The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has provided updates on the Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme in response to Parliamentary inquiries from Danny Kruger, MP for East Wiltshire.
The questions focused on the timeline for achieving Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the vehicles and the progress of ongoing trials.
Luke Pollard, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence, highlighted that while trials continue, achieving full operational capability remains several years away.
In his response, Pollard stated: “The Armoured Fighting Vehicle AJAX Programme trials continue to progress and remain ongoing. Reliability Growth Trials (RGT) are ongoing and on schedule to complete by December 2026. Regarding the Armoured Vehicle Programme (AJAX) Initial Operating Capability, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry gave to Question 438 dated 22 July 2024, which remains extant.”
The ongoing trials aim to address technical challenges that have previously delayed the programme, with reliability testing playing a critical role in determining the vehicle’s readiness.
The Ajax programme, initially ordered in 2014, has faced multiple setbacks and technical issues. The vehicles were originally expected to be delivered by 2017, with the British Army aiming to equip its first squadron by mid-2019.
However, problems with noise, vibration, and other design flaws halted trials in November 2020. This led to significant delays, including the suspension of payments to General Dynamics Land Systems UK, the programme’s manufacturer. Testing resumed in late 2022, and MOD officials have expressed optimism about the programme’s progress, despite continued scrutiny.
Despite these challenges, the MOD has resumed payments to General Dynamics and remains committed to the Ajax vehicles, viewing them as a critical component of the British Army’s modernisation efforts. In early 2023, then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace noted that the project had “turned a corner” and described it as “back on track.”
However, the programme’s future depends on the successful completion of the ongoing trials, with a focus on ensuring that the vehicles meet safety and performance standards before full deployment.
Answer to question 438 dated 22 July 2024
The Armoured Cavalry Programme (Ajax) is due to achieve Initial Operating Capability by December 2025 as planned.
Initial Operating Capability has been described as 1 squadron.
Absolutely atrocious! FOC 2030 allegedly but no one will discuss how many concessions are required to reach IOC. No MORPHEUS either which is another nearly £800,000,000 of tax co payers money GD have stolen for zero deliverables. Have DE&S no clawback or consequential protection whatsoever?
Remember though, the grass is always greener on the other side. Why contract indigenous Vickers Defence Systems (OK screwed by BAES takeover) when you can contract Lockheed Martin for Warrior CSP and General Dynamics for Scout SV (AJAK)
Sound British companies with a trac record of proven products? LM bolloxed up WCSP trying to use a design the DA said wouldn’t work. GD are 12 years late and probably 1,000 concessions in, A company that had no A vehicle experience or expertise. A half arsed Spanish operation that had made things under license and never done a vehicle development on the scale of Ajax, what could possibly go wrong?
Of course the revolving door on main building to GD helped 👍
Thanks for doing the work, Paul. So we expect to have a working squadron as a Christmas present.
So for the ignorant, what will a squadron consist of? How is it broken down? Which Ajax variants can we expect to see?
I don’t remember seeing a report of proposed squadron make-up and I don’t keep records of every news report I read. I think for Strike Brigades an Ajax squadron was a one-to-one replacement of CVR(T). 3 Recce Troops each with 4 Ajax, Support Troop 4 Ares, GW Troop 4 Ares, HQ with Athena and maybe a couple of Ajax added. To be truly operation LAD is needed with Atlas and Apollo.
That’s a lot more than I was guessing. Thank you for that.
It looks correct, similar.
By comparison, if these replicate the Sqns of previous CVRT Armoured Recc Regiments of BAOR.
3x Recc Troop, each 4x Scimitar.
GW Troop, 4 x Striker.
SP Troop, 4 x Spartan.
Admin Troop, 1 x Samaritan. 1 x L Rover FFR, 1 x 4 Tonne, 2 x Stalwart.
LAD section. 1 x Samson, 1 x Spartan, 1 x 4 Tonne.
Sqn HQ of 2 x Sultan, 2 x L Rover FFR 1 x Ferret.
Source, The Modern British Army, by Terry Gander. 1986.
…and it must include some vehicles in the Trg Org.
Should have just upgraded the Warrior.
Should have bought the CV90 ten years ago.
Totally agree with you
👍🙂
Geoff, I presume you are talking about the recce variant of the CV90, similar to that ordered by Norway, but a higher tech version?
I was thinking of it as then available in it’s different variants …recce. IFV, artillery etc. I still don’t understand why we went down the GD/Spanish route that has caused all this trouble. Given how important the JEF is to our NATO role we would be mostly equipped with the same kit as well.
Thanks.
I was surprised that there seemed to be only two bidders for the CVR(T) replacement programme – BAE with CV90 and GDUK with the much-modified ASCOD2 (Ulan/Pizarro). I have been familiar with AFV replacement programmes wih many bidders – I recall FBRV (Cent BARV replacement) had about 7 or 8 bidders.
Many said at the time that the winning bid would be ‘anyone but BAE’ as BAE was not flavour of the month with politicians.
Remember the proposed CV90 had a shortened hull, not just off the shelf
Thanks for that. Key question remains – why was it not selected to replace CVR(T)?
BARV.. Beach recovery? Yes, I can understand Bae losing oout. Probably didn’t take someone out to dinner.😏
Warrior and Ajax are different roles, different Corps.
But yes, WCSP should have continued. The hamstringing of Warrior was down to Boxer.
Nothing to do with the Ajax program.
??
Warrior is an IFV. This article is about the Ajax recce vehicle.
This programme has had problems. Everyone accepts that the problems have resolutions. They are now going to take years to establish that they have actually be resolved before moving on. Get on with it.
You are not allowed to rational/realistic. You must line for a Warrior upgrade programme that is never going to happen.
*pine.
Warrior upgrade was an IFV programme. This article is all about Ajax, a recce vehicle.
It’s not me who brought up WSP yet again. See above.
MoD is content that the noise and vibration problems were resolved, otherwise they would not have resumed stage payments and initiated RGT.
What is happening now is RGT, not confirmation that the earlier problems have been resolved.
The puzzle is why RGT is slated to take so long.
Just a guess – RGT is going forward with vehicles retrofitted to resolve noise and vibration problems. Then go further RGT with production standard vehicles.
Yes, maybe.
Poor reconnaissance platform. Too large. Too slow. Too ponderous. Needed another 8.5 to 10 tonner. It needs decent comms, a couple of e-bikes and a couple of military grade mini UAV Poor cavalry platform. Too large. Too slow. Too ponderous. Undergunned for today. 40 CTA is over complicated and its super 40mm cartridge to expensive. Setting tanks to one side we need something to replace CVR(T) in the old formation recce role. But we also need something to make up the gap for traditional cavalry tasks. For once Wikipedia proves useful with the following list: ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition &… Read more »
What needs worked on now is further vehicles. An IFV and adaptable chassis for multiple types is needed.
I don’t think boxer is the answer for everything. It has its uses but a lightweight tracked vehicle has its place. With versions having an auto cannon, drone defence, shorad, anti armour missiles, engineering equipment, commander, 105mm gun, recon unmanned, etc etc. a proper FV101-107 replacement.
All vehicles are vulnerable so really heavy armour isn’t needed for every vehicle.
You seem to be asking to directly replicate what we have had in the past: Warrior and CVR(T) with a few extra toys, and presumably for the Army to continue fighting as it previously has. The Army decided it didn’t want that. I’m aware that the Army’s future CONOPS keeps changing, which disturbs me, and calls for considerable flexibility in the kit ordered.
So do you think the Army has it’s future concept wrong and should it just stick with a warmed up version of what it has? Given its shrunken size, can it do that?
The next war will be fought with AI drones. Armoured vehicles deployed in the UkR war have proved to be extremely vulnerable to manually controlled drones.
The MoD must be prevented from wanting expensive gold-plated drones in limited numbers when what is required are hundreds of thousands of expendable cheap ones
The cycle of measure and counter measure continues. I think we will see AFVs fitted with ECM and kinetic anti drone defences in the near future.
A very relevant point. David’s Ukraine take is also relevant but it also has to be noted that Ukraine is crying out for armoured vehicles of all kinds so while they are vulnerable alternatives beyond walking are even more so. So perhaps a case of the least bad solution that has a chance of being upgrade to include anti drone defences some aspects of which has also partly worked in Ukraine. Certainly a too and fro picture to take lessons from.
The problem is that what makes a vehicle obsolete is not it’s vulnerability, but the ability to replace the effects they bring.
I’m sure you’re right.
A few decades back, everyone was thinking these new wire-guided anti-tank missiles spell the end of armoured manoeuvre warfare. Of course that didn’t happen, MBTs got active protection systems, recon and infantry probed for ATGWs, artillery and drones knocked them out.
UAVs are certainly the latest challenge, but they are vulnerable to any low level air defence weapon like Starstreak or any number of ground based or vehicle based cannons or gimpys. As UAVs get more sophisticated and dangerous, the counter measures will follow suit.
First ATGW (Nord SS10) was fielded by France in 1955!…unless you count the wire-guided German Ruhrstahl Ru 344 X-4 of 1944 (in development, probably not fielded).
Oh go on then, spoil my good point…!
I had in mind the later and far more prolific ATGWs of the Swingfire/TOW era, which did pose quite a problem for armoured manoeuvre formations and still does.
Sorry. I am a bit too interested in military history! Yes, ATGW still poses a problem for AFVs – the threat has not been eliminated. It will be the same with drones – a suite of good counters will be fielded but some will always get through.
The hilarious joke now is that to counter ECM’s in Ukraine we are seeing wire guided drones… which is really just a slower Wire Guided ATGM at this point.
Very interesting. I had not heard that before.
It could always increase its size to something comensurate with the role it needs to do and the risk its facing – but thats probably too radical an option
I doubt it was the Army that decided it didn’t want to do that BTW.
Are we talking about the size of the army? The army cannot decide it wants to increase, and then it just happens. The army never wishes to get smaller – it has been shrunk by politicians – they decide the head-count and commensurate budget.
Very few countries have abandoned tanks and tracked AIFVs, ABSVs and SP howitzers for their main warfighting force, in favour of medium mechanised kit. In fact the reverse, there’s a big queue for new heavy tracked armoured vehicles. The British army has gone down a rabbit hole here, switching to a hybrid force of tracked armour supported by (if they can keep up cross country) lightly-armed wheeled vehicles. As usual, we are copying a fleeting American trend but, again as usual, are a decade out of date.The US army has subsequently put their wheeled Strykers, the equivalent of our Boxer,… Read more »
I’ve found the logic supporting the removal of IFVs and their replacement with APC battle taxis, to be flawed. Admittedly I’m a complete novice in this area. I’m more open to the wheeled vs tracked debate. I’d love to see data on what percentage of terrain 8×8 wheeled vehicles get stuck or are forced to go significantly more slowly compared with tracked. I’d like to know if AI-equipped drones can keep wheeled vehicles moving by predicting and avoiding muddy areas. How much of the “wheeled vehicles are crap on European battlefields” is real and how much is folk memory of… Read more »
The logic? Cancelling the Warrior upgrade, phasing out the unmodernised in-service Warrior and replacing it by Boxer APC battle taxis is entirely a political and financial decision, not a military one.
The military requirement was for upgraded Warrior to replace in-service Warriors in the armoured brigades, and for Boxer to replace a range of vehicles in other brigades. This was over-ruled by politicians supported by bean-counters.
The Infantry in the armoured brigades certainly needs an IFV, but instead it is getting a MIV, Boxer. HMT is most unlikely to stump up money for an IFV now. Even if they did, what would the army then do with five battalions-worth of Boxers? Push them to 7 Lt Mech Bde in 1 Div?
The level of armour protection provided of course depends on the role of a vehicle and the level of threat expected.
Best chance there is would be a Boxer with a cannon.
They aren’t going to backtrack now.
They can use up some of the current Boxer buy on getting Skyranger 30/35 Shorad and those RCH 155.
RGT was really not meant to take this long – I seem to remember that it was mooted to take 18 months. It is now pushed out so as to conclude by December 2026, then of course a mass of RGT data must be considered, analysed and conclusions drawn. If changes are required then design, development and testing of those mods would be required, manufactured and fitted. Why has RGT been extended so very much longer? – and it is not because of the noise and vibration problems – as they were resolved before RGT was embarked upon. Yet IOC… Read more »
Thanks for the explanation. Was having difficulty resolving the logic of IOC v. RGT completion.
Yup, drop 4 platforms.
Ajax sounds awfully like F-35 and Typhoon with its ever changing software drops. Brave new world!
I’m afraid that’s the way it is now, don’t they call it “spiral development”? The results of RGT and other testing are looked at, if necessary fixes are developed and incorporated, then re-tested and so it goes on. Should have happened with CR2, WR etc. Drop 3 AJAX is fully operational.
Cheers
The point of spiral development is to get something better than you have into production faster, then you improve it over time by iteratively adding capability. You don’t wait for decades to introduce flawed equipment then slowly fix it. As you rightly point out, fixes follow testing. That’s not the same thing.
Hence my asking if it was called spiral development.
Yes, Very true. But there is a difference between mods during the introduction to service period (ie fielding) and those many years later together with major upgrades.
Yup, agreed. Hence my question as to whether test/ fix was called spiral development. As I’ve been informed by Jon, it’s not. Every day’s a school day!😁
If not, what then?
By the time Ajax enters service its technology and platform will have become obsolete
I’m not satisfied with the lack of APS on Ajax and our other fighting vehicles. The war in Ukraine has shown beyond any doubt the need for APS if an armoured vehicle is to have any chance of surviving in a drone infested environment.
Drones don’t just attack armoured vehicles. They can attack softskinned vehicles and individual dismounted soldiers.
The UK anti-drone programme will look at all of that. The answer may not be an (expensive) APS on each armoured vehicle and no protection for anything else.
If you review everything, you risk waiting too long for anything.
That can happen. But some anti-drone kit is being trialled (DragonFire) or fielded now (SmartShooter SMASH Smart Weapon Sight Fire Control System), even ahead of the Defence Drone Strategy.
Tank chats #177 on you tube gives an insight to Ajax for anyone interested👍
Seems to me that much of the time we spend on defence not to best protect the nation & freedom, but to make even more filthy rich a few greedy corporations that HMG is usually in hoc to. Funny how austerity usually avoids those few at the top.