A formal safety investigation into the Army’s Ajax armoured vehicle will take at least two weeks, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed, in a move that deepens uncertainty around a programme, some say, already facing the prospect of cancellation, the UK Defence Journal understands.
Answering a written parliamentary question on 5 December, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said “the safety of our personnel is paramount” and confirmed that the Defence Accident Investigation Board, supported by the Army Safety Investigation Team and General Dynamics, is examining the latest incident.
While this work continues, ministers have directed a halt to training and exercising with the vehicle and Pollard noted that the investigation is “anticipated to take at least two weeks”.
The pause follows reports that around thirty soldiers experienced noise and vibration related symptoms during a late November exercise involving sixty one Ajax family vehicles. Twenty three of those vehicles were linked to crew injuries, placing the proportion at roughly thirty eight percent. These figures align with new Army data showing that a substantial share of the training fleet continues to trigger health complaints despite previous rounds of modification work.
This episode has added momentum to political scrutiny already building around the programme. Defence Secretary John Healey recently declined to rule out cancelling the project entirely, stating that all options remain open. His remarks came after press reports that some soldiers were being deafened or made ill in Ajax, and after confirmation that the platform is now eight years behind schedule and absorbing more than six billion pounds of investment for a planned fleet of 589 vehicles.
Ajax had formally achieved Initial Operating Capability on 6 November, with a first squadron deemed deployable from an initial pool of fifty vehicles. The announcement was presented as a long delayed breakthrough for a platform that the MoD has described as a digitalised, sensor rich armoured reconnaissance fleet built in Merthyr Tydfil by General Dynamics Land Systems UK. The subsequent halt has renewed questions about whether the upgrade effort has brought vibration and noise issues under control to the standard required.
Additional controversy emerged this week after a senior General Dynamics UK employee, identified publicly as an Acceptance Manager, posted comments on Facebook asserting that most reported faults on Ajax were caused by user error, poor maintenance and command shortcomings. The remarks, made in response to discussions among soldiers and testers, drew attention due to the individual’s seniority and came at a moment when ministers have signalled openness to major decisions on the programme’s future.
General Dynamics UK said that the comments “do not reflect those of the company in any way” and said it has launched an internal investigation. The firm added that it remains committed to delivering equipment that meets the highest standards and continues to work with the MoD in support of the Ajax family of vehicles.
The results of the safety investigation and the parallel Army inquiry are expected to shape ministerial decisions on whether Ajax proceeds, is reconfigured or is brought to an end.
Imagine what a public inquiry would find in this mess.
A public inquiry would take five years and £300m to find that personnel did not close down early enough, should have masked up and maintained at least two metre spacing.
Essentially a huge amount of money to simply agree what was actually generally already known so the conclusions can be delayed until they no longer truly matter to the public and those in charge ( the sitting government at the time it happened) are long gone.
The conspiracy theorist whinges again.
£300m=1xType 44 CR3 Regiment
What’s the point, publican inquiry will just cost millions, take years and tell us nothing we don’t know. General Dynamics is useless and Spanish build quality is atrocious which is why their stuff is cheap.
Scrap it and sue General Dynamics even if we loose it will still f**k up their armoured vehicles in Europe.
There is no point. At all.
That is why I said “imagine”.
English is a wonderful language.
Jim, I always like your posts. Do you really mean that GD stuff is cheap – I think the unit price of Ajax is about £10m.
Its going to be hard to sue GD and win – MoD signed off every Milestone as having been met and made the related staged payment; they then declared it was safe and then declared IOC. GD don’t need to hire amazing lawyers to wriggle off the hook.
I agree with your comment about never again buying equipment from a US contractor (difficult with F-35, Chinook etc) but certainly for AFVs – you could describe the Ajax manufacturer as being an American-Welsh-Spanish-Austrian one!
As for buying CV90 recce (and the other variants required) – Rachel from Accounts will say there isn’t a spare £5-6bn at the moment – that’s the snag.
I agree we won’t win but a court case is massively cheaper than a public enquiry and will put the spotlight on GD.
Doesn’t really matter what’s spare or not if the vehicle doesn’t work no point in carrying on.
The MoD would struggle to sue GD now because it has already accepted the vehicles and even declared IOC — which legally signifies that the Army signed off that Ajax met the contract requirements at that moment in time. Once you’ve accepted delivery and announced IOC, any later problems are typically treated as in-service issues rather than contractual breaches.
You could argue these ‘later problems’ have been known about for years but that only makes the Army/MoD look worse, not GD. They accepted the vehicles and declared IOC while the issues were still present.
By doing that, the MoD has validated GD’s work, triggered payment milestones, publicly endorsed the platform and reduced its own legal leverage.
Unless they can prove GD deliberately concealed defects and there’s no evidence of that — any lawsuit would simply highlight the MoD’s own failures in oversight, testing, and acceptance. At this point, a quiet renegotiation is far more likely than any courtroom victory.
Depends if the defect is patent or latent.
Acceptance doesn’t have to spot latent defects.
Even acceptance doesn’t get GD off the hook for things that don’t meet spec.
MOD would argue they inspected a sample and passed those – not every single unit. It is only a % of units playing up.
Looking like a warrior refit . The MOD full of clowns .
Dave, Public Enquiries take years and cost £millions, most going to overpaid lawyers. The Sheldon report was rather good but I am not sure that Ministers really made the right decisions on reading the report.
As I said previously, I used the word – imagine.
“You should only ever hold a enquiry when you know in advance what it’s findings will be” – Sir Humphrey Appleby
We need one. Yes it will be expensive and take time but we need to ensure lessons are learnt to avoid this mess happening again. Otherwise we will never know who knew what and when and how the decision to continue was made once the issues started to come to light. This whole program should have been canceled long ago.
We know the lessons, accountability is what will make the changes that are required.
Do we?
At what stage did the issues start coming to light. How were they flagged. Were checks missed. Were warnings ignored. Where short cuts agreed or were QA inspections missed.
Most of those things are deliberate acts, these people know what they are doing.
They should be dealt with.
Fully agree, but the question is how were these deliberate acts allowed to occur, where was the oversight. At what level did they occur. What happened when they were discovered etc.
If we don’t have a public enquiry some scapegoat will be picked and the real responsible people will get away with it. If it was criminal act no one will go to prison.
If it was just incompetence then we need to know what solutions there are to stop it having such an impact again.
Either way an enquiry is needed to get to the bottom or at least close to it.
There will be no public inquiry because the issues have been known for nearly a decade and hushed up due to massive corruption.
The MoD>MIC pipeline is an open secret at this point.
Unfortunately probably true and even if there was, no doubt conversations would conviently get wiped like Boris and his WhatsApp messages along with a few other ministers
2018 vibration and noise problems known.
It would find something dodgy in the decision to award the contract(s) they did. BAE lost Ajax and WCSP at the same time and both contacts are heading for cancellation. Someone was behind that decision……
How can the program possibly go on, no one will ever have faith in it again and going in just men’s giving General Dynamics more money.
Hopefully we learn our lesson and never buy anything from another US defence contractor.
Buy CV90 and be done with it.
One hundred per cent Jim.
Hi Jim, The problem is ordering anything else just puts us in a very long queue behind lots of other orders. Like you I’ve done a lot of reading on this, but I just have to wonder if something can be rescued ? Just like the US we Gold plated it, added weight let GDLS run circles round the Army and MOD procurement.
So I do wonder what would happen if we stripped all the extra goodies out and tried to take them back to the Baseline ASCOD 2 IFV but with the COTS turret ?
Taking a 28 ton IFV and then boosting it up to 38 or 42 (variant dependant) was just asking for trouble, the US have cancelled their Booker M10 variety and yep it was up to 42 tons.
Thing is there saying the problem only effects about 33% of the fleet so obviously they should be able to identify the problem just by comparing the 2 and fixing it if we order a whole new vehicle we are talking years before we see anything I also wonder where they stand on getting there money back as it’s been signed off twice I believe as fit for service it’s a very strange situation
Indeed – which might suggest it is a specific variant with a specific weight or weight distribution issue?
ABC, I can’t comment on whether the Requirement was gold plated as I have never seen it. Certainly tales of the Army staff detailing 1,200 seperate requirements was very revealing; that is not a good way to write a Requirement.
I doubt that you could easily, quickly and cheaply take Ajax back to an ASCOD2 IFV as it took many years to customise the said base product. MoD would have to pay for that work.
What do you mean by the COTS turret? The Ulan/Pizarro one or the GD Ajax one? If it is the former then you have lost the 40mm stabilised gun, that is a major feature.
Take out the extra goodies? What are they? I am sure you know that Ajax is a recce vehicle and not an IFV, so by extra goodies do you mean all the ISTAR kit, sensors, data processing, digitisation, networked secure comms? Then if you did you don’t have a networked recce vehicle!
Salvaging anything appears to require a full redesign and we would be relying on a company that can’t do the job and giving them a blank cheque to do it.
That’s why I’m saying cancel and move on. If a full redesign is required it’s better to just buying something on UOR off the shelf.
Personally I would take everything from GD land vehicles that has already been build and delivered and see what can be done with it.
Then take them to court for breach of contract
Consumer law states that a product should be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose and as described. GD UK made a 6k loss in 2023 and 10k loss in 2024, as a limited company the only asset would be the factory in Wales. Making the substandard hulls in Spain allowed them to avoid tax in the UK and transfer of money. Use of Corporate services, designers ,consultants and logo allows transfer of money to USA.
Agreed, especially after reading Trump’s new “National Security Strategy” document.
Not like we don’t have issues with own suppliers, such as the t45 engine or Nimrod MK2.
I just think we need to understand how this happened to ensure accountabiliy and ensure lessons are learnt, which never seem to be.
BAE and the whole aircraft industry knew using corroded ex Saudi comet air frames for Nimrod would not work. These were hand built with variations in dimensions, they needed extensive refurbishment, they had problems with fitting wings and the interiors designed by Aim Aviation only really fitted the one measured. Who in the MOD or Government made the decision against all advice.
The who and why is key. Were they given the correct information or was it hidden under techie talk and a massive report etc.
Lessons won’t get learnt until we understand the root cause of the issues.
Safety enquiry lasting two weeks? Anyone know what’s happened in the last five years? Rhetorical question guys. The answer is nothing. Best thing is to have a chat with Bae and buy what we should have bought in the first place, the CV90.
Is “Vim” still around ?
Poor maintenance on new vehicles?
How about we get some real men in the army not babies looking for a swift buck. I maybe too old but I can drive and I don’t need to sit in a rolls royce with hot and cold running water and a nappy changing station
That’s a bit harsh being sick is not voluntary is it also I heard somewhere the vehicle is like 4x louder than other vehicles of its type which as a recon vehicle isn’t a good thing soldiers are not weak and trying to get a claim there is a genuine problem that needs fixing
I have heard them mate they are no louder on the outside than anything else,its got to be inside where the problem is!
I wonder if they are loud as the cars many people drive, hge truth is all we hear today is excuses to grab more money from the public purse for some slight, or hurt, or damage
When was the last time you sat in a car needing ear defenders, and still, even with the ear defenders, you ended up in hospital?
Ha, you should have a go in my Cerbera !!!!
No I haven’t though I have had damned noisy cats, the thing is though, I would rather be facing russian tanks with ear defenders on in something armoured than walking around showing how polished and clean my gun is. . I remember being in the territorials, all, and I do mean all, we ever did was clean ouR guns and match up and down.
Wearing ear defenders would normally be the standard, except after mitigation these injuries are still occurring after those involved have been wearing both ear defenders and additional ear plugs underneath to double up, doesn’t exactly seem reasonable. Is it reasonable for such issues on a £10m vehicle that is supposed to be an improvement over previous generation, increasing effectiveness not hindering it.
These are also the issues related to personnel, there are many other issues including vibration, failing electronics, issues with tracks, suspension, rear door, main gun etc.
The noise of AJAX is significantly above what a car makes, a car at highway speeds of 70mph is about 65 dcb, high speed train 85 dcb, Ajax has been recorded frequently at 117 dcb so a significant increase over a car even at higher speeds.
There is also the issue of vibration levels on top of the sound, shaking apart electronics with reports of monitors connected to the cameras used for navigation failing, plus other many issues.
An Army struggling with recruitment and under its target strength is unlikely to be medically discharging people for no reason.
Ofcourse there have been no real men since back in your day, said every generation, I’m sure you were the toughest, a real hard man, eating the gravel off the road as you didn’t have anything else to survive off of, everyone has it so easy these days compared to you and your generation…
I’m sure you’ve not been near a Rolls Royce if you think that they have anything in common with armoured vehicles or anything the Army has considering it’s generally ageing fleet after failed programs and cuts.
Those not real men still sign up to protect the country so you can relive the glory days in your head, the notion they do it for a swift buck at army rates, you just aren’t serious, it’s probably time to grow up and come back to reality.
Next year, the British Army could well be facing down Russian forces, whether they open fire or not is down to gravity, but it will need the best kit available, and it simply is not there. A war footing can not be ruled out, and to make matters worse, Trump may detune US activity in Europe as a demonstration of his discontent with Ukraine and Europe over the peace process.
Question: Is Ares also suffering? If not, that programme could continue, and some form of rapid makeover of Warrior in terms of gun upgrade and digital improvements might mitigate the situation. An emergency recall of Scimitar to temporarily fill the Ajax gap must be a feasible option, and a proportion of the good old Bulldog’s could be fitted with its uparmour packages. The current situation is scanderless when you consider the safety of our troops is on the line.
I wonder weather the warrior could take the turrets of Ajax ? However I definitely don’t think it would be right to give them back CVRT my god that thing is a relic and simply not up to the task it’s armour is not good enough and it is not suitable for the role recon units do now (recon by fire) it’s a terrible situation but the fact that 70% of the vehicles seem ok there surly must be a way to fix it
The Ajax Turret doesn’t fit on Warrior,it has it’s own CTA 40mm version.
Interesting thought Maurice. I think Ajax weighs 42 tons whereas Ares weighs only 30 tons. If the issues are indeed due to weight it might be the case the problems are only with Ajax. How much of the weight difference is due to the CTA turret? Could Ares be given the sensors for the reconnaissance role without its weight growing too much? If Ajax were scrapped you would lose the strike capability. Maybe that could be covered with. Warrior ‘lite’ CSP?
The Aries they were testing at Bovington was louder than a CR2 at walking speed when being marshalled out of ADTU.
Father Christmas will sort this out. I think reindeers are pretty good at reconnaissance and strike 🙂
On the upside, cancellation of Ajax would permit a complete rethink of how best to conduct recce in the age of the remotely operated land/air/sea vehicle.
As others have said, we are now at the back of the queue for CV90 so, perforce, plenty of time for any new CONOPS to be developed/(digitally)wargamed/written.
A mix of small, fast, wheeled recce vehicles and lorry borne configurable pallet systems of recce/strike drone launchers, missile launchers and conventional mortar/artillery systems might offer a quick short term fix?
Certainly, the idea of an ASCOD based IFV now looks dead in the water.
Do the infantry, I wonder, still even want a tracked (heavy, expensive, vulnerable) IFV or is dispersed high mobility/small size now the key to protection?
Monro, specifically on your last point…
We have always had a wide range of infantry – armoured infantry in IFVs to work with tanks; mechanised infantry in tracked or wheeled APCs who do not exclusively work with tanks; light role infantry (can be called light mech) in Protected Mobility vehicles; light role infantry in soft-skinned vehicles or even on foot; airmobile or air assault infantry; parachute infantry.
Each has its place, depending on the Threat, the CONOPS, the Environment (Ground and Climate).
It is very dangerous to dispense with a whole class of Infantry. We need a mix to cope with any situation.
Thanks. Quite so. And yet that is precisely what we appear to have done, no IFV on the horizon.
And, given that we might be at war in Central Europe within 5 years, a ‘quick fix’ is required.
What to do? Innovate?
Monro, regarding no IFV on the horizon. WCSP was cancelled by politicians canniving with HMT as there was no longer the money to finish development and initiate production, apparently due to the decision to advance the Boxer programme. The army need an IFV but there is no money for one.
What do we do without an IFV? The MoD declared in March 2021 that the army must somehow use a wheeled APC (the Boxer MIV) instead. Not credible on so many levels. So what do we really do? Move money around within Defence to do a mild (simple, quick and cheap) upgrade to Warrior (short of the WCSP) and let it soldier on until that 2.5% and then 3.5% GDP spend on defence come through, and buy a new MOTS IFV. Or buy some used but recent Bradley M2s from the US FMS programme.
Large quantities of APCs/IFVs/MBTs from wherever, as soon as possible, would appear to be the answer:
‘The threat from enemy FPVs means that tanks and infantry fighting vehicles must be concealed and ideally dug in, usually within 3 km of the frontline if they are assigned to combat roles. Because of the high latency of FPV sorties, armoured fighting
vehicles tend to sally forwards from these hides to engage in direct-fire missions to break up enemy assault actions. The vehicles then return to their protected hides before they can be targeted….. Tank-on-tank engagements have increased in regularity because of these tactics. It is noteworthy that every Ukrainian brigade aims to field a company or battalion of tanks’
Mechanisation is also critical to battlefield survivability. Infantry fighting vehicles and lighter tanks are disproportionately valuable for the mobile reinforcement of sectors under pressure in the defence. APCs, meanwhile, are indispensable for logistics, medical support, troop rotation and offensive action. The number of vehicles required means that while modern infantry fighting vehicles are a significant combat multiplier, they are also overly expensive and complex for a large proportion of the tasks for which APCs are equally capable and much more affordable. Ukraine’s international partners should therefore prioritise the continued mechanisation of Ukrainian units with both IFVs and APCs. The priority for both is serviceability.’
That being the case, used examples in serviceable condition of tried and tested APCs and IFVs would seem to offer the best way of achieving the mass required for a restored and verifiably credible conventional deterrent.
Having said that, this is, of course, very much a land/air battle so (expensive) automated anti air turret systems are extremely important:
‘Ukrainian experimentation has demonstrated that automated turrets are able to reliably engage UAS using very little ammunition whereas humans have approximately 25% efficiency when defending the targeted position….Without counter-UAS capabilities, NATO militaries risk seeing high quality troops and equipment rapidly suffering losses’
‘The scale of IFV and APC production is severely limited by an over-emphasis on quality over quantity. Although IFV optics and other sensors are valuable, there is a need to improve the level of mechanisation and the sustainability of mechanised units.’
‘As the character of the threat continues to evolve, it is important that NATO militaries ensure that they are adapting to meet the challenges of tomorrow, rather than perfecting the execution of past doctrine.’
Tactical Developments During the Third Year of the Russo–Ukrainian War, Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds, 2025, The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies
Upgraded Warrior + refurbished 432 series might have been a good solution. One might think it not beyond the wit of those responsible to swiftly acquire similar systems in numbers from wherever they might be found overseas….if the will and budget to do so exists…..
And the only way to obtain the required uplifted (5% of GDP) budgetary allocation to defence is to scrap net zero.
British net zero has no credibility, is absurd, while China, India, the U.S. retain, or build new, coal fired power stations.
This is not complicated.
The reports from Ukraine of their use of our donated CVR(T) vehicles, seems at first surprising, but looking deeper perhaps gives a better insight on what the battlefront needs, when faced with a significant number of drones. Perhaps the most surprising outcome, is how much they like the Spartan APC, where our Army thought is was obsolete. Which is being used in a similar manner you’ve mentioned above. Where its speed and manoeuvrability, wins over its armour protection. Being used to quickly deploy and recover infantry to hot spots, as well as recovering wounded. Designed to carry 4 passengers, Ukraine has manage to squeeze in 10 to 12 when needed (must be good friends!). They really like the vehicle’s lack of ground pressure, which allows it to get to places where others can’t.
BAe (Alvis) designed the larger Stormer, based on the CVR(T), which is longer with an additional roadwheel. In APC form, they are supposed to be able to squeeze in 9 passengers (probably not in mine protected seating though!). They have a STANAG level 4 armour protection, which is all round protection against 14.5mm AP rounds. Though the front is said to be closer to level 5. Which for a weight of nearly 13t is not that bad. Especially as Ukraine has shown adding additional explosive reactive armour (ERA) and some cage armour, makes it much more resilient to drone attacks.
But it could be better. To begin with replace the tracks with Soucy’s composite rubber tracks (CRTs). As these are half the weight as the steel tracks, but also make the vehicle a lot quieter. The CRTs will help improve fuel economy and will make the vehicle faster at a similar weight, as there’s less rolling resistance. Secondly I’d replace the engine with a smaller 3L Mercedes OM606 engine. This is an older all mechanical diesel engine, which has a legendary robustness and longevity. But as shown with compound supercharging and turbocharging, can easily double its horsepower to a reliable 500bhp. Being all mechanically will make it more reliable, but also easier to maintain.
The question is what is the requirement for the vehicle. One would be a more up to date lightish APC. That has the same famously low ground pressure characteristics and is still fast and nimble. But better protection without significantly adding to its weight. Also a better offensive/defensive capability. So apart from the APC role, it would include reconnaissance, fire support, escort duties, armour in advance and withdrawal. Which is pretty much the Ajax SV requirement.
For the APC, where passenger numbers are key, a non-penetrating remotely operated weapon system (RWS), is a must. Kongsberg do a number of RWS for a machine gun/grenade machine gun. But, the Ukraine War has clearly shown, you have to use what’s immediately to hand when caught in a fire fight. Today a MG won’t cut it, you need to overmatch the enemy to win the fire fight. Therefore an autocannon is a must. Kongsberg do the RT20 turret, which although weighs about 1.3t for the base model. The turret has a hunter-killer capability along with a dual fed 30mm Bushmaster. The increase in horsepower should account for the turret’s weight. Plus the CRTs will be slightly wider, so the ground pressure should not increase massively.
Armour wise, as per the Spartans being used in Ukraine, you could add cage armour. Which is fairly low weight and reasonably effective against drones and RPGs. Though they have also fitted ERA, which has shown to be good against Russian drones armed with a high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) grenade/warhead. But they’re not great for anyone standing close. DSTl have shown an alternative which is electric armour. This works similar in principle to a capacitor, where in this context an additional plate is put in front of the main armour. A large electric charge is held on one of the plates. Where when penetrated by the HEAT’s jet, the jet shorts out the two plates causing the held charge to destroy the jet. Thereby stopping it from penetrating through the inner armour. This could significantly increase the armour protection against HEAT warheads, but not overly increase the weight. As the outer plate doesn’t have to be that thick.
Secondly, what hasn’t been used by AFVs in the Ukraine war to a large extent, especially by the Ukrainian forces. Is an active protection system (APS). The Israeli Trophy system is battle tested, though Hamas did show it had a vulnerability against drones dropping grenades etc from directly above the vehicle, where Trophy’s elevation couldn’t reach. Which has subsequently been rectified. APS adds an additional protective layer to the vehicle, Where it has been shown to defeat most threats excluding armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabots (APFSDS) rounds.
Sadly I believe the CTAS40 is still too powerful for the Stormer chassis. BAe (Alvis) in the past have shown the Stormer 30. Which mounted a dual fed 30mm Bushmaster in a fully stabilised crewed HITFIST turret. It also included an optional TOW ATGM mounted to either side of the turret. The gun had an useful maximum elevation of +60 degrees.
Bring that forward to today, The Kongsberg RT20 with the up to date optics, hunter-killer ability, along with the gun’s high elevation capability. Should allow it to be used as a counter unmanned air system (C-UAS). The USMC has selected the RT20 turret for their amphibious combat vehicle, where they can optionally fit a Javelin ATGM to the side. For the “Super Stormer”, I’d fit a 5 pod Martlet launcher instead. Giving the vehicle the ability to engage vehicles from a better stand-off distance, but can also be used to help defeat attack aircraft, helicopters and drones. if we were using this vehicle as a Stormer HVM replacement. I would include a mast mounted infrared search and track turret, perhaps even a AESA based Ku/Ka radar. Would an additional 5 pod launcher of Starstreak be capable of being fitted to the other side of the turret?
As Ukraine has shown, there is still potential in the CVR(T)/Stormer chassis. With a few additional modifications, I think it could also do a lot of the roles the Ajax-SV was/is going to do.
You make a convincing case for a CVR(T) revival. Very interesting.
I think I recall some nervousness on the part of Spartan passengers regarding the fact that their bench seats were positioned on top of the fuel tanks. I can certainly recall the sight of MBTs bogged up to their turret rings having foolishly attempted to follow the tracks of recce troop across the treacherous bogs of the Suffield plains.
But until we bin net zero, we will not be able to afford even LR Defender replacements or anything else any time soon.
Finland Patria Trackx perhaps? 15.5 tons, amphibious. Able to get places Ajax never could. Not as heavily armed or armoured, but much more nimble & agile. Could be built under licence in the UK.
In service, up and running in five years?
Should be possible…but we just can’t move that quickly…
That is the real problem…..and the only solution is a reforming government; completely new broom….if we have time…
John, ‘Finland Patria Trackx perhaps? 15.5 tons, amphibious’, as an Ajax replacement.
This is a M113 replacement. It has a mere MG not a 40mm stabilised cannon, so its firepower is below par. At 15.5t, it surely has armour protection far inferior to that of a 38-42t vehicle, so its protection is probably below par. It’s an APC to carry an infantry rifle section, not a recce vehicle, so it won’t have an ISTAR package.
I think these artificial distinctions vanish in the mist, when the first shot is fired. Recce is most likely done by drone now. Yes you can have something heavier, but if it cannot get to where it is needed, what is the point of it?
Could the UK in anyway manufacture the CV90 under licence somewhere?
I would take a guess that if the whoke Ajax program is scrapped , that the factory in Wales would be bought by a new owner to build orassemvle the new vehickes. It would be another waste of time and effort to see the Welsh Factory close and skills base dispersed again
CV90 is a BAE product. They offered to build it in Newcastle.
If Ajax is cancelled, given the time and budgetary constraints involved, some creative thinking is required. Otherwise the Cavalry will remain unhorsed; unthinkable…
The BAE site in Newcastle closed when they finished building Terrier.
Yes. They offered to move the turret work to Newcastle in 2010 in a late attempt to trump the GD Ajax bid.
The Newcastle facility could be utilised for AFV manufacture under licence by its current ownership:
‘Pearson Engineering, together with our wholly owned subsidiary, Responsive Engineering, are today’s proud guardians of Armstrong Works with extensive plans to further the site as a centre of engineering and as a force for good in the community.
The site has an impressive history and legacy dating back to 1847 when William George Armstrong founded Elswick Works. By the early 1950s, the site covered over 70 acres of land and stretched over a mile along the river Tyne.
Today, Armstrong Works is home to two businesses with global reach, working across defence, security, energy and rail, with significant levels of new investment and ongoing recruitment to attract the next generation of talent into engineering and manufacturing.’
I think there is a lesson here.. the simple fact is our army is to small and the funding to tight to take massive risks.. the army had blown half its armoured vehicle budget on a gold plated white elephant that does not work.. the U.S. army can afford blow 5 billion on a gold plated see what we can build project.. the British army is simply to small and its funds are not big enough to do that..
The armies generals have gambled on its future and utterly fucked up. They have spunked untold billions and have literally nothing to show for it.. so the sorry story of the armies mission to piss taxpayers money up the wall and still make its soldiers drive around in 60 year old armoured vehicles means that in essence for 800 or so protected Mobility vehicles ( with another 600 or so binned), Ajax that does not work and about 600 boxers they will have spent about 16 billion pound’s.. just for a bit of context that would have got you about 32 FREMM frigates for the navy if we had decided to join that program. The French army in that same period spent 3.1 billion pounds on 630 infantry fighting vehicles….
Sadly the army did have its cake but it left it outside in the rain and can now neither eat it or keep it.
Quietly dropped, even by Boxers builders, were the forecasts for future Boxer batches that were scheduled for the British Army. We heard reports that up to around 1200 vehicles had funding allocated, or something like that.
Maybe they’ll go all in.
The Armoured Cavalry, and the British Army, deserve better than this!
Also, from what is going on in UKR, how can a recc vehicle move around beyond the FEBA without Drone defences?
Finally, I don’t just blame the Army, but the politicians who no doubt pushed this.
Will be interesting to see ACCOUNTABILITY for tax payers money.
I predict zilch, and arses being covered up.
I blame a number of senior leaders in the army to be honest as well as senior career civil servants in the MOD. Political classes give direction and overall funding not details.. in the end the politicians did give 16-7 billion pounds for armoured vehicle procurement.. what has been procured for that ( 800 protected mobility vehicles and in the future 500 Ajax and 600 boxer) is all on the army leadership and MOD civil servants.. if they had not panic purchased for the war on terror, spaffed 6 billion of FRES/Ajax and spent another 5 billion on 600 hundred of the most expensive APCs in existence they could easily by now have operationally available have 600 new IFVs, 2000 APCs, 1000 protected mobility vehicles, 500 armoured cav vehicles and still have 6+ billion in change available for a new MBT and self propelled gun programme.
All correct, sadly.
So….who’s head is going to roll. This crap cannot go on.
So one should but like all these things the guys who set this all off are sitting pretty in the House of Lords..
How many vehicles would a battalion require? Between the infantry, engineering and recovery vehicles, recce and overwatch, C3I, medical, SPH, SPAA, and whatever else. 150 to 200 at a guess? So we could get about six Boxer battalions from 1200 vehicles if enough are bought for complete formations and we accept few if any spare vehicles.
Doesn’t sound great to be honest.
No. The price of the vehicle….as always, we pay a fortune. I only suggested it as one option they might go with, we see constantly how we overpay for kit.
Why would we have joined the Fremm programme, weird comparison
It’s just what could be purchased as an example on a well commissioned programme and FREMM was a very well commissioned programme.. giving some of the most cost effective major surface combatants produced in the west..
It practically ended up with 2 separate programs after al the equipment changes.
The French got half the ships they wanted and the Italian ones are underarmed
You cannot call the Italian FREMMs not under armed frigates..
GP verson 16 aster 15 and 30, 127mm medium gun and 76mm super rapid with DART munitions, x2 25mm cannons, 8 heavy Anti ship and land attack missiles, 6 light torpedoe tubes and 2 none leathal guns.
ASW verson with 16 aster 15 and 30, x2 76 mm super rapids with DART munitions x2 25 mm cannons, 4 heavy anti ship and land attack missiles and 4 ASW missiles, 6 light torpedoe tubes ..
All have a double hangers for 2 meduim rotors, all have long range volume search radar and a good hull sonar set.
16 defensive missiles is woeful
But it also has DART and dart is apparently very effective against all air breathing targets our to 8-9km range and essentially covers the short range AAW missile angle. the fact it has Aster 30 at all and the long range search radar to go with it puts it way ahead of all other frigates in capability and it’s not even an AAW ship. What other ship out there has quite electric drives, quited hulls, variable depth hull and Towed array sonar, long range search radar as well as a 100km+ range AAW missile that has some ABM capabilities.. none at all is the answer.. could it do with an extra 16 silos.. yes but every ship has a compromise.. T26 has no long range volume search radar or long range AAW missiles.. the US ABs sound like a bucket of bolts..
Hangars.
No hangers… they pop them up on hangers nice and tidy like 👍 keeps them out of the way.
I am just finishing my second bottle of port, I always know what I am talking about at this point.
Any man that drinks port knows what he’s talking about. It’s my standard test for competency..
Is it what can be considered as too big to fail? I really don’t see any inquiry scrapping the whole program but then again injecting more funds is definitely not a solution
Reform cavalry as forward recon, after all, there are enough bloody horses trotting around London. Equip the riders with shotguns for drone protection and job done. Simples.
Can we afford the oats?
The fact that they are talking about weeks tells me that they are thinking about the impact on the equipment plan, also that cancellation is the most likely outcome. A thorough review of engineering solutions would surely take longer.
This Government can cancel it and blame their predecessors. If they choose to try to fix it, that is on them.
They already spent 10 years trying to fix the problems and they apparently haven’t worked. It would be sheer stupidity to try again. The only question to be answered really is do all variants suffer the problems. If not continue with them, but Ajax needs to go.
As General Dynamics had no money and borrowed money to fund the factory when the stage payments were stopped they tried mitigation of the problem. Isolation mounts for drivers controls and seats, thick seat cushions, anti drumming panels for the hull and noise cancelling headsets. The Government investigation in 2020 stated excess track tension due to overloaded suspension, excess noise and vibration from track/sprocket interface and other issues. Many of the early hulls had poor jig alignment and welding, the variations in hulls would present different noise and vibration characteristics. On the Redback 400 Land Phase 3 Scoucy rubber tracks produced 70% less noise and 13.5 db less noise and 30% fuel saving, you would have thought trailing would only require new road wheels and final drive sprocket carrier for a quick evaluation and affordable fix.
Should be 70% less vibration and 13.5 db noise !
You can no longer edit posts if you make an error
Just sell the ones that are finished to the Russkies, see how they like that? Take the factory in Wales for further use and boot GD out of the UK for good.
Whatever solution is adopted I hope the chosen route provides an effective anti drone technology solution. Read any review of the the latest Ukraine situation its clear that the Russians have learn’t the hard way but have developed some very effect Drone strategies with the help the Ukrainians! Small groups of troops penetrating the front line backed up with dozens of fiber optic controlled drones seems to be the order of the day and the primary targets are the drone operatos on the other side. Any movement is detected quickly and taken out by drones. I know many still think of Armour and manouver but its hard see any vehicle can survive in a close up fighting except perhaps in massed numbers which we don’t have. Perhaps there will be a silver lining if Ajax is cancelled which will give the Army a oportunity to rethink their requirements rather than slaveishly follow the requirements which resulted in Ajax.
It is an air superiority problem. The ATGW threat to armour was dealt with by, effectively, counter battery fire. That is precisely the tactic the Russians are now employing to counter drones.
Ultimately, as with air power 1914-18, interceptor air superiority drones are likely to provide the best solution.
Given that they will, no doubt, require direction by AI swiftly programming unjammable inertial navigation, supplemented by onboard autonomous AI directed terminal guidance, he who dominates AI technology dominates the battlefield.
Worried…very worried….
There is one system not employed by Ukraine’s armour, which is an active protection system (APS). Initially Israel AFVs fitted with APS had issues with drones, as the drone flew higher that the Trophy’s effectors maximum effective range. Then dropped an anti-tank grenade on top of the engine deck or turret. Trophy’s effector turrets couldn’t elevate high enough to engage the drone or the grenade when dropped from directly above. Looking at reports this is in process of being rectified. But it does raise an interesting question, of how Trophy or other APS would perform in Ukraine’s war with Russia? I feel the likely outcome would be a Darwinian evolution of tactics and modifications. Where APS would have the initial upper hand, Russia would then use swarming tactics to overwhelm the APS, APS would evolve to counter multiple simultaneous threats. But I do feel APS would be a game changer if used in Ukraine!
Has anyone in authority bothered to talk to Piedrafita, the Spanish makers of the rotary dampers, to see if the right model is on Ajax, or whether one of their heavier duty models would be better?
First interesting comment on here. We all know that Ajax is badly specified. Nice call to ask if GDLS could have simply asked for better dampers. Also better suspension and higher tolerances.
Don’t worry if it is cancelled then the Civil servants will still be around waiting to draw their gold plated pensions and the senior officers who have run this shambles will be waiting to become directors at er…..
GDLS
Nothing to see here move along
What started back in 2010 as a simple CVR(T) replacement has become one of the MoD’s most delayed and expensive programmes. The contract was signed in 2014 and Ajax was meant to be in service by 2017–20; instead, IOC only arrived in late 2025. And even now, with £5 billion already spent, soldiers are still reporting noise and vibration symptoms during training.
At a minimum, this should force a serious review of MoD procurement and safety oversight. How a ‘safe’ vehicle can still harm soldiers after years of testing and assurances is a question that won’t go away.
Because the Army did a major spec change in 2016. Never do that.
John. You wrote: ‘Because the Army did a major spec change in 2016. Never do that’.
I am surprised it was only one spec change in such a long gestation project. If the original spec was no longer appropriate then you have to change it and pay a ‘surcharge’.
Contract Award to GD was in March 2010 so the spec was probably written in late 2009. A lot can change in 7 years to make the original spec out of date.
I would be interested to hear what the main changes were but cannot find this info.
Newspaper reports, say the Army was worried Ajax would be obsolete on service entry, so they did a major change, adding all sorts of new shiny digital in 2016. That gives GD a big get out in any future court case.
What started back in 2010 as a simple CVR(T) replacement has become one of the MoD’s most delayed and expensive programmes. The contract was signed in 2014 and Ajax was meant to be in service by 2017–20; instead, IOC only arrived in in late 2025. And even now, with £5 billion already spent, soldiers are still reporting noise and vibration symptoms during training.
At a minimum, this should force a serious review of MoD procurement and safety oversight. How a ‘safe’ vehicle can still harm soldiers after years of testing and assurances is a question that won’t go away.
This is now a strong contender for the worst UK defence procurement ever. And that is despite strong competition such as Nimrod AEW.3, Nimrod MR.4, Astute, Dreadnought (I strongly suspect), SA80, Chinook Mk3 Special Ops, Defence Information Infrastructure, Protector UAV, CrowsNest, Warrior upgrade, etc …. . Given the £billions involved, the Treasury’s reluctance to keep bailing out the MOD from the budgetary problems caused by expensive failures in its equipment programme is understandable. Maybe I’m wrong, but France’s Direction générale de l’armement (DGA) seems have a much better track record than its UK equivalents (currently the DPA), and it seems worth examining why that is.
It’s quite simple we cannot be in situation where troops are delivered to a combat situation deaf and throwing there guts up they wouldn’t last 5 Mins. They could have gotten hundreds of extra vehicles or maybe just had money for spares wouldn’t to hat nbe novel if they’d gone for cv90’s or puma:s. But no we have to take system slam 20 tons of extra armour on it and be amazed when it doesn’t work.
For heavens sake let’s close down this madness before it’s too late – a national disgrace and those at the top of the army who allowed this to happen should hang their heads in shame . INHO bin the hulls but keep the turrets and put them on a CV90 hull or even better Boxer if they will fit. Ajax was the wrong vehicle in any event for recce in any event . Everything about it went contrary to the whole concept of recce developed by the Brits over many a year. Small, low profile, fast – and cheap. And yes that means expendable if needs must be . The Ferret scout car embodied that tradition as did the Daimler Scout Car and Bren gun carrier or Carrier Universal of WW2. Above all low profile, easy to maintain and quiet. All of which Ajax is not. CVRT, Scorpion, Scimatre and Sabre fulfilled all those requirements but had the added advantage of having a bloody good gun so they were’ fighty’ as well. Not only was it air-portable in the back of a C130 but could be underslung below a Chinook which we practiced all the time and I believe in the Falklands they did it for real. All these things Ajax no can do. Bin it and give us a modern variant CVRT.
Saying we need this, we need that blah blah is what got us into this mess to begin with. Just design/buy a simple but decent recce vehicle and slap a radio in it
There is a very disturbing and indeed depressing article in the Telegraph this morning about the Royal Navy’s submarines
I think that is rehashing old news, my friend. The solutions are underway, but it will take time.
I know I bash Healey and Starmer, but they all need dragging in all the way back to Major.
As for the Admirals, always speak up after yet silent when in office.
Morning Daniele. Admirals venting 🙂
Also a suggestion by Hamish de Bretton-Gordon that he knows how to fix the Ajax problem. He will tell all tomorrow.
From what we have read over the years it sounds unfixable Paul
Paul, I tried to see the article by Hamish dB-G, but hidden behind a firewall after one second. I glean that his solution is throw Ajax back to GD and tell them to fix everything below the turret ring, very fast and at no cost to MoD. Genius!
I confess the contract and technical aspects of the Ajax problem are beyond my understanding. Unlike Hamish I’m not going to propose simplistic solutions. Healey will be earning his salary!
Hi Graham, managed to screen grab the article this morning. The crux of the matter is that he states from information given to him, the turret systems and weapon are top notch, but everything below it needs sorting. He is of the opinion that as per when the Chally 2 was introduced, with its number of faults, Where Vickers (BAe) were told to fix it, or it gets cancelled. GD should be put in to a similar position, where they fix the problems at their cost, not the MODs. Or the MOD should remove the turrets and fit them to a MOTS vehicle.
Fit new running gear and CRT to vehicles that have caused problems and re-test. If that works, fit CRT and new running gear to entire fleet. Get GD to pay for both as latent defects were clearly not fixed – if accepting IOC entirely exempts GD then I would be suprised. If CRT doesn’t work then it’s probably a write-off. [CRT = 70% less noise 60% less vibration (might be vice versa!) 30% better fuel efficiency and 40% reduced through life costs and reduces total weight by approx 1500kg.] Worth noting both ajax IFV proposal and blackjack demonstrator shown by GD fitted with CRT.
There are solutions out there to resolve the mess as mentioned. From what i understand the M10 Booker had a modified chassis , new suspension system and those rubber composite tracks . And the new GD Blackjax IFV variant also has these modifications . So it seems like General Dynamics know what to do as they were lessons learnt from Ajax . The M10 booker project went from paper to production in a couple of years . Though im not sure if sticking with GD is a good idea now .
JD, ‘Fit new running gear and CRT to vehicles that have caused problems and re-test’. What if it is the sub-standard hulls from Spain that is as much the issue?
Good point Graham. The lack of a clear pattern of vibration and noise problems does suggest that random variation hull quality might be a factor. Several informed posts point the finger at a combination of weight and suspension. I saw and observation that it is roughly 30% of vehicles affected: is it co-incidence that the 198 Ajax variants are about 30% of the fleet? Could we salvage the situation by modifying the suspension on the Ajax while leaving the Aries, Athena etc vehicles unchanged?
Cheaper to fix it and carry on, and not all variants are part of the problem. Buy off the shelf is fine but the bagck log in getting an order filled is years and is shart again trails, training spares. Even if rushed its 3 years down the line. Fix it and then buy no more from GD they clearly are in shoddy goods and in fairness weak Army management has not helped about time some one was held to account.
If you scrap it you end up with nothing if you fix it you get 500+ vehicles better late than never, and no vehicle project is ideal look at the German IVF, and the Booker MGS, the M109 replacement etc etc.
Main problem with Ajax is poor management, weak leadership, the blame game the project should have been cancelled years ago, now is too late.
Looking at more issues coming out (see FYB for example), there is a lot more than just noise and vibration to deal with. I wouldn’t trust GD to fix a hole in a roof let alone the issues with Ajax.
how did pass to get in to service, some one covered things up, or ignored them. They must have. GD have not any thing right and its money pit for them and an embarassment to the MOD. As i have said bad leadership on both parties.
100%
Good grief!
Bin it, and the commitment to provide six brigades to NATO. I don’t see Spain or Portugal making commitments to Eastern European defence and they’re as wealthy, let the Poles and Germans look after this and we focus on supporting JEF with a smaller land force and strong naval and air assets.
I’m still waiting to hear why they chose this vehicle over BAE’s CV90 13 years ago, it was a much better vehicle and still is. There’s something dodgy about it…….
The General said ‘Anything but BAE’
Proof positive the British Army promotes utter clowns to the top.
Whoever it may be, will not have the guts, nor the gumption, to say to whoever made these things, ‘take your monstrosity back, and give us our money!’
If not, you will never receive an order for anything, from the British MOD again.
So the H&S Ajax enquiry will take about 2 weeks. Parliament goes on Xmas Recess on 19th December. Anyone going to bet the report will be released on 18th or 19th Dec to avoid Parliamentary debate?
BTW I’ve just found out that a bog-standard back-bench MP is paid £93,904 p.a – Holy smoke! Add in the ridiculously generous living, travel etc expenses…and the other perks. Add on the extra pay for these clever Ministers, and they are on incredible money.
Not really. A partner in a high street solicitors will make in excess of 100k pa. A partner in a big city firm will make in excess of 1mil pa. The Sec of Def is responsible for a 60 Bil budget. Compared to the CEO of an equivalent private firm he is on peanuts.
Yep even more (but only just apparently) than then many thousands of those on benefits they seemingly court in order to retain their position.
That’s the real issue not MP’s pay.
‘Anything but BAE!’ said the General….
Just Me, Generals really don’t say that (they don’t choose platform suppliers) but politicians do.
The army has been quite well served by BAE and the companies it took over (Vickers Defence Systems, VSEL, RO plc, GKN, Alvis). I served 1975-2009 and was a fairly satisfied customer. Their land forces equipment over many decades in general was rugged, it worked, was delivered without undue delay and VfM was acceptable.
If I were at Abbeywood in some position of power over the Scout Vehicle programme back in 2009/10, I would say the contract should go to ‘anyone but a company that had never before built an AFV, had no ‘tank factory’ but aspired to buy and convert an abandoned fork lift truck factory, who had to recruit most employees off the street many of whom had never built or even seen an AFV before, and was clearly a Welsh job creation scheme’. BTW, this company, GDUK, has made losses 2 years running – I can see them going under.
Where the politicos had issues with BAE was with the aircraft side, and also they had some sort of embarrassment or guilt trip at further making BAE a monopoly supplier for defence equipment.
Agreed, General don’t choose suppliers, but they can guide Ministers in their preferred direction.
Follow the General who wrote the doctrine and requirements that guided the Minister.
I am, and will be watching to see if a nice post service Directorship is in his future.
This is a shambles. No doubt. My two penniesworth is as follows. The battlefield has changed without recognition where artillery is Mega Queen. By artillery I mean all kinds of weapons greater than small arms. Just to say these aren’t going to get less destructive but with AI generally existential to the Infantry on the battlefield. There will be situations where the Infantry can hang on. Namely in fortified cities, and deep entrenchments or tunnels. They can also be of great value in special operations or semi- guerilla ops. Also at the start of movement where they must seize and fortify the line.
This is where Ajax and APCs come in to protect infantry and support arms as they move. Movement in any form is becoming increasingly problematic with the all seeing eye of drones, other cameras in the sky and space.
Ajax sees to defy the odds with monstrous armour protection, hence 45t.
For my money the cost of 5bn GBP is wasted. Its a unique solution to safe movement. Ground drones and Boxer are the way forward.
The Russian attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure are the real game changer. The wickedness is not allowing Ukraine long range strike.
Meanwhile our money is far better spent on Defensive and Offensive weapons (Artillery) of all categories especially defending the Homeland and our ability to produce. This is where we should be looking at a new Battle of Britain and a Bomber offensive. Mega Artillery battles.
Take lightly constructed 25 tonne APC
Increase its weight with bells and whistles to 45 tonnes – the same as a tank
Seem surprised the vastly overweight thing now vibrates and shakes like a bucket of bolts
Read it and weep
Please keep anon. The issues that are coming out for AJAX are the tip of the iceberg, the list is endless. The PXR delivered by a unit on scorpion cyclone highlighted so much that has been ignored. And I’m only listening a few issues.
– The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them. The COA for this is to carry a manpack on exercise to avoid the need of running the vehicle up, but this also effects training, with students not being able to receive full lessons.
– There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because its too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle or hide it effectively enough to survive any kind of enemy searching for us.
– Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, its fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake.
– The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher and I would argue that most people cannot accurately account for their kit because of this.
– The L-specs used by instructors are a copy and paste mess from other vehicles, which leads to dangerous confusion in lessons, such as instructing a user to carry out GPMG drills on a HMG, and despite it being flagged, it remains in the L-spec.
– When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing. The obvious solution to this would have been to fit a L37 so that during a stoppage the COAX can still be fired and any faults/damages can be rectified at crew level and would give crews a dismountable GPMG for sentries.
– Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain.
– Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, so they used a warrior grease gun (GD has now reinvented this and created their own worser version). next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds.
– The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position.
– GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle. An ares dented a back bin, which required a replacement that cost £90k +, because they decided they would only replace the entire unit, including lights and cameras, despite them being perfectly fine.
– Lets talk about train as you fight. Unlike during training, the CES cannot be carried by the vehicle when fitted with its war fighting armour, which means it will need to be added to the growing G4 packet following on behind troops, alongside the crates of locktite that EVERY nut on the vehicle requires before fitting.
These issues have been raised at every level, and they have been ignored. Regimental CoC have been told, brigade commanders have been informed, we even informed the GCGS team when they visited. They don’t care, and its clear that people are prioritising potential careers with GD than the MOD and the effect their negligence has on the troops they are dumping AJAX onto. I watched a vehicle nearly burn down when the crew crawled it back into camp because GD failed with mount the engine correctly and yet the crew was still blamed for the damage.
The reality is, CVRT and warrior should have been upgraded to meet modern threats and come in line with equivalent vehicles. Someone decided that we need to move away from the “CVRT mentality” and that the CT40 and new turret cannot be fitted to warrior in a cost effective manner.