British Military Current Events

[Colin Parkinson]

More mea culpas...



please keep anon mate. I served as a REME inspector on the Ajax acceptance and testing team, where my primary role was to inspect all variants of the Ajax vehicles at Merthyr Tydfil in partnership with General Dynamics. Unfortunately, the vehicles consistently arrived in a poor state, and our inspections uncovered a long list of serious faults. Over 150 faults is accurate, and if anything is slightly an understatement. There are many usage limits on the platform, many of which get disregarded by CoC in order to "test" the vehicles to a standard required to meet IOC. How can a vehicle with usage limitations be classed as IOC is beyond my understanding.. The culture was always to just pass the vehicles regardless of what faults were found. We would have a very strict standard, and we would inspect and fail to that standard. Return to work on the following Monday and suddenly that standard has gone from the document and we are advised to use our judgement rather than a set criteria. I am ashamed of my time there, as I honestly felt that I could have done more to stop it. On top of that I have to live with a guilt that I was once a part of the cogs that was trying to bring this platform into service, and I failed at persuading the CoC to follow through on safety concerns.
I really hope they cancel the project. Maybe then I will have a good night sleep thats not haunted by ajax..

Fillyourboots - FYBUK

please keep anon mate. I served as a REME inspector on the Ajax acceptance and testing team, where my primary role was to inspect all variants of the Ajax vehicles at Merthyr Tydfil in partnership...

www.facebook.com

Some more
Please keep anon. The issues that are coming out for AJAX are the tip of the iceberg, the list is endless. The PXR delivered by a unit on scorpion cyclone highlighted so much that has been ignored. And I’m only listening a few issues.

• The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them. The COA for this is to carry a manpack on exercise to avoid the need of running the vehicle up, but this also effects training, with students not being able to receive full lessons.
• There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because its too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle or hide it effectively enough to survive any kind of enemy searching for us.
• Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, its fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake.
• The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher and I would argue that most people cannot accurately account for their kit because of this.
• The L-specs used by instructors are a copy and paste mess from other vehicles, which leads to dangerous confusion in lessons, such as instructing a user to carry out GPMG drills on a HMG, and despite it being flagged, it remains in the L-spec.
• When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing. The obvious solution to this would have been to fit a L37 so that during a stoppage the COAX can still be fired and any faults/damages can be rectified at crew level and would give crews a dismountable GPMG for sentries.
• Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain.
• Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, so they used a warrior grease gun (GD has now reinvented this and created their own worser version). next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds.
• The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position.
• GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle. An ares dented a back bin, which required a replacement that cost £90k +, because they decided they would only replace the entire unit, including lights and cameras, despite them being perfectly fine.
• Lets talk about train as you fight. Unlike during training, the CES cannot be carried by the vehicle when fitted with its war fighting armour, which means it will need to be added to the growing G4 packet following on behind troops, alongside the crates of locktite that EVERY nut on the vehicle requires before fitting.

These issues have been raised at every level, and they have been ignored. Regimental CoC have been told, brigade commanders have been informed, we even informed the GCGS team when they visited. They don’t care, and its clear that people are prioritising potential careers with GD than the MOD and the effect their negligence has on the troops they are dumping AJAX onto. I watched a vehicle nearly burn down when the crew crawled it back into camp because GD failed with mount the engine correctly and yet the crew was still blamed for the damage.
The reality is, CVRT and warrior should have been upgraded to meet modern threats and come in line with equivalent vehicles. Someone decided that we need to move away from the “CVRT mentality” and that the CT40 and new turret cannot be fitted to warrior in a cost effective manner.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yet another victim of the dreaded Scope Creep...

Insider says only hull redesign can save British Ajax​

The source argues the roots of the failure run deep. From the outset, the Army issued “over 1,000 separate system requirements” in the RFP, producing a programme whose scope far exceeded the capabilities of the ASCOD platform on which Ajax was based. In an effort to accelerate schedules, “the usual Concept, Assessment, Demonstration, Manufacturing, In-Service, Disposal (CADMID) acquisition process used by the UK Ministry of Defence was condensed so that the Demonstration and Manufacturing phases were combined.” Production began before a final specification had been agreed.

After signing the contract, the Army revised its requirements. The insider said the service demanded higher protection levels, pushing the weight from the original 19-tonne ASCOD design to “36 tonnes” in base configuration and “43 tonnes” with appliqué armour. “From the outside looking in, it appears that ‘scope creep’ resulted in a vehicle that exceeded the capacity of the ASCOD platform on which Ajax was based,” the source said.
https://defence-blog.com/category/security/
The insider believes the only realistic technical fix would require deep structural changes. “The Commander of the Armoured Trials & Development Unit (ATDU) told his superiors in 2020 that the only way to fix Ajax was to redesign the hull (including the engine mountings) and the running gear. He also suggested adopting Horstman’s hydro-pneumatic suspension and composite rubber tracks.” The Army did not pursue this option.

Insider says only hull redesign can save British Ajax

The British Army’s troubled Ajax armoured fighting vehicle has returned to the centre of national criticism in recent days, after new noise-related injuries forced the suspension of training and sent 31 soldiers to hospital. According to a source familiar with

defence-blog.com

Condensed CADMID .... succesfully gone direct from concept to disposal.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Condensed CADMID .... succesfully gone direct from concept to disposal.

I think so.
Seems like a disaster in the making.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Some more
Please keep anon. The issues that are coming out for AJAX are the tip of the iceberg, the list is endless. The PXR delivered by a unit on scorpion cyclone highlighted so much that has been ignored. And I’m only listening a few issues.

• The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them. The COA for this is to carry a manpack on exercise to avoid the need of running the vehicle up, but this also effects training, with students not being able to receive full lessons.
• There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because its too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle or hide it effectively enough to survive any kind of enemy searching for us.
• Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, its fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake.
• The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher and I would argue that most people cannot accurately account for their kit because of this.
• The L-specs used by instructors are a copy and paste mess from other vehicles, which leads to dangerous confusion in lessons, such as instructing a user to carry out GPMG drills on a HMG, and despite it being flagged, it remains in the L-spec.
• When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing. The obvious solution to this would have been to fit a L37 so that during a stoppage the COAX can still be fired and any faults/damages can be rectified at crew level and would give crews a dismountable GPMG for sentries.
• Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain.
• Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, so they used a warrior grease gun (GD has now reinvented this and created their own worser version). next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds.
• The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position.
• GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle. An ares dented a back bin, which required a replacement that cost £90k +, because they decided they would only replace the entire unit, including lights and cameras, despite them being perfectly fine.
• Lets talk about train as you fight. Unlike during training, the CES cannot be carried by the vehicle when fitted with its war fighting armour, which means it will need to be added to the growing G4 packet following on behind troops, alongside the crates of locktite that EVERY nut on the vehicle requires before fitting.

These issues have been raised at every level, and they have been ignored. Regimental CoC have been told, brigade commanders have been informed, we even informed the GCGS team when they visited. They don’t care, and its clear that people are prioritising potential careers with GD than the MOD and the effect their negligence has on the troops they are dumping AJAX onto. I watched a vehicle nearly burn down when the crew crawled it back into camp because GD failed with mount the engine correctly and yet the crew was still blamed for the damage.
The reality is, CVRT and warrior should have been upgraded to meet modern threats and come in line with equivalent vehicles. Someone decided that we need to move away from the “CVRT mentality” and that the CT40 and new turret cannot be fitted to warrior in a cost effective manner.

As much as I take joy in watching anything British fail heads should roll over this.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As much as I take joy in watching anything British fail heads should roll over this.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No names, no pack drill, no knee cappings or bodies turning up in the streets over the next couple of weeks...

MI5 closely involved in handling of IRA spy Stakeknife, says report​

MI5 had a bigger role in the handling of a spy who murdered at least 14 people while working at the heart of the IRA during the Troubles in Northern Ireland than it had previously claimed.

The findings were revealed in the final report of Operation Kenova, a £40m police investigation into the Army agent known as Stakeknife.

The 160-page report stated MI5 was "closely involved", was regularly briefed and had sight of all Stakeknife intelligence. The security service had previously said its role was "peripheral".

MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum has offered sympathies "to the victims and families of those who were tortured or killed by the Provisional IRA's internal security unit during the Troubles".

Stakeknife was west Belfast man Freddie Scappaticci, who died in 2023.

He operated as a British agent from the late 1970s until the 1990s, and has been linked to 14 murders and 15 abductions.

He operated within the IRA's ruthless internal security unit throughout the 1980s. Known as the "nutting squad" the unit was responsible for torturing and killing people it accused of being informers.

However, he is not identified as Stakeknife in the Operation Kenova report because of the existing government and security policy of not naming agents.

The report states MI5 had "automatic sight" of Stakeknife's intelligence and "was aware of his involvement in serious criminality".

MI5 closely involved in handling of IRA spy Stakeknife, says report

The final report of Operation Kenova says the security service had "greater knowledge" of Stakeknife than it had first stated.

www.bbc.com

 

[Eaglelord17]

Some more
Please keep anon. The issues that are coming out for AJAX are the tip of the iceberg, the list is endless. The PXR delivered by a unit on scorpion cyclone highlighted so much that has been ignored. And I’m only listening a few issues.

• The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them. The COA for this is to carry a manpack on exercise to avoid the need of running the vehicle up, but this also effects training, with students not being able to receive full lessons.
• There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because its too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle or hide it effectively enough to survive any kind of enemy searching for us.
• Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, its fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake.
• The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher and I would argue that most people cannot accurately account for their kit because of this.
• The L-specs used by instructors are a copy and paste mess from other vehicles, which leads to dangerous confusion in lessons, such as instructing a user to carry out GPMG drills on a HMG, and despite it being flagged, it remains in the L-spec.
• When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing. The obvious solution to this would have been to fit a L37 so that during a stoppage the COAX can still be fired and any faults/damages can be rectified at crew level and would give crews a dismountable GPMG for sentries.
• Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain.
• Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, so they used a warrior grease gun (GD has now reinvented this and created their own worser version). next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds.
• The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position.
• GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle. An ares dented a back bin, which required a replacement that cost £90k +, because they decided they would only replace the entire unit, including lights and cameras, despite them being perfectly fine.
• Lets talk about train as you fight. Unlike during training, the CES cannot be carried by the vehicle when fitted with its war fighting armour, which means it will need to be added to the growing G4 packet following on behind troops, alongside the crates of locktite that EVERY nut on the vehicle requires before fitting.

These issues have been raised at every level, and they have been ignored. Regimental CoC have been told, brigade commanders have been informed, we even informed the GCGS team when they visited. They don’t care, and its clear that people are prioritising potential careers with GD than the MOD and the effect their negligence has on the troops they are dumping AJAX onto. I watched a vehicle nearly burn down when the crew crawled it back into camp because GD failed with mount the engine correctly and yet the crew was still blamed for the damage.
The reality is, CVRT and warrior should have been upgraded to meet modern threats and come in line with equivalent vehicles. Someone decided that we need to move away from the “CVRT mentality” and that the CT40 and new turret cannot be fitted to warrior in a cost effective manner.

Remember this is the military which adopted the SA-80 a downgrade from the previous service rifle in basically every way. Took 30 years and the Germans to fix it to be somewhat usable.

 

[Kirkhill]

Remember this is the military which adopted the SA-80 a downgrade from the previous service rifle in basically every way. Took 30 years and the Germans to fix it to be somewhat usable.

As opposed to that sterling success the US Army version of Stoner's Armalite. What version are we on now?

 

[Halifax Tar]

As opposed to that sterling success the US Army version of Stoner's Armalite. What version are we on now?

Are you being serious ? The AR platform is a wildly successful platform, used all over the world.

Are you putting the ARs success on the same level as the abject failure that is the SA80 ?

 

[Remius]

Are you being serious ? The AR platform is a wildly successful platform, used all over the world.

Are you putting the ARs success on the same level as the abject failure that is the SA80 ?

Many people saw the C7 as a downgrade from the FN. God knows I keep hearing that from association types lol

 

[Halifax Tar]

Many people saw the C7 as a downgrade from the FN. God knows I keep hearing that from association types lol

The FN was/is a pretty solid rifle. And I am big fan of anything .30Cal and up.

The right arm of the free world.

Oldies will always lament the days of yore

 

[Eaglelord17]

As opposed to that sterling success the US Army version of Stoner's Armalite. What version are we on now?

You mean basically the most reliable and simple service rifle ever adapted? Fairly accurate, relatively easy to use and maintain, fairly cheap to mass produce, and still hasn’t been effectively replaced by anything else almost 75 years after it was designed?

The fact that it has successfully been adapted and changed for 75 years speaks to the quality of the rifle.

Alternatively you have the SA-80 a rifle the troops did not want, which was less reliable than the previous service rifle, which was forced down their troops throats and only after some combat were higher ups willing to admit they were terrible rifles. Took the Germans to make them a semi decent rifle and even then is still about the worst rifle in use in Nato.

 

[medicineman]

As opposed to that sterling success the US Army version of Stoner's Armalite. What version are we on now?

Which one - the AR-15 or the AR-18? Wasn't the IRA the only world stage user of the AR-18?

 

[Kirkhill]

Are you being serious ? The AR platform is a wildly successful platform, used all over the world.

Are you putting the ARs success on the same level as the abject failure that is the SA80 ?

I am saying that it took the M16 a while to get there. From Stoner's 1950s design championed by the Air Force, reluctantly adopted by the Army along with under-powered, high-fouling ammunition, unchromed bore and gas chamber, and no cleaning kits, it took unti the 1980s and the USMC led adoption of the A2 model with its faster twist and SS109/ M855 ammunition before it became the modern platform widely adopted internationally. The A2's three round burst limiter was added at that time along with better sights and furniture.

So while the IRA really liked Stoner's guns it took 20 years for the US Army to adopt a version of the weapon that worked to the satisfaction of most. And to do that the rifle literally had to change lock, stock and barrel. The M16A2 had as much in common with the original as Grandfather's axe and Theseus's ship.

The M16 is a great rifle. Now.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I am saying that it took the M16 a while to get there. From Stoner's 1950s design championed by the Air Force, reluctantly adopted by the Army along with under-powered, high-fouling ammunition, unchromed bore and gas chamber, and no cleaning kits, it took unti the 1980s and the USMC led adoption of the A2 model with its faster twist and SS109/ M855 ammunition before it became the modern platform widely adopted internationally. The A2's three round burst limiter was added at that time along with better sights and furniture.

So while the IRA really liked Stoner's guns it took 20 years for the US Army to adopt a version of the weapon that worked to the satisfaction of most. And to do that the rifle literally had to change lock, stock and barrel. The M16A2 had as much in common with the original as Grandfather's axe and Theseus's ship.

The M16 is a great rifle. Now.

So basically the issue was lack of cleaning kits and poor quality ammo, that isn’t a issue with the rifle itself.

Alternatively you have the SA-80 which the issues were 100% with the rifle itself, not the ammo or cleaning kits.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Are you being serious ? The AR platform is a wildly successful platform, used all over the world.

Are you putting the ARs success on the same level as the abject failure that is the SA80 ?

I tease alot of the GWOT people in the UK about the SA80.

The first versions were garbage. The later versions they used in the sandbox performed well though, apparently.

I'll always defer to the guy who says 'during 100+ contacts, it never let me down'

 

[Halifax Tar]

I tease alot of the GWOT people in the UK about the SA80.

The first versions were garbage. The later versions they used in the sandbox performed well though, apparently.

I'll always defer to the guy who says 'during 100+ contacts, it never let me down'

The Martini and Snider worked for the Brits too, that doesn't mean they were a great rifles. And their success had more to do with a profession at musketry and training than the quality of weapons.

It could be argued that space between the Pattern 1853 Enfield and the Lee Enfield's was dark age in British rifles.

I say this as an addict of Martini's and Sniders.

 

[Kirkhill]

So basically the issue was lack of cleaning kits and poor quality ammo, that isn’t a issue with the rifle itself.

Alternatively you have the SA-80 which the issues were 100% with the rifle itself, not the ammo or cleaning kits.

I can tell you that in 1982 none of us would have willingly swapped our FNs for the melt-in-yourhands Mattel plastic toy and its 22 bullet.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I can tell you that in 1982 none of us would have willingly swapped our FNs for the melt-in-yourhands Mattel plastic toy and its 22 bullet.

I mean you would have done what you were told, but you can puff up and posture all you'd like.

 

[Kirkhill]

I mean you would have done what you were told, but you can puff up and posture all you'd like.

Puff and posture have nothing to do with it. Of course we would have switched if ordered. In fact we did in 1984. Just like the Americans swapped their M14s for the M16 in 1964.

I don't think anybody lamented the loss of the C2 however. I remember people still bemoaning the loss of the Bren. The C9 was welcomed.

Some of those debates are still live today.