The Defence Secretary has said the troubled Ajax armoured vehicle programme must now be either fully rescued or cancelled, admitting that ministers were not given the full facts before key decisions were taken.
Giving evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on Tuesday, John Healey said he was “furious” that critical information had been withheld from ministers ahead of decisions on the programme’s initial operating capability.
He told MPs that it was now clear ministers did not have a complete picture when earlier judgments were made, saying “it’s clear we didn’t have the full facts in the lead up to decisions about the initial operating capability,” which has since been formally withdrawn.
Healey confirmed that the Army has been removed from control of the programme entirely, with responsibility transferred to a new senior responsible officer. “The Army is no longer in charge of this programme. A new senior responsible officer is now in place,” he said.
He added that work is now underway to reach a definitive decision on the future of Ajax, stating that the government must now confront a clear choice. “I have been clear that we must back it or scrap it,” Healey told the committee, stressing that safety would be the overriding factor in any outcome. “First and foremost will be my concern for the safety and protection of our forces personnel.”
Ajax has already cost several billion pounds and has suffered years of delays, technical problems and governance failures, becoming one of the most controversial defence procurement programmes of recent decades. During the session, Defence Committee chair Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi MP described the programme as an “absolute shambles” and pressed ministers on accountability for its failings. Healey did not attribute personal blame but accepted that flawed information reaching ministers had undermined decision-making at key points.
The ongoing review will now determine whether Ajax can be safely and credibly fielded, or whether the programme will be cancelled altogether after more than a decade of development.
‘The Army is no longer in charge of this programme’
The best thing he’s said in a while tbf 👍
That really is a gob-smacking decision to make.
If we really wish to prepare for a major NATO war with Russia, we need to recognise that the MoD desperately needs root and branch change to the procurement system. In fact, despite some recent cosmetic “reforms” nothing has changed at all
We have blown ~£6.5bn on the disastrous Ajax project, which at ten years late and several £billion over budget should now be cancelled. This machine, built by General Dynamics – but managed by the MoD – has so many vibration/noise problems that soldiers are being made ill whilst training in it.
From authorising GD to buy the wrong grade of Chinese steel (which had failed the weldability test) to hulls built in GD’s Spanish factory out of square (also approved by the Authority) to the really stupid decision to change the design half way through manufacture, MoD incompetence has resulted in a gold-plated heavy recce vehicle that cannot be used in the field
GD and the MoD have repeatedly assured successive SoS Defence that the problems have been solved. As is usual, the guilty have covered their tracks and moved on upstairs to a cushy number in the Treasury.
We should only buy equipment off the shelf for our armed forces. The BAE equivalent, their CV90, has sold thousands of units right across NATO. The people responsible for this latest procurement fiasco have retired or moved on to jobs on the gravy train. We should be looking at recovering the costs from them
… and yet when the proposed remedial actions were reported on here many of us with expertise or even none questioned whether as prescribed they could possibly solve the serious issues reported beyond a short term fix at best, simply postponing the issues returning perhaps even worse over their lifespan. Now if one’s really cynical one might even postulate ass covering of a considerable order here by going through the short term motions of corrective (if unconvincing) efforts to suppress them long enough, hoping once in service the effective cover up will be far too entrenched and widespread to dare question and the poor soldiers effectively used as cannon fodder, any complaints from them corporately suppressed thereafter. Wouldn’t be the first time though one might have hoped not in the 2020s. Even more damning if by extension there was a wide ranging conspiracy rather than diabolical incompetence I wonder if that will truly ever be revealed. What a damn mess.
One option, bung all current Ajax variants into Ashchurch as war reserve and buy or lease a competitive vehicle for service in late 2027. In the meantime, retain Warrior and even upgrade some with the latest countermeasures. What else can the MOD do?
CV90 doesn’t have a recce variant. Ajax is not an IFV
Line of least resistance (and cost), rip the recce guts and turret off Ajax, put them in a Boxer module & deploy on wheeled Boxer. Now that Germany has put it’s weight behind tracked Boxer, we should build several hundred of those & transfer the recce modules from wheels to tacks, once that variant comes into service
Good thinking.
There’s a reconnaissance version of the CV9030N which is used by Norway.
Hole program needs binning off, the MOD and DES haven’t and didn’t learn from Nimrod and the mess that caused along with the massive gap in capability that left and only his been filled in the past few years.
Unfortunately it will take some massive balls along with the billions of pounds worth of lessons learnt.
Or more likely some nice fat brown envelopes are getting passed around Whitehall with the promise of board jobs with high pay on retirement.
£6.5bn buys a lot of fat brown envelopes, or more likely electronic transfers via multiple third parties.
I hope that the issues only effect some vehicles rather than all, and some can be used.
The RAC needs a recc vehicle.
Who were the ministers who first decided to take an ASCOD and modify it, and what input did officers have in that?
They’re the people I want to see at a public enquiry.
More chance of cheese being found on the moon.
If it helps, I did find some cheese in Cheddar once. 🤔
If BAE now throw their hat in the ring with a bloody good deal involving the CV90, decent numbers, decent cost and long term support with a quick in service date that would be an offer hard to refuse!!!!
Yes, if the money existed.
Also, can CV90 carry the IT and ISTAR fit that we keep hearing that Ajax posess?
Exactly. We know the hulls are problematic, but most of the expense will be in the systems. The question for me is what’s the best way to get hulls properly designed for the weight. Is it CV90 or tracked Boxer, or do the hulls needs to be custom redesigned and a factory built that’s capable of turning them out. I bet that’ll be cheaper than ditching the systems.
I’ve always said we need to test tracked Boxer anyway, but testing a fuller set of options is the best way to proceed. The one thing we can’t afford to do is just patch the current hulls by buying rubber tracks and bigger ear defenders. The vehicles will degrade with use, so even if we could bring them up to scratch, it’s unlikely they’ll stay that way.
The reasons I like tracked Boxer, if it can be reasonably done, are commonality and even a chance of UK exports, as we’ll be the first to manufacture the bases. Others in the growing Boxer community might want to follow. It’s still a risk, and if the right people aren’t in charge — that’s engineers and project managers — it could fail again. Nevertheless we know it’s designed to a high enough weight tolerance to begin with, which ASCOD certainly wasn’t, at 45 tons also higher than the CV90’s.
Bit of a silly ask but if Ajax is scrapped could the internal systems and communications gear even the CTA 40mm turrets be removed and be reused on other platforms? Even the engine, as the only problem issues are with the hull build, suspension and tracks? Might save a few quid
Given how the buzzwords these days are drones, effectors and measuring our forces in terms of lethality rather than numbers of forces, I would have thought the way forward would be to stick the recce sensors on unmanned ground (and also air) vehicles that wouldn’t be overburdened with armoured protection for human crew and could maintain some of the lightweight, nimble characteristics of Scimitar. Ajax would be the tracked armoured box for human operators hanging further back from the unmanned recce assets, guiding them with prompts, analysising the optical, electronic and signals the drones collect and relaying the pertinent stuff to HQ.
The recce mission seems perfectly suited for expanding into uncrewed, autonomous capabilities. And a ground vehicle seems a lot easier to get into service than an aircraft, ship or submarine, as it doesn’t have to defy gravity, the ferocity of the oceans or the crushing pressure of water. And yet, the Army, in their infinite wisdom, developed Ajax…
And the Army might even get a tracked IFV in the CV90 to replace Warrior unless tempted with RM Lynx or more Boxer.
I wonder if the existing builds could be re – purposed as a base hull for a SHORAD platform and used for protection of CNI /airfields/ dockyards etc. Equipped with Starstreak or similar and its 40mm cannon it could be a better option.
And buy CV90.
Nice thinking. A real need.
I think GD had the “Blackjax” concept vehicle for this type of role?
Blackjack is basically a different version of Ajax,sooo if GD is pitching this vehicle they must have solved the problems!so why can’t they fix Ajax?
I really like the idea of repurposing them. I wonder if there are more ideas as to what. Remotely operated battlefield logistics?
It’s was Phillip Hammond (spread sheet Phil) that signed the contract with GD in 2014 however down select was Michael Fallon.
Uhh! Two of the worst ever.
So was the person in control of the program who was sacked a civil servant or a member of the army ?
At certain upper echelons mate it’s now no longer to differentiate 💩👍
I say stop it now, and turn the completed units into unmanned attack drones. Buy a proven design off the shelf. Stop pouring good money on this ridiculous mess.
We really are in some sort of parallel universe, the Army has been removed from an Army project, as HMG are desperately looking to push out the blame! However, it may come to pass that certain head sheds in the chain involved in the programme have been bluffing somewhat, as this would seem to be a project not allowed to fail! Pressure on this involved to ensure it does well no matter what, too big to fail and all that. Either way, it’s a shit show, from top to bottom and as usual the two groups who suffer are the taxpayer and the Army as the end user!
It endangers its operators rather than the enemy. Court Martial required for those in service and criminal proceedings for civilian employees. Clearly the whole process and relationship has become institutionally corrupt.
GD Spain are not competent. We have 150 hulls which need scrapping – But even those that are better (Drop 3) are still causing vomiting and loss of bodily function in operators.
The only fix is for GD at their cost to redesign the suspension and hull and get a vehicle that rides acceptably – No more limited to 15 minuytes exposure at maximum 20KPH stuff. GD fix it or scrap it
Scrapped. Throwing good money after bad is never a good idea and there are a lot of off the shelf options out there that actually work.
Examples (from Google AI search):
‘Top Alternatives and Potential Replacements.
BAE Systems CV90 (Sweden): The CV90 Mk IV is widely considered the most direct competitor and the most common alternative suggested if the Ajax program was cancelled. It is a proven, battle-tested platform in production, often described as having similar mobility and firepower options but with better, more mature development.
Rheinmetall Lynx KF41 (Germany): A modern, tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) that is also offered in various configurations. It is considered a strong candidate for future requirements, offering similar weight (30-45 tonnes) and firepower to the Ajax.
Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (Germany/Netherlands/UK): As a 8×8 wheeled vehicle, it represents a different mobility approach but is often proposed in the “Boxer Tracked” concept or as a direct competitor for reconnaissance roles within Strike Brigades.
AS21 Redback (South Korea): Developed by Hanwha, this was a finalist in the Australian LAND 400 Phase 3 competition, making it a serious contender for heavy IFV requirements.
Other Similar Platforms
KNDS-France Jaguar (6×6): Considered a direct equivalent in the reconnaissance role, specifically designed for the French Army as a replacement for the old AMX-10RCR.
Polish Borsuk IFV: A modern, amphibious infantry fighting vehicle, though it may be lighter than the Ajax.
Otokar Tulpar (Turkey): A tracked IFV designed for compatibility with main battle tanks and to support high-intensity conflict.
ASCOD 2 (Spain/Austria): The direct ancestor of the Ajax. While the British Ajax is a heavily modified variant, the original Spanish/Austrian ASCOD 2 is an alternative with similar base design’
Wasn’t the M10 booker based on ASCOD 2, and was it cancelled because of weight issues?.
Correct. It’s a matter of looking at alternatives and the original version of the ASCOD2 seems to work OK.
Mmmm “No shit Sherlock” springs to mind!
I just can’t see how they are going to solve this. It’s a “brave” minister who is willing to give General Dynamics billions more and years to solve this. Even braver one yet that is willing to cancel a program and close a factory in wales with 750 job losses just before an election.
CV90 sounds great but it will no doubt take years to get and still cost billions.
Will armoured recce even be a thing by the time any of this is delivered.
Bean Wallace really screwed this badly.
Scrap it. Buy CV90 along with our JEF allies and have done with it.
And or have with a mixed Boxer recce fleet.
Could the CV90 potentially be built in the UK?
Politicians hide behind the disfunctional civil service who hide behind the disfunctional military
Or
The Civil service hides behind the disfunctional politicians who hide behind the disfunctional military
Either way, the military end does not care about what is spent or does not have a clue (why do people join the military in the first place?)
Maybe, the military just does not have a relevant voice.
There is no point chasing this, accountability is not in their vocabulary.
Could the British Bulldog chassis, engine and body ever be reworked upgraded to a recce role? It must be significantly lighter?