More Abrams for ADF?

[Supe]

I don't think the Gov was successfully convinced of the need for tanks... I draw that conclusion from the numbers bought. It may be an erroneous conclusion but with respect to numbers settled on, it seems plausible. If that is correct, then I see little chance of those Abrams being upgraded. Certainly now would be the time to do it given they are being given the once over at the plant in Lima.

 

[seantheaussie]

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.

Collins, ANZACs, Wedgetails, Bushmasters, Super Seasprites, AWDs seem to suggest it is almost certain to happen

 

[Aussie Digger]

AS to the idea of Australia being an orphan user in the future here's what Robert HILL said in an interview about the Sea Kings/Sea Sprites last week:



Senator Hill:

Oh, it’s been a difficult project, there’s no doubt about that. I think a lot has been learnt, in terms of turning an old airframe into a most sophisticated new aircraft. I mean, technically it can be done, but it’s very challenging. And when you’re the only customer that’s seeking to do it, it means that all obstacles you have to address and overcome. So it’s a great credit to the whole team that they’ve got the Sea Sprite to the position it’s in now, but we certainly look forward to the task being completed and the Sea Sprite being operational.

Journalist:

In retrospect, would you go down the same track again?

Senator Hill:

Well you never have exactly the same set of circumstances, but I think whilst it technically can be done, there are great challenges. We addressed that issue in relation to the F-111s, and we ultimately decided that to replace the F-111s was a better course of action. So, the decision was made a long time ago in relation to the Sea Sprite. Maybe the extent of the complexity was underestimated, I don’t know, it’s been a huge challenge. But the outcome will be a very sophisticated aircraft and we’re looking forward to having it.

I seriously doubt any projects will be undertaken like this in the future. This has been shown by virtually off the shelf purchases for Tiger, M1A1's and others. The benefits simply don't equal the effort and expenditure... The Sea Sprites are 4 years late and provide barely more capability than the Sea Hawk's...

As to the ANZAC's, they are based on a proven German Meko design, using engines with a wide production base. Same with the Wedgetails. It's a basic 737 airframe using normal engines etc. The Bushmaster is an Australian designed cabin based on a Unimog chassis, engine/gearbox etc platform. The AWD's are the same. Based on a proven design using a combat system that is the most prolific, capable and proven design in the world.

All these projects are vastly different to the Collins and Sea Sprites. We have the Labor Government to thank for those projects BTW...

 

[Cootamundra]

AS to the idea of Australia being an orphan user in the future here's what Robert HILL said in an interview about the Sea Kings/Sea Sprites last week:


....The Sea Sprites are 4 years late and provide barely more capability than the Sea Hawk's...

....to the Collins and Sea Sprites. We have the Labor Government to thank for those projects BTW...

Makes you wonder what was put in the proposal that made the Seasprites sound so good.

Is it true that we went with that airframe because the ANZACs couldn't fit the Sea Hawk? If so, who was the nuckle head in charge of that design! I mean how hard would it be hard to expand the ship to take a slightly larger helicopter? Was there something else about the SeaHawkes that people didn't like?

At least with Collins we've ended up with a platform that is considered to be one of the best if not the best conventional subs going around.

Coota

 

[seantheaussie]

Senator Hill:

Well you never have exactly the same set of circumstances, but I think whilst it technically can be done, there are great challenges. We addressed that issue in relation to the F-111s, and we ultimately decided that to replace the F-111s was a better course of action. So, the decision was made a long time ago in relation to the Sea Sprite. Maybe the extent of the complexity was underestimated, I don’t know, it’s been a huge challenge. But the outcome will be a very sophisticated aircraft and we’re looking forward to having it.

I seriously doubt any projects will be undertaken like this in the future. This has been shown by virtually off the shelf purchases for Tiger, M1A1's and others. The benefits simply don't equal the effort and expenditure... The Sea Sprites are 4 years late and provide barely more capability than the Sea Hawk's...

As to the ANZAC's, they are based on a proven German Meko design, using engines with a wide production base. Same with the Wedgetails. It's a basic 737 airframe using normal engines etc. The Bushmaster is an Australian designed cabin based on a Unimog chassis, engine/gearbox etc platform. The AWD's are the same. Based on a proven design using a combat system that is the most prolific, capable and proven design in the world.

All these projects are vastly different to the Collins and Sea Sprites. We have the Labor Government to thank for those projects BTW...

Modified off-the-shelf is much more expensive & much riskier than off-the-shelf. Both major Australian political parties are addicted to Modified off-the-shelf I will take the sea sprites as less risky to Australia's security than the crucial,untried wedgetails. FFG upgrade is almost identical to sea sprites. i.e. being the sole user to research & develop this upgrade path to OHP's.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Makes you wonder what was put in the proposal that made the Seasprites sound so good.

Is it true that we went with that airframe because the ANZACs couldn't fit the Sea Hawk? If so, who was the nuckle head in charge of that design! I mean how hard would it be hard to expand the ship to take a slightly larger helicopter? Was there something else about the SeaHawkes that people didn't like?

Coota

No, ANZAC's carry Sea Hawk's now on deployments. The reason Sea Sprites were chosen was that 11 Sea Sprites were offered (plus 18 options) to provide similar capabilities as Sea Hawk, plus the anti-ship missile capability at a far less cost both up front and with through life support, plus with only 2 crew + a loadmaster instead of the Sea Hawk's 3 + 1...

Unfortunately what looked too good to be true has so far turned out to be so...

 

[blueorchid]

Quoted by AUSSIE DIGGER

"The Bushmaster is an Australian designed cabin based on a Unimog chassis, engine/gearbox etc platform."

Could you please tell me where you got the above information from as I thought the only IMV that used the Unimog as a base was the Tenix entry for the ADF IMV which lost out.

The Bushmaster was a co-design of Timoney Technology and ADI using a Arvin Meritor all wheel independent suspension with a Caterpillar engine and a ZF or Allison automatic transmission

 

[Aussie Digger]

Quoted by AUSSIE DIGGER

"The Bushmaster is an Australian designed cabin based on a Unimog chassis, engine/gearbox etc platform."

Could you please tell me where you got the above information from as I thought the only IMV that used the Unimog as a base was the Tenix entry for the ADF IMV which lost out.

The Bushmaster was a co-design of Timoney Technology and ADI using a Arvin Meritor all wheel independent suspension with a Caterpillar engine and a ZF or Allison automatic transmission

Actually I can't, you are quite correct. The ADI Bushmaster isn't based on the Unimog at all. I'd always assumed it was, remembering that some of the IMV entrants were...

 

[cherry]

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...

i have too agree with you about the negativity of the article. I think the author's ego is blurring his judgement a bit. But, there are some very appealing concepts of the TUSK upgrade, in particular the rear protection, the RWS and the thermal sights.

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)...

I think if Australia ever became involved in a major conflict with a large deployment of soldiers and heavy gear, you would see a real rush from ADF for a further procurement of Tigers and Abrams.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree those capabilities look and sound nice, but I'd rather get the M1A1 capability in-service first, and upgrade them later as necessary. The ADF is lacking far too many capabilities to get too carried away on one particular capability.

Can anyone argue that the money these upgrades would cost wouldn't be better spent acquiring more M113AS3/4's or for providing a REAL firepower boost on the M113AS3/4's we've already ordered, for instance?

Fitting an RWS and Thermal sight system isn't the most labour intensive activity around either and as shown by the ASLAV's on their Iraq deployment, can be done, integrated and tested VERY quickly (ie: within weeks). M1A1's as I recall already have thermals anyway...

I agree about the procurement rush, though it might be a bit hard to acquire additional Tigers quickly. The only way it could be done is if platforms ordered by other Countries were taken off the assembly line and modified to Australian standards. Their'd be a fair bit of negotiation required to do this and probably a fair amount of financial recompense to the Country's whose Tigers we took... The M1A1's wouldn't be too difficult however...

Besides, if Australia ever became involved in "real" large scale heavy fighting there would be massive rush procurements on almost EVERY bit of capability we possess...

 

[AMTP10E]

There are Australian Army guys over in the US who are investigating TUSK as we speak. From what I've heard, if we don't get the M1's with TUSK already fitted they will be refitted with it once in country.

 

[driftder]

erm if Australia ever does let go of the Leopards, let us know. Can use a good tank instead of the AMX13. But then who knows? Maybe we might go along with the Abrams though my pref is for the Merkeva or Chally2 with upgrades.

 

[knightrider4]

They are no good mate the hulls are cracking you would be better protected in a volvo.

 

[Stryker001]

Yeah Knightrider4 Leopards are now no good, I would like to have seen a purchase of 150 to 200 Abrams. However we are lucky to get the 60, plenty of people not happy with even getting the upgraded capability I think recent events allowed the Army to push for the purchase, but in true Government fashion only allow the financial resources to purchase 60, below the absolute minimum number.

 

[Aardvark Fury]

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)...attrition rates should our forces (god forbid) actually face a strong opponent...

This looks to me like a perpetuation of the Labor Government's famous "for but not with" policy - remember the original ANZACs? All the current Government has done is apply this methodology to the force structure instead of individual pieces of equipment. We'll equip our armoured regiment 'for' combat but not 'with' enough tanks to do its job when it counts. Same again with the Tiger ARHs. Funnily enough, it only seems to be the Army on the receiving end of this imbalanced force structure. We did get additional Wedgetail AEW&Cs and Armidales after all.

Until the government acknowledges it is actually asking the ADF to do a lot more than current funding allows we will probably see this continuing to happen. I mean, seriously, how many armoured regiments in the world are equipped with just two Sabre Squadrons? I'm embarrassed.

Time to acknowledge funding is not sufficient to fulfill the grand ambitions the government has for defence and increase funding beyond a paltry 1.9% of GDP.

 

[Supe]

I mean, seriously, how many armoured regiments in the world are equipped with just two Sabre Squadrons? I'm embarrassed.

I guess the gov doesn't really see a key role for the Abrams outside of supporting duties within the region. The priorities here aren't wrong given that the typical deployment the ADF has been involved in of late, doesn't require the Abrams.

I've wondered how the number of Abrams to be procured was settled on? I would've thought the Army would have been keen for at least a 1:1 replacement for the Leos. IIRC AD put that at three squadrons.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I can see the M1s in Aus service being used the same way as the USMC use their M1s in their MEUs, with 4-6 M1s aboard the new Amphib ships to give a commander a capable 'punch' option.

I must say the thing that surprises me is that the ADF has not aquired a more capable track to replace the M113, I know they are being upgraded but they will still not be as ideal to use with M1s as Bradleys, Wattiors, CV90s etc...

Does anyone know of any move to look at more capable AIFV?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Army has a long term plan to replace ALL it's armoured vehicles with a new "family" of vehicles under project Land 400. Little info has been released about this project as yet, however it is reasonable to expect that this project would occur in phases, with the M113 capability the first to be replaced, due to the reasonable "newness" of Army's other AFV's and the continuing problems with the M113 upgrade program.


No info has yet been released about potential replacement vehicles, etc...

 

[Pursuit Curve]

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.

Hey, the ABrams is a first class piece of kit, and congragulations to the Aussies for getting their hands on them. Here in Canada we are making do with Leopards, and soon we will be using wheeled armoured gun systems.

My personal prefernce is the Swedish family of vehicles called the CV90, if you ever get the chance, Google that puppy and check it out, one of the vehicle configurations has the Same High Pressure smooth bore 120 mm as the Abrams, for a fraction of the price, and it is tracked and a very low profile.

Cheers

 

[driftder]

Hey, the ABrams is a first class piece of kit, and congragulations to the Aussies for getting their hands on them. Here in Canada we are making do with Leopards, and soon we will be using wheeled armoured gun systems.

My personal prefernce is the Swedish family of vehicles called the CV90, if you ever get the chance, Google that puppy and check it out, one of the vehicle configurations has the Same High Pressure smooth bore 120 mm as the Abrams, for a fraction of the price, and it is tracked and a very low profile.

Cheers

If you like the CV90 type, then you might want to check out the Bionix, which strangely bears a close resemblance (coincidence?). Here's a link to some Bionix info: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/army/armour_equip_bio40.htm.