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?
CTA cannons 20,000 lbs of recoil through short springs would be problematic in a light vehicle lol.
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.
Me Lord, Ajax will receive upgrades, and sadly, it will result in fewer follow-on orders due to the remedial costs.
But they are not delivering a vehicle with a meaningful baseline either. The Current baseline PLUS concessions – individual to each vehicle. Then 28 concessions on top of that.
Vehicle acceptance is defined by the Joint Acceptance Group. My understanding is this includes GD as the supplier. So it appears that MoD don’t have the power to block deliveries? GD continue delivering regardless of parts out of tolerance, quality issues, non supply issues, multiple concessions etc.
Acceptance criteria are usually set at contract award. Here it appears there is no standard and GD ship whatever they like regardless of utility or safety
Maybe the UK government needs to actually tske over GD UK or this site anyway?
Faulty or sub standard equipment should not be being allowed to leave their gates.
With this carry on Is this Ajax saga going to get even worse?
Why can’t new upgraded chassis’ be built for the Ajax?
Given MoD experience with this supplier & group you could be right! MORPHEUS EvO was let to GD at a contract value of £330M, GD never actually delivered the deliverables (Large lab systems model) and years late the project was cancelled. £820M !!!! Nothing delivered and GD are rewarded with a contract to upgrade the BCIP 5.6.
Ocelot? Price gouging by GD and accusations of falsifying test data, BOWMAN? How long do we have?
If that is true, re your last sentence, that is an absolutely appalling lack of contract build QA oversight. Can’t see commercial car and truck manufacturers ever being this bad. You’d think military OEM’s should have even higher standards.
Your understanding of the situation is way beyond my comprehension, but the manufacturer may be looking to sell the fleet to a Third World customer and pay back the UK some compensation. As for an alternative, there are only a few options at best, and at least a four/five year delay to commission.
Every vehicle is different! No build standard at all! Begs the question ‘What is the current production baseline’? 28 concessions?? Concession class and impact? SO ten years late and still not delivering to contract. Withdraw concession approval?The key question here for Ben Obese-Jecty & Luke Pollard is ….. Has the Joint Acceptance Group EVER rejected ANY vehicles outright? and if so how many? Or is it just a charade to raise concession on concession to accept any vehicle GD wish to ship? regardless how poor?
Given this group has accepted hulls with non parallel sides, different length sides, mounting holes bored out of square or in the wrong position? Sub standard welding etc etc there do not appear to be any failure criteria at all? Perhaps, had acceptance criteria been enforced from Day 1 the Army wouldn’t be in this mess?
The Joint Acceptance Group may not be enforcing any acceptance criteria at all? it is probably just a team led by GD, to ensure whatever sub standard equipment supplied, is accepted? to ensure contract continuation and continuing revenue?
The truth, if a car manufacturer developed a new vehicle in the way Ajax has been created, it would be bankrupt; it’s as simple as that. The powers that be in Whitehall and the MOD must be flabbergasted by the low level of competence shown throughout the Ajax programme. Even sadder is the likely attitude of the development goals, ‘It will do for the squades’; there is no other explanation for the questionable quality control and poor ride compliance.
Have they got rid of the squeaks?
?
Listen to some of the Ajax videos…you’ll hear it (from a mile away). I’m being a bit tongue in cheek. It might be typical for a heavy tracked vehicle. I don’t know.
Heavy tracked vehicles are *loud*.
Like if you haven’t worked around them you don’t understand just how loud they are. If you’re standing next to a CRAAV with it’s engine on you’ll probably want ear defence, and good luck having any sort of conversation that doesn’t involve shouting directly into each other’s ears.
(Also a video rarely conveys noise particularly well. Watch a video of someone doing some shooting and then go on a range without ear defenders for the full experience. Not saying Ajax isn’t loud, it’s certainly going to be louder IRL than in a video, but just saying what you’ll hear in a video is not the noise you’d hear IRL).
I agree Dern! I have been exposed to a number of, 432, Warrior, CVR9T) Fuchs, Chall 2 etc
I have also observed Ajax trials and I don’t know if it’s the frequency, harmonics or what, but Ajax appears really loud. I do not possess the quantitive data required to prove that it is the loudest A vehicle but it does give a good impression of being!
Ajax MAY have been improved but I view some of the more outlandish GD statements (ie the most tested and safest vehicle in Army use) with a healthy dose of scepticism.
Oh yeah, I take both ends of the spectrum with a big grain of salt.
What a load of crap. Pollard speaks with forked tongue.
The key question here for @BenObeseJecty @LukePollard is ….. Has the Joint Acceptance Group EVER rejected ANY vehicles outright? and if so how many? Or is it just a charade to raise concession on concession to accept any
vehicle GD wish to ship? regardless how poor? Given this group has accepted hulls with non parallel sides, different length sides, mounting holes bored out of square or in the wrong position? Sub standard welding etc etc