The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the British Army’s Ajax armoured vehicle programme remains on track to achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) by December 2025, with 100 vehicles now formally accepted into service.
In response to a Parliamentary Written Question from James Cartlidge MP (Conservative – South Suffolk) on 28 April, Defence Minister Maria Eagle stated: “The Armoured Cavalry programme continues to remain on track to achieve Initial Operating Capability by December 2025. As at 10 April 2025, 100 Ajax platforms have been accepted by the Ministry of Defence.”
The announcement marks a significant milestone for a project that had been dogged by technical problems, delays and cost overruns since its inception. General Dynamics UK recently completed production of the 100th Ajax vehicle, built to the latest standard, which is expected to enter service with the Household Cavalry Regiment.
Despite years of challenges—including crew safety concerns stemming from noise and vibration issues—the Ministry of Defence remains confident that over 180 operationally deployable Ajax vehicles will be delivered to the Army by the end of 2025.
The Ajax programme, launched in 2010 and valued at £5.5 billion, involves the supply of 589 vehicles across multiple specialist variants. These include 245 Ajax reconnaissance vehicles fitted with turret-mounted 40mm cannons, alongside Apollo repair vehicles, Ares armoured personnel carriers, Athena command vehicles, Atlas recovery vehicles and Argus engineering reconnaissance variants.
While the Army had originally intended to field Ajax vehicles as early as 2017, the project was severely delayed due to technical faults. Nevertheless, the government continues to maintain that Ajax remains vital to the British Army’s Future Soldier modernisation strategy.
With a major batch of deliveries now underway, attention will focus on whether the programme can sustain momentum through the remainder of 2025 and deliver the cutting-edge reconnaissance and armoured capabilities originally envisioned.
i before e except after c.
And, “canons”!
Weird of you to mention that.
A monumental achievement given the initial difficulties experienced in the pursuit of cutting edge battlefield capabilities. Together with CH3, these systems will provide unsurpassed offensive and defensive options the likes of which the World has never known.
Once more we see the British Army at the forefront of modern warfare.
# Back on tracks.
We can be proud of our Ajax now , and many foreign armies will look at our Ajax in quiet admiration .
This is encouraging news, and I’m interested to see what other variants will appear once the first transch is completed. Surely, additional Ajax beyond the 289 will be a possibility.
Maurice, the article said that the order is for 589 vehicles in the Ajax family, with 245 of those being Ajax recce vehicles. Where do you get 289 from?
Correct Graham, writer’s mistake.
That’s quite a muzzle flash shown in the photo!
Very long exposure time on the camera. Hence why you can see the tracer.
What happens when the order is complete? Will HMG be willing to fund continuing low rate production or will the manufacturing capability be allowed to close down? One way or another it is as essential to retain the ability to build armoured vehicles as it is to build warships.
Rumours abound there might be an IFV variant in the works🤞
Oh dear that’s going to raise the discussion that ‘mustn’t be mentioned’ again. But whatever the merits of that somewhat circular argument we need an IFV option, that’s been shown in Ukraine when there had previously been questions about their viability amongst some military experts.
Actually – IFVs have been proven to be extremely effective in Ukraine. In particular Bradley and Marder (both with auto-canons) are well utilised in armoured raiding.
The viability question is more the age old question, can you bring to bear all capabilities to overmatch the enemy at a time and place of your choosing? This now includes FPV drone and counter-drone capability alongside armour, infantry, artillery and logistics.
Spy, I think anyone doubting the viability of an IFV isn’t much of an expert!
The only real viability question I ever saw discussed was around some of the initial IFV doctrines around fighting mounted using firing ports to overrun an enemy position.. that doctrine was found to be iffy against well equipped infantry. But the doctrine related to dismounting to contact and the IFV providing direct fire support is not something I’ve heard challenged. Ukraine also showed the benefit for all infantry to be Mec and if they are not mounted on an IFV to at least have some form of APC… and it does not really matter what that APC looks like.
If as stated, Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is achieved by the end of this year, then why will it take 3.5+ years to achieve Full Operating Capability (FOC)? Yes, bringing in new systems and platforms takes time but in today’s world a further 4 years seems a very long time. Surely this could be reduced to 2 years without compromising operational capability and effectiveness? For those that may read this question as a ‘negative’ slight, please don’t. It’s unfair to compare apples against oranges, but the Ukrainians have managed to ‘up learn’ and fully integrate their western donated tanks in very short order. I’m not suggesting that we have to go to war to bring forward the FOC on Ajax but this does highlight the length of time it takes us to bring equipment into full capability. On another note, anyone know how long it will take us to bring Boxer up to FOC?
According to Jane’s: “The British Army plans to achieve a Boxer Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2025, and Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2032”
I imagine that long period is due to the number and complexity of all the different variants (12 including the RCH-155) being introduced.
Maybe that is to do with fielding enough of the latest Drop standard?
Hi Daniele, all platforms are now built to Drop 3.
Hi Ian.
Ah, thank you.
I think that is a very reasonable question Doug. After all it was common belief in the West (and Russians too clearly) the Ukrainian army, certainly the bulk of it prior to the war was something of a joke. There had been little evidence certainly in the years prior that it could fight effectively a serious foe. How that perception has changed in short time, they are probably the most effective fighting force in Europe these days, which is why we need them on our side. As you say you can’t generate a war to create this experience (though their adaptation challenges were far greater into western weaponry and use culture) but as such experience with your tools is required to fight a war effectively from day one these expressed time periods are concerning. Perhaps the exact meaning is a little deceptive however, so perhaps military experienced posters might be able to elaborate on the exactitude of the terms a little more.
I mean pre-2014 that was absolutely correct. One of the reasons the Russian’s have such a hatred of Azov is because during the Russian advance on Mariupol in the first invasion it was Azov (At the time a loose network of nationalist organised crime and political movements) that mobilised a citizens militia and successfully beat back the Russian advance after the Ukrainian Army failed.
On wiki it says the five boxer factories around the world which includes Telford only in the uk, are able to produce 200 vehicles a year combined. The UK currently has the largest order of all nations just ahead of Germany it looks like. I think in 3 years time the British Army will suddenly look completely transformed compared to how it is today with some great new vehicles starting to trickle in accross all categories
Rst, I know the first 50 or 60 or so UK Boxers were made in Germany, whilst the UK line was being established. I had not heard that our order was being met by production at 5 factories. I thought they were now being exclusively made in the UK and think I heard of a build rate of just 5 or 6 a month? If so, we won’t have that many Boxers by 3 years time. Order currently is for 623 and then x of RCH-155s.
About bloody time!
I really hope Ajax is successful in service has we all know it’s been one hell of a wait with a price tag 🙏
👌The Ajax production line is hot. It is a tracked vehicle. Boxer production is limited and probably mortgaged on the 155mm. Ares looks favourite chassis for an IFV and SHORAD. Could we use an Ajax with a 120mm?
Maybe 105mm as in Booker/M10.
Paul, Ajax with a 120mm? Not in the plan of course, but are you proposing a Tank Destroyer to augment the meagre number of CR3s?
Just speculating…without the necessary experience…bad habit. Just noting that the Ajax ugly duckling looks like turning into a beautiful swan – there might be other options to converting more CR2, manufacturing more CR, buying K2 etc. Perhaps there was more to the decision to only convert 148 CR2 than meets the eye; tank destroyer, light tank?
What do those in the know make of the number of Ajax recce variants? To this civvy it seems like an awful lot when you look at the rest of the army. Are they being lined up for fire support roles as well as recce, or does the army genuinely need that many in the recce role?
What did you mean by the rest of the Army Rob?
Ajax will be going into Brigades in 3 Division, much of the rest of the Army is light on Armour or has none at all.
245 Ajax Scout I still thought too few, when including those used for training, reserves, maintenance, trials.
One interesting piece of news here, is that the Army will only field 3 Armoured Cavalry Regiments now, down from 4, which might alter the original Ajax allocations?
The 4th Regiment was to be the KRH, whose Tanks were to be culled as part of the Carter Strike plan, which will now remain an MBT Regiment, which itself is major news and another conversation re Challenger 3 numbers and Regiment type.
If each Armoured Cavalry Regiment still has 3 Recc Sqns, is it still 12 Ajax per Sqn? I recall Scimitar Regs fielded that number.
So assuming, 36, plus RHQ and Sqn HQ Vehicles, 44 per Regiment?
132 across the 3 Regiments.
The 3 Armoured Regiments then also each have a Recc Sqn, say another 36, might be others?
168 total.
Any RAC types recall exact legacy numbers?
Dern and Graham might know more.
I could have added the future Boxer Battalions. Legacy Warrior AI Battalions had a Recc Platoon on Scimitar, which Ajax Scout replaces. I used to wonder whether any Ajax Scout would end up filling that role too, but assume a Boxer recc variant will appear.
I’m assuming so, but could go either way, depends on what the Boxer Battalions want from their Recce Platoons.
Daniele, how have you heard about KRH staying as an armoured regiment this side of SDR?
Armoured regiments surely only have a recce Troop, not a Sqn. That would suggest 4 vehs, but I seem to remember the number of 8 Scimitars for some reason. Similarly AI (Warrior bn) used to have a Recce Platoon (not recce company!!) of Scimitars.
Hi Graham.
I’m sure you’re correct, I used the wrong term.
It was reported on X, and also by the RAC themselves in a lengthy article looking to the future on 3 Armoured Cavalry Regiments and 3 MBT Regiments.
Ironically, this retains the 3,3,3 set up of the RAC post 2010 SDSR.., Army 2020.
3 Tank. 3 Armoured Recc, renamed Armoured Cavalry after that time, and 3 Light Recc on Jackal.
Does any one think more than already ordered number might yet added on, or is the 589 it? i know extra Boxer types could be added such as IVF/Mortar/AAD/Overwatch/RCH 155MM but its just a guess.
Ajax as good as any one else has if not better, better late than never.
The logical thing is to order more.
“The needs of the many outweigh those of the few”
Unlikely to order more, as there aren’t the units to crew them.
Good level of detail but can someone please tell me what is planned for the recce platoons in Boxer battalions?
I mentioned this above, and I’m also unsure.
This was one of those too big to fail projects. While glad to see it been deployed operationally (crews using the same seem to be pretty positive about it) its bringing into service was a complete omnishambles. Fingers crossed, lessons have been learned.