14.1 |
Military equipment (post-conflict)
The UK’s
EOD teams were using early versions of the MRAP Cougar, the 4x4
variant,
from
“2003‑04” in Iraq and also deployed them to Bosnia (in 2004) and
Afghanistan.318
To procure
equipment from the US, the MOD is required to follow a Foreign
Military Sales
programme.
That is where, under the US Arms Export Control Act, the two
Governments
enter into
a government‑to‑government sales agreement.319
It can be
done where the
President
formally finds that to do so would strengthen the security of the
US and promote
world
peace.
611.
In
anticipation of his written statement on the armoured vehicle
review, Mr Browne
was offered
presentational advice on 21 July.320
612.
The advice
stated that one of the key messages to convey was:
“With
current vehicles, including Snatch (which will remain appropriate
for some
tasks) this
provides a coherent package of vehicles, offering a range of
protection,
mobility
and profile. Commanders will have a significantly increased choice
of
vehicles to
be used as they see fit to best meet the mission and counter the
threat.
No one
vehicle is appropriate for every task.
“It will be
important to make clear that while we are confident that the
Med[ium]
PPV being
procured offers significantly greater protection against the key
threats
in both
Iraq and Afghanistan than the Snatch, as with any other vehicle, it
cannot
be guaranteed
to offer absolute protection …”
613.
According to
the advice, the short timescales in which the medium
PPV
programme
had been developed meant that the usual “full testing” of the
vehicle had not
been
possible but the MOD was confident of its capability based on US
use of the same
base
vehicle in Iraq.
614.
The range of
different vehicles would allow commanders “to balance
protection
against the
requirements of the mission”. Snatch was “still an appropriate
vehicle for
some tasks”
and the additional vehicles did not mean Snatch was “not used at
all”.
615.
The advice
recognised that the announcement marked a significant change
of
direction.
Answers to Parliamentary Questions in June had stated that the
“requirement
was for
small, light, highly mobile vehicle that could operate in urban
areas and vehicles
such as
RG31 and Cougar would not meet this requirement”. It
added:
“At that
time the ECC [Equipment Capability Customer] was considering
whether
there was a
long term answer to the need for a small, mobile but better
protected
318
Minute
DCRS
[junior officer] to APS2/SofS [MOD], 21 July 2006, ‘Enhanced
Protected Patrol Vehicle:
Presentational
Advice’.
319
Letter
Duke‑Evans to Aldred, 26 June 2015, ‘Procuring Military
Equipment’.
320
Minute
DCRS
[junior officer] to APS2/SofS [MOD], 21 July 2006, ‘Enhanced
Protected Patrol Vehicle:
Presentational
Advice’.
103