Fix or abandon ‘shambolic’ Ajax armoured vehicle, MOD told
THE Ajax armoured vehicle is a shambles that has the Army “tearing its hair out”, according to a report from the Commons public accounts committee which urges the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to abandon the £5 billion scheme.
Defence sources said that the chaotic programme, which has been delayed by more than 10 years and cost £3.2 billion despite having failed to deliver a single deployable vehicle, was a “saga that has gone on longer than the Second World War”.
In its report the committee of MPS has called on the MOD to either fix or scrap the Ajax by the end of the year.
The MOD has agreed a fixed-price contract with General Dynamics worth £5.5billion for 589 Ajax armoured vehicles but just 26 have been delivered so far and these can only be used for training purposes.
According to the report, the delays were the result of “a litany of failures” including noise and vibration problems that injured soldiers testing the Ajax. The committee said the MOD still did not know when Ajax will enter service or whether the noise and vibration issues can be fixed, even though it is two years since they were identified.
The committee said management of the project was “flawed from the outset” and the MOD had “once again made fundamental mistakes” in planning and managing a major equipment programme. It said the MOD was “failing to deliver” the vehicles which the Army needs “to better protect the nation and meet Nato commitments”.
Dame Meg Hillier, the committee chairman, said: “Enough is enough – the MOD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security [is caused] and more billions of taxpayers’ money is wasted.”
Although the Army is “cautiously optimistic” that Ajax can enter service by 2030, the MPS warned that any further delays will increase the risk of missing even that target.
An MOD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has been clear that Ajax is a troubled programme ... we agree with many of the committee’s recommendations and are actively taking steps to correct these.”
He said the contract meant any delays “will not cost the taxpayer more” and that no further payments will be made “until we are satisfied with the future trajectory of the programme”.