qioptiq banner

BATTLESPACE Updates

   +44 (0)77689 54766
   

  • Home
  • Features
  • News Updates
  • Defence Engage
  • Company Directory
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media Pack 2023

MoD ADMITS THAT FRES HAS TAKEN TOO LONG

May 17, 2007 by

MoD ADMITS THAT FRES HAS TAKEN TOO LONG
By Julian Nettlefold, Editor, BATTLESPACE

12 May 07. The Daily Telegraph reported that Defence ministers have bowed to criticism from MPs and industry and admitted that the award of a £16bn contract for much-needed new vehicles for the Army has taken far too long. The Government promised yesterday that the programme was being accelerated, but rejected claims that political considerations were getting in the way of the Army’s urgent need for the vehicles. In February, a report from the House of Commons defence committee said that the contract for new armoured vehicles, called Future Rapid Effect System (FRES), had been a “sorry story of indecision, constantly changing requirements, and delay.” The committee said that six years after the MoD identified a need for the new vehicles, which would have been invaluable in Iraq and Afghanistan, FRES remained little more than “a concept”. FRES is arguably the UK’s most important military contract and certainly one of the largest. Some of the world’s leading defence companies, including BAE Systems, Boeing and Thales, will compete for it. Firms have already spent millions drawing up plans, and the MoD is having to buy other armoured vehicles as a stop-gap.

Yesterday, in a rare admission of fault, the Government said in a statement: “We accept that the FRES concept phase took too long, primarily due to not adopting early the most appropriate procurement strategy and not adopting early a process to refine and stabilise the requirement. We also accept many of the recommendations made. “The Government said “real progress” was now being made. However, yesterday’s response by the Government still failed to set an in-service date for the vehicles. One defence company source said this was “very disappointing”. The Army wants the new vehicles as soon as possible. However, the Government has indicated that they may not be ready until 2012 at the earliest.

About time, the MoD has at last taken the blame for the FRES mess! However, sources close to BATTLESPACE suggest that a way forward could have been pursued by BAE Systems to get the MoD out of this hole. The possibility was discussed of making an unsolicited bid for the utility and recce variants using existing systems ‘fitted for not with’ which could then be upgraded at a later date with advanced systems. This would have given the Army the protection they required for the battlefield and with Bowman still under development the ability to use the data systems on the battlefield is limited in any event.

Maj. General Bill Rollo was believed to be pro this development as it would give his troops better protection in Iraq, however it was believed to have been overruled by the then FRES supreme Brigadier Ian Rodley.

The utility variant could have been fielded using an advanced Piranha V designation for which BAE had a licence, but, our source suggested that history was repeating itself. In the 1990s GKN Defence stated the development of Warrior 2000. Warrior 2000 was a version of the Warrior which was developed for the Swiss Army requirement. The first prototype was completed in 1998. Improvements included all-welded aluminium hull, increased passive appliqué armour protection, digital fire control system, more powerful engine and a Delco or Land Systems Hägglunds E30 direct electric drive turret with ATK Bushmaster II Mk 44 30mm cannon.

CV90 from Hägglunds was the competitive bid. But with GKN and Hägglunds being from the same Alvis stable, and the Swiss preferring the Warrior 2000, alarm bells rung at Alvis Headquarters as if Warrior won the bid, this would set a trend for Holland to follow resulting in a loss of jobs at Hägglunds and huge redundancies resulting, costing a fortune to Alvis and hence its balance sheet. Thus the Alvis management put its weight and pricing policies behind CV90 which became the winner. This move essentially destroyed the UK’s ability to manufacture and devel

Primary Sidebar

Advertisers

  • qioptiq.com
  • Exensor
  • TCI
  • Visit the Oxley website
  • Visit the Viasat website
  • Blighter
  • SPECTRA
  • Britbots logo
  • Faun Trackway
  • Systematic
  • CISION logo
  • ProTEK logo
  • businesswire logo
  • ProTEK logo
  • ssafa logo
  • Atkins
  • IEE
  • EXFOR logo
  • DSEi
  • sibylline logo
  • Team Thunder logo
  • Commando Spirit - Blended Scoth Whisy
  • Comtech logo
  • GoExporting logo
  • Supercat logo
  • Galvion logo
Hilux Military Raceday Novemeber 2023 Chepstow SOF Week 2023

Contact Us

BATTLESPACE Publications
Old Charlock
Abthorpe Road
Silverstone
Towcester NN12 8TW

+44 (0)77689 54766

BATTLESPACE Technologies

An international defence electronics news service providing our readers with up to date developments in the defence electronics industry.

Recent News

  • PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

    June 2, 2023
    Read more
  • EXHIBITIONS AND CONFERENCES

    June 2, 2023
    Read more
  • MANAGEMENT ON THE MOVE

    June 2, 2023
    Read more

Copyright BATTLESPACE Publications © 2002–2023.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue to use the website, we'll assume you're ok with this.   Read More  Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT