Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
Good information Paul. Did you find any info about if the Aussie Abram's also have DU armor?
|
Australian Abrams have never been equipped with DU armour. They may have had DU armour when they were in US use, before they were rebuilt for Australian use but they were specifically requested to be
without DU armour. Future rebuilds/purchases will examine DU armour but the question of whether or not to equip them with DU armour remains as much a
political consideration as it is military.
04/08/2004 MSPA 40804/04
Chief of Army Media Briefing Session
M1A1 Abrams integrated management (AIM) MAIN Battle tank
<snip>
BRIGADIER MICHAEL CLIFFORD
DIRECTOR GENERAL PREPAREDNESS AND PLANS, ARMY
ARMY HEADQUARTERS
<snip>
WE ARE BUYING 59 TANKS AS PART OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST AND MOST PROVEN TANK FLEETS.
IMPORTANTLY HOWEVER THE ABRAMS IS PART OF A LONGER TERM STRATEGY ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT.
LAND 400 IS THE PROJECT WITH A YEAR OF DECISION OF 2011 THAT WILL MOVE US TOWARD A COMMON FLEET OF ARMOURED VEHICLES, TOWARD A SYSTEM OF COMBAT VEHICLES. THE ABRAMS IS JUST ONE STEP ON THIS JOURNEY.
THE ABRAMS ALSO PROVIDES US WITH ACCESS TO THE CUTTING EDGE OF NON DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR TECHNOLOGY.
<snip>
MEDIA QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
BRIEFING ON THE M1A1 ABRAMS INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (AIM) MAIN BATTLE TANK
LIEUTENANT GENERAL PETER LEAHY:
Ladies and gentlemen, do you have any questions?
<snip>
QUESTION:
If we're not getting DU armour what sort of armour are we getting.
COLONEL HAYWARD: Armour technologies are sensitive in a classified area.
The armour that we are getting is an advanced non-DU armour. We have had a look at destructive testing of this armour and we have sent across an Australian scientist to have a look at it, and it provides us an excellent level of protection.
QUESTION:
It's basically [indistinct] armour isn't it?
COLONEL HAYWARD:
It's an advanced non-DU armour that provides us an excellent level of protection.
<snip>
QUESTION:
Neil James from Defender. Nick just stole my first question, in fact. I've got two questions.
The first one is, is the new improved armour as good as depleted uranium armour - yes/no?
GENERAL LEAHY:
Duncan, you want to take that?
COLONEL HAYWARD:
The armour that we're getting is very close to depleted uranium armour. In some aspects it is better against some types of threats. But I'm unable to discuss those in this forum.
QUESTION:
Okay, let's assume that the new armour is not as good as depleted uranium armour.
Is the only reason we're not getting depleted uranium armour because of political concerns in Australia, and therefore are we running the risk of Australian soldiers being endangered in the future because political considerations prevent them having the best protection?
GENERAL LEAHY:
Oh, I think Neil, you know me well enough that I wouldn't endanger our soldiers lives for a reason like that. We're getting very good armour. One that I have every confidence in, and one that I'd be happy for our soldiers to fight behind.
<snip>
Full transcript here: -
https://www.defencetalk.com/military...-be-used.2160/
'The Age' newspaper
Australia picks US tanks to 'harden' force
By Mark Forbes
Defence Correspondent
Canberra
March 10, 2004
American-built M1 Abrams battle tanks valued at $550 million will spearhead a "hardened" Australian Army role in major overseas conflicts alongside the US.
Cabinet's national security committee last night agreed to buy 59 reconditioned, 68-tonne Abrams, ahead of British Challengers and German Leopards. The decision will be announced today.
Senior Defence sources said the war in Iraq had reaffirmed the belief that tanks were essential in modern conflicts to protect infantry troops.
Last November, The Age revealed that the military had settled on buying the Abrams, with Defence Minister Robert Hill, force chief Peter Cosgrove and army chief Peter Leahy backing the US tank over its 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. Its 2000 Defence white paper argued against "the development of heavy armoured forces suitable for contributions to coalition forces in high-intensity conflicts".
In an indication of the strategic importance of the move, the US Administration will sell the tanks directly to Australia at a substantial discount.
The Australian Abrams, to be based in Darwin, would facilitate training between the two forces and access to ongoing development.
It could also allow Australian crews to fight in pre-positioned US tanks.
The Abrams will be modified for Australian requirements, including replacing its depleted uranium armour with ceramic plating.
Critics claim the Abrams are unsuitable for operations in the Pacific region and are too heavy to be airlifted. The tanks must be transported by sea.
Late last year General Leahy predicted that new tanks should be in service by July. He attacked critics of the planned tank purchase and said he had looked for a manoeuvrable, mid-weight, well-protected tank.
"Frankly, it's not there," General Leahy said. "So what we need to do is to respond to the current threat environment... where protection is, quite frankly, achieved by heavier armoured vehicles."