The report by former Labour ministerial adviser Bernard Gray is so scathing that the MoD has only now finally agreed that it should be released after a series of substantial leaks.
The document said of the military acquisition programme: “The problems, and the sums of money involved, have almost lost their power to shock, so endemic is the issue, and so routine the headlines. It seems as though military equipment acquisition is vying in a technological race with the delivery of civilian software systems for the title of ‘world’s most delayed technical solution’. Even British trains cannot compete.”
It warned that the system could not cope with the demands of fighting the sort of agile enemies Britain was now facing in theatres like Afghanistan.
The MoD last night rejected its central recommendation, to contract out the acquisition of equipment for the Armed Forces. Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth acknowledged that the report had highlighted “problems” and “shortcomings” but decided against setting the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organisation at arm’s length from the MoD.
“We are not convinced that such a change would ultimately lead to better outcomes for the armed forces or defence generally,” Mr Ainsworth said.
The report heightened fears that many major defence projects, like the supercarriers and the Trident renewal project, may be cut back.
Mr Gray laid bare an equipment programme that “is unaffordable on any likely projection of future budgets”.
At best, the MoD will be unable to buy up to one-third of the equipment it plans to purchase over the next decade. In the worst-case scenario, by 2020 the MoD would have about £5bn to spend and about £10bn of commitments.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article