Australian Army Discussions and Updates

P

PeterM

Active Member
My understanding is that he ideal number of Abrams is somewhere around 90 to fully implement Bersheeba.

Does the M1 Main Battle Tank Upgrade program include additional tanks needed?

Looking that the Integrated Investment Program, there is an estimated cost of $750m to $1bn. If that is just to upgrade/ replace the existing 59 M1a1's, that works out to an estimated cost of $12.71m to $16.95m per vehicle. If that investment was for lets say 90 vehicles, that allows $8.3m to $11.1m per vehicle.

Does anyone have further insights?
 
P

PeterM

Active Member
Looking into what the US are doing with upgrading the M1A1 to M1A2 SEP3,

"On December 21, 2017, General Dynamics Land Systems Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan, was awarded a $2,628,902,518 fixed-price-incentive contract for the upgrade of up to 786 M1A1 configured Abrams Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) to newly configured M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 (M1A2 Abrams SEP V3), and to upgrade M1A1 vehicles to M1A12S for Saudi Arabia and M1A2-K tanks for Kuwait."
https://www.armyrecognition.com/jan...1a2_sep_v3_main_battle_tanks_for_us_army.html

Looking our t the expected investment with the M1 Main Battle Tank Upgrade program versus the cost the US are doing for (presumably) similar upgrades is quite interesting.

If the US total cost was just for the 783 tanks, that works out to around $3.35m USD per vehicle. Given that it includes the Saudi and Kuwait tanks as well, the cost will be less per tank. I am not sure how directly applicable that is for our upgrades (due to a range of potential variables).
 
Last edited:
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
PeterM said:
My understanding is that he ideal number of Abrams is somewhere around 90 to fully implement Bersheeba.

Does the M1 Main Battle Tank Upgrade program include additional tanks needed?

Looking that the Integrated Investment Program, there is an estimated cost of $750m to $1bn. If that is just to upgrade/ replace the existing 59 M1a1's, that works out to an estimated cost of $12.71m to $16.95m per vehicle. If that investment was for lets say 90 vehicles, that allows $8.3m to $11.1m per vehicle.

Does anyone have further insights?
Click to expand...
Suggest it's a fair question without an answer in the public forum..

Increased numbers are a must to do justice for an on going deployable armoured Squadron for each of the three Brigades.
Suggest the 14 MBT Sqn numbers are increased to 18 as the British have planned.
Not after extra MBT Sqn's just give the ones we have real teeth.


Regards S.
 
P

PeterM

Active Member
I am interested in the new MSV and Armoured Engineering capability we are getting.

With Project: Land 400 Phase 3 Capability: Manoeuvre Support Vehicle, the IIP lists a 2017–2026 timeframe and investment of $200m-$300m. Going by DTR's Australian Armoured Vehicles Programs to 2030, it seems we are looking for around 17 vehicles, which means an indicative cost of between $11.75m and $17.65m per vehicle to get the capability. Are we more likely to look at a variant of our IFV solution, or would a specialised solution such as the British Terrier be considered?

With Project: Land 8160 Phase 1 Capability: Under Armour Breaching, Engineering & Bridging, The IIP lists a 2018–2031 timeframe and investment of $1bn-$2bn
Given our Abrams upgrade program it seems likely that the Breaching and Brigding solutions will be the in service Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) and Joint Assault Bridge (JAB). I am more curious on the engineering capability. As there is no Abrams equivalent in service, are we more likely to develop an Abrams AEV solution (possibly derived from the M1 Grizzly designs), or would as existing MOTS option like the Kodiak AEV 3 be a better solution?

I am curious to hear thoughts on the best options to these capabilities, particularly those with practical / operational experience.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Last edited:
C

CJR

Active Member
alexsa said:
I was wondering if any of the new version of the Bushmaster MR6 will make it into Australian service out of the current production run.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression replacement of the Bushmasters wasn't due until the late 2020s or early 2030s ([url=https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/dwp-2016-the-future-army/]2025+ according to ASPI's commentary on the 2016 DWP)[/URL]. So, guess it'll depend when the MR6 production run actually starts... Or possibly we'll end up with a new production run c.2030...

Of cause, looking at your link, Thales claims most of the upgrades can be installed on current Bushmasters... so that'd look more likely to me.
 
Takao

Takao

The Bunker Group
CJR said:
Of cause, looking at your link, Thales claims most of the upgrades can be installed on current Bushmasters... so that'd look more likely to me.
Click to expand...
I think that is a rather optimistic claim from Thales. Even if they can be, the price tag would be....high.

It claims that options can be retrofitted; but new fording height, new power management system, engine, 2 tonne increase, height increase and improved protection options all sound hard to retrofit (not impossible; just hard).

Sounds like great ideas; just give them to me in a ready-made package.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
According to this video from IAV 2018 Bushie Mk 6 was already there with improved hull and driveline, more powerful engine and other grunt stuff listed in the link:)
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Takao said:
I think that is a rather optimistic claim from Thales. Even if they can be, the price tag would be....high.

It claims that options can be retrofitted; but new fording height, new power management system, engine, 2 tonne increase, height increase and improved protection options all sound hard to retrofit (not impossible; just hard).

Sounds like great ideas; just give them to me in a ready-made package.
Click to expand...
All depends on how everything was designed. If all the same mounting brackets for various equipment is in the same locations then not actually so hard. If mounting brackets are in different locations then it becomes a more tricky and time consuming process.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
vonnoobie said:
All depends on how everything was designed. If all the same mounting brackets for various equipment is in the same locations then not actually so hard. If mounting brackets are in different locations then it becomes a more tricky and time consuming process.
Click to expand...

The new Bushmaster Mk 6 looks impressive and will hopefully get some production for the export market.
Cannot see replacing one for one of the existing fleet any time soon. May be some small mods if the budget and need is there and justified.
Wait and see
Out of curiosity has the new Mk6 done away with the spare wheel?

Interesting

Regards S
 
M

MARKMILES77

Active Member
The other thing of interest to Australia at IAV 2018 was the new version of the CV90, the CV90 Mk IV. Possible candidate for LAND 400 Phase 3. One interesting point was the manufacturers were promoting the fact it has a new heavier maximum gross weight of 37 tonne (up from 35 tonne). I found this surprisingly low considering the wheeled Boxer can have a maximum weight of 38 tonne. Presumably the highest protection levels of the Boxer and CV 90 are little different.
Would not surprise me that if the AMV wins LAND 400 Phase 2, a tracked IFV is chosen for Phase 3 but if the Boxer wins Phase 2 that it also gets chosen for Phase 3. Giving a single fleet of 675 or so Boxers.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
MARKMILES77 said:
The other thing of interest to Australia at IAV 2018 was the new version of the CV90, the CV90 Mk IV. Possible candidate for LAND 400 Phase 3. One interesting point was the manufacturers were promoting the fact it has a new heavier maximum gross weight of 37 tonne (up from 35 tonne). I found this surprisingly low considering the wheeled Boxer can have a maximum weight of 38 tonne. Presumably the highest protection levels of the Boxer and CV 90 are little different.
Would not surprise me that if the AMV wins LAND 400 Phase 2, a tracked IFV is chosen for Phase 3 but if the Boxer wins Phase 2 that it also gets chosen for Phase 3. Giving a single fleet of 675 or so Boxers.
Click to expand...
Hi Mark

A standardised vehicle fleet helps with the logistics train and training so a wheeled solution on some levels has appeal. I think the French are going to work their VBCI with the AMX Leclerc Tank, so I guess it can be done.
I would suggest increased protection levels will be a big part of the future for armoured vehicles so that means extra weight.
I see a tracked vehicle as being more future proofed in this area so I'm betting wheels for Phase 2 and tracks for phase 3 for Land 400.

Thanks and Regards S
 
R

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
MARKMILES77 said:
The other thing of interest to Australia at IAV 2018 was the new version of the CV90, the CV90 Mk IV. Possible candidate for LAND 400 Phase 3. One interesting point was the manufacturers were promoting the fact it has a new heavier maximum gross weight of 37 tonne (up from 35 tonne). I found this surprisingly low considering the wheeled Boxer can have a maximum weight of 38 tonne. Presumably the highest protection levels of the Boxer and CV 90 are little different.
Would not surprise me that if the AMV wins LAND 400 Phase 2, a tracked IFV is chosen for Phase 3 but if the Boxer wins Phase 2 that it also gets chosen for Phase 3. Giving a single fleet of 675 or so Boxers.
Click to expand...
The Boxer is a much larger vehicle than the CV90, so that weight has to be used to protect a much larger volume. All else being equal, the CV90 will have significantly better protection than the Boxer at the same weight.
 
P

PeterM

Active Member
Raven22 said:
The Boxer is a much larger vehicle than the CV90, so that weight has to be used to protect a much larger volume. All else being equal, the CV90 will have significantly better protection than the Boxer at the same weight.
Click to expand...
That is a good point Raven.

The Lynx KF41 (7.7m x 3.6m x 3.3m) is also a considerably larger vehicle than the CV90 (6.55m x 3.1m x 2.7m), assuming the CV90 MkIV is a similar size to other models. Presumably the protection levels of the 37 ton CV90 MkIV would be in a similar ballpark to the 44 ton Lynx having a much smaller volume to protect.
 
Last edited:
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One line posts are against the rules. We have expectations that all posters contribute to the conversation with well thought out concise posts.
 
M

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Stampede said:
The new Bushmaster Mk 6 looks impressive and will hopefully get some production for the export market.
Cannot see replacing one for one of the existing fleet any time soon. May be some small mods if the budget and need is there and justified.
Wait and see
Out of curiosity has the new Mk6 done away with the spare wheel?

Interesting

Regards S
Click to expand...
I am surprised that the suspension upgrade at least has not already been incorporated into Australian Bushmasters.
An extra 2 tonne payload would allow a significant increase in protection.
When the Bushmaster dual cab "ute" was promoted probably 8 plus years ago, it was offered with the heavy duty suspension, 17.2 tonne maximum vehicle weight, as compared to the 15 plus tonne suspension which is fitted to the current Bushmaster. So that axle has been available for a very long time.
If Australia did get the higher weight Bushmaster I am not sure Army would want the longer MR6 hull.
They would probably like all the other upgrades (extra vehicle weight, Antilock brakes, more powerful engine etc.) but leave the vehicle size unchanged.
Perhaps rather than rebuilding vehicles as they age, return from Iraq/Afghanistan the money could be used to purchase new build heavy suspension Bushmasters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: t68
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top