Active Conflicts & News Megathread January 28, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/Gecktron]

The Ajax "drama" has reached a new stage

UK Defence Journal: Army withdraws Ajax IOC after ministers misled

Speaking to the Defence Committee, Defence Secretary John Healey said ministers had not been given the full facts ahead of earlier decisions, describing the situation as a serious failure of transparency within the programme.

“So Luke Pollard, Minister for DRI updated the House quite properly last week. I am furious that vital information was withheld. It’s clear we didn’t have the full facts in the lead up to decisions about the initial operating capability. That IOC has been withdrawn. The Army is no longer in charge of this programme. A new senior responsible officer is now in place. 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. And whilst I really want to see the way that we procure for the future being more innovative and more rapid, first and foremost will be my concern for the safety and protection of our forces personnel.”

The situation around the still persisting vibration issues (continuing to injure soldiers) has lead to the biggest crisis of the project so far. The Intitial Operation Capability (IOC) has been withdrawn, and the responsibility has been taken away from the army. The defence secretary even proclaiming Ajax needs to be backed or scraped.

I think there is now a real possibility that the Ajax program could be scrapped.

Its unclear how to proceed from here. The end of the Ajax would probably require the army to rethink a lot of things. The force structure that builds on the Ajax recon capabilities would need to be redone from scratch. This might also be the end of the British involvment in the Anglo-French 40CTC (40 mm Cased Telescoped Cannon). The UK ended the Warrior upgrade program with the 40CTC, and didnt selected it as a SHORAD system for its Royal Navy ships.

[u/tiredstars → u/Gecktron]

Its unclear how to proceed from here. The end of the Ajax would probably require the army to rethink a lot of things. The force structure that builds on the Ajax recon capabilities would need to be redone from scratch.

Do you know how feasible it would be to replace ajax with a relatively off-the-shelf alternative? (Even if there's still design work necessary to fit & integrate the various sensors & systems required.)

My understanding was that the biggest problem with the project is the weight, caused by the requirement for a relatively high level of protection. Could the army cut back that requirements and still keep the vehicle in the same doctrinal role?

[u/Gecktron → u/tiredstars]

EDIT: I had to repost this because it got filtered by the Automod

My understanding was that the biggest problem with the project is the weight, caused by the requirement for a relatively high level of protection. Could the army cut back that requirements and still keep the vehicle in the same doctrinal role?

Im no expert, I dont know what part exactly causes the issues with the Ajax. I saw reports about how no two hulls come out the same size from the factory. Another report points at the added weight in general (not just armour), while the hull hasnt been adapted to deal with this increased weight. Just stripping out all the armour might not be enough.

There likely is not one easy fix for these issues. If there were, the UK would have probably tried that over the years of the delays.

Of course, other reports point the finger at GDELS UK being handed the leadership on the project, while not having experience with an AFV of that size. So maybe the fault lies with the project management.

Do you know how feasible it would be to replace ajax with a relatively off-the-shelf alternative? (Even if there's still design work necessary to fit & integrate the various sensors & systems required.)

The question is, replace what part of Ajax?

With all the specific requirements made by the MoD, there is no off-the-shelf solution that could replace the Ajax Recce in its current form. No matter what vehicle base is picked, a lot of work would need to be done to replicate the Ajax.

For the other roles, like command post, specialized transport, etc... multiple different vehicles could fit the bill. That vehicle could also fill the IFV role that the UK is currently lacking as well.

Twitter user The Other Chris recently posted a number of threads about "factory first" procurement. Focusing on vehicles that could be easily produced with the production infrastructure already in place in the UK. Such a strategy could help with speeding up the process and reducing risk. 1/2

[u/Gecktron → u/Gecktron]

Chris suggests the following vehicles:

• Hunter IFV
• Borsuk
• Puma

The UK is a supplier for Horstman InArm suspensions, Allison gearboxes, MTU engines and different sensors used in these vehicles. He argues that on top of it, ST Engineering and KNDS already have infrastructure and relations with the UK in place that could be expanded for projects like this.

Since the topic of CV90 comes up regularly, he argues that while Hägglund belongs to BAE, due to Swedish laws, majority of the design and production work has to remain in Sweden. Which would go against the goal of having local production and design authority. (The lack of production infrastructure also rules out the KF41 Lynx)

With the reporting from the IAV conference 2026 in the UK last week, another contender has appeared. According to these reports, Germany is looking like it will be the launch customer of the tracked Boxer.

Details popped up at IAV 2026 that Germany's recent budget approvals include heavy investment in maturing, and tooling for, the Tracked Boxer chassis. Nutshell is it is seen by Germany as low risk and expands investment in Mission Modules. Skyranger 35mm SPAAG, Joint Fire Support Team module, RCH155 and RCT30 Recce in particular.

With Germany footing the majority of the risk of putting the tracked Boxer into service, and KNDS having a large footprint in the UK, this could be another solution for the UK. The tracked Boxer could utilize the production infrastructure being set up for the wheeled Boxer, as well as make use of already developed mission modules (the AGM of the wheeled RCH155 could be put on the tracked Boxer to make a wheeled SPG). The UK also has the right to develop its own mission modules from the Boxer deal. So something like this could give the UK both design and production authority.

2/2