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.

Ajax demonstrates capabilities in extreme cold weather

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 Army’s 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.”

Lisa West
Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

97 COMMENTS

  1. As long as it does what it say’s on the tin…The Army could just get a combat vehicle that works. ï»żđŸ˜Žï»ż

    • 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 😁

    • Haha, only. Let’s help war doesn’t happen until this and Boxer are ready, or we’ll be pootling along in 60 year old Bulldogs.

        • 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 they’ll upgrade more ch2 tanks considering the times we’re in and get them all kitted out with aps. You’d want whatever you have to go to war with to be effective, protect its personnel and survive as long as possible wouldn’t 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.

  5. 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 to a tracked lynx or any German ifv built in uk if required ? A USA GD version looks a bit less likely to me now with Labour in charge showing a preference for closer European ties , which is no bad thing . Also a merger of the two European and Tempest advanced 6th generation fighter jet programs possibly down the line looks a bit closer .

    • 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 wouldn’t let us sell it anyone they didn’t 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! 🙂

        • Get over this “Germany joining Tempest” thing, It will never happen, they will only ever be Buyers. FFS, I wish people would understand this.

        • 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.

    • If they wanted a tracked infantry fighting vehicle, the most cost effective option would be a warrior upgrade programme..

      • 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 hull while the vehicle is also able to accommodate up to six infantrymen.

            It has a crew of three – driver, commander and gunner. It can reach a top road speed up to 100 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 500 km’.

            No-one has ordered it. Not sure if anyone has even expressed a serious intereste. Needless to say we have not ordered this ‘light tank’. I am sure KNDS could repackage it as an IFV. But the point remains that MoD has decided to abandon IFVs and use wheeled Boxer instead. There is no money for an IFV fleet now.

        • 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.

        • 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.

    • 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!

    • 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 can’t screen against enemy recce screens the way ground forces can,

        etc

      • 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.

      • 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 “Brigade Maneuver Teams” (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 MBT.

        If the Army need/want to use Ajax in this way. Then it will require more offensive firepower to deal with any threats it’s likely to meet.

        As Mike Tyson camo said: “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth!”

        • 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 won’t be available everywhere, due to the low numbers and perhaps more importantly weight, also it’s 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 won’t support their weight. Similarly a number of bridges will be out of limits for our MBTs. This will limit the scale of maneuvering that a BCT is required to conduct, if it needs MBT support.

            Therefore a “CO” will need to explore other avenues to maintain operational tempo and keep the other side guessing. Meaning Ajax will have to be used if moves to/from areas where there are weight restrictions.

            Ukraine’s experience has shown dismounted ATGMs are only practical when used from ambush positions or fixed defensive sites. When used offensively there is too much time required for debussing and setting up, when coming across enemy whilst conducting offensive maneuvers.

            They have said that the Bradley is better than the CV90 is this respect. As the Bradley’s TOW gives them better options when meeting Russian strongpoints or a MBT.

            This is the reason why I’m suggesting that we should look at fitting Ajax with turret mounted ATGMs. As at some point it will be the only vehicle available to support infantry or be used in the advance to contact role. Especially if Chally is not available!

          • 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 in 3XX isn’t going to short on armoured support due to numbers.

            Next: Light Infantry. There is no Light Infantry in 3XX. And there is no Armour (either Ajax or Challenger) in 1XX. Ajax will never be the “main firepower” for Light Infantry Formations (and that’s assuming you mean Light Mechanised Infantry, not Light Infantry).

            And yes, ATGM’s work better in the defensive role, which should tell you something about the Ajax ConOps; ATGM’s in overwatch for Recce missions, and for screening operations to deny enemy Recce or delay enemy advances. Formation Recce is not really an offensive Asset. (And see my earlier points on why if Chally is not available, Ajax won’t be either).

            Btw, weight has little to do with what the ground will support. The critical factor is ground pressure, which is why MBT’s will sometimes work where wheeled vehicles (which also struggle off metalled roads, as do IFV’s) won’t, despite being much lighter. A tire has a much higher ground pressure than a track. Now, I’ve not seen the ground pressure of Ajax, but I have seen it’s track, and I have seen the track of Challenger, and Challenger’s Tracks are both wider and a full meter longer than Ajax’s, so I suspect ground pressure will be fairly comparable.

            Pretty much the only scenario you have a point with is the bridge scenario, but that’s a very niche position, and in a situation like that the priority would be securing a bridging site, rather than vanishing off into the distance with Ajax, because a bridge that can’t hold a Challenger will be a significant logistics bottleneck even if the MBT wasn’t an issue.

        • 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 MCT was prototyped but not fielded.

          Alas, no ATGM mounted on an AFV are now fielded – a huge capability gap and has been a gap for a very long time. Need urgently to fill that gap, but best to do it with a dedicated Tank Destroyer (TD) not to just bolt a couple of ATGMs to Ajax. Best bet is a new AFV with Striker-like atttributes – 5 LRATGM (perhaps Brimstone) on a roof launcher and 5 reloads inside.

          New CGS wants to double then triple the lethality of the army. No idea how he is going to do it – it seems impossible. But one step would be to bring back the dedicated TD.

  10. Hearing some very positive information from my contacts still in the Army. They’re saying even though it’s late, it’s systems are still 10 years ahead of any other Nations recce vehicle.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here