Australian Army to increase by 2,600

Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Question: Out of curiousity, what is the army going to do with the Leopard I's once the M1A1 becomes operational? Are they going to be mothballed, or shifted to the reserve, or sold even? I just started wondering because of Canada's plan to deploy Leo I's in Afghanistan and WJ's idea of a Heavy Cav Regt of 2 IFV and 1 Tank squadrons. Not sure if given the maintenance needs it would be worthwhile to keep Leos around.
 
A

abramsteve

New Member
A good question!:)

I hope they are headed for the reserves, or if they have any usable parts mothballed at least. I dont think they would be sold... who would want them? Not that they are bad or anything, but they are getting on...

Perhaps keeping a small number in service, for training purposes?
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
Hmm... I wonder what the asking price will be... :D

Anyone know what the Government thinks of private ownership of armoured vehicles? It would be great for offroading in WA if I can move, and I don't think the neighbors would complain too much about the noise...:ar15
Click to expand...
There are a few APCs running around in Cessnock as an off road tourist attraction, so it may be possible to get some sort of recreational permit, and the asking price may be cheap, plus, with WA, well, that would be sweet to nail on the outback, best of luck getting a tow if you get bogged though:rolleyes:
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I don't think you would get much money for the Leos.
There are so many Leos available all over europe that most countries would make them a gift just to get rid of them.
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Waylander said:
I don't think you would get much money for the Leos.
There are so many Leos available all over europe that most countries would make them a gift just to get rid of them.
Click to expand...
sweet, chrssy is getting closer, and i sure could use a new vehicle for getting me across town with minimal traffic problems, nothing says disruption like a Tank on the freeway
hmm wonder if this will go with my tax return?:D
 
R

rossfrb_1

Member
The_Jet said:
Put up for sale!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Leopard-tanks-to-be-offered-for-sale/2006/08/30/1156816945773.html
Click to expand...
the last sentence was lifted almost verbatim from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_tank
"....Australia will soon retire their stock of significantly upgraded early Leopard 1 tanks. A number of European nations have sought to sell their much more desirable surplus Leopard 2 tanks...."

vs the journos

"...Australia's vehicles are all early model Mark 1 Leopard tanks, albeit significantly upgraded. A number of European nations have sought to sell their much more desirable surplus Mark 2 Leopard tanks"


JFC, did that person (journalist, wikiologist, plagiarist?) get paid for that?
That took me all of ten seconds to find and that's two finger typing.

rb
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
rossfrb_1 said:
one step ahead of ya, already done. ;)

I was just in a mood to pontificate.

rb
Click to expand...
yeah i don't care much for mediawatch, it kinda went to the hole when paul barry left, god he was good on it, and had humour:D

Since their arriving soon, we got any formal date on swap over?
 
F

FutureTank

Banned Member
It seems to me that all this discussion of hardware has not contributed to the question of need. In principle parachuted troops are used to surprise the enemy, and to perform short-duration missions that will allow heavier forces to benefit from and continue operations.
Prolifiration of air-search radars means that even in the less developed region of interest countries neither C-130 not C-17 are able to deliver their payloads with surprise because use of EF-111s will suggest to the defenders that something is up.
Then there is the issue of scope. C-130s are tactical aircraft. This means in-theatre missions. However the Australian Army in its own right will never have the capability to conduct the link-up over several hundred kilometres to reinforce parachuted units. Morever even the US Army has not seen the need to do so. The reason is simple - risk. Give that risk management is now implemented as part of ADF wide policy measure, using parachute insertion as a tactical doctrine is right up there in the red. It might be ok for small special forces detachents, but a battalion of 1200 troops (yes, 700+support) sustained for 3-4 days (best case) until the link up is just outside of Australia's capability, and had been since WW2.
However, having said all this, in an emergency and using some creativity and imagination, the ADF can utilize all its air assets, helicopters and aircraft to conduct a full battalion insertion in one lift, and still achieve surprise at distances beyond operational reach of the C-130s.
I have wargamed it, and it works. The big question that remained was...now that we have the objectives, what now?
Cheers
Greg
 
F

FutureTank

Banned Member
The Leopards are not as 'junk' as the Army makes them out to be.
Fistly many countries use tanks older then Leopard 1s, and Israeli companies make good profit out of it. Secondly the big problem, with old tanks is the stress on their traction systems and transmissions. Removal of the turret siginificantly reduces this stress and lengthens the use of the chassis. What does one do with a turretless tank? Why, make a heavy IFV of course! The Russians not keen on loosing any BMPs adn BTRs in a cash strapped economy have 'scrapped' their huge fleet of T-55s, brough in Israelis, and are remanufacturing the turretless chassis as heavy IFVs.
Is the Australian Army likely to be engaged in urban combat scenarios in future? Yes. Are the troops doing that likely to benefit from being in a 70s tank hull rather then an M-113 or an ASLAV? Yes. Are there enough Leo1 hulls available to equip one battalion? Yes.
Will this conversion be expensive? No. Training in the use of heavy IFVs takes place generally in urban settings so does not require units to expand much fuel or require extensive RAME support.
Can the Army use these now. Yes, without the turret the Leo IFVs can be airlifted by the C-17.
Cheers
Greg
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
FutureTank said:
The Leopards are not as 'junk' as the Army makes them out to be.
Fistly many countries use tanks older then Leopard 1s, and Israeli companies make good profit out of it. Secondly the big problem, with old tanks is the stress on their traction systems and transmissions. Removal of the turret siginificantly reduces this stress and lengthens the use of the chassis. What does one do with a turretless tank? Why, make a heavy IFV of course! The Russians not keen on loosing any BMPs adn BTRs in a cash strapped economy have 'scrapped' their huge fleet of T-55s, brough in Israelis, and are remanufacturing the turretless chassis as heavy IFVs.
Is the Australian Army likely to be engaged in urban combat scenarios in future? Yes. Are the troops doing that likely to benefit from being in a 70s tank hull rather then an M-113 or an ASLAV? Yes. Are there enough Leo1 hulls available to equip one battalion? Yes.
Will this conversion be expensive? No. Training in the use of heavy IFVs takes place generally in urban settings so does not require units to expand much fuel or require extensive RAME support.
Can the Army use these now. Yes, without the turret the Leo IFVs can be airlifted by the C-17.
Cheers
Greg
Click to expand...

Did you say that Russia brought in Israelis or that Russia is copying what Israel is doing to their old Centurians hulls.:)
 
F

FutureTank

Banned Member
I was told by a contact in Israel that not a few Israelis have been given contracts by Russian firms to share their expereince in converting aging tank hulls to heavy IFVs. Absolutely nothing official about this, but apparently Americans know since the Israelis come from companies that also do contract work for US DoD.
Apparently the Russians are getting ready for 'after Iraq' when their border will become the front line.
Cheers
Greg
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
FutureTank said:
It seems to me that all this discussion of hardware has not contributed to the question of need. In principle parachuted troops are used to surprise the enemy, and to perform short-duration missions that will allow heavier forces to benefit from and continue operations.
Prolifiration of air-search radars means that even in the less developed region of interest countries neither C-130 not C-17 are able to deliver their payloads with surprise because use of EF-111s will suggest to the defenders that something is up.
Then there is the issue of scope. C-130s are tactical aircraft. This means in-theatre missions. However the Australian Army in its own right will never have the capability to conduct the link-up over several hundred kilometres to reinforce parachuted units. Morever even the US Army has not seen the need to do so. The reason is simple - risk. Give that risk management is now implemented as part of ADF wide policy measure, using parachute insertion as a tactical doctrine is right up there in the red. It might be ok for small special forces detachents, but a battalion of 1200 troops (yes, 700+support) sustained for 3-4 days (best case) until the link up is just outside of Australia's capability, and had been since WW2.
However, having said all this, in an emergency and using some creativity and imagination, the ADF can utilize all its air assets, helicopters and aircraft to conduct a full battalion insertion in one lift, and still achieve surprise at distances beyond operational reach of the C-130s.
I have wargamed it, and it works. The big question that remained was...now that we have the objectives, what now?
Cheers
Greg
Click to expand...
As much as you say it works, won't anymore with 3RAR losing para to 4RAR, with a cut in numbers. So theres your 1200 gone already, and we just got the first plane that could carry a good chunk of them in.

The big argument for reducing Para was that, there had been so few deployments of paratroopers to a great extent since WW2. The increase of helos just made it not needed to air drop so many at once, so that they no longer becoming sitting ducks while Idle on drop. So you are spot on about risk, these days 10 casualties is the new 100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top