14.1 |
Military equipment (post-conflict)
risk, the
attached risk register said that there was “high level US military
support for the
planned
acquisition”. The business case proposed to adopt “a single source
acquisition
strategy”
that was based on “a world‑wide market survey, paper technical
assessment
and
industrial visits to ascertain the most suitable and cost effective
solution”.
603.
The business
case stated that, although Cougar would provide a
“significant
enhancement
in survivability” over Snatch and Vector, it would still be
defeated by
the most
effective EFP and very large blast IEDs. It also highlighted that
Cougar was
“a large
platform with good cross country mobility but less agility and
terrain accessibility
in the
urban environment than Snatch and Vector”. It was reiterated that
the chain of
command
should understand and explain the strengths and limitations of the
platform
to all
potential users.
604.
On 20 July,
Lord Drayson wrote to Mr Timms seeking his agreement for
an
additional
£89.2m of UOR funding to be found from the Reserve for Cougar
vehicles and
FV430
vehicles.311
The £47.8m
required for additional Vector vehicles for
Afghanistan
could be
found from within the Defence budget.
605.
Lord Drayson
wrote that the review of protected vehicles announced by
Mr Browne
on 26 June
had “confirmed” there was a capability gap in Iraq and
Afghanistan’s
protected
vehicles. The “key threat in Iraq” was “now” the EFP IED. Warrior
vehicles had
been
up‑armoured to help meet this threat but that had led to an
“over‑reliance” upon
it in
theatre which meant that personnel in Warrior units were
“significantly exceeding”
guidelines
for operational tour intervals.312
606.
Lord Drayson
stated that Snatch vehicles could not “be armoured sufficiently
to
defeat the
EFP IED or RPG threats”: “As the media and a number of politicians
have
highlighted
recently, there have been a significant number of deaths in Iraq
from EFP
IED attacks
on Snatch.”
607.
Lord Drayson
said that, after “a very rapid evaluation” of “possible
vehicles
available
worldwide”, the Cougar variant was best placed to meet “both the
time and
performance
criteria”. He added:
“The fact
that an early version is already in the UK service with Explosive
Ordnance
Disposal
troops and it is also in service with both the US Army and Marine
Corps
gives us
considerable confidence in it. We will be relying on the assistance
of
the
US Government and military to deliver it as rapidly as
possible and this is an
excellent
example of where the Special Relationship will have a direct impact
on our
capability
on operations.”
311
Letter
Drayson to Timms, 20 July 2006, ‘Iraq and Afghanistan – Request for
Additional Funding for
FV430
Uparmouring and Medium Protected Patrol Vehicle Urgent Operational
Requirements’.
312
The
guidelines for operational tour intervals are detailed in Section
16.1.
101