It has been revealed that the Snatch Land Rover, slated to leave service in March 2024, is to have its service life extended beyond this date.
Kevan Jones, the Labour MP for North Durham, directed an inquiry to the Ministry of Defence concerning the service life of the Snatch Land Rover vehicles.
His question was, “To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the out of service date of the British Army’s Snatch Land Rover vehicles is.”
In response, James Cartlidge, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, stated, “The Out of Service Date for the Snatch Land Rover is currently March 2024; however, an extension to this date is being sought.”
The Snatch Land Rover, developed in 1992 for use in Northern Ireland, is a protected patrol vehicle based on the Land Rover Defender 110 chassis. It was designed for general patrolling in areas with a low threat level but has been deployed in more challenging environments, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
The vehicle’s use in these high-threat zones led to it being dubbed the “Mobile Coffin” due to concerns over its protective capabilities.
This designation led to an announcement by former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in March 2010 about replacing the Snatch Land Rover with a new light patrol vehicle, later identified as the Ocelot.
Despite its controversial history, the Snatch Land Rover has been a significant part of the British Army’s fleet. With nearly a thousand units built and a unit cost exceeding £50,000 (including armour), it represents a considerable investment.
Its specifications include a weight of around 4,050 kilograms, dimensions of 4.55 meters in length, 1.79 meters in width, and 2.03 meters in height, and it is powered by a Land Rover 300 Tdi engine with 111 horsepower. The operational range of the vehicle is approximately 510 kilometers at a maximum speed of 60 miles per hour.
£50k including the armour doesn’t sound like it has very much protection at all….
Now days they are only used for a general runabout, training, light recce and to be airdropped for quick mobility. You wouldn’t throw them deliberately at the enemy, the army learned that lesson in Iraq.
These are still brilliant vehicles that are super easy to drive, quick and can be maintained in the field with basic mechanical knowledge that is it’s strength.
A replacement as I put in my comment will be very expensive, won’t be bought in similar numbers and be very large due to its armour so won’t have the same speed/deployability as a bog standard land rover.
Quite. Most conflicts see commercial 4x4s used to varying degrees.
“Brilliant vehicles”!?.
They’re a lie on wheels.
They’re excessively top heavy, badly designed, provides minimal protection and impossible to fight from. They suffer from Land Rover build quality, are slow, underpowered, next to useless off road and should’ve been binned when our operations got a bit more exciting than people throwing petrol bombs at us.
Every single ‘plus point’ you mention can be done better with an up-armoured Land Cruiser.
And most of your ‘plus points’ are jobs that you don’t need a Snatch, nor any kind of armoured vehicle for.
Why are you using a 4 ton Defender as a runabout?
What use is one for training, if you’re never going to use one on operations?
Light Recce? Repeat after me. Weapons Mount Integration Kit.
Why would you airdrop one? What tasking requires a Snatch to be dropped in?
And I hate to break it to you, you’re not getting anything for 50k in 2023, never mind an armoured thing. A good B6 armour package alone sets you back 6 figures. It’d cost more than £130,000 to have nothing more than an armoured 110 defender parked on your driveway.
Even this mythical 50k (if you dig far enough, that number comes from a 2009 report when a few got stolen, and “may not include the additional armour and communications”), inflation adjusted, is nearly a hundred grand in todays sterling.
And for that you get a wheeled box that was possibly the only platform more unstable than a moving BFA. No communications, ECM, no situational awareness system, no TI cameras, bugger all space for your kit, no weapons systems, a hole in the roof and armour so thin that EFP slugs never used to notice that it’d hit anything and would pass straight through.
But hey, least it’s easy to fix eh?
And you misunderstand why its “replacement” is so much more expensive.
Foxhound didn’t “replace” Snatch. In much the same way that the GPMG isn’t a replacement for the English Longbow. Or the AS90 isn’t a replacement for a trebuchet.
Just a quick one, the Snatches we deployed with in 2008/9 had both FFR fit and ECM.
One did catch fire all by itself in the middle of Umm Qasr though, even when we took the keys out it was still running away!
We had one as a run around in Iraq. It couldn’t be used outside the wire. Vehicles carrying jammers, would literally turn it off. Got really embarrassing at a Yank airbase, when some Strykers went past at a junction, we were stuck there until they left, holding up some convoy that was prepping to go outside. Had to push it off the road, which took about 10 bods to do, due to the weight.
*little Britain voice*
Yeah, I know. I mean, the one in the picture has it fitted
You’re not getting that for 50 grand though.
They weren’t though. MK1 GKN Chassis, NP Aerospace bodywork except front wings and cab floor pan. Armoir footwell, doors, dash screens, bulkhead and rear pod all NP Aerospace.
A turd polished, is still a turd.
In Afghan, we swapped our two Landrover WMIKs for a pair of Foxhounds. So went from 3.5t to just over 7.5t. Put the two together, the Foxhound dwarves the WMIK massively. However, it came with really comfy seats and aircon. Plus it could take a lot of punishment not only from the terrain, but also from small arms fire.
The Snatch is heavier than a WMIK due to the kevlar lined solid rear cab. They also have additional armour under the floors now. If you did away with the mine-resistant seats in the back of a Foxhound, you can carry the same number of bods as a Snatch.
Designed for Op Banner in NI, it largely had to withstand hurled half bricks and low velocity small arms fire, and provide some protection from IEDs of the era. It was fitted with CAMAC composite armour (possibly about 600kg in weight)
It was not suitable for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it went anyway, as initially we did not have more substantial PM vehs.
I think the other one Graham, is that it wasn’t suitable for how the operations panned out. However, it was deployed when we thought we’d be facing a predominantly public order operation in Basra in late 2003 / early 04 – except for a lack of aircon, it was eminently suited for that. The assumption was horribly wrong though!
The main Pod was probably over that weight when fitted out. Each door weighed 25kg+ at the rear.
£50,000 per unit is dirt cheap in today’s defence industry, the reason these are still running is because a replacement in going to cost 10-20 times more per unit. It’s a shame they cannot make a replacement land rover and have kept the production line open for these.
Maybe Ineos would be open to developing a mil-spec version of the Grenadier.
You are not the first to have suggested that to Sir Jim Ratcliffe. Watch this space!
Ineos are seriously looking at the military market although this will be without the BMW engine due to BMW not allowing any of its products to be associated with any militaries. But….Ineos is not going into the armoured vehicle business which means a third party after market armourer will have to work with them / MoD. The Grenadier is the perfect 4×4 for this market; non-armoured and armoured.
The Gear box’s, in the frist round of the foxhound made is out of the 2nd gen BWM x5.
The mOD was on a big push to “get JLTV”…however that has died a death
It would be fine but …
Mass 10.27 t
Length 6.2 m
Width 2.5 m
Height 2.6 m
Cost 400k a pop!
Its a truck and you would need a HGV licence to drive it and on UK roads it would move everywhere on a low loader.
Time to buy some Hilux Pickups or Tundras.
Why do you need to move it on a low loader? Its wheeled, not tracked, is only 11 tons and speed is up to 70mph.
I think our friend was taking the p**s!
Perhaps I need to improve my sense of humour!
The US Army just let a follow-on contract with AM General for the JLTV with an estimated unit cost, (depends on variant obviously) of $420,000 per unit. At one time the UK got approval for a FMS purchase of the JLTV but, for some reason, never executed a contract. Shortage of funds?
I think the army would struggle to justify the cost at present with priority areas like boxer and Ajax need more funding.
JLTV is a great vehicle in its own merit but a giant compared to a land rover being designed to take on a different task thanks to Afghanistan, the future of the army is peer on peer now so tracks are back in fashion.
We would also struggle to quickly deploy these in large numbers and supply them in the field with adequate numbers of maintainers and support vehicles and they are very thirsty vehicles needing more general work over a simple system.
I think the right thing to do is extend the life of these until a reliable, preferably cheap alternative that is future proofed with alternative fuels can be sought and built in the UK.
UK will have very limited capacity to produce anything with an ICE. This could be a big mistake if we needed to do what we did in WW2 are use industries to produce weapons.
£50K per vehicle is peanuts. I’m sure the vehicle has prevented far more injuries and deaths than fatalities suffered but the media are not interested in those kind of stories.
Because at the time the US was moving around in nearly 30ton MRAPs with a damn near 100% survivability record, and we were moving around in a land rover with an open topped box on the back which would be doing well to survive grenades and very small arms.
Just because something is better than nothing, doesn’t mean it is good enough.
That isn’t how it works.
George, Not everyone is in the Direct Fire Zone, and in need of gargantuan levels of protection.
Then why have the armour at all…?
Either you need protection, and thus require sufficient armour to achieve that, or you don’t.
You have to pick one, but Snatch delivers neither.
What, dare I ask, is the ‘direct fire zone’ and how do you define ‘gargantuan levels of protection’?
And whilst you are there, I’d love to know what that has to do with the topic of the injury prevention the vehicle was designed to do, failed at, that MRAP is superior at…? The whole point *is* that “gargantuan” levels of protection were required.
George, during my 4 postings to BAOR. my vehicle was a Land Rover – in contrast, anything in the medium and heavy categories of armour had gargantuan levels of protection compared to my vehicle’s level.
Military vehicles have always had varying levels of protection – it is not a case of nil or a huge amount. I would say it went from nil to Protected Mobility (light) to PM heavy/MRAP to medium armour to heavy armour.
Snatch was fielded from 1992 to meet an Op Banner requirement (ie Northern Ireland) to replace Makrolon-protected Land Rovers as a protected patrol vehicle. It had to protect the crew against hurled bricks, petrol bombs and small arms fire. Its CAMAC composite armour provided the crew also to a limited degree with some protection against explosive devices, such as IEDs. The vehicle weighed c.3,000kg of whch around 800kg was the CAMAC armour package. The vehicle was further developed but AFAIK no additional protection was fitted, as what it had was deemed sufficient. Snatch seems to have a good reputation during its operations in Northern Ireland, which is what it was designed for. Snatch cost a very modest £50,000 a copy.
In Oct 2004, the USMC received their first MRAP (FPE’s Cougar) for use in Iraq after a 6-month ‘UOR’ type process. It was adapted from a South African vehicle which had been purpose-built to have very good protection from landmines & IEDs. $475,000 per copy.
The UK, lacking MRAPs, deployed the unsuitable Protected Mobility (Light) Snatch to the higher threat environments of Iraq and later to Afghanistan, and did not immediately source MRAP type vehicles. Questions were asked in Parliament – and families of the 37 soldiers who had been killed in Snatch vehicles rightly protested loudly, garnering much media attention. In June 2006 Def Sec, Des Browne ordered ongoing work to procure better vehicles to be speeded up, and announced on 25 Jul 2006 a package of new equipment to help protect UK Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan following an ‘armoured vehicles’ review. MoD statement read:
“This included: the purchase of around 100 additional Pinzgauer ‘Vector’ for Afghanistan, on top of the 66 already on contract, with deliveries to begin early in 2007; the provision, for Iraq, of around 70 uparmoured and upgraded FV430 troop carriers, in addition to the 54 already on contract, with deliveries starting late this year and building up to a mechanised infantry battlegroup by Spring 2007; and the acquisition of around 100 of a new medium weight vehicle, ‘Cougar’, which is manufactured by Force Protection Incorporated of Charleston, South Carolina, and is expected to be delivered to Iraq and Afghanistan in batches over the next six month rotation, with an effective capability in place in Iraq by the end of the year”.
The Direct Fire zone is the area within which you are in range of the enemy’s direct fire (ground-launched) weapons. If you are likely to operate in this zone, you should (clearly) have the best protection possible. This is where your armoured recce, and ‘F’ echelons of armoured regiments and armoured/mech infantry battalions operate. Those units ‘A’ and ‘B’ echelons will be a few tactical bounds behind and would not justify those highest protection levels – that is why I as a REME officer had just a LR. Neither would most other units have armour with exceptions, one being armoured engineers and another being certain artillery pieces such as SPGs who need good protection to deal with counter-battery fire.
Most of the army’s vehicles have no ballistic protection whatsoever, although external add-on armour has been added to some B Vehicles in the past as a UOR, such as the Permali package for the HET cab.
As an officer in the REME, did you enjoy copy/pasting that from wikipedia?
So you agree with me then? Either you need “gargantuan” levels of protection, or you don’t, but Snatch provides neither and thus should’ve been retired when the threat level exceeded “bricks, petrol bombs and small arms fire”?
Because if you’re in the “direct fire zone”, then you need “gargantuan levels of protection”. And if you aren’t, then you can cut about in a GS land rover.
I would change your definition though. “Direct fire” is limited by this thing called the horizon, and isn’t actually that big an area. Indirect fire, that’s the bit beyond that where you’re still inside the effective range of an opponents weapon systems, but they have no direct line of sight with you.
You know, the bits artillery and aviation generally play with.
Snatch is comedically unsuitable for this. It doesn’t have the protection to keep you safe from anything, but the extra weight makes it unwieldy when moving around.
And it has a hole in the roof.
Could you spare a moment to talk about our lord and saviour, airburst munitions?
“Military vehicles have always had varying levels of protection – it is not a case of nil or a huge amount”
Absolutely. But the amount has to be sufficient to actually protect you, to qualify as protection.
That’s how the word works.
It’s also not how Snatch worked from 2005 onwards, when we moved away from “bricks, petrol bombs and small arms” to hundreds of pounds of HME, explosive formed penetrators and rocket propelled HEAT grenades.
Aaah yes, Vector. The mistake that killed Pinzgauer as a company almost outright.
Fitting, as the vehicle tended to kill the driver outright if you drove over a device with the commander side wheel, regardless of size.
Oh, and erm, just a word on SPG protection.
There is a reason why the AS90 is 20 tons lighter than Challenger. 17mm of armour isn’t protecting you against counter-battery fire. Archer is a truck with about the same armour as a civilian up-armoured land cruiser. That isn’t surviving counter-battery either.
You don’t ‘deal with counter-battery’ with armour. You deal with counter-battery by taking on words of wisdom from Mr Myagi, which also happens to be the top layer of the survivability onion.
No be there.
George, I make no apology for using Open Source material- some people just spout opinions without any underpinning background, references or links. I generally give the source and have often used Wikipedia – it is not perfect but it regularly gets updated by SME contributors.
Snatch should not have been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, but we had no MRAPs initially. As always, we deploy what we have got in time of war, even if it is not the best equipment for the task. We then sourced a suite of PM vehicles relatively quickly; Snatch should have been withdrawn from Iraq and Afghan when those PM vehicles arrived in Theatre.
I am not sure why you want to alter my definition of direct fire zone – not sure the horizon has got much to do with it. You are right that it is a limited area – including LRATGW it is about 4km from the enemy at most, with most enemy direct fire weapons having a much, much shorter range than that. However it is the most dangerous area to find yourself in and you need the best armoured protection that is possible – hence it is the domain primarily of Ajax, tanks, IFVs and APCs.
Considering now the area in which indirect fire (and aviation and air) can hit friendly forces, that is of course a far bigger area – when you add in aviation and air, that is pretty much everywhere. I am not sure what you advocate for friendly forces as you favour only 2 protection options – a lot of protection or none at all, wheras I talked about several protection levels. I had no protection at all in my BAOR era example.
As I said, most vehicles in the army are unprotected, but in recent conflicts (from Gulf War 1 onwards) some limited add-on protection packages for B vehs were sourced and fitted.
I am not praising or defending the deployment of Snatch or the larger Vector to Iraq/Afghanistan – their protection levels were inadequate particularly against large IEDs. Vector was swiftly withdrawn from Afghanistan for this reason. Better, heavier protected mobility (PM)/MRAP vehicles were sourced to replace Snatch/Vector on those deployments.
Perhaps you could expain why SPGs are armoured if you criticise the protection? The vehicle is outside the direct fire zone so does not need very high (a better phrase than gargantuan) levels of protection. Clearly the 17mm of armour on AS90 is not there to guarantee to prevent penetration by a direct hit from an enemy artillery shell but it is intended to protect the crew from flying shell splinters from near-miss incoming fire including air bursts.
Archer is of course a lighter weight system than AS90, so will have less protection. Archer is very lightly armoured but of course has more protection than a towed system which has nothing, yet you criticise Archer. Most in the army seem to approve of the Archer purchase – we have needed truck mounted artillery for a long time.
“George, I make no apology for using Open Source material- some people just spout opinions without any underpinning background, references or links. I generally give the source and have often used Wikipedia”
You know that Wikipedia can be altered by absolutely anybody, right? You may as well use youtube for your sources.
However, incident one of 4 of you completely misunderstanding what I said (a common theme throughout). It wasn’t that you used Wikipedia. It’s that you seem to understand so little about the platforms, you had to copy and paste it from elsewhere.
And it happened to be data utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
“Snatch should not have been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan”
My erm…point…entirely…
Incident 2 of 4 of you misunderstanding what I said. You disagreed with my point that 21st century COIN requires large amounts of protection provided by the larger, 30 ton vehicles by saying that we shouldn’t have done COIN without the 30ton armoured vehicles.
Make up your mind.
“not sure the horizon has got much to do with it”
That’s because you’re an officer in the REME. Direct fire is fire that is fired directly at a target.
Hence the name.
And until someone invents a weapon capable of over-penetrating the crust of the Earth, the horizon will forever limit the area covered by direct fire weapons.
Understand how that works?
It doesn’t matter how long the range of an ATGM or a machine gun is. If you don’t have line of sight, you won’t see it, you can’t engage it and you definitely can’t kill it.
“However it is the most dangerous area to find yourself in and you need the best armoured protection that is possible – hence it is the domain primarily of Ajax, tanks, IFVs and APCs.”
Would you not agree that the areas frequented by Coalition forces in the means of transiting Iraq and Afghanistan being hit by IEDs and RPGs as inside that “direct fire” bubble?
And thus would require the best armoured protection (one could call it gargantuan levels) available?
And not a 3 ton, open topped box?
Like I said in my original post?
No?
Ok.
“I am not sure what you advocate for friendly forces as you favour only 2 protection options – a lot of protection or none at all, wheras I talked about several protection levels. I had no protection at all in my BAOR era example.”
Incident 3 of 4 of you misunderstanding what I said. I mean, notwithstanding the fact that the ‘zero or all’ amount of armour seemed to have worked fine for you in the BAOR(ing), there is (again) a difference between what I said and what you heard.
I advocate for a *sufficient* amount of protection. If that amount happens to weigh 30 tons, then so be it. Because protection either protects you, or it doesn’t. There is zero point in having not enough, as it is just dead weight.
The best example is Jackal/HMTV, a fantastic vehicle utterly ruined when the regular army got hold of it.
It has enough armour to reduce its mobility but not enough to actually protect the occupants.
As such, it fails in both its missions as an armoured vehicle and a recce platform.
Snatch, is similarly pointless. It doesn’t have enough armour to actually protect you from threats, and the armour weighs it down so its mobility is reduced, negating its entire purpose in life and you would be better off in either a completely unarmoured vehicle and use its mobility as protection, or in a sufficiently armoured vehicle and rely on that to save you.
That doesn’t mean *everything* needs 1000mm of RHA equivalent. That isn’t what I said.
Sufficient. That is the exact word I used.
Snatch hasn’t got sufficient. MRAP does.
Like I said in the second post.
“Perhaps you could expain why SPGs are armoured if you criticise the protection?”
Easy. The same reason why they fitted a GPMG to it and why Archer is designed to withstand small arms and has an RWS on the roof.
Your ‘direct fire zone’ and the enemies ‘direct fire zone’ may not be the same place. That armour and the machine gun is to protect it incase a wandering band of armed minstrels turn up, put their direct fire zone into your indirect fire assets and try taking out the guns, Brecourt Manor style.
Again.
If you’re relying on armour to deal with counter battery, then you’re doing artillery wrong.
“yet you criticise Archer. Most in the army seem to approve of the Archer purchase – we have needed truck mounted artillery for a long time”
Incident 4 of 4 of you misunderstanding what I said. I criticised your thinking that self propelled guns were armoured to the extent they can survive counter fire.
Not the vehicles themselves. They aren’t designed for that.
As I have said twice now, if you’re testing the protection of an artillery piece, then you’re doing artillery wrong.
If anything, the protection drops are a good thing. Less armour = less weight = more mobility = less counter battery = less need for armour.
Remember the first rule of survival.
No be there.
Incident 1 – Wikipedia – I know that it can be amended by anyone. I know that content can be created by anyone. If an incorrect fact is stated then there are many people who will correct it – that is good. Wiki has many cross references to primary material and detailed footnotes relating to primary material. That makes it useful. What sources do you use – and are they better? What inaccuracies did you note in my Wiki cut and paste? If none, why criticise it as a source?
You think I inserted Wiki info because I know so little about the platforms? It was because a good post provides background and context especially for those who do not know as much a bout the suject as you. Wiki provides a succinct block of text (checked by many people) that does that.
My Snatch experience? I accept that I have never owned, driven or maintained a Snatch vehicle – probably neither have you. I served in Afghanistan when they had Snatch and Vector in-country and there were several at Camp Bastion when I was there. I heard soldiers talk about these vehicles.
As far as the vehicles that replaced them I should know something – I was 2IC and Programme Manager of the MoD’s Operational Vehicles Office at Abbeywood for a period in 2010 – the OVO masterminded the sourcing and building and delivery of all UOR vehicles from manufacturer to Theatre.
Incident 2. You wish for all deployed on 21st Century COIN to be in 30 ton vehicles – that is not affordable or necessary (not everyone is likely to experience the same threat). I did not say ‘we shouldn’t have done COIN without the 30 ton armoured vehicles’. I said that “Snatch should not have been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan”, meaning those doing patrol work as it is a patrol vehicle, should have had a better vehicle – ie. we should have sourced MRAP earlier.
Direct fire range is limited by the design of the weapon and the power of the propellant – whilst effectiveness is limited by other factors such as quality of sights etc. I said that the Direct Fire Zone from ground launched weapons is out to about 4km at max – of course you need line of sight to the target (was that what you meant when talking about ‘horizon’) to use a direct fire weapon but you have to assume worse case when specifying and designing vehicles and that the enemy can see and engage out to the max range of their direct fire weapon. I was just saying you should have the best protection possible if you habitually operate in the enemys direct fire zone.
Its a bit rich you thinking that I I need an explanationas to what direct fire is, when you asked me to tell you what the Direct Fire zone was. I first fired a direct fire weapon when I was a 13-year old army cadet, so I think I know what direct fire means.
You still maintain that you need either a lot of protection on your vehicle (and you use this 30 ton figure a lot) or none at all. That is not how armies define and procure equipment – they do not consider an all or nothing approach to protection. We have a variety of protection levels to match the perceived/anticipated threat, as I explained. No point going through that again.
Vehs transiting areas (Iraq and Afghanistan) where IEDs and RPGs may be encountered. A feature of Afghanistan was the Convoy Logistic Patrol (CLP) to resupply FOBs and PBs etc. Some add-on armour was provided for the B Vehs mainly around the cab – it was not 30 tons of armour plate. It was as good as level of protection as could be provided.
You need to consider why Snatch was provided with some protection (for its duties in Northern Ireland), before you remove it to gain a small amount of extra speed (additional mobility). You are back to that all or nothing idea. Snatch protected its occupants from the threats in Northern Ireland. Snatch could do 60mph on roads so it wasn’t that slow.
SPG – there are several ways to protect against counter battery fire – one is to minimise time in one firing position hence shoot and scoot – one is to have equipment that outranges the enemys artillery. But the armour does protect the crew from flying shrapnel from near-miss and airburst CB fire, not so much direct hits as I said before. There should not be too many enemy with direct fire weapons near gun lines which are tens of kms back from the FEBA, so I don’t think that was the logic in providing armour. Otherwise everything tens of kms back would have armour, and it doesn’t.
I like your first rule of survival – did you pick that up in your army service?
But most armies have to be there to do their job.
“If none, why criticise it as a source?”
Again. Because *absolutely none of it was relevant*. It reminds me of one of my joes answering a question on characteristics of the rifle by reeling off the wiki article verbatim.
Cute Archoi, but entirely not what I asked. Now, let’s start again and use words like ‘magazine fed’ instead.
You didn’t make any case for the competence of Snatch in its job. Nor did you make any kind of case that Snatch saved more lives than it cost, and provided evidence for such.
You just puked a load of words into the text box.
Which is cute graham, but entirely not what was asked.
“You think I inserted Wiki info because I know so little about the platforms?”
Absolutely. Because if you did, you’d have been able to contextualise it yourself, in your own words.
“and are they better?”
Well, I’ve had many discussions about just how…misleading…certain documents are at certain schools in the army.
In this case though, my sources are the Library of Personal Experience. You can’t do Harvard referencing with it, but it’s generally pretty reliable.
“probably neither have you”
Now *there’s* a dangerous assumption. One that makes an ass out of someone, and it ain’t me.
I’ve been in Snatch one and two. And Vector, Mastiff, Husky, Fox/Wolfhound, Ridgeback, Jackals and a few other unpronounceable in public names.
“I served in Afghanistan when they had Snatch and Vector in-country”
Calm down there war hero. Whilst I’m sure that might be impressive elsewhere, even Cheryl Cole has been to Bastion.
“was 2IC and Programme Manager of the MoD’s Operational Vehicles Office at Abbeywood for a period in 2010 – the OVO masterminded the sourcing and building and delivery of all UOR vehicles from manufacturer to Theatre.”
Oh. Please tell me J2 wasn’t your idea? Or Springer? Or Husky? I’m sorry, but the vast majority of UOR that was bought back then was utter *pish* compared to what was available elsewhere.
Why, oh *why* didn’t you buy the MRAPs with real suspension? Oshkosh do amazing independent shocks, it fits under Cougar vehicles. Nah. Leaf springs. Panther?
I remember speaking to units that considered Panther so bad to drive that they used to strap them to the back of a DROPs so you could still use the comms fits. It also had the *worst* available remote weapon station money could buy. The Protector is superior in every way.
“You wish for all deployed on 21st Century COIN to be in 30 ton vehicles”
Sigh.
No.
Again, what I said, vs what you heard.
I said SUFFICIENT levels of protection. If that means the vehicle happens to weigh 30 tons, then so be it.
“we should have sourced MRAP earlier.”
I mean, not only were you in the job and thus uniquely in the position to make the changes you’re complaining about 13 years later, but you are aware that MRAPs tend to weigh 20-30 tons, right?
Mastiff is a body positivity activist over 29 tons. Which is the vehicle we got (a mistake, there is way better platforms out there) and the vehicle you have *just said* we should have been using.
Do you not understand we are saying *exactly* the same thing, but for some reason you have something against large amounts of protection whilst simultaneously calling for large amounts of protection?
“Direct fire range is limited by the design of the weapon and the power of the propellant”
No.
It is limited by the horizon.
For example, you can fire a 105 light gun ‘over the sights’. As in, direct fire at targets the battery can physically see, usually only used in an emergency. The guns can absolutely fire further than that, but they are limited by the horizon in that direct fire role (because, funnily enough the Earth isn’t a WH40K table and isn’t flat) which for a 6ft man is around 4.4km
*That* is why most ‘direct fire weapons’ like ATGM or small arms are limited to that range, not because they can’t make them fire any further.
“I first fired a direct fire weapon when I was a 13-year old army cadet, so I think I know what direct fire means.”
I mean, 8 year olds with AKs are using ‘direct fire’ weapons as we speak. They’d be hard pressed to explain to you what that actually means though.
Funny you don’t mention LFMT, TLFTT or LFTT at Sandhurst as when you truly learned what direct fire meant, particularly the rifle lessons where you’d have learned about things like theory of small arms fire.
“it was not 30 tons of armour plate. It was as good as level of protection as could be provided”
No, and Mastiff also isn’t 30 tons of armour plate. It is a 30ton vehicle which provided sufficient protection with its armour plate. Which definitely didn’t weigh 30 tons.
There’s also a reason why they didn’t let the up-armoured EPLS out by itself on these CLPs, and why Wolfhound was a thing.
“You need to consider why Snatch was provided with some protection (for its duties in Northern Ireland).”
I did. When I first got hands on a Snatch I, tapped the back and thought to myself ‘that doesn’t sound like metal’.
It was given sufficient armour to protect the crew from N. Ireland.
Bricks, petrol bombs. Occasionally a pipe bomb or maybe even a small IED.
Not rocket propelled HEAT rounds and roadside EFPs.
“You are back to that all or nothing idea”.
No. I’m still in the ‘sufficient or nothing’ idea. There is a difference.
“Snatch could do 60mph on roads so it wasn’t that slow.”
You know Mastiff can also do 60mph as well, right? I have physically driven one at those speeds.
As 2IC of the UOR fleet, surely you knew that? .
Speed and mobility aren’t the same thing. The USS Missouri could do nearly 40mph, but I wouldn’t fancy its chances off road against a Challenger II.
“There should not be too many enemy with direct fire weapons near gun lines which are tens of kms back from the FEBA, so I don’t think that was the logic in providing armour”
Well, it was the logic when they provided them with machine guns in self defence.
Unless that RWS on Archer is to protect it from counter-battery as well?
“But most armies have to be there to do their job.”
Yes they do. But it generally is a good idea to not be where people are shooting at you. You can be somewhere else and have the same effect.
‘Being there’ went out of the window with red coats and marching around in blocks, shooting at each other with muskets from 70 metres in open fields.
George, you make your points with passion, which is a good thing, and experience which is even better. I think other readers will be tired if I did another line-by-line answer, which is not necessary anyway.
But my 6 months in the OVO in 2010 on short-term contract as MoD contractor was not a Requirements Manager job, it was a Programme Manager job. Theatre staff fed back critiques of the deployed vehicles with suggestions/recommendations and Army Requirements Managers in the UK then wrote the Requirements documents, not me. The time imperative required use of the UOR process. I managed the UOR vehicles programmes overall at top-level with my boss – our aim was to keep the process fast, maintain quality control and brief the Minister.
The army will always have vehicles with varying levels of protection (from zilch all the way through to tank levels of protection) and sometimes it won’t be enough for a given vehicle on a particular operation, hence TES add-on protection and the UOR system to source better vehicles off the shelf. Not ideal, but I don’t see the system changing.
I dunno. The readers seem to think for some reason that you know what you’re talking about, so I think they’ll be keen to find out what mental gymnastics you’re doing to simultaneously say that Snatch shouldn’t have been sent to Afghanistan and MRAPs should have, but MRAPs with “gargantuan” levels of protection also weren’t needed.
All in reply about the difference between “oh, well it might have saved someone, so why hate on on” and “well, it could’ve saved everyone, that’s why it was hated on”.
“The army will always have vehicles with varying levels of protection (from zilch all the way through to tank levels of protection)”
Have you ever seen that South Park episode, where they spend the entire time trying to teach Kanye West about word play? And he’s too busy being a “lyrical genius” to see the mistake he’s making?
This feels a lot like that.
Again, on more time.
There is only two levels of protection that matters.
None.
And sufficient.
Now. Sufficient doesn’t mean lots. Or shitloads. Or gargantuan. It isn’t a number, or a weight. It is a concept, not a schematic and depends on what it is expected to be protecting against.
“Not enough” and “too much” is a hindrance to mobility.
Not enough and Too much aren’t a weight or a number either. It is either meaning you’ve brought too much and either you can’t move or the enemies weapons no where near powerful enough to penetrate it, or they’re penetrating it as if it wasn’t there and so in either case it may as well be dead weight.
What is considered sufficient, too much or not enough changes significantly over time and even where it is used.
Not Enough in Helmand 2012 might be Too Much outside Cardiff Airport 2023 but might be Sufficient in Crossmaglen 2005.
As you keep bleating on about, they did up-armour certain B Vehicles. Like EPLS, for example. Not that it is relevant to the original post of Snatch ‘being better than nothing’, mind you.
Now, I don’t know how many people have been killed in an EPLS, and I’m not saying it didn’t happen but it must be quite a small number considering I can’t find any examples of it happening.
That means that its protection (whilst not being gargantuan) was sufficient for its task of hiding behind a convoy of route clearance vehicles and force protection.
However, I think if they’d have let the RLC out by themselves that fact would change significantly, very quickly.
Snatch had sufficient armour in the 90’s. Ish. Because not many people were being killed in them
It didn’t in the mid-2000s, and certainly not by the late 2000s. Because people starting being killed in them so often, it started becoming a trend.
But that armour it did have, significantly reduced its mobility and stability. You still had to take the ‘beaten path’ with them, as even a funny look would cause one to fall over or get stuck.
And over 30 people lost their lives in them.
When that was realised in 2005, it should have been immediately replaced with a vehicle with sufficient protection for areas that needed that protection (in that “direct fire zone” you so love) and a vehicle with better mobility in areas where that wasn’t necessary (the rear areas you so frequented).
The US had a similar problem to us and got a vehicle from paper to sand in under 6 months in 2005. One that (according to the USMC) reduced roadside IED fatalities by 80%.
For us, people were still being killed in Snatch in 2008 and it took 5 YEARS for them to be withdrawn after questions were raised about its suitability. And I suspect it was only that “fast” because the families were holding the MoD to account in court.
If it had been replaced when it should have, over 30 names wouldn’t be on the various memorials dotted around the country right now. And we wouldn’t have ended up with the dubious statistic of being 12% more likely to be killed out there than an American and 26% more likely to be killed by an IED.
Which, again, has been my *entire point* from the start.
Better than nothing is not the same as good enough.
Something the MoD (and some readers here) still haven’t learned.
As ever, well explained mate.
Honestly why bother getting rid of them, easy to maintain cheap to run, and actually do you need an expensive vehicle with very significant Mine/IED protection as a general peace time/low threat environment run around. The army now has plenty of decent force protection vehicles for higher threat environments…what it need to concentrate its resources on are getting the combined arms elements all in-place for war fighting, challenger 3, new fires, Ajax and boxer.
Exactly, use a general peace time/low threat environment run around
They are 30 years old! Most ‘B’ vehs are replaced well before that time.
Didn’t they have a refurb in 2005, which was in effect a full rebuild ? still 18 years old
Simon, I had to research this as I had not been closely following the Scnatch story. You are right. 1,000 Snatch were procured for Northern Ireland in 1992, fielded in ’93.
Some were later desertised – Snatch 1.5.
Most of the others were later upgraded in 2005/6 – Snatch 2.
The base vehicle is still 30 years old – the modified parts are 18 years old. Still very old for a B vehicle.
https://www.joint-forces.com/land-rovers/18536-military-land-rovers-pt-9-cav-100-aka-snatch
I am surprised that Snatch is still in service.
maybe this is the replacement
https://www.joint-forces.com/uk-news/67094-uk-light-tactical-mobility-platform-contract-notice
I doubt it. No mention of integral ‘light armour’ such as Snatch’s CAMAC, for the Protected Mobility role.
Looks unarmoured to me.
very true but I guess there loads of other equipment programs to fund. there is a link to contract notice placed by the MOD, but this site will not let me post it
There is always insufficient money to afford what the MoD wants in total, which is known informally as ‘the equipment black hole’.
https://www.joint-forces.com/uk-news/67094-uk-light-tactical-mobility-platform-contract-notice
994? 996. I know UNHCR also had a number produced.
Snatch were designed for Northern Ireland where I understand they did a fair job. They would be fine for similar operations elsewhere.
But they are old now.
true but land rovers of that vintage were designed to go on for a long time and be easy to maintain…if it was decided it was more cost effective to replace with something newer and cheap that’s fine…but I suspect the army would end trying to buy some very expensive protected patrol vehicles to replace…instead of a like for like low threat utility vehicle.
Ordinary ‘bog standard’ army Landrovers were replaced and sold off at auction whilst they could still commnad a good price – I seem to recall that was about the 10-15 year point although some would be kept for longer – I recall being in a unit with an 18 year old Landy and it was frequently commented on.
Specialist vehicle like Snatch is a little bit different but of course Op Banner (for which Snatch were procured) ended in July 2007. You might have expected most to have been sold soon thereafter. But a large number were kept, no doubt in case the army was again called on to deploy to NI operationally or somewhere else, where a degree of protection commensurate with a relatively low threat level was required when patrolling, whilst avoiding an over-aggressive appearance. We used to have Saladins (76mm gun), Saracens, Ferrets with Browning MG in the streets there – I guess it was felt the army needed more ordinary looking vehicles at times.
I am sure that we still sell B vehicles off before they fall apart and have little sales value.
The army has a wide variety of heavier Protected Mobility vehicles already.
Poorly researched article. The Force Protection Europe Ocelot, never entered service. But the platform was developed and entered service as the General Dynamics Foxhound, a light protected patrol vehicle (LPPV).
Foxhound is a fleet solution for light forces, providing unparalleled small arms ballistic and mine protection in its class of vehicle. Rather sadly, once it got into service, the development of other variants and the base platform has been limited. This vehicle had so much potential, and yet it will be replaced by JLTV,or will it?
Force protection Ocelot prototype was at ABRO Bovington for about a year, don’t think it ever left the building for meaningful testing. Came with nice promotional biscuits that a rep dished out before it left. Original steel unlike the later composite foxhounds . Building of foxhound was comedy as parts did not arrive in the right order or on time and often were fitted to meet targets and then later removed to fit other ones . Also parts were fitted on overtime again to meet targets and then workers would have no work on monday ! Rear door handle and locking mech’ took the longest time to design delaying project, looked a bit flimsy to me! Abro did not get contract for second batch as lack of parts causing delays got blamed on Bovington lol .
The intention always was there for Ocelot to have a composite pod in order to keep the AUW to a minimum. The AUW, like on many projects, had a great deal of creep in it which really defined choices in the power train et al, hence the reasoning behind the Steyr engine and the ZF gearbox etc.
Testing was carried out during many hours, days, weeks and months at Millbrook. All this being done as the vehicle production line was beginning to ramp up. The frustration in this case was that the prototypes on test were a number of iterations behind, meaning that we were dealing with issues in keeping them in the game which would not be apparent in the series production vehicles.
Bovington, then ABRO, fitted out the pods as I understand it, and as you say were beset with issues that less rapid acquisition routes would not have to go through. But it was the same for everyone involved. In the case of trials, for instance, main assemblies were reallocated from the production line, which is not ideal.
The project could have provided such a great base vehicle for a range of light protected vehicles, IMHO it came up short.
Cant believe this. We have 60 year old 432 bullgog APC, 37 year old Warrior. May as well start using the Landrover for another 50 years. British army is right at the bottom of the food chain….
True. Only just pensioned off the 50 year old Scimitar, and the AS90 is no spring chicken.
Got to take it at face value. Is there a vehicle out there that’s the same sort of size with a bit of armour for some small arms and can handle and large round if it’s close.
Probably not for less than 500k and there’s the problem there isn’t anyone making that a wagon you get jump in cut around rear in some kind of safety.
Now with the light to medium drones off the shelf with up to 70km range. The “rear ” has grown in depth into something we haven’t faced since WWII
For once I think Defence has taken a sensible decision to keep something on that’s very low cost and at the end of the day it’s a landy after a 5 min fam everyone can drive it. It’s easy to fix with parts made all over the world.
I would bet there’s some very interesting talks going on with ineos about their larger and more basic utility version. With some light armour added I think it’s a very good replacement.
Have you seen the price of the Inos version of LR Defender costs more than the snatch rover.
New landy is nearly 100k Inos seems like a good deal to me
I had a standard Landy in 4 postings in Germany. If the balloon had gone up I would have given anything to have rather been in a Snatch LR.
But it was for NI duties, not suited for Iraq/Afghanistan. But we had no well armoured PM vehs at first.
“Is there a vehicle out there that’s the same sort of size with a bit of armour for some small arms and can handle and large round if it’s close”
Yes. It’s called a Toyota Land Cruiser with a B6 armour pack.
“Probably not for less than 500k”
You can get two of them for 500 grand.
“Now with the light to medium drones off the shelf”
Hate to break it to you, but Snatch is comedically unsuited to defending against drone attacks. Notwithstanding the well documented lack of ballistic protection, there’s a bloody great hole in the roof with a pair of knobs sticking out like giraffes on a circus train.
“it’s a landy after a 5 min fam everyone can drive it”.
In 1993, yes. Here in 2023, the course is several weeks long.
Everything is unfortunately not suitable against UAV attacks even the Israeli armed forces which have the kit to deal with (world leaders some might argue)it on there wagons are having little success.( they have up loaded the videos) they even copied the Russians with the ‘coupe cages’ with no luck but they are tamdon charge weapons.
Landy course is two weeks now fully done which isn’t bad at all with the H+S attached to it.
Land cruiser is a good bit of bit in urban environments it’s not as good off road as the landrover has poor SA, its hard to maintain when you break it the problem is normally big one as they are so robust.
Two guys in the massive hole in the roof isn’t a very enjoyable experience but you will have a better chance of seeing the drone coming at least hear it. Some of the cheaper drones are very loud. There’s proven kit to “attack” small UVAs but a person remains in the loop
CSS for it also a nightmare for the toytoas as multiple companies have a different buy into the platforms even if they are made at the same time lastly it drinks the diesel if your lucky to have one but that’s a not a massive problem all the time. The petrol ones absolutely smashed it down but the performance is fantastic for the weight of the thing. For some reason Defence doesn’t like petrol anything so its hard to come by not out a jerry can.
I still standby that Defence for once has made a good decision to keep an old bit of kit on the books when there’s a very limited options out there without going gold plated bespoke and all the other expensive buzz words they like to chuck around, with the extra costs added to it the Ajax programme is a good example of this for the army and the older Nimrod for the RAF.
Saying all this I would say the for an off the shelf option you would really struggle to get better than a land cruiser with the armour add on packs.
“it’s not as good off road as the landrover”
Erm.
No.
A V8 L200 Land Cruiser eats a Snatch any day, any where. On and off road.
“Has poor SA”
Erm.
No.
Even an unarmoured Defender is a pain in the ass to reverse into a parking space. Make the glass thicker and the windows smaller?
Its hard to maintain when you break it the problem is normally big one as they are so robust.
Not the first time I’ve heard someone call the Defender ‘reliable’, but probably the most back to front way of justifying it.
“Breaks constantly, which is the good thing because it keeps the problems small”.
“But you will have a better chance of seeing the drone coming at least hear it”
Over the noise of that engine? Ha, ok. Meanwhile, here in the 21st century we have technology that’ll do a better job than a pair of Titanic era lookouts shouting ‘iceberg, dead ahead’ to the driver.
And even if they do see/hear it, then what? “Drive faster?” “Just dodge?” You’re still stuck in a slow, top heavy and badly armoured vehicle with a hole in the roof, being chased by a drone.
Check the videos online to see how that goes.
“Shoot it down”
With what? One of those new ‘anti drone’ rifle sights? Yeah, like they’ll be allowed to leave the stores. They’ll remain stored next to the FCS for the UGL that no one has ever used outside of the tech demonstrations at Salisbury Plain that the Fail eats up as fact.
“CSS for it also a nightmare for the toytoas as multiple companies have a different buy into the platforms even if they are made at the same time”
Multiple companies named Toyota.
“Lastly it drinks the diesel if your lucky to have one but that’s a not a massive problem all the time.”
Everything in Defence is thirsty. Even a standard, no frills, Pinz does 15mpg. You can get better than that in a 200 series V8 Cruiser, as long as you’re not driving like an idiot (newer engines).
“I still standby that Defence for once has made a good decision to keep an old bit of kit on the books when there’s a very limited options out there”
At everything Snatch does, there is a cheaper alternative. Snatch doesn’t even have the luxury of being cheap anymore. Inflation adjusted from 1992, they’re 100 grand. Even if you wanted to use a Grenadier or one of the few pre-2016 Defenders left untouched in a warehouse, you’re not getting an armoured one for less than 150k, then add costs for whatever toys like comms and ECM you feel like fitting.
Yes, the newer kit is more expensive, but that is because they have this thing with actually being fit for purpose, which in 2023 is expensive.
Defence should’ve retired the bloody things 20 years ago when we realised that the Iraqis were doing more than throwing pipe bombs at us.
“all the other expensive buzz words they like to chuck around, with the extra costs added to it the Ajax programme is a good example of this for the army and the older Nimrod for the RAF.”
I agree. But with a more egregious example.
The C-130/A400M
Retiring the former for the latter was a huge mistake. Like Snatch/Foxhound, the Atlas is superior to the Hercules in every measurable metric. I was on one a few weeks back, it even has a proper toilet, rather than a pisstube next to the crew door.
Unlike Snatch/Foxhound, the Hercules is still fit for purpose and everyone except for us is still using them.
Until it needs fueling.
Reverse parking any AFV has a Marshall wheeled or tacked I could be unter pam and say which one as well. If fact all “green” fleet are required to have that there’s even a marshaling course its generally helpful as well as its cross platform.
Landrovers are greatly unreliable but the MOD has years and years of experience and the supply chain built to handle it and the people (less and less) that are trained to fit it even in a feild. We do need a new vehicle but there’s a new for thousands of things for general duties but hire seems to be working out fine for most of the needs just not feild work.
I just wanted more mastiff or a faster Jackells from my time away the wimk was better off road than everything we had until we got the panther then the jackels.
Defance has billions tied up in long contracts which hopefully in the next 5 years means lots of new kit and new waggons. Probably still have hundreds of wolfs parked around the place slowly rotting away.
Plane stuff
We should got the new “super herc” or the C-130j-30; ( it was make in response to the A400)
Cheaper by a few 10s of millions
Works
Everyone has it or a vert of them
Even the paras can jump out of it.(side door) weridos
A400 can done of none these things yet.
The loo is very good, though, better than every lifter we have .
Defance brought the A400 into service to early by a few years even after spending millions refiting the herc. Hopefully it works out if not I am sure the US wouldn’t mind the custom.
C-uva more on the lines ECM but a little different
It’s a massive thing right now but it’s proven to work has been and is in use/testing its been shown to be extremely effective it just hasn’t had a great deal on combat testing yet.
I won’t be a great surprise when we “gift” the test beds to ukraine so long as we keep the data.
“Reverse parking any AFV has a Marshall wheeled or tacked I could be unter pam and say which one as well. If fact all “green” fleet are required to have that there’s even a marshaling course its generally helpful as well as its cross platform.”
There is a slight difference between being mandated to have a marshaller because the Army is incredibly risk averse and needing a marshaller because you physically can’t see behind you.
They are not the same.
Landrovers are greatly unreliable but the MOD has years and years of experience and the supply chain built to handle it and the people (less and less) that are trained to fit it even in a feild. We do need a new vehicle but there’s a new for thousands of things for general duties but hire seems to be working out fine for most of the needs just not feild work.
And field work is exactly where it needs replacing, as Thrifty get quite excited when you try pulling a 3/4 ton trailer with an L200 across SENTA.
“I just wanted more mastiff or a faster Jackells from my time away the wimk was better off road than everything we had until we got the panther then the jackels.
Defance has billions tied up in long contracts which hopefully in the next 5 years means lots of new kit and new waggons. Probably still have hundreds of wolfs parked around the place slowly rotting away”
Mastiff can rot in a corner. I hated that vehicle from the first instant I got in one.
It’s not so much the ‘long contracts’ that is the problem. It is the internal combustion engine. The Army can’t replace anything until the ICE/EV issue is solved.
Then we’ll start seeing EV-WMIKs and EV-jackals.
“Even the paras can jump out of it.(side door) weridos”
And the tailgate, which is even weirder when you’re used to going out the side doors.
I’ve said this many times over the years. There are three good reasons why I jump out of aircraft.
1. I get paid for it.
2. It means I don’t have to work with people that don’t jump out of aircraft.
3. I have options just in case that ‘perfectly serviceable aircraft’ suddenly decides that it wasn’t so serviceable after all.
Of course what is the point of replacing something that works and still has live in it… It is liaison vehicle at most but those are needed too.
Does a 30 year old vehicle have much life in it? Most B Vehs were auctioned off after much fewer years service.
Land Rovers used to go through ABRO Bovington and later ABRO Donnington for rebuild or re-chassis , some came out with the grease buildup on chassis from universal joints nicely painted black lol
Having worked for the MOD , the utter waste of Vehicles and Equipment is mind blowing……disposal of unissued Vehicles with zero mileage , Thousands spent on upgrades…..I could go on ….thankfully out of it all now !
Cant see the modern iteration of the defender being any use whatsoever as a replacement . Land rover shot themselves in the foot with that design
It’s a Chelsea tractor at best now, still it’s brilliant off road but it’s all very tech based and not suitable for 18 year old to bondo bash around the place with the price of thing.
Landrover?..designed to transport a Farmer, their dog and a haybail. Humvee? A vehicle designed the for the military to transport the military.
The Land Rover design was inspired by the US Army’s Jeep. Rover’s chief designer Maurice Wilks and his associates created a prototype in 1947 using Jeep chassis and components.
The army first used LRs in 1949 – Humvees were not available then!
As a dyed in wool Land Rover Defender user of many years standing, my current vehicle being a 2008 110 Station Wagon, I love them, they leak, they are loud, all my mates complain when they travel in it.
They have many faults, but they are absolutely British through and through….
I’m actually thinking of having a series 3 ground up restoration next. If my mates don’t like the ‘refined’ Puma engined 110, they certainly won’t like the Series 3!
Put a cummins diesel engine in and you get a whole new world of loud !
For what it was meant for its fine, its not an APC etc and should never have gone to Iraq. It light weight, fast for a reason.
Yet again, another cockup and so it goes. The darn things have had thier day.