New weapons for ADF

[stgn 39]

Interesting read.. suggest you read it completly ;)

I don't think I heard anyone using the article as a justification for the OPLOT being superior against the Abrams. What it does highlight is that Russian Export tanks were severly inferior to the Russian 'motherland' based tanks, and that American superiority against these export tanks shouldn't be gauged that all Russian Tanks are inferior. By your comment, is seems that you didn't read the whole article in detail.

Oh, and as a side note, don't forget that gas turbines in early Abrams suffered from extreme overheating and thus, break down problems + it guzzles fuel at a much greater rate than say a diesel powered engine. I'd rather a tank that goes longer than it does faster.

I read the article completly and as good as I can, because I am very interested in this, but maby i miss understod somthing cause I am not a professeor in english, what did i miss?

STGN

[stgn 39]

Also, don't forget that anyone with a infrared scope can see a Abrams coming from miles away. Those turbine engines give off rediculous amounts of heat.

I would think that you can see most tanks fare away if they are comming at full speed. And you should remember that if can't hear or see the tank you don't pull your inferred out. And from what i under stand the Abrams is "very" quit considering its a very large tank.

STGN

[ozanzac 0]

Also, don't forget that anyone with a infrared scope can see a Abrams coming from miles away. Those turbine engines give off rediculous amounts of heat.

I would think that you can see most tanks fare away if they are comming at full speed. And you should remember that if can't hear or see the tank you don't pull your inferred out. And from what i under stand the Abrams is "very" quit considering its a very large tank.

STGN

He, and with that me, so we, kind of mean that the heat generated from the turbine engine creates a large amount of infra-red radiation which, during night or low visibility conditions, with the aid of an Infra-red scope, makes the Abrams stand out like a big shoot me sign.

Generally you don't use Infra-Red in daylight conditions, as the human eye can see things much more clearly, but infra-red cameras can see heat emmisions, and these emmisions are quite large, especially in comparison to diesel powered tanks, which generate much lower heat emmisions, thus making them less visible in infra-red conditions, which is kinda like night vision but instead of enhancing available light, it enhances heat sources. These systems and systems like it are increasingly becoming more occurant on all new tanks, especially for tanks of OPFOR's, who use the Abrams heat as an advantage during low visibility conditions.

[robbo 0]

In 'the australian' newspaper, there was an article about the ADF getting second hand leopard 2s.

[ozanzac 0]

In 'the australian' newspaper, there was an article about the ADF getting second hand leopard 2s.

Do you know/remember when? I'm looking around for it now.

And this is robbo from the opflashpoint.org, right.

[robbo 0]

yep, from opflashpoint.org

I'm not sure what date the article was in, but it was recent. I'll try and remember, maybe even try to find the link.

[stgn 39]

Also, don't forget that anyone with a infrared scope can see a Abrams coming from miles away. Those turbine engines give off rediculous amounts of heat.

I would think that you can see most tanks fare away if they are comming at full speed. And you should remember that if can't hear or see the tank you don't pull your inferred out. And from what i under stand the Abrams is "very" quit considering its a very large tank.

STGN

He, and with that me, so we, kind of mean that the heat generated from the turbine engine creates a large amount of infra-red radiation which, during night or low visibility conditions, with the aid of an Infra-red scope, makes the Abrams stand out like a big shoot me sign.

Generally you don't use Infra-Red in daylight conditions, as the human eye can see things much more clearly, but infra-red cameras can see heat emmisions, and these emmisions are quite large, especially in comparison to diesel powered tanks, which generate much lower heat emmisions, thus making them less visible in infra-red conditions, which is kinda like night vision but instead of enhancing available light, it enhances heat sources. These systems and systems like it are increasingly becoming more occurant on all new tanks, especially for tanks of OPFOR's, who use the Abrams heat as an advantage during low visibility conditions.

you are right about that but As fare as I know you can't see thru bildings and woods of cause you can see the air is hotter but I don't think that you would shoot before you where sure that it was the ennemy. and again the abrams is more quit and it dosen't creat smoke which in daylight might expose the tank. A big minus on the turbine is also that it doesnt have to warm up and starts very instandly in most weather. which makes it very good for what it was bild for, to be able to respond to a russian assult somtimes its only seconds that can change the outcome of a battle. I have learned that many times while playing close combat cause since shermans dosen't have a chance one on one against a Panther it is a pretty good idear to get the tank out of sightafter it has fired.

And have you ever tryed steel beatest here I noticed that the driver of the tank always tryes to move the tank down in cover when it has fired insted of being a sitting duck. the reason I used that game as an example is that the Danish Army uses that game to pratice the Leo1 and soon Leo2 crews.

STGN

[ozanzac 0]

you are right about that but As fare as I know you can't see thru bildings and woods of cause you can see the air is hotter but I don't think that you would shoot before you where sure that it was the ennemy. and again the abrams is more quit and it dosen't creat smoke which in daylight might expose the tank. A big minus on the turbine is also that it doesnt have to warm up and starts very instandly in most weather. which makes it very good for what it was bild for, to be able to respond to a russian assult somtimes its only seconds that can change the outcome of a battle. I have learned that many times while playing close combat cause since shermans dosen't have a chance one on one against a Panther it is a pretty good idear to get the tank out of sightafter it has fired.

And have you ever tryed steel beatest here I noticed that the driver of the tank always tryes to move the tank down in cover when it has fired insted of being a sitting duck. the reason I used that game as an example is that the Danish Army uses that game to pratice the Leo1 and soon Leo2 crews.

STGN

True, but you can't see through buildings and woods anyway !       Still, line of sight is better than zero sight in foggy conditions.

I'm not sure what your trying to say about engine startup times, but don't forget, first you have to 'spin' the turbine through an auxillary power unit, which then has to spin to the operatable rpm range, which then has to engage the hydraulic systems, which then gets the transmission working, which then drives the catipillars,e.t.c. then your off.

Starting a turbine is much more complicated than starting an engine based on the same principles of a car engine. Starter motor, to flywheel (dunno about a tank!!) to crankshaft to ignition. That (very simplified) sequence is much quicker than a turbine system, unless it won't start or is poorly serviced!

But then again your a dead man anyway.

[stgn 39]

you are right about that but As fare as I know you can't see thru bildings and woods of cause you can see the air is hotter but I don't think that you would shoot before you where sure that it was the ennemy. and again the abrams is more quit and it dosen't creat smoke which in daylight might expose the tank. A big minus on the turbine is also that it doesnt have to warm up and starts very instandly in most weather. which makes it very good for what it was bild for, to be able to respond to a russian assult somtimes its only seconds that can change the outcome of a battle. I have learned that many times while playing close combat cause since shermans dosen't have a chance one on one against a Panther it is a pretty good idear to get the tank out of sightafter it has fired.

And have you ever tryed steel beatest here I noticed that the driver of the tank always tryes to move the tank down in cover when it has fired insted of being a sitting duck. the reason I used that game as an example is that the Danish Army uses that game to pratice the Leo1 and soon Leo2 crews.

STGN

True, but you can't see through buildings and woods anyway !       Still, line of sight is better than zero sight in foggy conditions.

I'm not sure what your trying to say about engine startup times, but don't forget, first you have to 'spin' the turbine through an auxillary power unit, which then has to spin to the operatable rpm range, which then has to engage the hydraulic systems, which then gets the transmission working, which then drives the catipillars,e.t.c. then your off.

Starting a turbine is much more complicated than starting an engine based on the same principles of a car engine. Starter motor, to flywheel (dunno about a tank!!) to crankshaft to ignition. That (very simplified) sequence is much quicker than a turbine system, unless it won't start or is poorly serviced!

But then again your a dead man anyway.

Do you know how long the Abrams and OPLOTs thermal systems can see away I read somewhere that it is 4000m is that correct?

STGN

[ozanzac 0]

FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION

Blah blah blah

The M1A2 Abrams tank has a two-axis Raytheon Gunner's Primary Sight- Line of Sight (GPS-LOS) which increases the first round hit probability by providing faster target acquisition and improved gun pointing. The Thermal Imaging System (TIS) has magnification x10 narrow field of view and x3 wide field of view. The thermal image is displayed in the eyepiece of the gunner's sight together with the range measurement from a laser rangefinder. The Northrop Grumman (formerly Litton) Laser Systems Eyesafe Laser Rangefinder (ELRF) has a range accuracy to within 10m and target discrimination of 20m. The gunner also has a Kollmorgen Model 939 auxiliary sight with magnification x8 and field of view 8 degrees.

more blah blah blah

Basically, it can focus images three times better/futher than the human eye whilist scanning for targets and focus ten times better when targetting a target, all whilist scanning for Infra Red radiation.

[thirtyg 0]

Well i know the ADF has been talking about getting something like this for a while now, specifically for use as a helicopter attack platform.

By the sound of things it appears the Navy is to be first on the defence spending list, then the airforce and then the army. So we may not be getting new tanks at all  

To be honest while new tanks would be 'cool' i think the money is better spent on amphibious assualt ships, they also make sense if we decide to furter commit to the JSF, given that various JSF models will have STOL capabilities and thus could be launched off such a vessel.

[ozanzac 0]

Wow, that's really quite impressive, that the government is thinking about getting something like the 'wasp' class carrier. I beleive that would be multiple times more useful than upgraded or new tanks, as such a ship with such a role would perfectly suit Australias committments in the Pacific region. Sought of a mobile base for operations without the need to establish forward command and supply bases, and the like.

What interests me most is the fact that the Navy is finally gonna be able to replace HMAS Westralia with something new and more efficient.

I'd much rather hope that this new development is given the go ahead over new tanks, as tanks are land based, and I doubt we'd ever fight an invading or equally equipped army without some kind of extreme provocation to do so, thus this naval 'carrier' is much more attractive, seeing as it would be perfect for operations such as East Timor, Bouganville (BOGANville! ) and the Solomon Islands.

[Baron von Beer 0]

M1 series heat? Thats just part o' the plan, what with the combined arms, and all that jazz. F16 flying CAS, gets an IR SAM on his 6.. he dives down, and the missile goes for the apparent sun down below (M1 turbine) and hits the heavily armored beast instead of the thin skinned Falcon.

[ozanzac 0]

M1 series heat? Thats just part o' the plan, what with the combined arms, and all that jazz. F16 flying CAS, gets an IR SAM on his 6.. he dives down, and the missile goes for the apparent sun down below (M1 turbine) and hits the heavily armored beast instead of the thin skinned Falcon.  

He he, yeah. That's why they put those turbine engines in those abrams!

Anyway, I was readin the local paper today, and it contains a rough guestimation of the defence department's future purchases and upgrades to current systems: The Advertiser: Mission for a safe and secure future

Quote[/b] ]Mission for a safe and secure future

A $20 billion plan to meet Australia's defence requirements for the next 20 years is about to be put into action, as defence writer IAN McPHEDRAN reports.

01nov03

YESTERDAY was a crucial moment for the Australian Defence Force.

Federal Cabinet considered the long-awaited Defence Capability Review and is expected to announce its final decision soon.

What is at stake in the review of the $20 billion-plus Defence Capability Plan will be the military's ability to defend the nation and meet the Government's regional and global security requirements for the next 20 years.

Reviews such as this attract much speculation and this one has drawn more than its share.

So far the pundits have predicted the review will include:

NEW army tanks.

NEW warships including huge amphibious vessels.

SCRAPPING two submarines.

EARLY retirement of F-111 strike fighters.

SACRIFICING vast amounts of army strike power.

What is now apparent is that despite the war on terrorism and the busy global tempo of our armed forces, the document will not stray too far from the 2000 Defence White Paper and the 2001 Defence Capability Plan.

Therefore at least three of the above will not come to pass.

There will be minor alterations at the margins and there might even be new tanks for the army, but the bottom line is that the nation's defence force will be equipped to protect our shores, police our region and work alongside the Americans in global coalition anti-terrorism operations. And that means keeping six submarines, extending the life of the F-111s and not compromising the army.

What the military will get from the new capability plan is:

A $10 billion-plus fleet of US-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

TWO air warfare destroyers armed with long-range missiles.

A NEW navy tanker/supply ship.

TROOP lift helicopters.

NEW RAAF airborne tankers.

MAJOR upgrades for F/A-18 Hornets and F-111s.

COLLINS submarine upgrades.

ARMY tanks.

The biggest decision will be which type of tank – the German-built Leopard 2 or the American-made Abrams, which weighs almost twice as much as the German model.

Army Chief Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy wants the Leopard tank, but his boss General Peter Cosgrove is understood to favour the Abrams.

The Australian Defence Force can meet all that is demanded of it without very much extra money or wholesale changes to strategic plans written just three years ago.

Apart from September 11, the war on terrorism and the Bali atrocity, nothing in the big strategic picture has changed much.

China remains peaceful and is opening up, India and Pakistan haven't launched nuclear strikes, North Korea is still unpredictable, Russia tries to pay her bills, the Middle East remains unstable and the US is still the sole global superpower and our closest ally.

If Federal Cabinet decides on a radical shift in capability and structures the force to participate in large-scale expeditionary operations a long way from home, then taxpayers will be entitled to ask, "What for?"

Most items in the new capability plan are in the current plan and many have suffered lengthy delays.

Recent reforms have fixed many delays, but they always cause problems for defence. In projects such as acquiring new patrol boats, they have translated into operational shortfalls in our northern waters.

With projects such as a new navy tanker to replace its biggest ship, the troubled HMAS Westralia, the potential for serious cost and operational problems is growing by the day. Further delays could even have fatal consequences.

Prior to yesterday's Cabinet meeting the Labor Opposition issued yet another media release questioning Defence Minister Robert Hill's capacity to deliver the capability plan.

Labor defence spokesman Chris Evans said the plan was being undermined by an alleged $12 billion funding gap, failure to deliver projects on time and on budget and growing pressure between the services to bid for new capabilities.

There is nothing new in any of that either.

The defence budget is a vast funding lottery that very few people genuinely understand.

MILITARY projects have been running over time and over budget for decades and robust competition between services is a fact of military life.

The most crucial aspect of this review is how Senator Hill's strategic thinking translates into operational capability. He has panned the so-called arc of instability theory that has underpinned national strategic thinking for decades.

He has also put out mixed signals on the need for expeditionary forces and he has failed to articulate what the war on terror will ultimately mean for the ADF.

With this review the minister has an opportunity to stamp his authority on the defence debate and to provide the military with some clear strategic and capability guidance for the next 20 or so years.

Failure to do so will leave the Government open to charges of strategic uncertainty and the door open for the growing number of observers and players who believe defence spending should grow by billions of dollars a year.

In today's uncertain world the nation cannot afford military uncertainty or a meaningless debate about funding levels.

What the online version doesn't state, is contained within a graphic, but I don't have webspace to post it so heres my text version

Quote[/b] ]

Shopping list:

- F-35 JSF (Tick)

-Air Warfare destroyers (Tick)

-Navy Tanker/Supply Ship (Tick)

-Troop lift helicopters (Tick)

-RAAF airborne tankers (Tick)

-Tanks: Leaopard 2 or Abrams (Tick)

-F-111 Strike fighter (Mothball or upgrade?)

-F/A-18 Hornets (Upgrade)

-Collins Submarines (Upgrade)

-HMAS Westralia (Replace)

-Two Submarines (Mothball) *Note, I'm uncertain if this means to mothball two current subs of the six in fleet, or mothball plans for two more subs, but probably the former*

Amphibious Vessels(Tick)

So I suppose this opens a whole field of debate over what the ADF should get! Theres also replacement of the Rapier missile system on the agenda and other upgrades not listed within the media.

[thirtyg 0]

I'd much rather hope that this new development is given the go ahead over new tanks, as tanks are land based, and I doubt we'd ever fight an invading or equally equipped army without some kind of extreme provocation to do so, thus this naval 'carrier' is much more attractive, seeing as it would be perfect for operations such as East Timor, Bouganville (BOGANville! ) and the Solomon Islands.

I'd rather have these ships as well, like you said it fits in with our requirements for our current operations perfectly.

If we do get them it will be interesting to see what we decide when it comes around to making a decision on the JSF.

JSFs off the back of three of these would IMO negate the strategic loss Australia would suffer from the retirement of the F111. You would probably find that if the ships were positioned right the JSF would be able to strike at targets out to similar distances to what the F111 currently extend our strike power today.

[thirtyg 0]

Thanks for that post Ozanzac, which city is the 'advertiser' the paper for?

Hopefully the government will see cost synergies in getting the amphibious vessels.

Other than that there isnt much straying from the 2000 report.

As for the subs, i thought we only planned to make six so it sounds like mothballing 2 of the current ones. At the end of the day the are costing so much to upgrade and are pritty unlikely to see any action in the forseeable future.

It's also good to see plans for an upgrade of air defense systems with the two air warfare destroyers. Wonder what we will buy to replace the Rapier, Stinger based? maybe Avenger 2 Humvees or convert some of the M113s to carry the Avenger systems like Turkey??

[ozanzac 0]

The Advertiser's from Adelaide. and at the same time!

It seems like the first and second Collins Subs will be mothballed. The first has weld faults, the second, well, I dunno.

I dunno what we'll do about the Rapier. I believe tenders are being evaluated pretty soon. I just hope capability and serviceability overcomes political reasoning when it comes to the crunch of decideing what to get. As should be the case with all military equiptment.

[ozanzac 0]

JSFs off the back of three of these would IMO negate the strategic loss Australia would suffer from the retirement of the F111. You would probably find that if the ships were positioned right the JSF would be able to strike at targets out to similar distances to what the F111 currently extend our strike power today.

I don't belive that the new ship would incorporate a cat launching system, and instead the VTOL varients of the JSF would have to lift their warload via their engine power, or use a skijump. My biggest gripe about the JSF, is that it won't be able to carry a warload compareable to the F-111, when in reality, the F-111's configuration is truly the best platform for a strike bomber to use. It carrys a usable bombload, has a very usable range, has extraordinary performance, and is relatively cheap compared to say a bomber like the B-1 or even B-52.

to be honest, if we could somehow procure our own new strike fighter/bomber in similar config to the F-111, we would truly have the potential to export the plane to most parts of the world. The knowledge we have with the F-111 would simply go to waste if we retire them or not capitalize on the infrastructure we have developed locally to maintain such an aircraft, read this article, Cost of Killing Off the F-111 to understand my similar point of view.

[thirtyg 0]

to be honest, if we could somehow procure our own new strike fighter/bomber in similar config to the F-111, we would truly have the potential to export the plane to most parts of the world. The knowledge we have with the F-111 would simply go to waste if we retire them or not capitalize on the infrastructure we have developed locally to maintain such an aircraft, read this article, Cost of Killing Off the F-111 to understand my similar point of view.

I agree 100%. There is no other aircraft platform with the capabilities in the world. It's a shame that the government and industry won't get together to develop a new strike fighter/bomber based on our knowledge of the F111 platform. We have one of the best weapons delivery platforms in the world in the F111 and it will simply be lost.

I'd assume that JSFs would be launched STOL rather than VTOL, which should mean they could carry a heavier payload.

While i agree a JSF won't be comparable to the F111, JSF off Assualt ships will bridge the 'hole' the retirement of the F111 will create.

EDIT

Read the article. i knew the F111 packed a punch but i didnt know that our fleet was equivalent in strategic punch to around 1/3 of the B-52H fleet!

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Read the article. i knew the F111 packed a punch but i didnt know that our fleet was equivalent in strategic punch to around 1/3 of the B-52H fleet!

It's probably not that much, but take into account turn around times and the ability to deploy from airfields that don't require as much infrastructure as a B-52, and that the B-52 is a lumbering giant, and that claim isn't really too far off the mark.

Let's not forget indonesia had Tu-16's, and that if they were to bomb us maliciously (IE civillian populations) in a theoretical war, we would not have the delivery systems to attack back using the same tactics, tit for tat as it may be, war isn't nice. [edit] This is why we got F-111's in the first place.

[thirtyg 0]

[edit] This is why we got F-111's in the first place.

Devils advicate - The othersides justification.The rational for not having this type of capability anymore is that Indonesia and Malaysia are no longer percieved threats.

Indonesia is struggling to hold itself togther let alone fight external wars.

I'm with you tho, we should definetly maintain some aircraft with F111 capabilities.

[-AIM-Holzy 0]

With the way the world is at the moment, its all about force multipliers and one of the biggest force multipliers you can get are AAR tankers......We need some of these.....

to replace these....

[ozanzac 0]

Indonesia is struggling to hold itself togther let alone fight external wars.

Yes, that's true, but that's what brought us into partial conflict over East Timor. Whether or not the legitimacy of the claims that the indonesian army supported the Militia's of Timor is unclear, but still Indonesia's inability to hold itself together could perhaps and unfortunatly bring our forces into the equation yet again with the recent events in Aceh, as any instabilty in the region has the chance to de-stabilise Australia.

The 707-320 tankers needed to be replaced years ago, but have served their purpose well. Depending on the operations launched from this new 'startegic HQ/carrier ship', removing F-111's would increase our dependancy on Tankers for extended range operations. Not a good thing, as America at the moment is going through a phase where Tankers are required for almost every strike operation they launch, much due to the F-15E replacing the F-111 in the strike role.

[thirtyg 0]

Whether or not the legitimacy of the claims that the indonesian army supported the Militia's of Timor is unclear, but still Indonesia's inability to hold itself together could perhaps and unfortunatly bring our forces into the equation yet again with the recent events in Aceh, as any instabilty in the region has the chance to de-stabilise Australia.

Its not just Aceh --> Riau, Kalimatan, Sulawesi, Moluccan Islands and Papua are all potential hotspots.

Aceh, Riau and Papua are the likely places of insurgency as they are all calling for independance (albeit for different reasons).

I think Papua will be interesting over the next 10 years as it is very much like East Timor. Indonesia would be extremely unlikely to grant it indepence however, given the rich mineral deposits.

Gievn this and the numerious other hotspots in the pacific i think it is good the ADF is looking to adapt to the new requirements of the region.

[thirtyg 0]

I know it is OT for this topic but still ADF related.

Anyone catch Dateline last night?

There story seems to stack up. While it disappoints me that the ADF would do things like this, i'm not really suprised for some reason.

Ow and it was also annouced that we finally get an upgraded munitions factory. Didn't realise this was the case at all.