Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

Just to add to my post above regarding the DSCA.

It’s always worth making the effort to view the announcements on the DSCA website whenever there is an announcement in the Defence media here regarding a potential purchase of US equipment, the media here generally “cherry picks” only parts of the announcement, not the full details.

It’s best to look at the “Major Arms Sales” tab:

Major Arms Sales | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Currently the last four announcements are: India P-8I aircraft, Australia CH-47F, Australia M1 tanks, and Australia MQ-9B.

Cheers,

 

[ngatimozart]

What makes Elbit a controversial defence company in Australia? It doesn't seem to be controversial in any other region it operates in.

It's also the first time I think anyone has claimed Americans are careful around these systems, because there are NATO armies that use Elbit's BMS.

What bugs me most is they talk about a monopoly held by Elbit. It's only a local monopoly. Other companies make BMS of their own. Sick of a monopoly? Just break it. For a company, breaking another's monopoly is hard. For a state? Easy, especially when it involves low quantity production. There are literally monopoly-regulating authorities in developed countries.

This will surely affect the LAND 400 Phase 3 program.

The Aussie media aren't exactly known for their accuracy in Defence reporting. The ABC itself was recently caught photoshopping a video of the commissioning of a RAN ship.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

The Aussie media aren't exactly known for their accuracy in Defence reporting. The ABC itself was recently caught photoshopping a video of the commissioning of a RAN ship.

??? really where the link to that one so I can have a laugh... lol

 

[oldsig127]

??? really where the link to that one so I can have a laugh... lol

Not actually photoshopping. They edited a report on the commissioning of HMAS Supply to show senior political and naval guests apparently watching what was intended as pre-event entertainment. Unfortunately the community dance group in question did a "twerking" modern dance instead of something a bit more appropriate.

Unfortunately for the ABC, as the brass didn't arrive until later, a bit of switching around the order of the clips to suit their agenda was done. They got caught and had to apologise and remove the report, but by then, job/damage done.

oldsig

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Good news on the additional tanks / engineering vehicles / upgrades / etc. Article and FMS advice don't mention it, but when do we expect to see these entering service?

 

[Redlands18]

Good news on the additional tanks / engineering vehicles / upgrades / etc. Article and FMS advice don't mention it, but when do we expect to see these entering service?

That is only the US clearance for sale, still has to go to Cabinet her in OZ for the final go ahead to order them, due later this year. The upgrade takes 8 months per tank so probably not much before 2025.

 

[Stampede]

Great news, looks like the Biden Government is finally catching up on its admin

Fantastic to see the Breakers and Bridges, more recovery never goes astray !!

Curious though, 75 ? good step up from 59, but have we missed an opportunity ?

Cheers

Great to see some movement with this project.
Like some others, I'm a bit puzzled by the numbers.
A total of 122 active "M1A1 Tank structures " across three variants are positive numbers but are curious as to the break down.
Seemingly a high percentage of Breakers and Bridge variants compared to gun Tanks.
Rations seem at odds with the old Leo1 days.

Maybe some of these Breakers and Bridge variants will operate with the Land 400 Phase three vehicles in the mechanized battalions in addition to the ACR and engineers.

I thought 81 gun MBT's would give you 18 tanks for the Sqns with 14 to deploy.
The rest for training, maintenance and attrition.



Thoughts

Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

Back after a break, curious with the potential new order of Abrams what will happen to our existing ones? Sold back to the US or thrown into reserve/parts pool with the extra potential hulls?

If kept would give us some 213 Abrams hulls to make use of in their various configurations potentially. Putting up a 4th sqn with those numbers would be easy if budget and manpower allow for it.

And do recall reading in another article (will dig it up) yesterday that this program will run through to 2026 with conversions/upgrades potentially being done in Australia which would be good to lay down the groundwork for a local capability to full sustain them for their entire life

 

[Redlands18]

Back after a break, curious with the potential new order of Abrams what will happen to our existing ones? Sold back to the US or thrown into reserve/parts pool with the extra potential hulls?

If kept would give us some 213 Abrams hulls to make use of in their various configurations potentially. Putting up a 4th sqn with those numbers would be easy if budget and manpower allow for it.

And do recall reading in another article (will dig it up) yesterday that this program will run through to 2026 with conversions/upgrades potentially being done in Australia which would be good to lay down the groundwork for a local capability to full sustain them for their entire life

You need to read back through the last couple of pages of this thread as well as the link provided to the article, it will be a trade in. There will be no conversions/upgrade work for Australian industry.

 

[ADMk2]

Have a read of the full DSCA announcement:

Australia – Heavy Armored Combat Systems | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

You’ll note the announcement says:

“The Government of Australia has requested to buy one hundred sixty (160) M1A1 Tank structures/hulls provided from stock in order to produce the following end items and spares: seventy-five (75) M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks; twenty-nine (29) M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles; eighteen (18) M1074 Joint Assault Bridges; six (6) M88A2 Hercules Combat Recovery Vehicles; and one hundred twenty-two (122) AGT1500 gas turbine engines.”

The relevant part says “and spares”.

My guess is that when Army sat down and worked out it required X number of each variant, it also worked out X number of spares required to support the new fleet of vehicles.

Take 160 used M1 tanks, strip to piles of components, repair, refurbish as necessary, add all the new components and you end up with the stated requirement.

With what’s left over, repair and refurbish what is required to provide spares for X number of years into the future.

When the completed vehicles are eventually delivered there will no doubt many container loads of spare parts delivered too.

Cheers,

There is also the long term plan to create a fourth “Beersheba like” brigade in the West under FSP so, they may well be reserving hulls too…

I suspect much of this work will be occurring downunder too…

 

[John Newman]

There is also the long term plan to create a fourth “Beersheba like” brigade in the West under FSP so, they may well be reserving hulls too…

I suspect much of this work will be occurring downunder too…

I don’t think there is any shortage of M1 hulls available in the US for potential future upgrades.

And of course there are the 59 tanks currently in Army service that will be replaced by the upgraded fleet.

 

[ADMk2]

I don’t think there is any shortage of M1 hulls available in the US for potential future upgrades.

And of course there are the 59 tanks currently in Army service that will be replaced by the upgraded fleet.

No, I don’t think so either. But the line ‘the development of a unique armour package’ suggests to me this upgrade / manufacture process may not all occur in the US, there is a desire to obtain a sustainment hub within Australia and this will be leveraged off the initial assembly / production of these vehicles, plus possibly Australian industry involvement in that ”unique armour package” and perhaps other systems fitted to these vehicles.

Accordingly sourcing the required hulls upfront may offset any uncertainty with this approach…

 

[vonnoobie]

You need to read back through the last couple of pages of this thread as well as the link provided to the article, it will be a trade in. There will be no conversions/upgrade work for Australian industry.

Did actually read that link though between the wording their and all official releases to date all trade in comments have been pure speculation. Not saying won't occur will come down to final negotiations but outside of news and commentary nothing mentions trade in anywhere hence why I bought it up. Will wait and see.

Who knows might park them out bush, forget them, 50 years from now new barn finds

 

[Stampede]

Did actually read that link though between the wording their and all official releases to date all trade in comments have been pure speculation. Not saying won't occur will come down to final negotiations but outside of news and commentary nothing mentions trade in anywhere hence why I bought it up. Will wait and see.

Who knows might park them out bush, forget them, 50 years from now new barn finds

Oh look dear I have bought a new farm
It has lots of acreage, heritage house ,dams shed and a ..............................................MBT!!!!!!!

Cheers

S

 

[oldsig127]

No, I don’t think so either. But the line ‘the development of a unique armour package’ suggests to me this upgrade / manufacture process may not all occur in the US,

I wouldn't get too fixated on the word "Unique". Back in 2019 Head of Army in a presentation suggested that we'd replace the M1A1 with M1A3 (or whatever the current name is for the next generation of M1) That contradicts the recent news which says M1A2 SEPv3 and uses the word "unique"

My interpretation is that they be M1A2's with a different combination of the available armour packages to meet Australian requirements - only unique in so far as the US Army and USMC don't use that combination and it might include some of the newer technology measures for M1A3(?)not yet seen in service.

On the likelihood of doing it locally, I seriously doubt that we'd even want to do this ourselves at the same time as we set up to manufacture SPGs and IFVs and try to find the required skilled trades to do that, build Boxer and all the other new Defence manufacturing tasks at hand from Frigates, through missiles to Loyal Wingman.

oldsig

 

[hairyman]

Can someone enlighten me as to what the breaker vehicles are? I can work out the bridge, but not the breaker.

 

[Volkodav]

Can someone enlighten me as to what the breaker vehicles are? I can work out the bridge, but not the breaker.

M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[oldsig127]

M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Like the AVRE of WW2, they're specialised under armour vehicles for removing physical obstacles, so mine and explosive clearance,and so forth. I believe they can fire rocket line charges to clear pathways through minefields, have mine roller or ploughs to clear roadways

(Edit: Oops, intended to answer hairyman but Volks clearly beat me to it!)

oldsig

 

[Volkodav]

Like the AVRE of WW2, they're specialised under armour vehicles for removing physical obstacles, so mine and explosive clearance,and so forth. I believe they can fire rocket line charges to clear pathways through minefields, have mine roller or ploughs to clear roadways

(Edit: Oops, intended to answer hairyman but Volks clearly beat me to it!)

oldsig

Yep, spot on. I believe the US supplements them with gun tanks, crewed by engineers that are often fitted with mine ploughs dozer blades etc. that use special purpose ammunition for demolition work.

 

[Stampede]

Can someone enlighten me as to what the breaker vehicles are? I can work out the bridge, but not the breaker.

A complete beast of a machine.
They tear up ground like its warm butter.
Sheer power.


Regards S