Member Article

Is our army trying to destroy our industry?

Is our army trying to destroy our military industry, by choosing the Boxer as our lads’ MIV?

In the wake of recent revelations (*), according to which General Nick Carter plans to cut through the standard process of bidding for proposals to replace its Mechanized Infantry Vehicle (MIV), and buying Artec’s Boxers straight off the shelf, the military environment is still assessing the consequences of such a sudden and unusual move. Globally, they’re not good. The way these vehicles would be purchased, if the chief of staff has his way, will cast dark clouds of our national military industry and army.

After over a decade of lagging, the British Army is oversteering in the opposite direction, as General Nick Carter has decided that the operational emergency did not allow for the usual way the Army normally purchases its equipment. The General plans simply to buy Artec’s Boxer, a well-known vehicle, considered by many to be too young and too old at the same time. Too young in the sense that it’s not battle-proven (see below), and too old in the sense that it is no longer fit to face today’s threats and challenges. The current battlefield configurations (highly mobile and nimble enemy, IEDs, extremely asymmetric warfare where flexibility is paramount) is relatively recent, going back no further than the US invasion of Afghanistan. The Boxer was designed long before.

Moreover this sudden and surprising decision of General Carter could be damaging to our industry in many ways.

The first is that this way of proceeding is most irregular. This isn’t the first time an army, be it ours, has been confronted with emergency. RFPs (request for proposals, a long, complex and methodic way of purchasing the right equipment) can be shortened, by tweaking out of the process the stages which represent the less risk. But throwing the entire process for such a critical piece of equipment (the MIV will be the backbone of infantry movement, a major component of current-day battlefield management) is virtually unheard of. It amounts to buying blind. And once the equipment is bought and we realize it is unfit for our missions, it will be too late – as our suffering military budgets won’t allow for such mistakes or second chances. As for the foreign suppliers we do need to rely on, if only for healthy competition, they may well simply not show up at the next RFP, if they know we don’t follow the normal rules of competition.

The second is that we wouldn’t even be taking the risk of purchasing ill-suited vehicles: we would surely be doing so. The question of the MIV replacement has been lying around for over a decade, now. The Boxer was first considered in 2004, and then dropped because it was judged unfit for the new battlefields. The FRES-UV replacement program then kicked in, in 2008, a large competition designed to choose the new infantry vehicle – a competition the Boxer again was part of. Again, it was deemed ill-adapted and turned away. More years have gone by, by now, we would therefore have the certainty of buying a vehicle both outdated and unsuitable for our needs. Other excellent vehicles are competing within the MIV program, such as GDLS’ Piranha 5, which was recently chosen by Denmark, Finland’s Patria AMV, chosen amongst others by Poland, and Nexter Systems’ VBCI, massively used by the French Army in Afghanistan and Africa. The last two are combat-proven, which isn’t the case of the Piranha 5, but GDLS’ vehicle was designed on the basis of the US army’s more recent experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although it is deployed in Afghanistan, Artec’s Boxer hasn’t had its mettle tested, with the ensuing uncertainties. Even OCCAR admits the Boxer is not combat-proven but “combat-ready”, (http://www.occar.int/367), which is a sizeable difference. Rashly choosing the Boxer, from the hip, therefore not only constitutes distortion of the natural competition but also induces operational hazards.

Finally – what message are we sending? If General Carter is indeed allowed to proceed with his directed purchasing methods, he is then liberated of administrative due diligence. And, once free to choose as he pleases, the chief of staff chooses foreign equipment? What a disastrous message to send around the world. BAE Systems and General Dynamics-UK can make proposals, but they would be turned away for something as dubious a choice as the Boxer? If even we have no faith in our own armament industry, would it make any sense for the rest of the world to keep theirs? BAE Systems is seen around the world as one of the best armament companies around the world – but this would be a terrible blow to our military industry’s image.

General Carter’s responsibility must be placed in perspective with the political environment around him. If our government (and the previous chiefs of staff) had gotten the work done in time, instead of letting the entire program get bogged down for over a decade – such a rash and dangerous move wouldn’t even be considered. But his responsibility as chief of staff is also to maintain the army in fighting condition. This means safe and cautious choices in selecting equipment and vehicles, which this clearly is not. This also means maintaining our armament industry, a key part of our national sovereignty, in good shape, which this clearly is not either. If, due to parliamentary and political ineffectiveness, a quick move should be made, at least some form of scrutiny or selection should surely be operated, be it in the form of a skeleton RFP. And if we are going to throw caution overboard, we might as well buy British. Doing so would surely get us a good piece of kit (better than the Boxer, at any rate), and not doing so would tell the world we know our armament industry to be unreliable, from the inside.

(*) British Army’s MIV Program: Is General Nick Carter’s push coming to shove? Chicago Tribune, April 18, 2016 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/burr-ridge/community/chi-ugc-article-british-armys-miv-program-is-general-nick-c-2016-04-28-story.html)

This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section by Austin Lopez .