US slip exposes 'deal' to buy tanks

The Australian ^ | January 27, 2004 | John Kerin

[Dundee]

US slip exposes 'deal' to buy tanks

A SENIOR US military commander says Australia has agreed to buy more than 100 US tanks for $780 million ($US600 million) in comments that pre-empt a deal.

Defence Minister Robert Hill insisted last night that no decision had been made on a replacement for Australia's 30-year-old Leopard tanks despite negotiations entering a sensitive final phase.

But the commander of the Coalition Military Assistance Training team in Iraq, Major-General Paul Eaton, said Australia had bought up to two battalions of Abrams tanks - 108 - during a media briefing on the types of armour the coalition could use to rebuild Iraqi tanks.

"If you're talking about the (Abrams) M1, I think Australia just made a purchase of a couple of battalions," Major-General Eaton told a media briefing in Baghdad on January 21. "You can check the price ... (but) I think they paid something in the order of $US600 million."

The Howard Government is considering three tanks to replace the ageing Leopard 1s: assorted versions of the Leopard 2, either ex-German Army A4s and A5s or newer ex-Dutch Army A6s, the M1 Abrams from the US and the Challenger 2 from Britain.

The US has slashed the price of the Abrams to try to be competitive with the cheaper Leopard 2 bids, which also have the advantage of being a later generation of the tank the army currently has in service. The Challenger is understood not to be a serious contender.

The Abrams, believed to be strongly favoured by Defence Force Chief General Peter Cosgrove, has been criticised by some defence sources as being more tank than Australia needs because it weighs up to 68 tonnes, has high fuel consumption and would require extra logistical support.

But it is a favourite given the extent to which Australian and US forces have been working together in the war on terror in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A spokeswoman for Senator Hill said final submissions were still being put together and a decision on which tank to buy had not been made.

[Stonewall Jackson]

I was just checking out the Indonesian Navy's sealift capabilities at www.hazegray.org and they have quite a few amphibs. While I agree that they would lose quite a few ships if they tried to make an assault, if they manage to land several thousand troops, capture an airfield, and then bring in additional troops and fighters for aircover, things could get pretty hairy. Having a couple battalions of modern, battle-proven tanks would go a long way toward evening the odds.

[templar]

You ever seen the order of battle for the Indonesian amphibious forces, including armor?

I'm seeing the nature of warfare changing. Let me ask: If you were Australian facing an invasion by tanks from across the ocean, would you prefer your own tank force or would you prefer a good number of warthogs and plenty of coastal artillery or anti-aircraft and anti-ship missles? (and maybe a few tactical nukes to take quick care of anyone trying to cross the outback and attack from inland)

IMO tanks are mostly a thing of the past. They still have a role to play but: Investing in large numbers of them is investing in the past, WWII won't be fought again.

[archy]

To land troops in that populated region requires a 5000 mile voyage under a hostile sky dominated by one of the most powerful air forces in the region...

With a very limited air-to-air refueling capability. Take out their few tankers and Durandal their refuel/rearm airfields, and they've got a REAL problem. And Indonesia and Malaysia are a lot closer than 5000 miles, with sizable amphibious assault forces.

Force: 13,953 personnel(plus 2,206 Reserves)

71 Fighters (F/A-18 Hornet)
7+26 Lead in Fighter Trainers (Hawk Mk127)
35 Strike Fighters (21 RF/F-111C, 14 F-111G)
0+7 AEW&C (B737-700 improved)
4/1 Tanker/Transport (B707)
38 Transports (24 Hercules, 14 DHC-4)
19/3 Maritime Patrol/Training (AP-3C/-3B Orion)

TARs:

Indian Ocean
CoralSea
TimorSea
TasmanSea

Basing:

Alice Springs
CairnesRAAF
SchergerRAAF
Tindal
Townsville
Brisbane
OakleyRAAF
Amberley
Sydney
CanberraRAAF
GlenbrookRAAF
RichmondRAAF Williamtown
Queenstown
Melbourne
AdelaideRAAFE
dinburgh
Darwin
Rockingham/Freemantle Air Base
RAAF Pearce
Perth

[archy]

I'm seeing the nature of warfare changing. Let me ask: If you were Australian facing an invasion by tanks from across the ocean, would you prefer your own tank force or would you prefer a good number of warthogs and plenty of coastal artillery or anti-aircraft and anti-ship missles? (and maybe a few tactical nukes to take quick care of anyone trying to cross the outback and attack from inland) IMO tanks are mostly a thing of the past. They still have a role to play but: Investing in large numbers of them is investing in the past, WWII won't be fought again.

Depends. If I have to fight outnumbered against a great many light amphibious vehicles or armoured cars, at least some of which have tank-killing ATGMs and I get to guess which, I want as well-protected a vehicle as possible, with a weapons system I can engage with day or night at several KM, with at least 50-75 rounds aboard, and probably an ammo resupply trailer and a couple of fuel drums stashed to the rear for when I begin running low.

I'd dearly love to have a few Hawgs on my side, especially if my country had instead invested in Bae Hawk trainers instead capable of carrying two sidewinders and two hellfires. I'd best be depending on the attack helos on my side if I'm expecting real air support- thankfully the army Australian army S-70A-9 Blackhawk's are now in service, capable of TOW and Hellfire AT support- if not being used elsewhere for other roles. 120 nautical miles range on internal fuel- and hardpoint pods subtract available external weapons stores.

And if I'm going to be seing the use of tac nukes, I'd far prefer to be using them on the enemy logistic centers, particularly his docks [and I pray for his national capital city to be on a shoreline with strategic dock facilities] and for sinking enemy vessels [God loves His submariners; and so do I] rather than expending them on our own soil. Aside from the fact that a good many of Australia's pollies, faced with the choice of using nukes, would surrender first. I don't even want to see the outback nuked; much better to let the bad guys stretch their supply lines across there, and interdict them.

I don't think coastal artillery is going to be particularly useful, but having MLRS or an arty battery or two with 155/45 guns with RAP or BB projos and DPICM could be very helpful as the Ro-Ro ships begin unloading- IF they're already in position to do some good. That's a chore best handled by ARES or TA units [Oz/Brit [national guard equivalent] most likely, another serious shortfall as Oz stands prepared right this moment.

Tanks most certainly can't do it all themselves. But if you're facing a force of two dozen amphib wheelies coming your way, BTR80s or Stryker class, or equivalent amphibious tracked vehicles, BMPs or M113, as examples, you've a much better chance of dealing with them in a tank than a vehicle of their same sort, or more likely, your three or four-tank section or platoon against their company or recon task force. Australian Army Blackhawk carrying out a troop insertion in the Northern Territory.