Yes, your sustainment ends up costing more than your upgrade would have. You potentially end up paying more to maintain a smaller, less capable orphan fleet than the upgraded one would cost.
The preferred plan for the Abrams 'upgrade' is to exchange the current hulls for 'new' M1A2 hulls, rather than get the same upgraded hulls back. As long as the M1A2 SEP V3 is the chosen as the upgrade standard, it's all a bit semantic anyway - no matter what occurs, we will ship our current hulls back to the US and receive M1A2s in return - all that would change is the order.
Any extra tanks that are bought to help in forming the third tank squadron would come before Land 907 delivered upgraded tanks though - we would simply receive warehoused US Army M1A1s as close to our current configuration as possible. The extra tanks would then go through the same 'upgrade' as all the others early next decade.
Any extra tanks that are bought to help in forming the third tank squadron would come before Land 907 delivered upgraded tanks though - we would simply receive warehoused US Army M1A1s as close to our current configuration as possible. The extra tanks would then go through the same 'upgrade' as all the others early next decade.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Why do we even need an extra buy of Abrams?
We bought 59.
We need three Squadrons of 14. (3X14=42).
Leaving 17 for School of Armour/Mechanic training etc.
Is 17 not enough?
Personally I think each Squadron should have 18 tanks.
Can split into 2 Half Squadrons of 9 tanks each (Co and 2 tank troops, 2IC and 2 tank troops.)
Or into 3 groups of 6 tanks if required.
In which case more would be required.
We bought 59.
We need three Squadrons of 14. (3X14=42).
Leaving 17 for School of Armour/Mechanic training etc.
Is 17 not enough?
Personally I think each Squadron should have 18 tanks.
Can split into 2 Half Squadrons of 9 tanks each (Co and 2 tank troops, 2IC and 2 tank troops.)
Or into 3 groups of 6 tanks if required.
In which case more would be required.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Staying in lock step with the US seems like a no brainer on this one. My only question is how this might relate to the platforms acquired under LAND400 phases 2 and 3, particularly as far as defensive suites are concerned.
For example, the APS (formerly AMAP ADS) system seems like a highly capable and logical inclusion to any LAND400 vehicles, but fitting it to the Abrams would seem less likely? Would we happily operate two different systems if the US decided to adopt a different APS to what was on our APC/IFV fleet?
Perhaps commonality would be a secondary consideration given the tank fleet is American and the APC/IFV fleet inevitably European...
The answer is serviceability. The long term serviceability goal for the M1 is 70% (and that isn't always achieved). That obviously means that if each squadron only has 14 tanks, then at any one time only 10 will be serviceable. When you consider that tanks have to be periodically cycled through deeper level maintenance and upgrades, then availability only gets worse.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that if 70% serviceability is the goal, then each squadron needs 20 tanks on hand to have a full complement of 14 serviceable at any one time. With essentially four squadron's worth of tanks spread across Army (including the SoA and ALTC), it is easy to see why 59 isn't enough.
Army actually commissioned a study into M1 serviceability recently, which is being used to justify various initiatives. The key findings were that each Australian tank does twice as many track km as a US tank and that Australian tanks get abused in training far more than US tanks. It is therefore no surprise that Australian serviceability rates are far worse than the US norm. Buying extra tanks is just one of the many recommendations for improving the situation.
Bluey 006
Member
I believe each ACR HQ is also allocated a couple.
Personally, I do like the idea of 18 tank squadrons. Three troops of 6 tanks and two for the HQ which means 20 per Multi-Role battalion. Another squadron for the School of Armour and 4 propositioned on each LHD or at an appropriate loading dock and at RAAF Amberley for rapid response. With another troop+ worth for spares, maintenance cycle and attrition
60 x Multi-Role Battalions
18 x School of Armour
12 x Prepositioned
6-12 x reserve/maintenance etc (edit)
96-102 total. Hopefully the money is there?
Potentially if manning could be worked out, the 12 propositioned and 20 from the current ready battalion could all be concurrently deployed. Fielding 32 main battle tanks. Enough combat power for most scenarios in our region.
Given the state of world, anything could happen though. :daz
Last edited:
So with our Abrams we need each squadron to effectively have 20 each, More again to pick up the slack unless we lessen in be acquiring another squadron or so worth to form a dedicated training force.
In regards tothe future M1 upgrades there may also be room for a bulk deal as in the DWP there is a small mention of armored breaching and bridge laying vehicles. Both of these vehicles are varients within the M1 family with the ABV already in use by the USMC and US Army while the JAB (Joint Assault Bridge) will be going into LRP 2019 replacing the M60 AVLB and M104 bridge layers.
In regards tothe future M1 upgrades there may also be room for a bulk deal as in the DWP there is a small mention of armored breaching and bridge laying vehicles. Both of these vehicles are varients within the M1 family with the ABV already in use by the USMC and US Army while the JAB (Joint Assault Bridge) will be going into LRP 2019 replacing the M60 AVLB and M104 bridge layers.
t68
Well-Known Member
That's very interesting, so being smaller is not always an advantage when it comes to fair wear and tear of equipment, but we get our pound of flesh out of it.
Is our training regime more intense compared to the US, or is it same just that they don't have to share their toys with other units?
Probably more to the point they have vehicles at the various training facilities and use them instead of shagging their regular rides. They also have large pools of vehicles in storage and able to be rotated out to units where as with only 59 tanks trying to replace 100 ours are working all the time as Raven said. Yet another example of how the "efficiency" drives of the late 90s and 2000s actually degraded capability long term.
Intensity is hard to compare, but it's more a case that the training environment in Australia is more difficult - we flog our tanks through the bush in a way that basically no other nation does. If you see photos from Australian training exercises you will see lots and lots of tanks with smashed up track guards, scratched belly plates from bouncing off rocks erc etc - you will very rarely see the same with US tanks. Distances on Australian training areas are generally greater than US ones as well, so the tanks just have to drive further to achieve the same training.
A big difference as well is that the US use simulation far more than we do. We generally only use the simulator as a technical trainer, not as a tactical trainer. The US basically do all their training in the sim first, and then confirm it through live training, whereas we basically just do it all live. We are looking at buying more simulators off the US to allow us to do more via sim as well.
The Land 400 stuff is intended to support on vehicle simulation too.
There was an article a while back by a US commander who was on rotation with our armour - he praised our training programs.
Thanks Mark
It is some years away before land 400 comes to fruition so I think there is a good argument to increase the numbers of our tank fleet. Our aging M113a4 will have to do for another decade at least which for an outclassed platform today it's a bit of gamble into the future. Failing upgrading the APC's with increased armour and weapon systems untill Land 400 phase 3 is in service the army's tanks will increasingly have to shoulder the load. 59 MBT's is really not big time in this day and age and so I do scratch my head in amazement at the numbers we once had with the Leopards and Centenarians and listen to some of the conversations about getting a dozen more tanks as if its a big deal.
For a country that once had the only armoured brigade in this part of the world we have now have become a near peer at best within the region and not a leader.
Yes we have a relatively strong and modern Navy and Air force and yes I get the holistic using all the bits, ....... bit in achieving an outcome
Lets remember on the ground Tanks save lives. protected APC's save live's.
Plan beersheba is on a long path and a good project but IMO ,time is not on it's side to achieve what it intends.
Most would know the history of Australian armour and what should have been done regarding purchases but we have, what we have, so yes increase tank numbers as a matter of urgency is a must. Suggest the British SQN of 18 MBT is correct ( 4 x 4 Tpt plus 2 HQ ) for each AC Regt, plus ample numbers for spares and training.
Around 90 MBT's sounds about right and is affordable.
Globally these are still small numbers.
Other than the special forces the Commonwealth does not have too many options to Government in conducting serous high end land warfare right now.
We may not always be able to rely on our large ally.
More tanks please
Regards S
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
What we need to deploy with a Brigade will depend upon the mission. A squadron of tanks (14-20) per Brigade may not even be required ... but the US Brigade recently sent to the Baltic has 80+ tanks. Thus, a deployed Brigade might need from 0-many tanks, plus maybe specialist mechanised infantry and maybe even SPHs.
I would suggest that we retain sufficient vehicles at Division level to enhance a deployed Brigade, if required, with an armoured regiment supplementing the ACR.
Thus, a total of six or seven 20 tank squadrons and at least a battery of SPHs might be preferred. Or maybe the numbers per squadron could be reduced if the deployed Brigade gets priority (6x14=84 tanks).
I would suggest that we retain sufficient vehicles at Division level to enhance a deployed Brigade, if required, with an armoured regiment supplementing the ACR.
Thus, a total of six or seven 20 tank squadrons and at least a battery of SPHs might be preferred. Or maybe the numbers per squadron could be reduced if the deployed Brigade gets priority (6x14=84 tanks).
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Had no idea the serviceability was so bad.
No mining company would accept that on trucks/excavators that work 14 hours a Day, seven Days a Week!
70% serviceability is actually pretty good - this isn't a greyhound bus, it's a very complex piece of equipment. Comparisons with mining trucks isn't very helpful, unless the mining trucks have turbine engines, delicate electronic sights aligned to within a fraction of a degree of a stabilised 20+ tonne rotating lump of metal, and are regularly driven at high speed through trees and other obstacles at night by tired crew. It's like comparing the serviceability of a Qantas A-330 and an RAAF Super Hornet - they are engineered for very different things.
Are there's any comparisons of serviceability with other like MBTs most/all having Diesel engines?
I do understand that weapons and electronics are included but I assume this factor would be common.
No idea for other countries, but 70% serviceability is the contracted availability rate for pretty much all Army equipment - that's what budgets, manning etc is based on. Until very recently, the Abrams actually had the best availability rate of all AFVs in the Army.
It's worth pointing out that just because a vehicle is 'unserviceable' doesn't mean that it doesn't work. The serviceability sticker fell off? XX. Overdue for a 10 000km service? XX. Pissed off the ASM? XX. A good deal of what is marked down as unserviceable still works fine, it's just fallen on the wrong side of some paperwork.
had this discussion on one of the projects I was on. CJOPs was wanting to know readiness and the systems as they were setup just didn't define status as in platform inoperable, or has a wheel fallen off etc.... ie stages of availability and utility
a lot of the time gear was just in a state of undress rather than rooted or in deep maint
During a weekly commander's update brief, I once had to report to brigade that every single one of my unit's armoured vehicles were unserviceable. As expected, the commander had a fit before I was able to mention that as the result of a RODUM, one of the inspection regimes had been updated, and until all the vehicles had received the updated inspection they were all XX. He ranted at the brigade DQ for a good 30 minutes about the stupidity of it all, despite the DQ having nothing to do with it.
I'm very glad my job is breaking the equipment, and not fixing it. The fixing bit is complicated.
I'm very glad my job is breaking the equipment, and not fixing it. The fixing bit is complicated.
That would be lovely, but 59x Abrams and 7x Hercules was what we were funded to acquire. Would love a whole bunch of things, including another a 4th Regular Beersheba Brigade but the cash and manpower available only goes so far.
If the Integrated Investment Plan is carried out we are due to gain an additional Rocket Artillery based Divisional Fires unit (probably based on HIMARS) so that will certainly help Army's Joint Fires capability, but we simply aren't funded to do everything.
I will be happy if the extra dozen or so Abrams are approved AND a fleet wide upgrade to M1A2 SEPv3 is approved. Such a an enhancement seemed the most unlikely thing available even as recently as a few short years ago...