Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[Tempest414]

May I throw this in what is the UK H&S standard for operating heavy tracked plant machinery

[RunningStrong]

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

But the British military have been largely exempt to this until very recently. Much to the detriment of their soldiers.

[Zeno]

People make fun of how the Russians look after troops ,pity military forces are not able to sue for damages for negligence

[RunningStrong]

People make fun of how the Russians look after troops ,pity military forces are not able to sue for damages for negligence

The difference between the two is massive, so rather disappointing that you're willing to make such disparaging remarks.

And yes, you can sue and get compensation for injury such as hearing loss. But again, this is a relatively recent change. And also a change in culture. Whilst the Army may have issued hearing protection for decades, there was also a culture of not wearing it. This has been something that has had to change through better equipment and culture shift.

[Zeno]

U.K armed forces due to a recent change can sue for medical mal practice , can they sue for actual injury for poorly designed workplaces that cause injury that in civilian workplaces have legislation covering this , compensation sounds great but have a read through a table of maims that covers what recipients get paid for loss of fingers hands arms feet legs eyes etc. and ask if you believe the compensation is fair
This Chart is what a hierarchy of control looks like ,the introduction of is before the design of plant and identifying the task for riskthis not something new hierarchy of control has been around for almost forty years ,Ajax is nowhere near the worst Ive read is anyone accountable for the injury's?
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/default.html

[RunningStrong]

U.K armed forces due to a recent change can sue for medical mal practice , can they sue for actual injury for poorly designed workplaces that cause injury that in civilian workplaces have legislation covering this ,

I'm unsure if you're trolling now. You're aware guns are loud?

[tomuk]

Yes they are. And are the army not looking at ways of reducing exposure, see concern around mortars.

[Zeno]

My hearings still good I'm in my sixties and have fired thousands of rounds as per requirement made sure to wear hearing aids, even washed hands after in cold water after not warm . lol

[mr.fred]

U.K armed forces due to a recent change can sue for medical mal practice , can they sue for actual injury for poorly designed workplaces that cause injury that in civilian workplaces have legislation covering this , compensation sounds great but have a read through a table of maims that covers what recipients get paid for loss of fingers hands arms feet legs eyes etc. and ask if you believe the compensation is fair

Do you mean the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/armed-force ... cheme-afcs

Noting that there was a scheme previously:
"If you are no longer serving and your disablement was caused or made worse as a result of service in the armed forces before 6 April 2005, you can claim under the War Pension Scheme (WPS)."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/war-pension-scheme-wps

The tariff* seems to come in between £10 thousand and £40 thousand for permanent vibration injury

Compared to civilian claims** that doesn't seem vastly different.

It's noted in the HS&EP Review, para 35:

The contract stated that “the system shall conform to all applicable UK and EU legislation at the time of entry into service” and in terms of noise and vibration this defined the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 and the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 as the formal noise and vibration specifications for the platform.

At this point, I'm become increasingly confused as to what it is you are trying to get at.***

* https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ule/3/made
** https://www.legalexpert.co.uk/how-to-cl ... er-claims/
*** Beyond your cavalier approach to spelling, punctuation and grammar. I know the West Island argot can be challenging at times, but you don't need to try and represent it in writing

[Zeno]

I have no experience on the compensation arrangements of the U.K M.O.D , but it appears to operate on fixed tables it does not appear to provide the opportunity to sue directly the manufacturer of dangerous plant as per class action?
Previous posts indicate that occupation safety is an afterthought or relies on development of injury in development of Ajax ,were ergonomics considered in design ?
This document states that the measurement of vibration and noise guidelines was in adequate for the testing
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ion-review

[mr.fred]

I have no experience on the compensation arrangements of the U.K M.O.D , but it appears to operate on fixed tables it does not appear to provide the opportunity to sue directly the manufacturer of dangerous plant as per class action?

Nor I, but the information is there for you to read. I haven't spotted anywhere that precludes doing so, although the civil claims guidance seems to be aligned to the MoD process, so suing the manufacturer wouldn't necessarily net any greater prize.
Bear in mind that medical costs is not a thing that you need to sue for in the UK.

[SD67]

I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. If the fixes don't wrk and people do get injured there is no plausible deniability, the story has been all over the press, and given in evidence to the commons select committee. There will inevitably be a legal inquiry, and the first question will be "who actually signed acceptance of this vehicle into service". Which I suspect is the reason only 20 have been formally signed off and they are training only and turretless only.
Now anyone can say "it's turned a corner" or "it's not as bad as you think" but when it comes to putting your signature in blue ink on that paper and risking a future court appearance that's a different matter, I can just imagine in a few years time top brass throwing some major under the bus "but we never knew the problems were THIS bad!...."

[mr.fred]

If the fixes don't wrk

Hasn't there has been a review indicating that the fixes have worked and this is what has allowed testing and trials to continue and progress?

[Zeno]

I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. If the fixes don't wrk and people do get injured there is no plausible deniability, the story has been all over the press, and given in evidence to the commons select committee. There will inevitably be a legal inquiry, and the first question will be "who actually signed acceptance of this vehicle into service". Which I suspect is the reason only 20 have been formally signed off and they are training only and turretless only.
Now anyone can say "it's turned a corner" or "it's not as bad as you think" but when it comes to putting your signature in blue ink on that paper and risking a future court appearance that's a different matter, I can just imagine in a few years time top brass throwing some major under the bus "but we never knew the problems were THIS bad!...."

The problem is there is " form" for looking the other way and signing things off.

Let's not forget the mother of all fu#k ups, the L85A1...

That piece of absolute crap was passed as fit for service with 100,000's churned out.

So many really serous problems, it was utterly unfit for service.

The MOD, British Aerospace, all levels of the Army, they all signed off on it and that utter garbage was the main rifle of our Armed forces before HK ( while owned by British Aerospace) spent a fortune more of public money incorporating a huge number of fixes to make the rifle acceptable for service, otherwise called the A2.

The irony of this massive rebuild programme was it was pitched to the public as an 'upgrade', what it actually was was British Aerospace getting paid again to fix a rifle that shouldn't have been broken in the first place!

Ajax shows us absolutely nothing appears to have changed unfortunately.....

[RunningStrong]

Why do people never use Challenger 2 as the example of why you can't fix a bad design?

[mrclark303]

Why do people never use Challenger 2 as the example of why you can't fix a bad design?

I believe the Challenger 1 wasn't that bad, it might not have won NATO gunnery competitions, but it dropped the hammer on Iraq's armour in the first Gulf War, absolutely malleted them.

[RunningStrong]

Why do people never use Challenger 2 as the example of why you can't fix a bad design?

I believe the Challenger 1 wasn't that bad, it might not have won NATO gunnery competitions, but it dropped the hammer on Iraq's armour in the first Gulf War, absolutely malleted them.

CR2 failed acceptance trials in 1994 and didn't enter service until 1998. But who cares now?

[Ron5]

Ajax is no Challenger.

[BB85]

Ajax will be 13 years late if not more and that's after 10 years were wasted selecting the thing.
Its not just the vehicle itself that gets it a hard time, its the fact the British army is relying on 60 year old APC's that have no business being anywhere near a war zone, at anytime in the last 20 years. They all should have all been replaced in the early 2000's

[SD67]

I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. If the fixes don't wrk and people do get injured there is no plausible deniability, the story has been all over the press, and given in evidence to the commons select committee. There will inevitably be a legal inquiry, and the first question will be "who actually signed acceptance of this vehicle into service". Which I suspect is the reason only 20 have been formally signed off and they are training only and turretless only.
Now anyone can say "it's turned a corner" or "it's not as bad as you think" but when it comes to putting your signature in blue ink on that paper and risking a future court appearance that's a different matter, I can just imagine in a few years time top brass throwing some major under the bus "but we never knew the problems were THIS bad!...."

The MOD, British Aerospace, all levels of the Army, they all signed off on it and that utter garbage was the main rifle of our Armed forces before HK ( while owned by British Aerospace) spent a fortune more of public money incorporating a huge number of fixes to make the rifle acceptable for service, otherwise called the A2.

The irony of this massive rebuild programme was it was pitched to the public as an 'upgrade', what it actually was was British Aerospace getting paid again to fix a rifle that shouldn't have been broken in the first place!

My view - let's just skip to the rebuild stage now. ie stop wasting time. Hand an Ajax prototype over to RBSL and say "What do we need to do to fix this". RBSL being the new H&K. Transfer the WIP to Telford. We don't need two centres of medium / heavy AFV production.

[mr.fred]

My view - let's just skip to the rebuild stage now. ie stop wasting time. Hand an Ajax prototype over to RBSL and say "What do we need to do to fix this". RBSL being the new H&K. Transfer the WIP to Telford. We don't need two centres of medium / heavy AFV production.

I rather think your view would end up with a huge increase in cost and significant further delay, resulting in even more life extension of legacy vehicles.
Like WCSP, the choice isn't between what's scheduled and your fantasy fleet, it's between what's scheduled and nothing.

[SD67]

My view - let's just skip to the rebuild stage now. ie stop wasting time. Hand an Ajax prototype over to RBSL and say "What do we need to do to fix this". RBSL being the new H&K. Transfer the WIP to Telford. We don't need two centres of medium / heavy AFV production.

I rather think your view would end up with a huge increase in cost and significant further delay, resulting in even more life extension of legacy vehicles.
Like WCSP, the choice isn't between what's scheduled and your fantasy fleet, it's between what's scheduled and nothing.

A) I don’t have a fantasy fleet
B) I have never seen or heard of a project that having been mismanaged for 23 years miraculously cures itself without at least a radical change in management. Feel free to quote one.
C) Cost of support over the lifetime is generally 3 times acquisition cost. Who exactly is going to support Ajax if / when it finally enters service in around 2033? GD UK will be long gone. It is an orphan bespoke product. The risk is you’re walking into It’ll a support nightmare and money pit with the potential to cripple the rest of the army
D) Getting back to the key point - as of now No Vehicles Have Been Accepted. ( the 20 are training only). “ 90% completion “ is like “90% legality. “

I guarantee we’ll still be having this debate in 5 years time while the rest of Europe is re equipping with Boxer variants CV90 and Patria support vehicles

[RunningStrong]

B) I have never seen or heard of a project that having been mismanaged for 23 years miraculously cures itself without at least a radical change in management. Feel free to quote one.

There was a radical change in management in 2010.

C) Cost of support over the lifetime is generally 3 times acquisition cost. Who exactly is going to support Ajax if / when it finally enters service in around 2033? GD UK will be long gone. It is an orphan bespoke product. The risk is you’re walking into It’ll a support nightmare and money pit with the potential to cripple the rest of the army

That isn't how support contracts work any more. Babcock have an entire business model on support z maintenance and overhaul of orphaned projects.

I guarantee we’ll still be having this debate in 5 years time while the rest of Europe is re equipping with Boxer variants CV90 and Patria support vehicles

So the rest of Europe will largely retire it's AFV design and manufacturing capability?

[SD67]

B) I have never seen or heard of a project that having been mismanaged for 23 years miraculously cures itself without at least a radical change in management. Feel free to quote one.

There was a radical change in management in 2010.

C) Cost of support over the lifetime is generally 3 times acquisition cost. Who exactly is going to support Ajax if / when it finally enters service in around 2033? GD UK will be long gone. It is an orphan bespoke product. The risk is you’re walking into It’ll a support nightmare and money pit with the potential to cripple the rest of the army

That isn't how support contracts work any more. Babcock have an entire business model on support z maintenance and overhaul of orphaned projects.

I guarantee we’ll still be having this debate in 5 years time while the rest of Europe is re equipping with Boxer variants CV90 and Patria support vehicles

So the rest of Europe will largely retire it's AFV design and manufacturing capability?

A screwdriver plant in wales with no future orders is a distraction IMHO all activity should be concentrated in the hub in the north east to give that ecosystem the best chance of long term survival

If management has radically changed where is the incentive / penalty clause? Where’s the loss share gain share agreement?
And if Babcocks are riding to the rescue where is the quote for 30 years support + agreement from GD to share IP?
At the end of the day it is a bespoke platform that no one else will ever operate assembled in a plant that has never built any kind of military product by a firm that has no long term future in the European afv business. What sales campaigns are GD running in Europe right now? In 2033 they’ll be long gone

[RunningStrong]

A screwdriver plant in wales with no future orders is a distraction IMHO all activity should be concentrated in the hub in the north east to give that ecosystem the best chance of long term survival

Why? The industry in the North East was all but dead for a decade. Why is it more deserving than South Wales when there's already a factory, already a workforce and a steel industry almost on the very doorstep of the factory? It's also much closer to Bristol where the majority of UK defence engineering is concentrated.

If management has radically changed where is the incentive / penalty clause? Where’s the loss share gain share agreement?

Prior to 2010 it was obviously a MOD programme, post 2010 it was GD. You are aware of the programme history?

And if Babcocks are riding to the rescue where is the quote for 30 years support + agreement from GD to share IP?

This is just deliberate ignorance on your part. MOD doesn't sign 30 year support agreements. MOD has contracts to own the necessary IP to contract third parties for platform support across air, land and sea equipment. That's obvious, isn't it?

At the end of the day it is a bespoke platform that no one else will ever operate assembled in a plant that has never built any kind of military product by a firm that has no long term future in the European afv business. What sales campaigns are GD running in Europe right now? In 2033 they’ll be long gone

It's bespoke hull running on off the shelf engine, tracks, GFE canon, GFE radios, mandated Thales Sights (largely shared on CR3), militarised hardware etc etc.

The vast majority of the digital equipment could have been used across Boxer and CR3 but MOD chosen not to go down that route.