A total of 446 Ajax vehicles are scheduled for delivery to the Army from 2024 to 2028, with yearly deliveries varying from 93 in 2024 to 125 in 2027, plus an extra 143 vehicles set to be retrofitted and delivered by 2029.
The information came to light in response to a Written Parliamentary Question.
John Healey MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many Ajax vehicles are scheduled to be delivered to the Army in (a) 2024, (b) 2025, (c) 2026, (d) 2027, (e) 2028, (f) 2029 and (g) 2030.”
James Cartlidge MP, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, replied:
“The table below shows the number of newly built Ajax platforms due to be delivered to the Department, with only deployable vehicles being delivered going forward.
| Year | Number |
| 2024 | 93 |
| 2025 | 89 |
| 2026 | 66 |
| 2027 | 125 |
| 2028 | 73 |
| 2029 | 0 |
| 2030 | 0 |
In addition to the numbers of newly built platforms listed above, there are 143 Ajax vehicles that will be retrofitted from earlier build standards to the final deployable build standard. The plan for when these retrofitted vehicles will be delivered is currently still in development, however all are currently scheduled for delivery by 2029.
It is anticipated that all vehicles will be delivered to the Army in the same calendar year they are delivered to the Department. If the vehicle is received late in the year, it is possible that the Army will receive the vehicle in the next calendar year.”
I am sure this assumes that no major issues are uncovered in the RGT.
John Healey eliciting more information for the labour defence plan.
Should have bought the CV90 system, it would be in service by now.
No guarantee of that. Would’ve inevitably been extensively modified rather than off the shelf
Built by a vendor with decades of experience on a platform used by 8 customers and counting. Oh yes, it would be well into service by now.
Again, you cannot be certain, Ascod is what Ajax is based off of and has been in service for years before this. Alot of the issues were with British army faffing around with it.
IF we had ordered CV 90 we would have had to join a queue for our batch of vehicles,as you say they then would have had to be modified to what we wanted.If we wanted IFVs then they could have come straight off the line but obviously we wanted recce vehicles. The army didn’t help itself by changing the spec a few times but then GD didn’t either by fabricating wonky hulls in Spain with all the problems and delays that entailed!
Would have made them in Newcastle and they would have worked and kept the UK in A vehicle manufacture.
I don’t know but has any other country manufactured CV90?
They will be building them in Ukraine shortly
Much faffing was required to convert an IFV into a recce vehicle.
No it wouldn’t. DE&S can’t help themselves, they would have demanded a whole series of ridiculous changes that would compromise the design and add weight and cost.
I understand that the Norwegians have their CV 90 recce in service.
Totally agree
It was another.caes of MOD did not want to buy BAE, its the Warrior upgrade all over again, when BAE said the turret was not suitable for the New cannon and LM said it was and in the end they had to redesign a new turret. The irony was Avro took less time to design, develope and produce and put in to service the Warrior from scratch by about 2 years ……..
Avro Warrior ? 🤔
Sorry Paul I ment GKN got my IFV manufacturer mixed up, but it took less time to Design and go into production on the original Warrior than it took Lockheed Martin to do the turret upgrade fiasco. it was the same with GD Ajax vs CV90 MOD did not buy BAE. So awarded the contract to General Dynamics on there cheeper alternative and we all no the rest of this fiasco millions over budget delivery 2017 actually 2023/24 and I am being generous with the 2023 date
Lazy question: is this Ajax only, or the other types like Ares and Athena also?
That doesn’t seem like a terrible delivery schedule, although would obviously be nice to see them quicker. Question is going to be: What do the chaps in Wales do after they’ve built them? Hopefully not another boom and bust programme for the MOD.
Ideal would probably be a true tracked IFV based on the same chassis- shouldn’t be too hard seeing as the ASCOD II is already an IFV for its other customers.
I’m guessing it is mixed variants.
143 “retrofitted” I am taking that to mean fixing problems on existing hulls.
Yeah, that would be my assumption too- whatever fix they worked out for the rattling and noise, I expect.
Thanks
No, it’s retrofitting earlier vehicles that have been used for initial training and trials that are of an earlier build standard. It will bring them up to the IOC capability.
Or in other words replacing non compliance and poor quality of manufacturing- that should never have been shipped in the first place. GD not competent
You obviously can’t read.
No, updating to latest build standard.
I think this includes all the variants yeh.
Thanks, just wanted to check!
Yep. Totals 589 as per main contract signed in 2014. Despite all the problems, it would be a good idea to keep the production facility open. At some point, we will need to design and build new heavy armoured vehicles including MBTs. Perhaps the government should buy the operation from GD to retain a skilled workforce. Many European defence suppliers are wholly or partly state owned. Selling off small arms.manufacturing and allowing BAE to buy up all afv producers and then shut them down was a serious mistake.
I would agree, it’s all there in the reports supporting our National Shipbuilding Strategy- the principles are the same.
I like the idea of the factory being government owned is, that you can move different items in one after the other to an extent; as an example they could get Hanwa in to do the K9-derived SPG, then an ASCOD-derived IFV, then a (potentially) Rheinmettal/BAE MBT. Same work force and main tools, specialist tooling, jigs, etc. get switched out every time a new vehicle line is run. Key part of the contract is that MOD keeps the specialist tooling, which can then be used to support deep mid-life upgrades (scary new concept for the Army, I know).
It’s probably not the most efficient model compared to a dedicated and specialised production line for one thing that runs for 20 years, but we don’t have the need for that. This way at least, we’re not spending millions up front to re-skill workforces and build facilities each time we need a new vehicle. Also reduces welfare and other social payments to skilled workers who’ve lost their job without a replacement in their area.
It is a shame that BAEs competition for UK production is foreign owned with Dynamics (Ajax) and Rheinmetal (Boxer), as that reduces the value for a full UK business contract, however as has been shown with Babcock taking frigate orders off of BAE, it is as ever in business, much better value when there is competition, even if it has to be non-domestic because BAE bought out all the domestic competitors. I do sometimes get the feeling that BAE is lazy in terms of R&D, and prefers to buy existing IP and not develop new vehicles. The Bofors 40mm on a 8×8 truck concept I did enjoy, however.
Got to be all variants mate.
Thanks, there was me hoping for a tracked vehicle order that was pushing 4 digits…!
To be fair, Boxer is that order, money is there for the buy to exceed 1,000, if they don’t rob it for something else.
Whether it’s the right vehicle is another matter given it’s cost. I’d buy a cheaper type for the support roles myself.
And also, given the size of the Army now and the number of units that use tracked vehicles, which is small compared to the 73k army size, then 1500 Ajax and Boxer isn’t bad in my view. Again, whether they were the right type is another issue.
Fair point, I suppose there are plenty of the FV-series vehicles that need their roles replacing and Boxer could do them. As you say, rather more expensively in some cases!
I would agree that types/modules could do with a look- given what’s occurring these days. I understand there are some C&C and recovery versions which make sense, and even some medical ones, and then a lot of the standard MIVs with RWS for .50 cal or 40 mm GMG. And a mortar carrier, potentially?
Mind you, I saw an Army Recognition article the other day saying the British Army had officially requested a turreted 120 mm mortar option for Boxer. Whether that’s true or not remains to be seen.
I’d also like to see a proper IFV module with a turreted autocannon, or at least some of the standard ones we’re getting uprated to the Kongsberg model 6 RWS combined with one.
Along with the Brimstone module (potential for other missiles?), I think that would probably tick the “offensive” modules list, although a SHORAD version may be a winner. I wouldn’t get a 155 mm artillery module if we’re going with Archer, I don’t see the added value being sufficient.
I’m probably missing plenty of things, but those are the fantasy fleet ones that I can think of!
I keep hearing they are interested in the 155mm, I hope not as again, as usual, I hear it’s very expensive.
So no doubt they’ll pick it!
Yes I read all the 120mm stuff too, I hope we do get a turret for the mechanized units as otherwise, well that’s v poor.
IFV module is a must, otherwise a retrograde step. Boxer shouldn’t be replacing Warrior, but in its own wheeled brigades. I’ve explained the timeline of army indecision and u turns regards Strike and the musical chairs ORBAT so many times I’m not going to here.
It’s pretty big news compared to a lot of the other guff that’s been reported here this week.
Germany has just ordered 123 30mm turreted boxer! It’s the same as that Aussie version can there be hope🤔
defence blog report.
Go back to making forklifts 🙂
Haha, a noble profession to be sure! However, I would be happier if there was a way we could keep them making AFVs…
After the army has got its CR3s, Ajax family and Boxers, then no British based company is likely to be building AFVs for a very long time, unless my REME colleagues get a replacement for the rather old CRARRV or a new SPG is built here.
I realise that I’m very much looking with rose-tinted specs, but my best case scenario does indeed include an SPG, and then a tracked IFV. I absolutely understand what you said about Boxer, but I also find it hard to believe that we’ll forever do away with tracked IFVs. There is, in my view, also some requirement for SHORAD and indirect precision fires (potentially brimstone on wheels/tracks) that are not included (as far as I know) in the current buys of Boxer and Ajax.
Very much realise that is all dependent on more money being provided, so not holding my breath, but also not completely discounting at least some of it. Ultimately, government, MOD, and industry need to realise that one of the reasons that one of the issues with armoured vehicle procurement is the same as our ships- boom and bust. If we have a shipbuilding industrial strategy, we should also have a military vehicle industrial strategy. It’s the only way this stuff is going to stop overrunning in cost.
If you’ll permit, I’ll respond to your other comment about Challenger here too. I read the report on MSN, apparently from an interview with a Ukrainian tank crew. The Challenger had greater difficulty in the soft mud compared to Leopard (I don’t think they had Abrams in time to make the comparison), and attributed it to engine power. To be fair, CH2 is also heavier than Leopard, so power to weight is going to be even worse, is it not? I would post the link, but then my comment will end up in review, so a Google search of “Challenger 2 Ukraine Engine Power” will find it.
At least we still have horses too fall back on 🐎🐎🐎🐎 here comes the cavalry
A really good question mate – ‘what do the chaps in Wales do after 2028’?
If I was a betting man – which I am, but don’t have a set of ‘crystal ones to peer into’, I might hazard an opinion and say just maybe we might get some ASCOD II based IFVs!
Bit radical given all the ‘noise’ surrounding Boxer and finances etc, but, I still believe that enough elements in Andover see the need for an all tracked deployable force structure. As in C3, Ajax and a tracked IFV(ASCOD II). If they did go ahead, I dont think it would be many – 250ish, enough for say 4 battalions worth. It would also keep the production line in Wales going for another 4-5 years. Of course, might be totally wide of the mark and a load of b*****ks, who knows?
I’d be a happy man if your hazarded opinion came true- I think that it makes sense too.
I know a lot of people are keen on the CV90 on here, and for good reason. But now we’ve got ASCOD II derived equipment, we’d be making a mistake to go with a different base platform.
Having at least one of the heavy armoured brigades (I really don’t like calling them BCTs) makes sense, the other could then be tracks and wheels mixed and then you’ve got the medium/light forces that are mostly wheels.
That makes sense to me , the usa will maybe have a general dynamics ifv chosen in a few years and also Spain has announced its going for a new ascod ifv design . So gd Wales tagging onto either of those designs sounds a decent idea
Though as has been mentioned Boxer is the official replacement for warrior , but I can still see a tracked ifv being added in future
Yes absolutely, Boxer is said replacement, but in its current guise has some deficiencies in the IFV role. Until we procure a turrets gun (30/40mm) version, it is only surely a APC as zI understand the main difference between the two.
Of course, then you also enter the tracked v wheels debate – always interesting to read those posts too.
All things bei g equal, ignoring g the noise surrounding finances (perhaps wrongly), I don’t think the tracked IFV is dead in the water just yet. Only my opinion I know, and not really my territory either.
You are right. Boxer is deficient in the IFV role because the version that MoD has ordered (well, at least the first tranche) is not an IFV. Its RWS cannot take a cannon, just a MG or GMG, so our Boxer is an APC, which really winds the clock back. The last time we had a wheeled APC operate with tanks was in the 1950s!
The tracked IFV is dead in the water. MoD announced 3 years ago that Warrior would not be upgraded but would run on without upgrade until being replaced by Boxer.
Don’t apply for a job at HM Treasury!
AJAX refers to the family of variants and to the recce platform too, so it’s all types.
Thank you- no reason that could become confusing…!
👍😂
MoD is not buying IFVs for the British Army. They announced 3 years ago that Boxer would now be used as the Infantry carrier in the armoured brigades.
To get font build them they assemble bits n from Spain the profit and knowledge gained flows to the US – we end up single sourced on Spanish companies with decades old technology- for this we destroyed an excellent domestic A vehicle capability
5 years to deliver these vehicles? That’s a lot quicker than Boxers are likely to be delivered.
The Warrior is going out of service in 2025 and it is currently doing part of what the fleet that the Ajax replaced is doing, so the Ajax deliveries and Boxer will allow the Warrior to go out as planned, or are we going to end up having to keep some of the Warriors beyond 2025 until deliveries complete?
Is a wonder if we won’t see some Warriors in Ukraine if we are getting a sizable delivery of Ajax in 2024.
It would be interesting to send some Warriors to Ukraine, not only to help out but see how they stand up to peer on peer warfare!
I would think there must be at least 50 sitting about doing nothing. Probably needing a good service and paint etc. get businesses, colleges etc to help out and sorted ready to go.
Someone needs to see what Ukraine is willing to take and do upgrades, fixes itself.
Take the challenger 1s in Jordan. Even a turret less hull is useful for moving people around.
The French intention to send ground forces into Ukraine (!!!) brings the likelihood of NATO troops following in some considerable numbers. That said, is the UK Army in a good place regarding fighting vehicles and their modernity? A doubling of Boxer and Ajax production would be an essential move by the MOD and some out-of-service vehicles restorded to functional units. There appear to be hundreds of FV432 and variants in private hands in the UK and most are restored to a high level. Many CVTs are also in private hands and could be commandeered for service. By 2027 Boxer and Ajax should be available in good numbers to replace existing FVs.
That’s what I like to say the MOD should do, at least a doubling of Ajax and Boxer. This gives you the added benefit of ‘off the shelf’ plus will allow the army to retire it’s outdated equipment and rationalise it’s vehicle fleets giving another means of cost savings, I know some people are haters of both systems but they really do propel the army forward in the digital age and would give us possibly the most modern fleet in NATO.
The short-term issue is the French policy on Ukraine. If they go in the current status of the UK Army could not be worse for modern fighting machines. Hence my suggestion to take up those FV432s in private hands (that are serviceable) and bolster or backfill the in-service vehicles. I’d imagine Ajax and Boxer are another year away from useable vehicles backed up by basically trained crews. We can only wait and see if pressure on France diswades them from committing to a dangerous international situation.
Don’t really need to double Ajax there are enough of them to do the recce job! It’s an IFV we need if they doubled numbers.
Why double Ajax numbers? The order as it stands probably gives the army enough recce vehicles.
Since Thatcher sold Royal Ordinance’s 16 factories and many closed, we no longer have the capacity for munitions. Boxer is planned at 60 a year. France is likely to get someone nuked if they cross Putin and start a war Europe can’t afford. Old CVRT’s in public hands mainly petrol and FV 432’s obsolete engine .
As long as they move the MOD won’t care about what engines they have. FV 432s have plenty of spares around the country and CVRTs Scimitars have only just ended service life.
FV 432 12 mm armor plate and leak through mortar hatch as seal design leaves 10 mm gap at each end .
Munitions? BAE makes 155mm shells in the UK.
Its quantity, why did the Paras run out of 7.62 in Afghanistan and MOD have to buy substandard Indian bullets which did not cycle GPMG’s and tell them they were firing too many. Cr2 rounds made in Belgium lol !
I agree that all munitions (ammo) should be made in the UK. We used to be able to do this.
The likelyhood of French Forces unilaterally driving into Ukraine is pure fantasy – Macron is obviously off his head 😩.
He’s not off his head. What I took from him was he was saying nothing should be off the table. Basically to keep the enemy guessing. There’s no point in red lines etc as they get crossed and nobody does anything.
From day one europes forces should not have said we won’t help.
Concessions have been granted – What for? Have the critical shortcomings been resolved rather than ‘mitigated’ why does in service support cost £20,000 per vehicle per month?
Isolation mounts for controls and seat mounts, comfy cushions and noise cancelling headsets , how dare you say not fixed ?
Looks like reaching IOC this year then.
They also seem to be ordering Boxers with the mortar as well.
Wonder if the FV432s with mortar will then be shipped off to Ukraine.
If things are finally sorted, perhaps the sensible thing is to figure out what’s next. Instead of stopping production in 2029, why not try to make this a long term success. A 120mm mortar version? A Warrior replacement using an extended hull?
Sadly the Warrior IFV replacement is the Boxer APC. This was announced by MoD three years ago!
So any armed conflict that comes the way of the UK, must be postponed until 2028 then… cosmic.
Armoured conflict? Of course we would go with what we’ve got, as always. It’s probably all better than Orc kit!
Might be worth mentioning that this project as originally conceived was for 1,010 vehicles, but was cut down to 589 vehicles when the order was placed on 3 Sep 2014.
[Originally – The first order of Block 1 vehicles would have included: Scout Reconnaissance, PMRS APC, and Repair and Recovery variants. The Block 2 order was for: Reconnaissance, C2, and Ambulance variants. Block 3 was for a “Direct Fire” vehicle with a 120 mm main gun, “Manoeuvre Support”, and a “Joint Fires” variant to succeed the FV102 Striker in the anti-tank role.]
The ambulance and the whole of block 3 have been canned as you know, however, the fire support vehicle has morphed into the 105mm Booker and GD have demo’d a Brimstone fire support platform and an ARES based bridgelayer.
Yes Ian, I do know that. My post was to make the point that politicians always ramp back the requirement set by the Service as the Staff Requirement – ie to reduce from 12 x T45s to Qty 6 etc.
Worth pointing out to one and all, that Booker is for the US forces, not the British Army….and that demos by the OEM of other variants often do not translate into firm orders.
Absolutely agree there Graham, I don’t think a “Bookeresque” platform would suit the UK Army at the moment but I would really like to see the Brimstone overwatch vehicle developed to replace the Striker capability.
cheers
The only possible ‘home’ for a Booker unit or two would be 7 Lt Mech Bde to give some direct fire punch to support their lt mech infantry in the assault. But it would be hard to make a strong case.
I always thought it a huge mistake to take CVR(T) Striker out of service (way back in 2005!) without a replacement – again it happened without any justification other than that Swingfire was being replaced by Javelin, but that is not a proper full answer.
Our peer opponents have lots of tanks and medium-weight AFVs which need attacking firstly at long range. Layered defence/layered attack.
Agreed, in spades!👍