Well, the story is finally out there: Ajax noise/vibrations is causing injuries to British Army operators. I understand that there was no pushback to the story from @DefenceHQ@DefenceHQPress, rather, it was, "yeah: it's got problems". thesun.co.uk/news/15123499/…
This metaphorical shrugging of shoulders is interesting, as in the Independent Gateway 4 Review, "It is clear from the Integrated Review, the recently published “Defence in a competitive Age and interviews with senior officers that AJAX is fundamental to the British Army’s..."
"...capability from the mid-2020s. The review team has seen no alternative plan to AJAX..." In several references, it would seem that the @ArmyCGS@BritishArmy are very committed - over-committed? - to the Ajax programme.
But how does one square problems - vibration isn't something you can brush off as trivial - with making the heart of the Army's future? BTW, I first heard of both vibration/noise in 2016-17, so this is not something that has just appeared. Others heard the same...
So, my question is this: did The Centre give the army permission to proceed with Ajax, despite worrying signs, as they wanted to give Andover enough rope to hang themselves with? And as more leaks from the programme (which, in the aftermath of @jeromestarkey report , it will)...
Basically, the IPA report shows utter incontinence as regards programme management across the piece. There isn't a, "oh, it failed here" - no: it has been systematic programme failure across the board. I will quote tomorrow from the IPA report to back this up...
One key conclusion is about "hand offs" - they are badly managed. Now, in ANY programme there are times when one manger hands something over to another - that's what happens. But the IPA Ajax report seems to suggest that for a number/a lot of "hands offs", that Ajax managers...
"Successful delivery of the programme to time, cost and quality appears to be unachievable. There are major issues which, at this stage, do not appear to be manageable or resolvable within the current Business Case approval. The programme needs to be re-baselined."
Note that currently, Ajax "fails" on time, cost AND quality. And that the current programme will not deliver. So, the current £5.5bn budget is going to be busted. And as for dates?
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;
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?