I saw this post at Mental Crumble which I thought was a great antidote to all the foaming and frothing about the Hurt Locker and how it has almost nothing to do with the reality of EOD operations.

This is our UK alternative?

The first of the planned Nimrod MRA4’s have been handed over to the RAF to begin crew training.

This is the first of 9 ordered but won’t be in full service until 2012 as the whole project has been slowed down to save money. The original order was for 21 aircraft but this has been continually whittled down.

Nimrod MRA4

As the MR2’s are being withdrawn by the end of this month lets hope we don’t have cause to need a long range maritime attack and recce aircraft, you know, like somewhere down South

I have followed the Planeman blog for some time but with this post he quite simply produces one of the best blog posts I have ever read.

It seems meticulously well researched and well written, have a read

http://planeman-bluffersguide.blogspot.com/2010/03/defending-mother-russia.html

Watch this to the end, Aussies, gotta love em

Hat Tip Rantin Rab

Although it has been in the equipment programme for some time the Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) has been in the news this week as Gordon Brown chose to announce something that had been announced several times before. Of course this is par for the course for the Labour government, why say something one when one can say it again and again at every opportune moment.

Setting the scene for the announcement were charges of underfunding from the Chilcott Enquiry and sundry ‘ex somethings’ and the Inquest into the deaths of 4 service personnel in Afghanistan, in which the Snatch came in for yet more criticism.

What better time for some good news?

The announcement detailed a purchase of 200 vehicles to replace the Snatch Vixen, jumping immediately on the number the opposition and media jumped on the fact that the original tender documents called for a quantity of 400, more cuts in spending to beat the government with.

In fact, the tender actually stated ‘up to 400’

Responding to the accusations the MoD issued a rebuttal saying the first batch of 200 would be purchased as a UOR with additional follow on orders some time after. It failed to mention how many would be in the follow on phase though, all very vague.

The issue of the Snatch Land Rover is one of the most shameful episodes in the MoD’s acquisition history because unlike most disastrous programmes that just involve taxpayers cash, the Snatch debacle has cost many lives and even more limbs. It is a huge subject and would take many posts to even scratch the surface. Defence of the Realm has excellent coverage and whilst some of the conclusions drawn are incorrect the general thrust, the need to stop using vulnerable patrol vehicles in a theatre where the IED is the weapon of choice is one that is fundamentally correct.

The original tender documents were issued in February 2009, one might wonder, given the obvious urgency of the requirement why it has taken over a year to get even to this stage.

The need to replace the Snatch Vixen, which replaced the Snatch 2A was discussed even further before that. In a written statement, the then Secretary of State for Defence (John Hutton MP) stated there would be no public enquiry over the use of the Snatch Land Rover in British service.

We do not believe that there is a better vehicle than Snatch Vixen currently available anywhere in the world to fulfil the LPPV requirement. But we are also looking to the future and anticipating new threats, and we have begun a programme to develop the next generation of LPPV which will in due course take the place of Snatch Vixen.

The date of this statement is the 16th December 2008 and in it there is mention of ‘new threats’

Does anyone know what new threats these might be, have the Taleban suddenly started deploying sharks with laser beams on their heads or is the principal source of coalition casualties still the Improvised Explosive Device, albeit with some modest improvements. The fundamental nature of the threat remains the same but in the same time period, the US have managed to field a number of iterations of their equivalent vehicle.

It is easy to be critical but any progress is good.

The LPPV is designed to replace the Snatch Vixen and likely the Land Rover WMIK, a similar sized vehicle but with much greater protection, in service in 2011, at least two years from the decision not to hold a public enquiry into the Snatch.

The requirements from the tender are…

The LPPV will be a wheeled vehicle with an estimated gross vehicle weight of around 6 to 7 tonnes, capable of carrying up to 6 crew (2+4), integrated with a range of communication and electronic equipment providing protected mobility. LPPV will replace in-service light legacy platforms based on the Land Rover based SNATCH vehicle. Additionally, the platform may be used as the basis for the replacement to Land Rover WMIK.

The vehicle must provide the optimum levels of protection against a number of known and emerging threats of a varied nature including Ballistic, Blast, Mine and Fragmentation. As a guide the requirements for protection should be a minimum of level 2 ballistic and level 2 blast as detailed in STANAG 4569.

LPPVs are principally required for a wide range of patrol tasks and are normally expected to operate on roads and rough tracks and trails in urban, semi-urban and rural environments; they need to be sufficiently agile to provide high cross country mobility. To achieve the desired levels of urban manoeuvrability the vehicle will ideally have a width less than 2m and a turning circle less than 12m.

The weight and size mean it will be deployable by Chinook (externally slung) and other aircraft such as the C130 Hercules and A400.

STANAG 4569 Level 2 Blast protection means that at a similar weight it will be better protected than the Panther and hopefully a great deal roomier, the Panther can carry only small soldiers and only if wearing only their underpants.

So who are the contenders?

There have been a number of potential contenders with 16 companies responding the pre qualification bid including the Team Z (Creation UK and Bacock) Zephyr, Universal Engineering Ranger 4×4 and the Rheinmetall Armoured Multi Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) but they have been down selected to two, the Supacat/NP Aerospace SPV and the Force Protection/Ricardo Ocelot. The down select should have been down to four but Babcock withdrew at the last minute, therefore disqualifying Team Z and the NP Aerospace Phoenix was not ready in time.

The MoD have decided to go with new and innovative vehicles that maximise protection and mobility rather than derivatives of existing vehicles like the Panhard PVP which would likely offer very little over and above the Snatch Vixen.

The Ocelot design clearly shows the V shaped hull and the demountable crew pod is an innovative idea that has been a feature of many vehicle concepts from the SEP to the Boxer, although the notion of quickly whipping one out and replacing it with another type never seems to have been realised in practice. Force Protection and Ricardo have clearly started with a clean sheet; the Ocelot is not a derivative of a commercial chassis and has an armoured central spine or ‘skateboard’ design that enhances survivability. The challenging target of a 12m turning circle (achieved with 4 wheel steering) and weight of 7.5 tonnes is comparable with the Land Rover derivatives but it has a very low centre of gravity.

Ocelot-LPPV 01

Ocelot LPPV 02

The Supacat SPV is available in 4×4 or 6×6 configurations and the 4×4 version (SPV400) is Supacat’s entry into the LPPV competition. Built on the proven Jackal platform the crew pod is designed by NP Aerospace and with many common components the logistics burden should be lighter than with custom designs.

Supacat SPV400 (the prototype is real, not a drawing!)

The design and capabilities of the contenders would leave many to wonder where it will leave the Husky and Panther vehicles, arguably similar but with less protection. If the UOR is absorbed into the main programme then where does it leave OUVS

The Ocelot looks the more purposeful design and has the advantage of starting from a clean sheet but no doubt all are competent designs that offer a step change in protection from the Snatch.

Whichever is chosen they will be a welcome improvement, at long last the Snatch can be retired.

UPDATE:

Thanks to various people making comments there is some updated information in the post.

In our previous post on the US reaction to the latest Falklands Islands we pondered on the fact that the UK has 10,000 service personnel in Afghanistan and this deployment has been ongoing for several years at a very high cost in blood and treasure.

And yet despite this, the State Department and Hilary Clinton could not have done more to cast this commitment aside in favour of a second rate tin pot government.

In comparison, there are no South or Central American  forces there.

Beyond the UK’s issues, how does this play out in the ISAF contributing nations?

If the US has such contempt for its major ally how will it treat me if I have a dispute

With lead nations like Canada and Holland leaving Afghanistan if the US does not start treating its friends with some loyalty they might find themselves in a coalition of one.

There is a great deal of debate on the nature of our political and strategic relationship with the EU, NATO, the Commonwealth and individual nations.

One of the fundamental principles of UK defence and security strategy is the recognition that large scale operations will always be conducted in conjunction with allies. What characterises this type of large scale expeditionary operation is the matter of choice; we choose to participate in this type of expeditionary or arms length operation because we make the judgement that it is in our national interest to do so. Other nations make the same judgement and so coalitions are created.

We tend to think of ourselves as the junior partner in the context of the EU, NATO or the USA, moving in the direction of the consensus view but what would happen if that consensus view was not in our national interest, what if the conflict is not of choice, but necessity, can we really rely on our allies when the chips are down?

What brings this question into sharp relief if of course the recent escalation of tensions in the South Atlantic, if military operations were called for they would not be a matter of choice.

One might argue that the UK can take care of its own people thank you very much and doesn’t need or want any support, practical or moral, from anyone else. We still need to know that our friends and allies stand ready to offer a helping hand should we ask, though.

Putting events in historical context, in 1982 our most consistent and strongest ally was not as one might imagine, the USA, but France. US support was eventually forthcoming and welcome but prevarication and bickering between the Department of Defence and the State Department might have actually emboldened Argentina and escalated the conflict. The DoD and Secretary of Defence were publically supportive of the UK position whilst the State Department and it’s head were more supportive of Argentina. Only later in the conflict cycle did practical assistance and political support materialise, extremely helpful and in some cases tactically decisive as it was. France on the other hand, offered decisive and enduring support backed up with practical assistance at every level.

Fast forward to today and there are strong similarities but equally many differences.

Some things endure though.

The single most enduring factor is that of self determination.

One might argue back and forth over the details of sovereignty claims between the UK and Argentina (the facts are pretty clear however the Argentine government wants to pretend otherwise) but the islanders wish to remain British, this is the fundamental point that so many on all sides seem to conveniently forget, that and the memory of the 255 service personnel who died in 1982. The islanders have decided they like warm beer, Coronation Street and not being ruled by a nation that has a proud history of throwing its political opponents out of aeroplanes, sans parachute.

Not in quite the same league as General Galtieri,  Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is capitalising on the sovereignty issue to resolve her own political woes and credit where credit is due, they have played a very effective game.

A carefully constructed tub thumping session at the Rio Group, followed by a well coordinated victim session at the UN (one of many over the years)and culminating with a press conference at a planned meeting between el presidente and the US State Secretary seems to have achieved its aim of putting the UK in the aggressor category and Argentina in the victim corner.

There are of course more holes in the Argentine government’s claims than a Swiss cheese, for example, Argentina’s Foreign Minister complained at the UN that the UK has broken international law in allowing the exploration activity to proceed, when questioned on exactly which laws these are the sound of silence is deafening.

Playing the victim of imperial colonisation, Argentina and her gullible supporters conveniently forget that it was not the UK that invaded in 1982 and it was not the UK that laid thousands of anti personnel land mines, in fact the word ‘laid’ implies a plan, they were scattered indiscriminately. Has Argentina actually bothered in the nearly thirty years since 1982 to carry out any demining, what do you think?

The Argentine game plan of nationalism at home and playing the victim abroad culminated with the meeting with one Hilary Rodham Clinton during which reporters and Cristina asked some direct questions.

Hilary’s response…

“We want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. We cannot make either one do so but we think the right way to proceed, so we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.”

Whoah, hold the presses.

What exactly does she mean by ‘the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place’

Is this statement of a US position that says there is actually something to discuss i.e. sovereignty should be discussed, in the eyes of the US, the matter not being settled.

Was this calculated to encourage Argentina, snub the UK and damage a long standing strategic relationship or simply incompetence, who knows?

In the age of Facebook and 24×7 news channels an image is much stronger than a word.

Hilary might like to reflect on what parts of the British Army deployed to Afghanistan in response to an attack against US citizens on US soil, read their South Atlantic battle honours and ask how those very same units fighting, bleeding and dying alongside US soldiers and marines might view this image. In fact on the same day and the day after this picture was taken Rifleman Carlo Apolis and Corporal Richard Green of 4 and 3 Rifles were killed in Afghanistan.

In all fairness one must also look at the US position, relations with Latin America are important and the recent intelligence revelations have been damaging but adherence to the rule of law is not something that we can conveniently push to one side.

Even with these concerns there is a big difference between staying out of an argument and wading in. Actively encouraging talks whilst having a laugh and a joke in Argentina is not the same as quite neutrality and a recognition of what is happening in Helmand.

People in the UK understand the need for a subtle and balanced approach from the US so this foreign policy blundering is either just that, egotistical grandstanding wrapped up in foreign policy incompetence and nothing much to worry about in the long term or a deliberate changing of the dynamic between the US and UK.

It is one thing to give the Prime Minister of the UK a crappy cheap present but it is entirely a different matter to dabble in the lives of its citizens.

The EU has played a smarter game, indicating that the issue is between the UK and Argentina. There is an obvious awareness of the forthcoming General Election and to antagonise the UK would be very counterproductive especially given the UK’s contribution to EU coffers, member states of the EU know full well the inbuilt resistance in the UK to greater EU integration.

If Argentina did attack we would not be able to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter because of Article 6 i.e. all bets are off south of the Tropic of Cancer. The Lisbon Treaty might actually offer more support, especially article 42, clause 7, oh, the irony.

The map below shows the ISAF Contributing Nations, perhaps Hilary can ask Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela to backfill the gap that would be left by us moving 10,000 personnel from Afghanistan to the Falkland Islands in order to deter Argentina or defend British people and territory. Whilst they are at it we might ask the US to politely vacate Ascension Island and Diego Garcia. In fact, Diego Garcia is about ten times as worse as what the Argentine government accuse the UK of doing, yet the US benefits from Diego Garcia so let’s all pretend that one doesn’t count.

It is in everyone’s best interest for the UK and the Falkland Islands to have cordial relations with Argentina, not least because of economic reasons but the issue of sovereignty is simply non-negotiable while the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British. The way forward for Argentina is to share in the development of the area, not by throwing existing agreements on hydrocarbon exploration and fisheries in the bin and shouting Malvinas, Malvinas, Malvinas to anyone who will listen. If President Kirchner hadn’t nationalised a major airline and seized billions of pensions funds, international oil exploration companies might have been more willing to assist with exploration and exploitation of Argentina’s own offshore reserves. There may be a hydrocarbon bonanza and their might not be but surely the sensible option for Argentina is to cooperate on exploration and exploitation and share the possible proceeds.

Of the 795 entries on the State Department’s website that include the term ‘self determination’ one in particular stands out

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

The words, double standard spring to mind.

So our two principle partners are either shuffling and looking at their shoes or actively giving succor to our adversary. When things get difficult, true colours are exposed. I know, lets tell them they are either with us or against us!

Hilary Clinton likes her Reset Buttons, perhaps the UK  should be thinking about going shopping for one of our own, we might even manage to get the spelling right and whilst we are at it we could table a motion at the UN to urge the US to discuss the sovereignty of Texas with Mexico.

As for our EU partners, once again the much vaunted common security approach is innefective, consisting entirely of teflon coated, sharply pointing downward shoulders.

Where exactly is Baroness Ashton on the issue.

Brazil backed Argentina’s protests at the inclusion of the Falkland Islands as a British overseas territory in the Lisbon Treaty, the Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said in Paris that his country was discomfited by the islands’ inclusion. With the ongoing development of closer ties between Brazil and France one might reasonably wonder if this has anything to do with the deafening silence coming from Paris, I suppose the possible sale of Rafale’s to Brazil is irrelevant as well.

The time has come for the UK to recognise that we still need our allies but fundamentally, they will act in their own interests, not ours. The special relationship remains very strong between the people of the US and the UK but if governments fail to see it the same way then we need to fundamentally appraise our position, after all, we have sacrificed much blood, treasure and prestige to stand side by side with the US on the so called ‘war on terror’ yet this seems to count for nothing.

As for the South American and Caribbean nations signing up to the Islas Malvinas crusade, they might wish to look at their trade balances with the UK and the amount of development aid they receive from us and think again.

Isn’t it about time that we reasserted a more robust and independent minded approach, acting with confidence in our own  interests without this constant deference to others.

A tip of the beret to New Wars, Kings of War, 13th Spitfire, Richards previous post and lots of commenters for ideas and information that supported this post

The House of Commons Defence Select Committee has quite rightly come in for a lot of criticism for not holding the MoD to account in a sufficiently robust fashion, but in its last report before being replaced by a new committee after the General Election, it has gone out with a very big bang. It is worth putting the kettle on a settling down for a hour to read the full report including the transcripts of the evidence session and you will be taken aback by the breathtaking arrogance of the MoD.

At a weighty 190 pages long the first section sets the tone for the rest of the report.

The ability of DE&S to deliver the equipment programme is overshadowed by the existence of a funding gap which the NAO estimates could be as much as £36 billion over the next ten years. The management of this funding gap, in particular the practice of delaying projects already underway, is a major factor in the slippage of time and costs, and makes it difficult objectively to assess the performance of DE&S.

It has been suspected for some time that this situation existed. We welcome the public acknowledgement of the issue and the provision of data about the extent of the problem. We accept the NAO’s analysis and wish to record our disappointment that it has taken the MoD so long to admit to the problem. The evidence we have received indicates that the MoD’s responses to our questions about the funding gap in our Defence Equipment 2009 inquiry were at best confused and unhelpful and at worst deliberately obstructive.

Ouch

Read the full report here

Tucked in behind the widely trailed Commons Defence Select Committee Defence Equipment Report (2010) is the MoD’s response to an earlier report on helicopter capability.

As readers of Think Defence will know, the issue of helicopters is of significant interest and we have keenly followed the issue since the blog started.

The report observes all the usual niceties but is interesting in many ways because it exposes the muddle, ‘short termism’ and lack of any strategic thinking that has bedeviled the UK armed forces helicopter capability over the last decade, perhaps even longer.

Conflict has a habit of exposing shortcomings in equipment and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated just how the absolutely critical element of tactical mobility, afforded by helicopters, has been allowed to wither. No amount of panic buying, cobbling together upgrades and hiding behind the oft used fig leaf of ‘more flying hours’ can hide the fact that failing to invest in a coherent, balanced capability has had and continues to have real implications for both operational success and force protection i.e. soldiers lives and limbs.

On the issue of…

Sensible Resource Management

The response makes reference to the requirement to balance aircraft hours in theatre with something that it calls ‘sensible resource management’

What exactly is sensible resource management, one suspects it might involve the husbandry of the finite asset that is airframe hours but surely, there is a bloody war on and we should not be concerned with sensible resource management but maximising the effect in theatre.

Enough

The MoD’s response echoes a number of senior defence staff that have repeatedly stated that we have enough helicopters in theatre. One suspects that these serving officers are wheeled out on demand to cover the embarrassment of the MoD and Government by saying move along, nothing to see here. These statements are always caveated with the desire for more.

So,

We have enough but more would be good.

Call me a simpleton but doesn’t that mean we don’t actually have enough?

The Full Picture

The initial report made a great point of highlighting what seems like deliberate lack of openness from the MoD. If anyone reads the actual transcripts of the evidence sessions it will become painfully obvious that the senior civil servants and military staff that attend the committee sessions hold it in complete contempt, arrogantly avoiding the questions at every turn.

It is not only politicians that can talk at length without actually saying anything of substance.

Reforming the system of governance and supervision within the government framework is essential if Parliament is to scrutinise effectively and hold to account the civil service and government of the day.

There are lots of other interesting information in this under reported response, full text at the link.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmdfence/381/38104.htm

More money and better spending has been our guiding principle, this might be a rather outrageous statement to make but one has to wonder if throwing more money at a dysfunctional Ministry of Defence would actually be counter-productive?

The Ministry of Defence

The Ministry of Defence hovers between two uncomfortable positions, the high cost of supporting operations abroad on one hand and on the other, a desire to maintain the mystical ‘balanced capability’. The £32 billion budget means that spending priorities can lurch between these two posts, applying pain equally without having to decisively focus on one.

We fail to adequately resource operations in order to balance future capabilities but these future capabilities are always compromised by budget pressures, a vicious circle.

A serious reduction in budget would force the issue, no hedging, no muddling through and not relying on wishful thinking as a strategic option.

The MoD needs to get lean and focus on core activity and is the only way to achieve this, a big budget reduction to force the issue?

Its a topical discussion, todays events at the Chilcott Inquiry and subsequent controversy over whether Gordon Brown (the then Chancellor) funded all military requests or not. Former senior officers and civil servants are lining up contradicting the Prime Ministers point of view, safe to voice their concerns now their pensions are firmly secured (can’t rock the boat when it might actually have done some good old boy) but do these individuals carry any responsibility or is it simply too easy and lazy to blame the Treasury under Gordon Brown for all the very real equipment shortages; soldiers going over the start line with 5 rounds of ammunition dressed in green and without body armour or desert combats.

£32 billion is not an unsubstantial amount of money and given the systemic problems with the MoD would an extra billion here or half a dozen billion there actually have made any difference or just perpetuated the current cake and arse party that is the Ministry of Defence equipment strategy.

In truth, no one knows, but what is certain is that those doing some of the shouting, maximising those pre election media opportunities, share the blame and no amount of money will ever be enough until we sort out some of the underlying problems.

Money for current operations and equipment supporting those operations aside, strong medicine might be the only way of driving real reform forward, not the shuffling of deck chairs style MoD reform we have become used to.