Former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has reignited debate over the British Army’s armoured vehicle programmes, declaring that the UK should have opted for CV90 rather than persisting with Ajax.
Writing on X, Wallace said: “Ajax was a ridiculous project. Over priced and the very worst of indecision and capability. We should have just bought CV90 all those years ago!”
The comments come as frustration mounts over the Army’s armoured fighting vehicle modernisation. The Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (CSP) was cancelled in 2021 after £594.6 million had been spent, on the grounds that Boxer would replace Warrior in service. Critics note that Boxer lacks the turreted infantry fighting vehicle role that Warrior provided, leaving the Army with an enduring capability gap.
Think Defence, a long-time and incredibly well respected commentator on British procurement, underlined the issue:
“The British Army decided it didn’t need Warrior CSP because it would be replaced by Boxer. These were its words, no one else. The cancellation, a mere four years ago, cost the taxpayer £594.6 million (inc VAT). When the order for an ARES based IFV comes, just remember this.”
The last thing we should be doing is canibalising other programmes for Ajax spirals before FOC. Eyes down, focus on delivery, then build out from a solid base and maximise our considerable invest in the vehicle, production and design, and supporting systems like CTAS
— Think Defence (@thinkdefence) September 7, 2025
CV90, developed by Sweden’s BAE Systems Hägglunds, has been in service since the 1990s and is widely exported, with more than 1,200 vehicles across multiple variants fielded by states including Norway, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The latest MkIV variant offers a modular design, active protection systems, advanced sensors, and proven combat performance.
and that explains the decision we made. i inherited Ajax. Which was a ridiculous project. over priced and the very worst of indecision and capability. We should have just bought CV90 all those years ago!
— Rt. Hon Ben Wallace (@BenWallace70) September 7, 2025
By contrast, the UK’s Ajax programme has been troubled previously by cost overruns, delays, and technical faults, with initial operating capability repeatedly pushed back. Critics argue that Ajax has delivered neither the deployable capability nor the value for money expected when it was signed in 2010.
Supporters of the programme point to recent progress. Over 100 Ajax vehicles have now been formally accepted into service, and the Ministry of Defence expects Initial Operating Capability by the end of 2025, with full capability later in the decade. The platform incorporates the 40mm CTA cannon and an advanced digital architecture designed for integration with the Army’s broader network, and the programme sustains jobs across the UK defence industry through General Dynamics UK and its suppliers.
Wallace’s intervention reflects a broader frustration with what he called the belief within the services that “once we start these programs, no one can cancel them.” He described Ajax as an example of how “indecision and capability” drift can lead to wasted money and operational shortfalls.
An Army officer, speaking to me on condition of anonymity, cautioned against seeing Wallace’s remarks as a simple endorsement of CV90 over Ajax.
“Ben Wallace was a highly regarded Defence Secretary and his views carry real weight, especially given his experience managing complex procurement portfolios. He is right to point out that Ajax has been beset by problems and that other nations have fielded vehicles like CV90 with far fewer difficulties.”
The officer continued: “At the same time, decisions made over a decade ago reflected a particular set of requirements. Ajax was designed not only as an infantry fighting vehicle but as an advanced reconnaissance platform with sophisticated sensors and a digital backbone that we still expect to give the Army an edge. It is also important to recognise the industrial benefits the programme has brought to the UK supply chain. Those were not trivial considerations. Wallace’s criticism should be taken seriously, but we must also acknowledge that there is no perfect option. CV90 has clear advantages, but transitioning mid-programme would not have been without disruption and cost. The focus now must be on delivering Ajax properly, learning lessons, and ensuring the Army gets the capability it needs.”
He’s absolutely right. Sticking with Ajax and then expanding it as a program was stupid.
CV90 would have given the Army a great vehicle with lots of interoperability.
I disagree, I think the best way to get a fleet of tow trucks and ambulances is to take a £10 million Gucci reconnaissance vehicle and turn it into a very very expensive fleet of utilities vehicles just so we can pretend it’s a CVR(t) replacement.
Your just not thinking like an officer old boy, don’t you know it’s “logistics” 😀
Maybe, maybe, but there’s nothing to be gained from crying over spilt milk. Ajax it is, so let’s make the best of it.
but if that meant putting armour into the field with sub standard troop protection , should we still do that ?
TBH he’s a bit of an hypocrite , as he surely had more than ample opportunity to influence that decision at the time of his tenure if he felt so strongly about it.
I would tend to agree.
Well no shit Sherlock. Its not the MOD way to buy something that’s proven though! Or in the rare case they do they proceed to screw it up by mutating it into something it was never designed to be. The lesson just never seems to be learned though.
Surprised somewhat at Wallace’s statement there, given the fact that Warrior CSP was the choice over CV90, not Ajax. We were after a recon platform in Ajax, not an IFV, so we’d have modded CV90 too…
Safe to assume he’s talking about an ‘off the shelf’ CV90 rather than the custom shortened hull version that completed against Ajax?
It really seems like it was the hull modifications that got Ajax, and were they really necessary? Should’ve thrown the new kit and gun on an existing chassis and called it a day.
The Ajax decision was a strange one at the time it was taken, replacing 10 ton vehicles with ones weighing up to 40 tons. Frustration with BAE over Nimrod seemed to play a big part in the vehicle chosen- anyone but BAE. Ajax was to some extent an off the shelf solution, but the specification changes to the in service Ascod platform and especially the decision to install CTA40 added huge complexity to the programme. It isn’t certain that a CV 90, similarly re- specified, wouldn’t have run into similar problems or costs. GDUK paid LMUK $1b to build 245 Ajax turrets – $4m each.
The decision to upgrade Warrior with the same CTA 40 cannon was the main reason for the delays and cost overruns that led to the programme’s cancellation. LMUK eventually realised that BAE had been right that the new cannon would need an entirely new turret, one unfortunately different from that developed for Ajax.
Would CV90 have been cheaper? Recent sales suggest a unit price of $9m+, so not much cheaper than Ajax.
CV90 is bit heavier than Ascod so it would have more margin.
But the question is the brain of British Army. It seems they forgot about infantry for a while and then in panic returned to the Boxer.
“Ajax was designed not only as an infantry fighting vehicle but as an advanced reconnaissance platform with sophisticated sensors and a digital backbone that we still expect to give the Army an edge. ”
This officer is poorly informed. Ajax was not designed as an IFV.
I am seeing an attempt to rewriting the history. British Army ordered everything except an IFV.
I bet no senior politician went to the actual operators of the warrior and asked what improvements were required. A Warrior2 might have been cheaper and quicker to produce. I have read that the the guys operating Warrior were in the main happy with the kit. Stupid me, but that would mean some of those 65000 MOD would be out of work !
Would a longer hulled variant of Ajax been possible as an IFV, with out bothering with the whole Warrior up grade? And at what cost? As it would have the same turret as Ajax, most likely 80% parts that were interchangeable. How much money and how long would have taken to make a longer hulled IFV Ajax ?If it had been asked for when whole Ajax project was started it would be in service now and way better than Boxer and its machine gun.
Why has no one asked if can still be done?. Already there are thought of converting Aries to APC/IFV.