New weapons for ADF

[ozanzac 0]

The Aussies are firmly up the US's rear end so expect a US purchase

Mayby it should be something like this

Quote[/b] ]The Aussie government is firmly up the US's rear end so expect a US purchase *sad face kept!*

Killagee, remind me, are you kiwi, if so, show us your air-force, or lack of it.

Besides, kiwi public sentiment towards the US would be pretty similar to the Australian public.

Our armed forces have always been comprised of equipment from either the US or Europe. Eastern Bloc equiptment would probably never find it's way down here, but I'd sure like to see a Flanker down here.

Someone said an Abrams would be overkill. To be honest, any tank for the ADF is overkill, well almost! It's not like we ever used the Leopard 1's for anything other than exercises as far as I know. But, because an amored force is vital for defencive purposes, I would like to see the Leopard 2 purchased. And I highly doubt we'd take any 'Hand-me-downs' thanks to this years bumper budget surplus, but as Killagee stated, if we were to get tank's, they would probably be of American origin.

The RAN has sought of an exclusive deal with the US that allows it to incorporate US designed systems that are not generally allowed for export, but the catch is the RAN must use US designed technologies exclusively for any new ships developed in the next 30 years or however long the agreement lasts.

At least the RAAF isn't bound up to any particular aircraft consortium, as shown in it's past purchases of Aermacchi trainers, Mirage III's, F/A-18's and BaE Hawks.

Personally, I just hope we get what is most surviceable and economical. We haven't really used our entire armed forces in an international conflict since Vietnam, and IFV's seem to be just right for our peacekeeping duties.

C'mon Little johnny, get New Leopard's, and while your at it, upgrade the current ones. You know you want to!

[Necromancer- 0]

I'd say the Leopard 2A5 or the A6.

they're very cheap to operate and to maintain.

[Major Fubar 0]

Wihtout getting too political, yes, most Aussies are pissed off with the brownnosing to the US "Honest" Johnny Howard has done lately.

It seems Bush has finally pushed too far though, by calling Australia "America's Sheriff in the pacific" Even little Johnny had to give a "Uh, I don't think do" to that little gem...

I have a personal grudge though - last time Australia was being USA's "Little buddy" we lended up conscripting men (including my father) to send to Vietnam to fight America's dirty little vendetta against "the red menace" of communism...

Sorry, back to the topic of tanks.

[stgn 39]

Well If I where to buy it would be the Leo or Abrams not the OPLOT(it may be lighter but it dosen't offer more protection or eletronics than the other two Leo2A6 and AbramsA2SEP)

I have read that Abrams is a bit more mobile than Leo2??

But if they intend to buy the Abrams as it is I wouldent because the motors are old(60ties tecnonoligy) but if they used stat of the art gasturbine eingins I would go fore the Abrams. But as it is I would take the Leo2 if it was from them I should chose. But why not get new Leo1A5 or stingray or Xm8(I think thats whats its called) or another light/medium tank.

STGN

[Supah 0]

I would buy very big speakers and loads of abba tapes. Attach the speakers to you Leo1's. The horror abba will cause among your enemies will make up for any increased armor or firepower.

[Eviscerator 0]

I would say Challenger 2, it has been proven to perform extremely well in combat, has an astoundingly accurate rifled barrel, is very well armoured and doesnt have the expensive turbine engine of the Abrams. Either that or the Challenger 1, another combat proven British tank with the rifled barrel and chobham armour, and im sure some surplus tanks would be going cheap.

And we can always get the Queen to give the convicts a nudge to buy British!

[stgn 39]

I would say Challenger 2, it has been proven to perform extremely well in combat, has an astoundingly accurate rifled barrel, is very well armoured and doesnt have the expensive turbine engine of the Abrams. Either that or the Challenger 1, another combat proven British tank with the rifled barrel and chobham armour, and im sure some surplus tanks would be going cheap.

And we can always get the Queen to give the convicts a nudge to buy British!

As fare as I remember It diden't do that well in the preprations to the iraq war somthing about sand in the eingines.

STGN

ps. I am not sure if it just was the british artiliry or both.

[Major Fubar 0]

I would love to see us buy Challenger's, Leopard's or Abrams, but with our budget, we'd be lucky to afford a couple of retrofitted M60's...

[Eviscerator 0]

No, that was an exercise in Oman STGN, and the problems were fixed, it was something to do with the filter. As far as i know there have been no problems in Op Telic with the filters.

[stgn 39]

No, that was an exercise in Oman STGN, and the problems were fixed, it was something to do with the filter. As far as i know there have been no problems in Op Telic with the filters.

okay thanks I diden't know that

STGN

[stgn 39]

I would love to see us buy Challenger's, Leopard's or Abrams, but with our budget, we'd be lucky to afford a couple of retrofitted M60's...

If the US would sell the canadians them for 1doller a pice I think you could get the M60's whit ERA they used in GW1 for 2dollers

STGN

[EiZei 0]

I have read that Abrams is a bit more mobile than Leo2??

Depends on terrain, maybe on desert but try bringing a M1A* here, if it does not get stuck in the mud it wont be able to squeeze through our narrow forest roads.

[stgn 39]

I have read that Abrams is a bit more mobile than Leo2??

Depends on terrain, maybe on desert but try bringing a M1A* here, if it does not get stuck in the mud it wont be able to squeeze through our narrow forest roads.

Well I don't think the leo, M1 or chal2 would fit there if thats the case.

STGN

[FW200 0]

Well If I where to buy it would be the Leo or Abrams not the OPLOT(it may be lighter but it dosen't offer more protection or eletronics than the other two Leo2A6 and AbramsA2SEP)

I have read that Abrams is a bit more mobile than Leo2??

But if they intend to buy the Abrams as it is I wouldent because the motors are old(60ties tecnonoligy) but if they used stat of the art gasturbine eingins I would go fore the Abrams. But as it is I would take the Leo2 if it was from them I should chose. But why not get new Leo1A5 or stingray or Xm8(I think thats whats its called) or another light/medium tank.

STGN

It does offer more protection.. (has ERA-5 and various other systems)

and Electronics.. well.. It can be fitted with anything you would like

[coporal_punishment 0]

The reason why the Leopard II will be chosen then other tanks is becuase of its water fodding capabilities. In the Australian Desert especailly near the top end where it gets a bit hilly there are small rivers which can't be passed by a regular tank and hence this leads Australia into 2 options.

Option 1

By the Challanger or the M1aX or what ever and by a higher ratio of bridge layers.

Option 2

By the Leopard II which has water fodding capabilites and less bridge layers.

The second reason is that the leopard is reasonably cheaper then the m1aXs or the Challanger, i.e. for every M1a2 you buy, you can buy 2 Leopards.

The only reason stopping the Government buying the Leopard II and choosing the M1aX or Challanger II is that they have been proven in a desert enviroment and they seem to be quite safe. Don't believe me that the Howard government would buy a tank becuase its safe "guess why they chose the Tiger Helicopter".

Remember people the tanks are only for the 1st Amoured Battalion, 1st Brigade (Mechanised). And that only constitutes to just over 100 tanks, and when you add tanks needed for the school of Amour around 20. The most Australia would buy would be 150 and since the budget for buying the tanks is A$300 million we can by 150 Leopard IIs.

[ozanzac 0]

I have read that Abrams is a bit more mobile than Leo2??

Depends on terrain, maybe on desert but try bringing a M1A* here, if it does not get stuck in the mud it wont be able to squeeze through our narrow forest roads.

Well I don't think the leo, M1 or chal2 would fit there if thats the case.

STGN

For some reason, I think fifty or so metric tonnes travelling a 45 k's per hour could turn a forest into a pile of toothpics in no time, and still not break a sweat. Its those damn cliffs that a tank has to be really aware of.

[stgn 39]

Well If I where to buy it would be the Leo or Abrams not the OPLOT(it may be lighter but it dosen't offer more protection or eletronics than the other two Leo2A6 and AbramsA2SEP)

I have read that Abrams is a bit more mobile than Leo2??

But if they intend to buy the Abrams as it is I wouldent because the motors are old(60ties tecnonoligy) but if they used stat of the art gasturbine eingins I would go fore the Abrams. But as it is I would take the Leo2 if it was from them I should chose. But why not get new Leo1A5 or stingray or Xm8(I think thats whats its called) or another light/medium tank.

STGN

It does offer more protection.. (has ERA-5 and various other systems)

and Electronics.. well.. It can be fitted with anything you would like  

An the abrams has DU and chopham whats your point???

Thew leo has also good protection.

STGN

[FW200 0]

My point is that the Oplot is better armored.. ERA-5 is much better than Chobham armor since ERA-5 can withstand those "amazing" Du Shells from a Abrams..

Nice article about ERA-5

Official site about Armor Protection of the T-84 here (about the same as the Oplot)

And read Sigma's post about the Oplot >here<

[ozanzac 0]

I found this extract from the Australian Defence Magazines website in relation to the ADF's intentions about it's future MBT force. No mention of the procurement of any new units though, just the upgrading.

Quote[/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.

VOLUME 11 ISSUE 8 / AUGUST 2003

Looks like we may end up doing something not unlike what the Polish army has done and take up ex-german army tanks. Either way, it seems the upgrading of the ADF's armored capabilities is vital in insuring a plausible force.

Of particular note in the article is the reluctance to use reactive armour for the sake of surrounding foot troops. This is very representative of the Australian Armys combat stratergies, that is, that Armored Units are primarily to be used to support infantry rather than be used as a force by itself.

And assuming we only have a budget for 100-150 new tanks, it would seem that this method would be likely to continue.

[thirtyg 0]

I found this extract from the Australian Defence Magazines website in relation to the ADF's intentions about it's future MBT force. No mention of the procurement of any new units though, just the upgrading.

The conversation has only started up again this week, that’s why I posted the topic.

I seriously doubt we would upgrade the old Leo I's if the army has its way. The head of the army has gone on record saying he would give up numerous other weapons procurement programs to get new tanks. That said new tanks were not and have not been included in any recent strategic planning for the ADF.

There is some speculation the only reason why this has come up again is because the US is trying real hard to get Australia to buy the Abrams

With $25 billion in expenditure to be announced this month there is surely $300 million there to buy new tanks (especially if we go without other army projects)... however the money will only be there if and only if the army can justify why we need new tanks, and they just cant do that at the moment.

As a few people have said before we have never used our tanks in combat and any 'armored' threat there may be from southeast Asian countries is more than adequately handled by the current Leo I tanks.

The only rationale I can see for new tanks is an upgrade in response to the latest generation of shoulder fired AT missiles which would carve up the current Leo I.

I still say the money could be better spent elsewhere with new AT/AA systems, gun systems for APCs and finally getting harpoon launchers mounted on the bloody frigates.

And finally to those argueing about Oplot's,ERA-5 Chobham etc etc please don't, i didn't want this thread to be another arguement about this, also talking about the Oplot is pointless because the ADF would never buy them, please keep it on the merits of the ADF purchasing a new tank (Abram, Leo II or Challenger) v other systems.

[Guest DKM-jaguar]

Quote[/b] ]The army has argued strongly that light vehicles are highly vulnerable to shoulder-fired weapons, such as the Javelin missile, used by the SAS in Iraq.

Surely it's the RPG's they should be looking out for? Unless they plan to go to war with the SAS?  

I think Challenger or leopard, they are both amazing tanks. I think the M1A* is just too expensive and not good for the money. I think the Leopard2 is more suited to thier needs, although I think the Challenger2 is the better tank. I also think Challenger2 would rip off Oplot's head and shove it somewhere inconvenient. But that's another story

[killagee 0]

The Aussies are firmly up the US's rear end so expect a US purchase

Mayby it should be something like this

Quote[/b] ]The Aussie government is firmly up the US's rear end so expect a US purchase *sad face kept!*

Killagee, remind me, are you kiwi, if so, show us your air-force, or lack of it.

Besides, kiwi public sentiment towards the US would be pretty similar to the Australian public.

Yeah too true, sorry I couldnt resist a little stab! hehe

Seriously though, surely the ADF's lack of serious a AIFV is more important than replacing their old leopards...

The CV-90 MK III would have to be the most modern and capable AIFV near service today, agreed? And it costs 1/4 to operate than an M-113!

What are the ADF M-113's armed with now? still all .50's ?

[ran 0]

What are the ADF M-113's armed with now? still all .50's ?

weren't some of them fitted with Scorpion/Scimitar turrets ? (at least , the one with the 60mm mortar , not the Aden 30mm , is it the scorpion ?)

[Architekt 0]

I vote Leopard 2A6 or Challenger 2, purely because thyr'e my fav modern afvs and it would be cool to see them on exercise in future.

[mr. Duck 0]

How about the merkava? Why isn't that an option? It is a decent tank. Merk.3 could shoot western ammunition, plus missiles. It can transport a small squad of soldiers, has a in built mortar. Ãt is Israeli but that shouldn't matter that much. I think the dutch will get some Israeli AT-weapons too... Don't flame me please, I'm just curious.