M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams for Australia

[ssidiver]

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_april_2021_global_security_army_industry/australian_army_to_expand_m1a1_abrams_mbt_fleet_with_u.s._acquisitions.html

 

Also: 29 M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles; 18 M1074 Joint Assault Bridges; 6 M88A2 Hercules Combat Recovery Vehicles.

 

I can understand the need for these, but the current increase of spend is supposed to be about countering expansion in island chains.

[Gibsonm]

Well its also primarily about redressing some short falls in the original project due to funding constraints.

 

Its a bit hard to move from Leopard to M1 and not buy the relevant M1 family of AVLB, Engr vehicles, etc.

 

Of course you maybe happy to drive an M1 over a bridge rated for Leopard (MLC of 45) but I'd rather have something a bit more substantial under me.

 

[Lumituisku]

I am starting to think that Assault breacher would be good addition to Steelbeast, even if just AI controlled vehicle as AI miglic on many missions that come with Steelbeast has tendency to drive into minefield after breaching it... And often blows up as result. (Especially when AI owned due to mission design) Assault breacher in my opinion would work better as it has mineplows as well. So it could do both... Breach and proofing.

 

And if Australia is getting lot of those i think that's all the more reason to have those in Steelbeast. 

 

I would also love to see that Crows weapon station on tanks and IFVs in Steelbeast. Perhaps it will come at some point with Australian Army getting tanks that use that. Thought wasn't there complain that those are weak and break too often?

Edited May 1, 2021 by Lumituisku

[Gibsonm]

8 minutes ago, Lumituisku said:

And if Australia is getting lot of those i think that's all the more reason to have those in Steelbeast.

 

Only if the powers that be determine its worth writing a contract for it.

 

Personally I think the Land 400 family are a higher priority to be represented (since there is not Boxer + Turret or Lynx / Redback modelled), before we spend money on modelling a new AVLB, etc. (since we can just continue to use the currently modelled Biber).

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Gibsonm

[Lumituisku]

Hard not to agree on that. Thought one can still wish for Assault Breacher as addition. 

[Gibsonm]

Well of course you can wish for a bunch of things.

 

But there's only so much money in the bucket.

[Hedgehog]

Stay tuned.....

[Galileo]

Australia has locked in its purchase of more than 120 tanks and other armoured vehicles from the United States, at a cost of $3.5 billion, as part of a major upgrade of the army’s fleet.

The commitment to buy 75 M1A2 main battle tanks indicates the government is committed to an advanced fleet of armoured vehicles despite the focus in recent years being on other major acquisitions such as submarines, jet fighters and long-range missiles amid the rise of China.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-commits-to-3-5-billion-tank-purchase-from-the-us-20220109-p59mub.html

[Gibsonm]

That isn't quite right (as per most public reporting).

 

The Dept of Defence has announced that LAND 907 Ph2 and LAND 8160 Ph1 were proceeding. That is basically upgrading the current M1A1 AIM SAs to M1A3 (i.e. better than M1A2 SEP), improved recovery vehicles and the return of armoured breaching / gap crossing (that didn't make the budget cut off when we first bought the M1s). Trying to put 65T M1s over bridges designed for 42T Leo 1s wasn't really viable.

 

The plan is to upgrade the current M1A1 AIM SA to M1A3 - NOT add to the existing stock of M1A1 AIM SA.

 

There are no plans to change current RAAC force structure / create new units.

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Gibsonm