Meet the Flintstones

From last Sunday's BBC Panorama programme, on the Army in southern Iraq, we learn that our land forces have been dubbed The Flintstones by the Americans, reflecting the antiquated equipment operated by them.

This is very much the preoccupation of the House of Commons Defence Committee, which is due to report tomorrow on "The Army's Requirement for Armoured Vehicles: the FRES programme". This is its idea of an inquiry on the FRES system, announced last October.

Already, we have seen one tranche of oral evidence and the signs that the Committee will come up with anything useful are looking extremely doubtful. We will, however, look carefully at the report when it is available, and the responses to it.

For the moment, however, it is interesting to look over the Atlantic at the US version and note that, while the British system has effectively come down to a matter of a family of armoured vehicles with network capability, in their own Future Combat System, the Americans are still sticking to the original concepts, complete with some high performance unmanned ground vehicles which look set to transform land warfare.

Despite the development of these systems, even the US military – with its far greater wealth and resources - is aware of the need to balance the modernisation of the future force with equipping the current force.

Hence, four of the 18 systems in the FCS programme have been deferred and the fielding rate for the system's prototype brigade combat teams, operating the Stryker APCs has been stretched out over five more years. Altogether, changes to the programme are set to reduce the budget by $3.4 billion over the next five financial years.

On the other hand, funds have been redirected in the programme to buy some more of the UAV classes, the prototypes of which have been successful in Iraq, and work on some light robotic systems has been brought forward. Furthermore, instead of waiting for the "big bang", some of the technology developed for FCS is to be introduced incrementally into the field, as and when it becomes available, particularly some of the intelligence-gathering and surveillance sensors.

That still puts the US programme cost at $162 billion with another $2 billion slated for "additional construction", which dwarfs the £14 billion to be spent on the British FRES system.

Therein is shown up the great divide. Despite equal or greater pressure to balance the modernisation of the future force with equipping the current force, the MoD is showing no signs whatsoever of cutting FRES funding to help pay for current needs. In fact, the reverse seems to be happening, with FRES ring-fenced while troops in theatre continue to live up to their enforced "Flintstone" image.

COMMENT THREAD

Short-changing the Army

The series of "Booker is wrong" letters to the Sunday Telegraph, attempting to rebut his pieces on the Europeanisation of the UK armed forces, continues apace. This week, we have Andrew Simpson of Bath, who offers what must qualify as the most bizarre contribution to date.

Under the heading, "I helped pick the Panther", Simpson reveals that he was formerly the MoD desk officer who initiated the Future Command and Liaison programme, which resulted in the procurement of the Panther vehicle (illustrated right), but he also tells us he is currently a consultant to Iveco – the builders of the vehicle.

Mr Simpson now feels so strongly about his employer's product, that he writes to tell us that he "cannot allow the gross errors of fact in Christopher Booker's article on defence procurement to go unchallenged." He is, he tells us, "the only person to have been intimately involved in this programme from initiation to contract award."

With such splendid qualifications, Simpson then takes Booker to task for referring to his employer's product as being "obsolescent". "Nothing could be further from the truth," he asserts. "Development of the base vehicle was started by Iveco as recently as 1999. It is as close to a state-of-the-art vehicle as is currently available, featuring a highly innovative protection system." Before dwelling on this specific point, it is as well to acquaint ourselves with what this "state-of-the art" Panther is replacing.

Firstly, it will take over close combat reconnaissance from the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (Tracked) (CVR(T)) series, better known as the Scorpion/Sabre series (illustrated left), vehicles which have done good service but are now urgently in need of replacement.

But, it is also being supplied to combat engineers, as their reconnaisssance and liaison vehicle, replacing the venerable but perfectly servicable FV 432, an example of which can be seen on the left. From the illustration can be seen the kind of kit that engineers carry into battle, and this is – theoretically – a ten-man vehicle.

The "state-of-the-art" Panther is, at best a five-seater and, in order to fit the radio, one or two seats have to be removed. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the Panther is already believed to be suffering from space constraints and the Engineers are rumoured to want a trailer.

None of this, of course, is mentioned by Simpson, who focuses on Booker's reference to the US up-armoured Humvee, which could have been bought for £100,000 as against Simpson's employer’s £413,000 Panther. "Humvee-based designs were considered and rejected by the MoD because that vehicle lacks the necessary protection and reliability for the role," writes Simpson. "Indeed, the Humvee itself is widely recognised as being obsolescent.”

Needless to say, Simpson misses the point. It is not so much the design of the Humvee or even the Panther which is obsolescent. It is the concept – the idea of having a general purpose vehicle to carry out a wide range of different tasks. We already showed you one possible alternative to the Humvee, the M1117 Guardian - which even at twice the price slated is still cheaper than the Panther. But the proposed replacement for the CVR(T) series should actually look something like the Sika Combat Vehicle (pictured above).

This is the fruit of the US Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS)/UK Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) programme - a joint US-UK venture, originated in 1996, with an in-service date of 2007.

In February 2000, however, the project was cancelled when the US Congress shifted funding from the FSCS to a more ambitious, all-embracing concept known as the Future Combat System (FCS). The British government could have continued with the project but chose not to, writing off an expenditure of £131 million. So, while the US continued its development, the MoD issued a specification which led to its purchase of the Panther.

Interestingly, when the MoD came to shortlist the contenders for the contract, the Pather was not included in the selection. The Iveco vehicle was only entered after the short-list had been announced, at the insistence of the MoD, which then went on to select it as the winner, despite cheaper and probably better contenders, not least the South-African-built RG31, used by the US forces and £124,000 cheaper than the Panther.

Whichever way you look at it, the Army has been short-changed, and so has the taxpayer. Still, there is always a silver lining – at least Mr Simpson has got a nice little earner with the winner of the contract he helped to award.

For our latest report, see here.

COMMENT THREAD