Thanks for that Tiddles. The poster concerned (who also posts in DT) has MUCH more knowledge than me re this and probably all other army matters. Mine is limited to looking at pictures of vehicles crossing the ramp (none of them tanks!) so the idea is obviously a no goer! I guess we'll have to wait for the new LHDs to deploy the M1A1s from tank deck level directly into the LCMs (or whatever other craft they carry) operating from the dock.
An interesting point.
It's also the beginning of the RAN/Army trials. Just like that awful great bridge they built in Darwin the other week and drove an Abrams over it.
It does. My question is why allow this one purchase (the Abrams) to drive all the other purchases in the ADF? We have a tank, so then we need the means to move it, so we get some transporters, then we get some C-17s, then we get some LCMs, then we get some LPHs, then we get this, then we get that. All in order to support one piece of equipment. Seems rather silly to me. We'd have been better off plumping for something lighter, which would be better suited to our needs (and note I mean our needs, not those of our "great and powerful friends").
I think your view of getting a lighter MBT or whatever you had in mind is even worse. We would have bought somthing just to fit in with existing transport assets that are due for replacement quite soon. Anyhow the C-17s were not bought to carry tanks, even the US almost never does that, the Kanimbla & Manoora were always going to be replaced soon and by a much larger ship which would have been able to carry and deploy via a well an MBT of any weight . All MBT are heavy and at approx 70t the Abrams is the heaviest ,but even the Leclerk [A tank I like] is about 55t ,none of these are going anywhere in the C-17 and I also I hope the Abrams enjoyed their harbour ride because I cant see Australia deploying MBTs overseas for a long time yet ,if ever.Even so the LHAs will be a great asset for any type of offshore operation but I dont think they have been selected to mainly carry tanks.Hope this makes sense.
Oh dear, that mistake again.
My understanding is that the Rapier has been replaced by additional RBS-70 units (the more sophisticated Bolide variant) acquired under Land 19 Phases 5A and 6, so the RBS-70 is now the only air defence missile in the army's inventory.
Not at this present time. As we don't seem to be facing a sophisticated air threat at the present or in the foreseeable future, the RBS-70 and derevatives appear to be adequate for the moment.
Why? We need for our own use a small number of MBTs perhaps and a larger number of Medium Tanks or Mobile Guns - something that can be easily deployed and used effectively within the limited infrastructure and terrain of our region.
Errr, one of the major justifications for the C-17s was their ability to lift the M1s.
I am sure that this will come as a surprise to the US military who airlifted tanks into Northern Iraq during the invasion of that country.
Perhaps. You don't think that its more likely we are now forced to look at ships which can deploy these vehicles in our choice of a Kanimbla/Manoora replacement?
The weight issue has been addressed by Swerve.
I dont like the thought of the army's only air defence weapon being a glorified MANPADS system. Not good if we are actually in a high intencity conflict againt a decently equiped foe.
I agree. But our tank capability could HARDLY be smaller and yet provide a deployable capability.
I recall that the C-17's ability to lift 1 single M1A1 (and nothing else) was mentioned as an advantage, not a primary or major justification. The entire FLEET would need numerous trips to deploy even a squadron of them.
The LHD's were planned before 2000 and were one of the major capability acquisitions planned in the White Paper 2000. They have NOTHING to do with the M1A1 acquisition.
Once again - Army's capabilities equals Government's requirements and level of funding.
True but the question has to be asked, who in our region is a "decently equiped foe[sic]"?
Thats a fair enough point but i wouldn't mind a bare bones mid level SAM capability, and there are some cheap systems out there with decent capability. But your right it's way down there on the list.
It is when it distorts your force structure and aquisition plans - something I keep pointing out.
Yep, which is one of the reasons why four is too small a number.
If we needed additional airlift capability we could have bought 747s - they are cheap and almost a drug on the market at the moment. The "out sized load" capability of the C-17 isn't needed so much as the sheer ability to fly cargo in and out of an operational area. The C-17 is simply too expensive to be utilised on forward airstrips.
Yet it was one of the justifications used in explaining their acquisition...
A few points to consider. Take a look at US SAM systems. There's basically the Stinger/Avenger system which provides forward point defence, and then there's the PAC & Hawk systems which operate more at a theatre level. Generally speaking the mid-range, medium altitude targets are left to the Air Force instead of ground-based air defences.