Lindermyer
LE
Ajax - I know theres lots of Complaints about size and weight** But weight was always going to increase when construction was steel rather than aluminium and growth was inevitable when it became a surveillance platform rather than a aluminium horse with a gun.
If ive a criticism its why such a large turret ring, why not accept larger ring for the 120mm direct fire was needed for that alone - it kills internal space - if the Ajax had a smaller turret - then plausibly there would be room for dismounts and so the APC variant could be dispensed with (savings in manpower and support there)
Boxer - I look at Boxer and I dont see an APC, I see an undergunned IFV, Its to big, To heavy to complex and to expensive to equip the Army.
Boxer makes sense if you've gone French a la VBCI and ditched Warrior - To my mind MIV should have been amore akin to the French Griffon - Although I concede strike may be more in need of something like boxer.
Both (indeed all modern armour) though seem to have suffered a bloat in height and weight caused by the need to make everything V hulled and otherwise massive roadside bomb proof. Now from the point of view of the operator thats a plus - but in the broader picture the bigger vehicle is a bigger target in a peer conflict and the expense means we can afford fewer. Perhaps the distinction between AFV and Protected mobility should be clear and uncompromising and mine/ bomb protection being of less import in the former. Thats not to say don't incorporate any protection.
So my prejudices and ( lack of) logic laid out lets get to the coulda woulda shoulda Did we miss a trick with the BAE / Haglund's SEP
It was dropped by Sweden as they couldn't go it alone and it was rejected for FRES
I postulate (with the benefit of 2020 hindsight) this was an error
There was a short hulled 6x6, a long hulled 8x8 and tracked variants -
MIV obviously the 8x8
Fres SV - bought as both wheeled and tracked a split fleet of both thus avoiding mixing wheels and tracks in brigades yet retaining commonality of spares and if as much of the tracked versions running gear matches warriors that further reduces any additional logistic burden.
Its unlikely HMG would ever spring for spare sets of gear so the fleet could be converted - but 2 wheeled and 2 tracked regiments or units train with a small pool of both and deploy with whatever is most suitable.
It would im sure have not been as protected, but would have been smaller - potentially cheaper and with export possibilities and I dare say in light of the Fres saga it would have been in service already.
The reduced logistic burden may have supported a larger buy and could perhaps of obviated or at least reduced the need for a Bushmaster class vehicle.
**Usually of the its as big and heavy as a t64 but only has a 40mm , whilst bizarrely the bigger than Abrams Boxer CRV attracts no such criticism.
If ive a criticism its why such a large turret ring, why not accept larger ring for the 120mm direct fire was needed for that alone - it kills internal space - if the Ajax had a smaller turret - then plausibly there would be room for dismounts and so the APC variant could be dispensed with (savings in manpower and support there)
Boxer - I look at Boxer and I dont see an APC, I see an undergunned IFV, Its to big, To heavy to complex and to expensive to equip the Army.
Boxer makes sense if you've gone French a la VBCI and ditched Warrior - To my mind MIV should have been amore akin to the French Griffon - Although I concede strike may be more in need of something like boxer.
Both (indeed all modern armour) though seem to have suffered a bloat in height and weight caused by the need to make everything V hulled and otherwise massive roadside bomb proof. Now from the point of view of the operator thats a plus - but in the broader picture the bigger vehicle is a bigger target in a peer conflict and the expense means we can afford fewer. Perhaps the distinction between AFV and Protected mobility should be clear and uncompromising and mine/ bomb protection being of less import in the former. Thats not to say don't incorporate any protection.
So my prejudices and ( lack of) logic laid out lets get to the coulda woulda shoulda Did we miss a trick with the BAE / Haglund's SEP
It was dropped by Sweden as they couldn't go it alone and it was rejected for FRES
I postulate (with the benefit of 2020 hindsight) this was an error
There was a short hulled 6x6, a long hulled 8x8 and tracked variants -
MIV obviously the 8x8
Fres SV - bought as both wheeled and tracked a split fleet of both thus avoiding mixing wheels and tracks in brigades yet retaining commonality of spares and if as much of the tracked versions running gear matches warriors that further reduces any additional logistic burden.
Its unlikely HMG would ever spring for spare sets of gear so the fleet could be converted - but 2 wheeled and 2 tracked regiments or units train with a small pool of both and deploy with whatever is most suitable.
It would im sure have not been as protected, but would have been smaller - potentially cheaper and with export possibilities and I dare say in light of the Fres saga it would have been in service already.
The reduced logistic burden may have supported a larger buy and could perhaps of obviated or at least reduced the need for a Bushmaster class vehicle.
**Usually of the its as big and heavy as a t64 but only has a 40mm , whilst bizarrely the bigger than Abrams Boxer CRV attracts no such criticism.
