I really cant understand how oz ADF operates and how serious

they treats defense matters.

They retired Leopard tanks last year and claimed

M1A1 Abrams integrated management (AIM) MAIN Battle tank

is ready for action.

But now,Army admitted that the crews of the tanks can talk to

other infantries!!

Shall they tried the new tanks more extensively before they

retired the old Leo tanks?

What if there is a major threat at the door step?

THE Promises

 

THE TANK IS A CENTRAL PART OF THIS COMBINED ARMS TEAM PROVIDING PROTECTION, COMMUNICATIONS AND FIREPOWER.

TO ASSIST WITH COMMAND AND CONTROL THE ABRAMS BE DELIVERED WITH ADVANCED DIGITAL RADIOS (SINGARS ASIP) THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RADIOS IN SERVICE IN WITH ARMY NOW

AND THE ADDITION OF AN INFANTRY TANK TELEPHONE AT THE REAR OF THE TANK AND THE INTEGRATED OF THE INFANTRY PERSONAL ROLE RADIO TO ENSURE THE TANK INTEGRATES INTO THE COMBINED ARMS TEAM.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=4093

 

New Abrams tanks scoring well in tests

Posted Mon Sep 17, 2007

 

The Reality

<!-- END Story Header Block --> <!-- START primary content/left column --> <!-- Story Toolbar-->

<!-- // .article-tools --> <!-- End Story Toolbar-->

<!-- // .module-subheader -->

CREWMEN operating the army's new Abrams battle tanks are unable to communicate properly with infantry forces because their radio systems are incompatible.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24001887-31477,00.html

References

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser /> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,20999669-2702,00.html

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

http://armoured.alphalink.com.au/history.htm

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1167/topstories/story15.htm

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

http://74.6.146.244/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Leopard+tank+%2B+farewell&y=Search&rd=r2&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.defence.gov.au/media/2007/070704.doc&w=leopard+tank+tanks+farewell+farewells&d=XNhf9S72Q9Q_&icp=1&.intl=au

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/06-07/dar/index.htm

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]-->

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/17/2035655.htm?section=justin

 

Yawn lionnoisy, once again you are talking rubbish.

I also notice you purposely never quote the whole article because you are afraid of having to answer for this part:

He dismissed any other concerns about the Abrams.

"The Australian army is very pleased and proud to be operating the Abrams. It's the world's best," he said.

The communication problem would be overcome with a new $28million radio system for all army vehicles.

How come your article quoting is so patchy lionnoisy?

Also, our armour has a lot of issues with have not been resolved, how come you don't talk about them?

ST designed Bionix 2 with a lot of flaws that were not reported and our AI got faulty and flawed equipment.

This is an account of one of our armoured infantry troopers:

Problems in Armour Infantry

Just back from the most miserable field camp since I was enlisted in the army. Everyday it was rain and mud and mosquitos. Couldn't sleep at night due to the mozzies and was wet and cold and miserable everyday. Could feel the water sloshing in my boots when walking around the training area. And the back of our damn vehicle was damn cramped. Officially, the back of the bionix with the 25mm or 30mm turret is meant for 7 infantry troopers. I think ST forgot that when sitting in the bionix, we're wearing the stupid load bearing vest and therefore its near impossible to fit 7 people in the back. Its a good thing most sections (in my company anyway) are always not filled. There are always people on medical excuse, or people who have posted out and left their sections short. The latest field camp for example, my vehicle sat 3 people in the back, instead of 7.

I think the theory of armour infantry is good one. Cos we're mostly running around in a forested environment, tanks on their own will get blown up by the more stealthy infantry on foot. Armour infantry creates a highly mobile form of infantry that is supported by the fire power of a 25mm or 30mm cannon. But in reality, the infantry when dismounted is carrying so much gear and so much weight in weapons that we can't move that quickly on foot and are very quickly tired out. In a standard 6 man dismounted section (1 guy in the section had a platoon level role, like my vehicle carries the PC's runner) , the section leader carries his nightvision optics, radio, etc. Not very bulky or heavy stuff, but on top of the loadbearing vest, its not the lightest thing in the world. I carry the bitch of a machinegun, the seciton 2IC carries a bag with my machine gun rounds, sparebarrel, and machine gun cleaning kit, all of which put in a bag never designed to carry such stuff so the barrel sticks out and gets caught on trees and keep ripping the zipper open so the bag is not only heavy but also damn cumbersome and frustrating to carry. 1 guy carries the heavy MATADOR antitank missile. 1 guy carrying section automatic weapon is supposed to carry 18 magazines (but no one actually does that). And the last guy has his bandoleer of m203 grenade rounds awkwardly strapped around his chest (in theory, but the M203 gunner has never been issued M203 rounds, even dummies, during outfield. In any case, they'll be damn easy to lose and the there'll be hell to pay and extras to sign if anything is lost.)

Basically, in theory we have load of firepower. In practice, we're damn weighted down. All the above is on top of a poorly designed LBV, meant to be modular and flexible such that pouches can be shifted around and customised according to needs. What really happens is that the battalion standardises the arrangement of the pouches, so its quite pointless making it modular. What also really happens is that all the pouches, especially the large rear pouch, bounce around, making the entire fucking LBV jump around when we have to run. The LBV also covers large upper body surface area, trapping heat, and I usually get heat rash by the 2nd day of field camp, definitely by the 3rd day. The straps to secure the pouches to the vest are located in the centre of the pouch, such that the extreme top and bottom ends of the pouch is not secured, and the whole thing bobs up and down, made worse because we're expected to stuff the rear pouch with our bulky waterproof jacket, SOP box (containing, safety pins, black tape, spare torch, etc and a whole host of stuff we'll never use), arc of fire sticks, etc. The stupid water bottle pouch bounces like crazy on the right rear side as well, and the toggle rope strapped below the left side causes abrasion. The water bag, designed to be in the rear, of the lbv, traps loads of heat, and because it pushes the large rear pouch away from the body even more, causes the pouch to bounce more. Nobody really uses it.

When seated in the vehicle, the rear pouch means we dun sit all the way back on the bench, and our legs are cramped up against those facing us. The solution is to remove the LBV in the vehicle, but if a full section is mounted, its way too cramped to perform such a complex move in the vehicle. Heck, even reaching to get our water bottle is damn troublesome in the vehicle. Wearing the LBV in the vehicle means that wearing the seat belt like we are supposed to is truly impossible. The Bionix 2 has 4 point seatbelts, in theory, it should strap us down in case of a sideturn or overturn of the vehicle. In practice, nobody I know has ever used it. At least the Bionix 1 never had such pretensions of safety. But I bet if some poor chaps die in a vehicle over turn of the Bionix 2, the army we'll probably say they were not following safety regulations by not wearing their seatbelts.

More flaws in SAF armour?

Illusions

The most ironic thing was that during a recent livefiring my company conducted for a bunch of potential army scholar-officers in order to attract them to join armour, my battalion's S3 manage to make the Bionix sound so wonderful. I wasn't there during the actual livefiring, only there to do the saikang and cleaning up shit. So this is all hearsay from my company people who were there.

Recruit: "Isn't it very hot in the back in the bionix?"
S3 : "Oh no. We have powerful fans in the back to (not sure what he said exactly, but something about fans that suck out th ehot air and blow in cool ambient air.)" -ya right.

Recruit (looking at mud covered tracks of vehicles) : "Isn't it very hard to clean the vehicles after outfield?"
S3: "Oh no, we have powerful water hoses in our beautiful washing bay in camp to jet the vehicles and the dirt will come off easily. We have a lot of fun cleaning our vehicle and spraying each other with water... etc" -Screw you.

We have a poorly designed washing bay that is supposed to recycle water but the drain is always flooded and water doesnt drain out of the washing bay. Vehicles queue for hours in line to get washed, and everyone is pissed while waiting to wash their vehicles. In addition, if people can get away with it, they'll use a firehose to spray their vehicles. In addition, we always have to clean loads of mud off the road in camp after the vehicles return and the washing bay is a bloody bitch to clean after the vehicles are all washed. The washing bay is flooded, mud clogged, and both it and the road has to be cleaned by manually scooping up mud using dustpans and pails and dumped on some grass patch in camp. Takes hours to clean both road and bay. Also, there's loads of on-vehicle material (signal sets, machine gun pintles, tow pintles, tow rope, jerry cans, vehicle camoflage net, etc, etc) to clean and wash, and way too many weapons to clean.

Our Bionix, despite being more advanced, cannot perform some of the roles the decades old M113 ULTRA can that it was supposed to replace!

M113 has superior amphibious ability then the advanced Bionix!

lionnoisy, is the acceptable?

Originally posted by I_love_my_toliet:

BX uses the swimming screen because the whole bloody vehicle sink vv deep during forging.

for Ultra, total different story... only need to install a splash screen to protect the radiator, trim vane must be out

Abrams power wins the day for Army

ANYBODY who thinks the Australian Army is preparing itself to fight alongside the Americans in a conventional tank battle somewhere in Asia or the Middle East has completely misread the Army's intentions. The replacement of its ageing Leopard AS1 tanks is driven by lessons learned in the jungles of New Guinea and Borneo during World War II, and in Vietnam.

<!-- Image Caption ("module lead-image") -->

To the soldiers on the ground a jungle has lots in common with a city: a limited field of view, the constant risk of ambush, fierce gun battles fought over short ranges and the probability of heavy casualties when attacking even a small enemy force -- a dozen or less -- in a decently built bunker.

In 2003 Army and DSTO researchers studied Australia's record in Vietnam. They showed conclusively that Australian casualties dropped sharply, and enemy casualties rose even more sharply, once the Army started using tanks in its jungle battles.

The 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.

Having made a convincing argument for new tanks the Army's only decision was: what type? The US Army's M1A1 AIM Abrams tank won the day, partly on the basis of interoperability and access to a global US Army logistics chain. The first 18 tanks and five M88 Hercules armoured recovery vehicles arrived in Melbourne two months ago and were carried on newly-built transporters to the School of Armour at Puckapunyal in northern Victoria.

They will be used to train crews from the 1st Armoured Regiment whose own fleet of 41 tanks and two M88s will be delivered direct to Darwin in March next year.

*snip*

The Army was irritated by reports that the 60-tonne Abrams, which weigh over a third as much again as the Leopards, are too heavy for Australia's rail and road network.

It plans to acquire new railway rolling stock so it can move the tanks from Darwin to Cultana and an Army spokesman told The Australian there aren't any no-go areas for the tanks in Australia: "The Abrams tank and Hercules armoured recovery vehicles can be transported (by road) between all major cities and areas where these vehicles will be operated. However, all movement of vehicles this size is subject to over-dimensional load permit conditions."

The reasons they released this news is to cheat potential

aggressors.

I admit Oz ADF is the most powerful Professional Armed

Force in the world,as told by oz MOD!!

SAF shall send more pple to learn how to maintain

subs,upgrade M 113,up grade Frigates etc

Meanwhile, the navy was put on notice to resolve a $1.4billion frigate upgrade program running more than four years late. The committee was told prime contractors Thales/Rafael had until November to fix the warship's threat-detection system, or face the possibility it would be scrapped.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24001887-31477,00.html

remember the SeaSpirits heli also just scrapped,costing A$1 billion

go down to Sydney harbour.

Do u really believe all they say?

I think forumers here have the wisdom to find out over praise

and truths.

I already put the links here.They can read.

Thanks this time u have not showed the dark sides of SAF.

I think we stick to one topic to discuss.ok?

So,can u tell me how they fight with other arms

of infantry?It will be to cruel to ask how they talk to air force

and navy.Shall they use flags signal or carry some pigeons?

Oh.I forget Sing Tel Octupus can give them good

hand phones to talk.

I am afraid if tomorrow the tanks are sent to war,

there will be some casualty caused by friendly fires.

 

The Abrams tank provides the proven and fully integrated radio and battle space management system and that’s part of what we mean by network centric warfare. This will bring all of the elements of the ADF - the Army, the Navy and the Air Force - into one integrated whole, or what we talk about as a seamless joined force.

The vehicle will have digital communications inbuilt which means we will be able to seamlessly integrate with the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, our Airborne Early Warning and Communications Aircraft and other network centric capabilities and particularly the combat identification that we’re going to require as a matter of urgency. The precision fire power and excellent sensor systems in this tank will enable us to reduce collateral damage and allow significantly greater discretion especially in the complex terrain and complex environment of the future battle field. 

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/HillTranscripttpl.cfm?CurrentId=3645

Talk is much easier than done.

I cant say what STy is faked.Even it is true,so what!!

have i said SAF,ST are perfect.

But some bodies here ask us take Oz as model.

Why do they not wait for future technology?

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

Do u really believe all they say?

I think forumers here have the wisdom to find out over praise

and truths.

I already put the links here.They can read.

Thanks this time u have not showed the dark sides of SAF.

I think we stick to one topic to discuss.ok?

 

Then can you explain how come our own armour has no way of communicating with our infantry section if they work with us in combined arms unless we end up drawing similar radio sets?

But if we are working as an infantry section in combined arms and are getting attacked by our own tanks and mortars, our sec comd will have to radio back his platoon, which will radio back the coy, which will radio back even further up before it can be stopped.

So,can u tell me how they fight with other arms

of infantry?It will be to cruel to ask how they talk to air force

and navy.Shall they use flags signal or carry some pigeons?

Oh.I forget Sing Tel Octupus can give them good

hand phones to talk.

I am afraid if tomorrow the tanks are sent to war,

there will be some casualty caused by friendly fires.

I think you are talking rubbish.

You can ask this question and quote so many articles, but how come you cannot even see the answer in your own quoted article:

The communication problem would be overcome with a new $28million radio system for all army vehicles.

And how can Australia or any nation just "go to war" tomorrow?

If we "just "go to war" tomorrow you think our Leopard tanks are ready? SAF wide we are not trained in how to operate with them and haven't even have our tactics, logistics and a lot of other things sorted out.

On the basis of your logic, I must then conclude since our Leopard tanks are not ready now, they are flawed and a waste of our money since we can't go to war with them tomorrow.

Also you avoided answering one thing... the reason there were compatiability issues with the Abrams radio was because the radio used in the Abrams was very much more advanced then anything the Aussies are using, this means that after the upgrade armywide, the entire ADF will have this advanced capacity to work as a networked force.

“The M1A1 Abrams tanks will provide a major increase in capability over the present Leopard tanks, particularly with their greater firepower and their potential to operate in a modern, networked communications environment,”

So how is this a bad thing?

Only in your "go to war tomorrow" logic it is.

By your own logic, our entire 3G transformation is a waste of time and money because most of it is not ready by tomorrow.

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/HillTranscripttpl.cfm?CurrentId=3645

Talk is much easier than done.

I cant say what STy is faked.Even it is true,so what!!

have i said SAF,ST are perfect.

But some bodies here ask us take Oz as model.

Why do they not wait for future technology?

This is because they already have future technology. The compatiability issues the Aussies are having is because they have very much more advanced technology in the Abrams along with their current stock.

If you want to be so cry baby about this, then how come you never cry about a similar problem we have army-wide?

Our average infantry, our old M113 ULTRAs currently do not the capability to be fully compatiable with our digital Bionix 2 IFV? What the Bx2 sees cannot be translated to other units!

While the Bionix 2 goes in with all this systems, most of our SAF is going in beside it deaf, dumb and blind. What happens if our infantry matador team attacks the Bionix out of mistake because they dun have the same digital system telling them where everyone is at any one time?

How come you don't want to report about this?

Going by your logic, like this how to go to war?

Do u really believe all they say?

I think forumers here have the wisdom to find out over praise

and truths.

Then how come you only want to believe negative and bad things about the ADF, and nothing about the SAF?

People here have common sense, not to mention we actually have MORE military experience then you.

So yes, have you wondered why people don't believe what you say at all?

You can't even quote your own articles properly and run away from your threads when you're defeated.

Here, please provide a point by point refutation of the following points if you are so confident the Abrams is a bad buy.

FACT SHEET

THE M1A1 ABRAMS INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT MAIN BATTLE TANK

• During operations in Iraq the M1A1 clearly demonstrated it has the necessary firepower, mobility and survivability to achieve dominance on the battlefield as part of a combined arms team.
• The M1A1 demonstrated its effectiveness in Iraq on many occasions. In one instance an M1A1 took a direct hit to the ammunition storage area, all of the rounds inside were detonated, however the crew survived and carried on with their mission.
• Australian Warrant Officer Joe Day who was serving on exchange with the US Marine Corps 1^st Light Armoured Reconnaissance Battalion during operations in Iraq commented that from his observations the M1A1 was the 'king of the battlefield and that light armour and infantry couldn't survive without tanks and guns'.
• Warrant Officer Day also saw an M1A1 take a direct hit from an Iraqi T- 62 and then continue on and destroy the enemy tank.
• The motor and transmission on the M1A1 performed so well in Iraq on the very long drives through difficult terrain that the US Tank Automotive and Armaments Command are not planning any further work on trying to extend the transmission hours as they do not need it.
• The M1A1 AIM vehicle that Australia will procure will not be equipped with either Depleted Uranium armour or munitions. The armour on offer is of an advanced composite design, which is in accord with our capability requirements.
• The new tank will fire an advanced kinetic energy Tungsten penetrator against vehicles and a multi-purpose round for infantry support. The tank is powered by a gas turbine engine, the AGT-1500. Gas turbine engines, including the AGT-1500, are truly multi-fuel. They offer excellent power/weight ratios compared to diesel engines.
• They have a very good cold-start capability (unlike a diesel), with smooth torque and low vibration (an advantage for crews and sensitive onboard systems). The gas turbine motor is also substantially quieter than a traditional diesel tank engine ( like that in a Leopard 1). Additional tactical refuelling trucks to provide fuel for the tanks in the field are included in the $A550m package.

   

• Outside of the US Army and US Marine Corps the M1A1 is operated by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

   

The M1A1 AIM tank was selected for the following reasons:

• The M1A1 AIM has the best overall survivability of the options considered. It offers battlefield proven protection for its crews.
• The M1A1 AIM in Australian service will be very similar to the remainder of the large user community. It is part of a large fleet with stable, known operating costs, which will be in service beyond 2020.
• They will be configured as part of a fleet of 3,500 similar vehicles across the world. These particular vehicles will be very similar to over 2,500 vehicles operated by the US to at least 2020.
• The M1A1 AIM has the best potential to support network centric warfare. It offers a proven integrated and highly capable radio and battlespace management system.
• The M1A1 AIM is assessed to have the least technical acquisition risk as the vehicle type and configuration for Australian service is already in production. It is a proven design, which is already in contract.
• The M1A1 AIM is the right tank for Australian service. It is a highly survivable and affordable vehicle, with excellent potential for network centric warfare. The M1A1 provides the best value for Commonwealth dollar with low production and technical risk.
• The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) offer for the M1A1 includes, spares, training, support vehicles, Armoured Recovery Vehicles, simulation systems, radios and ancillary equipment as part of the overall package.
• The M1A1 that ADF will procure are essentially remanufactured vehicles. They have been returned to a zero miles zero hours condition. This will provide substantial cost benefits in comparison to purchasing new vehicles.
• The M1A1 Abrams weighs less than 63,000 kilograms (<63 tonnes) when fully combat laden. This is only slightly heavier than the Leopard 2 and is lighter than the Challenger takes that were considered. All three tank options that were considered are within 1000 kg of each other in combat configuration. In transport configuration the M1A1 will weigh around 59-60 tonnes.
• Additional Heavy Equipment Transporters and trailers will be procured under Project Land 121.
• The crane that loaded tanks in Darwin would be capable of doing the same for M1. We have an ongoing discussion about strategic rail transport in Australia and the issue of appropriate rolling stock will continue to be discussed.

   Note this part:

  The M1A1 AIM is the right tank for Australian service. It is a highly survivable and affordable vehicle, with excellent potential for network centric warfare.

  How lionnoisy?

  You are only relying on one flimsy article about one problem to inflate your case.

  The weight of the evidence shows that if anything, having radio problems shows that the ADF is actually moving towards REAL future battlefield communication technology.

Also, how come you haven't answered about the problems raised about Singapore armour?

The Government will equip the Australian Army with a fleet of 59 United States M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management main battle tanks to replace the ageing Leopards, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today. The project cost is about $550 million. The Abrams tanks are significantly more capable than the current tank and will contribute to the Army becoming more lethal in future close combat.

The Abrams Files:

An Australian owned Abrams tank is currently on exhibition at the US Armor Symposium at Fort Knox in Kentucky, showcasing the technological advances of the Australian variant.

The tank is an M1A1 AIM SA (Abrams integrated management situational awareness), one of the most advanced of the Abrams main battle tanks. It is one of only a small number of vehicles in the world of such a configuration, all of which are Australian.

The M1A1 AIM SA features enhancements such as second-generation FLIR, an inertial navigation system in addition to the global positioning system, an auxiliary power unit, infantry/tank telephone, far target locator, and the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) battlefield management system. Modified for Australian conditions, the tank has crew cooling fans and a refrigeration unit, and can fit a deep-water fording kit.

The armour package of the Australian Abrams is among the most advanced in the world.
The US Armor Symposium is attended by a large audience of senior US military officers, armoured-vehicle users and procurement personnel. The event is intended to communicate the importance of the newest technology in relation to security, education, training, and awareness for US military members.

The US Army will seek to adopt many features of the Australian variants for introduction to their own Abrams fleet.

Even the yanks want to incoporate the Australian M1A1 AIM technology into their own Abrams.

How do you think our simply refurbished Leo2a4 stack up against it?

Last I checked, the americans are not checking out our G3 technology.

The fate is alreday written on the wall.

i think L907 if for Abrams.It seem different sys cant talk.

STy alreday told us it is same as SAF!!Too bad.

May be two countries can sit down and discuss!!

 

http://www.raytheon.com.au/Files/ArmyNCWVision.pdf

Occasional Paper
In
Network Centric Warfare
Wideband Network Radio (WNR)
A Key Enabler to Achieve
Army’s NCW Vision
11 May 2007

Land 907
HNA will require the Abrams FBCB2# to operate with other offensive
capabilities. At present, the Abrams communications infrastructure differs

from that used by US forces and includes no WNR. BMS information is

currently passed over L-Band, which is unable to provide real-time
synchronisation.  

#FBCB2 =Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below

 

The fate is alreday written on the wall.

i think L907 if for Abrams.It seem different sys cant talk.

STy alreday told us it is same as SAF!!Too bad.

May be two countries can sit down and discuss!!

The only fate that is written, it seems that the ADF has technology that is considerably more advanced then anything ST has come up with so far, given the M1A1 AIM is considered one of the most advanced Abrams variants that even the Americans (who are way ahead of Singapore in network centric warfare) are looking into it.

It looks like you don't even understand what you posted, but posted it to try to make yourself look "smart".

Just because you know how to say "L907" does not mean you know anything much about military affairs, it just means you are good at using google.

So you talk so much about this for what? All countries going network centric are having this issue, even you admit it.

Do you think SAF 3G ideas can really be implemented if we go to war tomorrow? Can our Bionix2 use it's digital abilities to the greatest degree?

No.

Make so much noise for what?

This is just like the time you made a lot of noise about the Aussies trying to launch F-18s off "mini-cvs", without doing your homework and relying on basic articles and a shallow understanding of them you try to create posts.

Copy and paste so much, but don't understand, what's the point lionnoisy, what's the point? Have you wondered how come despite so many articles you copy and paste you still always get defeated?

You still haven't answered about the problems the SAF armour has.

Going by lionnoisy's logic, if our SAR-21 can't fire M1 Garand rounds then it's flawed and useless. Going by his logic if our Longbows cannot mount the 40mm GL or GPMG like our old Huey then it's useless. Going by his logic if our Binoix 2 is not compatiable with our old style of non 3G communication it ought to be scrapped.

You still haven't adressed all this:

FACT SHEET

THE M1A1 ABRAMS INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT MAIN BATTLE TANK

• During operations in Iraq the M1A1 clearly demonstrated it has the necessary firepower, mobility and survivability to achieve dominance on the battlefield as part of a combined arms team.
• The M1A1 demonstrated its effectiveness in Iraq on many occasions. In one instance an M1A1 took a direct hit to the ammunition storage area, all of the rounds inside were detonated, however the crew survived and carried on with their mission.
• Australian Warrant Officer Joe Day who was serving on exchange with the US Marine Corps 1^st Light Armoured Reconnaissance Battalion during operations in Iraq commented that from his observations the M1A1 was the 'king of the battlefield and that light armour and infantry couldn't survive without tanks and guns'.
• Warrant Officer Day also saw an M1A1 take a direct hit from an Iraqi T- 62 and then continue on and destroy the enemy tank.
• The motor and transmission on the M1A1 performed so well in Iraq on the very long drives through difficult terrain that the US Tank Automotive and Armaments Command are not planning any further work on trying to extend the transmission hours as they do not need it.
• The M1A1 AIM vehicle that Australia will procure will not be equipped with either Depleted Uranium armour or munitions. The armour on offer is of an advanced composite design, which is in accord with our capability requirements.
• The new tank will fire an advanced kinetic energy Tungsten penetrator against vehicles and a multi-purpose round for infantry support. The tank is powered by a gas turbine engine, the AGT-1500. Gas turbine engines, including the AGT-1500, are truly multi-fuel. They offer excellent power/weight ratios compared to diesel engines.
• They have a very good cold-start capability (unlike a diesel), with smooth torque and low vibration (an advantage for crews and sensitive onboard systems). The gas turbine motor is also substantially quieter than a traditional diesel tank engine ( like that in a Leopard 1). Additional tactical refuelling trucks to provide fuel for the tanks in the field are included in the $A550m package.

   

• Outside of the US Army and US Marine Corps the M1A1 is operated by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

   

The M1A1 AIM tank was selected for the following reasons:

• The M1A1 AIM has the best overall survivability of the options considered. It offers battlefield proven protection for its crews.
• The M1A1 AIM in Australian service will be very similar to the remainder of the large user community. It is part of a large fleet with stable, known operating costs, which will be in service beyond 2020.
• They will be configured as part of a fleet of 3,500 similar vehicles across the world. These particular vehicles will be very similar to over 2,500 vehicles operated by the US to at least 2020.
• The M1A1 AIM has the best potential to support network centric warfare. It offers a proven integrated and highly capable radio and battlespace management system.
• The M1A1 AIM is assessed to have the least technical acquisition risk as the vehicle type and configuration for Australian service is already in production. It is a proven design, which is already in contract.
• The M1A1 AIM is the right tank for Australian service. It is a highly survivable and affordable vehicle, with excellent potential for network centric warfare. The M1A1 provides the best value for Commonwealth dollar with low production and technical risk.
• The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) offer for the M1A1 includes, spares, training, support vehicles, Armoured Recovery Vehicles, simulation systems, radios and ancillary equipment as part of the overall package.
• The M1A1 that ADF will procure are essentially remanufactured vehicles. They have been returned to a zero miles zero hours condition. This will provide substantial cost benefits in comparison to purchasing new vehicles.
• The M1A1 Abrams weighs less than 63,000 kilograms (<63 tonnes) when fully combat laden. This is only slightly heavier than the Leopard 2 and is lighter than the Challenger takes that were considered. All three tank options that were considered are within 1000 kg of each other in combat configuration. In transport configuration the M1A1 will weigh around 59-60 tonnes.
• Additional Heavy Equipment Transporters and trailers will be procured under Project Land 121.
• The crane that loaded tanks in Darwin would be capable of doing the same for M1. We have an ongoing discussion about strategic rail transport in Australia and the issue of appropriate rolling stock will continue to be discussed.

Our armour indeed has the same problems as the ADF. The SAF is not fully into 3G yet and 3G itself has a lot of problems. There a lots of projects ongoing to sort out the problems we faced currently. I can't elaborate more. Even the Battlefield Management System currently used has its own limitations. How effective and how efficient it will be depends on the radio sets and you know how old our radios are. All those pretty pictures needs a lot of bandwidth and sending a single text message on the old 600 series radios takes 15 mins to reach the other bugger. The other fact is that you can jam up the whole data net just by sending voice comms! Our SAF do has its share of the problems. I'm not surprised if we will be getting newer and more powerful radios soon.

Our armour indeed has the same problems as the ADF. The SAF is not fully into 3G yet and 3G itself has a lot of problems. There a lots of projects ongoing to sort out the problems we faced currently. I can't elaborate more. Even the Battlefield Management System currently used has its own limitations. How effective and how efficient it will be depends on the radio sets and you know how old our radios are. All those pretty pictures needs a lot of bandwidth and sending a single text message on the old 600 series radios takes 15 mins to reach the other bugger. The other fact is that you can jam up the whole data net just by sending voice comms! Our SAF do has its share of the problems. I'm not surprised if we will be getting newer and more powerful radios soon.

For some reason all this is lost on lionnoisy, going by his logic then our 3G transformation is nothing but a waste of millions of dollars and years of time because it is still not ready to fight in a war tomorrow.

In lionnoisy's world, war happen without any reason and can happen any day.

Going by his kind of logic, noisylion can make the exact same post about the SAF:

 

Originally posted by noisylion:

I really cant understand how sg SAF operates and how serious

they treats defense matters.

They retired SM1 tanks and claimed

Leopard 2A4 MAIN Battle tank and Bionix 2 digital IFV

is ready for action.

for 3G battlefield

But now,crews of the tanks like Leopard n Bionix cant talk to

other infantries and other units!!

Comms jam just by sending voice comms

Bionix also too small for armour troopers wearing now LBV

LBV also too hot, soldiers can get heat stroke

Shall they tried the new tanks more extensively before they

retired the old SM1 tanks?

What if there is a major threat at the door step?

THE Promises

 

BIONIX 2 WILL BE ABLE TO OPERATE IN THE NEW 3G BATTLEFIELD ALONGSIDE OTHER UNITS

LEOPARD 2A4 INTERGRATED INTO ARMOURED FORCES OF SAF IN 3G BATTLEFIELD

SAF UNDERGOS 3G TRANSFORMATION INTO FULLY NETWORKED FIGHTING FORCE

 

SAF undergoing tranformation into 3G networked fighting force

 

The Reality

3G network still not up to scratch

" I think ST forgot that when sitting in the bionix, we're wearing the stupid load bearing vest and therefore its near impossible to fit 7 people in the back. Its a good thing most sections (in my company anyway) are always not filled. There are always people on medical excuse, or people who have posted out and left their sections short. The latest field camp for example, my vehicle sat 3 people in the back, instead of 7.

I think the theory of armour infantry is good one. Cos we're mostly running around in a forested environment, tanks on their own will get blown up by the more stealthy infantry on foot. Armour infantry creates a highly mobile form of infantry that is supported by the fire power of a 25mm or 30mm cannon. But in reality, the infantry when dismounted is carrying so much gear and so much weight in weapons that we can't move that quickly on foot and are very quickly tired out. In a standard 6 man dismounted section (1 guy in the section had a platoon level role, like my vehicle carries the PC's runner) , the section leader carries his nightvision optics, radio, etc. Not very bulky or heavy stuff, but on top of the loadbearing vest, its not the lightest thing in the world. I carry the bitch of a machinegun, the seciton 2IC carries a bag with my machine gun rounds, sparebarrel, and machine gun cleaning kit, all of which put in a bag never designed to carry such stuff so the barrel sticks out and gets caught on trees and keep ripping the zipper open so the bag is not only heavy but also damn cumbersome and frustrating to carry. 1 guy carries the heavy MATADOR antitank missile. 1 guy carrying section automatic weapon is supposed to carry 18 magazines (but no one actually does that). And the last guy has his bandoleer of m203 grenade rounds awkwardly strapped around his chest (in theory, but the M203 gunner has never been issued M203 rounds, even dummies, during outfield. In any case, they'll be damn easy to lose and the there'll be hell to pay and extras to sign if anything is lost.)

Basically, in theory we have load of firepower. In practice, we're damn weighted down. All the above is on top of a poorly designed LBV, meant to be modular and flexible such that pouches can be shifted around and customised according to needs. What really happens is that the battalion standardises the arrangement of the pouches, so its quite pointless making it modular. What also really happens is that all the pouches, especially the large rear pouch, bounce around, making the entire fucking LBV jump around when we have to run. The LBV also covers large upper body surface area, trapping heat, and I usually get heat rash by the 2nd day of field camp, definitely by the 3rd day. The straps to secure the pouches to the vest are located in the centre of the pouch, such that the extreme top and bottom ends of the pouch is not secured, and the whole thing bobs up and down, made worse because we're expected to stuff the rear pouch with our bulky waterproof jacket, SOP box (containing, safety pins, black tape, spare torch, etc and a whole host of stuff we'll never use), arc of fire sticks, etc. The stupid water bottle pouch bounces like crazy on the right rear side as well, and the toggle rope strapped below the left side causes abrasion. The water bag, designed to be in the rear, of the lbv, traps loads of heat, and because it pushes the large rear pouch away from the body even more, causes the pouch to bounce more. Nobody really uses it.

When seated in the vehicle, the rear pouch means we dun sit all the way back on the bench, and our legs are cramped up against those facing us. The solution is to remove the LBV in the vehicle, but if a full section is mounted, its way too cramped to perform such a complex move in the vehicle. Heck, even reaching to get our water bottle is damn troublesome in the vehicle. Wearing the LBV in the vehicle means that wearing the seat belt like we are supposed to is truly impossible. The Bionix 2 has 4 point seatbelts, in theory, it should strap us down in case of a sideturn or overturn of the vehicle. In practice, nobody I know has ever used it. At least the Bionix 1 never had such pretensions of safety. But I bet if some poor chaps die in a vehicle over turn of the Bionix 2, the army we'll probably say they were not following safety regulations by not wearing their seatbelts."

Going by lionnoisy's own logic, the SAF is an ineffective fighting force that does not take it's job seriously.

I think before you start up another topic only to get pwned lionnoisy, I think you better think if your arguments apply to the SAF as well, because usually by starting all these topics to slime Australia you usually end up having people who know their stuff reveal the truth in here, and it actually turns out that the ADF is not only much, much better then you try to put it to be, but also superior to our own SAF!

I am frankly quite amazed that you don't realize that instead of bringing down the reputation of the ADF in this forum, you are actually helping to build it as well as bringing down the reputation of the SAF at the same time for the simple reason you can't seem to deal with this thing called common sense and truth. And the truth is if you try to be very negative about the ADF, people will see it far better then you want them to see it as, and if you are irrationally positive about the SAF, people can easily see all its faults because your idea of the SAF is simply too unrealistic.

What have you done in here except make the ADF look good by your lame behaviour because your attempts to slime it always fail when the facts are brought out by the people who know their stuff, and add more dirt to the SAF?

I cant say what STy is faked.Even it is true,so what!!

have i said SAF,ST are perfect.

Please, don't tell blatant lies, you're fooling nobody.

Your behaviour in here is so obvious that it decieves nobody.

One only needs to look at your other threads on ST technology and how you try to advertise it.

Until you are contradicted or your position destroyed, your position in here has always been on of ST/SAF superiority over every other military and military equipment in the word. But unfortunately you are defeated in virtually any thread in that vein that you start.

But your question is if all the things revealed in here about the SAF are true so what?

I'll tell you so what.

What this means that by your standards, the SAF is nowhere near ready to fight the war tomorrow that you are so fixed on that you keep using it as a standard to judge anything, even things that are in development that are obviously still in testing.

Our 3G systems that have been hyped for years even before the Aussies got their Abrams still can't work and there are plenty of bugs.

We spend millions to make a new Bionix variant but have still not replaced out Ultras. And even the new digital systems don't work out like they are planned to.

Our new LBVs, new equipment all turned out to be not as good as advertised by ST, as confirmed by the ones that matter most, the soldiers on the ground.

Also what makes you so sure that we are ready to fight a war tomorrow? Will you be the one who will be fighting it? It will be the rest of us in here, those who actually fired more then TWENTY rounds throughout our entire NS, those of us in here who are actually COMBAT trained.

You have done nothing in here but copy and paste media artices carefully selected to give a very limited picture. You have demostrated NO knowledge whatsoever of military affairs or how the soldiers actually see it. You have demostrated nothing but utter contempt for fair, honest discussion and attempted to steer everything down your one-track path that for some reason you seem to think will work despite having failed in here for the third year running.

"So what" you ask?

So this is simple. If you like to smear the ADF by all means. Like you yourself said, people in here see right through your shallow attempts to do so and doing so actually makes the SAF look worse, because when we bring out the facts and seperate the wheat from the chaff, it turns out that your position always gets blown away.

The australians may have problems with their Abrams radios, if you want to harp on that then going by YOUR standard what do you have to say about our 3G issues run ARMY wide?

So what?

So you better do your homework.

 

 

Lionnoisy - is the aust army M1 tanks & infantry cannot communicate that mean they are using different system , they can easily upgrade one side signal equipment or  do some reprogramming and the problem is resolve .... no big deal... not the end of the world.

T-rex - why do you have to go yepping like lionnoisy over our armour stuff !!! for a moment you look like the twin of lionnoisy !!! Please show some restraint on your part, if not you are no different then lionnoisy !!! Face the fact - every damn armour infantry complain about the damn same thing around the world ! There is not a IVF in the world that really provide armour infantry soldiers comfortable rides !!! Yep on one hand you say M113 is better  more comfortable can swim better - and tomorrow you complain about M113 did not have enough armour and firepower !!! 

As for your complain abotu 3G system - well i used it - it works. Also there is new replace system coming in, which is much better.

A lot of the comments, you must understand come from the 1st few batches of new soldiers that handle these equipment - that may not be totally fair - as there is alway some bias against new weapons and improper understanding - also design is not fine tune yet !!! I remember when ultimate 100 first came out - lot of soldiers complain that it jam and condemn it like hell !!! That was prove later to be no fair - the jamming is due to the singapore make blanks that does not have the power to to shoot auto - that cause the jam.

Your statement of - "We spend millions to make a new Bionix variant but have still not replaced out Ultras." is very unfair and not professional !  They are 2 very different vehicles - each have their own strenghts and advantage. The reason we have a mixture - which allow us to have a mix for firepower & better economy. It is the same reason why we kept our f-5E and not blindly throw them all away to buy f-16.