Mortimer
10-29-2003, 02:32 AM
I saw it mentioned in another forum so i did a bit of research and found this. it has been generally accpeted in the ADF the the leopard 1 MBT's weren't going to be replaced, however this changes things.
This also raises debate, which is better (for Australia) the M1A1 or the Leopard 2???
i also found this pdf on the ADF's capabilities, which has extensiev stats and misc about the MBT's and indeed the entire ADF arsonal.
http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/cfb.pdf
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/images/leop3.jpg
The Australian
Dilemma over tank choice
By John Kerin
The chief of the army’s main tank unit has given the thumbs-up to the Leopard 2.
The commander of the army’s 1st Armoured Regiment, Lieutenant-Colonel Damian Cantwell, has told Australian Defence Magazine that he believed the Leopard 2 would be the ‘more manageable’ choice as a replacement for its 30-year old Leopard 1s.
Lieutenant-Colonel Cantwell’s interview comes as the upper echelons of Defence remain divided over a replacement tank.
John Howard’s powerful National Security Committee of Cabinet is expected to decide the fate of Australia’s 30-year-old Leopard tanks as part of a review of the defence force’s 10-year $50 billion purchasing plan.
It is understood Mr Howard will be faced with three options when the committee meets on Thursday: an in principle decision to buy a new tank but defer a decision on when; opting for second-hand early to mid-90s ex-German or Dutch army Leopard 2s; or opting for more expensive US M1 Abrams.
Defence Minister Robert Hill and Australian Defence Force chief General Peter Cosgrove are believed to favour the Abrams.
Defence Department chief Ric Smith is opposed to the Abrams and army chief Peter Leahy is believed to favour the Leopard 2, but would be happy with either purchase.
The replacement program, including ongoing maintenance and support, is expected to cost at least $1 billion.
The Australian
Australian Financial Review
Tank advocates want top spot for Leopards
Jul 03
Mark Lawson
Whenever the media tries comparing the military strength of combatants in a conflict, they produce tables comparing air power, ground forces and tanks.
That form of comparison is unsatisfactory, because it says nothing about the training and preparedness of the troops or the level of sophistication of the weapons systems.
However, if there had been a straight tally of tanks in the US-led war in Iraq - for what that is worth - Australia would not have fared well.
Australia has 103 ageing Leopard1 tanks, acquired in 1976. Only 70 are fully operational. This tank fleet was effectively strategically sidelined in the 2000 defence white paper, which said the vehicles were likely to have only a limited role in Australia's defence, so there was no need to upgrade them or buy new Leopards.
But the recent twists and turns in the defence debate have revived the strategic debate over the tanks, including the possibility that they may be replaced or, at least, significantly upgraded.
In May, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced a small but potentially significant upgrade for the tanks that was thought to end the debate in favour of keeping the ageing vehicles.
He also said no proposal for replacing the fleet had been received by his office.
But academics and defence observers agree the debate is still alive and replacing the fleet remains a possibility, although they disagree strongly over whether it it necessary to replace it.
The Australian Financial Review asked Hill's office whether the question of upgrading the Darwin-based tank fleet had yet to be resolved, but there was no response.
In May, Hill's department said it would spend $4million putting night-viewer equipment on the vehicles: infrared equipment to let tank drivers see at night. The ADI Ltd contract follows last year's decision to award a $36million contract to Thales Optronics for thermal imaging night sights on the tank's guns, so gunners can see, and shoot, at night.
The two upgrades remove what would have been one of the major difficulties in deploying the tanks in Iraq, if such a move was ever on the agenda.
British and American tanks have been able to manoeuvre and fight at night for many years.
The new equipment will also put the Leopards on a par with other army vehicles, including the upgraded M113 armoured personnel carrier.
Various proposals concerning the Leopards have included their replacement by the Leopard 2, which costs between $4.5 million and $6.1 million, depending on the options selected.
After taking into account the support needs and retraining, estimates for a full fleet replacement have ranged up to about $600million.
Critics say Australian troops in Iraq successfully knocked out a number of Iraqi T-55 and T-72 tanks (themselves Cold War relics) with Javelin shoulder-mounted anti-armour missiles with a 2.5 kilometre range and a claimed accuracy of 95 per cent. The Javelin missile system is much cheaper than a tank.
As it was, it would have been difficult for Australia to participate in that part of the conflict.
Alan Dupont, director of the Asia-Pacific security program at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, says that among the lessons of the war in Iraq is that conventional military firepower is still required, even if military forces quickly have to change roles to become peacekeepers and nation builders.
"Coalition tanks survived and showed their hardness and versatility. They remain indispensable tools for defeating adversaries operating in complex terrain such as the cities and jungles of Australia's immediate north."
However, Paul Dibb, head of the ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, asks whether
it would be politically possible to use the tanks in the jungles of Indonesia or PNG
Sydney Morning Herald
Publication Date : Tuesday, 16th September 2003
Authors : Tom Allard, Defence Reporter
New tanks may be on way, but the F-111 jets are here to stay
The Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, has given his strongest indication yet that the Federal Government will reject a proposal to retire Australia's F-111 fighter jets early.
But in an interview with the Herald, Senator Hill expressed support for the army getting new tanks, saying there was a "strong argument" to replace the ageing Leopard tank fleet.
Cabinet's national security committee is preparing to consider a range of measures to remake the military in light of the new strategic environment and massive cost blow-outs in existing hardware projects.
Among the proposals to save money has been retiring Australia's main strike aircraft, the F-111, in 2006, 10 years earlier than planned.
"I can make a strong case for keeping the F-111s," Senator Hill said.
"It's all about strategic risks."
The F-111s are considered by many to be the key part of Australia's deterrent force.
Their long range means they can hit targets in the region with ease, and no Asia-Pacific nations have the same capability.
While the planned introduction in 2005 of new aircraft refuellers and airborne early warning and control planes would enhance the capability of the F/A-18 Hornets and allow them to fly longer distances, Senator Hill said he was not convinced they could replace the F-111s.
He said it would be "punting" to assume the new aircraft would be delivered on time, and it would take more time still to train personnel and establish the appropriate information technology systems.
However, Senator Hill was enthusiastic about a bid by the army to replace the 30-year-old Leopard tanks with new tanks with better armoury such as the US-built Abrams tanks deployed with distinction in Iraq this year.
"I think they do make a good case. You don't just send infantry over the hill, you have to protect them when they go over the hill and there's nothing an infantryman prefers more than to have a tank in front of them.
"The shooting ability of our tanks is fine what's being shot at them has changed in recent years."
The Leopards, while mobile and possessing effective firepower, are regarded as "thin-skinned" by experts.
Senator Hill also said the new tanks fitted with the defence force's new doctrine less emphasis on assets defending the mainland and more resources for developing the military's capability to operate overseas in coalitions.
"Army makes the case that without tanks you will be significantly restricting our capability to operate in expeditionary forces and that's largely what we have been setting them up to do," he said. "I think in terms of force protection, it is quite a strong argument."
A final decision on the review of defence capability is expected next month.
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/8-news9.htm
[b]Hardening Army's Leopards
The Army's Leopard tanks have their detractors and some very strong support from within Army itself. If they remain in service for another 10-15 years a key challenge will be to maintain their combat survivability.
Ian Bostock | Sydney
In the absence of any definitive information regarding the Australian Army's plans for its Leopard AS1 main battle tank (MBT) fleet, this article will assume that part of the DMO's Leopard AS1 upgrade plans include the intention to significantly improve its armour protection levels at some stage over the next several years.
The only contradiction to this assumption might be the persistent murmurings about Army's interest in doing away with the Leopard AS1 upgrades altogether and acquiring mothballed ex-German army Leopard 2A4 MBTs.
Just how far this 'interest' in acquiring surplus Leopard 2s will go is hard to say, but ADM has received confirmation that an Australian Army delegation visited the Leopard 2 manufacturer in Germany (Krauss Maffei-Wegmann) during May this year. There the team was briefed about the Leopard 2.
Rather than jump the proverbial and detail the extra level of armour protection afforded by the Leopard 2A4, it may first be more prudent to investigate what can be done to harden Army's existing Leopards, particularly given that without being replaced outright by something like the Leopard 2A4, it is likely to remain in service for another 10-15 years.
Despite the plethora of Leopard 1 users around the world, only one company has developed an armour upgrade kit for the type, this being Germany's IBD Deisenroth Engineering. IBD several years ago developed its Modular EXpandable Armour System (MEXAS), which was subsequently trialled on a number of Canadian Army Leopard C1 MBTs (almost identical to the AS1).
For the Leopard 1 MBT (both A3/A4 and 1A5 models), the MEXAS Medium add-on kit is the company's solution to improving basic protection levels. It is intended as a semi-permanent installation, although it can be removed and reinstalled at base or depot level. Protection levels are understood to provide immunity against 30mm armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot rounds fired at a range of 100m over a frontal arc of +-45 degrees and RPG-7 type rocket-propelled grenades over a frontal arc of +-90 degrees. Underbelly protection is provided against 10kg blast mines, roadside/off-route mines and smart mines.
The MEXAS Medium kit is also adaptable to Leopard 1 combat support variants, such as recovery vehicles. Protection modules have also been incorporated inside the turret for added crew protection. As far as can be ascertained, a ballpark unit cost for a MEXAS Medium add-on armour kit is somewhere in the vicinity of A$180,000-$200,000.
As the accompanying photographs illustrate, the MEXAS Medium armour retrofit adds modules of spaced high hardness armour (possibly featuring ceramic elements) bolted on to the hull sides and glacis plate and turret sides and gun mantlet. No additional armour is provided for the turret roof, although it is believed this is achievable.
All-up weight for the armour package is around 3 tonnes, which is unlikely to adversely affect mobility or suspension components.
While the MEXAS Medium package looks like an armour upgrade alternative worth close evaluation, Army need not necessarily look offshore for a solution to the Leopard AS1's thin skin. There are a number of Australian ballistic steel plate and high hardness armour manufacturers that could design and produce a customised passive armour add-on kit for the AS1. These include firms such as Bisalloy, which is supplying armour for the M113 Upgrade project. A passive armour solution for the Leopard AS1 is a virtual certainty given Army's preference for non-explosive reactive armour on its armoured fighting vehicles (due to the inherent danger its poses to dismounted infantry).
The Leopard AS1 itself is well-suited to the attachment of appliquŽ armour plate, with a slab-sided turret and few difficult surface angles around which to mould the add-on armour panels. This is important from a design perspective and greatly eases manufacturing, thereby driving down cost.
Within Australia the heavy engineering and armoured vehicle design and manufacturing expertise of firms such as Tenix Defence, ADI Limited and others should be capable of coming up with a basic passive armour protection kit for the Leopard AS1. After all, it's hardly rocket science.
This also raises debate, which is better (for Australia) the M1A1 or the Leopard 2???
i also found this pdf on the ADF's capabilities, which has extensiev stats and misc about the MBT's and indeed the entire ADF arsonal.
http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/cfb.pdf
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/images/leop3.jpg
The Australian
Dilemma over tank choice
By John Kerin
The chief of the army’s main tank unit has given the thumbs-up to the Leopard 2.
The commander of the army’s 1st Armoured Regiment, Lieutenant-Colonel Damian Cantwell, has told Australian Defence Magazine that he believed the Leopard 2 would be the ‘more manageable’ choice as a replacement for its 30-year old Leopard 1s.
Lieutenant-Colonel Cantwell’s interview comes as the upper echelons of Defence remain divided over a replacement tank.
John Howard’s powerful National Security Committee of Cabinet is expected to decide the fate of Australia’s 30-year-old Leopard tanks as part of a review of the defence force’s 10-year $50 billion purchasing plan.
It is understood Mr Howard will be faced with three options when the committee meets on Thursday: an in principle decision to buy a new tank but defer a decision on when; opting for second-hand early to mid-90s ex-German or Dutch army Leopard 2s; or opting for more expensive US M1 Abrams.
Defence Minister Robert Hill and Australian Defence Force chief General Peter Cosgrove are believed to favour the Abrams.
Defence Department chief Ric Smith is opposed to the Abrams and army chief Peter Leahy is believed to favour the Leopard 2, but would be happy with either purchase.
The replacement program, including ongoing maintenance and support, is expected to cost at least $1 billion.
The Australian
Australian Financial Review
Tank advocates want top spot for Leopards
Jul 03
Mark Lawson
Whenever the media tries comparing the military strength of combatants in a conflict, they produce tables comparing air power, ground forces and tanks.
That form of comparison is unsatisfactory, because it says nothing about the training and preparedness of the troops or the level of sophistication of the weapons systems.
However, if there had been a straight tally of tanks in the US-led war in Iraq - for what that is worth - Australia would not have fared well.
Australia has 103 ageing Leopard1 tanks, acquired in 1976. Only 70 are fully operational. This tank fleet was effectively strategically sidelined in the 2000 defence white paper, which said the vehicles were likely to have only a limited role in Australia's defence, so there was no need to upgrade them or buy new Leopards.
But the recent twists and turns in the defence debate have revived the strategic debate over the tanks, including the possibility that they may be replaced or, at least, significantly upgraded.
In May, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced a small but potentially significant upgrade for the tanks that was thought to end the debate in favour of keeping the ageing vehicles.
He also said no proposal for replacing the fleet had been received by his office.
But academics and defence observers agree the debate is still alive and replacing the fleet remains a possibility, although they disagree strongly over whether it it necessary to replace it.
The Australian Financial Review asked Hill's office whether the question of upgrading the Darwin-based tank fleet had yet to be resolved, but there was no response.
In May, Hill's department said it would spend $4million putting night-viewer equipment on the vehicles: infrared equipment to let tank drivers see at night. The ADI Ltd contract follows last year's decision to award a $36million contract to Thales Optronics for thermal imaging night sights on the tank's guns, so gunners can see, and shoot, at night.
The two upgrades remove what would have been one of the major difficulties in deploying the tanks in Iraq, if such a move was ever on the agenda.
British and American tanks have been able to manoeuvre and fight at night for many years.
The new equipment will also put the Leopards on a par with other army vehicles, including the upgraded M113 armoured personnel carrier.
Various proposals concerning the Leopards have included their replacement by the Leopard 2, which costs between $4.5 million and $6.1 million, depending on the options selected.
After taking into account the support needs and retraining, estimates for a full fleet replacement have ranged up to about $600million.
Critics say Australian troops in Iraq successfully knocked out a number of Iraqi T-55 and T-72 tanks (themselves Cold War relics) with Javelin shoulder-mounted anti-armour missiles with a 2.5 kilometre range and a claimed accuracy of 95 per cent. The Javelin missile system is much cheaper than a tank.
As it was, it would have been difficult for Australia to participate in that part of the conflict.
Alan Dupont, director of the Asia-Pacific security program at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, says that among the lessons of the war in Iraq is that conventional military firepower is still required, even if military forces quickly have to change roles to become peacekeepers and nation builders.
"Coalition tanks survived and showed their hardness and versatility. They remain indispensable tools for defeating adversaries operating in complex terrain such as the cities and jungles of Australia's immediate north."
However, Paul Dibb, head of the ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, asks whether
it would be politically possible to use the tanks in the jungles of Indonesia or PNG
Sydney Morning Herald
Publication Date : Tuesday, 16th September 2003
Authors : Tom Allard, Defence Reporter
New tanks may be on way, but the F-111 jets are here to stay
The Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, has given his strongest indication yet that the Federal Government will reject a proposal to retire Australia's F-111 fighter jets early.
But in an interview with the Herald, Senator Hill expressed support for the army getting new tanks, saying there was a "strong argument" to replace the ageing Leopard tank fleet.
Cabinet's national security committee is preparing to consider a range of measures to remake the military in light of the new strategic environment and massive cost blow-outs in existing hardware projects.
Among the proposals to save money has been retiring Australia's main strike aircraft, the F-111, in 2006, 10 years earlier than planned.
"I can make a strong case for keeping the F-111s," Senator Hill said.
"It's all about strategic risks."
The F-111s are considered by many to be the key part of Australia's deterrent force.
Their long range means they can hit targets in the region with ease, and no Asia-Pacific nations have the same capability.
While the planned introduction in 2005 of new aircraft refuellers and airborne early warning and control planes would enhance the capability of the F/A-18 Hornets and allow them to fly longer distances, Senator Hill said he was not convinced they could replace the F-111s.
He said it would be "punting" to assume the new aircraft would be delivered on time, and it would take more time still to train personnel and establish the appropriate information technology systems.
However, Senator Hill was enthusiastic about a bid by the army to replace the 30-year-old Leopard tanks with new tanks with better armoury such as the US-built Abrams tanks deployed with distinction in Iraq this year.
"I think they do make a good case. You don't just send infantry over the hill, you have to protect them when they go over the hill and there's nothing an infantryman prefers more than to have a tank in front of them.
"The shooting ability of our tanks is fine what's being shot at them has changed in recent years."
The Leopards, while mobile and possessing effective firepower, are regarded as "thin-skinned" by experts.
Senator Hill also said the new tanks fitted with the defence force's new doctrine less emphasis on assets defending the mainland and more resources for developing the military's capability to operate overseas in coalitions.
"Army makes the case that without tanks you will be significantly restricting our capability to operate in expeditionary forces and that's largely what we have been setting them up to do," he said. "I think in terms of force protection, it is quite a strong argument."
A final decision on the review of defence capability is expected next month.
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/8-news9.htm
[b]Hardening Army's Leopards
The Army's Leopard tanks have their detractors and some very strong support from within Army itself. If they remain in service for another 10-15 years a key challenge will be to maintain their combat survivability.
Ian Bostock | Sydney
In the absence of any definitive information regarding the Australian Army's plans for its Leopard AS1 main battle tank (MBT) fleet, this article will assume that part of the DMO's Leopard AS1 upgrade plans include the intention to significantly improve its armour protection levels at some stage over the next several years.
The only contradiction to this assumption might be the persistent murmurings about Army's interest in doing away with the Leopard AS1 upgrades altogether and acquiring mothballed ex-German army Leopard 2A4 MBTs.
Just how far this 'interest' in acquiring surplus Leopard 2s will go is hard to say, but ADM has received confirmation that an Australian Army delegation visited the Leopard 2 manufacturer in Germany (Krauss Maffei-Wegmann) during May this year. There the team was briefed about the Leopard 2.
Rather than jump the proverbial and detail the extra level of armour protection afforded by the Leopard 2A4, it may first be more prudent to investigate what can be done to harden Army's existing Leopards, particularly given that without being replaced outright by something like the Leopard 2A4, it is likely to remain in service for another 10-15 years.
Despite the plethora of Leopard 1 users around the world, only one company has developed an armour upgrade kit for the type, this being Germany's IBD Deisenroth Engineering. IBD several years ago developed its Modular EXpandable Armour System (MEXAS), which was subsequently trialled on a number of Canadian Army Leopard C1 MBTs (almost identical to the AS1).
For the Leopard 1 MBT (both A3/A4 and 1A5 models), the MEXAS Medium add-on kit is the company's solution to improving basic protection levels. It is intended as a semi-permanent installation, although it can be removed and reinstalled at base or depot level. Protection levels are understood to provide immunity against 30mm armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot rounds fired at a range of 100m over a frontal arc of +-45 degrees and RPG-7 type rocket-propelled grenades over a frontal arc of +-90 degrees. Underbelly protection is provided against 10kg blast mines, roadside/off-route mines and smart mines.
The MEXAS Medium kit is also adaptable to Leopard 1 combat support variants, such as recovery vehicles. Protection modules have also been incorporated inside the turret for added crew protection. As far as can be ascertained, a ballpark unit cost for a MEXAS Medium add-on armour kit is somewhere in the vicinity of A$180,000-$200,000.
As the accompanying photographs illustrate, the MEXAS Medium armour retrofit adds modules of spaced high hardness armour (possibly featuring ceramic elements) bolted on to the hull sides and glacis plate and turret sides and gun mantlet. No additional armour is provided for the turret roof, although it is believed this is achievable.
All-up weight for the armour package is around 3 tonnes, which is unlikely to adversely affect mobility or suspension components.
While the MEXAS Medium package looks like an armour upgrade alternative worth close evaluation, Army need not necessarily look offshore for a solution to the Leopard AS1's thin skin. There are a number of Australian ballistic steel plate and high hardness armour manufacturers that could design and produce a customised passive armour add-on kit for the AS1. These include firms such as Bisalloy, which is supplying armour for the M113 Upgrade project. A passive armour solution for the Leopard AS1 is a virtual certainty given Army's preference for non-explosive reactive armour on its armoured fighting vehicles (due to the inherent danger its poses to dismounted infantry).
The Leopard AS1 itself is well-suited to the attachment of appliquŽ armour plate, with a slab-sided turret and few difficult surface angles around which to mould the add-on armour panels. This is important from a design perspective and greatly eases manufacturing, thereby driving down cost.
Within Australia the heavy engineering and armoured vehicle design and manufacturing expertise of firms such as Tenix Defence, ADI Limited and others should be capable of coming up with a basic passive armour protection kit for the Leopard AS1. After all, it's hardly rocket science.