Australia gets Abrams

[Kilgor]

Australia will spend $550 million to buy 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks from the US military, in a "mates' rates" deal that includes free training, support vehicles, spare parts and maintenance.

The deal highlights the new era of closer ties with the US, with Australia receiving a discount that will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars over the lifetime of the tanks.

"It's mates' rates, a sweetheart deal," one defence commentator said last night.

The decision to buy the tanks is likely to spur controversy.

Some analysts consider the heavy-duty tank to be suited to desert warfare, open plains and high-intensity conflict rather than the poor quality roads and the jungles of Australia's immediate region.

The Abrams achieved considerable success in the invasion of Iraq last year, rekindling the Government's interest in it.

The army wanted new tanks to replace its 100-strong fleet of 30-year old Leopard tanks, which are vulnerable to mines, rocket-propelled grenades and shoulder-held missiles.

This technology is widespread - part of virtually every nation's armed forces - and is in the hands of terrorists and militias.

The Government considered three types of tanks - the Abrams, the lighter German-built Leopard 2 tanks, and the British-made Challenger 2.

The US Government lobbied for the Abrams, despite concerns it was high-maintenance and guzzled fuel.

The Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, who will announce the purchase today after cabinet's national security committee endorsed the expenditure late yesterday, pushed the US to address these concerns.

Defence sources said Australia had bought a "complete capability" rather than just a tank.

The US has agreed to provide continuing maintenance for the tanks, training and simulators, spare parts, support vehicles such as transport trucks and accessories such as radios.

Unlike the US version, the Australian tanks will not use depleted uranium in its armour.

The tanks' gas turbine engines will also be compatible with diesel and helicopter fuel used by the Australian Defence Force, rather than the aviation fuel used by the US version.

The US is keen to ensure Australian and American equipment are compatible for any future coalition combat.

It is a doctrine supported by Canberra, with both governments discussing joint training facilities and a military pre-positioning post.

As revealed in the Herald last year, the tanks are expected to form the basis of a new joint training facility in northern Australia, where exercises will be conducted and US equipment stored in the event of conflict in the region.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...594364315.html



So without the nationalistic flame war, which is the better tank / or more suitable for our requirements ?

[Merik]

Would this be the first nation outside the US to operate the M1? Or does Taiwan have them too?

[RomanS]

Saudis have em too


Kick ass news, good for Australians!

[Operation Ivy]

So without the nationalistic flame war, which is the better tank / or more suitable for our requirements ?

Well if you guys got some oil the Abrams is perfect! I actually thought you guys would pick the Leo2,but i guess the guys who decided to get the Abrams have good taste

Congrats on your new tank

O and will you guys also be buying the M88 with the Abrams?

[Kilgor]

What are the advantages/ disadvantages on both tanks ?

I know the leo2 is a smaller and cheaper tank
Does the Abrams have better electronic gear like most US stuff ?

[flickme]

Cool. The Australian military is so cool.

[Flagg]

$550 mil for 59 tanks...sheesh

I love tanks...and I certainly like the Abrams......but wouldn't that $550 Mil be better spent on a more significant defense need?

Australia lacks the strategic airlift capability to deploy them either internally or externally.

Australia has an excellent natural defense being a bloody big island too far for any potential threat's logistics chain to stretch without getting smoked by Collins subs and F111 Aardvark interdiction strikes...I don't get it

[Operation Ivy]

What are the advantages/ disadvantages on both tanks ?

I know the leo2 is a smaller and cheaper tank
Does the Abrams have better electronic gear like most US stuff ?

Heres the Abrams specs
Crew 4 - driver, commander, gunner, loader
Weight 69.54 tons
Dimensions
Length with gun forward 387 inches
Turret height 93.5 inches
Width 144 inches
Ground clearance 19 inches
Ground pressure 15.4 p.s.i.
Propulsion Gas turbine engine, 1500 horsepower
Transmission Hydrokinetic transmission, 4 forward gears, 2 reverse gears
Power-to-weight ratio 21.6 hp/ton
Performance
Maximum governed speed 42 m.p.h.
Speed cross country 30 m.p.h.
Speed, 10% slope 17 m.p.h.
Speed 60% slope 4.1 m.p.h.
Acceleration 0 to 20 m.p.h. in 7.2 seconds
Range 265 miles cruising
Obstacle crossing
Vertical 42 inches
Trench 9 feet
Main armament 120 mm smooth bore cannon, M256
Coaxial Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240
Loader's Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240, on Skate mount
Commander's weapon 0.50 calibre machine gun, M2, on powered rotary platform
NBC protection: 200 SCFM, clean cooled air

cheaper tank

I thought that the Abrams and Leo2 both ran at 4.5mill

Leo2
Crew 4
Weight 62 metric tonnes
Length 7.7 m
Width 3.7 m
Height 3.0 m
Armament 1 x Rheinmetall 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun
1 x coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun
1 x 7.62 mm anti-aircraft machine gun
Maximum speed 72 km/hr
Maximum range 500 km
Powerplant MTU MB 873 multi-fuel, 1500 hp
Transmission Renk HSWL 354
Gunner's sight STN Atlas Elektronik EMES 15 with thermal channel and laser rangefinder
Commander's sight STN Atlas Elektronik PERI-R17A2 with thermal channel

[AFACadet]

Yeah, they could buy 3 Raptors and a couple AMRAAM Cs :P

[Flagg]

Or a big(ger) fleet of armed/unarmed UAVs.....

lots of unpopulated land/coastline/EEC to protect against poachers/illegal immigration/smugglers/infiltrators etc.......

while the M1s are "securing Australia" in their service laegers....

accomplishing nothing

[Kilgor]

Unlike the US version, the Australian tanks will not use depleted uranium in its armour.

WTF???

WHY ???

[wyrm_142]

Egypt has the M1A1 as well.

[Sixgun Symphony]

Australia lacks the strategic airlift capability to deploy them either internally or externally.

What about sealift capability?


I agree that the money could have been better spent.

[front]

In a question to:

"Unlike the US version, the Australian tanks will not use depleted uranium in its armour."

Kilgor wrote:

"WHY ???"

Australia gave up using DU for "health and safety reasons" in 1990 apparently.

7/2003 - AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE POLICY ON DEPLETED URANIUM
http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/in...ns/HB07_03.pdf

They think that while the "risks are low" it is can have very nasty effects... could dangerous to everybody who goes near the stuff... munitions or armour.

cheers

front

[Backis]

The US may also have "issues" with exporting that tech. The M1A1 Abrams offered to Sweden would have been without the DU (they were simply never offered).

The Egyptian and SA M1's also lack the DU armor, and I don't think they turned them down for crew-related health reasons... I think the export Abrams never had the DU armor to begin with.

Then again, the diggers are in favour right now, and it was a couple of years ago we were offered those Abrams...