More than a third of the Ajax vehicles in a recent British Army training exercise were linked to new noise and vibration injuries, the UK Defence Journal understands.
The scale of the affected fleet comes at a time when ministers have signalled that all options remain on the table for the programme’s future.
A written parliamentary answer on 4 December confirmed that twenty three Ajax family vehicles were associated with thirty soldiers who reported symptoms during the 22 November exercise. Sixty one vehicles took part in total, placing the proportion at roughly thirty eight percent.
Luke Pollard, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, said in his response that “none of the symptoms were severe enough to require hospitalisation”. He added that the activity was halted within thirty minutes so personnel could receive medical support and reiterated that “safety of personnel is a top priority”.
The UK Defence Journal understands that ministers have privately indicated a willingness to consider ending the programme if the results of the ongoing army inquiry and the separate safety investigation point to systemic issues. A senior figure in Defence said that “I will take whatever decisions are required” once findings from both reviews are presented.
The number of affected vehicles continues to raise questions about whether recent modifications have mitigated vibration and noise problems to the level expected.
Senior GD employee’s remarks draw attention
Yesterday we reported that a senior employee of General Dynamics UK, whose public profile lists several years working on Ajax testing and acceptance activity, posted comments on a widely viewed Facebook page suggesting that most of the vehicle’s reported problems stem from crew error, poor maintenance and command shortcomings. His remarks appeared in response to ongoing discussions among soldiers and trial personnel about persistent faults.
The comments were made from an account that identifies the individual as an Acceptance Manager. He stated that “apart from coolant leaks, everything else is user driven or command shortfall”, the exchange gained traction due to his seniority within the contractor responsible for delivering the programme.
General Dynamics UK was invited to clarify whether the comments reflected the company’s position or whether the matter would be addressed internally.
“General Dynamics Land Systems UK is taking this matter very seriously. The comments referenced do not reflect those of the company in any way nor do they align with our core values. We have the utmost respect for those serve to protect our nation and our allies and remain committed to deliver equipment that meets the highest standards to ensure their safety and wellbeing.
We continue to work collaboratively with the MoD in the delivery and support of the Ajax family of vehicles, underpinning our shared commitment to soldier safety. We have initiated an internal investigation in relation to the comments which will ensure we take appropriate actions in line with our HR policy.”
The remarks arrive at a moment when ministers have signalled openness to major decisions on Ajax’s future and when new injury data indicates that a significant share of vehicles in active training continues to be affected by noise and vibration problems.
The usual British Leyland QA approach of blaming the reviewer for the bits that fell off the car.
Then shoot the messenger – I sense a P45 moment.
Alls well then.
The bigger and more basic problem is army platform bloat. The single ‘do everything’ approach constantly destroys good programs.
When GD reference to those who serve and protect our nation they are presumably referring to US forces? As General Dynamics is of course a US company. They are clearly not interested in resolving this issue. The solution is known and used on M10 Booker.
All this project has achieved is fund GD’s A vehicle sector in Spain and provide an unusable vehicle at the cost of £100 for every head of the UK population all 69,500,000 of them. UK got £40 million in investment out of6.3Billion spent and whist the Vehicle is unusable, eight years late & obsolete DE&S and GD are applying for awards for the best managed Mega project. You can’t make this up!!
Why was a contract placed to a company with no design team? factory? pedigree? or experience? and given a full production contract before a product was developed or existed? And a p TV price described as British from its boot straps then sourced from a company in Spain who had no pedigree either. Other than of course having license build Leopard 2 taken away from them because their quality, process control, and build was so appallingly bad it was unacceptable