FutureTank
Banned Member
The Tigers have a single deep service facility, but routine maintenance is performed at troop level, and the LPDs would probably only carry a troop of Tigers at a time at most.
I can just imagine the competing lines of authority and command. Its bad enough when units are attached, if they were permamently domiciled, it would be a nightmare.
Because the battalion commander does not have a brigade sized staff, perhaps?
Deployments are (relaitvely) short-lived. The only thing that goes with a unit are first-line maintenance facilities. Second-line is held at a higher formation (usually Brigade) and then third-line higher still. You'd have to not only attach your specialised unit, you'd have to attach a specialised unit to provide that second-line capability. The costs are growing, each time you realise and you have to start asking for what benefit.
Look, Brigades have worked for over 80 years, since WWI for a reason - because they work. Battalions don't have the time, resources and staff to administer more than a battalion. QED.
I don't see our battalions doing a Tarawa, whereas the Marines do. If we had the resources and the will, there may be a point but we lack both and no matter how much you wish the reverse was true, you've been unable to convince me thus far.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Ok, maybe you are right. I had a closer look at my files, and it appears that in my estimate to achieve this on Army-wide bais you's need close to an additional battalion of admin personnel (about 550 on my count)
What about doing this for a single 'high readiness' battalion (on rotation basis)? I know there is a company available, but not sure wha tthe arrangement is for attaching specialists to it for operations.
I think this would be worth considering. It could be a useful exercise for all of the units involved. In effect it would give the army experience putting a deployable force together. Helos, armour and other assets would have major maintenance carried out at their core or regimental workshop facilities. Apart from during major maintenance, specialist assets could remain at the location of the high readiness unit, with only the personnel rotating. I guess it would still be more costly than the present setup but it would provide a group that could perhaps be deployed more rapidly than is presently the case. Having said that I have to say I've been impressed with the speed in which the ADF has been able to put balanced combat groups together during recent operational deployments.
We would need to know how much extra cost would be involved. Apart from costs are there any other negative aspects to this sort of arrangement?
We already have one which is part of the ODF, oops showing me age again, RDF.
Everybody appears to forget the RDF's existence, for some reason.
Whoops!
Thanks for that info rickshaw. I didn't realise that the RDF included its own armour, helos, artillery, etc. I thought it was a basic light infantry unit.
Cheers
FutureTank
Banned Member
I understand this is currently maintained at a company strength.
This is not my idea btw, nor is it new. I recall seeing something like that proposal from a RAN site a couple of years ago when purchase of LPD was first proposed.
FutureTank
Banned Member
What is it's current structure?
Worth re reading AD's Post 336. In it he said:
I just had another look at the Army link re the HNA :
It states:
http://www.army.gov.au/HNA/default2.htm
It seems that the battlegroup organisation given in the example pretty well provides what FT is suggesting. All that would be needed would be for one to be set up on a rotational basis, with its attached units, along the lines of the example given, to act as the RDF. Perhaps though this is larger than is needed for the RDF if it is only a company based group at present.
It seems to me that if the battlegroups can be brought together quickly the army already has the capacity it needs to meet operational commitments and respond to emergencies, or at least it will have when the HNA becomes a reality!
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #370
It's already done, and this "new structure" is nothing more than what 1 Brigade has operated for years with "Battlegroup Tiger" and "Battlegroup Leopard". Not even additional capabilities, as most of the HNA "capabilities" have already been implemented or close to doing so.
The point is that it is cheaper to group capabilities together and provides a better basis for "large scale" warfare. It allows for concentration of specialist elements, such as "trade qualified" persons , which is THE biggest recruiting problem for ADF, not just Army. The idea that dozens, if not hundreds of extra mechanics, fitters etc can be found to support the dispersed units, is not supported by a simple look at the realities of defence recruiting.
On top of this, the current Orbat has yet to be proven NOT to work efficiently, whereas this type of structure was considered EXTENSIVELY under A21. If FT cares to recall 6RAR had it's own integral M198 artillery battery, LAV-25 equipped troop and appropriate supporting elements. It was decided after several years of study, that this formation was not of significant benefit to Army, over and above our existing structure.
What was that old saying about, if it ain't broke?
Now getting my "mod" hat on, let's get back to the thread topic. M1A1 technologies. If anyone wishes to continue this discussion, please start a new thread, in accordance with the DT rules. 1st Warning.
Does anyone with details of the tank deal know if the Euro-pack Diesel option would have cost any more?
Since the horse has already bolted perhaps we could modify them later, MTU also make a 1500 Hp V12 engine 35% smaller than the europack or a 2000 Hp V16 the same size.
If we ever decide to go with a hunter killer commanders sight perhaps we could incorporate this with an RWS towards the rear of the turret like the urban warfare Leo 2.
This is a thing called a Lemur mounted on a CV9040 sort of like what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwJwOKbGML8&mode=related&search=
Since the horse has already bolted perhaps we could modify them later, MTU also make a 1500 Hp V12 engine 35% smaller than the europack or a 2000 Hp V16 the same size.
If we ever decide to go with a hunter killer commanders sight perhaps we could incorporate this with an RWS towards the rear of the turret like the urban warfare Leo 2.
This is a thing called a Lemur mounted on a CV9040 sort of like what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwJwOKbGML8&mode=related&search=
Last edited:
Just had an interesting conversation with Darwins Crane Guru. The heaviest lift he has witnessed in Darwin was 700 tons. The most challengeing was 400ton of equipment, to be moved by road, through darwin to Wickem point LNG project. Traffic lights were removed and back roads taken. We have the capacity to lift loads as high as 1200 tons, right here in Darwin. So moving 60 ton MBT,s is hardly a problem. Either lifting them or moving them by road, as i mentioned before, the rumors are all about getting extra funding for the NT roads from the Federal Govt. Cheers.
100% correct. In addiiton there are a number of mobile wheeled 100 tonne units deployed to Darwin (as opposed to crawlers). Given the rail system can take the M1A1 getting them off the flat does is not really a problem.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #374
To those who still think Australia would have been better off with a Leo 2 purchase rather than the M1A1, here are the details of the Canadian purchase of Leo II's...
Backgrounder
Renewing the Canadian Forces' Tank Capability
BG–07.012 - April 12, 2007
THE REQUIREMENT
The heavily protected direct fire capability of a main battle tank is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of any military. The intensity of recent conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East has shown western militaries that tanks provide protection that cannot be matched by more lightly armoured wheeled vehicles.
Simply put, tanks save lives, providing soldiers with a high level of protection. In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s use of lethal and readily available anti-armour weapons, such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), is a clear threat. Canada’s Leopard 1 tanks have provided close direct fire support and mitigated the threat of IEDs, as well as landmines. The tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions.
Renewing Canada’s tank capability will enable the CF to meet current operational needs in the short and long term. Canada’s 30-year old Leopard 1 tanks are due for replacement, and Leopard 2 tanks offer more protection against IEDs and landmines; and are technologically more advanced than their predecessor. Furthermore, by 2012 there will no longer be logistics support and spare parts for the turrets of Leopard 1s, resulting in complete obsolescence by 2015.
THE PROCESS
A number of options for renewing the tank capability were considered, ranging from refurbishment to surplus to new.
Refurbishing the tanks is not an option as the 30-year old Leopard 1 turrets will be obsolete in 2015. It is also unsuited to operations in hot climates. Acquiring new tanks off a production line was also examined, but delivery would not occur for a few years and the individual tank cost is approximately three times as expensive as procuring and upgrading the same capability that exists on the surplus market.
When examining the surplus tank option, Canada approached six allied nations to enquire about availability. Formal proposals from three nations were thoroughly evaluated by Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Department of National Defence (DND) in terms of price, upgrade costs, delivery schedule, operational performance, survivability and through-life operating and maintenance costs. Based on this evaluation, the decision was taken to acquire up to 100 surplus Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands and negotiate a short-term loan arrangement with Germany to borrow 20 combat-ready Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks to address immediate operational requirements. This decision represented the most balanced and affordable approach for both short-and long-term requirements.
Canada is negotiating government-to-government agreements for both borrowing and acquiring the Leopard 2 tanks. The total project cost of the loaned tanks, the acquisition of 100 surplus tanks from the Netherlands, the requisite upgrades and enhancements to this new Leopard 2 fleet, and an initial acquisition of spare parts is $650 million, which will be funded from existing departmental allocations.
DEPLOYING COMBAT-READY TANKS
The tanks being loaned from Germany are fully operational, and will be deployed to Afghanistan in conjunction with the next rotation of personnel this summer.
These tanks are able to operate in intense heat as their electric turret systems and more powerful engines generate significantly less heat when operating than the hydraulic systems of Canada’s 30-year-old Leopard 1 fleet. They will also be fitted with climate control systems once in theatre.
ACQUIRING A PROVEN, MODERN MAIN BATTLE TANK
The surplus, modern Leopard 2 tanks being acquired from the Netherlands represent a unique opportunity to acquire proven, effective main battle tanks at a fraction of the cost of a similar, new tank. These tanks have been well maintained and stored in climate-controlled facilities. Due diligence has shown that these tanks will serve Canada effectively, well into the future. In addition, surplus Leopard 2 tanks have been acquired by a number of nations in recent years and have been put into operational service very successfully. This is a proven capability. Their advanced features include significantly increased personnel protection against explosive devices and landmines, an ability to travel considerably faster in difficult terrain, more powerful engines, and stronger firing capabilities.
CANADA’S NEW LEOPARD 2 FLEET
The acquisition of 100 tanks represents the minimum fleet size to support a deployed tank squadron. These 100 vehicles would be broken down into operational and supporting squadrons as follows:
This acquisition represents a significant opportunity for Canadian industry. Once negotiations are complete, the Dutch Leopard 2 tanks will be transported to Canada where they will receive the necessary upgrades to final Canadian Forces standards.
In the coming months, the Government of Canada will conduct one or more fair, open and competitive processes for the long-term in-service support of this fleet.
The Canadian Industrial Benefits policy will apply as appropriate. In this context, it may apply to future support, repair or upgrade contracts. The Canadian Industrial Benefits policy is the Government of Canada’s way of leveraging benefits to the Canadian economy as a result of our defence procurements.
THE FUTURE
The Canadian Forces have always planned to retain a direct-fire capability and recent conflicts have confirmed the importance of retaining a tracked tank capability. The Leopard 2 main battle tanks will bring strength, added protection and the ability to access difficult terrain that a wheeled vehicle cannot provide.
This acquisition is a further demonstration of Canada’s New Government’s commitment to renew and transform the Canadian Forces, providing them the equipment they need to do the demanding jobs we as Canadians ask them to do.
$120m MORE to acquire roughly the same amount of "operational" tanks, of arguably a lower specification than Australia received with it's "AIM SA" standard tanks.
Seems we didn't get quite so "hosed" as many would like to think...
Backgrounder
Renewing the Canadian Forces' Tank Capability
BG–07.012 - April 12, 2007
THE REQUIREMENT
The heavily protected direct fire capability of a main battle tank is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of any military. The intensity of recent conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East has shown western militaries that tanks provide protection that cannot be matched by more lightly armoured wheeled vehicles.
Simply put, tanks save lives, providing soldiers with a high level of protection. In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s use of lethal and readily available anti-armour weapons, such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), is a clear threat. Canada’s Leopard 1 tanks have provided close direct fire support and mitigated the threat of IEDs, as well as landmines. The tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions.
Renewing Canada’s tank capability will enable the CF to meet current operational needs in the short and long term. Canada’s 30-year old Leopard 1 tanks are due for replacement, and Leopard 2 tanks offer more protection against IEDs and landmines; and are technologically more advanced than their predecessor. Furthermore, by 2012 there will no longer be logistics support and spare parts for the turrets of Leopard 1s, resulting in complete obsolescence by 2015.
THE PROCESS
A number of options for renewing the tank capability were considered, ranging from refurbishment to surplus to new.
Refurbishing the tanks is not an option as the 30-year old Leopard 1 turrets will be obsolete in 2015. It is also unsuited to operations in hot climates. Acquiring new tanks off a production line was also examined, but delivery would not occur for a few years and the individual tank cost is approximately three times as expensive as procuring and upgrading the same capability that exists on the surplus market.
When examining the surplus tank option, Canada approached six allied nations to enquire about availability. Formal proposals from three nations were thoroughly evaluated by Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Department of National Defence (DND) in terms of price, upgrade costs, delivery schedule, operational performance, survivability and through-life operating and maintenance costs. Based on this evaluation, the decision was taken to acquire up to 100 surplus Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands and negotiate a short-term loan arrangement with Germany to borrow 20 combat-ready Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks to address immediate operational requirements. This decision represented the most balanced and affordable approach for both short-and long-term requirements.
Canada is negotiating government-to-government agreements for both borrowing and acquiring the Leopard 2 tanks. The total project cost of the loaned tanks, the acquisition of 100 surplus tanks from the Netherlands, the requisite upgrades and enhancements to this new Leopard 2 fleet, and an initial acquisition of spare parts is $650 million, which will be funded from existing departmental allocations.
DEPLOYING COMBAT-READY TANKS
The tanks being loaned from Germany are fully operational, and will be deployed to Afghanistan in conjunction with the next rotation of personnel this summer.
These tanks are able to operate in intense heat as their electric turret systems and more powerful engines generate significantly less heat when operating than the hydraulic systems of Canada’s 30-year-old Leopard 1 fleet. They will also be fitted with climate control systems once in theatre.
ACQUIRING A PROVEN, MODERN MAIN BATTLE TANK
The surplus, modern Leopard 2 tanks being acquired from the Netherlands represent a unique opportunity to acquire proven, effective main battle tanks at a fraction of the cost of a similar, new tank. These tanks have been well maintained and stored in climate-controlled facilities. Due diligence has shown that these tanks will serve Canada effectively, well into the future. In addition, surplus Leopard 2 tanks have been acquired by a number of nations in recent years and have been put into operational service very successfully. This is a proven capability. Their advanced features include significantly increased personnel protection against explosive devices and landmines, an ability to travel considerably faster in difficult terrain, more powerful engines, and stronger firing capabilities.
CANADA’S NEW LEOPARD 2 FLEET
The acquisition of 100 tanks represents the minimum fleet size to support a deployed tank squadron. These 100 vehicles would be broken down into operational and supporting squadrons as follows:
- For deployed operations, the Canadian Forces need two combat-ready squadrons of approximately 20 tanks each: one for deployment and a second for rotation into theatre to allow for depot repair and overhaul of the first.
- An additional two squadrons of 20 tanks each are required for collective and individual training in Canada.
- Individual tank training would be conducted by the squadron based at the Combat Training Centre at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick
- The squadron based at CFB Wainwright at the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre would conduct collective unit training to prepare for deployments.
- The final 20 vehicles will consist of key support vehicles such as armoured recovery vehicles, armoured bridge-laying vehicles and armoured engineering vehicles (i.e. dozer, plough, excavator).
This acquisition represents a significant opportunity for Canadian industry. Once negotiations are complete, the Dutch Leopard 2 tanks will be transported to Canada where they will receive the necessary upgrades to final Canadian Forces standards.
In the coming months, the Government of Canada will conduct one or more fair, open and competitive processes for the long-term in-service support of this fleet.
The Canadian Industrial Benefits policy will apply as appropriate. In this context, it may apply to future support, repair or upgrade contracts. The Canadian Industrial Benefits policy is the Government of Canada’s way of leveraging benefits to the Canadian economy as a result of our defence procurements.
THE FUTURE
The Canadian Forces have always planned to retain a direct-fire capability and recent conflicts have confirmed the importance of retaining a tracked tank capability. The Leopard 2 main battle tanks will bring strength, added protection and the ability to access difficult terrain that a wheeled vehicle cannot provide.
This acquisition is a further demonstration of Canada’s New Government’s commitment to renew and transform the Canadian Forces, providing them the equipment they need to do the demanding jobs we as Canadians ask them to do.
$120m MORE to acquire roughly the same amount of "operational" tanks, of arguably a lower specification than Australia received with it's "AIM SA" standard tanks.
Seems we didn't get quite so "hosed" as many would like to think...
But the Canadians have much more training vehicles which can easily be used to form overstrength squadrons if the situation requires it.
They also get their bridgelaying equipment which is very important in my eyes and would have been also a good purchase for Australia, especially with all this talking about the Abrams being not able to use some bridges in Australia and without them beeing able to deep forge.
The AIMs defenitely have an advantage when it comes to battlefield management systems when the Canadians decide not to go with the system offered by Rheinmetall.
On the other hand due to its decision not to use DU ammo the Leos offer better firepower.
I agree that it is a closer run than many expected because people tend to look at the really cheap basic A4s offered by some countries and tend to forget that for example a new Leopard 2E costs more than 7 million (including support, spare parts, training,...).
In the end the Leopard 2A6(M) is a better tank than the M1A1 AIM used by you WHEN fitted with a battlefield managment system.
- Better firepower
- Hunter/killer capabilities (including an extra TI)
- deep forging capability
- not that tail heavy due to the more classical but equally powerfull engine
- improved mine/IED protection when using the M version
They also get their bridgelaying equipment which is very important in my eyes and would have been also a good purchase for Australia, especially with all this talking about the Abrams being not able to use some bridges in Australia and without them beeing able to deep forge.
The AIMs defenitely have an advantage when it comes to battlefield management systems when the Canadians decide not to go with the system offered by Rheinmetall.
On the other hand due to its decision not to use DU ammo the Leos offer better firepower.
I agree that it is a closer run than many expected because people tend to look at the really cheap basic A4s offered by some countries and tend to forget that for example a new Leopard 2E costs more than 7 million (including support, spare parts, training,...).
In the end the Leopard 2A6(M) is a better tank than the M1A1 AIM used by you WHEN fitted with a battlefield managment system.
- Better firepower
- Hunter/killer capabilities (including an extra TI)
- deep forging capability
- not that tail heavy due to the more classical but equally powerfull engine
- improved mine/IED protection when using the M version
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #376
I'm not so much disparaging the Leo II as those who think Australia completely missed the mark acquiring the M1A1. It was done for excellent reasons and will prove to be a very capable tank for Australia.
They also think we somehow got swindled. At least it's reassuring to see we're not the ONLY ones if this is the case...
The Ghans going to be Panzer city soon, as well as the Canadians the Danes are sending a quantity of LeoIIA5s to Helmand.
At last the Germans will get to try out their tank in low level battle conditions.
I initially thought we should have gone LeoII untill I realised we could quite easily put standard Diesel engines in the Abrams, I read somewhere that an Abrams with the more fuel efficient Diesel powerpack of 1500hp (some say nearer to 1800hp) using the same fuel load as the Gas Turbine equiped model (ie just using the existing fuel tanks) would have a road range of around 750 kilometers!
This and the fact that all ammo in the Abrams is in armoured blow off panel equiped boxes at the rear of the turret and none in the hull makes it much more of a winner than I previously thought.
I think we need more though, even if half of them are put away in war storage and they all need a diesel power pack.
If L55, RWS or hunter killer thermals sights are needed im sure they could be fitted but the fundamentals are right even if its a bit heavy but so is the LeoII.
Danish LeoII off to Helmand
At last the Germans will get to try out their tank in low level battle conditions.
I initially thought we should have gone LeoII untill I realised we could quite easily put standard Diesel engines in the Abrams, I read somewhere that an Abrams with the more fuel efficient Diesel powerpack of 1500hp (some say nearer to 1800hp) using the same fuel load as the Gas Turbine equiped model (ie just using the existing fuel tanks) would have a road range of around 750 kilometers!
This and the fact that all ammo in the Abrams is in armoured blow off panel equiped boxes at the rear of the turret and none in the hull makes it much more of a winner than I previously thought.
I think we need more though, even if half of them are put away in war storage and they all need a diesel power pack.
If L55, RWS or hunter killer thermals sights are needed im sure they could be fitted but the fundamentals are right even if its a bit heavy but so is the LeoII.
Danish LeoII off to Helmand
As I stated before.
Leos are also not cheap. Not if you want a top machine. If you are ok with surplus A4 than you can get them very cheap and they have the best bang for the bucks at the moment.
But if you want a truly modern Leo with all the gadgets of the Leopard IIA6EX you are not getting away very cheap.
This is what many people forget.
I stated the things which I don't like at the M1A1 AIMs the Aussies got (No hunter/killer, the turbine, no deep forging capability and no bridgelayers and a less powerfull gun due to non-DU ammo) but it is not a bad decision.
A comparable fleet of Leo II with all the nice toys would have been only marginal cheaper (Or maybe even more expensive) and the Aussies tend to work together with the Yanks making it a good decision for oversea deployments.
Leos are also not cheap. Not if you want a top machine. If you are ok with surplus A4 than you can get them very cheap and they have the best bang for the bucks at the moment.
But if you want a truly modern Leo with all the gadgets of the Leopard IIA6EX you are not getting away very cheap.
This is what many people forget.
I stated the things which I don't like at the M1A1 AIMs the Aussies got (No hunter/killer, the turbine, no deep forging capability and no bridgelayers and a less powerfull gun due to non-DU ammo) but it is not a bad decision.
A comparable fleet of Leo II with all the nice toys would have been only marginal cheaper (Or maybe even more expensive) and the Aussies tend to work together with the Yanks making it a good decision for oversea deployments.
If Australia ever decides that they need a little more non DU velocity/power they can always upgrade to the L-55.