Liam Fox is getting rather annoyed with the Government, industry and MoD for rushing to place orders for, amongst others the FRES SV Recce Block 1, before the General Election in the next few months.
At a recent industry event, Shadow Defence Minister warned those sitting there quaffing their expensive wine that any deals struck in the next few weeks would be re-examined if the Conservatives win the next election.
I think it is quite wrong for the civil service to be going along with the government signing up contracts using future taxpayers’ money. It’s wrong for industry to be going along with projects at this point, so close to a general election, when everyone knows we need a major review on the other side of the election. I hope everyone will reflect strongly on that
Quite right too, we are on the verge of a major defence review (the first one in over a decade) so orders for any major equipment project should quite naturally wait on the outcome of the review. There is usually a period of ‘no major commercial activity’ for ministries once an election has been called, hence the unseemly rush.
Making reference to previous Conservative papers on defence and security Liam Fox said that all equipment programmes would be tested against a number of criteria;
- Affordability
- Capability
- Adaptability
- Exportability
- Interoperability.
It has only been 20 years, so another couple of months wait for a replacement for CVR(T) would hardly seem a great concern.
Leaving the best comments for the Labour Party, Liam Fox went on to say
They have no money for the current programs in the budget, and are now promising to spend future taxpayers’ money on other programs, they are like bankrupt shopaholics having their last binge before going to jail
BAe seem to have resigned themselves to losing against General Dynamics, the same General Dynamics that bought us BOWMAN, for Recce Block 1.
Given that the ASCOD2 variant proposed by GD hasn’t progressed beyond ‘nice drawing’ stage is this an opportunity to think again?
In our previous post we resigned ourselves to the fact that we have run out of time and have to go for the lest worse option.
Innovation is not dead, just look at this video of the South Korean K21, they went from a standing start with little or no industry experience to production in less than ten years. It is a genuinely innovative product, with advanced fire control, integral amphibious capability and a 40mm canon with air bursting ammunition.
The German Puma is an equally innovative vehicle with modular armour, single crew compartment and unmanned turret.
Is going back to the drawing board an option, creating something out of the ashes of SEP and TRACER, a genuinely innovative system that meets the Conservatives tests.
TRACER went from an idea to a pair of demonstrators in 4 years and these contained some of the most innovative technologies available and many of these have matured considerably.
We have an enormous body of expertise to draw upon, a skilled workforce and given some political will we could recapitalise the entire armoured ground vehicle fleet after decades of under investment.
As we come out of Afghanistan, the existing fleet of vehicles including UOR’s will be completely battered, there exists a golden opportunity to not only rejuvenate the UK armoured vehicle industry but the armed forces as well.
Along with the MALE UAV Mantis, there exists a unique opportunity to push the UK back into the ‘we make things others want to buy’ category rather than simply being a franchise opportunity for overseas designers and manufacturers.
I hate to be pessimistic but I don’t think we (UK industry) can do innovative anymore, certainly with affordability as a criteria.
Also, as I have said before I am against a ‘defence industrial policy’ because I don’t believe the UK Government (of any colour) will fund the armed forces about the required limit for critical mass. So instead of producing something which has been compromised by exportability requirements, because we are now so “small and cheap” just buy off the shelf and modify to meet our requirements if said mods are affordable – so sure buy the K21 with a CTA gun !!
Isn’t that a bit defeatist Jed, I know it is probably realism after the nation has been run down by our friends in Unite, sorry, the Labour Party but should we not start talking the country up?
We can innovate but we need some political will to drive it through.
Yes South Korea done it but South Korea is well…South Korea, Germany is Germany and we are well… the United Kingdom.
In the wider term after the defence review since it will be budget driven they need to decide what they are willing to spend on defence over the next 10 years and plan accordingly (If they don’t want to admit that it will be budget driven I have little time for BS). For instance commit to 2.5% of GDP and work that out in real terms but being conservative such as 1% GDP growth per year not some fantasy 2-3% figure. Heck if they do that they might end up with more cash available than what they budgeted for which could be used elsewhere or simply to hedge against the usual overruns in cost. That way if they somehow manage to make a plan they will know in say 2020 the first new C1 class frigate will be launched and commissioned in 2022 and they should have an idea how much money is available. Industry should then be able to plan its capacity and privately funded R&D around that and everyone should know when equipment programs will roughly be starting and with a budget figure in mind.
Just checked the comments before posting as I said before balls and power is what is needed IMHO balls to decide upon something and stick to it rather than just moving on alongside the power to make it happen. Money is an issue but if there is a real requirement such as to replace equipment the money will either be there or it won’t be and if someone has power and balls they can get the money.
Can the forces themselves innovate – undoubtedly, although current army top brass do not seem to be able to learn lessons very quickly, but that could be because they have been so highly politicized and are too busy worrying about budgets.
Can industry innovate. Maybe. But why should they ? Will the MoD ever have enough budget to make it worth while ? This is business we are talking about – so where is the profit going to be ?
If we don’t have enough budget to make innovative new products profitable for the mega-corporations, then we need to be pragmatic and buy the best kit we can, where someone else has developed it and thus taken care of the sunk costs for that development etc.
I agree that Labour shouldnt be signing long term contracts, and they’re doing it in a damn site more than defence, but disagree with any hopes of the Tories doing a better job re armoured vehicles.
They just dont have the will power to set the budget and step back.
I wouldn’t say the K21 was developed from a standing start, although some of the design features are clearly innovative.
The K21 was designed to replace the K200, which was essentially a copy of an upgraded M113. All we are seeing here is the replacement of an old style ‘boxy’ APC with an MICV, much in the same way Warrior replaced the FV432. The only difference being we did it some 25 years ago, hence the technological difference.
The K21′s floatation bags look fine, but will they be actually utilised on a regular basis and will they be easy to maintain? The pressurised air bags lack the simplicity of the flotation screen used on the UK’s CVR(T)’s and may actually become a combat liability. In a sense, this could be quite a big gamble for South Korea.
Also, South Korea is still under the Cold War threat of North Korea and needs a large standing army, similar to the Soviet threat that NATO had to contend with, hence the large order book.
Once the 1,000 or so K21′s have been manufactured and delivered (plus some derivative models), unless the Doosan Corporation wins plenty of export orders, a big question will hang over its commercial and future production viability.
If the North Korean threat evaporated or the two countries unified, the South Koreans will find themselves in a similar position to we what we are in now. A shrinking defence budget and a defence industry with minimal orders and too many competitors.