Ministry of Defence officials have said the Ajax armoured vehicle can be operated safely, but only when it is maintained and used within the correct parameters, as MPs pressed them over noise and vibration incidents that left soldiers ill.
Appearing before the Public Accounts Committee, Lieutenant General Anna-Lee Reilly said the “safety of our soldiers is clearly of the utmost importance” and referred to Exercise Titan Storm, during which “33 soldiers reported symptoms from noise and vibration.” She said five remain under medical review, while the others returned to work.
Reilly told MPs that “Ajax, when maintained and operated as designed, presents no safety concerns,” but added that ministers and General Dynamics still need to agree how the vehicle can return to service “in a measured way.” She also indicated that an announcement would be made to Parliament by the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry.
Pressed on when a final decision would be taken, Reilly said work on the timetable was still under way, while also outlining planned modifications under what she described as a move towards “Ajax 2.” These include composite rubber tracks and automatic track tensioners, which she said are intended to improve the “lived experience of the soldiers in the back of the platform.”
Committee members challenged the reassurance over safety, noting that concerns had previously been missed before troops became unwell on exercise. Reilly maintained that “when it is operated and maintained correctly within its parameters, we have no safety concerns about it,” but accepted that problems arose when the vehicle was not operated within those limits.
When former Army officer Lincoln Jopp asked whether commanders had either misunderstood or ignored the vehicle’s limits, Reilly rejected the suggestion of wilful neglect, saying the issue arose during a prolonged and demanding trial serial, with track tension changing over time during cross-country movement. She said the Army now needs to ensure crews understand what checks are required during use.
The hearing also touched on the long-running technical issues with the vehicle. Chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said his understanding was that the increase in weight from the original design had contributed to the noise and vibration problems, and asked how that could be solved. Reilly said the department is working closely with General Dynamics on possible remedies, including trials of composite rubber track later this year.
Asked directly whether any of the legal liabilities now appearing in the MoD accounts related to Ajax, Permanent Secretary Jeremy Pocklington replied “not that I am aware of,” with National Armaments Director Rupert Pearce adding “No”.
Sounds like a complete fudge.
Ajax 2, sounds expensive. Add another £3 billion, it’s beyond me why muppets from the MoD and services keep saying that there is no legal liability to their knowledge. Every word they say can be used in court later in. Even if it’s true you don’t throw all your cards away when dealing with a parasite organisation like General Dynamics
I wonder if Ajax 2 is aimed at not only fixing some of the well reported issues but also a rebrand to try and break away from the reputation AJAX has gained, a bit like with the SA80, the A2 and then A3 have been held in much higher regard.
Although it would require AJAX 2 to actually improve enough that it performs as expected at a minimum, as you say it sounds expensive and could be out of reach in reality.
The changes sound promising though. I was watching a vid that estimated between half and a tonne of saved weight from rubber tracks giving a combo of much needed weight saving and vibration absorbers.
9 Adverts.
Really… Nothing of the sorts on this end.
Sounds like every other UK disaster with kit that does not work, more may have to be spent on and still does not work as it should. Too far in to scrap it, too expensive to buy a replacement and years to get it in service. A so realy half arsed work around that really sloves nothing but it worded to look like procress. The whole thing sounds like some one tried to get it listed as in service when its still broken, may be that would of meant GD got paid or up held their side of things, shaddy!
Sounds like nothing has been learnt and the Mod and politicians will just lie to the public . Are they suggesting a few more plaster fixes to get it recertified only if the vehicle is used 50 percent or something ridiculous below its possible usage. Then a 10yr program to update tracks suspension making it at least another 10 years before these vehicles are fully functiomal. And do the vehicles require constant servicing every day in a war zone ? Lets hope the final conclusion is a bit more decisive
Absolute joke. Compare these issues after a 2 week exercise with the 0 or minimal issues with Warrior after 50 days on exercise at BATUS. It’s unusable in any kind of operational scenario.
Will battlefield conditions always be in the parameters?
Highly ****** doubt it
I am sorry, I can not continue this battle at this pace as I am exceeding my AFV’s capabilities. Could we tone it down a bit please?
Haha, indeed. This is ridiculous.
At what point to we actually admit the brazen corruption and start making arrests and investigations. One of the generals most responsible for the Ajax goes on to work for General Dynamics after he retired, they aren’t even attempting to hide it.
Lol so can only be used in certain conditions. Well war doesn’t follow your perfect conditions. This clearly needs to be scrapped and started again. This time a British company. Stop using the disastrous Americans!
What I’m keen to understand is:
What are the design parameters?
What did our soldiers do to take it beyond those parameters?
Are we saying, as she’s effectively blaming soldiers, that the entire RAC training system is wrong? As surely trained personnel in the HCR know how to use a tracked vehicle and understand this “track tension.”
Reading on SM, she’s ex REME, so you’d think she knows what she’s about. Yet, it still seems barely credible to me?
Barely credible…. You seem generous this morning.
I know…..I do try to be positive, Jon! It isn’t easy.
Easy isn’t it when you aren’t having to use the vehicle to say it’s safe for others to use it if they use it within set parameters. As always we seem to buy equipment to look at in peacetime rather than actually be used in actual wars.
There is an idea. Give the talking heads a bit of training, dress them in the right kit and stick them in Ajax on exercises to see if it gets through their thick heads. NBL
Danielle, I just about remember General Anna-Lee as a young REME officer, which dates both of us. I found her testimony (what little I heard) very troubling, very vague in places and seeking to fully put the onus on the report writers (ie not taking personal responsibility) and putting the blame for equipment failings and significant injuries on the User. I wasn’t convinced that she had spent time in the vehicle or with the crews or done her own research.
The guys who have operated Ajax include firstly ATDU, and then HCR and 6 Bn REME. ATDU are absolute experts at trialling new armoured vehicles – its pretty much all they do and they do it with diligence. Many years ago, several scathing ATDU reports were ignored, senior officers and CS officials in the CofC took no action and Troop Trials and later routine training with HCR and 6 Bn went ahead. I once read that CO ATDU personally spent considerable time in the vehicle and was invalided out of the army with significant hearing loss (not sure if this is true though).
The army is very document-rich; every process and procedure relating to equipment is fully documented. I will be out of date on the latest terminology but we used to have Army Equipment Support Publications (AESPs) (paper and electronic versions, and now interactive) with different sections for the User (vehicle crew) on operating and servicing (effectively a User Handbook), and REME at their various levels of maintenance. It was crystal clear how to do everything on a vehicle from such publications…. by the book.
If a vehicle failed or was damaged in any way at all then REME would produce a Damage Report (previously called a Negligence, Misuse and Damage Report) which detailed the failure, costed the repairs and this went to the drivers OC and disciplinary action might occur. My point is that the User was very incentivised to operate the vehicle by the book and do the servicing by the book. Personal pride and professionalism also came into it.
In what way have crews operated the vehicle beyond parameters? ATDU and no doubt HCR and 6 Bn would have put the vehicele through many representative daily ‘Battle Field Missions’ (BFMs) – they are very demanding. Its hard to accept that the User would have operated the vehicle beyond published very challenging BFM metrics.
Vehicle crews do checks and servicing, not REME. Again all is laid down in documentation. Track bashing is ‘bread and butter’ to ATDU, HCR (and REME for their own vehicles). We always used the terms ‘First Parade’, ‘Halt Parade’ and ‘Last Parade’ for checks. Before you took a vehicle out for any reason, even a humble LR, you did daily First Parade checks. When you halted after a long ‘approach march’ or similar you did other ‘Halt Parade’ checks, which for an A Veh included checking track tension, and adjusting as required.
All the guys know this. Its incredible that a General thinks these things no longer happen.
Finally, if the MoD line is that the guys just have to be ‘educated’ to not operate the vehicle beyond parameters (whatever that means) and to do the usual checks…why are some technical fixes being done such that an Ajax 2 is on the cards?
Hi Graham.
Just call me Dan, much easier, I’m not a Danielle!
Great post, fascinating detail, pity your were not on the DSC yesterday to debunk all the crap.
Labour plan to kill off our forces .
Right so pretty much referencing what I said probably a year ago+ ago, getting these vehicles to just about fit into the required standards when new (debatable whether that has even been achieved) isn’t going to help when they start to deteriorate the more they are actually used. So they pass hopefully just about upon acceptance, but will cost a fortune in maintenance and down time to have any hope of staying within these limits as time passes. So yes in reality a fudge to try to avoid the humiliation turning into unmitigated humiliation and disaster or at least keeping it from the public gaze. Works only controllably in peacetime in reality but then I guess in exigencies of war they won’t worry about such health and safety issues.
Make the Generals and those officers who are in the AJAX Project Management Chain spend at least 20 Hours total (at least 4 hours per ride) in those AJAX to be deployed. Or will we get “Rubbish Capt Blackadder, send more Dogbodys (Baldrick)”.
Absolute tosh. A armoured recon vehicle is supposed to be tough enough to be the point of the spear. It literally leads the way and must be able to operate anywhere to find resistance and gaps. These problems were exposed throughout development and testing and it SHOULD have been rejected as not fit for purpose. This is just the latest in a long line of wasteful embarrassments from the MOD, muddled thinking and contractors who cannot deliver.
Carl, good points. It might have helped if MoD had chosen a contractor in March 2010 that had previous experience of designing, developing, manufacturing and testing vehicles, any type of vehicles.
GDUK just knew how to make avionics and military radios.
There is little doubt that the Ajax2 mods will be charged to MoD not GDUK.
This is some BS.. sounds like it needs to be “nannied”.. either way it sounds like its not fit for purpose as a combat vehicle.
More money being wasted, should’ve gone with CV90. At this rate probably be cheaper to cancel and order CV90 because it feels like we are going to keep pumping money into Ajax for nothing in return
So it’s not safe