Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[pykie]

Para 7.5 makes it clear - it's a tank replacement program. Allowing for a decent fleet of a tanks (including sustainment) that are more capable than a SEP v4 with advanced armour, tech and - possibly - weapons and that budget looks feasible - especially in 2035-ish dollars. You can see the current fleet upgrade on the funding chart.

The thing is, while tanks are essential, the M1 replacement may be something different that fulfils the niche but doesn't look like a tank. Or is called a tank. The language gives the ADF flexibility to maintain a warfighting capability (tank) while conducting studies and the like to ensure what we get is needed. Will also be good at shushing naysayers....

The simple reality is that we can't build or design tanks in Australia. Even Britain is struggling. For that heavy armour capability you are looking at the Americans and maybe the Europeans.



In no way at all - for four reasons:

1. survivabilty and battle worthiness is comprised by internal design that has significant flaws
2. German stuff is overall too complex and expensive
3. A supply chain that links in with the US offers more advantages than any other nation - especially for heavy armour
4. The 2A7 is worse than a current M1A2 (see pt 1) and is an inservice platform - way to out of date for an M1 replacement.



Fact. And needs to be highlighted. This isn't a set in stone plan, the strat reviews between now and then will modify if required (look at KC-30s). The true win here is that there is an M1 replacement publicly incorporated. We've never had that for any of our heavy stuff - having markers in the sand is a massive win. It's now up to Army to do the hard intellectual work between now and then to keep the markers out - but keeping the status quo is always easier....

I was under the impression that the 2A7+ had easily outperformed all rivals in allied war games, including the USA SEP variants.

That it was the clear #1 MBT in the world at the moment.

The next gen European MBT project is apparently still the 2A7+ chassis, but with the French Leclerc smaller 2 crew turret and the new Rheinmetall 130mm main gun, the Leclerc turret makes the tank significantly lighter than a Leopard.

 

[pykie]

The thing is, while tanks are essential, the M1 replacement may be something different that fulfils the niche but doesn't look like a tank. Or is called a tank. The language gives the ADF flexibility to maintain a warfighting capability (tank) while conducting studies and the like to ensure what we get is needed. Will also be good at shushing naysayers....

Are you thinking something like a modern updated M1128 or something different again?

The advantage of that platform was it's weight and it's ability to be airdropped for fire support.

 

[Redlands18]

Are you thinking something like a modern updated M1128 or something different again?

The advantage of that platform was it's weight and it's ability to be airdropped for fire support.

I think you are looking for an answer to a question that has no clear answer at this time. We are at least 12-13 years away from releasing a RFI for the M-1 replacement, the Army will keep a watch on developments and start to put together a preferred option for what type of system later in the decade as it becomes more and more clearer what will be available by the late 30s.

 

[hairyman]

The European joint venture tank under development is going to be much smaller and lighter than current tanks. Americans are working on a new tank of similar size apparently...

 

[pykie]

Image deleted because it was posted without any commentary or a source given for the image. Both of which are against the rules.

Ngatimozart

 

[pykie]

The European joint venture tank under development is going to be much smaller and lighter than current tanks. Americans are working on a new tank of similar size apparently...

It's lighter because of the Leclerc turret, but the designs currently proposed are on a 2A7+ chassis, so not sure how much smaller it could be.

 

[pykie]

Would $600m-$1b be enough to upspec the current 59 x M1A1's to M1A2 SEP v3 or 4's?

You would probably hope so at that cost given it's likely to be more than half the cost of a new tank.

Unless there's some additional units being planned.

 

[Redlands18]

View attachment 47472

Is there a reason for this post, the Mods may not like something like this without any comment as to why you have put it up.

 

[pykie]

Is there a reason for this post, the Mods may not like something like this without any comment as to why you have put it up.

It's an easy reference for what we are discussing.

 

[ngatimozart]

It's an easy reference for what we are discussing.

Well you should have said so in your post and I would not have had to delete the image. Feel free to post it again and say why you are posting it, but also post the source of the image. That protects both you and the forum against accusations of plagiarism. Also familiarise yourself with the rules too please. Link to the rules is part of my signature.

 

[pykie]

2020 Defence Strategic Update | About | Defence

The Defence Strategic Update sets out the challenges in Australia’s strategic environment and their implications for Defence planning. The 2020 Force Structure Plan details the Government’s intentions for new and adjusted Australian Defence Force capability investments to implement the new...

www.defence.gov.au

The above is the exert from the land factsheet with timelines/budgets.

 

[Redlands18]

Would $600m-$1b be enough to upspec the current 59 x M1A1's to M1A2 SEP v3 or 4's?

You would probably hope so at that cost given it's likely to be more than half the cost of a new tank.

Unless there's some additional units being planned.

Home - Defence Technology Review

IN THIS ISSUE ACCESS CURRENT ISSUE NEWS Land 400 Phase 3 latest The current status of the Australian Army’s Land 400 Phase 3 project and what the next few months may hold. Read the full article NEWS MRH-90 woes continue With poor rates of effort and climbing costs the MRH-90 trooplift helicopter...

dtrmagazine.com

There you go, great timing, page 46 has the intended M-1, ABV and JAB upgrade all laid out. Phase 2 Govt approval due for approval sept 2021, including increasing the fleet to 88 Tanks likely to be M-1A2 (SEPv3) as well as a combined ABV/JAB fleet of 32 Vehicles based on the M-1 Chasis.

 

[pykie]

Home - Defence Technology Review

IN THIS ISSUE ACCESS CURRENT ISSUE NEWS Land 400 Phase 3 latest The current status of the Australian Army’s Land 400 Phase 3 project and what the next few months may hold. Read the full article NEWS MRH-90 woes continue With poor rates of effort and climbing costs the MRH-90 trooplift helicopter...

dtrmagazine.com

There you go, great timing, page 46 has the intended M-1, ABV and JAB upgrade all laid out. Phase 2 Govt approval due for approval sept 2021, including increasing the fleet to 88 Tanks likely to be M-1A2 (SEPv3) as well as a combined ABV/JAB fleet of 32 Vehicles based on the M-1 Chasis.

Good timing.

I believe we would be the only nation to have been exported any of the SEP range of M1A2's, would this require special congressional approvals for this upgrade, even with our own parliamentary funding approvals in 2021?

I believe the Saudi's have the closest currently exported tank which is basically an upgraded M1A2 but without the depleted uranium armor and other specs of the SEP v1. It's denoted as the M1A2S

The US Army has only really just started receiving their first batch of them a matter of weeks ago, so they are still cutting edge and will remain so in 2022.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266362930930614272

 

[Redlands18]

Good timing.

I believe we would be the only nation to have been exported any of the SEP range of M1A2's, would this require special congressional approvals for this upgrade, even with our own parliamentary funding approvals in 2021?

The US Army has only really just started receiving their first batch of them a matter of weeks ago, so they are still cutting edge and will remain so in 2022.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266362930930614272

Yes it would be an FMS sale, so it would need approval from Congress, as with all US Military equipment we buy. But in this case it should be a straight forward Rubber Stamp as it doesn’t change the balance of power in our region, we would have no difficulty introducing them, it won’t effect the US Military, it helps a close US Ally to defend itself etc.

 

[Bob53]

The additional Protected Mobile fires budget is close to double the initial budget that was going to deliver 30 X K9 SPH and 10 X K10. Does this mean there will be at least a doubling of the initial purchases?

 

[Bob53]

And what would be the systems that are likely to fit into this budget?



And who would they go to? The budget looks like its possibly going to afford a 1 for 1 replacement with the M777. Its looks to me like going from around 50 X M777 to 30+ SPG and possibly similar number of MLRS.(M142?)

M142 look to be about $10m AU based on the recent Polish purchase Poland to spend $414 million on Lockheed's HIMARS mobile rocket system I realise thats not total cost but suggest's the budget is significant.

Would we be sending the M777 to the Reserves or are we clearing out of that game altogether?

 

[Redlands18]

And what would be the systems that are likely to fit into this budget?

View attachment 47476

And who would they go to? The budget looks like its possibly going to afford a 1 for 1 replacement with the M777. Its looks to me like going from around 50 X M777 to 30+ SPG and possibly similar number of MLRS.(M142?)

M142 look to be about $10m AU based on the recent Polish purchase Poland to spend $414 million on Lockheed's HIMARS mobile rocket system I realise thats not total cost but suggest's the budget is significant.

Would we be sending the M777 to the Reserves or are we clearing out of that game altogether?

The SPH req is for 2 Regt worth so i would say that yes it will be more than 30. The other one is a MRL system, probably HIMARS but the ROK K-239 could also be in the running. The K-9 order still hasn’t gone to Cabinet yet, so we may see a tweaking of numbers there, maybe 30+ options. I think we will have to wait on the SPH order is announced before we will know the fate of the 777s.

 

[Milne Bay]

The SPH req is for 2 Regt worth so i would say that yes it will be more than 30. The other one is a MRL system, probably HIMARS but the ROK K-239 could also be in the running.

This could be particularly true if local manufacturing has a significant influence on the outcome.

 

[Boagrius]

I also noticed the explicit reference to a BMD capability. Strikes me that we are in an awkward spot as Aegis Ashore is not deployable (and I question the survivability of a fixed site against a peer adversary) and Patriot is just getting too old. That leaves THAAD and not much else.

(Shameless plug from earlier incoming ) I wonder if the Japanese might be interested in teaming up on a truck mounted Mk41 VLS based GBAD system now that their own Aegis Ashore deal is defunct. Marry it up with AN/TPY-2 (or whatever CEA can cook up) and you could lob SM2, SM6 and SM3 (arguably the most capable western ABM interceptors out there?) at inbound BMs as needed. Launchers might also double as a GLCM or land based ASM battery too... Time shall tell.

 

[TheRealist]

Do we know how many of these new SEP v. 3 tanks we will be receiving? Will it just be a one for one replacement?