Soldier's families to sue the government?

The MOD budget was cut by quite a lot, wasn't it?

It could have been poor strategic planning, but it could equally well have been that the other side got ahead in the arms race for a time.

Or it could be both those things.

I have done army time and was honoured to hold the Queen's commission.
I do believe that the troops went overseas with a standard of equipment that proved to be not fully fit for purpose. I also believe that they went with the best we had at the time.
The main problems are historical in that most services equipment was designed and purchased for a putative European war.i.e. with the USSR.
Who is to blame? I don't know but the question I asked was 'should it be possible to sue for negligence'
i don't think we should to be honest and I speak as the father of a Police sergeant who has had numerous injuries including a broken kneecap and fractured skull. Neither he nor I would even think of suing because his standard Police helmet wasn't up to a blow from a baseball bat

Biker Would you feel the same, or differently, if your son worked for a civil engineering contractor, and he was killed or injured during the course of his work, and the contractor was found to be in some way criminally negligent?
Is it different if someone is working in public service, or the armed forces, or for a company?
Unless an individual has indemnified his employer agains such legal action, I cannot see why the courts should not decide whether the Army or MOD is guilty of negligence, as they do in civil cases.

What about the rifles that were known to jam?

Also why is the MOD buying aircraft carriers for which there are no aircraft?

Some slightly informed guesses as to the answer to your second question, absent:

1. Strategic advance planning. We are buying American F35s apparently.
2. It would actually cost more to back out of the contract to build the aircraft carriers than it is to carry on. (And anyway, we are buying aircraft for one of them).
3. To help allies who do have aircraft. The aircraft carriers have been specifically designed so that the French can use them as well.

I don't know anything about thr rifles that were "known to jam". Did they always jam, or only in certain circumstances?

Loads of info on the Royal Navy website.

I marched against the war partly because "casualties" are someone's loved one and not a statistic.

If there was any deliberate ignoring of known additional risk then I think as in any workplace there may be a case for compensation. It must be added distress to those who have lost a family member to know that negligence may have contributed
to a death.

I've been away since yesterday morning so have only just caught up with this thread. I am pleased that people do seem to have taken on board that it is the element of negligence that is the critical factor. If the MOD are able to demonstrate that they purchased, in a timely fashion, the appropriate equipment to safeguard the lives of the troops then there will be no case for compensation. I am convinced this case is not about money, but about justice. If I believed that negligence had been a contributory factor in my son in law's death I would have fought tooth and nail for justice too.

Whenever a person who has been injured by the negligence of somebody else tries to get justice there will be those who say they are just after money and the words compensation culture will be said - as I know only too well. (If the complaints of all the other women had been heeded my daughter would not have been butchered by an incompetent surgeon.)
If individuals and organisations are not held to account they will never improve.