The British Army’s Ajax armoured vehicle programme is progressing towards achieving Initial Operating Capability (IOC) by December 2025, according to a recent response from the Ministry of Defence.
In response to a question from Luke Akehurst, Labour MP for North Durham, Minister of State Maria Eagle confirmed the programme’s timeline.
Eagle stated, “The Armoured Cavalry Programme (Ajax) is due to achieve Initial Operating Capability by December 2025 as planned.”
This comes amid ongoing scrutiny of the programme’s financial and operational milestones.
Efforts to expedite the delivery of the troubled Ajax armoured vehicles have been outlined previously. In response to a Written Parliamentary Question earlier in the year, James Cartlidge, the then Minister of State for Defence under the previous Conservative government, detailed the steps taken to improve the delivery rate.
Cartlidge explained, “As a result of revised contractual terms with MOD, General Dynamics UK have introduced a number of measures designed to improve the delivery rate. These measures include extending the current shift patterns, optimising the build line, and increasing collaborative practices.”
The Ajax programme has faced significant challenges and delays, with the Ministry of Defence disclosing earlier this year that it had already spent ÂŁ4.096 billion on the project as of May 2024. The programme aims to deliver a total of 446 vehicles between 2024 and 2028, with yearly deliveries varying from 93 in 2024 to 125 in 2027.
Additionally, 143 vehicles are set to be retrofitted and delivered by 2029.
The vehicles are intended to enhance the British Army’s protection, mobility, and situational awareness. However, despite substantial investment and effort, the programme’s progress towards meeting key operational capabilities has been slow. Initial delivery numbers have paused just short of IOC delivery targets for several months.
The Ajax vehicles are designed to provide the British Army with advanced capabilities to operate in complex environments, offering enhanced protection and firepower.
According to the British Army website:
“The Ajax family has been designed to be at the heart of the British Armyâs future armoured fleet, offering enhanced lethality, survivability, reliability, mobility and all-weather intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capabilities through its advanced sensor suite.
Ajax is currently in the Demonstration and Manufacture phases of its lifecycle. The Army has been conducting training on early Ajax vehicles in both operational Units and Training establishments, with Reliability Growth Trials progressing well. Operationally deployable platforms will be delivered to the Field Army throughout 2024, with the Household Cavalry Regiment being the first Army unit to convert to Ajax.”
As long as it does what it say’s on the tin…The Army could just get a combat vehicle that works. ï»żđï»ż
We may never know …. good news is rarely reported.ï»żđï»ż
Just a modern Bulldog would do.
Bulldog is an APC. This article is about recce vehicles.
đ
Positively russhing along and only twenty years late.
Exactly! Possible war in three years according to some so they should get a bit more of hurry on with this and GBAD the MLRS, Ch3’s… and God knows what else… Lol đ
đ€ can’t wait
God is probably the only one who does have a clue, my friend .ï»żđï»ż
Haha, only. Letâs help war doesnât happen until this and Boxer are ready, or weâll be pootling along in 60 year old Bulldogs.
we won’t be pootling for long…
The army is already pootling around in 60 year old Bulldogs (ISD for FV432 was 1962).
And will be until 2030, with the news about IOC of Ajax and Boxer.
Its all tragic, especially if we really are at serious risk of war within 3 years. [Recent statement from new CGS].
ï»żđï»żï»żđ¶ï»ż I know but it is a dog !
Can’t believe these buggers are so darn slooooooow. Can’t they be given orders to hurry up a tad!?
Procurement seems to be like a swamp. It gets bogged down as the meetings go on and on.
Reckon the new defence minister could step in here and give things a shake and get them to bring this forward by 6-10 months. Seriously, another 1&1/2 years of doing what exactly!? Sounds like a lot of faffing around. Would be good to see if theyâll upgrade more ch2 tanks considering the times weâre in and get them all kitted out with aps. Youâd want whatever you have to go to war with to be effective, protect its personnel and survive as long as possible wouldnât you?
I just hope that they work. Nothing is proven until our prople hit the dirt for real. Given that we are in reorganisation three or four I’m not convinced we’ve even got it right even now.
They’ll say yes. but we’ll need our payments all the sooner. Ah, MOD will say. Nevermind then.
Welcome news if itâs true but IOC from US defence contractors seem to me close to nothing.
What’s with the ‘retrofitting’ of 143 vehicles. Can anyone clarify please??
They were the original build standard for testing them etc. theyâre bringing them up to the final deployable standard, which is capability drop 3.
Fixing the faults found in acceptance testing.
GD made the mistake of starting production before the army finished testing.
Nope, the vehicles being uplifted are currently being used for trials and training and are at Drop 1 standard. They will be retrofitted to bring them up to Drop 3.
Isolation mounts for controls and seats etc to reduce vibration transfer .
Wrong, so wrong
Good, you’re back mate.
Hi Daniele, I donât really go away, I often maintain âradio silenceâ and a âlistening watchâ until some herbert starts talking nonsense.
đ cheers
You Lurker….! đđ
Lurktastick
đ€Łđ€Łđ«Ł
1 and a half years is still comical. An ajax 2 version could be developed in that time with new hull new suspension as the technology already exists , surely General Dynamics will not get any more big contracts from uk ? The MOD announcing today a closer UK GERMANY defence agreement . With Rheinmetal and KMW already embedded in UK I can see all the main uk land vehicles in future such as Tank ,IFV , artilery all being the same as Germany. We knower Boxer already allocated IN PLACE OF Warrior ifv , but a possible step closer… Read more »
With CR 3 and Ajax coming on line any German AFVs are many years away.
A merger of aircraft would only mean the French would want to run the whole show and the Germans wouldnât let us sell it anyone they didnât like!
The German UK agreements does mention or hint at relaxing export agreements . Yes France Germany . I guess it could be a complete merger of both programs with all the nations already involved . Or one of the programs tempting a major player from the other program. Such as Germany joining Tempest . But in an ideal world France uk Italy Germany Japan Spain all in one project would be much more cost effective , though the bureaucracy! đ
Get over this “Germany joining Tempest” thing, It will never happen, they will only ever be Buyers. FFS, I wish people would understand this.
Nothing could kill the project quicker than French or German participation
it is precisely that multinational bureaucracy that guarantees failure. can’t agree on requirements, workshare, etc… at the end of the day = duplication of efforts, cost overruns, delays, missed sales, and no clear roadmap for evolution.
No thank you
Works well in civilian world since profit is the key driver, but you can forget about it for government led military programs.
Spot on assessment especially if the French were involved đ
To be specific, Dassault.
But so many military projects are or have been multinational – Jaguar, Tornado, Typhoon, CR3, AAC Apache, F-35, Boxer….
If they wanted a tracked infantry fighting vehicle, the most cost effective option would be a warrior upgrade programme..
Indeed, probably about 1/3 the price of a whole new IFV going by C2-C3 upgrade.
Its a wonder no one has thought of that before ï»żđï»ż
Or made turrets and done testingđ
Fitted with the turret and bushmaster 30 mm cannon used GKN warrior 2000 prototype it would be possible.
I would ask Rheinmetal to quote.
The army wanted a tracked IFV, hence the raising of the Staff Requirement (Army) document and the initiation of the Warrior upgrade project, many years ago, including Contract Award. Cancelled by politicians in March 2021. I am sure the army still want a tracked AFV but the politicos have spoken. That ship has sailed.
Whats the status with the tracked option/module for Boxer that I saw menioned on here a while ago?
Anyone know if thats worth pursuing, would that provide a solution or just cause more issues?
It exists as a prototype. Nobody has bought it as of yet, I don’t even think it’s up for sale yet.
As Dern said. KNDS (Krauss-Maffei Wegmann + NEXTER Defense Systems) presented tracked Boxer marketed as a light tank rather than an IFV at Eurosatory in June 2022, a tracked version of Boxer fitted with an RCT120 turret armed with a 120mm smoothbore gun with an automatic loading system. Combat weight of only 45 tonnes. Pretty sure it was a Private Venture demonstrator. ‘This tracked version of the Boxer consists of three main parts with the driver position at the front right side of the hull with the powerpack on its left. Turret is mounted at the rear part of the… Read more »
I will not give up hope until they are out of service and scrapped, unlikely as it is while they are still in service sense may suddenly prevail.
Scrapping is the last resort for Obsolete equipment as disposal by sale or gifting is preferred. But I know what you mean. The trouble is that once Boxers arrive in the two armoured brigades, then Warrior is displaced and is without a role.
GCAP and FCAS are programmes with drastically different requirements. GCAP needs to have massive range, with large enough internal storage for anti-ship missiles, and a fast climb rate. All these things push us towards a very large, very fast aircraft.
FCAS needs to be small enough and sturdy enough to land on a carrier. That pushes FCAS in the opposite direction on size.
That is just the base requirments. The are multiple other problems that would occur from merging the programmes.
The G.D. ASCOD based light tank had its suspension design changed to hydro-pneumatic , would be too expensive to change AJAX now.
Yes, Healey and Pistorius signed a UK- Germany declaration on enhanced defence co-operation today. The way the UK army gets up to war fighting strength in 3 years is for Germany to help with manufacturing Boxers.
Yes because a load of wheeled APCs to replace your tracked IFVs is the way to go to upgrade your capabilities.
Not my decision.
Maybe the defence review will order some Lynx IFVs. You never know đ
…and where would they go as Boxer is going to the infantry in the armoured brigades?
You do realise that Germany has resorted to buying Australian built Boxers as they canât build enough?
Yes, you are right. But where there’s a will there’s a way. How much of that decision was down to Australia wanting domestic production?
On a different note I saw press report that the UK and Germany are thinking of developing a 3000km range missile to be based in Germany.
M10 Booker is a US GD AFV and based on ASCOD2.
More contracts for GDUK? BAE seemed to be on a black list (only rumoured) for some years, but they are producing kit for the army again – might happen with GDUK.
Don’t forget that the continuance of GDUK in business means saving Welsh jobs!
I only cam here for the comments đ
I seriously doubted it would ever enter service, so that would be a result.
Seriously? Ajax became a moan fest, a trigger article on this site.
The SMEs said it would be fine. Good enough for me.
Said the same about SA80 and Panther Jeep lol
Indeed Dan. For seveal years It’s been a nightmare. My heart sank every time I saw an article on here about Ajax. It was a debacle, a dark pit with no sign of remedy. An endless waste of precious taxpayer money.
Now it looks like it may finally be out of the mire & we may get a vehicle useful for the army. So I’m surprised & relieved.
Good on you, Frank.
đ
đ
Itâs a very capable platform.
dead on arrival and already obsolete basically
Thatâs interesting,your reasons and explanations please?
Please explain?
I’m going to bet “I think drones can do everything mounted and dismounted Recce can do, proving I don’t really understand either drones or recce.”
Yupđ
The ISTAR suite, cannon, and protection aren’t .
Drones van be countered just like any other weapon system.
The problem isn’t even “they can be countered.” Drones have recce advantages, you don’t have to worry if the drone itself gets shot down, hard to spot, fast, good fields of aerial view, but also come with drawbacks: You need a data link, that means broadcasting, that means risk of IDF for the operators. You need to consider battery life, that means that you have limited loitering time. Optics and Sensors, if you have a lightweight quadcopter, are going to be inferior to what a armoured vehicle carries, or even what can be stashed in a light recce vehicle. Drones… Read more »
Thanks. So the ideal is a mix, from a foot Op, to a vehicle, to a Drone.
Donâ forget that AJAX is designed to support a remote sensing system (drone/UAS), so can combine itâs inputs into the information backbone for onward transmission.
đ€Ł
Well said Dern
Sorry, that emoji was supposed to be đ, big thumbs.
Obsolete as M10 booker suspension change to hydro pneumatic shows !
Horses for courses, correctly designed torsion bar systems are very good, giving a compliant ride. The US has a much larger cheque book than most and can specify all sorts of gold plating but in the end the Booker has more or less the same X country performance as ASCOD/AJAX.
Come on mate we are all waiting for your explanationsđ
Are they going to have any anti tank missile attached to them?
No, it is not the intention that recce vehicles fight tanks.
Totally agree a recce vehicle needs to observe, then retire to a new location when under threat. However, there is one area I think the Army does need to reconsider. If Ajax is expected to be used for flank protection. But also to be used as the main firepower for the âBrigade Maneuver Teamsâ (Cheap version of the Strike Brigade). Then having a couple of turret mounted ATGMs would be an advantage. As the CTAS 40 and MG can provide suppressing/destructive fire to support the infantry. But with a couple of ATGMs it would be able to defeat the occasional… Read more »
FR regiments have typically been orbatted with 3 Squadrons of CVRT/Ajax and 1 Squadron of APC’s carrying ATGM teams. The ATGM’s are there, they’re just dismounted and can be moved and concentrated as the CO sees fit.
Also the main firepower of the Brigade Combat Teams is the Challenger, not Ajax.
Hi Detn, I would on the face of it agree, Chally is the main punch for BCTs. However, my caveat would be that Chally wonât be available everywhere, due to the low numbers and perhaps more importantly weight, also itâs not expected to support Light Infantry! If we use the fighting seen in Ukraine as the case study. It is clear that in some situations and environments heavy armour will be restricted to metaled roads. As the ground wonât support their weight. Similarly a number of bridges will be out of limits for our MBTs. This will limit the scale… Read more »
Okay so lets pick apart your first paragraph: First of all: The Challengers will go everywhere the Armoured Brigade Combat teams go, realistically. 20th Armoured Infantry consists of the QRH, 1 PWRR, 1 Fusiliers, and 5 Rifles plus RDG in Formation Recce. In practice that means that 20AIX will form 3 Battlegroups, each consisting of 1 Infantry Battalion supported by a Squadron of Challengers (Or a Troop of Challengers supporting each Coy if you like). 12 AIX is in and even more tank happy position since RTR only has to support 1 Mercian and 1 R. Welsh. So the infantry… Read more »
We have always used cannon-equipped recce vehicles for flank protection, so ever since the intro of CVR(T). We could use them in conjunction with other assets as required. So it’s a perfectly normal task for Ajax. Now what is this about using Ajax as the main firepower for “Brigade Manouevre Teams”? A new term for me. What are they? In previous eras if you wanted an AFV with mounted ATGM – you had quite a choice – Ferret Mk2/6 FV703 (with Vigilant), Spartan (with the Milan Compact Turret (MCT), CVR(T) Striker (with Swingfire), FV438 (with LR Swingfire). Fox with a… Read more »
Hearing some very positive information from my contacts still in the Army. Theyâre saying even though itâs late, itâs systems are still 10 years ahead of any other Nations recce vehicle.
Agreed. The fact that we know so little about the ISTAR suite indicates that it is cutting edge.
ï»żđï»ż
so what is the actual unit price all in?