Defence In The Media: Drayson Responds To FRES Criticism

UK Ministry of Defence, Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, has responded to criticism of his recent announcement on the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) on a comment website. The full text of Lord Drayson's response reads: 
 
“Your recent post on the FRES utility vehicle, titled, ‘Not fit for purpose’, was long on assertion and short on fact. 
 
“You claim that the three candidate vehicle designs the MoD has selected have already been rejected by the Army as “lacking development potential”. That is simply not true. We have always been clear that a current Off-The-Shelf vehicle would not meet out needs. 
 
“But the vehicles we have chosen are not Off-The-Shelf vehicles. They are designs which are currently in development to provide new models within existing families of vehicles. I am sure you agree that it would make no sense to invent a new vehicle from scratch. The designs we will look at in the trials this summer take proven vehicles, and evolve them to the next level to have the capacity, mobility, ability to upgrade through life, and, above all, the level of protection the Army need. That is why the Army and procurement officials chose them. And that is why I approved it. 
 
“Yes, the Boxer was a programme the MoD pulled out of when it was known as the MRAV programme. We took that decision in 2002 in light of the requirement at the time. We have since reviewed the FRES requirement in light of recent operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. Force protection in theatre now has a higher priority than strategic deployability – I don’t think anyone would argue with that view. 
 
“When the situation changes our procurement process must be capable of responding to that change. It would make no sense to have excluded Boxer from consideration for FRES because of a decision taken against a fundamentally different requirement. The priority is to get the best solution for the Army, and that is why Boxer will take part in the trials. 
 
“The level of protection is the top priority for FRES, but it remains a requirement that it be deployable by the A400M. Yes, it will not be transportable by C130. But the balance of our air transport fleet when FRES enters service will be the larger, more capable A400M and C17. It would make no sense to compromise on the armour (and therefore weight) of the FRES vehicle, so that it can deploy on what by that point will only represent a minority of our strategic airlift capability. 
 
“I’m not going to go into the details of the protection FRES will have in a public forum. I’m not prepared to endanger soldiers lives in that manner. But to suggest that we are ignoring the threats we face in Iraq and Afghanistan today when we set the requirement for our future vehicles is wrong. And the idea that taking into account the full range of threats FRES will be less well protected than the patrol vehicles you list (such as the Mastiff) is also wrong. 
 
“Finally, let’s all be clear that FRES is neither a protected patrol vehicle nor a replacement for Warrior. We have introduced the new Mastiff and Vector vehicles, which are operating very successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan as Protected Patrol Vehicles. The Mastiff demonstrates that we can respond effectively and rapidly to requirements: the first of the 108 vehicles was specified, procured, built and delivered in 23 weeks. And they are on operations and saving lives. 
 
We are also looking at the longer term requirement for a Future Medium Protected Patrol Vehicle. You suggest that there remains a requirement for the ‘heavy’ capability provided by Warrior and that we should be looking at upgrading the existing vehicles. I agree. 
 
That’s why there is a separate, funded programme to sustain and upgrade the capability provided by this vehicle – the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme. 
 
FRES will not be funded at the expense of making the necessary upgrades to the Army’s existing vehicles.”