Precaution is better than cure

MOD procurement world-wide pays the highest possible attention to ballistic safety standards when procuring fleets of up-armoured vehicles. Rightly so.

Yet despite increasing evidence that more military personnel are at risk from a road traffic collision than they are from a ballistic incident, little is done to prevent the threat of traffic incidents while in the field. It’s a growing fact that as many people are injured or killed as a result of road traffic accidents than directly from being in the line of fire.

This situation seems even more extraordinary following a ruling by the Supreme Court.  UK soldiers are now covered by human rights laws meaning families are now able to sue the MoD for a loss of life, which includes being in a vehicle accident as well as in the line of fire.

The situation arguably exists because, while there are strict and clear safety standards for ballistic threats, no such standards exist for up-armoured vehicles. And here lies the problem.

Safety doesn’t happen by accident, but by ensuring the armoured vehicle you procure is fit for the purpose, risks can be greatly reduced.  When vehicles are up-armoured with heavy sheet plate, it substantially affects the weight and centre of gravity, which can have dramatic implications for the basic road-holding/safety performance of the vehicle. 

Implications for the brakes for example, which need to be up to the job of stopping 4,000 kg or more up-armoured mass of metal. Pads and discs need to be rated for the additional weight so they are up to the task of stopping at speed on less well-built roads.

Implications for tyres which need to have the correct weight ratings for the extra armour they are carrying. Post up armouring, are they correctly inflated and in good enough condition to bear the extra load?

Suspension system-springs, shock absorbers, even safety belts, all need to be re-calibrated to work with the extra weight pressures.

Which is why every Jankel vehicle is strenuously tested for performance safety as well as ballistic safety. But it is not always the case. Budgetary constraints, payload pay-offs and even lack of knowledge conspire to allow sub-standard vehicles to be integrated as part of military fleets. Which, following that Supreme Court ruling, seems a false economy as well as ill-considered. Previously the cost of a substandard vehicle plus the payout for the death of a soldier was still cheaper than buying a quality vehicle. Now the added cost/potential of being sued could mean higher payouts for the MoD.

Rob Getreu, Principal Consultant at Nefesh Consulting, a leading international & independent civilian armoured vehicle consultancy makes the point in his excellent article on vehicle mobility.

“ Importantly, these [mobility systems] need to be fit for purpose for a vehicle of unarmoured weight. They need to be tested and aligned to the proposed operating conditions. Drivers, trainers, maintainers and fleet managers should also understand what to expect as to its performance so as to then anticipate and manage the operation of the vehicle in the field. Additionally, safe use with regard to speed, handling and roads used must be kept front of mind.”

Precaution is better than cure. Next time vehicles need to be procured, ask the important questions around road handling performance as well as ballistic threats. Until such time as standards exit, you can’t rely on assumptions that your vehicle is as safe as it can be against every danger the vehicle, and the people in it, may face.

For more information on a forthcoming standard and to see if your fleet matches up, click here.