stormtrooper
10-03-2004, 12:07 PM
THE Howard Government is further strengthening the US alliance and increasing its ability to fight alongside American troops with a $550million purchase of 59 Abrams tanks.
Despite concern among military experts about its suitability, the National Security Committee of cabinet decided yesterday to buy the state-of-the-art US tank instead of the lighter, German-built Leopard II.
The decision to go American follows a deal two weeks ago giving unprecedented access to US naval technology for Australia's new air warfare destroyers.
The Abrams M1A1 fleet will replace Australia's 100 30-year-old Leopard tanks, which lack firepower and the armour to adequately protect crew from mines and hand-held anti-armour weapons.
The purchase means Australian and US forces will be able to conduct more joint training exercises and that trained Australian crews could be flown to war zones to pilot US tanks.
The tanks are expected to arrive in Australia within 12 months. Up to 44 are to be located at the army's 1st Armoured Regiment in Darwin and 15 at the Puckapunyal army base in Victoria for training crews.
The Government's eagerness to support the US alliance has clearly outweighed criticism from some defence experts that the Abrams is a heavy gas guzzler and difficult to transport to conflict zones.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the nation's leading defence think tank, favoured either upgrading the existing Leopards or replacing them with lighter, newer-generation German-built Leopard tanks - because it would not require big outlays on support and equipment.
The Abrams, which has been referred to by Chief of Army Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy as the "big attractive tank", weighs in at 67 tonnes.
It features a 120mm gun, a gas turbine engine and a top speed of 67km/h.
It served the US well in Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War, and has a good reputation for protecting crew from attack. The tank also offers some protection in the case of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare.
But the decision came as a senior US official, visiting Canberra yesterday, expressed concern over "growing pains" with another US defence project - the development of the $US200billion ($264billion) new-generation F-35 joint strike fighter.
Australia is expected to order up to 100 of the fighters, to be delivered in 2012, but the project has been plagued by cost overruns and delays. This has raised concerns as to whether Canberra should buy an interim fighter to cover a gap between the retirement of the F-111 fighter bomber, which is to be retired from 2010, and the delivery of the F-35.
US Deputy Undersecretary for Defence (industry) Suzanne Patrick told The Australian yesterday that "any large, challenging enterprise goes through growing pains".
"We're just about at the phase of the joint strike fighter program where some of those issues of weight and cost and trade-offs are becoming manifest.
"It remains to be seen how closely they can keep to the schedule," Ms Patrick said.
But Defence Minister Robert Hill maintained that the version of the F-35 Australia was buying was not the one potentially plagued with the problems.
The US is developing three separate versions of the F-35: a vertical takeoff-and-landing version for the US Marine Corps, a conventional takeoff-and-landing version for the US Air Force and a carrier version for the US Navy.
"With the vertical takeoff version there have been some issues with weight that have caused some little delay at this time, but the last advice I have had is that there is no reason for us to be changing our in-service date (of 2012)," Senator Hill said. Ms Patrick said the US had been very impressed with Australian defence contractors who had won contracts to support the F-35 project.
She said there would be more opportunities as the US completed a post September 11 reorientation of its forces in the region.
"Australia and the US are very close allies and I think the geo-strategic situation in Asia and the acuity with which Australia has been able to observe the trends in this region has been of great benefit to us," Ms Patrick said.
"Obviously, as we move to more of a global positioning posture and a more flexible employment of our forces it may be that Australia is even more useful for maintenance or repair functions."
The Australian
Despite concern among military experts about its suitability, the National Security Committee of cabinet decided yesterday to buy the state-of-the-art US tank instead of the lighter, German-built Leopard II.
The decision to go American follows a deal two weeks ago giving unprecedented access to US naval technology for Australia's new air warfare destroyers.
The Abrams M1A1 fleet will replace Australia's 100 30-year-old Leopard tanks, which lack firepower and the armour to adequately protect crew from mines and hand-held anti-armour weapons.
The purchase means Australian and US forces will be able to conduct more joint training exercises and that trained Australian crews could be flown to war zones to pilot US tanks.
The tanks are expected to arrive in Australia within 12 months. Up to 44 are to be located at the army's 1st Armoured Regiment in Darwin and 15 at the Puckapunyal army base in Victoria for training crews.
The Government's eagerness to support the US alliance has clearly outweighed criticism from some defence experts that the Abrams is a heavy gas guzzler and difficult to transport to conflict zones.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the nation's leading defence think tank, favoured either upgrading the existing Leopards or replacing them with lighter, newer-generation German-built Leopard tanks - because it would not require big outlays on support and equipment.
The Abrams, which has been referred to by Chief of Army Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy as the "big attractive tank", weighs in at 67 tonnes.
It features a 120mm gun, a gas turbine engine and a top speed of 67km/h.
It served the US well in Iraq and the 1991 Gulf War, and has a good reputation for protecting crew from attack. The tank also offers some protection in the case of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare.
But the decision came as a senior US official, visiting Canberra yesterday, expressed concern over "growing pains" with another US defence project - the development of the $US200billion ($264billion) new-generation F-35 joint strike fighter.
Australia is expected to order up to 100 of the fighters, to be delivered in 2012, but the project has been plagued by cost overruns and delays. This has raised concerns as to whether Canberra should buy an interim fighter to cover a gap between the retirement of the F-111 fighter bomber, which is to be retired from 2010, and the delivery of the F-35.
US Deputy Undersecretary for Defence (industry) Suzanne Patrick told The Australian yesterday that "any large, challenging enterprise goes through growing pains".
"We're just about at the phase of the joint strike fighter program where some of those issues of weight and cost and trade-offs are becoming manifest.
"It remains to be seen how closely they can keep to the schedule," Ms Patrick said.
But Defence Minister Robert Hill maintained that the version of the F-35 Australia was buying was not the one potentially plagued with the problems.
The US is developing three separate versions of the F-35: a vertical takeoff-and-landing version for the US Marine Corps, a conventional takeoff-and-landing version for the US Air Force and a carrier version for the US Navy.
"With the vertical takeoff version there have been some issues with weight that have caused some little delay at this time, but the last advice I have had is that there is no reason for us to be changing our in-service date (of 2012)," Senator Hill said. Ms Patrick said the US had been very impressed with Australian defence contractors who had won contracts to support the F-35 project.
She said there would be more opportunities as the US completed a post September 11 reorientation of its forces in the region.
"Australia and the US are very close allies and I think the geo-strategic situation in Asia and the acuity with which Australia has been able to observe the trends in this region has been of great benefit to us," Ms Patrick said.
"Obviously, as we move to more of a global positioning posture and a more flexible employment of our forces it may be that Australia is even more useful for maintenance or repair functions."
The Australian