What a pity then that more of the new equipment has not been supplied by British companies, with home

grown and world-beating skill and engineering – and which support UK jobs

are some examples of new equipment which has been far less effective – and in some cases, plain downright inadequate. Let’s look at some of the UOR Land Systems purchases – which for some reason, seem to have been given names more usually heard at Crufts dog show. Anyone with a leisure interest in field sports (and there are a lot of those in the military) will know the instinctive characteristics of a Springer at heel behind a line of guns. Contrast its canine capability with that of the army’s latest ‘dune- buggy’ of the same name. It was supposed to provide forces with a nimble platform to carry kit in – and, if necessary, casi-vac out. It would have significant mobility, good altitude performance (a hint of where it might be going) and the customary big payload for size of vehicle. Allegedly, according to chaps who have interfaced with it in theatre, it is being used typically to run about 800 metres from the entrance of a Forward Operating Base (FOB) to and from waiting aircraft. That could have something to do with the performance of the vehicle – which has two-wheel drive – not the all-wheel-drive identified in the requirement. It has a modest, naturally aspirated diesel

engine which gasps for air as soon as the atmosphere gets a little rarefied. Maybe the air was a little rarefied when the decision was made to buy it? According to G4’s enquiries, the vehicle was not trialed via the usual vehicle testing channels – and its cost at in service date (ISD) was significantly above equivalent packages available from manufacturers of vehicles in the same class. But the problems are not exclusive. If the right decisions had been made at the time, we could have avoided the shortages in operational helicopters… or the excessive delays with the JSF programme… or the well-catalogued Nimrod saga… and we won’t even mention the FRES word. The fact that Afghanistan is significantly land locked is probably the only reason why we are not hearing about as many equipment issues from the Royal Navy – although they have had their own fair share. It is worrying to note that, since 1997, over sixty RN and RFA vessels have been decommissioned – and only a dozen or so new ones have been ordered – that is until the recent pre- election burst of shipyard job-saving announcements.

Is anybody accountable? Probably

not. It is a terrible indictment of our national defence capability, pride and reputation on the world stage that many now see ‘the system’ as accurately portrayed in an omnibus edition of ‘Yes Minister’, seasoned with those remarkably

candid interviews with George Parr (the mythical mandarin or well scrambled egged officer of Bird & Fortune).

In the words of the school report, the SDR must open with the phrase “Promising, could do much better”. Our next political masters have a duty to the nation – let alone to our troops – to look at the executive function which runs UK Limited. Our most recent government has grown about a million jobs across the public sector during its watch. It has handed government departments (not always the right ones) purses filled and overflowing, which have allowed public sector expenditure to rise to a frightening 52% of GDP. No wonder we have a deficit.

So part of the change management

process that must now follow, has to include the introduction of the same level of commercial accountability in government and public service as exists in industry and business. The framework within which that can move forward is probably there already – if the findings of Bernard Gray’s report are embraced – indeed as many of them are already accepted. It is then down to robust and transparent implementation.

Ainsley Fraser

The Navistar MXT on which the Husky is based

40

G4 DEFENCE Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48