Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

Hilarious

That poor can is begging for mercy it’s been kicked so many times

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by bobp »

Seems like the super digital kit for AJAX called Morpheus is running late causing more years of delays....

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expre ... of-defence

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Bit of a bodge there. AJAX was never meant to enter service with LE TACIS, Morpheus.

"And to add insult to injury the main contractor for Morpheus is … General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS), a sister organisation, or at very least a cousin, of the very company struggling to deliver the Ajax vehicle itself! You couldn’t make it up."

Land systems and mission systems offices are literally across the road from eachother. But General Dynamics isn't the main contractor. Heck, MOD made themselves the Prime on the programme and awarded contract to Babcock to prime going forward.

Online
sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »


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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Not sure what prompted this, but a thread I largely agree with:

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by tomuk »

mr.fred wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 18:29 Not sure what prompted this, but a thread I largely agree with:
Can only trust the documents
well I think that answers the question. The whole history of Ajax stinks and particularly the whole vibration and noise episode. We've gone from cancelling trials, nearly cancelling the whole contract, statements to the house, personnel being accused of covering up the issues, withholding payment to GDUK to now with hardly any modifications the whole situation is resolved and in fact there wasn't even a problem all along :wtf: . Nothing to see here.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zeno »

There were reputable articles published of the consequences of vibration and injuries in these vehicles
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -problems/
https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... d-in-2019/

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Zeno wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 03:45 There were reputable articles published of the consequences of vibration and injuries in these vehicles
There were official documents and statements published on the consequences of the vibration and noise in the vehicles.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... -programme
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... Review.pdf
https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... P-9764.pdf
And other, related, journal publications
https://publications.ergonomics.org.uk/ ... nction.pdf

All of which I would take as a better source than the second-hand media pieces you've cited.

One of the points that Gabriele is making is that taking the reports of problems as gospel while simultaneously discarding subsequent reports of a fix is disingenuous.

For a further comparison, that also shows the composite rubber tracks are great;
http://gvsets.ndia-mich.org/documents/P ... %20IFV.pdf
Note that the Warrior is hitting 110dB(A) at two-thirds of it's top speed, compared to Ajax's maximum of 117dB(A). Given that dB is a logarithmic scale, that is saying that Ajax is 7 times louder than Warrior, but the disparity between speeds must also be taken into account. Also the difference in unprotected exposure times is 89 second for 110db(A) vs 18 seconds for 117db(A)
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/nois ... d_717.html
Tests on the BvS 210 garnered a maximum of 104db(A) (357 seconds). If anyone knows of any other examples that would be interesting.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Mr Carrot

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zeno »

The document you added did claim to vibration identified injuries ,it did note there was no ministry of defence standard for land platforms that was equivalent to civilian standard for noise and vibration ,vibration can be transmitted through the floor of the vehicle the seats even controls ,hearing protection addresses noise which can worsen the effects if vibration is identified, many years ago I had fleet of vehicles add suspension seats to address such risk

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Zeno wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 13:02 The document you added did claim to vibration identified injuries
My reading of it gave me the impression that there were reported cases of vibration injuries but none that lasted long enough to be confirmed by medical examination.
Note that your articles use "allegedly" and lump noise and vibration together. The real information, without the media spin, can be found in the links I have provided.
Zeno wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 13:02 it did note there was no ministry of defence standard for land platforms that was equivalent to civilian standard for noise and vibration
True. So do you think among the myriad requirements the MoD might have referenced the civilian standards? Why should military personnel be considered physiologically different from civilians?
Zeno wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 13:02 vibration can be transmitted through the floor of the vehicle the seats even controls
Yes, it can. That's how vibration works. I don't see the relevance
Zeno wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 13:02 hearing protection addresses noise which can worsen the effects if vibration is identified
Zeno wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 13:02 many years ago I had fleet of vehicles add suspension seats to address such risk
Yes, seat design is one way of addressing vibration levels on the crew. Isn't that one of the modifications GD have made?

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zeno »

In Australia the A.D.F the legislation governing work health and safety legislation is called Comcare it has its own codes of practice covering many of the risks one of its many codes of practice covers vibration there is a different national legislation under W.H.S legislation for civilians and a few states which have not joined this have their state based laws ,so when the U.K report stated there was no legislation covering this I was surprised as this also covers compensation for injuries all, legislation more often requires the hazards and risks to be identified and addressed in design of plant ,so much about the Ajax concerns suggest otherwise,
If there was low levels of noise but high levels of vibration head sets would not have helped whole of body vibration can affect the muscular and skeletal body tests have shown the brain can be affected sometimes injuries show up on a cellular level
I did not find in the reports the actual paths of contact to the operators of the vibration and how they originated it seemed ad hoc with just ppe added

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Zeno wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 21:37 If there was low levels of noise but high levels of vibration head sets would not have helped whole of body vibration
Indeed. The two, while technically linked, should be considered separately in this case.
Vibration resulted in reports of symptoms that did not last long enough to be medically substantiated (symptoms had cleared up before the doctors saw those affected)
Hearing damage due to noise was substantiated but it was unclear as to whether it was due to the vehicle, headsets or previous injury.
Zeno wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 21:37 I did not find in the reports the actual paths of contact to the operators of the vibration and how they originated it seemed ad hoc with just ppe added
Based on recent reporting:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... k-on-track
These improvements include new ear defenders with incorporated hearing pieces for better communication, remounted seating with better cushioning and improved joysticks and controls.
So seats and hand controls.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zeno »

seats and hand controls are just the measures taken to minimise the effects of vibration, this is very low on the hierarchy of control ,when you consider the first aims on hierarchy of control would be elimination of vibration even before engineering methods ,what were the measures taken to reduce vibration coming through the feet ? It would be interesting to find out if there is legislative guidelines on the design and production of all U.K military vehicles in relation to vibration

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Zeno wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 00:27 seats and hand controls are just the measures taken to minimise the effects of vibration, this is very low on the hierarchy of control ,when you consider the first aims on hierarchy of control would be elimination of vibration even before engineering methods ,what were the measures taken to reduce vibration coming through the feet ? It would be interesting to find out if there is legislative guidelines on the design and production of all U.K military vehicles in relation to vibration
https://www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/

This is the only relevant legislation. And legacy platforms have not been held to the same legislative standards.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zeno »

Is it correct that many of the vibration issues came from poor quality and oversight controls in the manufacturing of the Ajax ,poor welding etc.
this is an earlier utube video going into identifying some issues of vibration dating back to 2010 by an ex British army specialist

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Zeno wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 06:24 Is it correct that many of the vibration issues came from poor quality and oversight controls in the manufacturing of the Ajax ,poor welding etc.
this is an earlier utube video going into identifying some issues of vibration dating back to 2010 by an ex British army specialist
Did you just infer that Matsimus is a specialist? He's an ex-REME lance-jack FFS.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
Mr Carrot

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Zeno wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 06:24 Is it correct that many of the vibration issues came from poor quality and oversight controls in the manufacturing of the Ajax ,poor welding etc.
What I know is in the documents I've linked. I strongly suggest that you read them rather than relying on someone else to do so.
However, I will indulge you, if only to offset the click-bait you seem to prefer.
From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... Review.pdf :
62. Noise and vibration in the Ajax family of vehicles have both electrical and mechanical origins from the following broad sources:
a. Track, suspension and running gear, in particular the tension and sprocket design/track interface.
b. Engine and its mounting into the vehicle.
c. Quality issues associated with, but not limited to, inconsistent routing of cabling, lack of bonding and weld quality; all of which can lead to potential electromagnetic compatibility issues with communication equipment. As witnessed during trials, insecure components and bolting within the vehicle can also lead to noise and vibration, and again this was noted by ATDU crews.
d. Headset performance and integration (noise only).
Points a. and b. are true of any tracked vehicle so we can put those aside to focus on c. The first three points identified, cable routing, bonding and weld quality, are linked to electromagnetic compatibility and communications equipment, so this would be noise in the communications headsets, not vibration.
Insecure components and bolting, which are the points linked to vibration, could include poor welds although this is not explicitly stated. It could also relate to stowed equipment that is able to rattle around due to insufficient or unused tie-downs, lack of compliant coatings or similar. Picture a metal box with a spanner inside. The fact that the mitigations include modifications to seats and control handles suggests that much of the vibration affecting the crew was not something so trivial though.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zeno »

I have no dispute with the document you provided since it backs up much of what I have posted ,my first post on this was in reply to the suggestion by Gabreille that there had not been vibration injuries when this document says otherwise, a further question might be will there be because of the initial quality concerns of the first batch a marked difference in performance of the remaining numbers

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Zeno wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 12:11 I have no dispute with the document you provided since it backs up much of what I have posted ,my first post on this was in reply to the suggestion by Gabreille that there had not been vibration injuries when this document says otherwise, a further question might be will there be because of the initial quality concerns of the first batch a marked difference in performance of the remaining numbers
The vibration injuries reported were "white finger". Which can be common on anything from power tools to cycling.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Zeno wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 12:11 I have no dispute with the document you provided since it backs up much of what I have posted ,my first post on this was in reply to the suggestion by Gabreille that there had not been vibration injuries when this document says otherwise, a further question might be will there be because of the initial quality concerns of the first batch a marked difference in performance of the remaining numbers
The document says this, in paragraph 61:
"None of the individuals exposed to Ajax have had a change in medical grading or have been medically discharged due to vibration."

While paragraph 45 states:
"On 9 July, four ATDU soldiers reported to Bovington Medical Centre with potential vibration symptoms. This is the first verified instance of potential vibration symptoms. A fifth soldier reported to the medical centre on 10 July. "

Regarding what Gabriele wrote, it was that:
"On the issue of "vibration", no one is assessed to actually have had any consequences."
Which aligns with Para 61 and does not contradict para 45.
While your assessment extrapolates from para 45 and contradicts para 61.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zeno »

By definition a symptom is an injury that can be associated with the type of cause and effect and has been experienced by the person suffering from this
An injury by definition does not have to incapacitate a person to be an injury e.g just because you were not floored by a punch to the nose does not mean you were not injured
That earlier time limits were placed on the operators of the Ajax suggests that if they were to continued using these they would of had perhaps a severe injury
This article provides detail on white finger injuries it does state its usually for long term operators so it might be interesting to know how the operators of these vehicles in testing themselves were provided advice
https://patient.info/bones-joints-muscl ... me-leaflet

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Zeno wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 19:13 By definition a symptom is an injury that can be associated with the type of cause and effect and has been experienced by the person suffering from this
But Gabriele does not use the term "injury", he used "consequence", which aligns with Para 61.

If you want to claim "temporary injuries with no significant or lasting effect" and that there was a risk of more lasting harm then sure. The implementation of modifications and the reports supports that. If you want to claim that people were permanently injured, downgraded or discharged from service due to vibration, then the reports do not support that.
There were some amongst the testing cohort who were injured, downgraded or discharged due to noise, but even then the report is cagey on whether it was Ajax and the GFE headset that did it. Hearing injuries are pretty common in the armed forces.
Vibration white finger, as covered in the inquiry.
Maj. Gen. Hodgetts is the Surgeon General for the MoD
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/2589/pdf/
Major General Hodgetts: Thank you. Two of your members talked about vibration white finger, or Raynaud’s phenomenon, which is a vascular phenomenon, but it is a chronic symptom—it will occur over years. The AINC is really there to pick up acute injuries, so the only way that we’re going to pick up chronic injuries from prolonged exposure is through additional surveillance, and we have questionnaire surveillance that we use to pick up chronic vibration injury. I cannot give you any numbers on chronic vibration injury at this stage, but we have no indication at present of anyone having suffered that white finger. I can give you hearing details if you so wish.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zeno »

Without going into a circuitous discussion if an injury is known to be an effect of the normal consequences of ones work it shows the employer has not met their duty of care in prior assessment of task ,an injury should not be the normal outcome of ones work

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Zeno wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 20:15 Without going into a circuitous discussion if an injury is known to be an effect of the normal consequences of ones work it shows the employer has not met their duty of care in prior assessment of task ,an injury should not be the normal outcome of ones work
I agree.

But this wasn't the case in the army until very, very recently. And no, I'm not talking about war wounds. Hearing loss, muscles and joint injury, and a few cold injuries were the norm.

AJAX is held to a higher standard than ALL legacy AFV employed by the British Army in service to date.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zeno »

If I sound a bit paranoid on injuries etc. its because I do have training and qualifications in O.H.S/W.H.S and have even been subpoenaed to provide evidence for injury cases , I have spent time on O.H..S forums where we used our real names in discussing changing legislation when you have members who manage O.H.S teach O.H.S write about O.H.S investigate for the government O.H.S you become passionate on this one member put it this way that people agreed on an employer could not state they met their duty of care if they did not know what the legislation was

Post Reply