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.
Because it’s a commercially sensitive 5 billion pound investment and a possible future industrial heavy tracked vehicle line in the UK.. I’m sure they would just love to come out and essentially fuck over the last 15 years of conservative administrations… but it would be a nationally damaging exercise.. like all incorrect strategic decisions it will be played down by the government in power and the official opposition will not say anything cus they caused the issue.. the libdems, reform and greens will make hay.. because they don’t have to worry about the national interest so much ( infact it’s their job to hold feet to fire).
That I get but at this stage it doesn’t seem fixable and it’s time to seriously consider walking away with whatever money we can savage.
After all the whole point of a scout is to find the enemy before they find you or avoid them entirely and find a safe route. A vehicle that is noisy is not going to be suited for the role.
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!
Heads are sure to roll! ? I’ll believe that when I see it.
It happens.
You can blame it on the Permanent Secretary who has just moved on, thereby leaving his replacement (and everybody else) blameless. I saw the papers saying he left “after the Afghan data breach” (post hoc ergo propter hoc), but his leaving can do double duty and even more. He can also leave after the Ajax fiasco, and after, well … fill in the blanks. He received a CB for “services to government finances” and there’s got to be a finger-pointing opportunity there. He’s gone, and won’t care.
He didn’t seem to do too bad a job to me. Most of the big MOD decisions are constrained by the ministers he had to answer to: SDR, Defence Reform, and the like. When questioned before the Defence Select Committee, he seemed to have his finger on the pulse of the admin, with numbers to hand. I doubt he campaigned for the recruitment freezes that plague the Civil Service generally (or at least are not solely within MOD). I believe he’s off to Cambridge University and I hope he has a good time. No defence industry job lined up that I’m aware of; if that sticks and isn’t just the mandatory three month gap, I’d say kudos.
We would need discloser of the paper /reports that were shared between the contractor /mod/ civil service and the MP to really understand who withheld what. Something we won’t ever see.
A public enquiry needs be called over the mess, at least the enquiry leads could see the papers confidentially, and place blame were it’s due and more importantly ensure lessons are learnt. The money and time has gone but we need to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
‘Recruitment freezes that plague the civil service generally’
Civil service numbers have increased from 380k to 550k in the last ten years.
Whitehall and the public sector, generally, requires root and branch reform.
The general public have had enough of increased taxes and declining services.
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.
I am glad that you mentioned “weight”. A Torsion bar system would of been fine on the orignial Ascod 28 Ton platform, but at 38 Ton upwards, I fear that it has reached it’s limitations. In both the General Dynamics platforms of Booker & the Spiral developed Blackjax, hydrogas suspension & Rubberised tracks were both used. This I believe is General Dynamics “work around” for issues connected with a significant weight increase as far as noise & Vibration are concerned, evidently showing todays platform is under engineering stress. On the Salisbury plain incident this may well have been in an “Off road” location, e.g & not a firm track, hence the suspension being unable to cope with either the speed of the platform or the undulations of the ground that it was traveling on …or a comblination of both, either way not a good result.
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
At what cost and timescale. The problems seems to be fundamental. It either needs to be stripped back in weight or reengineered to cope with it.
Whatever the solution, it will be many years before the army has the equipment it really needed yesterday. Another complete shambles that will eat into the Budget for years to come.
This is what happens when you don’t build prototypes and test them thoroughly, refining and retesting the design as you progress.
There’s an interesting article on defence-blog that seems to have a source very close to the design process who speaks very bluntly about Ajax’s prospects – basically boils down to the hull being totally inadequate, and lists the changes to any design that would be needed to support everything needed, and it’s a long and expensive list.
They also pithily sum it up with “General Dynamics has fixed Ajax. It’s called the M10 Booker.”
Ajax seems to be a case study for ‘sunk cost fallacy’
That report is a VERY damping conclusion!
Fire them.
Order a small batch of Bradley’s/ CV90s until the issue is fixed. There is a yawning capability gap otherwise
The Ajax IFV vibration issues have not been fully resolved.
Only workarounds have been implemented.
To resolve the issue fully structural changes to the hull, engine mounts and suspension are required.
This needs a fully ground up redesign.
In the meantime the workarounds are as follows
1. Redesigned Seating with more cushioning.
2. Remounted Hand Controls to reduce excessive vibration.
3. Hearing Protection with two layers to reduce excessive noise.
4. Reduction in the amount of time crews can drive the vehicle.
ground
We now have a vehicle that you would not accept if it was a car/lorry, that we have spent over £6 billion on and that any enemy can detect from further away due to the sub level sounds it sends into its local environment.
This is the time to cancel the project.
Probably better to buy a mk4 Bradley in a bulk buy with the USA (made by BAE systems, $440 million deal).
It is long in the tooth, but unlike the Ajax, it actually does the job as demonstrated in Ukraine.
This programme won’t be cancelled too many irons in the fire. Like the Churchill tank of WW2 it will undergo many changes as you describe, and rubber tracks need to be up there on the priority list. It’s the collateral damage on the whole programme plus options that concerns me.
Options for a possible replacement/addition might come from South Korea, which could establish a plant in the UK in quick order?
Hello Maurice,
You are no doubt correct in how much has been invested.
But the realities of combat will dictate the use of an asset.
If it doesn’t work, reduces troop capabilities or restricts deployments it needs to be fixed or axed.
Neither is good, but either must be done.
Now here’s a question. Is this the loudest scout vehicle that’s ever existed?
If it deafens the enemy, they can’t hear it coming. Acoustic weaponry.
cancel it=now
‘Deja vu all over again’
A reforming government is now required.
We must hope that general war across Central Europe does not break out in the near to medium term…but it might.
Putin’s Russia is a mess but his army, for all its flaws, is in being and combat hardened.
Our Health and Safety standards are good, though, and I think we may have the advantage in croquet lawns, gastropubs, diversity hires, if that helps…..
Armoured Divisions? Not really so much our thing…
CVRT anyone?
Yep if you want to go back too Bino’s,radio and a mobile phone😀
One wonders when the Chief of the General Staff and the acting NAD, Will be starting their shifts at GD.