Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[MARKMILES77]

US Army is massively scaling back the current M1A2 Abrams Upgrade program.
The M1A2 SEP V4 is dead and the buy of M1A2 SEP V3 will now be reduced.
Having analysed lessons from the Ukraine conflict it has been assessed that neither of these versions of the Abrams is what the U.S. Army needs.
They want a tank that is lighter, more mobile with a decreased logistics burden.
They will begin designing a new version known as the M1E3 Abrams.
Not sure of implications for the Australian buy of 75 M1A2 SEP V3s, but might give the Australian Government an excuse to scrap/defer new tanks while they "assess whether the M1A2 SEP V3 is still suitable for Australian needs.".

US Army scraps Abrams tank upgrade, unveils new modernization plan

The service is now pursuing a more significant modernization effort to increase mobility and survivability on the battlefield.

www.defensenews.com

 

[John Fedup]

This article mentions the estimated weight for SEPv3 at 76-78 tons and v4 would have added to that. That’s borderline unmanageable. There is a lot to like about GD’s new concept tank, especially the 59 ton weight.

America's next tank: Army greenlights more aggressive M1 Abrams upgrade - Breaking Defense

The Army plans to "to design a more survivable, lighter tank that will be more effective on the battlefield at initial fielding, and more easy to upgrade in the future," the service announced tonight.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Redlands18]

US Army is massively scaling back the current M1A2 Abrams Upgrade program.
The M1A2 SEP V4 is dead and the buy of M1A2 SEP V3 will now be reduced.
Having analysed lessons from the Ukraine conflict it has been assessed that neither of these versions of the Abrams is what the U.S. Army needs.
They want a tank that is lighter, more mobile with a decreased logistics burden.
They will begin designing a new version known as the M1E3 Abrams.
Not sure of implications for the Australian buy of 75 M1A2 SEP V3s, but might give the Australian Government an excuse to scrap/defer new tanks while they "assess whether the M1A2 SEP V3 is still suitable for Australian needs.".

US Army scraps Abrams tank upgrade, unveils new modernization plan

The service is now pursuing a more significant modernization effort to increase mobility and survivability on the battlefield.

www.defensenews.com

I think you will find the Tanks are already in the factory undergoing the upgrade, takes about 8 months per Tank and they are due for delivery in 2024. Any M-1A3 would still be a decade away.

 

[old faithful]

Was wondering about the life of the M113s, and now the reduced redback buy, what will happen to the LAV 25s? Is it worth keeping them? Could a Bn use them as an IFV?

 

[Stampede]

Was wondering about the life of the M113s, and now the reduced redback buy, what will happen to the LAV 25s? Is it worth keeping them? Could a Bn use them as an IFV?

I guess the questions for myself.

What life is left in these two platforms
Are they relevant as is.
Do they have potential for upgrade and at what cost.
What is the future composition of our four main Brigades.

Add to that the recent talk of US M1A2 SEP V3 upgrades being reduced and what potential impact does this have for our planned Abrams purchase.

Army is getting a lot of new kit but there is still much uncertainty.

Was it this week that some info on Army's future force composition was to be announced?

Cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

I guess the questions for myself.

What life is left in these two platforms
Are they relevant as is.
Do they have potential for upgrade and at what cost.
What is the future composition of our four main Brigades.

Add to that the recent talk of US M1A2 SEP V3 upgrades being reduced and what potential impact does this have for our planned Abrams purchase.

Army is getting a lot of new kit but there is still much uncertainty.

Was it this week that some info on Army's future force composition was to be announced?

Cheers S

I don't think this SPEv4 announcement makes the slightest difference to us in the short-term. Longer term it may see us look at an M1A3 upgrade if the base vehicle can be so modified.

We have fully contracted for the SEPv3 and they are in production. The US Army is planning to use M1A2SEPv3 beyond 2050 even if it transfers to M1A3 sooner than initially planned.

The US Army will still operate in excess of 1000x such vehicles, plus there is the 250x order for Poland and I believe Romania have a substantial order for them too.

These tanks aren't going anywhere any time soon I wouldn't have thought...

 

[SiVisPacemParaBellum]

Romania has ordered 54 (1 Btl.) used M1A2s.
They'll order 200-300 additional MBTs. It's probably going to be K2 or L2 - not M1.

 

[Stampede]

I don't think this SPEv4 announcement makes the slightest difference to us in the short-term. Longer term it may see us look at an M1A3 upgrade if the base vehicle can be so modified.

We have fully contracted for the SEPv3 and they are in production. The US Army is planning to use M1A2SEPv3 beyond 2050 even if it transfers to M1A3 sooner than initially planned.

The US Army will still operate in excess of 1000x such vehicles, plus there is the 250x order for Poland and I believe Romania have a substantial order for them too.

These tanks aren't going anywhere any time soon I wouldn't have thought...

Thanks.

I'm comfortable with the purchase and would hope it's both locked in and will be delivered on time.

Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

I don't think this SPEv4 announcement makes the slightest difference to us in the short-term. Longer term it may see us look at an M1A3 upgrade if the base vehicle can be so modified.

We have fully contracted for the SEPv3 and they are in production. The US Army is planning to use M1A2SEPv3 beyond 2050 even if it transfers to M1A3 sooner than initially planned.

The US Army will still operate in excess of 1000x such vehicles, plus there is the 250x order for Poland and I believe Romania have a substantial order for them too.

These tanks aren't going anywhere any time soon I wouldn't have thought...

Does anyone know what the future is for our original 59 M1A1 Abrams.

I would have guessed they would be apart of our current deal for new Abrams and would be returned to the US. ( A Trade in )
Or are they surplus to be retained in OZ.


Cheers S

 

[SiVisPacemParaBellum]

Giving them to Ukraine isn't an option? I somehow doubt that the US has got a better use for them - at least for now.
You could also rework them to additional Support vehicles.

 

[Stampede]

Giving them to Ukraine isn't an option? I somehow doubt that the US has got a better use for them - at least for now.
You could also rework them to additional Support vehicles.

Its an interesting one.
If the original M1A1 stay here and are therefore additional units then there is certainly some scope to employ them in whatever capacity we see fit.
While they are technically old, they were refurbished to as new when purchased and therefore should have a fair bit of life in them going forward.

Cheers S

 

[SiVisPacemParaBellum]

You could also think about integrating a SHORAD capability (for example SkyRanger 30/35) into the chassis.

 

[swerve]

This article mentions the estimated weight for SEPv3 at 76-78 tons and v4 would have added to that. That’s borderline unmanageable. There is a lot to like about GD’s new concept tank, especially the 59 ton weight.

America's next tank: Army greenlights more aggressive M1 Abrams upgrade - Breaking Defense

The Army plans to "to design a more survivable, lighter tank that will be more effective on the battlefield at initial fielding, and more easy to upgrade in the future," the service announced tonight.

breakingdefense.com

What tons? When it's American one needs to check that.

 

[John Fedup]

What tons? When it's American one needs to check that.

I would assume short ton (US article) and 76-78 long or metric would be even more unmanageable.

 

[Redlands18]

Phase 3 of Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel program rescoped - Australian Defence Magazine
Land 8710 phase 3 a project to provide an armed riverine patrol capability has been re-named and re-scoped and will now be known as the LMV-P and is described as a Fast Assault Craft. It will be a multi-role vessel that can perform equally well ferrying troops, employing weapons or a combination of the two. Sounds to me like they are looking at something that could at least deploy a 8–10-man section with two- or four-wheel motorbikes, either manned or un-manned and be able to carry a couple of RWS with 12.7mm MG/40mm AGL. I would also say that the forthcoming LMV-H will need to be able to carry and deploy these at sea.

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Momma Mia! Something like this little beauty, the Swedish Stridsbåt 90 H Combat Boat 90 (CB90), Sweden (naval-technology.com) could probably fit the bill.

 

[Bob53]

Phase 3 of Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel program rescoped - Australian Defence Magazine
Land 8710 phase 3 a project to provide an armed riverine patrol capability has been re-named and re-scoped and will now be known as the LMV-P and is described as a Fast Assault Craft. It will be a multi-role vessel that can perform equally well ferrying troops, employing weapons or a combination of the two. Sounds to me like they are looking at something that could at least deploy a 8–10-man section with two- or four-wheel motorbikes, either manned or un-manned and be able to carry a couple of RWS with 12.7mm MG/40mm AGL. I would also say that the forthcoming LMV-H will need to be able to carry and deploy these at sea.

Riverine is a significantly different environment to littoral. This sounds like even the Army don’t know what they want or is expected of them. A littoral patrol in Australia’s North out of Darwin, Exmouth or Cairns would probably need a vessel with a operating Radius of around 2000kms and a decent load capacity to disembark 10-20 troops plus vehicles… which indicates it won’t be a small vessel suited to riverine operations …… well not far upstream at best. Unless there is other rivers they have in mind?

 

[OldTex]

Riverine is a significantly different environment to littoral. This sounds like even the Army don’t know what they want or is expected of them. A littoral patrol in Australia’s North out of Darwin, Exmouth or Cairns would probably need a vessel with a operating Radius of around 2000kms and a decent load capacity to disembark 10-20 troops plus vehicles… which indicates it won’t be a small vessel suited to riverine operations …… well not far upstream at best. Unless there is other rivers they have in mind?

That is the crux of the matter really. What are the CONOPS and requirements that have to be met? It is still early stages yet for this rejigged phase of the LAND 8710 project. Until we know in some detail what is required everything from a 10' tinny to a repurposed Arafura and everything in between could be a contender.

 

[Volkodav]

That is the crux of the matter really. What are the CONOPS and requirements that have to be met? It is still early stages yet for this rejigged phase of the LAND 8710 project. Until we know in some detail what is required everything from a 10' tinny to a repurposed Arafura and everything in between could be a contender.

In fact in the littoral sense, a modified Arafura able launch and recover CB90s, or something more like the Danish Absalons could be a good fit.

With the move towards an unmanned mine hunting capability, the motherships for this, likely an Arafura derivative, would also likely be ova suitable layout for supporting littoral craft.

 

[Maranoa]

This concept of CV90 type 'littoral' assault boats hasn't been working out well Ukraine. Plenty of video of them being tracked and destroyed, even by less than cutting edge Turkish drones. Not fast enough or low profile enough to evade detection and way way too vulnerable after detection. One of the major problems is fast boat = massive easy to see wake. The same problem bedevilled PT and MTBs in WW2 particularly in tropical seas with their added luminescence issues. I don't get the littoral logic, especially from a defence of Australia perspective. If an IFV operating in the insane clutter of inhabited terrain is too vulnerable, surely a hot boat with a massive glittering wake on a dissimilar predictable sea is much much more vulnerable way to transport troops. If small unit ground forces need to be inserted into coastal areas, surely a helicopter or better yet a tiltrotor is a far more tactically agile platform.