Having had WR CSP cancelled sine die, LM looks as if it is moving to do what had been threatened last year: closing Ampthill on the grounds that it is now uneconomic to operate. Plot twist: where are Ajax turrets built? Oh, Ampthill.
So, if Ampthill were to shut its doors, that's Ajax turret line gone, and the programme de facto cancelled. So, what can the MoD do? Well, it could find a willing bidder to buy it off LM (they tried to get GD to do it, but no dice), and keep it open;
MoD could provide guarantees to a bidder about work and workforce (again, reports say that even with these, GD were "thanks, but no thanks") Or, MoD could buy Ampthill, and then with all the guarantees, find someone to operate it as Govt-owned, contractor operated.
But at what cost any of these deals? And what would this do to Ajax costs? I have heard that to a) get the turret actually working, as well as amortising Ampthill purchase would add £1-2m per turreted vehicle, £250-500m all-in-all. New Programme Cost: £5.8bn.
And what of the hull vibration, which has health effects on crew, as well as reportedly shaking the electronics to bits? The chassis needs to be re-engineered with strengtheners to stop vibration.
PS, the vibration problem started when to reduce kerb weight, GD was asked to lose a few t, and so altered the chassis. So, this will be reversed, and several t of weight will be added: what price a 45t+ AFV?
Cost of re-engineering Ajax chassis? Possibly pick a number, add several 00s, double it, and add you original number. Talk is of minimum of £1m per vehicle, if you're lucky, wiser heads say £1.5-2m, so that'd be £600-1,200m. New Programme Cost: £6.4-7bn.
And if the chasses have to be heavily re-engineered, can existing chasses (130+ already manufactured) be used? Or will new ones have to be built? At what cost?
And what happens to the delivery of Ajax with a form of industrial dislocation if the nature of Ampthill changes? It is unlikely that whosoever takes it over in the event of LM walking away, will do so w/o due diligence.
Certainly add months, and that ignores the time for any extra work to get the vehicle actually working. The Cabinet Office Infra and Major Projects Report says Armoured Cavalry capability by 2025-6. Probably safe to say that these dates will now be missed.
BTW, MoD no longer using 30 June 2021 IOC date in press enquiries - just giving no date at all. Silence is deafening... If there is confidence about the progress of Ajax, then apart from saying, "we are committed", why no delivery dates and milestones?
Apache weaponry... Hearing that despite being deemed a significantly superior capability (oh, and it works, and is cheaper), MoD has decided to ditch Brimstone for AH64E, and go with JAGM. @nicholadrummond@bealejonathan@byMBDA @BeaverWestminster @benmoores2@ArmyAirCorps @
The Army Air Corps, having started off as hostile to Brimstone ("it's an RAF weapon"), seem to have been won over - but somewhere between Main Building and Abbeywood, someone/some people have been told by either of Boeing/Lockheed Martin that integrating Brimstone would be...
Before anyone says, "without it, there will be a capability gap!" Wake up: that gap is already there with a programme/system that does not work, and has little likelihood of doing so...
And, again, before anyone says that £3.36bn in 2010 money is £4.4bn in 2020 money, so, we should spend even more with a failed programme to ensure that we meet another failure?
Yes, that's right: £3.47bn with nothing to show for it, and little sign that there will be any result any time soon. Over the past 3 budget years, £1.73bn has been spent, at a time when, it is pretty obvious, that the programme has been in deep doo-doo @thepagey@wavellroom
So, at a time of non-delivery of Ajax, the contractor has received 50% of all outlays on the programme since it kicked off in 2009-10. Simple question: how can these payments continue when there is no delivery of an acceptable product?
Oh dear, oh dear, it has already started! Let's start with a basic factoid: for a £450m budget, you'd be lucky to buy 10 Blackhawks, not the 20 that - reportedly - are required. express.co.uk/news/uk/141882…
And please don't come back saying that a Blackhawk is $20m - that is for a non-flyable aircraft. The average cost for export customers is $60m - and even that does not cover everything. BTW, does anyone believe that the SF would be "happy" with a vanilla Blackhawk?
Unlikely... And once you start adding all that SF night flying stuff, your £450m budget looks even less adequate. So, quite frankly, SF/SBS "support" for the Blackhawk is looking pretty irrelevant.