Q41 Mr Bacon: Are the additional 14 Chinooks we are getting an advance on the Mk 3? What are they?
Lieutenant-General Coward: They will be described as Mk 6 and combine the latest European cockpit with an American upgrade to a digital platform. They will provide a full range of capability, not in exactly the same way as the Mk 3-
Mr Bacon: One hopes not.
Lieutenant-General Coward: The Mk 3s are now flying in the UK and providing valuable output for training crews and soldiers.
Q42 Mr Bacon: I hope so, given how much you've paid for them. Will you tell us how much the new Chinooks will cost each?
Lieutenant-General Coward: I cannot give you that answer; I don't have it.
Vice-Admiral Lambert: We'll have to come back to the Committee on that.
Q43 Chair: Can we get a logical issue out of this? The Chinooks are replacing something else; they are not replacing the armoured vehicles that you have cut out of your programme.
Vice-Admiral Lambert: I think the Comptroller and Auditor General put it quite well.
Q44 Chair: It could be done, but you haven't got the capability. You haven't got enough of them to do it.
Vice-Admiral Lambert: We will always try and mix our equipment so that we provide the capabilities. What happens is that it has to be stretched thinner across the total requirement.
Chair: Not very satisfactory.
Q45 Ian Swales: How many people work in the MOD areas that look after the purchase of armoured vehicles?
Lieutenant-General Coward: I don't have the real number. I would hazard a guess that, in the MOD and the requirement-setting organisation, we are talking about handfuls.
Vice-Admiral Lambert: No more than a dozen.
Lieutenant-General Coward: In Abbey Wood myguesstimate-it is but that-is about 200 or 300 atthe most4.
Q46 Ian Swales: That is far fewer than I expected. The Committee heard a much higher number just for helicopters, so I am quite surprised at that. Having said that, a heading on page 14 of the Report states, "A reluctance to compromise in setting armoured vehicle requirements puts delivery at risk", and on page 16 it states, "The armoured vehicles' requirements setting process has proved insufficient in a rapidly changing operational environment." If you meet manufacturers of defence equipment-the Chair mentioned this earlier-there is a constant cry that we keep on changing our minds and we don't know what we want. We keep changing requirements and asking them to change from standard designs and so on. Can you comment on the way that we buy this type of equipment?
Vice-Admiral Lambert: I do not disagree with what the Report says. I think it is right that in the past we have asked for everything rather than honed down and headed towards a more off-the-shelf solution. The TRACER programme, with which the Report starts, needed cutting-edge technology right across the piece from how the propulsion would work through to the type of armour and gun needed. That was too big an ask; it was always going to be expensive and was too high a risk.
Q47 Chair: Were you involved in that decision?
Vice-Admiral Lambert: No. The programme started in 1992,1 am afraid, Chair.
Q48 Chair: And when did you come to this project-how long have you been in this post?
Vice-Admiral Lambert: I have been in this job just over two years. The TRACER programme started almost 20 years ago.
Q49 Ian Swales: And what has it delivered and at what cost?
Chair: It hasn't delivered anything.
Vice-Admiral Lambert: It hasn't delivered nothing.
Q50 Ian Swales: At what cost?
Chair: £700 million5.
Vice-Admiral Lambert: We have been moving towards more off-the-shelf procurements and a lower set of requirements to make things more affordable. That process has been moving that way across the piece.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
4 Total number of Crown Servants working on AFVs in Abbey Wood is 365
5 Total spend on TRACER was £131 million not £700 million.