General Dynamics Land Systems–UK (GDLS-UK) and Lockheed Martin UK have provided further details on the next-generation AJAX Infantry Fighting Vehicle following its unveiling at DSEI 2025.
The new platform builds on the existing Ajax family in British Army service but adds a significant leap in lethality, survivability and digital integration.
A central feature is its uncrewed turret, designed and manufactured at Lockheed Martin’s Ampthill facility in Bedfordshire, which brings together lessons from Ajax and the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme. The turret is modular, exportable, and digitally integrated to support NATO-first operations.
Scott Milne, Vice President and General Manager at GDLS-UK, said: “AJAX IFV represents the convergence of sovereign innovation, strategic foresight, and industrial strength. It’s not just a platform — it’s a product of the UK’s Defence Industrial Strategy and a direct response to the Strategic Defence Review’s call for adaptable, export-ready capability. Designed, built and supported in Britain, AJAX IFV will contribute to the British Army’s 10x lethality through advanced digital integration and modularity, enabling NATO-first operations with unmatched interoperability.”
Milne highlighted the vehicle’s industrial footprint in South Wales, stressing that the programme “supports thousands of high value jobs, continues to revitalise UK and regional industry, and strengthens the UK’s position as a trusted partner in global security.”
Paul Livingston CBE, Chief Executive of Lockheed Martin UK & NATO, added: “Today’s unveiling is a powerful demonstration of how UK industry is working together to innovate and deliver the capabilities our Army needs for the future fight. Survivability, lethality, adaptability, and exportability are not abstract ideals; they are core requirements for our soldiers, and they are built into the very design of this system.”
The companies underscored the importance of interoperability, noting that shared platforms simplify training, logistics and sustainment across NATO and EU battlegroups. Export prospects are also being pursued, with GDLS-UK pointing to over £10 billion in potential markets in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
GDLS-UK said the AJAX IFV programme is underpinned by a £120 million investment in sovereign manufacturing capacity and supports over 4,100 jobs across a supply chain of 230 companies, 20% of which are SMEs.
Would this be a suitable replacement for warrior ?
It appears to be the only option as alternatives have full order books. I would be keen to see this variant in production ASAP, and an Ares + benefiting from the extra length and replacing Bulldog.
Patria CAVs will replace Bulldog.
Sam, is that the wheeled version or tracked? The latter on film looks the right way to go with a very low silhouette.
It looks most likely the shelled version mate, to flesh out the MI brigades that are ordering Boxer.
But it’s a versatile platform and there’s a lot of vehicles need replacing, so don’t rule anything out.
It was under the radar a bit with all the other news coming out of DSEI this week, but joining the programme definitely implies a pending order.
Well the only bad thing I’ve seen mentioned so far is no stowage space for kit. No mention of a BV though either (don’t think current Ajax has tone either).
The BV is the most important equipment on any British vehicle, without it we might as well scrap the whole program.
I think Ajax is a case of fitted for but not with. Archer doesn’t have one, neither do the first batch of Boxer or the new trucks so I’m told.
They are trying to destroy British culture, I tellz Ya !!! 😂
BV is becoming less and less important as most troops carry a civilian jet boil anyway for when they’re away from the vehicle.
All AJAX variants have a BV.
I was told they weren’t issued with them. Happy to be corrected 🙂
Steve, there is no way that Ajax does not have a BV. I think all AFVs since the 50s have had BVs.
You may be right, but the info I have is they aren’t fitted. It could be they are being fitted at some point, but a BV is no longer the must include it used to be apparently.
I thought a BV the single most important piece of British Army equipment for soldiers.
Used to be, now it’s importance has very much diminished. The need to cook under armour became much less important during the sandbox wars, a lot of UOR’s came without BV’s and most troops carry Jet Boils anyway.
Ah, ok, thanks Dern.
So much of the clamour seems to involve nostalgia as much as real need now.
Depends if you think future wars will need troops to be able to cook in a vehicle or not. Remember that Challenger 2 was also fitted with a toilet seat for a reason (though I note nobody here is asking if the toilet was retained in the upgrade).
I didn’t know it was! But thanks anyway.
Steve, the current Ajax is bigger in all dimensions than WR IFV, so how can this IFV variant (presumably no smaller) not have enough internal volume for kit stowage of a rifle section? Your BV comment is baffling. It has been fitted on all British tanks since the late 1940s and all other AFVs for many decades. Next to the gun, it is the most imprtant piece of kit!
And it has massive great gun. All the talk of 10x lethality due to networking.. it’s got serious levels of protection against 30mm APFSDS at 1500meters and gun that will penetrate around 150mm of sloped armour at 1500 meters.. which means it’s got the advantage against anything below an MBT
But it all depends on cost and time to deployment.
It been reported that the turret currently holds 45 rounds of 40mm, which they hope to increase to 75. Considering warrior carries 200 30mm rounds, is 75 enough?
Where was that reported?
No reply after a couple of days. Why does that not surprise me.
Bob, 40mm rounds are bigger than 30mm rounds! You can only stow as many as interior space allows.
Graham, the 40mm telescoped rounds should be easier to package though,
Bob is fishing.
Not fishing, just offline for a few days.
Tried to post the link where I read the 45 rounds quote, but it does not seem to have been approved. It was on EDS.
Also Turret Ammo count vs Total Ammo count is a bit apples to oranges no?
I am completely ignorant on this. Are you suggesting that 45 rounds is probably not sufficient, but that this is just what is stored in the turret and other rounds will be stored elsewhere in the vehicle.
(Did post a link to EDS with the 45 rounds quote, but not sure if it has been accepted)
I’m saying that your comparing the total ammunition of a Warrior in the turret and the hull to the ammunition stored in just the turret of Ajax. Unless you know how much ammunition in total is stored in Ajax, or less usefully how much of the 200 rounds Warrior carries is in the turret, the comparison is meaningless.
Thanks
According to GDLS (UK), armament wise it has the CTAS40, plus a 7.62mm coaxial chain gun, but also space for a ATGM or Switchblade, that pops out of the turret roof. Which I think the above image just about shows.
MOD should definitely consider this as a Warrior replacement.
We have a production line up and running, and other variants have been extensively tested.
BoF, the fact that many Ajax variants have been tested does not mean that a proposed new variant does not need to be tested.
Is this a mock up?
Although an IFV is needed, I’d argue that a large Patria CAVS order to supplement Boxer would have far greater impact across the Army.
Always the sexy, mega expensive gucci kit that gets the crowds and the headlines eh.
Isn’t the Patria wheeled , as per the Boxer? Would you be happy with a completely wheeled solution- or is it that you feel as the Boxer is wheeled , there’s really not much point in a tracked IFV?
BTW -along these lines – whatever happened to the ‘tracked’ Boxer offering (I think it was a modular approach?). Was that a serious option that is still something being developed in earnest, or was that just an idea being touted? If that’s a viable option would that be a better ‘fit’?
Hi Grizz.
No, we certainly need a tracked IFV.
Before the Strike debacle, of which Boxer is a part, A2020 was quite clear in that we’d have a 3 Brigade Armoured Division, with 3 new programs to modernise it.
Challenger 3.
Armoured Cavalry, so Ajax.
Armoured Infantry, so WCSP.
That still left the problem of those 432s running about that things like FRES UV didn’t replace.
Patria is very much needed, both to replace supporting vehicles like 432 in 3 Division and as a supplement for the all wheeled Brigades in 1 Division.
And Boxer for all roles, at it’s price, is insanity.
Grizzler, Armoured Inf in IFVs, working closely with tanks, do a different job to Mech Inf in MIVs (APCs). Not surprising that the vehicle is different.
I agree,
Go on then, argue that a tracked IFV to replace Warrior is down the priority list in favor of a 6 wheeled truck.
I wouldn’t dare.
As I said, to me it will have greater impact across myriad roles across multiple Corps replacing 60 year old vehicles.
I’m not discussing priorities, as clearly an IFV remains a priority. I mean impact on wider army operations.
Warrior or an IFV is used by comparison by a tiny part of the Army.
4 Battalions, and some with the REME and RA OVs in tiny numbers.
A bulk order of Patria, serving in both 1 and 3 Divisions, replacing various types, not just the Fv432, which is a stated Army aim, to drive down training and logistics costs?
Priceless.
How can a thing you have declare to be driven by reducing down costs be “priceless”? Makes zero sense.
Makes sense to me. But you do like to nit pick and take things out of context.
And I said no such thing.
I said it’s a desire of the Army to reduce the number of types. Therfore, savings will happen if one type replaces several.
It is not the primary driver of buying Patria AFAIK, or “driven” by, as you twist it.
“Priceless” is figure of speech I used, I’m sorry that you couldn’t understand what seemed obvious to me.
Are you suggesting CAVS to replace all of Bulldog and most of the various MRAPs? Eminently sensible IMO
Germany and basically all of the Nordics & Baltics seem to be going all-in on the platform, which is a big plus for sustainment/logistics.
And it’s pretty cheap so no need to skimp on numbers. What’s not to like.
Exactly this. Thousands of them.
In support roles.
Boxer, Ajax, this new IFV all still needed as teeth.
I reckon that’s coming. Bulldog can’t go on forever, despite the jokes.
I agree. Couple of thousand will do nicely.
Definitely. And no gold plating hopefully/finally.
Order it, get it into service asap.
Is the gun effective against drones i.e a targeting system beyond manual ?
On AJAX there isAVT, automatic video tracking, if this is ported across would useful for UAV’s. It’s not been detailed what sighting systems are fitted to the IFV.
Haven’t I seen Irony Fist on Ajax?
Yes, for a number of reasons. The first is effective range, which is quoted as 2500m using armour piercing rounds, but has a max range of 8500m firing other rounds. The gun has a choice of two rounds for anti-air, the general purpose round has an air burst mode and can be used for long range engagements up to 8500m. Whilst the A3B-T is a dedicated anti-air round and has an effective range out to 4000m. Compared to the general purpose round that focuses on explosive content, more of the shells volume is taken up with tungsten pellets. Additionally the gun on Ajax has a max elevation of 85 degrees.
When this is married to the Ajax’s sighting system, the combination will be pretty effective against drones.
Needs something to actually detect drones in the first place.
And mixing max effective range with max range in a comparison is useless.
And I believe the upper gun elevation is limited to 75 degrees but there is a lot of variation online between the two numbers.
Technically it could use the Iron Fist’s radar, which on this vehicle are the better Trophy X-band AESA radar. With Trophy on Merkava IVs at least, the APS has the ability to record the direction of incoming shot and highlight the firing point. Where it can then lay the turret and gun on to the target. In theory, this capability should be no different for an airborne threat. The radar tracks threats, so it should track drones and be capable of laying the turret and gun on to the target. The Trophy’s X-band radar has had its power output tuned down to reduce an enemy’s ability to detect it. However, if it used frequency hooping techniques as well a few others, which minimizes detection The range could be ramped up again to a few kilometers, thereby giving the system a longer detection and tracking range.
Agree on the elevation range, GD were quoting 85, so went with that. Though I believe the Army are quoting Ajax with 75 degrees.
Now this looks like a proper replacement for Warrior. A solid anti-armour capability with an integrated ATGM by the looks of it, which is definitely needed to make up for the lower number of Challenger 3’s we’re getting.
I wonder how the cost compares to the proposed turreted ARES, and if the ideal solution is a mixture of the two for the BA.
The army’s transformation is going to take a long time so lets recognise that and setup a drumbeat orderbook. Delivery of say 30 to 40 IFVs a year once production is up to full-scale. We may actually be able to afford them then.
Makes you wonder why an unmanned turret wasn’t designed for the Warrior upgrade. Might have been easier to install than the manned turret LMUK produced.
The enlarged hull looks even more massive than the base Ajax – MBT sized.
–
Because an unmanned turret is in 90% of cases objectively better. The main advantage of an unmanned turret is saving internal volume, so if you already have volume to work with, go manned.
I think you meant manned turret better in most cases. But the problems with fitting a manned CTA 40 turret to Warrior all but killed the programme. This new unmanned turret might have saved it.
Peter, I don’t think the issue was bolting a modified or new turret onto an existing Warrior turret ring. It was getting the MoD-mandated 40mm cannon to work without fouling or jamming AFAIK.
The original competition for the Warrior new turret was won by Lockheed Martin claiming they could just update the current turret with thenw gin at great savings. The losing bidder Bae who had actually worked with the gun and the Warrior turret, said no, a new turret would need to be designed.
Guess what happened. Clue is that Lockheed Martin’s costs increased dramatically.
So how much work from the Warrior proposal can have been utilised in this new turret? A little counter intuitive from their words, unless it’s learning from the fact they got it wrong and started (mostly) again.
At the risk of triggering a deluge of recriminations, is this Ajax IFV with its CTA 40mm a better IFV than, say CV90 with a Bofors 40mm?
A bit more information on the IFV version of Ajax. The vehicle on display is a working prototype. This version is more in keeping with the newer ASCOD 2 with elements of lessons learned from Ajax. For example the tracks are the rubber band track by Soucy, as also used by the MK4 CV90 which cut vibration, noise, and wear without sacrificing cross-country performance. The track system incorporates automatic track tensioning, which the Ajax’s so far delivered don’t have.
The turret is a development of the one developed for the Warrior capability sustainment program (WCSP). It is described as optional manned, but does not incorporate a basket. The basket will take up space needed for passenger seating though! It also doesn’t have a defined armour scheme, as this is still in development. The turret is currently fitted with Iron Fist APS. The CTAS40 has a new thermal sleeve, which according to GD, is supposed to increase barrel life. The gunner and commander both have independent thermal sights that allow them to operate in the hunter-killer mode. Both are made by Thales, but have not said if these are the same as used by Ajax. The turret according to GD is a working development and can be used for firing trials, who have stated that the trials work on the CT40-armed turret is “95% done”.
The vehicle shares the same open architecture as the other Ajax vehicles. GD have described the vehicle as the missing link in the Ajax family. Interestingly that have stated: “The company is “preparing for a competition” with regard to a future British Army IFV requirement. We’re excited to show it, but we’re now waiting for a requirement.”
There is a definite need to replace Warrior and Boxer no matter the smoke and mirrors is not suitable for the infantry fighting vehicle role. This version of Ajax, I think answers that requirement.
Thanks. Good detail, as always.
The vehicle shown at DSEI is GD’s ASCOD 2 show mule which they trek around to exhibitions showing a range of new turrets on top.
A production Ajax IFV would use an Ajax chassis which is quite different. A short video on LM’s twitter feed shows a computer imgage of what that would look like.
Ajax’s gun thermal shield was announced and displayed some time ago.
Modifications to Ajax to fit rubber tracks have been developed and were offered to the MoD. They were turn down.
A manned turret without a basket is not a manned turret. If the guys can’t rotate with the turret, it’s a chocolate teapot.
From what I understand, being the turret was originally used for WCSP, the turret used on the demo vehicle is missing the basket and seats. But still has the roof hatches etc. There are some pictures online of the inside of the vehicle that show this.
I wonder why the Army turned down the Soucy track option? As they worked better than expected on the Norwegian CV90s during operational trials in Afghanistan.
Define “better” if you want an intelligent answer.
Well, a better fit to the requirements, which according to GD seem to be conspicuous by their absence. I assume the requirements have moved on from WCSP.
The MOD hasn’t put out a list of requirements for a IFV, this is GD just putting a product out there and hoping to generate interest and discussion. So it’s impossible to say really.
I guess that was I was fretting over. Seems to me the MOD and / or the Army need to move from a public position of, don’t worry Boxer is the future we’ll work something out’ to ‘ on reflection our original plan for a tracked IFV was correct’.😂
Okay but why? Like there’s a huge difference between forum/comments section posters discussing it and what the MoD does. This doesn’t go over well but: It’s not in anybody’s interest for the MoD to say “Boxer sucks but we can’t afford a different system, anyway here is a list of KUR’s that we’ve spent money coming up with for a vehicle we won’t buy.”
Why yes, that is me saying that sometimes the MoD should be lying a little bit. Say they do stand up and go “On reflection our original plan for a tracked IFV was correct” what then? If it’s not funded, and we’re not going to buy any? Who has that benefited? If you’re a bloke on a Boxer IMV are you going to stay in? Are you going to have confidence in your equipment?
Social Media is incredibly bad for this btw. I use people like Andrew Fox as an example frequently, where the obsession with “Well this isn’t what I percieve as optimal,” can reach the point where it can seriously undermine a capability that is being grown (In Fox’s case he was, and I’m sure is still, so adamant that the Rangers was a terrible idea, and so vocal about it, that I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d actually damaged the project enough that someone told him to STFU).
Point taken on consistency of message and funding. Also accept what you say on confidence in equipment – essential. And just because most other armies are buying ‘traditional’ IFVs doesn’t mean to say we have to copy everyone else. But we do need to show how we are going to win the fights we are going to get into. I think this is lacking at the moment and it is fuelling social media speculation. As regards confidence in Boxer, you get what you pay for; its the best APC there is; and with a 50cal and a brace of Javelins would worry most other armoured vehicles. Ukraine and drones have probably changed thinking since WCSP was conceived so I can see why there might be no rush to replace Warrior like for like- its good enough for the moment. It looks like they are focusing on getting everything else sorted- additional Boxer variants, Patria, LMV, MLRS, deep strike drones, tactical ballistic missiles. Like a jigsaw they are starting with the edges.
I’d totally missed Andrew Fox on SM and Ranger Reg? Is he Army background or an armchair like me?
Fox is an ex-Para, retired now, but last I saw was still styling himself as “Maj Fox” on most SM, but that was a while ago, hopefully he’s changed it by now. Basically he had an absolute ego fit when the Rangers where created (I think possibly back to the SpecInf days too but my memory is foggy and I don’t care enough to try and find out|) and played cap badge politics on SM, telling everyone who would listen about how shit the concept and the soldiers within it where, how there was no selection, or if he granted that there was a selection he’d complain about it being a MATTs week, highlight any negative news story, anything he could really before saying that the Para should be the Armies SOF force. Even went on Forces news at one point to complain about it I think.
He also was very on his high horse about the Army allowing beards, insisting that “when he’d allowed his men to grow beards” it reduced discipline (I’d argue it was probably because he was a bad commander and wasn’t enforcing the standard rather than the idea that changing the standard is bad but what do I know).
Anyway, I don’t know if he had an effect on Ranger recruitment, or not. It’s not like the RAC has the most terrific pass rate in the world anyway, so hard to tell. But I doubt he was helpful.
Thanks for the effort to write all that.
From all that, I’d agree.
1. With Para Regs reputation as being the Army’s shock troops, they are best kept as is, part of the rapid reaction 16AA.
2. It’s said, no idea how true it still is, that they make up a high proportion of those going on to SF.
3. 1 Para already makes up the bulk of SFSG within DSF.
I think Para Reg has enough special on it’s hands as it is without adding the Army SO role, which I understand doesn’t always need that sort of aggressive skill set anyway.
Oh and add Pathfinders as well!
And apologies for my brusqueness….bad form today.
I think that’s what he was asking in his question, if he knew what defines ‘better’ I doubt he would need to ask the question. It needs those with great knowledge and expertise to seriously answer questions of this nature, if you don’t have it how can you define and specify the question further without tempting dismissive fate which by his words he was concerned about initiating? I too would like to hear the arguments on both sides even if I doubt we have enough knowledge yet on the Ajax solution to truly do so.
Thanks for this DB. As a non expert it looks to me like GD have positioned the vehicle quite cleverly versus competition from CV90 and a possible resurrected WCSP. I like the ‘missing link in the Ajax family’ comment – clever marketing. Reminds me of my product management training….dear prospect, if you had your prefect solution, what would it look like? Compatible with the Ajax ‘family’, re-used Warrior CSP CTA turret, carry section of 8, made in the UK….as it happens we’ve got one we could show you which we put in the oven earlier. 🙂
Hi Paul, that was my take as well. It does look like someone has done their homework, by reading between the lines of what the Army has been saying about using Boxer in an IFV role, i.e. it’s all we’ve got for now, so we’ll have to use it! I believe the Army bought over 500 CTAS 40 weapon systems for the Warrior program. I’m not sure what happened to them after the program got canned? I have a couple of colleagues who were working with Lockheed Martin, who said the program was nearly ready to deliver, perhaps by 6 to 9 months. The turret design was all but finished at that stage. To me it makes perfect sense to use what’s available, using them Ajax hull and a development of the Warrior turret. Which should produce a infantry fighting vehicle that is competitive with the latest CV90 Mk4.