Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Link? Not in the daily report.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.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I don’t recall seeing anything like that. How early?Ron5 wrote:Yes.mr.fred wrote:Outside the turret and its armoured protection
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
The minister didn't reveal that.RunningStrong wrote:Link? Not in the daily report.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.
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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Would make for small blow-out panels; the size of a couple of Coke cansmr.fred wrote: Outside the turret and its armoured protection, or outside the crew space?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Meggitt DefenceArmChairCivvy wrote:Would make for small blow-out panels; the size of a couple of Coke cansmr.fred wrote: Outside the turret and its armoured protection, or outside the crew space?
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.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
A Coke machine; just working in reverse (but some Dr. Pepper included in user choice)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.
... and better armoured; all those late night karate kicks 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I said it was a story .. as in rumor, hearsay, blog/forum post etc etcmr.fred wrote:I don’t recall seeing anything like that. How early?Ron5 wrote:Yes.mr.fred wrote:Outside the turret and its armoured protection
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/
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
We love them anyway; keep them flowingRon5 wrote:No mention of my repeated tale.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Too slow, already changed toArmChairCivvy wrote:We love them anyway; keep them flowingRon5 wrote:No mention of my repeated tale.
You snooze, you lose.apocryphal
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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.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.
-
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.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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?
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?
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5634
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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 exRunningStrong 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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Clubbing? Have you been outside recently?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.
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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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.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?
Like most major complex programmes.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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.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.
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.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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 wrote: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.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?
Like most major complex programmes.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
So F35 doesn't follow MOD procurement rules? Neither does CR3? Or MIV?Ron5 wrote: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 wrote: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.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?
Like most major complex programmes.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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.Ron5 wrote: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.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.
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.
And yet again proving you can't comprehend simple English (isn't that normally covered at SNCO level?).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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')RunningStrong wrote:full rate production and delivery phase simultaneously.
Like most major complex programmes.
"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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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.
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.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)