Australia - M1A1 Abrams Tank Agreement Signed

[2RHPZ]

M1A1 Abrams Tank Agreement Signed

Australian Department of Defence; July 9, 2004

Australia has signed a formal agreement with the United States to buy a new fleet of M1A1 Abrams tanks, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

Under this agreement, the US Government will provide 59 refurbished and updated M1A1 Abrams tanks, seven M88 Hercules Armoured Recovery vehicles, advanced gunnery and driver training simulators, training and other support equipment and a range of spares. This agreement is the central component of the $530 million Abrams package, which also includes tank transporters, refueling vehicles and ammunition.

Delivery of the tanks and other equipment is expected in 2007. The majority will be operated by the 1st Armoured regiment in Darwin, with a smaller allocation to be allocated to training schools.

“The M1A1 Abrams tanks will provide a major increase in capability over the present Leopard tanks, particularly with their greater firepower and their potential to operate in a modern, networked communications environment,” Senator Hill said.

“The new tanks will also provide our soldiers greatly increased levels of protection and survivability on the modern battlefield.”

The tanks that will be provided to Australia have had relatively low usage and will be refurbished to “as new” condition. Many of their internal systems will be updated to incorporate the latest technology.

This upgrade work will start soon as part of a major tank refurbishment program being undertaken for the US military’s larger fleet of M1A1 tanks.

A particularly innovative dimension of the project is the purchase of advanced simulators for training tank crews. This is a new direction for the Australian Army, reflecting a major increase in commitment and investment in simulation to supplement and enhance training of armored vehicle crews.

The Abrams can reach speeds of up to 66 km/h on Australian roads and up to 48 km cross country with a cruising range of up to 480 kms carrying four crew and ammunition. Each tank is equipped with a 120 mm smooth bore cannon as its primary weapon and a 50 caliber machine gun for the tank commander in addition to two 7.62 mm machine guns. They are capable of firing an advanced kinetic energy Tungsten penetrator against vehicles and a multi-purpose round for infantry support. They have also been designed to provide a level of protection for soldiers from nuclear, biological or chemical threats.

[FDF_Hemppis]

Bah, they should've bought some Leo2's... :P

*dodges sabots from OpIvy* p-)

[rob]

Bah, they should've bought some Leo2's... :P

*dodges sabots from OpIvy* p-)

im sure they'll be happy either way, both are great tanks.

[Operation Ivy]

Bah, they should've bought some Leo2's... :P

*dodges sabots from OpIvy* p-) :D

Rob is correct both are great tanks, Abrams just way cooler p-) so now all u aussies get to be as cool as us Americans woot

[Kampfbaer]

I'm glad that the Aussies will finally get a replacement for their old Leo 1s!

In the end it doesn't matter which Ttank they will get.

Both tanks are equally able to get the Job done. :)

[aartamen]

I am not familiar with Australian military doctrine. Why do they need tanks?

[Flagg]

I am not familiar with Australian military doctrine. Why do they need tanks?

Good question......that half a billion or so could cover some other and more pressing needs.

No offense....It's not my intetion to poop on the party

[Philbert]

Cause we want to be like the US, why else would we buy tanks that will never be used in combat. their too heavy for us to take anywhere but mainland australia and the government would never commit them to a warzone, thats that the ASLAVS are for, lol.
I Like the abrams, but i think the mone could have been better spent on either upgrading our F/A-18's or something like that.

[M1A2U2]

Maybe they need them for indonesia

[Philbert]

We have quite a strong bond with indonesia, and they are recieveing quite a deal of funding from us, so it is quite unlikely that they will ever threaten us. Australia has a strong military as is, and no one atm in our region really threatens us.

[digrar]

Cause we want to be like the US, why else would we buy tanks that will never be used in combat. their too heavy for us to take anywhere but mainland australia and the government would never commit them to a warzone, thats that the ASLAVS are for, lol.
I Like the abrams, but i think the mone could have been better spent on either upgrading our F/A-18's or something like that.

We won't need to take ours anywhere, we can just borrow some from the US and use ours as trainers to get the crews squared away. It's nice to have friends in high places.

[Midav]

The M1A1 is a good tank, so dun get me wrong about my question, but why didn't Australia go with the newer M1A2 SEP?

[aartamen]

Money probably, they did not get a bad deal on refurbed A1's.

But really, it just sounds like a waste. Whom is Australia going to invade or get invaded by so it needs MBT's? China may be? Australia is very much like the US before WWII.

[mocking_loudly_died]

One thing that tugs the hairs on my arse is the assumption that Australia will always be cocooned away from the world’s problems, that we don't need serious firepower because we live in this idyllic love region.

What a crook of f*cking ****, I'm sorry but we are located at the arse end of the world surrounded by a bunch of Asian countries that might like our trade but will always perceive us as a symbol of the west in their backyard.

Indonesia is in election mode now with dubious candidates with war crimes hanging over them yet I’m supposed to say, "oooh what a rosy bunch of lads these boys are".

F*ck that ****, we are isolated and we overly rely on American protection.

Christ.

[Midav]

True. The deal is good.

Better safe than sorry. One never knows what may happen. And yeah, if someone tries to invade Australia, the US along with the UK are gonna help kick some ass :slap:

[Ballistic.]

Too right Mocking.

Whoever mentioned the Hornets needing upgrades, well, it's already being done. Major avionic and airframe upgrades are undergoing, plus the acquisition of basically all the same munitions the Yanks use.

You can't have a modern Army without modern heavy armoured support (IMHO). Most of the Asian countries around us have tanks, if we get rid of ours, and if a situation arises, what exactly do we use to counter any light to heavy armour (Probably wont happen, but who's to say it wont ?) ? In our region, we need to keep ahead. I dont think our military wants to be like the US and neither do I, that has nothing to do with it. What they want is the best equipment so our soldiers can get the job done.

If we need the M1's transported we will be able to transport them as the Navy will be modifying one or two of their heavy transport ships so the M1's can be stored in them. Future ship purchases may look at something like what the US has in the LHD's/LHA's so we would not have a problem sending tanks in support of troop operations in the future.

[FDF_Hemppis]

Bah, they should've bought some Leo2's... :P

*dodges sabots from OpIvy* p-) :D

Rob is correct both are great tanks, Abrams just way cooler p-) so now all u aussies get to be as cool as us Americans woot

Both are seriously good tanks, but what I mean is, were they worth it?

For example:

FDF paid some 1 million euros per 1 Leo2A4, bought from Bundeswehr, including battalion and regiment-level maintenance equipment, training, simulators and a pile of spare parts. So, in total we got 124 Leo's for some ~125 million euros.

Whereas Australia bought 59 Abrams and 7 M88's for some $8 million a piece...

Any thoughts about this guys?

[Falco]

They got some training equipment too as part of the deal.

[FDF_Hemppis]

They got some training equipment too as part of the deal.

And refueling trucks, too. But so got the FDF...
(training&equipment, that is. Not the trucks.)

[Ballistic.]

The M1A1 AIM tank was selected for the following reasons:

The M1A1 AIM has the best overall survivability of the options considered. It offers battlefield proven protection for its crews.

The M1A1 AIM in Australian service will be very similar to the remainder of the large user community. It is part of a large fleet with stable, known operating costs, which will be in service beyond 2020. They will be configured as part of a fleet of 3,500 similar vehicles across the world. These particular vehicles will be very similar to over 2,500 vehicles operated by the US to at least 2020.

The M1A1 AIM has the best potential to support network centric warfare. It offers a proven integrated and highly capable radio and battle space management system.

The M1A1 AIM is assessed to have the least technical acquisition risk as the vehicle type and configuration for Australian service is already in production. It is a proven design, which is already in contract.

The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) offer for the M1A1 includes, spares, training, support vehicles, Armoured Recovery Vehicles, simulation systems, radios and ancillary equipment as part of the overall package.

The M1A1 that ADF will procure are essentially remanufactured vehicles. They have been returned to a zero miles zero hours condition. This will provide substantial cost benefits in comparison to purchasing new vehicles.

The M1A1 Abrams weighs less than 63,000 kilograms (<63 tons) when fully combat laden. This is only slightly heavier than the Leopard 2 and is lighter than the Challenger tanks that were considered. All three tank options that were considered are within 1000 kg of each other in combat configuration. In transport configuration the M1A1 will weigh around 59-60 tons.

Additional Heavy Equipment Transporters and trailers will be procured under Project Land 121. The crane that loaded tanks in Darwin would be capable of doing the same for M1. We have an ongoing discussion about strategic rail transport in Australia and the issue of appropriate rolling stock will continue to be discussed.

Crew survivability, interoperability, battle proven. Enough for me.

Source (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=35163&session=dae.4262192.1089481739.QPAsC8Oa9dUAAFkEJxQ&modele=jdc_1)

[FDF_Hemppis]

Thanks for the link, Ballistic. :)

Covers the reasons pretty good. It's a good tank, if a bit pricey. ;)

[FallenAngel]

Good call. Thought Australia was going to follow Canada's lead and get rid of the tank all together.

Course...what's worth invading Canada for? ;)

[digrar]

Both are seriously good tanks, but what I mean is, were they worth it?

For example:

FDF paid some 1 million euros per 1 Leo2A4, bought from Bundeswehr, including battalion and regiment-level maintenance equipment, training, simulators and a pile of spare parts. So, in total we got 124 Leo's for some ~125 million euros.

Whereas Australia bought 59 Abrams and 7 M88's for some $8 million a piece...

Any thoughts about this guys?

I recall reading somewhere that we would not get support (tech or resupply) from the Germans if we were in a conflict that they did not agree with. Which is a poor selling point.

[Flagg]

Any idea what the Aussies are going to do with the retiring Leo I's?

I hope they get tendered.....I want one....there's a West Coaster here who's wife bought him a Centurian for his 50th Birthday.....now he drives it around the farm and smashes stuff......he's been on the news 2-3 times knocking sh!t over

[mocking_loudly_died]

Both are seriously good tanks, but what I mean is, were they worth it?

For example:

FDF paid some 1 million euros per 1 Leo2A4, bought from Bundeswehr, including battalion and regiment-level maintenance equipment, training, simulators and a pile of spare parts. So, in total we got 124 Leo's for some ~125 million euros.

Whereas Australia bought 59 Abrams and 7 M88's for some $8 million a piece...

Any thoughts about this guys?

I recall reading somewhere that we would not get support (tech or resupply) from the Germans if we were in a conflict that they did not agree with. Which is a poor selling point.

I read that as well, you can't purchase a main battle tank when a foreign government may play politics with your supplies.

[garoco]

Australia got burnt by the Swedes back during the Vietnam War when we purchased the 84mm Carl Gustav shoulder fired recoiless rifle. . .they didn't approve of the conflict and thus denied us ammo for the weapon. Charlie G would of been very handy with dealing with NVA/VC bunkers, a helluva lot more punch than the US M72 - 66mm SRAAW.

Let's hope the same political crap won't apply to the new Aussie (Euro) Tiger ARH and new Airbus tankers that we're getting eh ;) Atleast the Army is getting Hellfires to stick on the ARH.

The M1A1 AIM (D) does appear to be the best buy, and with the announcement late last week of US/Aussie shared bases in QLD and N.T. expect heavy inter-operability and training with the USMC tank and LAV Bn's.

[Hellman109]

They got some training equipment too as part of the deal.

And refueling trucks, too. But so got the FDF...
(training&equipment, that is. Not the trucks.)

We got a whole raft of spare parts too, we definatly got the full kit and kaboodle.

IMO if Germany was going to deny service and parts for our tanks if they disaproved in the battle, that is a definate point for not using them, were not likely to goto war that the US will flatly reject (Timor is an example, they did very little there, but they were for what we were doing)

[Operation Ivy]

Any idea what the Aussies are going to do with the retiring Leo I's?

I hope they get tendered.....I want one....there's a West Coaster here who's wife bought him a Centurian for his 50th Birthday.....now he drives it around the farm and smashes stuff......he's been on the news 2-3 times knocking sh!t over

omg i gotta meet this guy :hug:

[FDF_Hemppis]

Both are seriously good tanks, but what I mean is, were they worth it?

For example:

FDF paid some 1 million euros per 1 Leo2A4, bought from Bundeswehr, including battalion and regiment-level maintenance equipment, training, simulators and a pile of spare parts. So, in total we got 124 Leo's for some ~125 million euros.

Whereas Australia bought 59 Abrams and 7 M88's for some $8 million a piece...

Any thoughts about this guys?

I recall reading somewhere that we would not get support (tech or resupply) from the Germans if we were in a conflict that they did not agree with. Which is a poor selling point.

Krauts said they'd deny supply of spare parts? Well that explains a lot. Didn't know that one, and it makes a big difference of course!

[Dalleer]

Well , I didn't know that either..

Of course, we'll just have to hope that in case of a possible conflict the Germans would be willing to "agree" with it.

If not, we'll be driving around with the T-72's and T-55M's for a long time.

[aartamen]

The chances are these tanks will never see battle.

How would Indonesians get their armor onto Australian soil? I'd think the money would be better spend on the NAVY and AF.

[Ballistic.]

Chances are you might be incorrect and your assumptions are completely wrong, ever think about that ? Australia has the right to have tanks, I mean, whats it matter to you ? This is part of the modernisation of the Australian Defence Force, the Army wanted them, they think they needed them, and thats good enough for me.

You can assume all you want, but our military leaders and government thought it important to spend half a billion to upgrade our tank fleet and I agree with their thinking. Australia needs to be a leader in our region with a military that is strong, this only adds to that.

Also further on transport, there have been politicians in Canberra talking about the lack of transport for our soldiers and equipment and possibly 2 aircraft carriers might be a possible purchase down the track.

[Mudcat]

The M1A1 is a good tank, so dun get me wrong about my question, but why didn't Australia go with the newer M1A2 SEP?
If I'm not mistaken they can be upgraded later to the M1A2. Ivy, correct me if I'm wrong.

[rob]

The M1A1 is a good tank, so dun get me wrong about my question, but why didn't Australia go with the newer M1A2 SEP?
If I'm not mistaken they can be upgraded later to the M1A2. Ivy, correct me if I'm wrong.

believe that is true. they also may want to put their own electronics in the tank like the idf did with the f16.

[Ballistic.]

Apparently the M1A1s we are getting will be fully digitised and set up for "network centric warfare", exactly or close to the same configs being used by the USMC and US Army, only differences from what I know will be the lack of DU armour and munitions.

[Michael RVR]

I think its a good thing, esp in light of the german supply issue that someone raised.

But, something else to consider i think :

If we had a conflict or wanted to deploy for a conflict, and wanted 200 tanks on tick, would the germans loan them to us ?
;)

[Operation Ivy]

The M1A1 is a good tank, so dun get me wrong about my question, but why didn't Australia go with the newer M1A2 SEP?
If I'm not mistaken they can be upgraded later to the M1A2. Ivy, correct me if I'm wrong.

im pretty sure they can be :D woot

[Dread]

I think you will find that the major reason we bought the Abrams is interoperability with pre-positioned US vehicles in a conflict zone.

I highly doubt our Abrams will ever leave Australian shores mainly due to the expense of shipping them in numbers anywhere to be useful. What they will do is train up 1st Armoured with our Abrams and in any conflict zone rotate out US crews in US tanks and replace them with fresh Australian tank crews into those same US tanks.

Nice and cheap, which is what the pollies are after :)

[oldsoak]

I think you will find that the major reason we bought the Abrams is interoperability with pre-positioned US vehicles in a conflict zone.

I highly doubt our Abrams will ever leave Australian shores mainly due to the expense of shipping them in numbers anywhere to be useful. What they will do is train up 1st Armoured with our Abrams and in any conflict zone rotate out US crews in US tanks and replace them with fresh Australian tank crews into those same US tanks.

Nice and cheap, which is what the pollies are after :)

Didnt us Brits shaft you along similar lines in the Western Desert in WWII ?- I think you turned up and were given our WWI kit and not in good nick either....

[Mark Sman]

You never need an armored brigade until you NEED an armored brigade.

So never say never.

[hank]

I think you will find that the major reason we bought the Abrams is interoperability with pre-positioned US vehicles in a conflict zone.

I highly doubt our Abrams will ever leave Australian shores mainly due to the expense of shipping them in numbers anywhere to be useful. What they will do is train up 1st Armoured with our Abrams and in any conflict zone rotate out US crews in US tanks and replace them with fresh Australian tank crews into those same US tanks.

Nice and cheap, which is what the pollies are after :)

No disrespect intended, but is this possible? It is hard for me to imagine that we [the US] would do this. I mean its not like we have Abrams sitting around all over the world. When we need them somewhere we take them in ships. It would seem to me we'd be more inclined to carry yours where you need them than to let you use ours once we already had them there.

I mean if what you say here is true, then different units would leave their tanks in Iraq and new US soldiers would use them. I don't think this happens. Anyone know for sure. Catdat?

hank

[Flagg]

No disrespect intended, but is this possible? It is hard for me to imagine that we [the US] would do this. I mean its not like we have Abrams sitting around all over the world. When we need them somewhere we take them in ships. It would seem to me we'd be more inclined to carry yours where you need them than to let you use ours once we already had them there.

I mean if what you say here is true, then different units would leave their tanks in Iraq and new US soldiers would use them. I don't think this happens. Anyone know for sure. Catdat?

The US has/had huge quantities of pre-positioned kit in a number of places around the world.

The two regions I'm sure they had(and may still have kit including Abrams) is Western Europe and the Gulf(after Gulf War I).

It's a costly endeavour to do something along those lines......but you buy speed of deployment as deploying consists of a handful of commerical charter flights carrying just unit personnel and personal kit...since nearly everything else can be prepositioned.

So it would be possible to deploy an armoured brigage measured in hours/day instead of weeks/months by floating everything to the conflict.

[hank]

No disrespect intended, but is this possible? It is hard for me to imagine that we [the US] would do this. I mean its not like we have Abrams sitting around all over the world. When we need them somewhere we take them in ships. It would seem to me we'd be more inclined to carry yours where you need them than to let you use ours once we already had them there.

I mean if what you say here is true, then different units would leave their tanks in Iraq and new US soldiers would use them. I don't think this happens. Anyone know for sure. Catdat?

The US has/had huge quantities of pre-positioned kit in a number of places around the world.

The two regions I'm sure they had(and may still have kit including Abrams) is Western Europe and the Gulf(after Gulf War I).

It's a costly endeavour to do something along those lines......but you buy speed of deployment as deploying consists of a handful of commerical charter flights carrying just unit personnel and personal kit...since nearly everything else can be prepositioned.

So it would be possible to deploy an armoured brigage measured in hours/day instead of weeks/months by floating everything to the conflict.

True enough, but would we really let our guys jump out of their M1s and let Aussies jump in? Maybe the answer is yes but that seems extraordinary to me. Having prepositioned equipment in the Guld and in Europe did not change the fact that when we wanted 4ID to go to Iraq through Turkey all their equipment was on Ro-Ro's i nthe MEd waiting to unload.

You guys may be right, that just struck as a stretch. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, you can't go wrong with M1s. It has he most experience of all the Western MBTs.

hank

[digrar]

Didnt us Brits shaft you along similar lines in the Western Desert in WWII ?- I think you turned up and were given our WWI kit and not in good nick either....

When haven't we been shafted by the Brits, Gallipoli and Singapore are two prime examples. We still like you but, your good for morale, keep sending down those cricket and rugby teams for a jolly good thrashing :P .

[Mark Sman]

Also a butload of prepositioned on Diego Garcia. An interesting little dot in the Indian Ocean.

http://www.dg.navy.mil/

[szr]

I think you will find that the major reason we bought the Abrams is interoperability with pre-positioned US vehicles in a conflict zone.

I highly doubt our Abrams will ever leave Australian shores mainly due to the expense of shipping them in numbers anywhere to be useful. What they will do is train up 1st Armoured with our Abrams and in any conflict zone rotate out US crews in US tanks and replace them with fresh Australian tank crews into those same US tanks.

Nice and cheap, which is what the pollies are after :)

No disrespect intended, but is this possible? It is hard for me to imagine that we [the US] would do this. I mean its not like we have Abrams sitting around all over the world. When we need them somewhere we take them in ships. It would seem to me we'd be more inclined to carry yours where you need them than to let you use ours once we already had them there.

I mean if what you say here is true, then different units would leave their tanks in Iraq and new US soldiers would use them. I don't think this happens. Anyone know for sure. Catdat?

hank

A lot of info on the US Army prepositioned stocks. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/aps.htm)

[oldsoak]

Didnt us Brits shaft you along similar lines in the Western Desert in WWII ?- I think you turned up and were given our WWI kit and not in good nick either....

When haven't we been shafted by the Brits, Gallipoli and Singapore are two prime examples. We still like you but, your good for morale, keep sending down those cricket and rugby teams for a jolly good thrashing :P .

- in the finest traditions of the best public schools mate :lol:

[RFSU]

It is a fact that rotating crews is an acceptable tactic. we have borrowed your birds in the past so a few tanks is no big deal!

As for the rugby/cricket deal...

Well as I see it there is no point playing you Brits in Cricket anymore, it's just no fun! :)

As for the game they play in heaven, well as soon as little johnny is gone, YOU ARE GONE!!!!

[oldsoak]

Nah, we'll get another pocket rocket eventually.