Sep
I don't agree with your conclusions
There has been a definate trend towards larger, better protected wheeled IFVs. Most new developments (VBCI, Boxer, PiranhaV, LAV-H etc) are all in the 25t-30t range.
Given that everyone has exceptionally tight defence budgets and almost all are opting for the larger vehicles, I think it is safe to assume the increased capability (particularly protection) is justifiable and economically sound.
Consider firstly that most of the countries that are purchasing these wheeled vehicles are not completely giving up their tracked IFV fleets.
Secondly consider why they are buying them.
Wheeled AFVs, aside from better fuel economy on the roads, have another distinct advantage, on road survivability if partially immobilised. The entire premise of the 6x6 or 8x8 design is to allow the driver to retain some mobility in case of vehicle sustaining damage to some tyres and moving out of the fire, and hopefully to a cover position on remaining tyres. The engineering solution to the tactical immobilisation problem (not becoming a 'sitting duck') has been to redistribute the damage to a greater number of sub-systems than the two available in a tracked vehicle, which is usually completely immobilised with even one track damaged. It is no wonder that the Cavalry love ASLAVs because their role is, regardless of what happens, to retain mobility.
However, where does on receive a mobility damage on combat operations?
Usually this happens in the area where the enemy can ensure targeting vehicle chassis with some precision, and that is mostly on roads, particular in confined urban areas. The wheeled AFVs are therefore designed to survive road/urban combat by retaining mobility, and not just passenger survivability through a body configuration different to a tracked hull.
There is far less of a need to have this mobility kill survivability in off-road designs because targeting chassis, and specifically tracks, in an off-road combat is not that easy, and is usually achieved by laying minefields, a capability found only in regular armies. I admit that I have never fired an AT missile at a moving vehicle, so not sure what the chances are of shooting off a track off a moving armoured vehicle, but if it is moving cross-country, it is likely to require some skill on the part of the shooter, even one equipped with (detectable) laser designator.
Damage sustained from direct or indirect fire to chassis is often less of a problem off road. Stories abound of armoured tracked vehicles continuing in combat after having several wheels blown off by direct or near hits from artillery. And, while all armoured troops are well familiar with repairing tracks even during combat, repairing a damaged tyre/wheel assembly on a 6x6 or 8x8 in combat, and even after retrieval, is considerably more difficult in field conditions.
The question therefore is not what is better, wheels or tracks, but where is the Australian Army going to operate, on roads or off roads also. If it predominantly stays off roads, there is a far less of a chance of a mobility kill regardless of the weight of the vehicle.
However, if the hull or body of the vehicle is hit by a modern, or even last Cold War generation AT missile while operating off road, the difference between 15t and 25t vehicles chances of a penetration is small since most such missiles are designed to also engage main battle tanks.
The issue is that no one in the Australian Army is prepared to guarantee that it will not be required to operate in terrains and over soils which negate advantages of track over wheels, or that it will operate predominantly over road networks and in urban areas over the next 40 years. Nor is there any certainty that the Australian Army will not find itself in combat against regular armed forces of other nations in more conventional combat environments.
Based on the above I would see something like the SEP (spitterskyddad enhets platform) modular armoured family of vehicles as the solution for the ADF dilemma, particularly because in the recon role it is probably a more capable vehicle (quieter and smaller in 6x6), and because of the use of band tracks it can in theory run even without track.
In case my deliberations are judged to be only my own, I quote
50. A further submission stated that the user requirement for FRES is "very similar" to Sweden's SEP (Spitterskyddad Enhets Platform) armoured vehicle programme being developed by BAE Systems Hägglunds. The submission also states that for the Swedish Government "a bilateral co-operation with the UK has a high priority".
House of Commons - Defence - Seventh Report
As I understand it, although Sweden has cancelled SEP procurement for now, this is budget-related and the need remains. The only question that remained was that of the unit cost.
"one of the main reasons for this is that neither Sweden nor BAE Systems have managed to find an international partner for the program, with whom Sweden could have shared the development cost." So far the development cost to BAE has been (by American standard) relatively light of US$210 million.
"The company sees a "probable" export market for SEP that starts in 2010 and that would have sales peaks of up to 700 vehicles in 2012 and another peak of up to 1,100 in 2015. Among these, the BAE Systems company thinks, will be vehicles for Britain's FRES program, including tracked SEP variants for the FRES Recce Vehicle requirement." though this total now excludes the 8x8 version.
However, the above estimate would suit ADF LAND400 planning now that it has been pushed off to 2015-16, and low development costs so far mean that more will be left to purchase the actual vehicles in the project budget. Even by the most conservative of estimates and the best intentions of the manufacturer, a unit cost of US$3.5 million,
with substantial local participation, would still require nearly AU$4 billion dollars to procure 1,100 (assuming the AU$ at 85c exchange rate by 2015), or three to four times the current budget.
This is only possible if there is no/minimal (under 5billion) deficit in the the 2015 budget, and a substantial surplus in the 2019 budget.
Extreme Mobility, Optimized Ergonomics, and Exceptional Growth Potential, all sound like an RV to me. Do you see anyone barrelling along cross country at 100km/h? The best they will do is the speed of the supporting tanks, and that is about 30-40km/h at best. So, the Boxer will present a tank-sized target with only half the armour and no gun or missile to engage the enemy?