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.
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” 😀
Absolutely not to mention taking a system that was well known and respected for being small, light and agile and making it much larger and heavier…
Given that Ukraine has been utilising speed and agility for survivability I can’t help thinking this may have been a mistake.
TR, the Operational Requirements documents for CVR(T) were written in the 1960s. It would be a real surprise if those for its replacement some 50 years later were very similar. However if the doctrine of conducting recce by stealth were still in place, we would not have ended up with a large 40 tonne recce vehicle. Given its excellent protection and firepower, this vehicle might well be used as a fire support vehicle in addition to a recce vehicle. It remains to be seen if that is a good idea.
Hi Graham, its interesting to see how the Ukrainians employed Scimitar….
Balls out, halt, overwatch with its trusty Rarden, Javelin teams dismount the accompanying pickups, missiles away and sod off sharpish….
At least in the inital stages, I wonder how they are employing them now??
The CV 90 has 15 successful variants including a 120 mm tank version, clearly BAE can redesign a vehicle. The Ajax was a variation of ASCOD, the fact that the M10 booker had its suspension changed from AJAX style torsion bar to hydro pneumatic shows they were hiding a problem that needed fixing. The GD Morphus radio contract also failed and the GD US submarine project is behind and over budget the subs costing six times more than budgeted for!
Military procurement is inherently political, about bringing jobs to specific areas… and getting votes. Ajax… our aircraft carriers… two good examples. When you see it in that light the madness makes more sense.
I’d argue with you about the carriers, they’re not that expensive by military program standards (similar to Ajax and likely to last alot longer). The issues with them are more with the rest of the fleet (and RFA) rather than the carriers.
There seems to be a unwritten policy, that once started at whatever cost, the replacement equipment, we throw money at we must see through to the end.
Also, what’s also becoming apparent, is that equipment is becoming obsolete before replacement, making it deemed acceptable that the capability, especially in that percific stream, is gapped. I.e. the LPDs, 155 Artillery are perfect examples of this. Not replaced, when they should be, creating a capability gap.
Its all very well and good, promising new equipment just in time for the next tier 1 conflict, but buying and receiving in time( in enough numbers), isnt the full package, training, doctrine, SOPs and spares etc need to be taking into account also. Just in time, doesn’t work.
Being prepared, trained and in mass is the only way to work it.
Completely agree all of this has to be leading to a huge loss of experience, skills and currency in the capabilities being gapped, plus it gives us essentially zero ability to sustain losses.
TR, what do you mean about expanding it as a programme? This was always a family of vehicles to replace the CVR(T) family of vehicles. But are you talking about possibly developing some ARES into IFVs?
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.
grizzler, what do you mean in saying that Ajax has sub-standard troop protection? This 40 ton vehicle replaces an 8 ton one. Thats a lot of armour protection.
I would tend to agree.
And I don’t disagree. But this far down the line it’s Ajax or nothing. So, with so many practical minds in the ranks of UKDJ followers, let’s work out how to get Ajax from where it is now to where it needs to be. The MOD sure as hell won’t know!
James, Ajax and some variants is being fielded now. So clearly I agree that we stay with Ajax. I am not sure what your thinking is on getting it to ‘where it needs to be’. The vehicle fixes were done on noise and vibration, so are you talking about getting Morpheus reinstated?
Graham, I’m not a military expert (just an interested observer), so I’m not qualified to say what if anything needs sorting. I was picking up on what others have been saying, eg sub-standard troop protection, and the fact that so many on UKDJ seem anti Ajax despite it being the only option.
If you say Ajax is ok, that’s fine by me.
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.
Unfortunately the BAE corporate culture may not have not have been optimal….
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…
Joe, the choice for a new recce vehicle was between GDUK’s Ajax based on modfied ASCOD2 and a CV90 recce variant offered by BAES.
For the Warrior upgrade project (WCSP), BAES and Lockheed Martin competed for the contract. The latter won, despite their lack of AFV experience!! There was never an option to look at CV90 for any reason.
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.
Alex, the Infantry were not forgotten. AI were to get upgraded Warrior (WCSP) and Mech Inf were to get Boxer MIV.
Then the Boxer programme was advanced and the total spend profile crashed. CR3, WCSP and Boxer would now be delivered over about the same timeline. Treasury not happy. Decision by bean-counters and politicians to cancel WCSP – they rather absurdly decided that the MIV would now have to equip the AI. The Army did not forget the Infantry and the Army did not decide to issue an APC to the AI. Financial decision endorsed by politicos. Army were not involved.
The decision on a heavier vehicle was actually based on a doctrinal change. CVR(T) was designed to be a lightweight scout, using mobility and stealth to conduct FIND. The change was that Recce in the armoured context was intended to FIND and FIX for long enough for the STRIKE element to concentrate and manoeuvre. essentially meaning more recce by fire than previously used.
Given that Land is now moving to Recce Strike as a concept, it’s even more important that a better protected, more heavily armed recce platform is in place.
Interesting, Bob. Thanks.
I was aware of the Find Fix Strike thing but hadn’t considered it in relation to Ajax size and firepower.
Tactical change my friend recon by fire means the original CVRT would last about 10 minutes before being blown to bits so they need a heavier vehicle
“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.
Alex, I was horrified to read that quote. That officer was totally wrong. But the British Army did order an IFV back in the day – Upgraded Warrior (WCSP).
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.
Isn’t the IFV version more or less the Ascod 2? Hope any Ares based IFV isbetter or at least comparable to the CV90.
I understand thar the US took the lessons learnt from this debacle and have created a very tidy vehicle off the back of them.
You understand incorrectly.
Well, go on then, explain where there their vehicle came from.
The CV 90 has 15 successful variants including a 120 mm tank version, clearly BAE can redesign a vehicle. The Ajax was a variation of ASCOD, the fact that the M10 booker had its suspension changed from AJAX style torsion bar to hydro pneumatic shows they were hiding a problem that needed fixing. The GD Morphus radio contract also failed and the GD US submarine project is behind and over budget the subs costing six times more than budgeted for!
The M10 Booker light tank project has now been cancelled, it did produce a good vehicle but not really what the military wanted, there was a problem with overheating and fumes but these were quickly sorted and not hidden .
C’mon, even if we had gone with the CV90 we’d have tried to gold plate it with custom British specs that would have just delayed it as well.
That’s a dead issue, isn’t it? I agree we shouldn’t have gone with Ajax, and from a long term point of view we still shouldn’t unless we can get it good enough to export, but the contracts are signed, production is underway, and changing it now would be madness. The biggest future problem is going to be upgrades. Because we are the only country on this project, the classic fudge will be we don’t keep it up to date to save money. We’ve seen with Warrior how difficult it is to get an upgrade programme, and I fear Ajax will be the same. This will be worse because of reliance on software. Put budget aside now.
Ben Wallace was the Secretary of Defence for WCSP, it was his decision to try and save money and upgrade a vehicle that was unable to take the capability uplift for a modern IFV, solely his and James Cartidge decision alone. They could have started the process of procuring a new IFV then but no trying to muddy the waters with Ajax now the the infantry does not currently have an IFV that is modern and capable is on them, CV90 was part of the competition for the replacement of CVRT and lost the competition to Ajax as it was difficent many of the key capabilities that were part of the contract, it was also unwilling to incorporate the 40mm CTA which would have gone against it’s own offering 40mm, this was a must for the Government and therefore CV90 failed to gain the contract, CV90 is only now delivery some of the capabilities that where required back then, and the cost of CV90 against Ajax is minimal and therefore insignificant, also how much would they have charged to upgrade the CV90 that may have been in service with the new capabilities, it wouldn’t be cheap.
James, why do you say that Warrior was unable to take the capability uplift? Certainly integrating the MoD-mandated 40mm CTAS proved more difficult than expected and delays and a cost overrun happened, but it was very nearly sorted at the time it was cancelled. Trials were progressing well. As of January 2020 the Warrior CSP had completed 40 battlefield missions and had fired over 3,000 rounds in trials.
WCSP was cancelled because of Boxer. Not Ajax.
IFVs, Warrior, Boxer, totally different issues thsn the decision taken to buy Ajax to replace CVRTs taken.
For me – not followed, what is ‘best’ for a quarter century – the staggering thing with Ajax was that the boss of ATDU said it was not for for purpose and the procurement system ignored him.
Rage against the machine, from a former ‘erk won’t achieve anything sadly. But the gutting of the various checks and balances that existed in the last century – with the claim of ‘efficiency’ – seems like a crime against both the military and taxpayer to me?
Wasn’t one of the reasons ajax was picked because the government didn’t want to be seen to favouring bae? Or bae was the government bad books, or something along those lines?
No shit Sherlock. Cv90 could have and should have replaced warrior and the CVT scorpions, scimitar and all that series.
Instead we’ve got the worst possible outcome. A 43 ton massive “scout” vehicle that is neither small nor stealthy. Wheeled APCs that can’t fulfill the IFV role and an old IFV having to soldier on starved of funds needed to either replace or update and LIFEX.
Fecking mess. HMG however have zero competency to sort this mess out.
The Army contributed to those choices when Boxer was ordered a decade early while CH3, WCSP, and Ajax were all underway.
Resulting in WCSP being binned and HMG turning to Boxer as the only real solution at that time with the money available.
How about dealing with issues one at a time rather than all at once with limited budget. Boxer was originally MIV program from 2027 on to replace just 3 Battalions of Mastiff in HPM role.
Whether Ajax was the right choice for CVRT replacement, with hindsight, bearing in mind Cameron and his useless political decisions, should not impact on the Warrior debacle at all.
They are separate.
As reported, hopefully Ajax is as fine a capability as is being reported, as there is no going back now.
If we want recriminations, Cameron and Fallon need to be hauled in to CDSC to ask the why’s. And General Carter after that who decided that Boxer must Trump all else, despite it’s high price while other programs were underway.
No doubt BAE were in the bad books over Nimrod ,however on this occasion the government got it wrong BAE sell equipment to many countries even the USA . Has mentioned many times before on ukdj posters do get confused that Ajax is a REC platform not a IFV .However there is REC Version of the CV90 used by Finland and some of its Neighbouring countries ,but CV90 we don’t have and Ajax we do so we have to make the best of it .
I’ve heard people talking about converting Ares to create an IFV, although it will carry fewer infantry that either Warrior or Boxer.
That rumour on X seems awfully strong.
If it saves a few quid ordering more Ares at the expense of some of the future planned Boxer batches it seems like a fair compromise?
Follow on work for Merthyr Tydfil, Ajax compatibility, partnership with Poland, Kongsberg ( or Polish) turret? An Ares based IFV looks a very good bet.
Seen the hints on X about a new GD follow on for Ajax being unveiled at DSEI?
Blackjax or something… might be an IFV?
Keep an eye out for announcements at DSEI this week..
The Government insisted on using ex Saudi corroded air frames of varying dimensions for Nimrod against advice from BAE and other experts. Lol the precision wings did not fit with much work.
Going with ASCOD for Ajax was indisputably a political decision, not based on technical capability nor cost. However, I don’t believe the issues that have arisen since then – the noise & vibration, inability to drive down steep slopes nor reverse over small steps – can be directly attributed to the political process nor the MOD requirements. Those are the results of giving a complex programme to a company/site with no direct experience of building something of that scale. I believe a way out might have been to contract Hagglunds to manufacture the Ajax chassis, but that would have been politically untenable, and I don’t know if it was even considered. The comments citing “industrial benefits” conveniently ignore the closure of BAE sites in Newcastle and Leicester, before the UK Land Systems arm was essentially sold to Rheinmetall – this pretty much sums up the anti-BAES sentiment that has precipitated into the total mess we have now and is in no way an aggregate benefit to the UK.
WCSP was somewhat different. I recall many conversations about derived requirements, such as the necessary diameter of the turret ring, that were glossed over, and again the contract was given to a company with no previous direct experience, and which subsequently failed to deliver what it promised.
Note that all of this capability was physically demonstrated by BAES back around 2010 with CV90 and on Warrior; both could have been delivered and be in service already – instead we are over a decade and a half later with one still delayed and arguably still with issues, and the other cancelled completely with nothing to show for nearly a half a billion pounds wasted.
The cost overruns on both were and remain horrendous. I don’t believe the MOD had any choice but to cancel WCSP and I remain disappointed and even angry to this day that it was allowed to get to the point where this was necessary. Warrior is one of the best IFVs out there, not least because it was the very last MOD vehicle procurement that prioritised capability over cost or politics. It remains the single best example of how to do platform procurement properly, and has been in service now for over 40 years. I also believe CT40 has real potential, already in service with France (Land and Marine).
But is there any point in restarting this conversation on Social Media? No. These decisions, right or wrong are long past, and we need to be looking forward, at how to resolve any and all remaining issues with current procurement, and to focus on how to get future procurement right, not least as we move forward into the brave new world of drones and unmanned vehicles. We simply cannot afford to make more mistakes, not least because it is the lives of our troops that we are putting at risk in the name of political meddling.
Steve, a very interesting post. Just about all major procurements are political decisions in the end. The DE&S staff determine whether bidders products meet the Requirements wholly or nearly so, or not. Bean-counters advise on the affordability of credible options. The Minister signs off on who is getting the contract, taking into consideration: meeting of Requirements, affordability (VfM) and an array of political factors (key being where in the country jobs will be created).
Completely correct that a start-up (GDUK) lacked experience and they also had to scrabble about to find an Assembly Hall in part of a Fork Lift Truck factory, but it is unlikely GD would have used anything but another GD factory (in Spain) to provide the hull, rather than a rival company, especially as GD Spain had built the Pizarro ASCOD2 from which Ajax was derived.
WCSP was cancelled to free up money for other AFV programmes running simultaneously (WCSP, Ajax, CR3, Boxer) especially the Boxer and achieving the earlier delivery wanted by the Army (Gen Carter).. There was clearly also irritation that WCSP (a £1bn programme) had overrun by £227m and that it was running 7 years late…but on the upside RGT trials were 80% complete and had been successful. Even with cost overrun, the programme would have delivered many hundreds of first-rate upgraded IFVs at fair cost. Specifically it would have delivered 380 Warriors with improved modular armour and Electronic Architecture…of which 245 vehicles would have been fitted with a new turret and 40mm CTAS weapon system. If we are ever to get an IFV to replace Warrior I am sure it will cost more than £1.227bn.
Well duh.
So order CV90 for IFV instead of throwing good money after bad. Look at the current Czech CV90 spec – rubber tracks, APS, missiles, etc, completely outclasses Ajax. And Sweden is developing hybrid CV90’s.
* Czech CV90 shown in the heading picture
I’m sure Vyskov would have had a field day with CV90, great research Institute and another Institute near to Tatra production…
Days gone by… but, not the knowledge and expertise the Czechs have nor their martial instincts. UK missing a step with not integrating with UK production.
Oh good! Another opportunity to cry over spilled milk. Ajax has certainly been a challenging and character building program. Ajax looks very good. Time to move on?
Buying CV90 would have bedn the right move. But instead we got a farce…
If the Boxer is supposed to replace the Warrior, and there are concerns about it not having a turret, there is a very simple solution. Give the Boxer a turret.
Remember that the Boxer is a modular system with replaceable sections? Build a section with the Ajax turret, maybe build a few more platforms for added numbers, and problem solved.
And yes, they have already trial fitted the Ajax turret on a earlier Boxer version, so the foundation is already there. Quit the whining, and just build it already!