FRES program "a fiasco"

Discussion in 'Tanks, planes & ships' started by Fatal_Bert, Feb 26, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It should come as a surprise to no-one, but apparently the gobmint believe the FRES program to be a poorly run bag of arse.

    Nice to see, as a crab, that abortionate procurement planning isn't just limited to our little corner of the MoD.
     
  2. TBH, I don't believe anyone thinks that gash procurement is the sole realm of crabair, one can use a very large tarbrush with total impartiality.
     
  3. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Lions and Donkeys ever was ever will be.

    BTB I'm not an armour spotter but I wonder why the Times choose to illustrate a story about FRES with this picture:

    [​IMG]
    The Army?s £14bn programme to buy an entire new fleet of 3,000 air-transportable armoured vehicles is apparently no longer a priority Photo: AP
     
  4. Cos it's a tank from a program that delieverd the ordered product, unlike say....FRES.. :D In fact it's a tank largely based on making the previous model a bit better, resulting in a better tank that was improved over 3 main versions!

    In fact totally and utterly nothing like FRES :D
     
  5. Pure laziness on the part of the journo. If you were a financial reporter people would expect you to get things right, but for some reason no one seems to expect the 'Defence Correspondent' to be a subject matter expert!
     
  6. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Isn't it an M60? Although it looks as if its been bigged up somehow and the bloke sitting in th eturret looks like he's wearing a soviet style helmet so I'm guessing its not in Yank service.
     
  7. Speaking of being lazy, read the reports, not the mangled versions the meejia spouts. There really is some worrying stuff in there, perhaps more than usual, and not just FRES.

    "We consider that the Government has no choice but to consider the options referred to by the Chief of Defence Materiel. We call on the Government to set out its most up-to-date thinking on these options and to say whether it considers that there is a real risk that the entire A400M project might be so delayed that abandonment would be preferable. The costs and benefits attributable to any such decision should be clearly explained. "


    "The Minister for Defence Equipment and Support has assured us that all the A400M transport aircraft which will be deployed into theatre will be fitted with a full Defensive Aids Suite, a fuel inertion system and explosive suppressant foam. "

    "Given that risks to aircraft are not restricted to operational theatres, we consider it surprising that a decision has yet to be made on whether the A400M aircraft not earmarked to be used in operational theatres will be fitted with all three systems. The safeguarding of our Service personnel should be paramount and the equipment they operate should have the maximum protection available. "

    "We note that the MoD considers that the risk of catastrophic fire on Chinook helicopters with pannier fuel tanks is low. We look to the MoD to ensure that its assessment about such risks is robust and is re-examined on a regular basis."

    "We find it very strange that, only six months after awarding the contracts to build the carriers and announcing the in-service dates, the MoD has decided to delay the entry into service of the two new aircraft carriers, the first by one year and the second by two years. We do not share the view of the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support that the delays to the in-service dates will result in “no loss to the defence capability of the nation at all”. In its response to our Report, we expect the MoD to set out its latest forecast of when the two carriers are expected to enter service."


    "We were surprised to hear that HMS Ark Royal was due to be paid off earlier, despite it being the newest of the three Invincible Class Carriers. The Minister’s evidence would seem to indicate that for a period prior to the introduction of the new Carriers only one Invincible Class Carrier will be in service, which represents a significant reduction in capability."


    "We note that industry and the MoD appear to have radically different views on the status of the equipment programme. Industry refers to the equipment programme being paralysed, yet the MoD claims to be spending substantial amounts of money with industry and denies industry’s claims.We doubt that the announcements about the equipment programme on 11 December 2008 will provide industry with much clarity about the MoD’s future requirements. There is an impression of another shoe waiting to drop. We plan to monitor this issue closely in the future."



    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm/cmdfence.htm
     
  8. It would be informative to compare and contrast the big procurefests like FRES with the emergency aquisitions (?) forced by operations Herrick and Telic.
    Would you ever trust someone who used a phrase as RupertStupid as Future Rapid Effect for an armoured wagon? But what can you expect from the thick rich kids that Sandhurst dumps on the army?
     
  9. Translations:

    We concluded a long time ago that the government has no idea what it is doing...

    And if any further proof were needed...
     
  10. Turkish M60A3's on the way to hand our 'gallant Kurdish Allies' a slap I think?