§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the preference of his Department's selection team in the selection of demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system trailists in 1983 as regards a flat flatrack system; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonThe Department selected Foden Trucks Ltd. and Scammell Motors as main contractors for the supply of the trails equipment, with Powell Duffryn Ltd. and Multilift (UK) Ltd. being chosen to supply three types of loading handling systems. Messrs Multilift and Marshalls of Cambridge provided three designs of flatracks each. Messrs Craven Tasker and the Boughton Group supplied trailers. Messrs Blatchford and EKA Ltd. provided rail transfer equipment.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of briefings on the flat flatrack system given to the United States army and British press at the time of the selection of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonThere have been exchanges of information with the United States army on the DROPS logistic concepts and programme and their similar PLS one within the normal collaborative machinery. Information on the programme has been provided by the Department and the firms concerned to the press as appropriate and in response to inquiries.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence when formal research by his Department into the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system was started; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonFormal research into the logistic problems and concepts from which DROPS evolved began in 1969 when a study was undertaken by the then Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment.
500W
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's involvement in the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system started; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonWork on the concepts from which DROPS evolved began with a study undertaken by the then Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment in 1969.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what contractors were involved in his Department's formal research into the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system; at what dates; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonThe following firms were involved in the Department's consideration of load handling concepts between 1975 and 1982 when the general staff target for DROPS was finalised: Abel Systems, Arlington, CF Coach, EDBRO, Foden, Herncrest Boughton, Multilift, Pengco, Powell Duffryn and Ray Smith. This involvement took the form of supplying equipment for trial, demonstration of equipment or discussions with the Department, or a combination of these.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence at what date formal tasking on the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system was begun by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Archie HamilitonFormal procurement action on DROPS was started in mid-1982 with the approval of the requirement and its presentation to industry.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the Multilift chain-operated loading system has satisfied the purpose for which it was procured; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonA single purchase of Multilift chain-operated loading equipment was made in 1975 to enable the Army to carry out a trial as part of the consideration of load handling concepts and it served for that purpose. It was a different equipment to the one finally selected for the DROPS requirement.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of trialing each of the Multilift flat flatrack systems in each year that such trials took place; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonThe DROPS evaluation trials consisted of extensive field trials in BAOR and, in parallel, detailed engineering trials at RARDE Chertsey. Altogether they lasted a year (July 1984 to June 1985). They involved the total range of chosen equipment options and vehicle combinations of load handling systems. Trialing costs of individual systems cannot be identified separately.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Multilift chainlift system procured in 1975 is able to pick-up a load in off-road conditions; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonThe Multilift chainlift equipment purchased in 1975 was not found to be suitable for all the situations in which the Army would need to use such a system in the field.
501W
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all defence contractors involved in providing to his Department what is now referred to as DROPS equipment; at what dates they were involved; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonThe principal contractors now involved in providing DROPS equipment are: Foden Trucks Ltd.; Leyland Vehicles (Scammell Motors) as main contractors; Multilift (UK) Ltd.; Marshalls of Cambridge; EKA Ltd.; King Trailers Ltd. With the exception of King Trailers, these companies' involvement with the full DROPS procurement programme dates from the 1982–83 competition. King Trailers entered the programme following a further subcontract competition for the production order held last year.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the reasons for preferring a flat flatrack system for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system in 1983; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonThe Multilift Mk II (low lift) system was one of three load handling systems chosen in 1983 for further DROPS trials and evaluation. Its potential operating advantages were that, with no A frame, the flatracks offered larger load bed area, and access from all four sides; they could be picked up from either end; they could be stacked more easily when unloaded; they were simpler and lighter in construction than other flatrack designs; and they could thus be more easily concealed on the battlefield.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations regarding the problem of visibility in the flat flatrack demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system were made to his Department by Boughtons in 1983; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonBoughton's proposals in the 1982–83 competition envisaged the need for a rear loading system with single point connection in a position clearly visible to the operator.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made by (a) Boughton and (b) his Department in 1982 of the suitability for rough terrain use of the fiat flatrack demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system options; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonBoth Boughton's and the Department's assessments in the 1982–83 competition recognised the difficulties which might arise in flat flatrack (low lift) operations in rough terrain. The Department concluded, however, that, in view of the significant potential advantages offered by the system, it merited further trial and evaluation alongside two other high lift systems.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the reasons for the non-selection of the flat flatrack demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system after the 1984–85 trials; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonExtended trials of the flat flatrack DROPS system confirmed the advantages foreseen earlier. However, they also indicated that they502W would be outweighed by practical difficulties in achieving consistent first-time hook connection and vehicle stability problems when dealing with asymmetric part loads.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the shortcomings in Boughton's appreciation of technical factors and risks which led him to reject its system; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonBoughton's proposals figured fully in the final stages of the Department's assessment process in the 1982–83 procurement competition. In the final outcome competing proposals were judged preferable on a balance of technical and economic grounds.
§ Sir Ian Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the selected DROPS MMLC truck designs proposed by Foden and Scammell in 1982 provided sufficient engine power to pull the fully laden LMLC trailer; and if he will make a statement;
(2) when the need for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system was first formally identified by his Department; and if he will make a statement;
(3) when funds for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system were first put into his Department's budgeted expenditure; and if he will make a statement;
(4) what were the shortcomings identified by his Department in the Boughton 1982 demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system proposal; and if he will make a statement;
(5) what requirements on stacking flatracks was included in the 1985 specification against which the definitive demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system equipment was tendered; and if he will make a statement;
(6) what part the issue of flatrack stacking played in Multilift's 1982 demountable rack off-loading pick-up system proposal; and if he will make a statement;
(7) what weight was given by the demountable rack off-loading pick-up system selection team to stackability of flatracks; and if he will make a statement;
(8) what assessment was made by the 1982 demountable rack off-loading pick-up system selection team of the implications of the stacking of loaded flatracks for the size of field storage areas; and if he will make a statement;
(9) what assessment was made by his Department in 1980 of the implications of the stacking of loaded flatracks for the space required in storage areas; and if he will make a statement;
(10) to what extent the question of stacking was a criterion in the selection of demountable rack off-loading pick-up system; and if he will make a statement;
(11) if he will publish details of Boughton's shortcomings in its presentation for the demountable rack off-loading pick-up system contract; and if he will make a statement;
(12) if those companies involved in 1982 provided drawings of their proposed load handling systems drawn onto the prime contractor's chassis under consideration for the demountable rack off-loading pick-up system; and if he will make a statement;
(13) what representations were received from any demountable rack off-loading pick-up system prime contractors in 1982 on Multilift's presentation and management; and if he will make a statement;
503W(13A) what was the nature of such drawings as Multilift produced via the main contractors in 1982 in connection with demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system; and if he will make a statement;
(14) what allocations were introduced into the equipment produced for trials in 1984 after its feasibility study response in 1982; and if he will make a statement;
(15) what was the weight (a) originally estimated by Multilift for its Mk. II flat flatrack system and (b) of the equipment built; and if he will make a statement;
(16) when the decision was taken by his Department that the requirement for low mobility demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system was to be provided by the use of a trailer; and if he will make a statement;
(17) what were the main conclusions of the project carried out by his Department into how the low mobility transport role after the introduction of demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system would be carried out; and if he will make a statement;
(18) to what degree of detail the selected main contractors and subcontractors proposed designs and analysis of a trailer for demountable rack off-load and pick-up system LMLC; and if he will make a statement;
(19) if Boughton's put forward detailed proposals for, and recommendations on, a trailer as the preferred solution for demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system LMLC; and if he will make a statement;
(20) whether the trailers proposed by the selected main contractors and subcontractors met the stated requirement for LMLC demountable racking off-loading and pick-up system in respect of one-man operation and maximum loading; and if he will make a statement;
(21) what assessment was made by his Department in reviewing the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system feasibility study in 1983 of the implications for road traffic law of trailer/truck combinations selected to fulfil the low mobility demountable rack off-loading and pickup system role on the roads; and if he will make a statement;
(22) what was the gross weight of (a) Boughton's 1982 proposed demountable rack off-loading and demountable system LMLC truck/trailer combination and (b) the combinations selected; and if he will make a statement;
(23) what proposal was made at the time of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system submissions in 1982 by the two selected contractors as to the most cost-effective way of meeting the stated requirements for the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonI shall answer shortly.