The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
Rover‑based
platforms … and will do for the foreseeable future. Ridgback will
not
entirely do
that job, because it will not be able to get into the narrow,
compounded
urban areas
in Helmand province, however much we would like it
to.”
780.
Mr Ainsworth
said that he was “aware of some of the opinions about
Snatch”
but that he
had received military advice that Snatch vehicles were still
necessary.
Mr Ainsworth
was also challenged by Mr Mike Penning, who argued that
commanders
could only
use what vehicles they have available.
781.
Mr Ainsworth
said that commanders were provided “with a range of
vehicles”
that
allowed them “to select the platform most suited to the immediate
task in hand”.
Protected
mobility requirements were kept “under review” and that was why
Mr Brown
had
announced the procurement of Ridgback.
782.
On 25 June,
Mr Browne called a meeting with senior military figures and
Baroness
Taylor “at
short notice” to “discuss future plans for the protected vehicle
fleet, particularly
783.
While the
meeting had “in part been prompted” by the recent Snatch
fatalities,
Mr Browne
“recognised that the issue ran wider” and there were
vulnerabilities
associated
with other patrol vehicles such as Vector that “were stories
waiting to
happen”.
“… made
clear his intent: namely, to deliver as quickly as possible a
balanced and
sustainable
protected vehicle capability in Afghanistan, with all patrol
vehicles …
mine‑protected,
commensurate with their weight. This might infer [sic] the
removal
from
theatre of Snatch, Vector, Pinzgauer and GS Land
Rover.”
785.
Air Chief
Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, who had become Chief of the Defence
Staff in
April 2006,
said that they “needed to start” by understanding the operational
requirement
for lighter
vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq, and what the impact would be if
PPVs with a
lower
weight and protection level than Ridgback were no longer
used.
786.
Sir Jock
said that if a light PPV was “mission critical, whether to secure
access,
increase
flexibility or avoid the corrosion of popular consent, then the
second question
was whether
Snatch was the best vehicle available on the market to fulfil any
of that
requirement”.
If it was, then they “could collectively stand behind its continued
use;
if not, it
should be replaced”.
787.
It was agreed
at the meeting that “all vehicles had their vulnerabilities”
but:
“ … if we
were able to demonstrate that we had replaced, or had clear plans
to
replace,
all sub‑optimal vehicles, then that would allow us to build a
convincing
415
Minute
PS/SofS [MOD] to APS/Min(DES), 25 June 2008, ‘Protected
Vehicles’.
134