Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[Lord Jim]

The moment they do that, which I think is inevitable and especially so if people are seeking a variant to perform IFV duties, the whole thing will quickly become derailed and step away from being a MOTS product.

I agree that the MoD must learn that all this desire for state of the art and often bespoke kit that they want incorporated into platforms defeats the Idea of saving time and money by buying an existing platform. Fortunately Boxer is already sync'd with our Open Architecture and the integration of UK comms gear should not be an issue.

As for an IFV version, well at least two versions of such a platform already exist, those built for Lithuania and being delivered to Germany. The latter will use an unmanned version of the turret mounted on teh Australian CRV Boxer variant. Being a modular platform, together with already being in service means there should be considerably less risk of things going off the rails. We are already buying the uprated version of the Boxer able to carry heavier Mission Modules and additional armour without affecting its performance.

As for a Recce version, again basing it as near as possible to the Australian CRV will reduce risk considerably. We will still have a digital platform that will be able to network with other including the Challenger 3, assuming that programme goes smoothly, and by having the bulk of our AFV fleet based on the Boxer we will benefit from substantial saving in logistics and running costs, training and so on as well as having a more deployable force with a far smaller foot print.

I have never been a fan of the Ajax programme. It was designed for a role that changes significantly since it was designed. It is really too large for a recce platform that can conduct operations by avoiding contact with the enemy and is not part of a force able to deal with the enemy if it does come into contact, at least until the Royal Artillery gets its new toys. In the organisation laid out in the command paper the Recce Regiments, especially those operating in the Deep Fires BCTs, are lacking key capabilities that will seriously hinder there ability to manoeuvre and survive in a Peer conflict. Instead of looking into the far future with its wishful thinking the Army should have concentrated on filly both these capability gaps as well as those within the Boxer fleet, so that we are able to field properly balanced Battalions sized units.

The whole idea for Ajax came off the rails when the "Strike" Brigades were announced. It showed that the Army now had a large number of AFVs on order it was not sure what to do with. With the latest Command Paper they did find a valid role but we still had far too many on order, at least twice as many as were actually needed. Now we have these revelations that all of a sudden, the platform is suffering with major issues regarding vibration and noise, something that GD never experienced during their 60,000km of trials. Something does not make sense here.

Ajax was supposed to be in its final acceptance trails and already being introduced to units by now, even though it is still late. Instead it is undergoing an emergency set of independent trials to desperately find the sources of these previously unknown problems. We then have to find out a way to solve them. At this rate GD is going to make a massive loss on teh programme as the fixed budget will be used up trying to get the bloody thing to work as it is required to under the contract, and even then it might not reach FOC until the end of the decade.

[SW1]

[RunningStrong]

MP asking GDUK why the contract was negotiated with MOD taking the risk. Says he knows the contract, doesn't know what penalties are in it.

How bizarre!

[mr.fred]

It’s clear what Beale wants to hear, but that’s not quite what GD said.
They said that they have been monitoring and addressing vibration and noise, which are inherent to tracked AFVs, since the bid.
The implication is that while problems may have been reported in 2017, these problems are not the same as the current issues. In fact there may have been problems before and since which have been successfully resolved.

[RunningStrong]

"The rest of the afternoon may not be profitable" - Well it has.

"We read in the media there's been a pause in the trials" - It was on the MOD twitter!?

Muppets!

ETA
Telescopic, caseless

[RunningStrong]

Except that's not what was said

[whitelancer]

Well I have got to !5.26 my first comment would be 60000km of testing and the British Army only started trials on Ajax last year, so only a fraction of that mileage has been done by the user! This program has been running for over ten years and it appears the user, by which I mean the RAC, has only recently played any part in it. This is ridicules, the user should have been involved from the very start with crews being seconded to GD, even going to Spain if necessary. In fact I wonder what involvement the user has had from the very start of the program, from setting the requirements, down selecting GD to developing Ajax. Very little I suspect.
Back to the Defence Committee.

[SW1]

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a ... 957c76fcd3

Full evidence session for anyone interested

[RunningStrong]

Well I have got to !5.26 my first comment would be 60000km of testing and the British Army only started trials on Ajax last year, so only a fraction of that mileage has been done by the user! This program has been running for over ten years and it appears the user, by which I mean the RAC, has only recently played any part in it. This is ridicules, the user should have been involved from the very start with crews being seconded to GD, even going to Spain if necessary. In fact I wonder what involvement the user has had from the very start of the program, from setting the requirements, down selecting GD to developing Ajax. Very little I suspect.
Back to the Defence Committee.

You suspect wrong. The Armoured Trials and Development Unit have been embedded in the programme from day 1.

The ministers even referenced WO that had been part of the programme as part of their gossip.

[tomuk]

Just watching the defence committee.

Trying not to be too personal but was Carew Wilks always such a duffer? I believe he was Major-General lately within DE&S before moving to industry.

[tomuk]

So the noise problem isn't due to the vehicle but due to the Army using the wrong headsets?

[whitelancer]

You suspect wrong.

Not for the first time.

The Armoured Trials and Development Unit have been embedded in the programme from day 1.

What do you regard as day 1?

The role of ATDU is very important, probably more now than in the past before the Government decided it was a good idea to close the Establishments. The problem is ATDU lacks the facilities and the scientific and engineering knowledge that once existed within FVRDE/MVEE/DRA.
Their was still no clear answer as to when these problems arose, notably that of vibration. Was it always a problem, or did it only appear when the Army started trials.?
I found the whole session rather disappointing.

[Lord Jim]

Well, the GD team have obviously been very well briefed by their legal team, about what to say and what to definitely not say to avoid being seen to admit to any issues.

To then say that the Army's headsets are the reason for the noise issues as the one's used by GD and I assume the Army's Armoured Trials and Development Unit did not have any. Yet the Army personnel involved had highlighted the noise and vibration issue back in 2017! However simply classifying these correspondence between these personnel and the MPs as gossip is demeaning to the MPs and the Army Personnel. Considering the same information has been given by different members of the Armoured Trials and Development Unit to different MPs. So were they using GD's headsets or Army issue? Do GD's Headsets have the same functionality as those used by the Army.

If the Ajax contract is fixed does that mean that they have to delivery the 500+ vehicles at full operational spec. even if the platform is still being trialled and fixed when all the money is spent, so all extra costs including production will be borne by GD(UK).

Surely these sort of issues should have been discovered much earlier during the 60,000km trials, the fact they were not raises issues as to how GD carried out its trials. Surely their headsets should have been more akin to the Army's even if the allocation of headsets is down to the user after delivery.

[tomuk]

The revelation that they have had to give steroid injections to personnel to prevent hearing loss and also add a special marker to the medical records of those personnel who have been on Ajax so any future issues can be followed up was eye opening to say the least. Also trials are currently on hold until it is deemed safe to continue them.

As I have said before I can see this only going two ways, 1) it gets cancelled 2) the issues are fixed but due to cost/time the contract is recast again and a reduced number of vehicles (half?) are actually delivered for the £5bn. Either way if I was Rheinmetall I'd be polishing up my Boxer module PowerPoint presentations.

[RunningStrong]

You suspect wrong.

Not for the first time.

The Armoured Trials and Development Unit have been embedded in the programme from day 1.

What do you regard as day 1?

The role of ATDU is very important, probably more now than in the past before the Government decided it was a good idea to close the Establishments. The problem is ATDU lacks the facilities and the scientific and engineering knowledge that once existed within FVRDE/MVEE/DRA.
Their was still no clear answer as to when these problems arose, notably that of vibration. Was it always a problem, or did it only appear when the Army started trials.?
I found the whole session rather disappointing.

Day 1, the first day, el Primero.

ATDU is made of experienced users, it is not an engineering and science unit. That's what DSTL provide.

[RunningStrong]

Yet the Army personnel involved had highlighted the noise and vibration issue back in 2017!

GD's point was armoured vehicles are noisy and vibrate, that's always the case to some extent and they're claiming to have the data that supports it being within internationally recognised health and safety limits. The procurement minister after mentioned a limitation that was something like 8 hrs driving at X speed would exceed one of those limits.

What's unclear, is why the physical vibration issue is only being realised as physically harmful when Army crews are on board. Let's not pretend GD users have such loyalty to a corporation that they're willing to ignore medical issues!

[Lord Jim]

This is why things do not seem to add up regarding the issue of Vibration and Noise actually causing injuries to service personnel, yet it seems that none were sustained by either GD staff or members of the Armoured Trials and Development Team during the 60,000km covered during their trials. Finding a balance for the above would have been one of the key targets for those trials, yet they seem to have hopelessly failed in that task.

I wonder could GD do a BAE and report to the MoD that they cannot meet the conditions of the contract as the later did at one stage during the Nimrod MRA4 programme and force the Government to amend the contract, in that case reducing the number of planes on order more than once. So could we see the Ajax programme delivering fewer vehicles than the 500+ currently under contract?

[J. Tattersall]

What's unclear, is why the physical vibration issue is only being realised as physically harmful when Army crews are on board. Let's not pretend GD users have such loyalty to a corporation that they're willing to ignore medical issues!

MoD its one of the few government departments to own a team of audiologists, and these should at least be able to demonstrate objectively whether there's a risk to health. Add in vibration monitoring and FFT analysis and the root cause of the problem should (sooner or later) be pin pointed.

[RunningStrong]

What's unclear, is why the physical vibration issue is only being realised as physically harmful when Army crews are on board. Let's not pretend GD users have such loyalty to a corporation that they're willing to ignore medical issues!

MoD its one of the few government departments to own a team of audiologists, and these should at least be able to demonstrate objectively whether there's a risk to health. Add in vibration monitoring and FFT analysis and the root cause of the problem should (sooner or later) be pin pointed.

The audio issue isn't hard to point to. GD used one headset, MOD are using another and these appear to not work as well. Did MOD over promise? Is the integration wrong?

The "white finger" vibration is a separate issue, but also appears to have caused back injuries according to yesterday.

[Ron5]

From the FT today ..

British army’s troubled new armoured vehicle may not be fixable, minister warns

Trials of US-made Ajax have been halted twice over injuries from issues with noise and vibration, MPs told

The MoD ordered 589 high-tech Ajax reconnaissance vehicles from General Dynamics seven years ago in a deal worth £5.5bn. They were meant to be ready from 2017 but so far only 26 have been handed over © FT Montage/Getty/MoD

A UK defence minister has admitted for the first time that the government is “not 100 per cent certain” that the problems facing its Ajax armoured vehicle programme are resolvable, raising the prospect that more than £3bn already spent on the new fleet might be wasted.

Jeremy Quin, procurement minister, described Ajax as a “troubled programme” in evidence to MPs on Tuesday, and acknowledged that the vehicle has “a serious problem related to noise and vibration”.

The Ministry of Defence ordered 589 high-tech Ajax reconnaissance vehicles from US contractor General Dynamics seven years ago in a deal worth £5.5bn. The vehicles were meant to be ready for delivery from 2017 but so far only 26 have been handed over, and troops testing them have reported hearing and vibration injuries.

Trials of Ajax were suspended last November due to health concerns and restarted earlier this year with new measures to help personnel including ear defenders. However, the MoD stopped trials for a second time last month over what it called “renewed concerns on the effects of noise”.

Having been summoned to the Commons defence select committee to discuss the vehicle’s defects, Quin said: “I’ve described Ajax as a troubled programme. I wish it wasn’t but it is.”

He warned: “It requires a lot of work from ourselves and our industry partners to get ourselves back on track. We can’t be 100 per cent certain that can be achieved.”

The minister added that the preliminary findings of a health and safety review into Ajax, due to report by the end of this month, has already raised some issues of concern. He said the department was currently looking for a new person to head the programme and either see it through to delivery or inform ministers that correcting the problems would not be achievable.

Lieutenant General Ralph Wooddisse, commander of the field army, said he was making contingency plans — such as using unmanned drones for reconnaissance — in case Ajax is still not in service by the middle of this decade.

Earlier in the hearing Carew Wilks, vice-president of General Dynamics Land Systems, emphasised he was “confident” that the noise and vibrations can be fixed. However, it was still not clear whether the taxpayer would have to pick up the bill to make the vehicles safe.

The MoD appeared to be bearing the cost of the extra testing, and was also due to pick up the liabilities for any potential insurance claims from individuals injured during the course of the trials.

Major General Tim Hodgetts, surgeon-general of Britain’s armed forces, told MPs that eight out of 307 personnel involved in testing had reported temporary vibration injuries including “back and joint pains”, and tingling in the hands and feet. A total of 23 troops have been assessed as needing steroid treatment for hearing problems.

[SW1]

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/p ... ek-tragedy

The two greatest problems afflicting Ajax are noise and vibration. Ajax has long been recognised as a noisy vehicle. However, tests on the sound produced by the vehicle demonstrated that it was within useable limits. Subsequent investigation following loss of hearing by crews trialling the platforms has concluded that the issue arises from the integration of the Bowman headsets for the crew radios, which were picking up engine noise, amplifying it as the vehicle accelerated, and putting the sound directly into the crews’ ears. This raises serious questions about how tests on British Army vehicles are carried out, but is also fundamentally resolvable through the procurement of new headsets.

The vibration issues are more problematic. In testing it has been reported that excessive vibration is preventing the main armament from stabilising on the move, damaging the electronic systems that make Ajax a step-change in capability and leading to a high rate of component failure, with the idler and rear road wheels sheering off with concerning regularity. Crews meanwhile have suffered from symptoms that could indicate a risk of prolonged use of the platform leading to Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. These problems must be overcome before the vehicle can be viable as a fighting platform.

Senior personnel within General Dynamics Land Systems UK (GDLUK), the prime manufacturer of Ajax, as well as British Army personnel responsible for trialling the vehicles, noted that GDLUK has had significant difficulties with quality control in the fabrication of the vehicle hulls. The company has so far produced 270 hulls from an overall contract to deliver 598 vehicles. Quality control is understood to be especially poor throughout the first 100 hulls manufactured in Spain, but the issue has not been entirely eliminated in subsequent batches. Problems have included sections being inconsistent lengths, the sides of the hull not being parallel, and substandard welding. Fittings and furnishings have not had their attachment points drilled using jigs, resulting in the spacing of holes being uneven. GDLUK has expended significant efforts in trying to repair hulls that have been manufactured to an unsatisfactory quality.

The significance of the shortcomings in quality control is that the vibration issues are not manifesting themselves in the vehicles in a uniform manner. Some hulls produce disproportionately poor performance. This inconsistency means that it is exceedingly difficult for those investigating the faults to determine how much of the vibration arises from a problem with the fundamental design of the platform, as opposed to failures to build the platform to specification

[whitelancer]

Day 1, the first day, el Primero.

Not a very helpful reply.
What I was hoping you could tell me was when ATDU first got their hands on Ajax, or one of variants/prototypes and when they first started trials to asses said vehicle. From what was said by GD all the initial work was carried out by GD, the Army only getting involved at a later stage, was that in 2017, earlier, later?

ATDU is made of experienced users, it is not an engineering and science unit. That's what DSTL provide.

I'm well aware of what ATDU does, I know its not an engineering or science unit. That was my point. The loss of the establishments, in this case MVEE, has left the Army/MOD woefully short of the necessary science and engineering knowledge base not to mention the facilities they had available. While I am sure DSTL does some good work it hardly replaces what's been lost, both in breadth and depth. Having to go to MIRA in order to asses the vibration and noise levels rather than being able to do it in house is one small demonstration of this.

[Halidon]

From the FT today ..

British army’s troubled new armoured vehicle may not be fixable, minister warns

Trials of US-made Ajax have been halted twice over injuries from issues with noise and vibration, MPs told

The MoD ordered 589 high-tech Ajax reconnaissance vehicles from General Dynamics seven years ago in a deal worth £5.5bn. They were meant to be ready from 2017 but so far only 26 have been handed over © FT Montage/Getty/MoD

A UK defence minister has admitted for the first time that the government is “not 100 per cent certain” that the problems facing its Ajax armoured vehicle programme are resolvable, raising the prospect that more than £3bn already spent on the new fleet might be wasted.

Jeremy Quin, procurement minister, described Ajax as a “troubled programme” in evidence to MPs on Tuesday, and acknowledged that the vehicle has “a serious problem related to noise and vibration”.

The Ministry of Defence ordered 589 high-tech Ajax reconnaissance vehicles from US contractor General Dynamics seven years ago in a deal worth £5.5bn. The vehicles were meant to be ready for delivery from 2017 but so far only 26 have been handed over, and troops testing them have reported hearing and vibration injuries.

Trials of Ajax were suspended last November due to health concerns and restarted earlier this year with new measures to help personnel including ear defenders. However, the MoD stopped trials for a second time last month over what it called “renewed concerns on the effects of noise”.

Having been summoned to the Commons defence select committee to discuss the vehicle’s defects, Quin said: “I’ve described Ajax as a troubled programme. I wish it wasn’t but it is.”

He warned: “It requires a lot of work from ourselves and our industry partners to get ourselves back on track. We can’t be 100 per cent certain that can be achieved.”

The minister added that the preliminary findings of a health and safety review into Ajax, due to report by the end of this month, has already raised some issues of concern. He said the department was currently looking for a new person to head the programme and either see it through to delivery or inform ministers that correcting the problems would not be achievable.

Lieutenant General Ralph Wooddisse, commander of the field army, said he was making contingency plans — such as using unmanned drones for reconnaissance — in case Ajax is still not in service by the middle of this decade.

Earlier in the hearing Carew Wilks, vice-president of General Dynamics Land Systems, emphasised he was “confident” that the noise and vibrations can be fixed. However, it was still not clear whether the taxpayer would have to pick up the bill to make the vehicles safe.

The MoD appeared to be bearing the cost of the extra testing, and was also due to pick up the liabilities for any potential insurance claims from individuals injured during the course of the trials.

Major General Tim Hodgetts, surgeon-general of Britain’s armed forces, told MPs that eight out of 307 personnel involved in testing had reported temporary vibration injuries including “back and joint pains”, and tingling in the hands and feet. A total of 23 troops have been assessed as needing steroid treatment for hearing problems.

"US-made," and their next article on Ajax drops "US company" several times when dunking on it. Is the FT trying to make a "blame the US" case for killing it, or are they just that uninformed?

[RunningStrong]

Day 1, the first day, el Primero.

Not a very helpful reply.
What I was hoping you could tell me was when ATDU first got their hands on Ajax, or one of variants/prototypes and when they first started trials to asses said vehicle. From what was said by GD all the initial work was carried out by GD, the Army only getting involved at a later stage, was that in 2017, earlier, later?

That's not what you asked.

This is ridicules, the user should have been involved from the very start with crews being seconded to GD, even going to Spain if necessary. In fact I wonder what involvement the user has had from the very start of the program, from setting the requirements, down selecting GD to developing Ajax. Very little I suspect.

And they answer is they were involved, for all of the above, from Day 1.

ATDU is made of experienced users, it is not an engineering and science unit. That's what DSTL provide.

I'm well aware of what ATDU does, I know its not an engineering or science unit. That was my point. The loss of the establishments, in this case MVEE, has left the Army/MOD woefully short of the necessary science and engineering knowledge base not to mention the facilities they had available. While I am sure DSTL does some good work it hardly replaces what's been lost, both in breadth and depth. Having to go to MIRA in order to asses the vibration and noise levels rather than being able to do it in house is one small demonstration of this.

It's quite clear you don't understand what DSTL does at all.

[Ron5]

Another article from the FT ..

British army’s new armoured vehicle veers off track

The £5.5bn Ajax programme has been beset by delays and design problems and may now be in doubt
Sylvia Pfeifer and Helen Warrell in London July 21 2021

Britain’s new Ajax armoured vehicles were meant to give the army a weapon for an era of high-tech warfare. They were to be fast — a top speed of 70km/h — and lethal, with a powerful 40mm cannon. They would be equipped with the latest digital sensors and stealthy enough to evade detection by the enemy.

Yet more than a decade after the Ministry of Defence signed a contract with US defence contractor General Dynamics for a family of 589 vehicles, worth £5.5bn in total, the procurement minister has admitted that the programme may be in doubt.

Delivery of the vehicles to the army should have started four years ago and, of the 26 that have now been handed over, none have entered service. Instead, trials of the vehicles have been halted twice after concerns that noise and excessive vibration are causing hearing damage to their crew. There have been reports the vehicles cannot fire their cannon while on the move — a claim that General Dynamics denies.

On Wednesday, defence procurement minister Jeremy Quin told MPs on parliament’s defence committee that getting back on track would require “a lot of work from ourselves and our industry partners”. “We can’t be 100 per cent certain that can be achieved,” he added.

Earlier this month, Mark Francois, a Conservative MP on the defence committee, gave a blunt appraisal of Ajax’s deficiencies.

“It’s heavier than a Sherman tank. It’s too small. And it’s as stealthy as a Ford Transit full of spanners,” he said.

A leaked report by the Infrastructure Project Authority, which reports to the Cabinet Office, warned that “successful delivery of the programme to time, cost and quality appears to be unachievable”. Quin revealed on Wednesday that a health and safety investigation, which is due to report at the end of July, has already come back with some concerning findings.

Major General Tim Hodgetts, surgeon-general, told the defence committee that eight out of 307 personnel involved in testing Ajax reported temporary vibration injuries including “back and joint pains”, and tingling in the hands and feet. Of 110 troops checked so far for hearing damage, 23 need remedial steroid treatment.

According to Carew Wilks, a former director of land equipment at the MoD who became vice-president for land systems at General Dynamics UK, the company is “very much concerned by the recent issues around noise and vibration” and is “working very closely” with the army to identify the causes.

Identifying who is to blame for the delays and design problems is not easy: Britain’s recent history of military procurement is littered with similar examples of projects that have been late and wildly over budget. Some defence experts have drawn comparisons between Ajax and Nimrod, the refurbished maritime patrol aircraft scrapped in 2010 at a cost of £4bn without a single aircraft becoming operational.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak with defence secretary Ben Wallace on an Ajax armoured vehicle © UK MOD © Crown copyright 2021

Ajax has its roots in the army’s search to replace and modernise its armoured fighting vehicle fleet, which began in the 1990s. That search went through several changes before Ajax was eventually commissioned, fuelling long-running concerns that the MoD lacked a coherent armoured vehicle strategy.

The first contract was awarded in March 2010 when General Dynamics was chosen to make seven pilot vehicles. A production contract to build 589 vehicles was then awarded to the US contractor in September 2014, taking the total value of the programme to £5.5bn — the UK’s biggest armoured vehicle deal for three decades.

General Dynamics’ then UK management promised it would “safeguard or create” more than 10,000 jobs in Britain. That initial pledge has fallen significantly short — Ajax currently supports 4,100 direct jobs, according to the company.

There were problems from the start. An early challenge, according to people familiar with the programme, was the MoD’s insistence that the vehicles use a separately designed 40mm cannon, which resulted in delays.

Anecdotal reports about complications with the hull, including noise and vibration, began to surface as early as 2019, the people said. Defence experts said additional armour protection was added on the original hull, leading to significant increases in weight.

Throughout, the programme has been undermined by repeated modifications demanded by the army, defence experts said.

Quin revealed in June that talks with General Dynamics to “recast the contract” were held between December 2018 and May 2019. A defence official said the army’s specifications had remained stable since then.

Army crews reported health issues from excessive noise and vibration last year once testing got under way at Millbrook, Bedfordshire.

Even though concerns were growing within the teams testing Ajax, their worries appear to have been suppressed. Army personnel were under particular pressure ahead of the government’s landmark defence review, published earlier this year. Senior figures thought a planned upgrade to its Warrior infantry fighting vehicle was likely to be retired in an effort to save money, and were anxious that Ajax might also be slashed if its deficiencies were publicised.

As a result, information about the vehicle’s weaknesses were not shared with ministers, according to two people with knowledge of the programme.

“It’s a combination of secrecy and incompetence,” Tobias Ellwood, chair of the defence committee, said. “For [personnel] to be not reporting the faults with the vehicle in order to survive the cull . . . that’s very worrying indeed.”

The MoD declined to comment on the claim that worries about the programme had been suppressed.

The crisis has also led to concerns that a “revolving door” culture between the MoD and the defence industry have contributed to poor decision-making around the Ajax programme. MoD regulations dictate that former personnel cannot work in industry for two years after their departure from government. But given that some procurement projects last for up to a decade, some have argued a longer cooling-off period is needed to avoid a conflict of interest.

Critics of Ajax pointed out that General Sir Peter Wall, who was Chief of the General Staff from 2010 to 2014, became a board member at General Dynamics in the US exactly two years after leaving the armed forces. Wilks, who has been at GD since 2018, was also formerly head of land equipment at the MoD between 2011 and 2013.

“The MoD has normalised the idea of having prominent contractors employ senior staff [from MoD headquarters],” said Martin Docherty-Hughes, a Scottish National party MP on the defence committee.

General Dynamics declined to comment on this issue. A defence official said that all departing personnel were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and had to adhere to clearance protocols.

Inside the MoD, the army and General Dynamics, the focus is now on salvaging the programme, which could cost more than £500m, according to some estimates. The MoD has said it is working hard to resolve problems and that the safety of its personnel “will always come first”.

Ellwood said overall, Ajax had been let down by a litany of errors and cost-overruns that were never gripped because nobody had full command of the entire project.

However, the crisis has reignited debate about systemic challenges in Britain’s procurement of defence equipment. A recent review of 20 military programmes by the National Audit Office found that 13, including Ajax, showed cumulative net delays of 254 months in achieving entry into service since being signed.

Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said Ajax had become the “poster child” for what is wrong with UK defence procurement.

“The evidence as produced by the IPA report is that things are getting worse and at a very fast pace,” he said. “It is not a good place to be in.”