Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

In a parliamentary answer yesterday, the minister revealed that servicemen who traveled inside an Ajax undergoing trials are still receiving medical treatment for their hearing loss.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:In a parliamentary answer yesterday, the minister revealed that servicemen who traveled inside an Ajax undergoing trials are still receiving medical treatment for their hearing loss.
Link? Not in the daily report.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:Outside the turret and its armoured protection
Yes.
I don’t recall seeing anything like that. How early?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by tomuk »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:In a parliamentary answer yesterday, the minister revealed that servicemen who traveled inside an Ajax undergoing trials are still receiving medical treatment for their hearing loss.
Link? Not in the daily report.
The minister didn't reveal that.
The Labour shadow defence secretary asked if any personnel were receiving treatment. The Minister didn't give any direct response to that part of his question.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... xProgramme

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: Outside the turret and its armoured protection, or outside the crew space?
Would make for small blow-out panels; the size of a couple of Coke cans
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by tomuk »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
mr.fred wrote: Outside the turret and its armoured protection, or outside the crew space?
Would make for small blow-out panels; the size of a couple of Coke cans
Meggitt Defence
Our 40mm Linear Linkless™ Ammunition Handling System is at the forefront
of ammunition handling.

Meggitt’s unique multinature system allows for 40mm case telescoped
rounds to be loaded anywhere in the system. This flexibility allows for the
warfighter to select any round type available in the system, and have it
available for use within seconds.

Each round is handled individually without a metal link or belt, which reduces the likelihood of any snags or stoppages.
The ammunition handling system stores the ammunition in a “serpentine”
arrangement, to make the most of the available space.”

The ammunition handling system magazine sits just outside the turret wall
where rounds are individually loaded into the magazine via the load port.
Sensors inventory the different round types in order to make them user
selectable and available within seconds.


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

tomuk wrote:The ammunition handling system magazine sits just outside the turret wall
where rounds are individually loaded into the magazine via the load port.
A Coke machine; just working in reverse (but some Dr. Pepper included in user choice)
... and better armoured; all those late night karate kicks :D just to get a Coke
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

To the assholes that can't use google ..
Jeremy Quin

7 June 2021

During the ongoing demonstration and manufacture phase of AJAX, certain personnel raised concerns over noise and vibration levels.

All personnel who were at risk of exposure have had their hearing tested, and a small number of personnel are receiving ongoing medical attention.

Additional mitigations have been put in place whilst investigations continue.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:Outside the turret and its armoured protection
Yes.
I don’t recall seeing anything like that. How early?
I said it was a story .. as in rumor, hearsay, blog/forum post etc etc

I assume it was when trying to fit the gun into the existing Warrior turret i.e. making good on the promise made to win the contract.

Here's a pretty good summary of the history of the gun in the Lockheed turret. No mention of my apocryphal tale natch.

https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... of-delays/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:No mention of my repeated tale.
We love them anyway; keep them flowing :thumbup:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:No mention of my repeated tale.
We love them anyway; keep them flowing :thumbup:
Too slow, already changed to
apocryphal
You snooze, you lose.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:In a parliamentary answer yesterday, the minister revealed that servicemen who traveled inside an Ajax undergoing trials are still receiving medical treatment for their hearing loss.
That's not what the answer says. It doesn't state whether they are receiving medical attention for noise or vibration, and medical attention is not medical treatment.

-

Ajax Vehicles: Testing
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether trials crew on the Capability Drop 1 Ajax Scout vehicles have been injured during those trials as a result of (a) vibration and (b) noise.

Asked 27 May 2021
During the ongoing demonstration and manufacture phase of AJAX, certain personnel raised concerns over noise and vibration levels.

All personnel who were at risk of exposure have had their hearing tested, and a small number of personnel are receiving ongoing medical attention.

Additional mitigations have been put in place whilst investigations continue.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

So Ajax is stuck in the Demonstration phase, with only limited production and only a few actually getting to the Household Cavalry so they can play with them and identify any issues, and they have found some in addition to those found at Bovington. It seem the Platform has been in the Demo Phase of ever, which means there must have been either multiple issues over this timeframe or a few big ones that at present have no solution but only some means of mitigation.

The good news form the debate is that the contract is set at £5.5Bn and GD will have to deliver the contracted number of vehicles at FOC within that figure. It wouldn't be the first time a Company has actually lost money on an MoD contract, LITS anyone? :lol:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:All personnel who were at risk of exposure have had their hearing tested, and a small number of personnel are receiving ongoing medical attention.
It also does not say weather the crews had there hearing tested before the trials and weather they could of got hearing damage else where they could have picked it up at long weekend clubbing or from a live fire ex

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:All personnel who were at risk of exposure have had their hearing tested, and a small number of personnel are receiving ongoing medical attention.
Clubbing? Have you been outside recently? ;)

All personnel would be subject to an annual hearing test, but you're right that there will be no record of every instance they were exposed to loud noises since.

It also does not say weather the crews had there hearing tested before the trials and weather they could of got hearing damage else where they could have picked it up at long weekend clubbing or from a live fire ex

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:So Ajax is stuck in the Demonstration phase, with only limited production and only a few actually getting to the Household Cavalry so they can play with them and identify any issues, and they have found some in addition to those found at Bovington. It seem the Platform has been in the Demo Phase of ever, which means there must have been either multiple issues over this timeframe or a few big ones that at present have no solution but only some means of mitigation.

The good news form the debate is that the contract is set at £5.5Bn and GD will have to deliver the contracted number of vehicles at FOC within that figure. It wouldn't be the first time a Company has actually lost money on an MoD contract, LITS anyone? :lol:
The programme has been concurrent development and manufacturing since 2015. It is in the development phase, the, reliability growth trialling, full rate production and delivery phase simultaneously.

Like most major complex programmes.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

From experience running both the Developmental and manufacturing components of a programme leads to issues that mean items delivered are repeatedly being returned to the manufacturer to have faults corrected and/or parts replaced. It usually happens when a programme is falling behind schedule and is seen by Programme Managers as a way to catch up, but is often a false economy.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:That's not what the answer says. It doesn't state whether they are receiving medical attention for noise or vibration, and medical attention is not medical treatment.
Actually that's pretty close. Some lads and lasses went for an Ajax ride and are still seeing the doctor because of problems caused by the vehicle.

My advice is to put aside the Baghdad Bob-speak and stop telling us to move along, there's nothing to see. Instead tell us the problems have been/will be/will be when the MoD & GD agree who should pay, fixed. Or say nothing.

Repeatedly denying something that HMG has confirmed** leaves you with little credibility.

** even GD hasn't published a rebuttal which, in this day and age, is tantamount to an admission.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:So Ajax is stuck in the Demonstration phase, with only limited production and only a few actually getting to the Household Cavalry so they can play with them and identify any issues, and they have found some in addition to those found at Bovington. It seem the Platform has been in the Demo Phase of ever, which means there must have been either multiple issues over this timeframe or a few big ones that at present have no solution but only some means of mitigation.

The good news form the debate is that the contract is set at £5.5Bn and GD will have to deliver the contracted number of vehicles at FOC within that figure. It wouldn't be the first time a Company has actually lost money on an MoD contract, LITS anyone? :lol:
The programme has been concurrent development and manufacturing since 2015. It is in the development phase, the, reliability growth trialling, full rate production and delivery phase simultaneously.

Like most major complex programmes.
It's a matter of record that GD was given a production contract before they had demonstrated ability. In that, the Ajax program did not follow the MoD procurement rules. The theory is that Dave demanded something big to announce at a big NATO meeting after he'd savagely cut UK defense spending. Worm.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:So Ajax is stuck in the Demonstration phase, with only limited production and only a few actually getting to the Household Cavalry so they can play with them and identify any issues, and they have found some in addition to those found at Bovington. It seem the Platform has been in the Demo Phase of ever, which means there must have been either multiple issues over this timeframe or a few big ones that at present have no solution but only some means of mitigation.

The good news form the debate is that the contract is set at £5.5Bn and GD will have to deliver the contracted number of vehicles at FOC within that figure. It wouldn't be the first time a Company has actually lost money on an MoD contract, LITS anyone? :lol:
The programme has been concurrent development and manufacturing since 2015. It is in the development phase, the, reliability growth trialling, full rate production and delivery phase simultaneously.

Like most major complex programmes.
It's a matter of record that GD was given a production contract before they had demonstrated ability. In that, the Ajax program did not follow the MoD procurement rules. The theory is that Dave demanded something big to announce at a big NATO meeting after he'd savagely cut UK defense spending. Worm.
So F35 doesn't follow MOD procurement rules? Neither does CR3? Or MIV?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:That's not what the answer says. It doesn't state whether they are receiving medical attention for noise or vibration, and medical attention is not medical treatment.
Actually that's pretty close. Some lads and lasses went for an Ajax ride and are still seeing the doctor because of problems caused by the vehicle.

My advice is to put aside the Baghdad Bob-speak and stop telling us to move along, there's nothing to see. Instead tell us the problems have been/will be/will be when the MoD & GD agree who should pay, fixed. Or say nothing.

Repeatedly denying something that HMG has confirmed** leaves you with little credibility.

** even GD hasn't published a rebuttal which, in this day and age, is tantamount to an admission.
At no point have I said there are no issues with AJAX. What I've pointed out repeatedly is that firstly you have repeatedly assumed all issues lay at GD's feet, and secondly you've falsely connected different issues and wrongly identified root-cause.

And yet again proving you can't comprehend simple English (isn't that normally covered at SNCO level?).

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by jonas »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:full rate production and delivery phase simultaneously.

Like most major complex programmes.
Indeed. I see the biggest risk (and we all know that we are not given facts; or we should at least 'know' that) as residing in that, 132-147 hulls that are waiting for the next step (and some have already had that applied; hence the wide range quoted for the hulls... what's waiting & which have already been 'processsed')

"publish the Gateway Assurance report of the Armoured Cavalry programme." Fat chance! - which is exactly what the answer says
- however, it is bordering on the ridiculous to maintain Armoured Infantry (all wagons falling off - if anyone was ever to to believe MoD dates given out) in 2025; and Armoured Cavalry prgrms separately, the latter still charging on, though it would seem that some of the mounts underpinning that will collapse... but we don't know whether horse meat will be served at the next BBQ; or, will there be valid remedies
:?:
- a certain WSC reporting on the pointless cavalry charge at Ondurman and for what reason that did happen... said: Well, what does the Cavalry do? They charge ;)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

And where were all those hulls manufactured? Not in the UK and so those 1000s of jobs never materialised. If that was a key factor in GD winning over BAe then surely GD should have been challenged on this. It has been proven that there are some serious issues with the Ajax programme and the Government and MoD are working flat out, or at least their PR branches, to provide information in a way that really tells us nothing and definitely put no timescales on solving these issues or how they will affect the programme. Like HS2 the Ajax programme has been made into the Flagship procurement programme for the Army with TEMPEST for the RAF and the Carriers for the Navy. It is to politically loaded to be allowed to fail so will not be cancelled and even reducing number swill be very sensitive.

The Army's best bet maybe to maintain the number of vehicles required but rejig the variants purchased, possibly reintroducing some or all of the variants that were in the cancelled third batch. If the Mod and GD really work together this maybe an option that gets both out of jail. Will extra money be needed? Possible, though I can see this being done on the QT by the Treasury with little or no publicity, the spotlight being on how the Ajax family has grown and provides the Army with even greater capability, all part of the Government's brilliant plan for a flexible deployable conventional deterrent to those who fail to follow international laws.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Would seem like good news for Ajax that there is not (in the current plans) a joint fires version of the Boxer; just a small number of observation posts
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply