J
Jason Jarvis
Guest
Check out this report from down under. It‘s from The Age. I‘m not sure how respectable this publication is, but the article is interesting, especially in light of our government‘s decision to replace our Leos with the MGS.
--------------------------------------------------
Australia leaning to $600m US muscle tanks
By Mark Forbes
Defence Correspondent
Canberra
November 20 2003 - The Australian Defence Force is to introduce the massive American-built M1 Abrams tanks as an armoured strike force to facilitate a frontline role for the army alongside the US in future international conflicts.
Although the choice awaits final approval, senior defence sources confirmed the deal to buy 60 Abrams M1 battle tanks for $600 million was set to proceed.
Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy have supported the Abrams over British and German rivals.
The Government‘s about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will handle the deal, selling the tanks directly to Australia.
Generals Leahy and Cosgrove and Senator Hill have all said the invasion of Iraq proved the value of tanks in modern warfare. Senator Hill said recent operations had demonstrated "the importance tanks have played in the protection of forces".
But critics claim the 70-tonne Abrams are unsuitable for operations along crumbling Pacific roads and bridges. The tanks are too heavy to be airlifted and must be transported by sea.
Hugh White, the director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and author of the Government‘s defence white paper, said he had been told that the decision to buy the Abrams "has in effect been made".
The $600 million price tag was high and could be better spent on more troops for the army, he said.
"The decision to buy the Abrams only makes sense if you want to upgrade the army‘s capability to to take part in high-intensity Iraqi Freedom-style operations. I don‘t think there is a coherent strategic rationale for this move," Mr White said.
An in-principle decision to buy new tanks was announced this month as part of a defence capability review. Senator Hill said the Government would quickly decide between the Abrams, the German Leopard 2 and British Challenger 2, but refused to give details.
The decision to buy tanks is backflip from the Government‘s white paper outlining the future shape of the Defence Force. The white paper decided against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".
The army has a 30-year-old fleet of Leopard tanks, which are yet to fire a shot in anger.
Discounts on the Abrams‘ $6 million price tag have been offered by the US, which is urging Australia to make the purchase. Included in the $600 million total are spare parts, transporters, training equipment, maintenance and support costs.
The Abrams would be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.
A spokeswoman for Senator Hill refused to speculate on the tank choice. The decision would be announced "as soon as possible", she said.
Senator Hill was expected to discuss the Abrams deal in talks with US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
General Cosgrove yesterday said the Defence Force "really wanted to move ahead" on the tank purchase, but could not guarantee when a decision would be announced "because we are obviously dealing with foreign governments and foreign military forces".
Mr White said the choice of the Abrams was "not a reflection of a change in the Government‘s strategic priorities, but of pressure from within the army... A heavier tank is a liability in the region, harder to move and deploy."
The tank purchase must be approved by cabinet‘s national security committee and an announcement is expected before the end of the year.
Senator Hill has emphasised the need for interoperability with the US, and an Australian fleet of Abrams would facilitate easy training interchange between the two forces and access to ongoing development. It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.
--------------------------------------------------
Thoughts? This is a pretty substantial about-face from Australia‘s 2000 Defence White Paper, especially considering the operations it has been involved in over the last few years.
I understand the reasoning behind wanting to have the same kit as your primary ally, but considering the terrain and likely opponents the Australians would face in their immediate neighbourhood, I would think something like our Leo C2 would be fine. An M1 sounds like overkill, if there is such a thing in combined arms warfare.
If all the Australians want M1s for is to train to fight in pre-positioned U.S. tanks, why not just use advanced simulators in conjunction with regular rotations through U.S. training centres? Do the Australians ever expect to take their M1s into battle? I don‘t think their Leos have ever deployed overseas.
I know there are some Aussies on the board -- what do you think?
--------------------------------------------------
Australia leaning to $600m US muscle tanks
By Mark Forbes
Defence Correspondent
Canberra
November 20 2003 - The Australian Defence Force is to introduce the massive American-built M1 Abrams tanks as an armoured strike force to facilitate a frontline role for the army alongside the US in future international conflicts.
Although the choice awaits final approval, senior defence sources confirmed the deal to buy 60 Abrams M1 battle tanks for $600 million was set to proceed.
Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy have supported the Abrams over British and German rivals.
The Government‘s about-face on buying heavy armour is intended to strengthen the US alliance by boosting "interoperability" for future Iraq-style conflicts. In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will handle the deal, selling the tanks directly to Australia.
Generals Leahy and Cosgrove and Senator Hill have all said the invasion of Iraq proved the value of tanks in modern warfare. Senator Hill said recent operations had demonstrated "the importance tanks have played in the protection of forces".
But critics claim the 70-tonne Abrams are unsuitable for operations along crumbling Pacific roads and bridges. The tanks are too heavy to be airlifted and must be transported by sea.
Hugh White, the director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and author of the Government‘s defence white paper, said he had been told that the decision to buy the Abrams "has in effect been made".
The $600 million price tag was high and could be better spent on more troops for the army, he said.
"The decision to buy the Abrams only makes sense if you want to upgrade the army‘s capability to to take part in high-intensity Iraqi Freedom-style operations. I don‘t think there is a coherent strategic rationale for this move," Mr White said.
An in-principle decision to buy new tanks was announced this month as part of a defence capability review. Senator Hill said the Government would quickly decide between the Abrams, the German Leopard 2 and British Challenger 2, but refused to give details.
The decision to buy tanks is backflip from the Government‘s white paper outlining the future shape of the Defence Force. The white paper decided against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".
The army has a 30-year-old fleet of Leopard tanks, which are yet to fire a shot in anger.
Discounts on the Abrams‘ $6 million price tag have been offered by the US, which is urging Australia to make the purchase. Included in the $600 million total are spare parts, transporters, training equipment, maintenance and support costs.
The Abrams would be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.
A spokeswoman for Senator Hill refused to speculate on the tank choice. The decision would be announced "as soon as possible", she said.
Senator Hill was expected to discuss the Abrams deal in talks with US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
General Cosgrove yesterday said the Defence Force "really wanted to move ahead" on the tank purchase, but could not guarantee when a decision would be announced "because we are obviously dealing with foreign governments and foreign military forces".
Mr White said the choice of the Abrams was "not a reflection of a change in the Government‘s strategic priorities, but of pressure from within the army... A heavier tank is a liability in the region, harder to move and deploy."
The tank purchase must be approved by cabinet‘s national security committee and an announcement is expected before the end of the year.
Senator Hill has emphasised the need for interoperability with the US, and an Australian fleet of Abrams would facilitate easy training interchange between the two forces and access to ongoing development. It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.
--------------------------------------------------
Thoughts? This is a pretty substantial about-face from Australia‘s 2000 Defence White Paper, especially considering the operations it has been involved in over the last few years.
I understand the reasoning behind wanting to have the same kit as your primary ally, but considering the terrain and likely opponents the Australians would face in their immediate neighbourhood, I would think something like our Leo C2 would be fine. An M1 sounds like overkill, if there is such a thing in combined arms warfare.
If all the Australians want M1s for is to train to fight in pre-positioned U.S. tanks, why not just use advanced simulators in conjunction with regular rotations through U.S. training centres? Do the Australians ever expect to take their M1s into battle? I don‘t think their Leos have ever deployed overseas.
I know there are some Aussies on the board -- what do you think?
