The Ministry of Defence has declined to say when it expects to begin reliability growth trials for the British Army’s Ajax armoured vehicle at its planned Capability Drop 4 standard, as ministers continue to await the outcome of ongoing investigations into the troubled programme.
In a written response to Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, Defence Minister Luke Pollard refused to provide details on the schedule for Ajax’s Capability Drop 4 Reliability Growth Trials, stating that releasing such information could harm operational effectiveness.
“It would not be appropriate to release a complete list of criteria as it could, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability of our Armed Forces,” Pollard said.
He added that decisions on the next steps for the programme would be taken only after current investigations conclude. “Additionally, I will await the findings of the current investigations before making a further decision [on] the future of Ajax,” he said.
The same response was issued when Obese-Jecty asked what additional capabilities would be included in Capability Drop 4 compared with Capability Drop 3, with the minister again citing operational sensitivities and saying that the government has not yet committed to a defined path forward.
There is uncertainty around the programme’s next upgrade phase, with ministers unwilling to confirm either the technical content or the timeline of the planned Capability Drop 4 improvements. Ajax has faced repeated delays and technical setbacks in recent years, including major safety concerns that led to the programme’s operational status being reassessed and further trials being required.
The MoD has previously described Capability Drops as incremental upgrade packages intended to bring Ajax closer to full operational readiness, but Pollard’s answers suggest that further progress will depend on the results of ongoing investigations before any future decisions are made.
These statements are frustrating. We the public has paid for this mess, we should at least be given some info on what is happening. I agree exactly timelines would not be ideal for national defence but they are just using national defence to hide all problems and issues, which just makes things worse. Governments only act when their balls are hung up by the media, which it can’t do when all info is being hidden.
I wonder why they didn’t do what you think they should ie give information. Let’s be honest why would they release information that would be so revealing of problems and processes that they are responsible for, that would help media to hang them up by their balls. Suppression may be relatively high risk but what may come out is likely to be far more damning. What may come out will likely be damning but probably not more so so the bank on suppression disguised as National Security to them seems the better choice.
For sure, I know why they don’t release it, it’s to avoid all accountability but it means problems with procurement just keep happening.
They are basically spending other people’s money and putting people’s lives at risk, with zero oversight or accountability. No reason why a policiticans would ever change that.
Just kick that can down that old worn out road. Starmer’s publicity machine is already rowing back on his announcement that he was “considering” speeding up increasing defence spending. It’s pathetic bordering on treasonous and reckless. All governments are the same on defence until it is too late and that feels like where we are already.
As they are just introducing Argus for the RE I would hazard a guess and say there is no way Ajax going to be dropped!
Hope so, it’s needed.
What does Argus do that Terrier cannot?
It’s not a straight 432 or Mastiff replacement in RE units?
No mate,it’s a specialist engr recce vehicle,although it does have a blade it can’t do Terrier or Trojan tasks 👍
I love the saying “it would prejudice the effectiveness of the armed forces.”
HMG have been doing that on a daily basis for decades.
Well said 🤣🤣🤣🤣 BOOM… drop the mic!
Tickles me that what Capability Drop 4 means is Mk4 (using old nomenclature). The bloody thing isn’t even in service yet and already looking at Mk4. This is like Covenanter all over again.
This is what the Army web page says about Drop 4. (Now taken down) “These vehicles will incorporate modifications from lessons learnt during trials to assure the full reliability requirements of the British Army have been met. All vehicles manufactured to the earlier Capability Drop standards will be retrofitted (upgraded) to this Capability Drop, which represents the Full Operating Capability.”
So there it is in black and white. Until Reliability growth trials have taken place and all vehicles have been updated to the final capability standard FOC has not been achieved. Unless of course There has been a contract easement agreed?
Maybe its time to dust off the old plans of Scorpion/Scimitar, give it make over, increase size and power to fit the LM CTA40mm turret on it and crack on?
Or, explore option to fit the CTA turret on the CV90? I think its been put on the Boxer?
The South Wales plant is not stopping production, so a solution must be found and soon.
So GD continue to manufacture unusable unsafe vehicles. I am reliably informed the equipment fit is good and effective. Therefore the equipment fit and turret could be transferred to a reliable safe vehicle.
What a load of crap. Pollard speaks with forked tongue.