14.1  |  Military equipment (post-conflict)

ILAV vehicles from the US under Foreign Military Sales with configuration for the UK’s

communications equipment, or acquiring the vehicles through a “call off contract”.

586.  Lord Drayson was grateful for the efforts which had been made and had stated

that the “pace of work must now be maintained”. He requested an update by 20 July,

including advice on how “to achieve the necessary commercial arrangement”.

587.  Gen Granville‑Chapman visited Iraq from 9 to 13 July.303 He reported:

“On equipment, ISTAR and helicopters remain the key focus. Whilst clearly all

acknowledge the limitations of Snatch, feeling was not as strong … as I had

expected. Very striking was great confidence in ECM equipment … All I spoke to had

faith that this, coupled with rigorous execution of the now highly developed TTPs,

gave them confidence and a good level of protection. But they would welcome a

new PPV, though were clear that any vehicle would need to be able to access the

tight urban sprawl that characterises much of Basra – Vector, they felt, would take

the trick in this respect, but their point about utility in tight urban areas will need to

be taken into account in the Medium PPV work.”

588.  On 19 July, in the House of Commons, Mr Owen Paterson asked Mr Browne what

the performance specifications of the new Vector vehicle were and how its protection

levels compared to Snatch and the RG31.304 Mr Browne replied:

“The key performance requirements for Vector are improved mobility, payload and

capacity compared to Snatch. We do not comment on levels of armour protection …”

589.  The USUR for a medium weight PPV, for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, was

articulated by Lt Gen Houghton on 19 July 2006.305 He reported that, between July 2004

and July 2006, almost half of the UK’s fatalities from hostile action, 20 of the 44 deaths,

were personnel travelling in Snatch Land Rovers.

590.  The USUR stated: “The IED and RPG threats” in Iraq and Afghanistan “are here

and now; Snatch is both obsolete as a light weight PPV and the heightened EFP IED

threat” in Iraq demanded that it “should be replaced by a Medium Weight PPV (MPPV)”.

It should “have as much protection as possible without compromising its function

(capacity and mobility) providing as balanced an answer to the range of threats as

is feasible”.

303  Minute Granville‑Chapman to Stirrup, 14 July 2006, ‘VCDS Visit to Iraq and Afghanistan 9‑13 Jul 06’.

304  House of Commons, Official Report, 19 July 2006, column 505W.

305  Minute CJO to DEC GM – SO1 PLANS, 19 July 2006, ‘Op TELIC and Op HERRICK – Urgent

Statement of User Requirement for Medium Weight PPV’.

97