The British Army’s first 100 Ajax armoured fighting vehicles are currently not in service with any unit as they await “planned upgrades”, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed in a written reply to Parliament.
In an answer published on 6 February, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the majority of the first 100 Ajax vehicles were withdrawn from units in 2024, with the final example taken out of service by 6 Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) in October 2025. He added that the vehicles are now located in Merthyr Tydfil, Llanelli and the Bicester Holding Area “awaiting planned upgrades to meet the requirements for the current Capability Drop level before being delivered into service.”
The programme has been repeatedly delayed; initial deliveries were originally planned for around 2017 but did not materialise until the mid-2020s, with final delivery of 589 vehicles now expected by the end of the decade.
The description of the initial 100 vehicles reflects that those early examples have not yet been finalised to the Army’s intended standards and are, for all intents and purposes, a fix due to the issues the platforms are undergoing. Despite Ajax being declared to have achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in late 2025, that status has since been formally withdrawn by ministers following safety concerns. Defence Secretary John Healey told the House of Commons Defence Committee that officials “didn’t have the full facts” ahead of earlier decisions about Ajax readiness, and that the programme must now be “backed or scrapped”, with safety for personnel the overriding priority.
The programme has faced persistent issues with excessive noise and vibration, which in training exercises have been linked to dozens of service personnel becoming unwell, reporting symptoms including nausea, disorientation and hearing problems. In response to such incidents, the Army halted all Ajax use in training and testing while safety investigations and reviews were carried out.
Earlier reviews also identified shortcomings in how safety concerns were communicated within the Ministry of Defence, leading to the removal of the senior responsible officer for the Ajax armoured vehicle programme. Pollard confirmed the dismissal after it emerged that known safety issues had not been fully escalated to ministers before the platform was declared safe for use.
Why, what’s wrong with them ?
Progress? Sounds like they have been able to link at least one root cause to a manufacturing batch and identified a fix – the early hulls?
Withdrawn in 2024, does that mean they are not the hulls that caused illness in trials?
I think there were trials illness problems with the recent ‘drops’. It looks like they have decided to make Ajax work; unsurprising since we don’t have any money for a replacement, which anyway would take time we don’t have. I think they are adopting the sort of approach you would if you had a problem or bug with a piece of application software….the first step is to update to the latest release – bring the early models up to the latest drop standard. Narrow down the issues to hopefully minor easy to fix ones.
Hope so. I read onto “Drop 4” now.
I think what’s happened is that the army knowingly specced a vehicle that was at the weight limit of what could safely be achieved with passive suspension. Any manufacturing quality problems were going to cause problems, and did. It’s interesting to note that BAE developed active suspension for the later, heavier CV90 versions. I think we will end up with something acceptable but the crews will have to observe some operating guidelines; rev / torque limits over some ground conditions so as to avoid resonant vibrations.
No this was always the plan the first drop vehicles were not final spec vehicles ( they did not have the full armour spec and a few other things). They were built for the army to play with but always had to go back to be made operational vehicles.
Thx. I don’t this invalidates the logic of my post though. Get things up to the latest spec so you have a clear view of remaining issues.
It would be interesting to know which drop vehicles they used on the exercise that highlighted all the problems.. I suspect it’s across all drops unfortunately.
What’s right with them you mean
Surely, you are joking? Google reports ad infinitum about this sorry shit show. Essentially SA80 all over again. I hope and expect a fix can be found but why do we have to put ourselves through this labyrinth of incompetence and lying so often? Wirkd beating systems my arse, SA80, Nimrod AEW, CDaring class engines, Ajax. Thank God there are some bright spots.
Oh no. Not the comfy chair! They need to stop patching.
Even now we still hear about the weight issue! Is it not possible to install heavier rated torsion bars and new shocks up to the job?has this been done and reported because all I can find is that they have replaced the shocks but they are still bottoming out and not up to task!
As far as i am aware the Booker m10 had the kind of upgrades that the Ajax most likely needs. Such as a much better suspension which is ready to buy off the shelf , and maybe rubber tracks .
Use horses, far easier and only need hay.
Russia has been seen doing just that, due to their own vehicle issues aka they all got ko’ed
Judging by the appalling death rates in cities during Victorian times much due to diseases from horse shit I suspect the health issues associated with large adoption of horses would far out way those of the Ajax. Boardwalks and pavements came about as a direct need to separate humans from their effluent it was so dangerous. Make a change from bullshit mind.
Obviously, no alternative but to rework. Considering an alternative tracked vehicle would take at least 4/5 years considering the establishment of a UK plant and pre-service prep and training. An Ajax rework could be concluded considerably quicker than that.
Closer to 10-15 years, as first would have to be selected which alternative vehicle and that would require many rounds of testing and probably even before that an updated requirements document would need to be defined.
Steve, I’m always optimistic.
This particular bit was always planned. The first drop vehicles were not up to operation specification in lots of areas including protection.. they were given to the army to play with and hurt itself on. The plan was to always send them back to the factory for full upgrade.
On a bright side, if and it’s a big if, they manage to find the fix and it’s not too major, then 100 hulls are ready. That is a decent start.
That depends on how you define ‘ready’. The upgrades needed might be such that those hulls might be very difficult or even near impossible to upgrade to it. The fact that we have now had years of doing as little as possible physically to the base platform to negate these issues, doesn’t give me great hope the real solution whatever that may be, is going to be insignificant or perhaps even viable on existing hulls.
Yep, hence the big IF.
What upgrades, and who is paying for them?