As has been established in other discussions: for the Moscow coup of August 1991 to realistically be able to succeed, there must have been other, smaller, changes from the IRL timeline already for some time before that; probably going back five or six years or so. The scenario as written stretches suspension of disbelief ... a bit too much. And with the Cold War "going hot" in 1997, we thus have somewhere around a full decade of time to play around with to identify points where plans and programmes could and should diverge from the IRL timeline.
This post specifically concerns hardware, but the logic extends to changes made in the services themselves, e.g. in organisations and mission definitions — like the downgrading of the armoured brigades to mechanised, halting Bas 90, the nascent shift in the focus of the Swedish defence towards 'defending Swedish interests abroad', and various other decisions that affected Swedish defence during the IRL timeline 90's.
When our politicians in the 90's decided that human civilisation now had reached the end of history and Eternal Peace had broken out, and clambered to cash in on the "peace dividend" (yeah, idiotic, but ... they did. That really did happen.) four major things happened in terms of military hardware development and procurement — that, by contrast, not only should not happen in the T2k timeline, but in fact should see the reverse happening:
- Cancellations. — In T2k, we should instead see not only many known programmes carried through, but probably a few new ones added — meaning that several of the systems we've mentioned here should actually exist in the setting, plus a few that were or would be developed but never were on the agenda for acquisition IRL might be, here. Rbs 23 is a good example of a system that got canned that wouldn't have been; I could also easily imagine something like the Saab CBJ MS IDW entering from stage right a bit early, as a "kpist m/96".
- Delays/postponements. — In T2k, we should instead see open programmes accelerated — meaning that certain hardware should become available a lot sooner than it did IRL. Bas 90 is an example of a system that was postponed at the time (and subsequently scrapped, but that was in the 2000's).
- Scope reductions (both in capabilities and quantities). — In T2k, we should instead see programmes at least retaining their original scopes — meaning that many of the systems should not only exist and exist sooner, but also exist as more capable versions of themselves than IRL, and/or in greater numbers. See e.g. JAS 39 and the Visby-class stealth corvettes.
- Replacement with less ambitious and (ostensibly) less costly systems, force concepts, etc. — In T2k, nations, including Sweden, should be much less inclined to try to "do it on the cheap" e.g. by buying COTS, or specifying against a priori "light" mission scopes and doctrines, or procuring foreign systems, if and when mission specific, domestic, etc., systems are likely to fill actual (as opposed to wishful thinking) requirements better. Strv 141 is an obvious example here, as it is a matter of historical record that the decision to get a cheaper, foreign solution instead of buying domestic was a direct consequence of the Cold War ending, not gaining prominence until 1991. The formal decision wasn't made until the 1992 Försvarsbeslut.
That last point should dispose of several systems; both concepts that didn't become reality and some that actually did.
The programmes that we should postulate will be carried through, accelerated, and/or expanded, need to specifically be those that support the existing Cold War operational requirements and doctrines, or logical extensions of them.
Programmes that specifically support the IRL post-Cold War and GWOT operational environments or doctrines ... probably won't even find their way to the drawing board, never mind off it. (Why would they?)
Retaining older systems that still are functional in the modern environment will also be an important part of it! Perfectly good, operational systems going prematurely EOL just to cut costs (like, most prominently, fpl 37) was a recurring theme in the "end of history" defence policies of the IRL 90's, and hence something we should not be seeing in T2k.
Also, conventional arms limitations treaties — like the IRL 1997 Ottawa Treaty, banning the use of anti-personnel mines — will obviously not happen, and thus will not affect the contents of Swedish armouries.
While it is true that military expenditure around the closing of the Cold War was quite high on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it needs to be borne in mind that in Sweden, defence budgets had already been cut several times since the 60's. In the specific case of Sweden, given an environment of radically altered priorities, there is therefore plenty of financial headroom to go the other way. And apart from the given — that the "peace dividend" defence cuts won't be happening, obviously — when, as we approach the middle of the game’s 90’s, tensions escalate, and economies come closer and closer to what might be called a war footing, that's when funding really should be flowing free...