The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that it has sought legal advice from the Government Legal Department on the troubled Ajax armoured vehicle programme, following a direct question from Mark Francois MP.
In a written parliamentary answer, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said simply: “I can confirm that legal advice has been sought from the Government Legal Department on Ajax.”
The response came after Francois, the Conservative MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked whether ministers had ever turned to the Treasury Solicitor’s Department for legal guidance on the programme.
While brief, the confirmation is notable given the renewed scrutiny surrounding Ajax in recent weeks. The programme has again been paused for Army training after around 30 soldiers reported noise and vibration symptoms during a November exercise, triggering a fresh safety investigation and a new ministerial-led review. Pollard has previously confirmed that all Ajax use for training and exercising has been halted pending the outcome of those investigations, and that an independent review, including external experts such as Malcolm Chalmers, is assessing how effectively earlier recommendations were implemented and whether further action is required on safety.
Alongside safety concerns, MPs have raised questions about workmanship, quality control at General Dynamics’ Merthyr Tydfil facility, medical impacts on crews, and the evidential basis on which Initial Operating Capability was declared earlier this year. Ministers have repeatedly stressed that safety assurances were sought in writing from senior officials before IOC was announced, and that no symptoms reported to date required hospitalisation.
The admission that legal advice has been taken adds another layer to the picture, suggesting that the department is formally examining its position as it navigates the programme’s next steps. However, Pollard’s answer did not set out when advice was sought, what issues it covered, or whether it relates to contractual, safety, or liability matters. With Ajax already subject to multiple reviews, parliamentary pressure continuing from across parties, and further decisions pending on training, acceptance and rollout, the programme remains one of the most closely watched and politically sensitive elements of the Army’s modernisation effort.
Well that sounds expensive, I wonder how many meetings and how much this will cost the Tax Payer ?
should have done this eight years ago
It might have been, no date is specified.
As pointed out in the article.
‘Pollard’s answer did not set out when advice was sought’. Indeed, though it strikes me that it would be beyond belief that after all the shocking years long under performance, delays and overspend on this project, that after the last ‘extensive’ remedial determinations were made that independent experts weren’t examining and determining their effectiveness of those measures at every turn since. As I have repeated many a time the noise and vibrations issues are as good as it is likely to get when the vehicle is new, unless further substantial upgrades are made as it ages, to suppress them or even keep them in check. Maintenance could go through the roof I fear.
Can’t help but wonder if generating and then keeping jobs in a deprived area has as much to do with decisions over this project, certainly making an actual effective military vehicle. For Labour this is especially so considering they are being anialated in Wales. Bad enough in peace time, but these days shocking if so.
TBH – I would imagine the Government’s Legal Dept should be sick to death of the MoD turning up asking about the Ajax contract. If not, they haven’t been querying the contract as much as they should have been!!
I think you’re partly right. It’s a question of providing jobs and the age-old “sunk cost” fallacy. So much has been spent that they believe they can’t cancel but have to muddle through even if it means more money.
As for issues. I was shocked to recently see a video in which the hydraulic door failed to stop closing despite a dummy being trapped in the opening. To me that’s basic, and can only hope it’s an old video…
Throw it in bin, sue GD for building a piece of **** and oder CV90.
GD UK was set up as a limited company and made 6k and 10 k loss last two years, their only asset is factory. BAE could take over the factory and fit hydro gas to AJAX and CV90 with Bofors 40 mm could be build their to replace Warrior so they get a product that works.
The way things are I hope an alternative solution of this nature is being studied in terms of viability, it’s that desperate. I fear only serious work on the suspension in whatever form will have a chance of resolving this and GD clearly aren’t capable or willing to do it I fear. As you say order CV90 to at least resolve the Fighting Vehicle black hole and at least they can in part cover for these dumpsters while it is then determined if there is a solution at all and if not sort a true alternative while at least having some tracked platform coming on line. This simply cannot go on. I fear however due to IP even if they were interested bringing in another company to sort it, it is highly problematical particularly as this is part of a family of vehicles for GD so can’t see that part of the suggestion happening. Someone has to bite the bullet, it’s already a scary timeline for the forces.
UK trading standards law states that a product should be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose, perhaps the Government should have listened to the whistle blower in 2019 that said rubber tracks should be tested and the suspension replaced with hydro-gas. There seems to be no sign of “Lord haw haw” who goes by the name Ian, he often stated there was nothing wrong with AJAX, he said the problems were overstated and the vibration would not damage radios and other electronics. His contacts in General Dynamics knew best and everyone else was wrong, hope he enjoys eating his hat and holding his head in brown envelope shame!
Incompetent procurement. Duff product. A reconnaissance vehicle almost the weight of a main battle tank. Nothing about this vehicle makes any sense. Cancel it. And, I hope anyone injured during the trials receives compensation.
Well,the below are all similar dimension to Ajax,
CV90=38t (with rubber tracks so with steelys a good bit heavier)
Puma=43t
Redback=43t
There is no such thing as a ‘light’ or ‘small’ AFV with the armour etc required to survive the battlefield!
Well Ajax has gone well above its viable weight limits for its suspension. That was called by some experts and that advice ignored, it seems they were right to warn, sounds like the T45 and similar warnings about under estimating such issues. Beyond that I have no engineering knowledge to offer surrounding it just that those who determined adding the weight have to answer for the decisions made, which I suspect are many tentacled. CV-90 and Redback seem to be reliable whatever their history, I know Puma had development issues of some nature but seems solved and in demand now, so some seem to be able to handle this weight category and the development of such vehicles better than others, but a deeper insight into that might be quite revealing I suspect.
Yep no problem,just making the point when people call for CV90 etc because Ajax is to heavy there is really nothing between them👍the only quickest option really is fitting Boxer with a recce module.
Yes, there were a quite few of them telling us how wonderful it was!
Pete this sales will follow the contract rather than consumer legislation because this piece of kit was not designed for individual buyers.
Contracts can include and exclude all sorts of stuff and it can also shift the risk.
Whilst the law will obviously play a part I suspect that this is simply a case of the MOD getting advice of where they stand legally and who is liable for making thing right (if indeed they are not right).
Impossible for us to judge bearing in mind we don’t know the details of product or contract.
I was going to ask who the lacky was on here who propagated what we now know as GD (and beyond) BS and as you say patronised the mere mortal members who offered understandable doubts based on that somewhat unconvincing list of proposed remedial actions. Thanks for the update.
Pete, the problem is we didn’t return them within the 30-day period, and the MoD have lost the receipts.
MoD should’ve bought Ajax using a credit card, that way they could request a refund from the card issuer 😉
Everytime I hear or see statements froms MPs the circus theme tune goes off in my head.
The Laurel and Hardy theme enters mine, though Benny Hill might be reflective of the headless chicken aspects.
I understand everything was a mess when they took over and the military especially and I didn’t expect them to fix it over night, but holy fudge there seems to be zero progress apart from the Frigates SEEM to be on track, housing situation MIGHT finally be getting sorted and about 1400 joined the Army which is the first time in years its grown.
Too long the MIC has treated government’s like piggybanks always getting more money the more they screw up. They should be held to account .
But the government feed the MIC, it’s their priority, not actual military capability.
12 billion to develop GCAP?
Not buy it, develop it.
Someone tell me why when I go out to a restaurant for a meal why I’ve not paid to have the building constructed first?
The MIC has it made, I wish we still had in house capabilities like the RREs.
I wish Ajax wasn’t a bugger up. And they went ahead with that Blackjax variant looked so cool.
I also wish the military, heck the country wasnt a mess.
Not wrong, but if we did that where would we find the boards and ‘consultancies’ for all the retired politicians to go to? 😃
That’s the crux isn’t it, all flows under the radar till conflict actually becomes a reality.
I for one hope the issues can be fixed and not all the fleet is affected. Many are still to be built and not all the 50 plus Ajax were affected.
We all hope it’s production issues rather than a design flaw. The latter is too grim to contemplate.
Agreed.
Yes we have to hope something can be rescued from this debacle as the question is what does the army do next if it can’t be fixed! From what I have read the 40mm cannon is an impressive gun on Ajax can enough hulls be salvaged to use the 250 or so they are supposed to get can they reduce the weight or strengthen the chassis as this seems to be the problem it’s simply too heavy now! I’m no expert and bow to more knowledgeable people on here but this seems the overriding problem surely this can be solved?
With endless time and money very possibly but is that actually feasible, I’m having my doubts now that it can be, I left it to the more knowledgable last time even though I couldn’t see how that remedial list would do so bar at best for new vehicles mechanically at their best. Now my ‘uninformed’ doubts appear founded which suggests it was more wishful thinking and head in sand rather than sound assessments. Let’s say things that work in the lab more often than not don’t work as expected in real life experience. I fear there was too much determination from perfect circumstances being accepted in the expectation the poor s-ds being used as guinea pigs would accept the concerns had been truly addressed because their superiors told them ignore their own senses. I guess thankfully it’s not quite as bad as those poor so an so’s who were used so disgracefully in the atomic weapon tests by those suit’s forbears but for some it seems the attitude persists.
For all our sakes, scrap the damn thing!! No more hand wringing, rethinking, reworking and discussing is going to fix it. Just letting the Welsh build it is enough to screw it up. CV90 is proven and would be available long before any Ajax is likely to be fixed.
“Just letting the Welsh build it”
😆 For all you know a lot of of that work force might be English?
We’re all Brits, I don’t think nationality is an issue!