Another @BritishArmy AFV thought. I'm told that the process of buying a replacement for AS90 has kicked off. Now, the "favourite" at this stage seems to be the Hanwha K-9 - tracked.
But here's one thought: if Ajax does get canned, then the overwhelming number of AFVs that the Army will have will be wheeled. So, what are the issues of coherence of trying to mix-and-match wheels and tracks.
OK, it'll have to be rationalised for CR3/Boxer, c'est la vie. But what are the implications for Boxer Brigade Combat Teams if the main AFVs can move at 50mph down the motorways, but their artillery has to follow at 15mph on low loaders?
Apart from the fact that if Ajax is anything to go by, there will not be any order for years for Future Fires, would it not actually make sense to wait to see what happens with the fate of Ajax?
Seriously, Hanwha would almost certainly prefer to be told, upfront, that the Army wants a wheeled 155mm (Donau, Caesar, Archer etc), rather than to be strung along for months/years, only for the wheels/tracks issue to be the decider.
"The Terms of Reference asked us to consider two questions, readiness of IOC and likely readiness for deployment of the Household Cavalry Regiment (HCR) in 2023."
"In terms of IOC, the Capability Drop 1 vehicles are in the hands of the Army in trials and with HCR. There remains significant concern both in relation to noise and vibration in the vehicles and the variation in levels of vibration across the fleet."
Thanks to individual who posed me the question as to Ajax's risk rating as per the annual Infrastructure and Project Authority's report on MoD programmes. Well, in last year's report, it was rated "AMBER"...
But in the 2021 Ajax report, "The Delivery Confidence Assessment is rated RED.." In other words, the programme's status has deteriorated - it's got worse, not better.
AMBER definition is: "Successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues already exist, requiring management attention. These appear resolvable at this stage and, if addressed promptly, should not present a cost/schedule overrun."
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?
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.