Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Why not, like the Singaporean and Indonesian armies, get the 2nd hand Leo2A4 from the German stock and upgrade them to the latest standards.

We looked at the best of Abrams, Leo’s and Challenger 2 tanks that were available at the time.

The M1A1 AIM SA’s were deemed the most capable and cost effective of the variants we looked at.

We could have looked at cheaper, less capable versions and domestically upgraded them, but that wasn’t part of the program scope and would have added much cost for little capability benefit given we got the best available (to us) capability at the time anyway.

If that had been pushed by Army we probably wouldn’t have a tank capability at all. Government was more than happy to do away with the capability when the Leopard 1’s retired...

 

[ADMk2]

With all this talk of 'new' MBT's for Australia... I have to seriously ask, what would be the point?

I do agree that more MBT's might be appropriate if units which either operate armour, or need to operate/train alongside armour are going to be distributed to more posts around Australia. The same would apply if it was deemed advisable for Australia to have a larger pool of MBT's to draw upon.

What does not make any sense to me, given how recently Australia got the M1A1 AIM Abrams tanks, would be for Australia to dump those tanks and go with another roughly equivalent design.

IMO it would make far more sense to either get more M1A1 AIM tanks, or if more and improved versions were desired, have the existing stocks upgraded to an appropriate version along with ordering the extra numbers required. If it was deemed not practical to upgrade the existing versions in Australia to the desired standard, then order the version from the US and trade the existing M1A1 AIM tanks in for re-manufacture.

That seems far more sensible than needing to train crews and support on how to operate and maintain a different MBT with an entirely different support chain. I do not see a significant capability advantage other modern MBT designs have over various versions of the Abrams to make such a change worthwhile. If there were a generational difference in capability, like there had been in switching from Australia's Leopard I's to the M1A1 AIM Abrams, then the situation would be different.

Because Army has a planned mid-life upgrade requirement for our current tank fleet in the 2020’s and a requirement to boost numbers not only in support of 3 geographically separated tank squadrons, but also in additional hulls for our upcoming maneuver support vehicle and armoured engineering / bridgelayer projects.

Army will likely choose the Abrams hull for MSV and AEV / BLV but these I understand will probably be M1A2 based hulls.

So our choices will be to operate distinct fleets of upgraded M1A1 and M1A2 vehicles side by side, or we perhaps ‘trade’ our M1A1 hulls for zero-lifed M1A2 SEPv3/4 M1A2 hulls and use the upgrade money towards replacing the existing fleet.

As suggested, it will be an Abrams fleet we continue to operate. There won’t be any other type chosen I wouldn’t expect.

 

[Todjaeger]

Because Army has a planned mid-life upgrade requirement for our current tank fleet in the 2020’s and a requirement to boost numbers not only in support of 3 geographically separated tank squadrons, but also in additional hulls for our upcoming maneuver support vehicle and armoured engineering / bridgelayer projects.

Army will likely choose the Abrams hull for MSV and AEV / BLV but these I understand will probably be M1A2 based hulls.

So our choices will be to operate distinct fleets of upgraded M1A1 and M1A2 vehicles side by side, or we perhaps ‘trade’ our M1A1 hulls for zero-lifed M1A2 SEPv3/4 M1A2 hulls and use the upgrade money towards replacing the existing fleet.

As suggested, it will be an Abrams fleet we continue to operate. There won’t be any other type chosen I wouldn’t expect.

I wonder if there have been any conversations with the US about establishing any sort of depot-level maintenance and repair facility in Oz for Army and USMC/US Army Abrams that could be deployed to Australia and/or Asia/Mideast?

Or if there have been any talks about forward basing/warehousing extra US tanks in Australia, sort of like how the US had large numbers of vehicles pre-deployed to West Germany during the Cold War so that only personnel would need to be deployed.

 

[t68]

I wonder if there have been any conversations with the US about establishing any sort of depot-level maintenance and repair facility in Oz for Army and USMC/US Army Abrams that could be deployed to Australia and/or Asia/Mideast?

Or if there have been any talks about forward basing/warehousing extra US tanks in Australia, sort of like how the US had large numbers of vehicles pre-deployed to West Germany during the Cold War so that only personnel would need to be deployed.

I remember sometime ago that the US were thinking of using Perth or Darwin for there maritime prepositioning ships, I have not heard anything for sometime.

I'm not exactly sure how it works as the equipment and stores on the ship would have to be replaced and maintained somehow as the will be exposed to salt air for a fair amount of time.

 

[the road runner]

I wonder if there have been any conversations with the US about establishing any sort of depot-level maintenance and repair facility in Oz for Army and USMC/US Army Abrams that could be deployed to Australia and/or Asia/Mideast?.

TAE overhaul Abrams engines in Australia..and that is a huge saving for the taxpayer..It usually costs $500,000 to overhaul an Abrams engine in the US...while TAE have taken this figure down to $100,000.That is a major saving for the Commonwealth..

TAE is well placed to support the US Marine corps Abrams that are stationed in Darwin ...although no agreement has been reached.

Our Abrams fleet use diesel fuel and we push our tanks pretty hard.. We use or Abrams fleet at 10 times the rate of similar US tanks.

I read a while ago that "spare parts" was one of the main reason we chose the Abrams over Leo2 ....there is just a huge inventory of spares for Abrams compared to Leopard 2!

TAE cuts Abrams engine overhaul times - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[t68]

TAE overhaul Abrams engines in Australia..and that is a huge saving for the taxpayer..It usually costs $500,000 to overhaul an Abrams engine in the US...while TAE have taken this figure down to $100,000.That is a major saving for the Commonwealth..

That is a huge saving, I imagine that they(US) would have access to spare power packs if needed whilst deployed in AU. but also in saying that how big a logistic train comes with them whilst here, would they even need to tap into our spare inventory?

 

[hairyman]

The main reason I raised the tank issue is because I have been reading where the US and joint German/France are looking into lighter weight tanks, in the 38 ton range, which will be simpler to transport than 60 plus ton MBTs. I am wondering whether these will come into consideration when they are introduced?

 

[the road runner]

That is a huge saving, I imagine that they(US) would have access to spare power packs if needed whilst deployed in AU. but also in saying that how big a logistic train comes with them whilst here, would they even need to tap into our spare inventory?

I doubt they would need to plug into TAE for their power pack overhauls...but one can only hope

One thing is... as Australia is pushing our tank fleet pretty hard(10 times harder than US fleets) in harsh conditions .... will Australia invest in deeper level facilities to overhaul our fleets.. or will they just be sent back to the US?

My view is...Australia will burn the hours on our Tank fleet and then just send them back to the US and purchase the latest versions such as the M1A3 ?

 

[t68]

My view is...Australia will burn the hours on our Tank fleet and then just send them back to the US and purchase the latest versions such as the M1A3 ?

Do the Abrams have hull fatigue life set in hours like an aeroplane or are you just referring to running them into the ground until the hull repairs become uneconomical?

 

[Todjaeger]

Do the Abrams have hull fatigue life set in hours like an aeroplane or are you just referring to running them into the ground until the hull repairs become uneconomical?

All metal fatigues, but I would imagine that most of the wear & tear that occurs in ground vehicles happens with/in the mechanical parts. Basically anything on an Abrams that is a moving part or has moving parts. The engine/powerpack, treads, road wheels, parts of the turret and gun, etc.

From conversations with someone who ran a military museum and as part of it restores old tanks and other armoured vehicles, unless corrosion has set in, the hull and structure of the vehicle is usually fine. It is the electrical and mechanical systems which need to be worked on or replaced.

 

[vonnoobie]

I doubt they would need to plug into TAE for their power pack overhauls...but one can only hope

One thing is... as Australia is pushing our tank fleet pretty hard(10 times harder than US fleets) in harsh conditions .... will Australia invest in deeper level facilities to overhaul our fleets.. or will they just be sent back to the US?

My view is...Australia will burn the hours on our Tank fleet and then just send them back to the US and purchase the latest versions such as the M1A3 ?

An article earlier this year touched on that with a Colonel Anthony Duus, the Australian Army's Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicles Systems (at the time, Not sure of at present) touching on the subject and stating the preference was to both produce and maintain the replacement tanks in Australia.

Army's plans for more and better tanks | afr.com

On a cost point sure it would be cheaper sending them to the US however when it comes to availability much better to do it at home. When we were sending the engines to the US the fleet was in tatters, TAE built purpose facilities and started doing the work here on the engines and we have seen greater levels of availability.

It is just a matter of making sure the number of tanks that we have require the amunt of maintenance to keep said facility operating continuesly.

 

[old faithful]

That is a huge saving, I imagine that they(US) would have access to spare power packs if needed whilst deployed in AU. but also in saying that how big a logistic train comes with them whilst here, would they even need to tap into our spare inventory?

This was my reason for speculation.
The number of actual spare power packs, tracks etc actually in stock and in Australia is very limited. Keeping fuel up to them in the field , on deployment , would not be easy either, although now with LHD,s somewhat easier.
I think that for country as big as ours, we could do with more armour, with longer legs, as well as SP arty.

 

[Todjaeger]

This was my reason for speculation.
The number of actual spare power packs, tracks etc actually in stock and in Australia is very limited. Keeping fuel up to them in the field , on deployment , would not be easy either, although now with LHD,s somewhat easier.
I think that for country as big as ours, we could do with more armour, with longer legs, as well as SP arty.

You want more armour, and with longer legs? Will these do?

 

[Stampede]

Because Army has a planned mid-life upgrade requirement for our current tank fleet in the 2020Â’s and a requirement to boost numbers not only in support of 3 geographically separated tank squadrons, but also in additional hulls for our upcoming maneuver support vehicle and armoured engineering / bridgelayer projects.

Army will likely choose the Abrams hull for MSV and AEV / BLV but these I understand will probably be M1A2 based hulls.

So our choices will be to operate distinct fleets of upgraded M1A1 and M1A2 vehicles side by side, or we perhaps ‘trade’ our M1A1 hulls for zero-lifed M1A2 SEPv3/4 M1A2 hulls and use the upgrade money towards replacing the existing fleet.

As suggested, it will be an Abrams fleet we continue to operate. There wonÂ’t be any other type chosen I wouldnÂ’t expect.

Yep your spot on.

It will be Abrams or Abrams.

Realistically Army will want a standard hull for it's fleet of MBT's MSV, AEV and BLV. Hopefully it will be the latest version available. But the variable will probably be timing and production availability..... What will fit our upgrade time table and is it fit for purpose.
We will NOT go with the Europeans and forget any light/ medium tank options.
Surely we learnt that lesson with the Leo 1.
Now some will remember we could boast in the 80's that we had the only true mechanised Brigade in SE Asia.
How times have changed and so has the range of military capabilities in the near region.
Indonesia / Singapore and Malaysia have all acquired MBT's along with upgrades to APC's and IFV. These country's recognise the value, as do other professional army's the value of fire power and protection afforded by heavy armour.
Australia Recognises this to but seems to be going at a pedestrian pace with the heavy stuff.
I'm not sure if the problem is so much financial as cultural.
We can ask for, LHD's Sub's AWD and the full range of modern aircraft flown by the RAAF and pay the dollars that such programs command.As a nation we spend alot on defence...... but ask for an extra dozen MBT"s today and its just to difficult.
Australian soldiers have been supported with tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The only thing was they were not ours.
It appears that someone else is expected to fill this void
Maybe if we had more tanks brigades in WW11 we may have had a different army structure in the generations that followed.

Yes the future we be with the Abrams.

The question is how many and when?


Regards S

 

[old faithful]

You want more armour, and with longer legs? Will these do?

Pretty much.

 

[John Fedup]

All metal fatigues, but I would imagine that most of the wear & tear that occurs in ground vehicles happens with/in the mechanical parts. Basically anything on an Abrams that is a moving part or has moving parts. The engine/powerpack, treads, road wheels, parts of the turret and gun, etc.

From conversations with someone who ran a military museum and as part of it restores old tanks and other armoured vehicles, unless corrosion has set in, the hull and structure of the vehicle is usually fine. It is the electrical and mechanical systems which need to be worked on or replaced.

I recall a TV documentary about the Abrams tank factory showing how old model Abrams tanks are refurbished. The hulls, turrets, and wheels were all reused after cleaning. Pretty much everything else was new.

 

[aussienscale]

I recall a TV documentary about the Abrams tank factory showing how old model Abrams tanks are refurbished. The hulls, turrets, and wheels were all reused after cleaning. Pretty much everything else was new.

That documentary was actually the Australian tanks being done

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG4CLaBMfVU

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I recall a TV documentary about the Abrams tank factory showing how old model Abrams tanks are refurbished. The hulls, turrets, and wheels were all reused after cleaning. Pretty much everything else was new.

The question I would have is whether the Abrams were being re-manufactured, or being zero-timed and upgraded.

If they were being upgraded to a newer standard, I could see a need to replace most/all the internals in addition to a high wear item like the engine or power pack.

 

[Volkodav]

Maybe if we had more tanks brigades in WW11 we may have had a different army structure in the generations that followed.

Regards S

Well we actually had a fair bit of armour in WWII its just that Japans entry into the war meant the divisions never deployed to North Africa as intended and were mostly disbanded to free up manpower with only independent Brigades being deployed in support of the Infantry Divisions in the Pacific.

Interestingly (as I recall it) South Africa and the UK both converted Infantry formations to tanks to save manpower as armour requires significantly less manpower than infantry. The Brits actually went further than the South Africans to the point their tanks lacked sufficient infantry support while the South Africans (and New Zealanders for that matter) only converted a third of their force. The usual Australian scale of tanks to Infantry was one regiment per division, like the US Army Infantry divisions (verses their Armoured and Mechanised Divisions).

I wonder if the issue is in part due to the romantic (political) view that Australians were natural civilian soldiers who could simply don uniforms and pick up rifles as required to build on the ANZAC legend. This was definitely the case post WWI when Monash and Chauvel were both ignored by government when they desired to form a regular mechanised / motorised army retaining some of the many vehicles owned and paid for by the Australian tax payer during the war. As I understand it huge amounts of equipment was simply abandoned overseas as the government saw no need to retain it.

 

[vonnoobie]

Maybe if we had more tanks brigades in WW11 we may have had a different army structure in the generations that followed.

Quite a sizeable armored force was raised during WWII including multiple independant and attached regiments, battalions and brigades as well as 3 divisions. Wasn't it there being a lack of armor being raised but rather the nature of warfare in WWII for Australia changing from NA/Europe to that of the jungles of Asia where armor had more limited uses in limited numbers. The only way Australia would have ever retained a large armored force post WWII was if Japan never became involved, Soon as they did large armored formations in great numbers became a liability rather then an asset.