Just under 300 hulls that will one day become Ajax armoured vehicles have been delivered to the UK so far.
The information came to light via the following exchange.
Kevan Jones, Member of Parliament for North Durham, responded:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many vehicle boxes have been delivered by GD from Spain to the factory in Wales.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, responded:
“296 Ajax Hulls have been delivered to the GD factory in Wales.”
What’s going on with Ajax?
A long-awaited safety report relating to Ajax has just been published. In this report, it’s claimed that safety warnings were ignored. Don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself.
“Madame Deputy Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement to update the House on Ajax.
Ajax is an important capability and a vital step-change in the way the British Army will operate on the future battlefield. It will provide Ground Mounted Reconnaissance, allowing the Army to understand the battlefield in all weathers, 24 hours a day. Part of our £41bn investment in Army equipment and support over the next 10 years, this modernisation is critical to address future threats. This is a vital investment and the Defence Secretary and I have been deeply concerned about progress on this troubled project which has been running for over 11 years since its commencement in March 2010. That’s why we have been thoroughly focused on the project; why I insisted earlier this year that no declaration of IOC (Initial Operating Capability) would be made without Ministerial involvement; and why we asked the Permanent Secretary to commission a report from the MOD’s Director of Health, Safety and Environmental Protection into the health and safety concerns raised by noise and vibration.
I am today publishing that report and placing a copy in the library of the house. Over the last 35 years there have been some 13 formal reports on defence procurement: we know the foundations that can build success. Openness, good communication and collaboration within Defence and the ability to act as an informed and challenging customer are vital. This Health and Safety Report has highlighted shortcomings that need to be addressed, not just in health and safety but more broadly. The Review finds serious failings in the processes followed. The result was that personnel worked on a vehicle that had the potential to cause harm.
The Review finds that the failure was complex and systemic. It finds that:
- a culture exists of not treating safety as equally important as cost and time in the acquisition process; and
- from a cultural perspective, the Army did not believe it was potentially causing harm to people, especially from vibration, as it was tacitly expected that soldiers can and should endure such issues.
As I informed the House on 18 October, we have contacted all personnel identified as having worked on Ajax. 40 declined to be assessed for hearing but, of the remainder, I am pleased to report that the vast majority have returned to duty with no health impact. As of 9 December, 17 individuals remain under specialist outpatient care for their hearing, some of whom are again expected to return to duty with no health impact.11 individuals have had long term restrictions on noise exposure recommended, potentially requiring a limitation in their military duties. 7 of these had pre-existing hearing issues prior to working on Ajax. 4 did not. In addition, 4 individuals who worked on Ajax have been discharged on health grounds, in some cases for reasons wholly unrelated to hearing loss.”
You can read the rest by clicking the link above or by clicking here.
Wonder how it will cost the tax payer to return them?
Maybe a good coastal defence scheme somewhere?
Fixed price contract – so the answer shoiuld be £0. Delay’s in IOC are another matter.
Really depends if they were accepted or not. If accepted then the MOD will have to pay to fix them. If not accepted then comes down to how good the contract is.
Money money, literally, is on the tax payer footing the bill.
It’s not accepted yet.
You have to try pretty hard on a modern vehicle line to build things out of square.
Suggests to me the jigs were not properly set up
Or
The twisting stresses were not properly analysed so the chassis/hull twists under certain conditions?
Agree, armature hour at GD Spain!!!
Return them to the Spanish factory for re-work, if necessary? GDUK should pay fro that.
“can and should endure such issues” good to know there’s no consideration for the troops whatsoever. What a phenomenal waste of money. If it’s as crucial as the minister says it is to the future of the Army then for goodness sake take the time to make the right decision
Couldn’t agree more.
I really hope HMG don’t hide behind crown protection and let those injured get the compensation due to them from GD.
paragraph 62
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ajax-noise-and-vibration-review/ajax-noise-and-vibration-review#root-cause-analysis-and-findings
What we need is a lessons learned report. I don’t think we do enough of those.
I think another report should be commissioned with two conclusions. What needs to be done to fix the problem and when will it be done. No more than 20 words please.
I haven’t yet read the report. Does it really not cover those 2 key points??
Maybe there somewhere but I didn’t spot it before giving up the will to live. Basically a critique on the application of resources to spot health and safety issues padded out, i suspect, to justify the writer’s fee. In my humble view this is why things are missed – plain English is needed – short and to the point!
paragraph 62
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ajax-noise-and-vibration-review/ajax-noise-and-vibration-review#root-cause-analysis-and-findings
No, the report which was done quickly only looked at noise and vibration safety issues. The people who did it aren’t qualified to look into engineering solutions.
The hull was shortened by 6 feet to remove the troop compartment, as its not an IFV.
I think the original spec was that it had to fit in a C-130 or something silly like that – the ghost of FRES.
That’s what happens when it takes 20 years to design a platform. But it;s not an APC or and IFV, It’s CVR(T). I think we get confused if we think it can be swapped out for either of those types – its very much a light tank with a lot of sensors and data capabilities – so not much off the shelf with tracks. Closer to the French Jaguar in role. https://www.edrmagazine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Jaguar_01-800×445.jpg
Good god, my eyes!
They are also mentioned Ares, which is an APC. Ajax being the CVR(T) variant with others to follow.
Does one laugh or cry it’s the Army version of the Navy Lark, though at least we knew we could laugh at that.
No-one knew that in 2010 at Contract Award.
Anyway, beside the point – a 38-42 tonne vehicle would not be carried by a C-130 (payload is only half that of one Ajax).
Ajax is not an APC, its a recce/strike vehicle.
Ajax at 38-42 tonnes could never be carried in a C-130.
Yes it gew like Topsy, but the original FRES requirement was to be carried by C-130 will applique armour removed.
Hi James, pardon any naivety here, but if that’s the case, then isn’t a shorter and heavier chasus than the original more than likely to give you weight bearing and noise problems?
*chasis
I’m not an expert either, but I should think that caused some of the problems – GD will have convinced MOD that is would work.
If you look at the factory there are 20 odd Ajax variants parked outside…
https://www.google.com/maps/place/General+Dynamics+Merthyr/@51.718588,-3.3544984,1385m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x486e3c9ff3334c77:0x91ccb646c0e0331d!8m2!3d51.7201232!4d-3.3507766?hl=en
No idea how old the image is, but there clearly isn’t enough space to place 300 odd IFV size bodies around the place. Where are they keeping them? Given GD’s track record to date it wouldn’t be a surprise to see them uncovered, outside rusting to pieces….
Quite frankly after GD’s previous mess up for the Army, Bowman, they should never be granted a single contract in the UK again.
LM need to pack up as well after the Warrior upgrade fiasco as well…
You really couldn’t make it up could you …. My best guess would be stored in a local scarp yard, piled 5 deep and ready for cutting torch…. Visions of TSR2 and Nimrod MR4A being scrapped comes to mind… Add Ajax to the list.. I wouldn’t blame either GD or LM to be honest, the cause of these multi billion pound fiascoes, goes directly down to Government political interference and utterly incompetent MOD management. In the case of Ajax, some blame also goes to senior Army ‘yes’ men, who knew very well there were serous issues with the vehicle a… Read more »
Nobody forced GD to build hulls that badly…thats on them.
And that is the fundamental truth of it!
Indeed I think there is serious blame to be levelled at a Company that agreed it could build a product that it patently has been unable to do within acceptable limits on user safety and technological expectations especially as it was based on a long established base vehicle. Can’t remotely imagine that Bae would be given such leeway here or elsewhere for such incompetence nor for making available specs and support information that has subsequently been described in reports as never should have been taken at face value. Of course both GD and LM for that matter have come under… Read more »
But surely they are built to a specific detailed design and specifications agreed on by the MOD? I know the question has been asked before, but surely they build a virtual Ajax, refine the design and test it before moving onto prototypes? Why wasn’t vibration and noise picked up in prototypes and pre production vehicles? If it was, why did they then crack on and produce all these bloody hulls, that I would assume all require modifications to sort the issues out? On from that, I assume there are many more moving down the Spanish production line as we speak…..… Read more »
It’s not the hull build quality that is causing these noise and vibration problems though – that is an issue and Wallace said GD will have to rebuild some hulls. These problems are caused by the running gear, engine mountings, and quality issues with the internal cabling and bolting according to the report.
@ £10m a pop this is unbelievable, Armour means heavy and we would be better off with a Merkava 4 at £4m each which is a tank / IFV and pretty much everything else all in one
Going forward we need one tracked vehicle type that we can build maintain and operate within our cost envelope
Thats the copyright date, not the Imagery date.
You can get it from Google Earth, but this was from Google Maps. Looking at the car parks in local leisure facilities it does appear to have been taken in 20 or 21 though.
We could rename the Ajax, T45 part 2 as they both have well documented faults before entering service but will end up in service with those faults so that the tax payer has to pay for it not the company’s who built them all settled in the old boys clubs in Mayfair
God it not as if GD are trying to invent a completly new thing, it’s a tracked infantry fighting vehicle that need to carry 8 troops, a 30mm-50mm gun across all types of terrain. The UK has been building this type of vehicle for over 100 years. It not bloody rocket science, as an ex scaley back even I could do better. Why do I have the gut feeling the choice of GD was more to do with politics than requirements or technical know how.
Ajax is not an IFV – it is a recce/strike vehicle. But your basic point is fine. We used to have 5 British AFV manufacturers – all absorbed into BAE Sytems now – who could have produced a decent vehicle based on the proven CV90. But we use a US company who set up a British subsidiary in a Fork Lift Truck factory in Wales to get the political tick in the box, who stretch the design of a 26 tonne vehicle out to be a 38-42 tonne vehicle, employ people who have never built an AFV before, have the… Read more »
Absolutely was, it has already been put forward before that it was entirely down to resentment over Bae (costs in particular) over past contracts and a belated effort to get ‘value through competition’. Yeah that’s worked out well. We seem to have a belief that past incompetences should be taken as proof others do things better. Well that isn’t by any stretch of the imagination the given that many in Govt and Mod believe it to be. That plus the narrow field of vision over decades of over specialising let alone revising products so the original British manufacturers who built… Read more »
Yep. …and that’s why I argue for a new UK agency, independent of the MoD, tasked with management of critical strategic resources and capabilities civilian and military. i.e. including MBT or armoured fighting vehicles. It just oversees/provides a framework for an indigenous capability and accepts that there will be no exports (helps stops arms proliferation) other than to 5-eyes. Partly paid for by a UK Sovereign Wealth Fund profit.
We must stop relying on others who just consume UK cash and skills which then flow out of the UK economy in a race to the bottom.
Spyinthesky
Surely the Hmg/Mod could find a legal firm that would tie BAE systems to a watertight contract that they supply what they quote for
Actually it is very new and on the tip of new technology, sensor/data and recce wise at least. The mistake was the unrealistic stretch of an existing design (like trying to make a Transit van into a 7.5 ton truck). Thats where most of the problems are me thinks vibration wise. The concept is pretty much spot on I’d say, end result is another matter. Please remember though that this is a Recce vehicle not an IFV so the design brief would always have been to start light, weight wise. I’m no BAe shareholder but certainly with hindsight the CV-90… Read more »
When you guys go to holiday in Spain, have you not seen the builders just chuck houses up. EVERY A CASE OF THAT WILL DO. All Spanish hulls should be rejected, MADE IN THE UK means MADE not assembled. or scrap the program and recover the money from GD
I have to say, “Made in Spain” doesn’t exactly inspire confidence
Hang on guys, a little sweeping there, they do build all our A400’s after all.
They are only building hulls to an exact specification, set out by the customer, as contractors.
Or is the issue not with the design, but the hull build?
Have the Spanish deveated from the specific design contracted for? If they haven’t, then it’s not their fault….
Neither did glued blots on the Batch 2 OPVs built in the UK. :). Government contracts appear to bring about the worse productivity and quality issues no matter where you are in the world imo.
Yes, all that high speed rail covering the country is a real joke.
It is not the location that matters but the quality control, which is determined by the manufacturer, not the people building it.
The noise and vibration problems are not to do with Spanish side, even if it is comforting to blame Jonny foreigner. They are to do with work completed in Wales – engine mountings, running gear and internal cabling. The hull problems are on top of that.
IMO, part of the problem is going from 26t to 40t & thinking you don’t have to change anything. It’s taken GD 10 years to fail to do do something that SK’s Hanwha has done in less than 5 years. Their Redback IVF was developed specifically to match Australian requirements starting with their K21 vehicle as a reference. They quickly realised Australian requirements were going to go over 40t & so decided to add the K9 to their reference list. The Redback is 42t & though based on the Hanwha K21 (26t), has the running gear & suspension of the… Read more »
805 bhp, underpowered?
Ajax at 38-42 tonnes, with a beefier engine, revised transmission, different turret and cannon etc etc is a million miles away from the original ASCOD Pizzaro (Spanish) or Ulan (Austrian) vehicle. There is no comparison.
Yeah the Spanish and Austrian versions work properly!
A bit like Triggers Broom……. None of the original left……
Staggering incompetence. Heads should roll and we should draw a line under the terrible procurement practices that have taken place since the Blair years
As a Brit I am ashamed that the people responsible for this have let the country and Army down with this colossal balls up and wastage. It’s a disgrace. Sure hope that there really is some serious “B” planning going on to get some good alternatives happening if both Ajax and Warrior can’t be resuscitated. And they need to get on with it fast! As someone has said here, less words, more action, and please. The Army deserves and needs way better investment than this! It’s ultimately peoples lives on the modern battlefield they need to think about!
Warrior upgrade aka WCSP was cancelled under SDSR2021 and the vehicle will waste out in the mid-2020s – what makes you think it will be resuscitated?
Seems the gun caused turret wobble when fired , would have been ok with bushmaster cannon!
Does anyone at the MOD know how to negotiate a contract? I do it for a living, it’s not hard.
Of course the MoD have commercial officers who negotiate and write contracts. Do you think there is a problem with the contract?
Hello Graham, do you think there is anything right with a contract that allows a contractor to be over budget, behind schedule, and trying to deliver a faulty product at the end of that possess. The problem is the MoD has been allowing this to happen for the last 40 odd years from the introduction of the SA80 the first models were a disgrace and only in the last 10 or so years have they managed to make it more user friendly and able to do what it was designed to do. We now have the T45s, delivers over budget,… Read more »
Steven, There will be little wrong with the contract but clearly the manufacturer has breached a number of contract conditions. MoD is focussed on getting a fleet of vehicles that are fit for purpose out of GDUK, rather than sueing them in the courts. You are right that equipment with faults has been accepted into service before, and that says as much about the MoDs procurement organisation and its processes as about the manufacturers. MoD doesn’t like to sue. Some say that they fear being outgunned by better lawyers put up by the errant company – maybe. But they fear… Read more »
I just find it strange that when companies like BP or Shell order state of the art design and build equipment it is deliver working to speck and on budget yet the MoD is continually plagued with kit being over budget, late and fault ridden. There is something wrong at the top either some one batting for the opposition or utterly inept either way there has to be a change at the top of the MoD. There seems to be utter contempt from the manufactures towards the UKs armed forces as they believe that they can offload faulty equipment onto… Read more »
Hi Steven, I know nothing about the kit that oil and gas companies order, however much military equipment is or has assemblies, sub-assemblies and components, some of which have only just transitioned from the experimental lab, and may not have been built for production before. Some equipment, regrettably, is made by manufacturers who are inexperienced (GDUK never built anything before Ajax, as it didn’t even exist) or who have not manufactured such a product type for many years. British industry last designed an IFV (Warrior) in 1972-80 and last manufactured in quantity in 1984. Dates for a MBT are design… Read more »
Hello Graham, I used the oil industry companies as they too have there procurement problems as well as having to design and build cutting edge equipment but they do so by appointing a team directly responcible for that project, Deep water oil exploration is expensive and needs expensive bits of kit that work first time. The armed forces should be allowed to enter into direct partnership with industry suppliers with ex and serving members on the military who know what they need. If civilian expertise is needed then they should be recruited for that project paid for by the industrial… Read more »
Hello Stephen, I take your word for it that oil exploration equipment is as cutting edge as much of our military kit. DE&S of course has many specialist teams (Integrated Project Teams) charged with procuring categories of kit – I have worked for the Tank Systems Support IPT for example. The individual services (RN/RM, British Army, RAF) do not do procurement; that is the role of DE&S. If you want the services to deal with Industry, then you will have to resource them with extra staff and train them – also, where would that leave Abbey Wood? I am pleased… Read more »
We are constantly asked not the play the blame game which allows the people who are responcible for the delays/faulty equipment delivered into service/over budget being allowed to continue in that position and in a lot of cases being promoted. We should be playing the Accountability game so that the politicians/bean counters/project managers are held accountable for their decisions and are promoted/demoted accordingly there by we are promoting success not failure.
The contract is not too bad – fixed price- it’s the spec, delivery and acceptance process that went pearshaped.
How can we have so many hulls delivered when the vehicle has not even been accepted into service yet! Should they not have accepted a example first before main production started! So this is why they do not wish to cancel it…. they have already built it!
This is just mad…
Meeting IOC was already tight. If they had started production build after trials they would never have made the date. This sort of thing is very normal, we are building multiple T26 and new SSBN and the first in class of these is nowhere near starting trials.
I can see that makes sense for a big item like a ship. However it should not be the cas for an APC or scout vehicle…. this is just wrong.
So I build 200 rubbish vehicles even before the customer sees if they are what he asked for…. just nuts.
Rob, this is not a simple vehicle. It may well be the most complex AFV ever built. Trials on prototypes should have been effective, modifications made to eliminate discovered faults and then for production vehicles to have been built with Acceptance testing being thorough.
A better question would be how many have failed QA upon inspection and how many have been sent back to Spain.
This is from the report. Para 62. 62. Noise and vibration in the Ajax family of vehicles have both electrical and mechanical origins from the following broad sources: (a) Track, suspension and running gear, in particular the tension and sprocket design/track interface. (b) Engine and its mounting into the vehicle. (c) Quality issues associated with, but not limited to, inconsistent routing of cabling, lack of bonding and weld quality; all of which can lead to potential electromagnetic compatibility issues with communication equipment. As witnessed during trials, insecure components and bolting within the vehicle can also lead to noise and vibration,… Read more »
Blimey Paul, that’s quite the list!
Absolutely no reason all these faults couldn’t have been resolved in pre production vehicles.
It shows multiple failings across all levels of the programme, systemic ingrained failures in fact.
Hold the manufacturer’s feet to fire to rectify all the faults and pay the money to refurbish and maintain existing in use equipment in the meantime, obviously all at their expense.
Quite simply, they are delivering a substandard product, not fit for service it would seem.
When will we learn……
Not wishing to be reproachful but if I was GD I would be be shamefaced. What ever happened to professional pride in your work?
Hello Paul, If GD was trying to pull this one in the States they would be up in front of a committee being told tor rectify the problems or pay back the money already invested in the program. I just wonder why we in the UK cannot hold our defence contractors to task. It seems the MoD is woefully inept at holding contractors to budgets and time lines also quality of build.
There’s a few reasons, mainly because the Americans order in bulk (they would be ordering thousands), they have numerous defence contractors who are used to competitive contracts and fly offs/ drive off etc competitions, to down select a winner from a typical number of three. We run a tail wagging the dog procurement policy, where political considerations come first and foremost and are judged as more important than capability and actually asking the armed forces what they want. As a result, we always end up with an eye watering expensive and bespoke solution, procured in small numbers. As the sophistication… Read more »
Hello John, I could not agree more, but we need to change.
Change the system and above all change the people at the top of this particular food chain, I just wonder how much of these wasted Billions end up in offshore accounts or have they got their luxury apartments already sorted in Moscow.
Some thing is drastically wrong within the MoD we cannot keep putting it down to ineptitude if we do we are the inept ones who keep throwing good money after bad.
The Textron Cottonmouth being considered for the USMC looks to be developed for a very similar recon capability, all be it wheeled and amphibious.
They are looking to buy 600, so there’s a thought, off the shelf with minimal UK mods, would be vastly cheaper tagging onto USMC orders, probably a lot lighter and air transportable too.
It doesn’t cover the engineer and recovery versions, but buy an off the shelf option to cover those…
Problem is, I bet GD have us by the balls with a watertight Contact…
Hello John, I would agree the USMC is no mug when it comes to getting kit and it our needs are similar why not jump on their band waggon after all the Ajax is about as British as the new Mini’s
Agreed, can we have a third and it’s motion carried!
Perhaps the MOD should let UKDJ contributors shortlist kit;🤣🤣
We really couldn’t do any worse than that bunch of Abbey Wood clowns ….
👍
Hello Stephen, it is very rare for MoD procurement staff to have taken a bribe, almost unknown. The big money has gone in one direction, from the MoD to GDUK. I doubt many GDUK staff want to buy a dacha in Moscow. So are you suggesting that top people at the Prime are changed?
We certainly need to understand why MoD processes have totally failed.
Hello Graham, the failure of an institution like the MoD normally falls into 3 category’s 1 Ineptitude, 2 Corruption or 3 deliberate intention to fail.
I personally believe it is a combination of all 3 but which ever it is the people at the top need to go along with autocratic structure that promotes failure.
I was in the Army (REME) for 34 years including 2 years at DLO Andover, then left the army and spent my first 2 years of my second career at DE&S Abbey Wood. I am very surprised by what you say – I saw no corruption at Abbey Wood (in fact corruption stories were very few and far betwen, most could only recall the Foxley story from the early-80s). It is inconceivable that a military officer or civil servant at Abbey Wood would deliberately arrange for a procurement programme to fail – in your heart of hearts do you really… Read more »
Hello Graham. Just because you did not see it that dose not mean it is not there. People do not go around with a sign on the heads saying “I am Corrupt” or ” I bat for the opposition” We only have to look at institutions like the BBC with its red agenda our academic institutions again with agendas that do not align them selves with the UK. Our so called “free speech” is being eroded from within by the very people who bang the drum of freedom with the majority of the population made to think that they are… Read more »
Hello Stephen, I am sure you acknowledge my knowledge and experience of the MoD Procurement and support organisation. Corruption is virtually unknown at Abbey Wood, unless you definitively know different. MoD staff do not bat for the opposition or operate other than in the national interest, no matter what happens at the BBC. The Government has cut staff at Abbey Wood by at least 2,000 over the years. Politicians meddle. The Treasury meddles. I don’t disagree that many projects go wrong, especially for the complex equipments, in fact far too many. Perhaps lessons can be learned from organisations that procure… Read more »
Hello Graham, I am not questioning you knowledge or experiance just your ability to see the wood in the trees! Abbey Wood was built to house 5000 personnel with very limited parking and no accommodation. There are now over 10,000 people who work at Abby Wood so only half can log onto a secure data point, as there is no accommodation and limited parking if you work at Abbey Wood you have to live close by so there tends to be limited pool of civilian workers you can choose from and is considered by a lot of the squaddie’s who… Read more »
Hello Stephen, your posts are always interesting. I am amazed that you say that ABW was only built for 5,000. Wikipedia says that 13,400 were on site from the early days. I certainly recall the issues about lack of living accommodation and mess facilities for serving officers and warrant officers – it was controversial at the time. Parking has always been a problem and it was the same at other sites such as HQ QMG/DLO Andover – the MoD naiively asssuming that junior civil servants would not have cars but would all ride to work on the bus! I remember… Read more »
Abbey Wood has 5000 secure data points so can only have 5000 people working on any given day on secure project material. the other 5000+ are suppose to work from laptops but they have to be approved and controlled by IT and they simply do not have enough laptops to go around. So on any given day you will have approximatly a 3rd of the workforce unable to log on. You are an ex squaddie and are use to muddling through to get the job done unfortunately the majority of the workforce at Abbey Wood do not have the same… Read more »
Hi Stephen, as an officer, I don’t think anyone called me a squaddie! I was last at ABW in 2011 so I’m out of date – we had hot desking then but everyone who went into work on a given day had their own seat or found a hot desk and I never heard then of IT connectivity issues. Your idea is ground-breaking and probably too radical with MoD who are happy with the centralisation achieved at ABW in ’96 and the saving of London office rents and then later the merger with DLO – I don’t see them wanting… Read more »
Sorry, most of the ex officers I have known don’t mind being called a squaddie. I was in ABW in 2016 and it was pretty grim then and the people who stayed on say it is getting worse not better. I do not consider myself to be a radical but I have cross decked a number of times and one thing is painfully clear the MoD has a top heavy management system (inverted triangle) while the private sector go for mean and lean management system (very shallow triangle) with direct responsibility/accountability given to the project manager so that if he/she… Read more »
Hi Steven, I worked at ABW for 2 years in my first employment as a civvy after leaving the army. One of my contract periods was for 6 months as a PM. As a PM (and a civilian contractor) I had almost no power so had to do my work with charm and persuasion, cajoling others to do stuff. I was being paid on results during my 6-month PM stint so my project worked out well! Good job that I had an excellent boss and an excellent Prime doing the design, test and manufacture. It certainly made sense to create… Read more »
I have worked in the civilian sector for a number of years as a PM mainly in the oil, gas and mining industries and the main factors for bringing a project in on time and in budget is accountability, realistic targets, and a financial incentive. There is no reason why the MoD cannot learn from the private sector, it needs to come into the 21st century, or as I would like to see keep the CS away from the MoD and have the military run there own procurement with subcontracted civilian personnel brought in as needed.
The MOD need to get with the program: less concern with value for taxpayers money and navel gazing and more concern that the purchase they are making is best in class at what it does, arrives on time and is well received by its users…who are defending us all. They need to be more assertive. If they are not confident in their skills then get trained or get a new job.
I do believe there are plenty of contract/project managers in the private sector that would leap at the chance of one of these contracts and would be held accountable if it went wrong not hiding behind layers of bureaucracy waiting for the next money spinner.
Only the MOD can fix the problem. They must change the culture so the managers you refer to want to work for them. In fairness there are signs of progress; the Type 31 program went well I thought. The MOD showed a bit of humility in accepting that they did not know the answers but trusted industry to educate them. I think we will look back on Ajax as an expensive learning exercise; sort of half way between BAE cost plus and Type 31 this is what we want and can afford; show is what you can do.
My personal view is that Abby wood is not fit for porpoise and should be closed and a tri service support group should take its place with current and ex service personnel at its head, if civilian expertise is needed then it should be contracted in for the duration of the project. They are then given a budget for the project so then can approach industry to set up a contract to supply, much like the USMC do on 99% of their contracts. The Service personnel know what is needed to keep their branch of the services ahead of the… Read more »
Tell the Treasury and the Politicians that they should ditch VfM! You won’t get very far.
Well indeed VFM reigns supreme. The Treasury views the UK as the last remaining colony of the British empire and always seeks to screw the maximum tax return out of the inhabitants from any onvestment. It is this puritan colonial mentality which has given us inadequate armed services, NHS, ‘intelligent’ motorway death traps and a half century delay versus Europe in electrifying our rail system.
Happy Christmas and a good New Year!
In America they have projects that have gone over budget and overcharged the US Government 244 million lol
Is it just me but it seems this has been blown out of all proportion. The article above says nearly everyone involved has recovered/ gone back to normal. Like most on this sight I have damaged hearing due to gunfire as will most of the soldiers involved in these trials. Were those affected by hearing problems tested before the program started or only afterwards? It sounds to me to be a “Health and safety” over reporting issue. As for the vibration issues the UK has some of the finest experts in vibration control in the North Sea oil industry. If… Read more »
“If they ( experts) were consulted I’m sure a lot of these issues could be remedied quite cheaply.”
I have my doubts. As DJ posted above I suspect we have a 40 ton vehicle with a 25 ton engine, transmission and traction. We’re probably fcuk’d.
All of the power pack is rated to 45 tonnes.
Thx. And the transmission?
The power pack comprises the MTU engine and Renk transmission. They are lifted and replaced as a single LRU.
Thx. So there may be some hope then…I have a vision of lots of engineering people in white coats with stethoscopes listening to the heartbeat of the Ajax 🙂
I wonder when the faulty production line will be fixed. No point in asking the Spanish, the answer is always the same “mañana.”
I think that the British MOD should have jumped onto the same bandwagon as the German army and subscribed to the project lynx IFV
There has been built with that same Hull: 112 Austrian Ulan and 261 spanish Pizarro armoured vehicles without major issues. Main strutural difference with both vehicles (called ASCOD) is the AJAX turret.
It is a pretty sorry tale of incompetence, wrong procurement methodology and passing all responsibility to a private contractor. Incompetence – you load an extra 12 to 16 tonnes on a 26 tonne vehicle , increasing the weight by 60%, obviously that is going to put tremendous pressure on the drive train and suspension, plus bolts, brackets, welding, etc – surely the designers and engineers should have allowed for that and redesigned accordingly? Apparently the C4 equipment alone weighs 7 tonnes, which is about the entire weight of the CVR(T) Scimitar! Apparently also, GD argued against the CT40/Konisberg because it… Read more »
All good points. Very few military personnel in DE&S. Masive cuts to DGDQA over the last few years – they do not have the manpower to embed staff permanently with the Primes as they used to.