UK Defence Forum

Ron5 wrote:So you don't think getting a superior vehicle into service is indicative of program success?

I think it’s irrelevant.
We have already identified those programmes perceived as successful and those perceived as unsuccessful. We now need to identify the differences in the programmes that differentiate.

Ron5 wrote: I wonder how much of your much vaunted, super secret, Ajax capability is provided by its payload*. Because as a vehicle, Ajax looks totally unremarkable even ignoring its habit of injuring its crew.

What do you think an armoured vehicle is aside from a metal box and "payload"?

Ron5 wrote: A view that's backed up by Ajax and its cousin vehicles 100% lack of success in international competitions. I predict the current Czech competition going the same way with the Ajax cousin not even making the short list.

Then by that metric just about everything the UK defence has made independently since the 1970s is somewhat unremarkable, as none of it has been much of an export success.

CR2, crap. Warrior, crap. T45, crap, Astute, crap.

Ron5 wrote: *a payload that could probably just as easily be carried by other vehicles. Like Boxer. A question that I'm sure is being asked is what would it take to transfer the payload across?

Of course it could be, just like Tranche 1 Eurofighters could just as easily have all the capabilities of Tranche 2/3. Right?

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

RunningStrong wrote:

Ron5 wrote: I wonder how much of your much vaunted, super secret, Ajax capability is provided by its payload*. Because as a vehicle, Ajax looks totally unremarkable even ignoring its habit of injuring its crew.

What do you think an armoured vehicle is aside from a metal box and "payload"?

Ron5 wrote: A view that's backed up by Ajax and its cousin vehicles 100% lack of success in international competitions. I predict the current Czech competition going the same way with the Ajax cousin not even making the short list.

Then by that metric just about everything the UK defence has made independently since the 1970s is somewhat unremarkable, as none of it has been much of an export success.

CR2, crap. Warrior, crap. T45, crap, Astute, crap.

Ron5 wrote: *a payload that could probably just as easily be carried by other vehicles. Like Boxer. A question that I'm sure is being asked is what would it take to transfer the payload across?

Of course it could be, just like Tranche 1 Eurofighters could just as easily have all the capabilities of Tranche 2/3. Right?

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

In one post you've compared Ajax to Typhoon, T45 & Astute. I think you'd better go lie down for a bit

PS Hawk & Typhoon not an export success? OK

Ron5 wrote: PS Hawk & Typhoon not an export success? OK

Typhoon is an international product. Hawk flew in the 1970s. Please keep up.

RunningStrong wrote:

Ron5 wrote: PS Hawk & Typhoon not an export success? OK

Typhoon is an international product. Hawk flew in the 1970s. Please keep up.

Hard to keep up with you as you chase down your rabbit hole. I admit defeat

Anyhoo the question was, how much of Ajax's vaunted capability resides in payload that could carried by other vehicles?

Judging by your "red herring" answers, it must be considerable. So maybe Ajax as a platform should be left by the roadside and the goodies carried by a better vehicle?

mr.fred wrote:

Ron5 wrote:So you don't think getting a superior vehicle into service is indicative of program success?

I think it’s irrelevant.
We have already identified those programmes perceived as successful and those perceived as unsuccessful. We now need to identify the differences in the programmes that differentiate.

Or maybe "we" could perceive the perceived differences that are perceived to differentiate differently

Well the bulk of Ajax's "Goodies" are in the turret. So one would surmise that creating a Boxer Mission Module for it would bring most of Ajax's capabilities to the new platform. Boxer already has numerous situational awareness systems like cameras built into its hull, and there would be plenty of space inside for other equipment. Being that our Boxers are the latest version they would have no issue with the weight of the turret and would have ample electrical power for the various systems.

So Boxer would be an option but we would have to wait longer for this version to enter service In the mean time we could use the APC version with the optics on its RWS and also any dismounts carried as a stop gap or use Jackal or even the JLTV is we even actually order the damn thing.

Or maybe we go for a totally different type of new vehicle, more akin to how we traditionally have carried out Recce, like adopting the German/Dutch Fennek, small, agile, good sensors and adaptable. WE have to keep our options open for the sake of our future Army, and not bet everything moving forward on Ajax.

Ron5 wrote: Anyhoo the question was, how much of Ajax's vaunted capability resides in payload that could carried by other vehicles?

Judging by your "red herring" answers, it must be considerable. So maybe Ajax as a platform should be left by the roadside and the goodies carried by a better vehicle?

You can put just about any equipment in/on any suitably sized platform. Most people know that. The difference is the cost and time to do so.

Lord Jim wrote:Well the bulk of Ajax's "Goodies" are in the turret.

Are they?

Ron5 wrote:Or maybe "we" could perceive the perceived differences that are perceived to differentiate differently

Something about the subject seems to drive me to employ superfluous redundancies.

What makes CV90 successful when Ajax isn’t?

More to the point, ASCOD is only really used by its developers, Spain and Austria as far as I know. Compare that to the number of countries using CV90 related platforms. Surely that should have given the MoD a clue? Or was ASCOD/Ajax simply the cheapest combined with a load of false promises from GD, which for some reason the MoD took at face value? Will they ever learn?

Lord Jim wrote:More to the point, ASCOD is only really used by its developers, Spain and Austria as far as I know. Compare that to the number of countries using CV90 related platforms. Surely that should have given the MoD a clue? Or was ASCOD/Ajax simply the cheapest combined with a load of false promises from GD, which for some reason the MoD took at face value? Will they ever learn?

CV90 was BAE therefore not allowed.

The first heads on teh chopping block to have their Government paid service pensions etc. withdrawn or careers in Governmental service curtailed are those that made that stupid decision.

Lord Jim wrote:The first heads on teh chopping block to have their Government paid service pensions etc. withdrawn or careers in Governmental service curtailed are those that made that stupid decision.

And people wonder why those involved close ranks and hinder any learning on the subject…

I am not advocating a "Spanish Inquisition! style blame culture, but is a Stupid mistake is make rather then an simple one, like deciding BAe should be black balled from the FRES SV programme, then yes they should have been held to account. The only learning to be had there is to actually understand what a stupid idea it was and understand that the consequences for the Army are major. Therefore they should feel some consequences also.

Learning from ones honest mistake is to be encouraged, as is encouraging staff to own their mistakes as a result without fear of reprisals. Aa pointed out the MoD's culture of Senior Management banding together whilst offering up some poor junior grade staff member for sacrifice needs to be addressed as this has repeatedly hindered the MoD ability to actually learn form its past mistakes, leading it to repeat them now and in the future.

It's interesting that BAE never appealed the loss of a £5.5Bn contract decided on such political grounds, isn't it?

RunningStrong wrote:It's interesting that BAE never appealed the loss of a £5.5Bn contract decided on such political grounds, isn't it?

They had better things to do with their time in the US. They had 'learned lessons' from the Astute and Nimrod fixed price contracts.

Lord Jim wrote:Learning from ones honest mistake is to be encouraged, as is encouraging staff to own their mistakes as a result without fear of reprisals.

But….

Lord Jim wrote:The first heads on teh chopping block to have their Government paid service pensions etc. withdrawn or careers in Governmental service curtailed

I suppose I should not have describe dismissing BAe from the Ajax competition and therefore awarding the contract the GD as a mistake. It wasn't it was a deliberate, poorly advised and idiotic decision and for that head should roll for starters at least.

Lord Jim wrote:I suppose I should not have describe dismissing BAe from the Ajax competition and therefore awarding the contract the GD as a mistake. It wasn't it was a deliberate, poorly advised and idiotic decision and for that head should roll for starters at least.

Who's head? Who's still in post?

Lord Jim wrote:I am not advocating a "Spanish Inquisition! style blame culture,

But….

Lord Jim wrote:I suppose I should not have describe dismissing BAe from the Ajax competition and therefore awarding the contract the GD as a mistake. It wasn't it was a deliberate, poorly advised and idiotic decision and for that head should roll for starters at least.

Actions should have the appropriate consequences, be they good or bad. The decision to in effect "Black ball" BAe form the FRES SV contract was not an innocent mistake. It was a deliberate choice, that had been discussed and decided on by a committee with little regard to providing the MoD with the best platform for the job or providing value for money to the tax payer.

A nasty comparison would be a doctor who deliberately avoids using a treatment, causing a patient to die as against a doctor who makes an honest mistake that also leads to a patients death but form which lessons are learned. The former should be charged with negligence at least whilst the latter should be encouraged to undergo further training and learn form what happened.

If said people are either still in Governmental service or not, they could possibly be sanctioned for their past decisions by removing part or all of their Governmental Pensions either Service or Civil Service. If still serving they other actions could possibly also be taken.

Lord Jim wrote:The decision to in effect "Black ball" BAe form the FRES SV contract was not an innocent mistake. It was a deliberate choice, that had been discussed and decided on by a committee with little regard to providing the MoD with the best platform for the job or providing value for money to the tax payer.

Your evidence for this?

RunningStrong wrote:It's interesting that BAE never appealed the loss of a £5.5Bn contract decided on such political grounds, isn't it?

Sure, the UK overturns its procurement decisions all the time

I wonder how many ex army and ex MOD people work for GDUK? It’s basically a start up organisation so lots of opportunity there.

And if the answer is quite a few then if you’re army today how can you really have a proper customer / supplier relationship with your former boss/ ex-comrade of your current boss.

SD67 wrote:I wonder how many ex army and ex MOD people work for GDUK? It’s basically a start up organisation so lots of opportunity there.

And if the answer is quite a few then if you’re army today how can you really have a proper customer / supplier relationship with your former boss/ ex-comrade of your current boss.

Well one former CDS is on the board of GD. The head of GDLS UK is a former Major General Wilks lately of DE&S. And I believe the finance director is also ex Royal Engineers.