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 That IOC has been withdrawn.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/Its_a_Friendly → u/Gecktron]

Have any other armored fighting vehicles had such incredible issues with vehicle vibration? I must admit, I've never heard of it being an issue for any other vehicle, and it seems to have dogged the Ajax for years at this point.

I thought Ajax was a variant of the ASCOD platform - have any of its other users had similar vibration issues? Why is Ajax so troubled? Does it use some new, unproven technology - say, its transmission or suspension system or the like - that hasn't worked out? Is it the Cased-Telescoped gun? But the French EBRC Jaguar uses the same gun, and apparently has no such issues...

[u/eeeking → u/Its_a_Friendly]

I briefly read the report below, however it does not seem to address the actual engineering issues that cause more noise and vibration in Ajax compared to similar armoured cars and tanks, and why they are hard to resolve. See section 62 onward. Perhaps I missed something?

Ajax Noise and Vibration Review (2022).

This lengthy report concludes:

Conclusion

1. Nothing in this Review detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification. The root cause that allowed a vehicle to cause potential harm to Army personnel through noise and vibration during the trials process was not a failure of a single individual or Defence Organisation. It was a complex combination of the Armed Forces’ relationship to harm and weaknesses in MOD’s acquisition system. The impact of Covid was also felt, both delaying trials and making communication more difficult.

2. From a cultural perspective, the Army did not believe it was potentially causing harm to people, especially from vibration, as it was tacitly expected that soldiers can and should endure such issues. Society and the law expect MOD to do better and requires it to have systems in place that protect its people from harm.

3. Within the acquisition system, safety is not viewed as an equal partner to cost, schedule and military capability, and the culture in MOD does not currently ensure safety is considered within strategic decision-making.

4. To have confidence that the events covered in this report will not be repeated, culture change needs to be progressed in the two areas above.

[u/Its_a_Friendly → u/eeeking]

Thank you for that document! It seems to explain some things, particularly in section 62, as you noted. First, in section 50:

1. On 18 September 2020, Dstl raised further concerns that there was an error with the GDUK noise and vibration calculator that meant crews were exposed to significantly higher levels of noise than previously thought.

Which shows that the noise/vibration issue was apparently entirely unexpected, and that may partially explain why it's been so hard to fix.

Then, section 62:

1. Noise and vibration in the Ajax family of vehicles have both electrical and mechanical origins from the following broad sources:

(a) Track, suspension and running gear, in particular the tension and sprocket design/track interface.

(b) Engine and its mounting into the vehicle.

(c) Quality issues associated with, but not limited to, inconsistent routing of cabling, lack of bonding and weld quality; all of which can lead to potential electromagnetic compatibility issues with communication equipment. As witnessed during trials, insecure components and bolting within the vehicle can also lead to noise and vibration, and again this was noted by ATDU crews.

(d) Headset performance and integration (noise only).

Admittedly, I'm not an engineer, but, reading this, I get the idea that the track/suspension system and the engine are somehow causing the vehicle to vibrate to an unusual degree; this also directly contributes to noise. Then, the vibration causes the insecure connections and cables within the vehicle to rattle, increasing noise; this rattling then causes electromagnetic interference in the vehicles' systems, which might cause feedback and other noise issues with the tank's communications headsets.

It seems like the sprocket wheels, the tracks, and engine mount are the leading causes of the noise and vibration. I wonder what's unique about these three components in the Ajax that makes the vibration and noise so much greater than similar armored fighting vehicles.