The Ministry of Defence has clarified the basis for its November declaration of Initial Operating Capability for the troubled Ajax armoured vehicle, with Defence Minister Luke Pollard pointing to written safety assurances provided by senior officials.
Responding to a series of parliamentary questions from Conservative MPs Ben Obese-Jecty and James Cartlidge, Pollard stressed that he authorised IOC only after receiving formal guarantees from the Army and the acquisition system.
In one reply, Pollard said he had “received written assurances from the Chief of the General Staff and the acting NAD that the vehicle was safe to operate”. In another, he added that senior personnel had confirmed Ajax was “demonstrably safe to operate”.
Pollard reiterated that view across multiple answers, stating that ahead of IOC he “asked for and was given assurances in writing by senior Ministry of Defence personnel that the system was safe”.
The minister also defended the safety process, noting that Ajax had undergone “rigorous trials and an assured safety process, including with the Health and Safety Executive”. However, Pollard acknowledged that issues still required attention. He confirmed that noise and vibration concerns prompted a pause in some activity, saying, “We will always put the safety of our personnel first and the current pause shows that we will investigate any issues when they arise.”
To address ongoing scrutiny, Pollard announced a new ministerial-led review into Ajax. The work will be carried out by experts outside the programme, including Malcolm Chalmers, and will assess how effectively previous recommendations have been implemented. It will report directly to the Defence Secretary.
Earlier this year, it was reported that the British Army’s new Ajax armoured vehicles have once again caused hearing damage and vibration injuries to soldiers operating them despite being declared safe.
Ajax having yet another ‘review’? These things will be obsolete before they ever become fully operational.
And is the minister going to publish said written declaration so we know if it was heavily caveated or not, of course not.
Considering this government didn’t order the thing and weren’t in power when the issues started coming to light, why are they being so cautious in their statements and not just come out slamming the procurement process and calling for heads to roll in the mod. It’s odd.
The Minister can only go by what his Chief of Staff tell him. Obviously, apart from a bunch of yes men, their new golden egg is laying lead ones! The ramifications are deep and wide, as a number of future options may now be at risk. (1) Follow on orders and a possible stretched Ares. (2) An Ajax-based IFV as shown recently in London. (3) additional variants, ie, medium bridge layer. Without a clear view ahead, the aforementioned must now be on hold until a resolution is found. Introducing a third party is usually bad news, as it’s an audit by another name, and the findings will not hold back. This will be as welcome as Herpes in Whitehall, as heads are sure to roll!
Someone at the start should have capped the weight increase to no more than 32 tons total vehicle weight, from the Ascod 27 ton starting point. Taking it to 42 tons with every bell & whistle they could think of, was bound to cause trouble.
Did the CHS and Head of NAD actually travel in one over Salisbury Plain. I very much doubt it. Heads should definitely roll for this continued debacle.
This is what happens when weak yes men keep on being appointed. They give the answer they think is the answer that is wanted. Instead of just answering truthfully.
Is this not sadly always the case in the Military now, yes men worried about promotion and the ned to please others. Now this will cost more to fix and makes the Army or those running the programme look stupid again. And knock on effect to other add on types of the vehicle the Army needs and would like. The vehicle is nearly 10 years over due already. State normal for just about every thing we buy, farce after frace. Due to weak leadership and yes men.
Get some independent (Non GD) testing/analysis to determine the source of the problems. This should not be unsolvable
Fire them.