They lie and deceive

These "killer machines" were supposed to have been withdrawn. We all thought they had been. In fact, we had an announcement in May that the Vector was to be withdrawn from operations in Afghanistan.

Then, on 2 October we learnt that an RAF Regiment gunner had been "killed as a result of an explosion that happened whilst on a force protection patrol near to Camp Bastion."

He was named the next day as Senior Aircraftman Marcin Wojtak, and we were told he had been "killed as a result of an explosion whilst commanding his vehicle." There was, however, no mention of the vehicle type – and nowhere in the contemporary media accounts was the vehicle type mentioned. By keeping quiet, the MoD hoped to get away with it.

We should have known. Despite MoD assurances, we did pick up that the Army was still using Vectors when we got a fleeting glimpse (pictured) of one on an MoD video showing the re-supply convoy to Sangin in late July.

I should have made more of it then, but it could have been a one-off, and the convoy was led by mine-clearance vehicles. Furthermore, it was a "maximum effort", when everything seemed to be in use.

But little did I think that the military could have been so criminally stupid as to issue the vehicles to the RAF Regiment for routine patrols, in view of their extreme vulnerability. But, when it comes to stupidity, this is something in which the military has always excelled.

One can only suppose that they thought that Bastion – which has rarely been attacked – was a "safe" area, neglecting the fundamental principle of asymmetric warfare. There are no "safe" areas – the enemy will always be probing for the weak points and, once again, they found one.

As commander of the vehicle, SAC Wojtak, acting up as a Corporal, would have been in the front passenger seat, and would not have stood a chance. This is only the sixth death in this machine, as a direct result of IEDs or mines, but many more have been seriously injured.

Anyhow, The Daily Telegraph and some others have picked up the identity of the vehicle, reporting that the death of Wojtak raised "new concerns" over the safety of armoured patrol vehicles in Afghanistan.

The greater concern is what the hell is the RAF Regiment playing at? They were supposed to be delivering Panthers to theatre and, although we have no love of that vehicle, it is substantially better than the Vector.

Needless to say, the hapless Ainsworth is in the frame, having to cover up for this particular example of military stupidity – one of the less enviable tasks of a secretary of state – when, privately he is seething, having effectively been deceived about their use.

"Vectors will be on people's minds here," he says, "but what you have got to try to do is give commanders the length and breadth of the Helmand valley the choice so they are never having to use the wrong vehicle for the wrong operation."

The "commanders", the Army and the MoD between them did have the "choice" and once again they have cocked it up. As a result, another good man has died. They are fortunate to have a fall-guy of an unprepossessing secretary of state who is taking the rap this time. But the guilty ones know who they are. They should be ashamed.

COMMENT THREAD

"It definitely saved my life"

By coincidence, Defence Questions yesterday had Richard Benyon, Conservative MP for Newbury (pictured), ask a pointed question of the defence secretary, Des Browne, in relation to the growing toll from IEDs in Afghanistan.

"Given that a large proportion of the injuries suffered by members of our armed forces in Afghanistan are from roadside bombs and similar improvised explosive devices," said Benyon, "why are we still deploying troops in some of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan in so-called snatch Land Rovers, when we know that such vehicles offer little or no protection against such devices?"

Browne's response is worth recording in full:

The hon. Gentleman and the House will know, because I have gone to some lengths to keep the House up to date, that we have been increasingly providing our troops with vehicles that offer the highest level of protection. Indeed, through Mastiff and Ridgback (sic), on which we hope to make significant progress over the coming months, we will be providing a total of 400 new vehicles that will offer that level of protection. The hon. Gentleman will know also, because it is reported back here regularly, that Mastiff has proved enormously popular with the troops in saving lives.

My obligation as the Secretary of State is to provide commanders on the ground with a range of vehicles. Our experience in Afghanistan shows us that the issue is not just a need for protected vehicles, in the sense of protected against such explosions; rather, we also need vehicles that give our troops both the necessary flexibility and movement, and a presence on the ground that is specific to the communities in which they are working. I fulfil that obligation. We provide a range of vehicles to the commanders. I do not intend to dictate to our commanders, with a long screwdriver from London, which of those vehicles they should use, but I am conscious of the need continually to develop and to deploy more protected vehicles, subject to that requirement.

The coincidence, as it happens, was a BBC report on the children's news programme Newsbeat, accessible through the website, that report headed: "I survived a bomb attack". It offers an interview with Lance Corporal Jamie Dougal who was on a routine patrol in Helmand Province when the vehicle he was in set off an IED. Dougal was in the top cover position and sustained minor injuries and is now back on duty.

That, as Dougal makes clear, is entirely due to the fact that he was riding in a Mastiff. He tells the BBC: "Considering how bad the explosion was and considering the small amount of injuries I got, I'd definitely say that if it wasn't for the Mastiff I wouldn't be here today. "It definitely saved my life."

The BBC report tells us:

The Mastiff is the vehicle of choice in Afghanistan. The main threat from the Taleban are IEDs, but even they are struggling to get to grips with this incredibly tough piece of kit. At a cost of around £1m it's not cheap, but it's saving lives on a daily basis.

They test it out by driving it over mines. It has six wheels so it can keep going if some of them get blown off. The armour is designed to take the force of an explosion away from the vehicle, and it's covered in cameras so the troops inside can see 360 degrees around them.

That report also tells us that, "Amazingly no-one inside Jamie's Mastiff was hurt …", something of no surprise to this blog. It adds to the growing body of anecdotal evidence which attests to the value of these vehicles.

However, Browne's comments about not intending "to dictate to our commanders, with a long screwdriver from London …" perhaps hints at the underlying and continuing tension between the politicians and the military over the value of protected vehicles, with the MoD still pushing its Jackal "weapons platform", with an inordinate number of "puffs" on the MoD website, the latest here.

The extent of the mountain that has to be climbed to get it through to the military that their existing equipment is dangerously (and unnecessarily) vulnerable comes in the 2008 90th Anniversary edition of the RAF Yearbook. Page 8 and 9 – about the RAF Regiment - make sombre reading. Page eight reads:

The Regiment has recently received the latest Pinzgauer Vector armoured vehicles, and updated Wolf, WMIK Landrovers to bolster its daily patrols covering the AOR of over 480sq kms.

On page nine, it then states:

The RAF Regiment squadron provides a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) and also undertakes regular long-range patrols over the area, for extended periods making themselves known to the local village elders and population … Equipped with the latest Wolf Land Rover, armed WMIK Land Rover and recently arrived Pingzgauer Vector armoured vehicle, the squadron has a broad remit and flexibility to conduct a range of patrols in order to achieve their missions…

The article, according to one of our correspondents, gives the impression that the Regiment beleives it has been issued the "Mutts Nuts" of armoured vehicles. Given recent casualties in mobile patrols (here and here), their enthusiasm is somewhat misplaced.

The dangers of conducting "regular" patrols" and "making themselves known to local village elders" (and Taliban) while using Vectors and WIMIKs does not seem to have dawned on these particular military geniuses, who seem to need more protection from themselves than the Taleban. As our correspondent writes: "Words fail me".

In the protection stakes, an unconfirmed report in a French defence journal - apparently based on a report in DefenseNews - has it that the UK intends to order upwards of 24 Australian-made Bushmaster MRAPs (pictured above) – each equipped with a Kongsberg 12.7 mm remote weapon station. They are, it appears, to be used for "electronic warfare".

This, if confirmed, would be an interesting development and perhaps indicates that the Browne message that we need "continually to develop and to deploy more protected vehicles…" is slowly getting through.

COMMENT THREAD