Ajax maintenance requirements unrealistic in operational environment, readers say

BFBS Forces News readers have criticised a recommendation by a senior Army officer that the tracks on an Ajax would have to be maintained every time the vehicle stops, suggesting such a requirement would not be possible in an operational environment.

The Ministry of Defence paused testing of the armoured fighting vehicle amid reports of soldiers vomiting and shaking after training with the vehicles on Exercise Titan Storm last year.

Lieutenant General Anna-Lee Reilly told the Commons Public Accounts Committee that the Army's investigation team reported that when Ajax is operated as designed, it presents no safety concerns.

• Army blames Ajax safety incident on armoured vehicle not being operated properly
• General moots the idea of Ajax 2: Find out how upgraded vehicle could be equipped
• Ajax on hold as 31 fall ill in major safety setback for Army's beleaguered £5.5bn AFV

Vehicle branded unfit for purpose

Ed Arnold, senior research fellow for European security at the Royal United Services Institute, criticised Lt Gen Reilly's statements and said Ajax was "unfit for purpose".

Mr Arnold went on to say in a LinkedIn post that it was a case of "shameless blame-dodging", which showed "a rot at the core of defence".

"The UK will soon be at a point where soldiers will not fight for their government or generals," Mr Arnold said.

He then questioned why the vehicle has to be operated within certain parameters, considering wars do not have limited parameters.

"How on earth can the MOD defence be that commanders operated the vehicle outside of certain parameters? War has few parameters. The exercise was long?? Wars are long…" he added.

Lt Gen Reilly, whose job title is Director Strategic Capability, Engagement and Operations, Defence Equipment & Support, said in her parliamentary questioning: "The soldiers had been out on it for a prolonged period of time.

"Clearly we had a situation where the platform wasn't operated and maintained within the specification it should have been, and that led to the incident."

War has no standard parameters

Other commentators shared similar concerns about the £6.3bn programme, saying that if the vehicle can only be operated under certain circumstances, then it is not fit to fight in a conflict.

Military historian Jonathan Ware said in a post on X that Lt Gen Reilly's comments represented the "reddest of red flags".

"In high-intensity warfare, you can't blithely stop and conduct myriad other checks. Or we accept crew wastage rates," he said.

Users commenting on BFBS Forces News post on X also questioned Ajax's viability in a battle situation. 

One said Ajax is "basically made of glass in a real war," while another added: "So, we can only use a War-Fighting equipment within certain parameters.

"Can someone guarantee the next war will only contain those parameters?"