Key Points and Summary – The British Army’s Ajax infantry fighting vehicle was meant to replace aging CVR(T)s and transform Britain’s armored fleet.
-Instead, intense vibration and extreme noise have injured crews, forcing the Army to halt training and investigate, after scores of soldiers reported nausea, tinnitus, and long-term hearing problems.
AJAX British Army Photo. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
-Ajax must be driven slowly, for limited periods, and struggles with basic mobility tasks such as reversing over modest obstacles.
-Its gun is effectively accurate only when stationary. Years of warnings and damning reviews now raise a blunt question: even if Ajax can be fixed, is this troubled program still worth saving?
Why the British Army’s Ajax Infantry Fighting Vehicle Is in Serious Trouble
The British Army has halted the use of its Ajax armored fighting vehicle after dozens of soldiers became violently sick after exercises, with many suffering from ringing ears, hearing loss, and vomiting.
Speaking to Sky News, a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said that the pause on Ajax operations is in response to “a small number of soldiers reported symptoms of noise and vibration” during exercises. Following the symptoms, the exercises involving the Ajax vehicle were “immediately stopped”.
The spokesperson added that “around 30 personnel presented noise and vibration symptoms” following exercises. However, the” vast majority of these have now been medically cleared and are continuing on duty”, with a small, unspecified number of soldiers “continue to receive expert medical care.”
“Out of an abundance of caution, the minister for defence readiness and industry [Luke Pollard] has asked the army to pause all use of Ajax for training and exercising for two weeks, while a safety investigation is carried out into the events this weekend,” the Ministry of Defence explained. It added that “a small amount of testing of the vehicle will continue, to ensure that any issues can to identified and resolved.”
The MoD said the decision “underlines our absolute commitment to the safety of our personnel. As with any major equipment programme, we continue to test and refine the vehicle to ensure safety and performance”.
A recent report by The Times uncovered the consequences of prolonged Ajax use. It found that the Ajax had so badly hurt two soldiers that they were medically downgraded and barred from deploying overseas, and three other soldiers were medically discharged from the Army.
The Ajax was to replace a family of tracked vehicles, the CVR(T) grouping, which has been in service with the British Army since the 1970s. Ajax was supposed to be a significant step up from the CVR(T)s and is, in theory, a robust armored fighting vehicle.
Built by General Dynamics, the Ajax main armament consists of a 40mm main gun and a secondary 7.62mm chain gun. A three-person crew operates the Ajax and can transport seven fully equipped soldiers to and from the battlefield.
A Mess
Ajax is riddled with problems. Perhaps the most significant of these shortcomings is the vehicle’s drivetrain.
Vibration when moving is so intense that Ajax crews are told not to drive faster than 20 miles per hour and to limit operations to no more than 105 minutes. Operating the Ajax at higher speeds or for longer periods would risk crew health: tinnitus, nausea, and swollen joints were recognized by the Ministry as likely adverse effects of prolonged Ajax exposure.
But Ajax also suffers from mobility issues. One 2021 report found that the Infantry Fighting Vehicle cannot go in reverse over obstacles more than 20 centimeters, or less than 8 inches, in height. Vibrating while on the move is so intense that some Ajax suspensions have sustained damage, and the 40mm main gun’s turret stabilization mechanism cannot be used while in drive: the vehicle can fire its weapon accurately only when stationary.
Shocking as Ajax’s poor performance is, it is by no means a newly uncovered revelation.
Earlier this summer, British troops were sent to the hospital, suffering from similar hearing issues caused by intense vehicle vibrations involving three Ajax IFV variants.
Back in 2021, a review published by the U.K. Ministry of Defence found that the Ajax vibration and noise problems had been known to senior military personnel and the Ministry of Defence for several years. Ajax operations were not paused for two years, however, and over 300 soldiers had been given hearing tests and treatment.
One paper published in 2021 by the Royal United Service Institute, the United Kingdom’s leading defense and security think tank, was particularly damning, comparing the Ajax program to a Greek tragedy.
The paper raised two questions: Can the Ajax program be saved? And if it can be saved, is it worth saving?
As recently as last month, the British Army touted the introduction of Ajax into service, calling it the “world’s most advanced, medium-weight armoured fighting vehicle” in a post on X (formerly Twitter). But the Ajax future is in doubt.
Ajax: What Happens Now?
Whether the British Army’s fleet of Ajax vehicles can be repaired to be more lethal to an adversary rather than their own crew remains to be seen.
But even if it can be, the British Army’s problems are hardly over: its recent acquisition of the Challenger 3 main battle tank has been heavily criticized, particularly for its very low numbers. In short, the British Army is facing a host of challenges with its armored platforms.
Challenger 3 On the March. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Without a solution in sight, it is difficult to see how the issues facing Ajax, the Challenger 3, and the British Army writ large can be rectified.
Challenger 3 Tank. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
About the Author: Caleb Larson
Caleb Larson is an American multiformat journalist based in Berlin, Germany. His work covers the intersection of conflict and society, focusing on American foreign policy and European security. He has reported from Germany, Russia, and the United States. Most recently, he covered the war in Ukraine, reporting extensively on the war’s shifting battle lines from Donbas and writing on the war’s civilian and humanitarian toll. Previously, he worked as a Defense Reporter for POLITICO Europe. You can follow his latest work on X.
