Australian Abrams Tank Arrival
-
Our amx gunners can dream of having ex with their m1 liao.
-
Second handed, but rebuilt/remanufactured. Probably ex-USMC.Originally posted by lionnoisy:Are the tanks second handed and old model? -
awsgc24
Chief Commissioner,Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:46 amThat's 12' 0" or 3.66m.
2.
The Australian Standard Ultimate Loading Gauge, adopted at about 1910 or so, envisages rolling stock 10' 6" wide at platform level. These tanks are thus 1' 6" too wide.
The standard track centres adopted at the time of electrification in Sydney in the 1920's was 12' 0" or 3.66m. Clearly 12' 0" wide tanks are bound to have trouble on Sydney tracks, especially when crossing tanks going the other way.
However, new double track lines in NSW, including crossing loops, are now normally done to 4.00m centres (13' 1 1/2").
On the Adelaide to Darwin line, which is almost entirely single track, there are mostly low level platforms, and probably few bridges with girders that are foul of the tanks.
If there are structures that are too narrow for these tanks, then any upgrading work should be done at the same time as raising height limitations preventing double stacking.
Whatever the case, a loading gauge test train should be operated to find measure inadequate widths and heights on the network.An extensive rail study has been undertaken and a request for tender will soon by released to obtain the necessary rolling stock to support the movement of the Abrams family of vehicles in Australia. This rolling stock will be delivered in a timely manner and will not only support the Abrams but will also be able to lift a range other armoured vehicles, artillery and heavy engineering equipment.
---lets see Can Aussie do it.
3.this frequent traveller and military nut
seems credibleNB pl also go to his Defense section--published by Kev September 25th, 2006 in Defence.Earlier this year when I tried to get my LR Discovery on the Indian Pacific railway from Sydney to Perth I found I had to load it at Adelaide. The reason? The vehicle was too high for the rail link from Sydney to Perth.
-
'sillypore'?Originally posted by Coquitlam:Makes me wonder....bottom line is that sillypore will never be able to defend itself
Where are you from, you cowardly creep? -
Any idea why the oversized, over-weight and over-stated, fuel-guzzling M1A1 is chosen over the Leopard 2 or other vehicles?
Because of price? -
List Of Roads And Bridges In Singapore With Restricted Weight Limit.pdf .In sg,most of the loading of bridges is only 42 tons,
2.How about in Aussie where MBT move around?
3.In the Aussie news,some people mentioned that heavy
parts of MBT can be removed before run on roads/bridges.
Can it be done in war time?
It take how long to remove and put back the heavy parts. -
"Any idea why the oversized, over-weight and over-stated, fuel-guzzling M1A1 is chosen over the Leopard 2 or other vehicles?
Because of price?"
Oversized....Compared to what?
Over-weight.....Again compared to what (certainly not the 2A6)
Overstated....By who? (certainly not the troops who have gone to war in/with it)
Fuel-guzzling ...Read my first post
The price....Yes, Australia got a great price,a great tank and inter-operability with a major ally.
As for transportation,here is a quote from Army newspaper (sorry no link):
"In addition to providing rail tranportation in the future for the armored vehicles, the Chief Transport Inspector of NT has assured ARMY that the HTTs and their cargo will be able to access their normal training areas in NT. The weight restrictions on NT bridges are based on axle weight, not total weight, which places a fully loaded HTT well under the limits."
So realy, it's a storm in a tea cup.
A good read: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/default.htm -
Built LSD or something similar, then perform a ocean hook to land the tanks, or loan some civilan ships to it.
Aus has very good navy, so maybe the ocean access can be guarded -
Why no px wan?
-
"Built LSD or something similar, then perform a ocean hook to land the tanks, or loan some civilan ships to it."
Link: http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsp/amphibs.cfm
Everyone is hoping that the Spanish design gets the nod. -
2.what is the max loading of bridges in North terrorities,i dunt care theirOriginally posted by digger:As for transportation,here is a quote from Army newspaper (sorry no link):
"In addition to providing rail tranportation in the future for the armored vehicles, the Chief Transport Inspector of NT has assured ARMY that the HTTs and their cargo will be able to access their normal training areas in NT. The weight restrictions on NT bridges are based on axle weight, not total weight, which places a fully loaded HTT well under the limits."
So realy, it's a storm in a tea cup.
A good read: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/default.htm
law,what is the max weight the bridges can support the loadings?
does it require the MBT to remove the gun etc before it can cross?
what is axis wt??
3.the figures of sg may not be up dated.sg have almost completed
some strengthening/upgrading of all bridges.Loading may increase. -
Penguin colonies usually head for the southern shores of australia for their mating season.Originally posted by specfore:With 59 tanks they can equip a tank Brigade, consisting of 3 operational Squadrons , with one training/ reserve squadron. Each sqaudron with 15 tanks, except for the reserve.
They still have the upgraded Leopards, which are still very capable.
This is adequate. There are only certain chokepoints on the battlefield that you will deploy your tanks to await your enemy. The Aussies are planning to deploy them to the North only. There is very small risk of an amphibious invasion from the South ! -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Off-topic.. if singapore bridges are designed to maintain a load of 42 tons Static..
[b]
List Of Roads And Bridges In Singapore With Restricted Weight Limit.pdf .In sg,most of the loading of bridges is only 42 tons,
2.How about in Aussie where MBT move around?
3.In the Aussie news,some people mentioned that heavy
parts of MBT can be removed before run on roads/bridges.
Can it be done in war time?
It take how long to remove and put back the heavy parts.
[/b]
what happens if Benjamin Sheares bridge is loaded with 50 cars (1 ton each), 5 SBS bus, 5 40-feet containers?
Which is almost like every day? -
I think this is a question we need to ask civil engineers. Does the 42 tons mean that the entire length of bridge can only handle 42 tons, or does it mean that one particular section can only handle 42 tons. Perhaps, what the tolerance levels are as well.Originally posted by Ponders:Off-topic.. if singapore bridges are designed to maintain a load of 42 tons Static..
what happens if Benjamin Sheares bridge is loaded with 50 cars (1 ton each), 5 SBS bus, 5 40-feet containers?
Which is almost like every day? -
well. correct me if i'm wrong, but i remember that our benjamin sheares bridges can handle abit 45 - 50 tons per something.. forgot about what unit is used to measure it though.Originally posted by Shotgun:I think this is a question we need to ask civil engineers. Does the 42 tons mean that the entire length of bridge can only handle 42 tons, or does it mean that one particular section can only handle 42 tons. Perhaps, what the tolerance levels are as well.
-
Australia doesn't need tanks.
All it needs is a good air-force coupled with good attack helicopters and a strong navy like what someone mentioned.
Land based forces should be situated near the important areas. -
Abrams power wins the day for Army
Tanks can reduce infantry casualties by orders of magnitude and choosing the best tank is a crucial decision for the Army, writes Gregor Ferguson
November 25, 2006---www.theaustralian.news.com.au
1.available prior to or during the first quarter of 2008---so late??The source added, "(The new) rolling stock (for the Abrams) is expected to be available prior to or during the first quarter of 2008. The Abrams are cleared to be transported over the length of the central Adelaide-Darwin rail corridor with no changes to civilian infrastructure required."
What if the MBT are needed in other places NOW and the transport are not ready?
Why Aussie do not have forward planning?
2.need tank in Urban warfare--same essayThe paper concludes that whether fighting in jungles or city streets, tanks can reduce infantry casualties by orders of magnitude. Being able to destroy enemy tanks is important, too, of course. Their conclusions have been borne out by the US Army and Marines in Iraq.
-
"Australia doesn't need tanks":
If you were a foot soldier you wouldn't be saying that.
"All it needs is a good air-force coupled with good attack helicopters and a strong navy like what someone mentioned":
We have all those and now we have good tanks.
"Land based forces should be situated near the important areas":
?????
What if the MBT are needed in other places NOW and the transport are not ready?
Why Aussie do not have forward planning?
They would simply go by road,the tanks will be based in Darwin and the chances of them heading South for anything but training is practically zero.
Some Pics : http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2006/Dec/20061208.cfm -
Tank U-turn as parts sent to US for repairs. * Michael McKinnon, FOI editor, January 02, 2007
FAULTY parts for Australia's new battle tanks will have to be shipped back to the US for repair, breaking a government promise to have the work done in Australia.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20999669-2702,00.html
Under the arrangement, which adds to concerns that only US companies benefit from Australia's big military purchases, repairs on the Abrams M1A1 tanks and associated vehicles will take longer than if the work was performed locally.
The Defence Department has refused to say when local firms might take over maintenance of the 59 refurbished tanks, the first of which arrived from the US in September.
However, the world's most powerful tank will still be in service six months earlier than forecast and under budget, with the Australian army easily meeting the deadline for introduction.
In doing so, it has avoided the controversy that has attached to other military purchases, such as the navy's Seasprite helicopters and the air force's Joint Strike Fighters, which have been hit by budget, construction or design problems.
Former defence minister Robert Hill announced the $500 million purchase of the M1A1 tanks and associated vehicles -- such as transporters, refuelling rigs and simulators -- in 2004 as part of a program to replace the army's ageing Leopard tanks.
"Australian industry is expected to be involved in the provision of through-life support for the Abrams," Mr Hill said at the time.
But Defence documents obtained by The Australian using Freedom of Information laws show the failure to use local industry for repairs and maintenance was the only one of 10 possible threats to the successful introduction of the tank that had eventuated.
M1A1 tank project director, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Libby told The Australian the "through-life support for repairs and maintenance was to be provided by Australian industry". Presently, however, there was "an interim arrangement as the vehicles are here and we are not doing maintenance". "We expect the tender to be opened next April," he said.
Lieutenant Colonel Libby could not say when the tender would be awarded, but it could end up more expensive than the purchase of the hardware itself. It is understood Defence called for expressions of interest from local firms a year ago.
He said it could be cheaper to send parts back to the US for repair in the short term because of existing production capacity there. "The same work may cost more here but we will support Australian industry and we need to be able to maintain control of our own equipment," he said.
Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon yesterday accused the Government of taking its eye off the main game of security and safety at home.
"If reports are accurate that the through-life service contract is not to be granted to an Australian company in the short term, then the Government appears to have backflipped on a major aspect of the original plan," he said. "If the Government had its national security priorities right it would be able to guarantee that the maintenance of military equipment was undertaken by Australian companies."
The Government has sought to ensure local industry will service the Joint Strike Fighter, Australia's biggest defence purchase. Defence Minister Brendan Nelson is lobbying the US to ensure the $16 billion purchase includes access to the stealth technology required for any domestic maintenance program.
Lieutenant Colonel Libby said the Government had set a target of having the tanks operationally ready by December 2007 and this goal would be achieved six months early. "In terms of introducing a key new defence asset, the project has been very successful and Australian business is already involved in other aspects of the project," he said.
Lieutenant Colonel Libby said all facilities were built and the US Government had advised approval to transfer intellectual property to Australian defence contractors last month. "Troopers are training in these tanks now," he said.
In total, Australia will take delivery of 59 Abrams tanks, seven M88A2 Hercules armoured recovery vehicles, 14 heavy tank transporters, eight refuelling trucks, six advanced gunnery training simulators and one tank driver trainer simulator.
Lieutenant Colonel Libby also dismissed claims the 68-tonne tanks could not be transported around Australia because they were too heavy for road bridges.
He said a study had recommended Defence arrange a long-term lease of rail rolling stock for the transfer of the tanks from their base in Darwin to training areas in South Australia during the wet season. "The Abrams can go anywhere the Leopard tank used to train," he said. -
Defence sources said some of the tanks would be more than 15 years old, manufactured in "the late 80s",
and some experts have queried their condition. But Senator Hill said the tanks would be as good as new.
Australian technicians would inspect the pool of used American M1A1 tanks and select the best 59.
t's all a matter of perspective. General Peter Leahy stands alongside a 30-centimetre-long model of an Abrams tank.
Photo: Andrew Taylor -
warstock?
-
$500 million seems rather expensive for a bunch of refurbished M1A1s.
How much does a brand new M1A1 cost ? And how about a Leo2 A6 brand new ? Anyone can hazard a guess ? How much did we pay for the Leo2s A4 ? -
$500 million they paid for is for 59 M1A1 AIM, plus a few M88 Hercules Armoured Recovery Vehicles, Tank training simulators, spares, training in the US, support vehicles, radios and ancillary equipment as part of the overall package. How is it expensive? It is less than $1 million per M1A1 AIM compared to $1.5 Mil Singapore paid for the Leo1A4.Originally posted by glock:$500 million seems rather expensive for a bunch of refurbished M1A1s.
How much does a brand new M1A1 cost ? And how about a Leo2 A6 brand new ? Anyone can hazard a guess ? How much did we pay for the Leo2s A4 ? -
A pretty small amount to defend a continent don't you think? In comparison to our size and the number of Leopards we bought.