The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
•
The user’s
understanding of how the PPV ROW would be deployed was
still
developing which meant that the estimated fleet numbers should
be
re‑examined.
•
Costs would
need to be revised in accordance with all the above
factors.
204.
The
operational analysis acknowledged that PJHQ and 19 Mechanised
Brigade
had
indicated IEDs were “a considerable threat in Iraq” and
stated:
“… Vector
is likely to face a broad range of threats. These will range from
stones and
bricks to
RPG and large IEDs. Previous analysis has shown that it is not
technically
feasible to
armour a Vector equivalent to defeat […] and […] blast weapons
without
it becoming
some form of AFV. Therefore it will always be overmatched by
these
threats.
However, if these are the common threats that are to be faced in
theatre
then a
vehicle commensurate with that threat is likely to be deployed e.g.
Warrior.”
205.
Based on the
current CONOPS, Vector would “therefore be used in lower
threat
environments”.
206.
On 14 April,
Main Gate approval was sought for the development and
manufacture
of 312
Snatch vehicles to “Snatch 2” standard, 208 of which would be for
Iraq.103
That was
to “meet immediate operational needs” and would replace the 208
Snatch 1.5
variant
vehicles that had previously been dispatched from Northern Ireland.
There was
an ISD of
between December 2004 and February 2005 for 80 of the
vehicles.
207.
The total
procurement cost of the 312 vehicles was £13.01m and would
be
funded from
the Project DUCKBOARD budget. The case stated that the
enhancement
measures
agreed in the 2004 Spending Review was recognition that the
requirement
for light
protected mobility was “expected to grow in future”.
208.
The aim of the
upgrade was defined as:
“To provide
a capability that will afford the user sufficient protection and
mobility for
framework
operations to be conducted in a semi‑permissive environment, in
both
the NI
theatre and in support of expeditionary operations worldwide over
FYs 04/05
& 05/06.”
209.
The business
case had been produced to satisfy the immediate requirement;
the
current
Snatch fleet was over 10 years old, was in “heavy operational use”
and suffered
from
“chassis corrosion problems”. The Specialist Utility Vehicles IPT
(Integrated Project
Team) had
stated that it would “become increasingly difficult to sustain
after 18 months
on Op TELIC
without a substantial upgrade or replacement programme” and
“some
form of
project to maintain the current operational PPV capability” would
be “essential
in FY 04/05”.
103
Paper
DEC(SP), 14 April 2004, ‘Business Case URD 1090 SNATCH 2 Protected
Patrol Vehicle’.
38