14.1 |
Military equipment (post-conflict)
554.
Mr Browne
met Mr Ingram and Lord Drayson to discuss the review on
27 June.290
He asked
Lord Drayson to:
“… set the
necessary work in hand to provide Ministers with urgent, realistic,
costed
advice on
whether there is anything more we can do to protect troops … and
to
enable them
to achieve their mission(s). In particular, the review should
examine
whether
there are any vehicles with a higher level of protection than
Snatch Land
Rovers
which could be procured quickly (and if so, at what
cost).”
555.
Maj Gen Applegate
provided a paper to Lord Drayson on “the capability that
might
be achieved
with the investment of about £50m for the protection of soldiers in
PPVs”
on 28
June.291
He
recommended that Lord Drayson approve:
•
a
commitment of £2m for an “urgent study on options for an enhanced
PPV”;
•
the
procurement of all 166 Vector vehicles for Afghanistan;
and
•
the
purchase of additional armoured kits for FV430 for use in Iraq. The
existing
UOR would
begin to deliver up‑armoured FV430s in October 2006
and
deliveries
would be completed by January 2007.
556.
Maj Gen Applegate
advised Lord Drayson:
“PJHQ and
LAND regard a broad systems approach to force protection as
essential,
linking
ISTAR, situational awareness, tactic techniques and procedures, ECM
and
platform
survivability. This systems approach seeks to defeat the system; if
this fails
defeat
[sic] the device, and finally defeat the attack.”
557.
Maj Gen Applegate
highlighted that the UK had been criticised for not
adopting
the RG31,
variants of which were in service with US and Canadian forces and
which
had been
used by UK forces in the past. He wrote that RG31 had previously
been
discounted
as a suitable alternative to Snatch. Brig Moore would be briefed on
its
development
and growth potential when he visited South Africa on 29
June.
558.
In relation to
the study into future PPV capability, Maj Gen Applegate
wrote:
“The threat
continues to develop and there is a requirement to assess
urgently
how to
sustain the PPV capability. The US is conducting a similar
assessment.
New developments
designed to meet this threat are currently at the
demonstrator
stage and
it would be prudent to examine these urgently to understand
what
capabilities
they might offer. In general if we are to combat the developing
threat we
will
require a heavier vehicle capable of carrying a higher payload in
order to mount
additional
armour. The ability of such a vehicle to operate effectively in the
urban
environment
will be part of the assessment.”
290
Minute
PS/SofS [MOD] to PS/Minister(DP), 27 June 2006, ‘Protected Patrol
Vehicles: Review’.
291
Minute
Applegate to APS/Min(DP), 28 June 2006, ‘Protected Patrol Vehicles
(PPV)’.
91