Canaries down the mine

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Richard_North, Jun 21, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. According to the Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP, minister of state for defence, “we take all measures possible to ensure the safety and security of our troops deployed in Iraq”. This is in response to an MP who had passed on a constituent’s letter (a former serving soldier) expressing concern about “the safety of so-called armoured Land Rovers”.

    He asked me to publicise this issue as widely as possible. I have done what I can here:

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/06/canaries-down-mine.html

    This is for a non-technical audience but, if I have made any mistakes, I would appreciate any corrections.
     
  2. <u>but there's £12,000,000 per annum for Bliar's presidential jet </u> so he can imitate Dubya, but without Dubya's influence!

    </p>... and our Tone will allow and the Queen to borrow one every now and then - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2235534,00.html


    </p>
    edited to add: first reaction having glanced through the blog- I'll sit down and read it more carefully now.
     
  3. Thanks... We've dubbed Blair's new venture "Sleazy Jet" Airlines. Enjoy...

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/06/on-wings-and-prayer.html
     
  4. The Swedish seem happy with their new toys - the RG-32M "Galten" - as rejected by the MoD.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Have a look at the website of the company that produces the armour for the snatches:

    http://www.np-aerospace.co.uk/

    where this translates into "all measures possible to ensure the safety and security of our troops deployed in Iraq" I'm not sure.

    Or fits in with this statement:

    12 June 2006: Lord Drayson. My Lords, I do not accept that Snatch Land Rovers are not appropriate for the role. We must recognise the difference between protection and survivability. It is important that we have the trade-offs that we need for mobility. The Snatch Land Rover provides us with the mobility and level of protection that we need.
     
  6. removed - duplicate
     
  7. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1838909,00.html 23 October 2005: *Colonel quits as troops are denied armoured land rovers in Iraq

    </p>
    Sounds like the same snatch Land Rovers as we had in NI the 1970's!


    </P>
    edited to add: maybe you cound get in touch with *Lieutenant-Colonel Nick Henderson, Coldstream Guards (Retd)
     
  8. Difficult to see which applies. If it is to CAV 100 & CAV 100D spec, then the claim is to "ballistic protection levels up to CEN Level B6" - which is "high powered rifle" - presumably 7.62mm NATO? Either way, mine protection is minimal. The RG-31, on the other hand (which Drayson was rejecting) is specced to 14KG TNT equivalent under any wheel and 7KG under the belly. The FCLV (Panther) , by the way, is protected to 6KG under any wheel and I cannot find a spec for under-cabin protection.
     
  9. In Parliament yesterday

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060622/debtext/60622-0629.htm#06062258000002

    22 Jun 2006 : Column 1492

    Debate: Defence Policy

    Mr. Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): The American soldiers and marines in Iraq have access to RG-31 Nyala mine-protected vehicles which enable the crew to survive the blast of an improvised explosive device. Canadian troops deployed in Afghanistan also use RG-31s. British soldiers and Royal Marines need to make do with lightly protected Land Rovers. That is not acceptable.

    Ann Winterton: I have a question about equipment connected with Afghanistan. As our forces appear to be winning the firefights in Afghanistan, does he expect those who oppose our troops there and in other theatres to revert to the use of improvised explosive devices? If so, what vehicles are our forces to be equipped with to counter the threat?

    Mr. Ingram: We have been very effective in Afghanistan. We have a potent force in the Apache attack helicopters. We are up against intelligent and capable enemies, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, and we know that they will continue to look for ways to attack land-based vehicles or air-based platforms. We have a lot of measures in place. The hon. Lady will understand that it is not appropriate to discuss all the detail, but where we identify a threat - be it a new or technological threat - we identify a quick way to deal with it. Sometimes that takes time as we come to understand the threat before developing the technical response. Our focus at all times is the protection of our personnel, whether it involves fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, land-based systems or maritime systems.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom Watson): In closing the debate, I want to make two points ... First, we need to ensure that our people, who do a magnificent job, are properly looked after. Secondly, we need to ensure that they have the equipment that they need to do the difficult and dangerous things that we ask of them. Our success depends above all else on our personnel.
     
  10. Interesting article, thanks for the link. Couple of comments. (1) You rightly indicated that this is a complex subject, but without going into too much detail, specialised highly-protected vehicles cannot "prove the route" against command-detonated IED. (2) Some other commentators make it sound an act of madness to have deployed snatch landrovers into that theatre in the first place. I don't believe it was.
     
  11. brettarider

    brettarider On ROPs

    Perhaps a letter to your local Mp highlighting the fact that the lads are out in the pit arent getting the correct gear to keep them alive due to "lack of funds" yet T B can have 12, mill for a jet every year stinks it really does I hope the tw@t can sleep easy with the blood on his hands
     
  12. The guys on ops deserve the best kit that we can get to them - and that means a better solution than landrovers that can't resist high-velocity rounds, let alone RPGs and explosives.

    We need to have lots of them in theatre - and we need to be able to support them. We probably need to buy something that's flexible enough to be used on ops for the next 10 years. Procurement decisions taken on the fly aren't good ones.

    As for as Blair Force One is concerned - its probably a good idea that the PM (and senior Royals/HMG) have appropriate fixed wing transport, rather than hiring jets every 2 minutes. Its cheaper, safer, and more effective for flying the overpaid gits all over the world!
     
  13. Thanks. It certainly is complex - mind blowingly so. The problem I have is how to present the issue without blowing the minds of non-technical readers (and me) while remaining true the facts. Certainly, I take your point about "command detonation". Effectively, what it points to is that defence measures must be multi-layered and there is no single technique (or combination) or indeed any complete safeguard. UAV escorts seem to have yielded promising results and much is expected of environmental exception mapping, when it comes on-stream. I'll go back to my piece and see how I can develop it.

    As to the "snatch" Land Rovers, clearly they have a use - especially for their design role of policing civil disturbances. I cannot see though why there should be such an absolute refusal of Ministers even to consider the provision of RG-31s for high-risk areas to give troops that additional level of protection. Not least, they say that these vehicles are too big. Do you know if it is ever the case that mounted patrols go into space restricted areas that are only accessible to Land Rovers. Is size ever that critical?