The Ministry of Defence has declined to give a clear assurance that the British Army can meet its NATO armoured reconnaissance obligations without the Ajax programme, following questions raised in the House of Commons during Defence questions.
Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty asked whether the UK is currently able to meet its NATO commitments given the problems surrounding Ajax, which he said had been designed specifically to fulfil the armoured reconnaissance role. He told the House that without Ajax deployable, the Army has “no formation reconnaissance capability and therefore no deployable armoured brigade”, adding that this called into question whether the UK is meeting its obligation to NATO.
Responding, Defence Minister Al Carns did not confirm whether the UK currently meets its NATO requirement without Ajax. Instead, he pointed to the ongoing review of the programme and the wider challenges surrounding it. “The hon. Member will recognise there is a review underway into Ajax,” Carns said, before adding that the programme has been “overspent” and that “the key user requirements have changed and oscillated from left to right for the last ten years.”
Carns said the government has “taken this on and recognised that we’ve got to secure the capability to provide our armed forces with the very best”, but stopped short of explaining how the reconnaissance role is currently being fulfilled in Ajax’s absence.
He also framed the issue in the context of changing warfare, drawing on lessons from Ukraine. “The reality is Ukraine is teaching us war is being fought very differently,” Carns said. “It’s not just about armour, it’s about a mix of uncrewed systems.”
I saw one of these earlir this week, on my travels. It was on a low loader and looked Huge !
That’s it, nothing more to say !
Just use the ones we’ve got and call it a day.
SDR 2025 confirms that Britain’s commitment to NATO is an Army Corps of two divisions.
That Army Corps is not fit for purpose without even one armoured brigade.
Apparently the Prime Minister is concerned about the country’s ability to fund increases in defence spending.
That concern would disappear entirely if he only took the sensible decision to ditch the unevidenced and extremely silly pursuit of ‘net zero”
I wouldn’t get too worried. I doubt we could field a single brigade let alone a Dvision. Two? Ha!
Quite right. I mean, in the old days, our armoured Regiments had 60 ton tanks with only 650hp engines that needed a ‘rest’ (mechanical breakdown) every 30 minutes or so. Our Scout Cars were designed in 1945 and equipped with 1945 date stamped magazine fed MGs. How the Soviets trembled in their boots….
Another spectacular debacle from those wonderful people over at Procurement…slow labourious cynical hand clap. 👏
How can a fixed price contract for Ajax be overspent?
Al Carns is ex-military with a glowing service record so I’m going to assume a slip of the tongue.
The fixed-price contract is for delivering vehicles built to an agreed design that was assumed to be safe and compliant. That approach works if you’re making minor modifications to an existing platform, but adding 12–14 tonnes to the ASCOD chassis to create Ajax clearly isn’t a ‘minor change’.
When he mentions ‘overspent’, he is talking about the programme as a whole, not the price per vehicle. The programme is overspent because the MoD has had to fund extensive safety testing and redesigns to address the issues, all while keeping CVR(T) in service.
“the key user requirements have changed and oscillated from left to right for the last ten years.”
Is that code for what the technical difficulties are with the vehicle as well or an unintentional pun?
H of C public accounts committee June 2022:
‘Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
“The MoD has made fundamental mistakes in its planning and management of this project. The Ajax tanks programme has been deeply flawed from the outset and the PAC now seriously doubts it can be recovered within existing costs and commercial arrangements.
Enough is enough – the MoD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted. These repeated failures at MoD are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet NATO commitments.”
Apparently they have/are trailing the Ajax demonstrator Blackjax with rubber tracks these first weeks in December!soooo🤞
Several folks posting here have suggested rubber tracks as a solution. Others say a complete replacement of the suspension system with an alternate design is necessary. I don’t have the expertise to give an opinion one way the another, except to say that if there was a cheap and quick ‘pareto’ solution i.e. fix 80% of the problem for 20% of the cost and time, then I would go for that on the existing and early vehicles with a view to doing a proper fix as the later ones get built. Similar to the approach we adopted with the T45 propulsion problem.
Rubber tracks must be the principal route to explore, along with a deep study of the PDi procedures that is releasing faulty goods to our troops. Surely, this vehicle has been subject to many ISO Audits during its long gestation period?
The prospect of the Ajax fleet being ditched is unlikely, however the UK Government could consider switching the manufacturing of these vehicles to another assembler and seazing the current plant assests under an emegancy act. Retaining the South Wales factory and employees whilst the rectifications are carried out might delay the general release by a year or so but what are the timly alternatives?
Might be showing my ignorance here, but how are rubber tracks going to help in the woods and fields? On the road I can see, but off road?
I have rubber wheels on my off road bikes, If that’s any help ?
Multiple cycles? You are so bourgeoisie.
I like Rubber 😎
At a guess I would say they would have a damping effect on some vibration frquencies; shock absorbers.
BFBS news has a video showing the state of some of these ‘new’ vehicles!
Remember 1982? Like 1940, albeit on a smaller scale, industry came up Trumps. Particularly Marshals at Cambridge.
Scrap this hunk of junk. Go for a quick build, tracked, fast and light, not 40 tons of drone bait.
Will voters ever wise up? Throw money at the MIC it will happily shaft the taxpayer time and time again. Make ALL lobbying of politicians illegal. Hold individuals within projects accountable. Perhaps Vlad will rent us a few scooby vans…
Spock where are you old son?
Some of us have full-time jobs,
whereas others clearly live on benefits.
Aye but you bite like a fish 🤣
Benefits are great though, I’d be homeless without them 🤦♂️🙄😎😁
Me too mate, and that fuel allowance keeps us warm and toasty.
We have some great chats at the food bank too.
You might be getting a free TV license as well👍👍
Interesting spin using Ukraine as an excuse to be completely unprepared and without a plan.
“who can say how to prepare if we can’t see the future?”
I suspect they’re suggesting you might not need armoured reconnaissance in future, just send some drones out to do it instead.
The battle field Ajax was built for is no longer there its just a big target, do you 40 tons of armour to do recce?. The whole idea of such big vehicle is strange not as if it even has active protection or anti drone mesaures. Its in a way out of date for its role. CVRT was small quite but old.
Truth it is an out of date concept now. Maybe it will be scrapped because someone has twigged?
its too big, etc for recce