Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Fair enough - wasn't sure how straightforward it would be. Sounds like a beast if doable.Or simply accept the tiny risk and integrate an ATGM into the turret. I really don't see it being a war stopper.
Fair enough - wasn't sure how straightforward it would be. Sounds like a beast if doable.Or simply accept the tiny risk and integrate an ATGM into the turret. I really don't see it being a war stopper.
One would hope so. You'd have to think the 35mm would be more "future proof" than any of the other offerings and therefore a selling point. Then again I am sure there is much more to this than the calibre of the main armament. Looks like a two horse race to me - Boxer vs AMV35?Hopefully they have done the engineering already to integrate an ATGM, the details of the proposals will be interesting. The ADF seems a little more willing to take on calculated risks.
And therefore CV90 and Puma for Phase 3?Looks like a two horse race to me - Boxer vs AMV35?
That's what I would have thought. Far from an expert on the subject though... Either one would be a massive step up for us at any rate.And therefore CV90 and Puma for Phase 3?
Seems to have a bow wave (fording only?) screen mounted on the front glacis.A better image, hat tip to the Merc...
Given the turret commonality card played by BAE with AMV35 and CV9035; would it be more prudent for Rheinmetall to join with GD (now they are out???) and propose the Ajax/ASCOD2 which has the Lance turret and even the Ph3 playing field?And therefore CV90 and Puma for Phase 3?
Ajax PMRS with a remote 30mm turret (no hull penetration) could probably meet the 8 dismount requirement too.Given the turret commonality card played by BAE with AMV35 and CV9035; would it be more prudent for Rheinmetall to join with GD (now they are out???) and propose the Ajax/ASCOD2 which has the Lance turret and even the Ph3 playing field?
Also, Puma has only 2 variants - IFV and C2; whereas Ajax et al delivers a better range of variants - less development risk compared to Puma.
Is turret commonality, reduced logistic/training burden and lower development risk significant enough for Rheinmetall to adjust? I would think so.
That basically is what is happening, although it won't happen for a few years most likely. The tanks will need to go back to the US to be upgraded as part of Land 907 Phase 2 (likely to the M1A2 SEP V3 standard) so the extra tanks are needed at least before then, to keep fleet numbers up during the upgrade.If that is true, what a fantastic opportunity to upgrade our tanks. Approach the Americans to buy some of these unwanted tanks in storage.
Army is also looking at the options available to better posture it to sustain the current tank capability prior to its upgrade under Land 907 Phase 2.
That project will ensure Army maintains the capability to successfully conduct sustained mounted close combat in the future.
It may include Australia aligning our baseline tank configuration with US Army tank development pathways (M1A2 Systems Enhancement Package Version 3).
The reset process is little short of a new build and, similar to ship building, involves a lot of unique, highly specialized processes and skills that degrade very rapidly when not used and would take decades and a price premium in the billions to rebuild. Bizarre as it may sound US$200 million a year may actually be cheaper in the grand scheme of things, especially as new generations of tanks enter service elsewhere (Russia).I have just read an article in an American magazine called "The Trumpet" the following...
Meanwhile, other firms are building useless weapons. For example, the Army spends around $200 million a year on M1 Abrams tanks that it doesn’t need and that go straight into storage. Why? The tank factory is in the district of the chairman of a key congressional subcommittee.
If that is true, what a fantastic opportunity to upgrade our tanks. Approach the Americans to buy some of these unwanted tanks in storage.
If I'm not mistaken our current Abrams are surplus US stock so saying further acquisitions is out doesn't make sense.I believe that our Abrhams have a different armour composition to the US version, ours arnt DU based for political reasons.So buying surplus US models is out.
Yes the Australian Tanks are US spec bought through FMS M-1A1 SEP I believe as not all US tanks have DU armour which used to be specified by the HA or Heavy Armour identifier. Not entirely sure if it is part of the M-1A2 baseline as if I recall correctly the DU in the HA armour package is very heavy.If I'm not mistaken our current Abrams are surplus US stock so saying further acquisitions is out doesn't make sense.
Also just to point out the DU armour isn't actually the hull its self but part of a plate made up of ceramic and DU (or Tungsten for the British) bonded to the hull and turret. Otherwise known as Chobham armour, In any case allowing for a tank to have its DU layer's stripped off and replaced with something else such as what the British use which wouldn't surprise me if Australia is using as the US and Uk are the only ones that use such armour on there tanks, If we dont have the DU then logically we would have gone with the British version rather then reinvesting in a unique armour only used by us.
On the plus side if we do buy extra tanks to make up for short falls while others are being upgraded could make a nice back door way into increasing the size of our tank fleet.
All active US tanks now have DU armour. There may be some tanks in storage without it, but all the ones in service have DU.Yes the Australian Tanks are US spec bought through FMS M-1A1 SEP I believe as not all US tanks have DU armour which used to be specified by the HA or Heavy Armour identifier. Not entirely sure if it is part of the M-1A2 baseline as if I recall correctly the DU in the HA armour package is very heavy.
Then again DU armour is quite a different proposition to DU penetrators or actual nuclear weapons and I wonder if our tanks not being equipped was more of a cost or weight consideration than anything else. Looking at the numbers we acquired cost was obviously a major consideration, then there is also the fact that the M-1 is already significantly heavier than Leopard, requiring extensive upgrades to support capabilities, an extra twenty tons of armour would have had an even greater impact.
Ok fair enough, I was going off old memories of a section drawing of the HA applique plate for the base glacis plate that I couldn't lay my hands on now if my life depended on it. The structure was basically steel sides and filled with DU about the consistency of steel wool rather than solid plates of it being layered into the base armour.All active US tanks now have DU armour. There may be some tanks in storage without it, but all the ones in service have DU.
The reason Australia didn't buy the DU armour was purely political - the same reason we didn't buy DU penetrators. The weight isn't that big a deal - the M1 was already 20 tonnes heavier than the Leopard, and the DU would only a tonne or two more.
The success of the Abrams acquisition makes me wonder why other in service US vehicles aren't considered for rapid acquisition:That basically is what is happening