More Abrams for ADF?

[cherry]

The purchase of 59 Abrams tanks for the ADF is a great decision and will add a totally new dimension to the Army and, giving them a platform with a huge amount of potential. The entire package seems to have been handled and thought out very well. My only problem with the new tank purchase is that I believe not enough tanks were bought. After a large chunk of tanks are taken out of the equation for designated training areas, the armoured force are left with only 41 operational tanks. This is a pittance compared to other countries and although Army plans to utilise a combined arms approach to warfare, this amount of tanks will leave some gaping holes in this combined arms team. I am under the impression that traditionally tank squads run with 14 tanks? If this is so, then there is not enough tanks purchased to run with 3 squads/batallions (unsure as to the correct terminology). To purchase another 14 Abrams tanks, 15 Heavy Transport Trailers, 2 Hercules recovery vehicles, and 3 more tank refuellers, it would cost around $150M. To double this, only around $300M. I believe that at least another 14 tanks with the appropriate support equipment is a necessity, and ultimately double this would provide a more credible and flexible armoured capability.

I know it was a hard fought battle for army to convince government that a new tank was urgently needed, and I praise them for putting up such a good fight and winning it, but surely there needs to be more battles fought to further the project and obtain a greater and more credible number of tanks.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Cherry, traditionally 1 Armed Regt, has operated 20 tanks per squadron, plus a Tank for the Unit C/O. This program is designed to equip 2 Squadrons plus the C/O's tank, hence the 41 operational tanks, plus operational support vehicles. 1 Arm'd Regt has traditionally operated 3 Squadrons however and did so, until only a couple of years back when it was downsized to it's current 2 "Sabre" Squadrons.


I agree that more tanks are necessary, but I doubt we'll see them, short of a major conflict occuring... It seems to me that the policy of the current government is to acquire some great capabilities for the ADF, but it will only do so in minute amounts (59 M1A1's, 22 Tiger ARH's, the 36 proposed self propelled guns for Arty etc, 287 Bushmasters for 7 Brigade, which is in-sufficient to equip the whole brigade etc, etc)...

I guess the rationale behind this is that it will provide the Government "options" to deploy the ADF operationally in any type of operational environment, but at the minimal possible cost, financially and in total numbers deployed. The problems this then creates is a limited the ability to rotate said forces on deployment and the possible attrition rates should our forces (god forbid) actually face a strong opponent...

 

[Supe]

Is 59 a magic number? Why only that amount and not a one for one replacement of the Leo's? Something is not right here. It implies to me that the Gov doesn't really believe in the worth of equipping the Army with tanks but they decided to take out an insurance policy (just in case) and so purchased the bare minimum.

 

[Aussie Digger]

59 would be the number Army recommended to sufficiently equip 2 operational squadrons, the necessary training establishments (ie: Army School of Armour, School of Engineering etc) and attrition/replacement numbers... I agree additional tanks should be bought to bring 1 Armd Regt back up to 3 operational Squadrons however...

 

[knightrider4]

I think a lot of the time AD manpower is a limiting factor. I think Australia would struggle to find the numbers to crew a larger force especially in capability of the Tiger ARH. As for the tanks it would be good to see the 1st Armoured Regiment with the full complement of M1A1D's.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think a lot of the time AD manpower is a limiting factor. I think Australia would struggle to find the numbers to crew a larger force especially in capability of the Tiger ARH. As for the tanks it would be good to see the 1st Armoured Regiment with the full complement of M1A1D's.

They've got a larger force now. The army currently operates 40 Kiowa rece helo's and still has 25 Iroquois in service. They are being replaced by 22 Tigers and 12 MRH-90's respectively, that's 34 aircraft to pilot as opposed to 65 right now...

2 additional Tiger Squadrons (an additional 18 aircraft) would make a massive different to Army capability, with the ability to simultaneously support EACH Brigade within 1 Division in DOA ops AND the ability to provide 2 Squadrons (ie: 18 aircraft) to support a Brigade on deployment in "higher" intensity scenario's, without deploying the entire operational fleet. (US Army brigades normally deploy with 16 Apaches in support)...

AS to the ability to support increased numbers for the ADF. There's a thread on that already, but suffice to say just quickly, there were 80,000 odd inquiries for ADF positions in 2003/4, 15,000 odd formal applications and slightly less than 4000 persons actually recruited. Lack of suitable manpower is NOT the problem the Government makes it out to be. Lack of proper funding IS...

 

[Jason_kiwi]

I think 59 is well enough. When is australia ever goin to use them??? They are better investing in LAV's.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think 59 is well enough. When is australia ever goin to use them??? They are better investing in LAV's.

Who knows when Australia will use them? That's why you invest in defence capability. Australian Leopard AS1 tanks were on standby to deploy in Squadron + strength to East Timor when it was first "going down" and would have it things had been any more heated. Tanks aren't ONLY used for high intensity coalition stye warfighting scenario's if that's what you're really asking... That's just probably all you've seen recently.

The problems with this particular number of platforms is that it doesn't support the full brigade capability that the Army is trying to develop within 1 Brigade. If another battalion is created as mooted, that battalion won't have a tank squadron in support (or 2 Cav won't) meaning that the Brigade will be un-balanced unless additional Abrams and support vehicles are acquired.

 

[pasukangeraktjepat]

Australian Leopard AS1 tanks were on standby to deploy in Squadron + strength to East Timor when it was first "going down" and would have it things had been any more heated. Tanks aren't ONLY used for high intensity coalition stye warfighting scenario's if that's what you're really asking... That's just probably all you've seen recently.

AD, did Australia Govt. send any tanks or other armoured vehicle in East Timor ?
I just saw an infantry men and some jeeps in photo news.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yep, Australia deployed a mechanised infantry battalion mounted in M113 APC's (about 180 vehicles in total, 5/7RAR), plus a squadron strength Cavalry Regiment equipped with M113 APC's (about 25 vehicles, B squadron 3/4 Cav Regt), plus 2 Cavalry Squadrons equipped with ASLAV vehicles (about 50 vehicles, 2 Cav Regt) plus a couple of Bushmaster IMV's (2 operated by 1 MP Coy) to perform close personel protection duties for very important people... The Leopard AS1 tanks were VERY nearly deployed (as were F/A-18's and F-111's though)...

 

[cherry]

The problems with this particular number of platforms is that it doesn't support the full brigade capability that the Army is trying to develop within 1 Brigade. If another battalion is created as mooted, that battalion won't have a tank squadron in support (or 2 Cav won't) meaning that the Brigade will be un-balanced unless additional Abrams and support vehicles are acquired.

Surely if the government decides to implement the additional battalion then all of the appropriate equipment will need to and should be purchased and, if an additional squadron of tanks is a part of that, then it would be silly of them not to go down this path. Another 20 Abrams with the appropriate Hercs, refuellers and through life support would only cost around $170M. To add to this, another 20 tanks still only gives us a very small number of mbt, particularly in comparison with almost every other country who operates tanks. I know we don't need hundreds of tanks for what our forces are designed to do, but 59 is no where near enough.

I know some people on this forum hear certain things coming from different areas within defence, is there any talk of the certainty of another battalion being formed? If so, in what form and with what sort of equipment, and.....any more Abrams?

 

[cherry]

If the Government aren't prepared to purchase a further batch of Abrams then would another viable option be to purchase around 60 Mobile Gun Systems based on the current ASLAV platform. This has a smaller calibre weapons system which may cause some logistics issues, but this platform might be a really good complimentary system to the Abrams and add to the combined arms team. It may be a better "high fire power" platform for some of the more minor missions that require heavy fire power but maybe not something in the high end range of an Abrams?



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics-mgs.htm

 

[Aussie Digger]

Interestingly enough, the original plans for the Armoured Recon Regts (2 Cav and 2/14LHR) were to equip them with their own integral 105mm direct fire vehicles (based on ASLAV) and 120mm Mortar equipped vehicles (also based on ASLAV).

Each Recce squadron would then have incorporated 3 recon troops, 1x direct fire support troop (equipped with 6x 105mm guns) and 1x in-direct fire support troop (equipped with 6x 120mm Mortars).

These additions would have provided a massive boost in firepower for the individual Regiments, but also for the Brigades they are attached to.

From a logistics point of view the 105mm guns shouldn't be too difficult to support. We currently manufacture 105mm ammunition within Australia for our current Leopard tanks, and already have the support mechanisms in place for the ASLAV vehicles.

This plan seems to be on the backburner or scrapped altogether now however...

 

[cherry]

I would be happy with either a further Abrams purchase or the MGS based on an ASLAV but from what I can work out from the internet, both systems seem to be around the same price to buy. So, if this is the case then Abrams would be a better solution and better value for money as it is a more robust system.

 

[alexsa]

Out of curiosity what will happen to the Leopards once the Abrams are in service. Is it possible these will go to reserve units? If they are not too worn out it would seem a waste not to at least use them in a limited training role for the reserves.

I accept the suggestion may be completely impractical and unrealistic (not being well informed in regards to the army) but I am curious.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think they'll probably be retired from service when the Abrams arrive. The Army would rather invest the money that would have to be used to maintain the Leopards into new capabilities.

 

[knightrider4]

AD would know but I'm reasonably sure that the ADF has a reserve leopard squadron although it will be disbanded when the M1A1D is introduced. There is no chance of their being a reserve Abrams squadron as it requires the expertise that only fulltime members can give, it's simply a far more advanced platform to operate and maintain. Ooops to slow with my reply!

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD would know but I'm reasonably sure that the ADF has a reserve leopard squadron although it will be disbanded when the M1A1D is introduced. There is no chance of their being a reserve Abrams squadron as it requires the expertise that only fulltime members can give, it's simply a far more advanced platform to operate and maintain. Ooops to slow with my reply!

You are quite correct there Knightrider, however it is strange that US Army Reserve soldiers (with no previous full time experience) and National Guardsman are capable of operating such advanced machinery and yet Australian soldiers are apparently not, particularly when we're told ad nausem by the defence chiefs how capable Aussie reservists are...

Mind you, I don't actually have a problem with losing the reserve component of 1 Armd Regt, just the loss of the extra squadron. 1 Brigade should be an entirely "regular" brigade in my opinion, just as 3 Brigade is... An additional regular squadron should be raised for 1 Armd and equipped with the necessary extra M1A1's...

 

[cherry]

If no more Abrams are purchased (which is highly likely to be the case) should our proposed fleet of 59 be upgraded before being delivered with the Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK) to enable them to be more survivable in urban conflict.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

There was an article in this months "Defence Today" magazine and this package looks very attractive and also very affordable. If we are to operate such a small number of tanks then the least the Government and ADF can do is to give them the most survivable fit-out for our soldiers.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I saw that article (and all the others) in that magazine the other day. and thought it some of the most negative defence reporting I've ever read... The M1A1 in it's prevent form is the most survivable and capable armoured vehicle the ADF has ever had and he's still not happy...

The M1 series have proven to be one of the most effective and survivable tanks ever produced. He didn't check his facts either. Army HAS ordered a Canister round for the 120mm main gun on the M1A1...

He also doesn't understand (or chooses to overlook) how the ADF operates tanks. ADF uses it's tanks in direct support of the infantry. Most other Army's use their tanks the other way round. This is due to the infantry centric nature of our army, developed mainly due to operational environments we have been in (primarily Malaya and Vietnam)

This has important implications for the use of reactive armour for instance. Reactive armour cannot reportedly be used where infantry operate close to the tanks. The danger from the explosive armour to the infantry is simply too great.

In addition to which he advocates changing the turbine engine to a conventional diesel engine. For one thing I doubt a similarly powerful conventional diesel would FIT in the engine bay of the M1A1, and second Australia would be the ONLY such user. No other Country (to the best of my knowledge) has performed this modification, so we would be totally responsible for the design, engineering challenges and non-recurring costs that this change would involve, to get in the end a vehicle no better than what we already have...

It's a ridiculous proposition IMHO and the funds expended on such a move would be better used in beefing up our logistical capabilities to cope with the fuel use that M1A1's require.