Sword of Damocles hangs over UK military’s Ajax as minister says back it or scrap it
(2026/02/01)
- Reference: 1769938212
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/02/01/uk_military_ajax_vehicle/
- Source link:
The British Army's ill-fated Ajax armored vehicle program now faces the prospect of being axed as the Ministry of Defence withdraws its initial operating capability status and reviews its future.
Ajax, a tracked reconnaissance vehicle intended for the Army's Armoured Brigade Combat and Artillery Fire Support Teams, has been in the news off and on due to reports of it causing health problems among the crew.
Initial operating capability (IOC) was declared for the platform [1]last November , amidst assurances that any issues with the units, which resemble smallish tanks, had been ironed out. But a number of service personnel have since reported symptoms consistent with noise and vibration effects during training exercises, leading to it being put on hold last week.
[2]
This week, Defence Secretary John Healey told the Parliamentary Defence Committee: "It is clear we did not have the full facts in the lead-up to decisions about the initial operating capability."
[3]
[4]
That IOC has now been withdrawn, and the Army is no longer in charge of this program, with responsibility passed instead to the National Armaments Director, as The Register reported.
But Healey went further, telling the committee: "I have been clear that we must back it or scrap it. The work is being done at the moment in order to put us in a position to make that decision."
[5]
This appears to confirm that the government may be preparing to cancel Ajax if the outstanding issues with the vehicle cannot be easily addressed.
Neither option is particularly palatable, as critics have alleged that some flaws in the vehicle's chassis - built by contractor General Dynamics - may be contributing to the ongoing problems.
But a decision to scrap the vehicles would cause a different headache, as the program is already years behind schedule and it would effectively mean starting over with a selection process to find a replacement, while the Ministry of Defence is said to be facing a budget shortfall already.
[6]
Ajax is also the name for the [7]overarching program , which aims to fill six different roles for the Army, based on the same chassis. Ares is an armored personnel carrier, Athena is a command vehicle, Argus is the engineering version, Atlas is a recovery vehicle, and Apollo is a repair unit.
[8]UK's Ajax fighting vehicle arrives – years late and still sending crew to hospital
[9]Future of UK's multibillion Ajax armored vehicle program looks shaky
[10]The UK wants you to sign up for £1B cyber defense force
[11]Britain's billion-pound F-35s not quite ready for, well, anything
It is understood that about 170 vehicles have so far been delivered, covering all of these roles, with the largest number being the Ajax reconnaissance unit.
Alternatives to take the place of Ajax could be the [12]CV90 from BAE Systems or the Rheinmetall [13]Lynx , both of which are already in service with other European armies.
Another option is to simply develop a reconnaissance variant of the [14]Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV), now entering service with the British Army. Boxer has a modular design that allows mission-specific modules to be fitted to its eight-wheeled chassis.
The Ministry was asked to confirm whether axing Ajax is being considered, but a spokesperson merely pointed us to an [15]earlier statement from the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard MP, who said: "We will need to decide on the platform's future shortly, and that is being considered as part of the forthcoming Defence Investment Plan." ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/11/uks_ajax_fighting_vehicle_late/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/combat-vehicles/ajax/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/11/uks_ajax_fighting_vehicle_late/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/25/uk_defence_grapples_with_ajax/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/30/uk_cyber_defense/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/15/uk_f35_failings/
[12] https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/cv90
[13] https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/tracked-vehicles/tracked-armoured-vehicles/lynx-infantry-fighting-vehicle
[14] https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/combat-vehicles/boxer/
[15] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-01-22/hcws1269
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Ajax, a tracked reconnaissance vehicle intended for the Army's Armoured Brigade Combat and Artillery Fire Support Teams, has been in the news off and on due to reports of it causing health problems among the crew.
Initial operating capability (IOC) was declared for the platform [1]last November , amidst assurances that any issues with the units, which resemble smallish tanks, had been ironed out. But a number of service personnel have since reported symptoms consistent with noise and vibration effects during training exercises, leading to it being put on hold last week.
[2]
This week, Defence Secretary John Healey told the Parliamentary Defence Committee: "It is clear we did not have the full facts in the lead-up to decisions about the initial operating capability."
[3]
[4]
That IOC has now been withdrawn, and the Army is no longer in charge of this program, with responsibility passed instead to the National Armaments Director, as The Register reported.
But Healey went further, telling the committee: "I have been clear that we must back it or scrap it. The work is being done at the moment in order to put us in a position to make that decision."
[5]
This appears to confirm that the government may be preparing to cancel Ajax if the outstanding issues with the vehicle cannot be easily addressed.
Neither option is particularly palatable, as critics have alleged that some flaws in the vehicle's chassis - built by contractor General Dynamics - may be contributing to the ongoing problems.
But a decision to scrap the vehicles would cause a different headache, as the program is already years behind schedule and it would effectively mean starting over with a selection process to find a replacement, while the Ministry of Defence is said to be facing a budget shortfall already.
[6]
Ajax is also the name for the [7]overarching program , which aims to fill six different roles for the Army, based on the same chassis. Ares is an armored personnel carrier, Athena is a command vehicle, Argus is the engineering version, Atlas is a recovery vehicle, and Apollo is a repair unit.
[8]UK's Ajax fighting vehicle arrives – years late and still sending crew to hospital
[9]Future of UK's multibillion Ajax armored vehicle program looks shaky
[10]The UK wants you to sign up for £1B cyber defense force
[11]Britain's billion-pound F-35s not quite ready for, well, anything
It is understood that about 170 vehicles have so far been delivered, covering all of these roles, with the largest number being the Ajax reconnaissance unit.
Alternatives to take the place of Ajax could be the [12]CV90 from BAE Systems or the Rheinmetall [13]Lynx , both of which are already in service with other European armies.
Another option is to simply develop a reconnaissance variant of the [14]Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV), now entering service with the British Army. Boxer has a modular design that allows mission-specific modules to be fitted to its eight-wheeled chassis.
The Ministry was asked to confirm whether axing Ajax is being considered, but a spokesperson merely pointed us to an [15]earlier statement from the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard MP, who said: "We will need to decide on the platform's future shortly, and that is being considered as part of the forthcoming Defence Investment Plan." ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/11/uks_ajax_fighting_vehicle_late/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/publicsector&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aX8yWdrGNh2rd-GIfOfKLgAAAhY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/combat-vehicles/ajax/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/11/uks_ajax_fighting_vehicle_late/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/25/uk_defence_grapples_with_ajax/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/30/uk_cyber_defense/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/15/uk_f35_failings/
[12] https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/cv90
[13] https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/tracked-vehicles/tracked-armoured-vehicles/lynx-infantry-fighting-vehicle
[14] https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/combat-vehicles/boxer/
[15] https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-01-22/hcws1269
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Additional reading
Goodwin Sands
Some additional reading in The Telegraph from a few days ago [1]here
or same via Yahoo [2]here
The author makes a point I haven't heard before that crews aren't getting to spend enough time in their vehicles, and that's the root of some of the problems.
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/25/ajax-tank-clarkson-review-test-drive-armour-warfare/
[2] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/m-former-tank-commander-clarkson-142623024.html
Re: Additional reading
MiguelC
Spending time using the vehicles makes the crew ill, ant that author's point is that they should spend more time there?
Putting lipstick on a pig
Anonymous Coward
Personal opinion only, but I have been on the site where they maintain the things, AJAX is beyond redemption at any reasonable cost.
Sometime you just have to bit the bullet and start again, or in this case purchase one of the alternative designs on the market.
It's almost unbelievable that it could get this far and still not be anywhere near operational status. Well unbelievable anywhere but MOD.
Other alternatives, Sweden's CV90, Spains/Austria ASCOD, German Lynx, US Bradley M3?
The Bradley is part mad by BAe systems.
Send it to Ukraine
BOFH in Training
If they are willing to take it. If even they refuse, I guess it's time to scrap it.
They seem to have become pretty good at fixing things up and using them well against Russia. Or at least getting the good parts and building whatever they need.
Of course, one option (as mentioned in the article) would be to simply buy something that's already in service with our allies. But, everyone would stick their oar in and come up with $[reasons] why the UK needs something special and we need $[modifications], and before you know it, there are so many modifications from what's already available "off the shelf" that it effectively becomes a new design. That was (in part) the problem with Ajax - in principle it was a MOTS (modified off the shelf) design, but by the time all the $[modifications] have been applied you have to wonder if starting from scratch might have been better.
Controlling the tendency to want something $[special] would be the key to making a replacement a success.
Adding an IT angle, it's something common in software upgrade/replacement projects, and something I've seen first hand. The business looks around for a replacement for it's ageing, unmaintainable, and limiting business management software - finds something off the shelf. Then several departments are adamant that they cannot possibly work the same way as hundred of other businesses do because "we are special and do it this way". "Persuading" those departments to cope with industry standard processes is key to making things a success. FFS, how is "purchasing" a complicated function that needs "special" processes ?