stancrist said...

In theory, it sounds like a good idea.  How good it is in practice, only time and experience will tell. 

The Warrior IFV has had toilet facilities in it since the 1980s, so there ought to be a wealth of information out there.

Refleks said:

Should have been adopted by the US, IMO Local infrastructure and strategic mobility issues are all variables that can be planned around, especially for a country as wealthy as the US

I don't think adopting the Namer would have made the slightest bit of sense for the US.
If they wanted such a platform a modified M1 or a chassis using M1 parts would make sense. I doubt the roling bunker concept currently fits US Armor doctrine. The Namer is seriously underpowerd. It uses steel tracks of vintage design. Its really not developed to go very far, quickly. Which is the direct oposit to most western doctrines.
Its so optimised to the specific theatre and situation its allmost useless for anyone else. Its exactly the same as the Merkava in this regard.

Nah, disagree.  HAPC/HIFV makes perfect sense for the US, especially in today's environment, our doctrine is outdated.  

You do have a point WRT parts commonality, and while it is desirable it is not really necessary for the US, the fact that it's already developed and mature outweighs the alternative handily; developing our own equivalent based on M1 parts would be hideously expensive and take a decade or more. If we had a functional procurement system, maybe...

The track / suspension argument is the same one they said about AAV7, but they still made it to baghdad and did their jobs. It's uncompelling.  It's average cross country speed is unlikely to be slower than the battle groups even if the top speed is lower on paper.

In the end, a faster hAPC/hIFV derived from M1 components would be a good long term goal, but Namer would be good enough and certainly better than what we're using now.

Refleks said:

HAPC/HIFV makes perfect sense for the US

I didn't say it didn't. I just said the Namer specifically doesn't.

Refleks said:

especially in today's environment, our doctrine is outdated.

Actually its the other way round. Recent experience showed that Western armor doctrine is spot on.

Refleks said:

developing our own equivalent based on M1 parts would be hideously expensive and take a decade or more. If we had a functional procurement system, maybe...

You have a point with the procurement system. But if there really would be a desire to procure such a system it could be developed very quickly. Especially if existing parts are used. If new capabilities would be introduced into the requirements of course developement would drag out.

Refleks said:

The track / suspension argument is the same one they said about AAV7, but they still made it to baghdad and did their jobs. It's uncompelling.

As far as I know the AAV7 did not do their job well which is why they have been withdrawn from service.

The steel tracks might not be so much a problem in theatre but for training use and upkeep they are a nightmare. Its simply not acceptable today that a unit that leaves the base for training causes the communities they travel trough to have to repair their roads. Even the damage to the bases themself will add up quick. Steel tracks also often cause HSE problems. Vibrations and noise.

Introducing a foreign AFV isn't an easy thing to do. Especially not if it differs so much from what is allready in use. The Namer is quite a bit heavier than the latest M1 versions. It might be the case the recovery, maintenance, transport and bridging equipment is not sufficient to support it.
Its definetly in another league as the M2 and M3. If its supposed to replace these the units need to be reequiped entirely to accomodate for that. In addition anything as to be brought up to US standards. Which in itself is not an easy task and usually requires conciderable reequiping and reworking. The cost savings during procurement most likely are not that big. The higher maintenance will quickly eat any cost advantage to a domestic design up. This is especially true for the large quantities procured by the US. For users that use low numbers this is different. But if we talk about four digit numbers of vehicles it makes very little sense to buy abroad. Not only the vehicle but any part or subassembly of it really.

These are perfectly reasonable arguments, I just don't believe them to be dealbreakers. The US military seems to agree with you so that trumps my fantasies unfortunately ;)