Have we been too hard on the Terrex?

I got a note from Singapore and while it accuses me of nationalism and bias against the Terrex in the Marine Corps Personnel Carrier competition (which I think is unmitigated bullshit) I do wonder if I've been too hard on the Terrex.

I personally don't think so but lets go over the players again.

Lockheed Martin Havoc.  This is probably the strongest player in the game if you're talking about a pure combat vehicle.  Its combat proven and performed remarkably well in Afghanistan.  I didn't consider the Patria AMV (Havoc) to be cost competitive but when you consider the desire to keep workers working you can bet they're gonna push down the price.

BAE Super AV.  This vehicle shows the promise of being the best swimmer.  It also has the added advantage of being able to rely on a supply line to help lower costs.  If its a pure cost shoot out they will be tough to beat...especially with IVECO willing to sell its soul to win a US military contract.

General Dynamics LAV/Stryker.  Combat proven and already familiar to the Corps.  Consider it a Havoc junior.  I'll be extremely interested to see how they get this vehicle sized to carry 9 Marines that are 95th percentile.

Terrex AV2.

This is the blind spot.  I know little about the other vehicles but the Terrex is really an unknown.  I've credited it with being technologically superior but touch screens throughout the vehicle don't make it the proper one to carry Marines into battle.

Tell me where the Terrex is obviously superior to the other competitors.  I don't know and neither does the letter writer.

I haven't been too hard on the Terrex.  The issue is the same that faces Israeli built equipment.  The Israeli's build some of the finest military equipment on the planet but its geared to local conditions and to their way of war.  I see Singapore falling into the same box.

My opinion but I just don't see the Terrex making the final cut.  But I could easily be wrong.