My God. Reading the comments on that SMH article did my head in. What an absolute bunch of muppets! I really do hope they reflect a minority of voter opinions.The current fleet of 59 tanks are obsolete, or near enough to being obsolete.
This project is not just an upgrade of the existing fleet, but also a much needed expansion, plus additional types of heavy armour vehicles too.
New M1A2 tanks and engineering vehicles for Australian Army confirmed | ADBR
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has confirmed the acquisition of 75 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams main battle tanks (MBT) and 52 Abrams-based armoured engineering and support vehicles for the Australian Army under…adbr.com.au
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
For Decades the Australian Regular Army had been operating, 1 Armoured Regt with 3 MBT sqns and 2 Recce Regts(with 3 ARV sqns) this has now changed to 3 Armd recce+ Regts with 1 MBT Sqn and 2 ARV Sqns each, to achieve this balance the Army required a increase in MBT numbers and we would have ended up with 2 very Tanks if we didn't replace the entire fleet with new Tanks.
Australia commits to $3.5 billion tank purchase from the US
The purchase has ignited debate in defence circles about the utility of tanks in modern combat.www.smh.com.au
Thoughts on this? I would've thought that there wasn't an immediate need to replace the exiting Abrams fleet.
Last year an article by The Strategist referred to the tanks weight and Australias ability for amphibious warfare with a tank of a weight heavier than existing Abrams, the sep v 3 is it likely that modifications again are likely to the lcm- 1e that was modified to carry the Abrams
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Australia’s new tanks are overkill and overweight | The Strategist
Australia, according to an unremarkable line item in the May federal budget, is making its first purchase of new tanks in almost 15 years with the upgrade of the army’s M1 Abrams tank fleet. While ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Lol. ‘Overkill’…Last year an article by The Strategist referred to the tanks weight and Australias ability for amphibious warfare with a tank of a weight heavier than existing Abrams, the sep v 3 is it likely that modifications again are likely to the lcm- 1e that was modified to carry the Abrams
Australia’s new tanks are overkill and overweight | The Strategist
Australia, according to an unremarkable line item in the May federal budget, is making its first purchase of new tanks in almost 15 years with the upgrade of the army’s M1 Abrams tank fleet. While ...
No, no… He is completely right. We would be much better off buying capabilities that don’t over-match our possible opponents…
John Newman
The Bunker Group
There are certain media organisations, and the people who write for them, generally lean in the opposite direction to the current Federal Government.
Media organisations such as the SMH, AFR, ABC, and some others, would generally attract a readership opposed to this Government.
So it’s not surprising that the comments would be negative.
Anyway, the general media is usually the last place to look for fair and reasonable Defence reporting.
Cheers,
This article suggests that the latest version of the Abrams weighs in excess of seventy tons
www.popularmechanics.com
The M1 Abrams Tank Needs to Shave Off a Few, Uh, Tons
This absolute unit now weighs over 147,000 pounds. That's a problem.
www.popularmechanics.com
Although Australia is apparently not getting the Deplete Uranium armor, so they might be a bit lighter on that front. IMO while tanks are still useful regionally, I'm not sure they need the latest armor packages as they might in high intensity conflicts on the Eurasian continent.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I think we could all reasonably assume that the Army, and RAN, will be fully aware of the full loaded combat weight of the M1A2 SEPv3 version that’s is being procured.This article suggests that the latest version of the Abrams weighs in excess of seventy tons
The M1 Abrams Tank Needs to Shave Off a Few, Uh, Tons
This absolute unit now weighs over 147,000 pounds. That's a problem.
No surprises there I don’t think.
Yes the LCM-1e were modified to carry the current M1 version in more severe sea states, but do they require further mods? Who knows?
But let’s not also forget that there is a project to build replacement LCMs starting in the latter half of the 2020s, again you’d reasonably assume that the fully loaded combat weights of the new M1 and other new heavy combat vehicles, will be fed into the design of the new LCM fleet.
Is the glass looking half empty or half full?
Cheers,
Glass half full
Things evolve.
M1A2 SEPv3 is heavy for a reason.
It needs to survive in the most contested of environments.
Interesting that the first of the new MBT's will arrive in 2024.
That is not far away.
Re maritime connectors, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some movement in this space earlier than planned.
Boxer and MBT's are on the way and the IFV will be heavy no matter who wins.
One of Navantia's options is the Kodal 75S.
If this can in fact can carry 75 t then this would we the way forward with our future MBT's.
Other manufacturers will also pitch for our needs.
Anyway that's one for the Navy thread.
Regards S
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Australia Buys M1A2 SEPv3 Advanced Abrams Tanks To Lead Its Major Armor Upgrade
The SEPv3 is the most capable variant of the trusty Abrams currently available but its value in a future Asia-Pacific conflict is questionable.
www.thedrive.com
According to TheWarZone, the tanks will come equipped with Trophy APS. This should have an effect on the LAND 400 Phase 3 program.
Another possibility for a future guided rocket / PrSM launch capability for Army, which has always been noncommittal on launcher type for our future expected MLRS capability…
Provides a 2 launch pod capability similar in firepower to MLRS with 6x guided MLRS rockets or 2x PrSM per pod, can be carried on a truck, the deck of a suitable maritime vessel, or parked into a fixed location such as an FSB, if desired.
May well provide an excellent local integration project onto our choice of tactical trucks and trailers?
Provides a 2 launch pod capability similar in firepower to MLRS with 6x guided MLRS rockets or 2x PrSM per pod, can be carried on a truck, the deck of a suitable maritime vessel, or parked into a fixed location such as an FSB, if desired.
May well provide an excellent local integration project onto our choice of tactical trucks and trailers?
https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/RDTE/A/0604768A_127.pdf
I noticed the Philippines are looking to buy 32 new Blackhawks. the S-70i model.
My understanding is they are a Polish produced version of the UH-60M
Wherever we get our new Blackhawk fleet , there is certainly some comfort for the future that this platform is still in production and well used around the world.
Regards S
My understanding is they are a Polish produced version of the UH-60M
Wherever we get our new Blackhawk fleet , there is certainly some comfort for the future that this platform is still in production and well used around the world.
Regards S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Really not sure where you got that idea from, as the S-70i is very much a Sikorsky helicopter which is available in a number of subvariants. A LockMart (now owners of Sikorsky) brochure on the S-70i can be found here. License production of Blackhawks have been done in Turkey, but not Poland and AFAIK the Sikorsky plant in Stratford, Connecticut is where virtually all S-70/H-60 'hawk helicopter versions have been produced. The S-70i's that Poland ordered, was via a Polish subsidiary of Sikorsky, Polish Aviation Works Mielec, and therefore also a LockMart subsidiary.
Sikorsky has (or at least, had in the early part of this century) a manufacturing facility in Poland - it was doing most of the work on the S76 in around 2003, and shipping the basic shell to Straford for fitting out and completing. Not sure if they still do - there would have been a number of corporate restructures since I imagine.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
That facility would probably be the PZL Mielec, or in English Polish Aviation Works Mielec, which Sikorsky acquired in 2007. In 2009 the facility started to do some fuselage work for the UH-60M Black Hawk, and has done final assembly on some S-70i Black Hawks (~30 IIRC). Per the Wayback machine, the press release announcing the first S-70i Black Hawk, which was also the first Black Hawk helicopter assembled in Europe via a global supply change, had final assembly prior to mid-March in 2010, and it was expected that there would be ~20 assembled per year starting in 2012. Not sure that is still the case.
Wonder why?
Nuke powered subs, ok.....depleted uranium armour, not ok?
Nuke subs, out there. DU armour, in here.
Partly public perception, but also the benefits of nuclear propulsion are obvious enough and the marginal added benefit of DU armour not so much
oldsig
I certaiy hope so, though given the lcm1e recieved second pass approval about 4 years after the M1A1 started entering Australian service, but only started lifting them for the first time a year or so back, after a custom mod, I'm not so confident that what seems sensible, is in fact what happens in practice.
What makes you think that Aussie tanks won't face a top tier tank threat at some stage in the future? You cannot assume that it won't just because Aussie tanks haven't gone into combat since Vietnam 60 years ago. The PLA-GF Type 99-A2 MBT won't be a slouch and with around 5,600 MBT in service quantity has a quality of its own. The National Interest article on the ZTZ-99A is more informative. You do not know where the PLA-GF MBT forces and the Aussies MBT forces will be deployed in the future.
Having seen so many arguments against the MBT one of the most common being "We havent used them since Vietnam, So we dont need them any more" to which my response by that very same metric Destroyers, Submarines, Frigates, Fighter Jets etc also haven't been used in the combat roles that are the defining factors for their capabilities so should we know shift to a fleet of Cutters, and COIN aircraft?
Everything in defence has a role to play, some roles will be more constant, some might be once in a decade things and others can go decades between any real use but if history has taught us one thing its that when we have given up on a particular capability sooner or later it has come back to bite us on the a***. Think of defence like a condom, If you dont have it and a good quality one at that it is going to cost you a lot more later on for decades to come.
Everything in defence has a role to play, some roles will be more constant, some might be once in a decade things and others can go decades between any real use but if history has taught us one thing its that when we have given up on a particular capability sooner or later it has come back to bite us on the a***. Think of defence like a condom, If you dont have it and a good quality one at that it is going to cost you a lot more later on for decades to come.