The Report of the Iraq Inquiry

559.  Maj Gen Applegate recommended that additional funding be provided “to

develop concurrently an enhanced PPV capability to match the emerging threat, with

an anticipated fielding in the latter half of 2007”. In the interim, “and to provide the

commander with sufficient flexibility to mitigate the weakness of Snatch, additional

armour packs should be procured for FV430”. The possibility of accelerating the

modification of FV430 and Vector was also being explored.

560.  Lord Drayson approved the request the same day.292 He asked Maj Gen Applegate

to “engage with coalition partner to identify whether they may have excess PPV capacity

which would provide a greater level of protection which could be made available to the

UK”; and for further advice by 13 July.

561.  Following his visit to South Africa, Brig Moore advised on 3 July that, should

the Army decide that “a better protected PPV” was required, then the RG31 had “the

potential to meet that requirement”.293 In considering the requirement, Brig Moore wrote

that there was a “conundrum” between a heavier vehicle that was able to protect soldiers

against the mine or IED threat, and ensuring the vehicle was agile enough to access

built‑up areas. He added that “if the UK wants to provide its soldiers with the protection

necessary to do their job, it will need a heavier PPV”.

562.  On RG31, Brig Moore stated:

“It is now apparent that RG31 … has sufficient stretch potential to take the additional

weight associated with protection against […]. In addition, LSSA [Land Systems

South Africa] has a rigorous testing regime … and this is fully compliant with DSTL

thinking. LSSA is innovative, front running and is at the leading edge of their trade.

Should the Army want a heavier and better protected PPV, RG31 would be a strong

contender.”

563.  In his summary, Brig Moore said that “the South Africans were open, engaging and

ready to help in any way possible. Notwithstanding the considerable attributes of RG31,

UK should exploit this opportunity.”

564.  In response to a question from the Inquiry, about whether he had asked about

potential alternatives to Snatch on the global market before June 2006, Lord Drayson

wrote in his statement:

“Yes … I was advised that there was no vehicle identified that could provide the

mobility and small footprint offered by Snatch and that the vehicles used by the US

such as Stryker and Humvee did not offer a better solution. The larger protected

patrol vehicles (such as the RG31 …) were regarded by the Army as unsuitable

for Iraq …

292  Minute PS/Min(DP) to Applegate, 28 June 2006, ‘Protected Patrol Vehicles (PPV)’.

293  Minute Moore to APS/Minister (DP), 3 July 2006, ‘Protected Patrol Vehicles (PPV) – Exploratory Visit

to South Africa: 30 Jun – 2 Jul 2006’.

92