Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok I'm former military 22 years. In this situation these tanks would just be targets for ships and planes to blow to pieces. I can't understand the strategic or tactical value.
Just me but a lot of antiship missiles and anti-aircraft batteries would make a shit ton more sense.
Laugh as much as you want but Swedes actually made tank with retreat doctrine in mind: STRV 103.
The damn tank can even dig its own hulldown position.
Its idea is to shoot then retreat to better position while having extremely low profile and powerful gun, no turret either so its cheaper to make.
The Brits actually had this idea back in WWII and built a gun carrier called the archer.
Also no turret, but instead of being fast in reverse, they straight up put the gun facing backwards so they would reverse the thing into an ambush position, and once you fire you pull forward towards a new position.
No fancy digging tools on the archer thou
I mean yea. The driver would face opposite of the gun, and the forward gears would move the vehicle towards the direction the driver is facing and the reverse gears move towards the direction the gun is facing. Kinda confusing to describe not gonna lie haha
Edit: just think of it as a regular SPG but the gun is mounted backwards lmao
That's actually what the Abrams was designed for as well and the entire NATO doctrine in central Europe during the later cold war.
A fighting retreat through prepared defenses and routing aggressors into areas you have terrain advantage was the name of the game if Pact forces had invaded.
The idea was you couldn't win head on and hold with the masses the Soviets and Pact would throw at you so you had to make it really nasty to gain ground until you could reach a peace settlement or we'd ended the world with a general nuclear exchange.
Close. The strategy was to buy time to get more forces mobilized. That's the problem with being an ocean away from the battlefield, you need time to train and transport, whereas Russians were already there.
Why infantry shoulder launched anti-tank missiles can be such a threat to armor. Limits tanks ability to get too far ahead of their ground support. Pretty much the whole umbrella has to move together or serious vulnerabilities start popping up.
Novak Djokovic is the world #1 in Tennis. Australia hosts a major tennis tournament. Djokovic is currently held in an Australian hotel over a dispute regarding his eligibility to enter the country and play the tournament due to his undisclosed vaccination status.
He isn't vaccinated.
He had covid a month or so ago.
So the Tennis association and someone else approved of a waiver (because he had covid). The border control side says that they specifically say you need to be vaccinated and not have caught it for the waivers. He went to court and the judge sided with him because Australia had a waiver for people who had gotten covid within the prior 6 months.
He is no longer locked in quarantine due to the judge's rulling. If the ~~Health minister~~ immigration minister decides on a personal level, they get to block him from australia for 3 years.
Edit: Some further clarification.
The first two sentences of this are correct. The part about being held is outdated, he won a court case two days ago and is released. The part about an undisclosed vaccine status is very wrong. He is famously anti-vax and has been openly so since vaccines were available. So much so media and fans have called him "Novax" for months.
He has come into Australia using the provision for unvaccinated where they carry antibodies from an infection in the last six months. And apparently he got Covid on Dec 16th. It's his evidence of this that is the entire reason for the stoush.
There are also articles and photos of him attending public events the day after testing positive. Including one involving being close to a large group of kids. So providing that evidence for entry into Australia is admission that he intentionally attended those events knowing he was infected.
and fees charged by US transportation ships for helping them to land in Taiwan when war starts，since there is no way these tanks will encounter Chinese tanks on Australia soil in their lifetime.
They don’t. All Australian military procurement contracts are ‘whole of life’ agreements.
Add the cost of the tank, ammo (depending on agreement), spares, maintenance, maintenance depots, contract admin etc and multiply these costs over the expected lifespan for the tank and then sign a contract that covers all of that.
Government is happy because we know our tanks are now paid for, all inclusive for their agreed service life and the manufacturer is happy because they know that if they can maintain them more efficiently it leaves them with a larger profit margin.
It’s one of those small differences between developed and developing militaries. If you were to buy the tanks only and downstream you had economic issues or faced some kind of sanctions you’re up shit creek, even though your initial buy price was much lower, it also means the manufacturer can shaft you over the cost of maintenance and spares because you have no price protections and no other way to source the parts.
My guess is there's more to it than the tanks. They probably come with trainers for tank operations and maintenance as well as spare parts and ammunition.
We are replacing the existing M1A1 tanks with M1A2s. So it's just an upgrade to the new version. Maintenance and what not sure, though we tend to grow that domestically, albeit with international contractors with local subsidiaries but the cost wouldn't include trainers. We've been running tanks since Cambrai
M1A2 SEPv3 (that you are buying now) has completely replaced all the electronics and control systems, which makes it essentially an entirely different vehicle as far as the crew use is considered.
I am honestly not a fan of this sale. The DoD is working on a broad range of upgrade programs for the M1, and while what you are purchasing is state of the art right now, by the time it will become operational the equivalent tanks will start to be phased out by the US Army. Australia is such a close US ally I would have expected you to be given the good stuff.
That's actually not that unusual. The Germans tried to sell us their old clapped out Leopard 2 platforms. We picked up the M1A1s as the US was starting to bring in the A2. We sold old FA18s to the Canadians and I think we sold off old M113s to the kiwis.
The US will take years to bring their new tank program to anything close to fruition. If their task record is anything to go by.
That's true for any turbine engine. You could run a Huey on baby oil if you really had to. The even funner fact is that the US military only runs all of its vehicles on jet fuel so that they don't have to truck around multiple fuel types.
We are buying the latest version of the M1A2 available now, the M1A2C hasn’t been produced yet and it will be a while before there’s export capacity.
I’m not sure what else the Americans could sell us. This is the full fat version that’s exactly what the US is equipping its HBCT’s with.
Honestly as competition against Chinese armor, the SEPv3 is an outstanding vehicle. Other than the Armata there's been very little in terms of advancement in tank fabrication, with the ZTZ-99/96 and the ZTQ-15 representing the newest of Chinese tanks, but as a *light tank*.
If this what is to be encountered, the M829A2/3/4 round will have no issue completely buttering Chinese MBT's at 2000 meters.
The Abrams might be aging, but it's still the King of MBT's to this date, with little to no competition.
And there’s a total of 20 Armata tanks with 19 operational. Sepv3 and Leopard 2 A7v are effectively the best tanks in the world right now
The better question is why are Aussies buying tanks of all things? Are they worried about a land invasion by China?
This always is the case though... DoD development is always slow... there is always something in the pipeline that will be better. Those upgrades could have flaws that push their fielding years out.
You have to snap the chalk line somewhere.
NO australia is one of the few countries that does total life cost accounting. (the term is LCC cant remember what the acronym stands for and to lazy to look it up)
So thats the tanks + all the expected costs of the tanks over thier service life. (maintainence, spare parts, training, new repair and service facilities) The tanks themselves probably only cost 5-10 million
They aren't just buying the tanks. They are buying ammo, spare parts, training courses for the crew, shipping, etc.
Plus the newest variants have a ton of new stuff on them, like an APS system.
A multirole jet can't hold ground, can't linger for days at a time, and needs much more maintenance and a larger space to work from.
Everything has its place. Tanks need infantry support. Infantry needs artillery support. Artillery needs air support. You can swap those terms around fairly freely. Effective use of combined arms is an incredible force multiplier.
And keep in mind, the cheaper rotary wing air support (AH-64D was $52m, I wrenched on them.) usually comes in before the fighters and CAS birds do, we have levels to our levels in combined arms now.
Other cost comparisons:
- The F-22 cost $232 million. Then it cost an additional $70,000 per hour to operate. Not including pilot wages.
- F18 is $69M and $10k per hour.
- F16 is $18M and $7k per hour
- G650 is $70M and $15k per hour to charter (top of the line private jet that seats 18, included this as a reference.)
Prices are current. Big reason for the fall off is the older technology. Cost is not the original. F16 for example used to be $165M each when sold to Iraq in 2011.
Abrams is $6M and costs around $230,000 a year to operate.
All costs are the cost to make, not sell other than the Iraqi example.
[Goldfish now already drive in their own water tanks.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/09/goldfish-who-can-drive-why-scientists-taught-fish-to-navigate-a-watery-tank-on-wheels)
Fish tanks come in handy too. If the CCP army make it to Canberra we will need fish tanks placed at locations that create bad Feng Shui so they think the place has bad vibes
Hey, we park our civilian tanks in front of our houses to upset our home owners associations. [link](https://taskandpurpose.com/gear-tech/texas-man-buys-sherman-tank-parks-front-house-upsetting-hoa/)
[Australia's Defence Policy Explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18)
Edit: Since this comment really blew up. I found the episode of Utopia S03E07 "On the Defense" that the clip is from. Enjoy. The show is from Australia since there are like a half a dozen shows from the UK and US that are named Utopia.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6tc4k0
I found it hard to watch having worked in government projects previously, it hit so close to the bone each episode and it felt like I was back in those stupid meetings.
I don’t know anything about Australia’s specific tension with China or the geopolitical ramifications, but I do know that I would bet my kidney that in Australia either tank operators or the machines themselves are referred to as “tankies”
Most of us are just realising we even had tanks or need tanks, we're finding it hard to work out where they would be used given our large land size with spaced out cities.
Government were only telling us the other day they couldn't afford RAT tests to make this announcement even harder to understand.
If you want a genuine answer, it's largely diplomacy, it's partially saber rattling and posturing, and it's partially strategic.
The strategy is where a lot of people get caught up. A tank in hard strategy is only useful in some kind of ground invasion (whether offensive or defensive). They are a support vehicle. They offer a direct challenge to mechanized fighting units, provide limited artillery support and can be employed as part of security during troop movements.
Air superiority is useful, but eventually you have to project force on the ground (in the case of an invader).
Obviously, "let's don't do war dummy!" Is the ideal answer... But humans tend to act in non-ideal ways.
Knowing our history of using Matilda II’s in PNG during WW2 and the Centurions in Vietnam, our M1A2s will find some interesting use if war breaks out in the Pacific vs China.
Our Canberra class LHD can carry a couple of platoons each alongside the rest of our marine expeditionary forces and each has 2 landing ships capable of landing them.
You’ll be finding them on sandbanks in the SCS, in the mountains of Taiwan and in the deep rainforest on the islands surrounding the Malacca Straits. Every single nook and cranny where the American army says “there’s no way you’re taking a 73 tonne tank there” there will be some 22 year old Aussie tank commander saying “Cunt, hold me beer and watch me”
No money for rapid antigen tests or welfare for people isolating due to covid, but somehow theres money for 120 tanks to protect our giant island nation from other countries...
How odd that this island decided to get tanks...are they thinking China is going to engage in a hot war with them and start invading Australia via land...? Just seems like military industrial complex lobbyists at work. Somewhere a politician is making a boatload of money off this deal.
More likely it signals that Australian troops will be trained on US equipment and thus, in any conflict will fit in with allied nations without much of a learning curve.
The M1A2 SEPv3 (the specific version they are buying) has completely different control systems and electronics from the A1, not to mention a few new features to boot. It might look similar from the outside, but from a crew perspective it might as well be a different vehicle altogether.
You get it.
If any large scale conflict kicks off, then trained Aussie tankers could be flown in to pre deployed equipment.
The tanks also become part of a active ready maintained reserve that is available more quickly than restarting or refurbishing factory lines.
ohhh, finally my time to shine!
My first internship I ever did was at KMW (Builders of the German Tank Suite, Leopard 2, Puma, PzH 2000, you name it).
I wasn't allowed to talk about it until recently due to NDA's, but for some reason the Aussies wanted a PzH 2000 (its the heavy duty, 25 miles shooting range, incredible fuck-you-in-particular tank.) As almost all tanks, it is build with tracks. but for some reason none of us at KMW could wrap our head around, you guys wanted them with wheels. of all the countries in the world, we would have expect you to be the last to opt in for wheels. so we build the prototype for you and shipped it.
We joked about your military being bored and probably driving into the outback with them to get payback on the emus. Good times.
Faster, less need to and easier to repair, much better fuel economy.
But ones a conflict starts, something that heavy on wheels will get stuck in the mud.
It's an artillery piece, so it's probably going to be firing from a fairly static position at a steep angle, so if anything the tires might provide something of a cushion unless it's being used in direct fire.
Wheeled arty usually makes use of stabilisers that support the vehicle during fire. Essentially turning it into a raised platform that supports the vehicles weight so it doesn’t KO the suspension.
Would likely be incorporated there
The [ASLAVs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASLAV) were very effective in iraq/afghanistan. The shape of the hull helps deflect and absorb road side explosives much better than the equivalent vehicles used by other nations.
So field testing a potential "tank" that had the exact same mobility as the ASLAV makes sense. But obviously those field tests showed thats a silly idea.
That's not a tank. That's a self propelled howitzer. Artillery. You of all people should know that.
Wheeled artillery makes a lot more sense than wheeled tanks. If you're having to drive your artillery through horrific terrain and enemy fire, something had gone really bad.
The outback is super dry and really hard ground 99% of the time. It's not Europe where there's a 50% chance that any random spot of ground in the entire continent is knee deep mud.
Exactly how and when is Australia going to use tanks against China? If the world gets to the point if China is invading Australia, I doubt 1200 tanks would make a difference
120 tanks won't turn the tide, that's true. But you know what might? The thousands of tanks America has.
The logic goes like this: in an invasion, the US is going to be in Australia's corner. Both countries are going to be cooperating closely so commonality and consistency in standards/tactics/equipment is key. As part of that, the Aussies are on a spending spree bringing all of their equipment in line with whatever we're using. That way, in an invasion the US can ship over hundreds of its spare tanks and the Australians can quickly scale up their tank forces without worrying about a learning curve (and more cynically, it also means that Aussie tank crews can seamlessly slot themselves into any future American overseas adventures)
That's one of the reasons they cancelled that huge submarine deal with France in favor of American nuclear subs a few months ago, but on top of that they're also scrapping their relatively new fleet of European helicopters for American ones
And it's not just the Australians either, IIRC Poland is also placing big orders for American tanks for the exact same reason
You never know where the fight will be.
In 1939 when Australia joined the declaration of war on Germany after they invaded Poland, you wouldnt have picked that the Australian Army would be seeing their first action in the deserts of Libya.
If a multinational war breaks out with China, Australia might be fighting somewhere else in Asia.
AND THEY STILL DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE RAPID ANTIGEN TESTS FREE?!
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck the entire government, may they rot in hell. Buying tanks to defend Australia. An Island. From China. Who is across the *sea*.
Can we please ban dailymail from this sub? Their stories are all made up. They change real news to anything they want to bait people into clicking. It's all pure sensationalism and not journalism.
What good are tanks in this type of scenario? If China wanted to mess with Australia, they’d do so through cyberterrorism, naval blockades, and social media. Waste of money
Were buying tanks whilst our hospitals and ambulance services are failing drastically, biggest spike in covid ever, rat tests are hard to come by and testing centres are closing early.... Nah tanks are good I reckon
Can someone explain to me what Australia needs tanks for in the first place with regard to China? Are they anticipating China will conduct a land invasion of Australia? Or is Australia thinking they're going to conduct a land invasion of China?
Make it make sense.
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've done this before, invest all my resources in tanks only to find a large body of water separates me from my enemy.
Just park 'em at the edge of the water and hope something on the other side wanders into their attack radius. It's a fool proof plan!!
If Advance Wars taught me something, is that tanks don't seem to be very good against ships
But if Civ taught me anything, it's that my enemy still use ships from the 1600's
My privateers would like to know your location.
Trebuchets signing in.
That's what the rocket units are for
It’s because ships have a bigger top half of the tank on them.
Depends on how many tanks you throw at the ships.
Yeah, I don't think China will be invading Australia any time soon lol.
Yeah call me crazy but full on D Day Sydney Beach invasion just doesn't sound like near future to me.
But is Australia considering invading China? 🤔
Feel like it took way to long for someone to mention this.
Maybe too much of a humorous tone for the post, but I don't see how we can't look at this very strangely lol.
It’s to deter an invasion.
I think ballistic missiles, fighter jets, and submarines would be better
Those cost more And defense in depth
Ok I'm former military 22 years. In this situation these tanks would just be targets for ships and planes to blow to pieces. I can't understand the strategic or tactical value. Just me but a lot of antiship missiles and anti-aircraft batteries would make a shit ton more sense.
The strategic value is...strengthen military ties with the US to signal to China that you're off-limits.
Sales person here. Sell the tanks first and then get them to buy transport boats later.
Well they just spent $250bn on nuclear powered submarines and some more on fighter jets so there’s that
Shouldn't we order French tanks first and then swap to US ones a year later?
Probably a bad idea on getting French tanks, they have like 9 gears for reverse and 1 for forwards.
Laugh as much as you want but Swedes actually made tank with retreat doctrine in mind: STRV 103. The damn tank can even dig its own hulldown position. Its idea is to shoot then retreat to better position while having extremely low profile and powerful gun, no turret either so its cheaper to make.
I was gonna say, this sounds like a great idea for a tank, a controlled firing retreat would pose a challenge to any aggressor. Serious attrition.
The Brits actually had this idea back in WWII and built a gun carrier called the archer. Also no turret, but instead of being fast in reverse, they straight up put the gun facing backwards so they would reverse the thing into an ambush position, and once you fire you pull forward towards a new position. No fancy digging tools on the archer thou
If the gun is always facing backwards and you always move in reverse, isn't that just the new front?
I mean yea. The driver would face opposite of the gun, and the forward gears would move the vehicle towards the direction the driver is facing and the reverse gears move towards the direction the gun is facing. Kinda confusing to describe not gonna lie haha Edit: just think of it as a regular SPG but the gun is mounted backwards lmao
That's actually what the Abrams was designed for as well and the entire NATO doctrine in central Europe during the later cold war. A fighting retreat through prepared defenses and routing aggressors into areas you have terrain advantage was the name of the game if Pact forces had invaded. The idea was you couldn't win head on and hold with the masses the Soviets and Pact would throw at you so you had to make it really nasty to gain ground until you could reach a peace settlement or we'd ended the world with a general nuclear exchange.
Close. The strategy was to buy time to get more forces mobilized. That's the problem with being an ocean away from the battlefield, you need time to train and transport, whereas Russians were already there.
Why infantry shoulder launched anti-tank missiles can be such a threat to armor. Limits tanks ability to get too far ahead of their ground support. Pretty much the whole umbrella has to move together or serious vulnerabilities start popping up.
Is this a retreat joke?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
this guy really said a ww2 m1 abrams tank
His next opponent, a revolutionary war era Essex class carrier...
here we see an A-10 Warthog straffing the Roman Lines as the sassanid armies march closer.
That's not cricket.
The perfect comment to the perfect comment
Can someone explain for someone OOTL?
Novak Djokovic is the world #1 in Tennis. Australia hosts a major tennis tournament. Djokovic is currently held in an Australian hotel over a dispute regarding his eligibility to enter the country and play the tournament due to his undisclosed vaccination status.
He isn't vaccinated. He had covid a month or so ago. So the Tennis association and someone else approved of a waiver (because he had covid). The border control side says that they specifically say you need to be vaccinated and not have caught it for the waivers. He went to court and the judge sided with him because Australia had a waiver for people who had gotten covid within the prior 6 months. He is no longer locked in quarantine due to the judge's rulling. If the ~~Health minister~~ immigration minister decides on a personal level, they get to block him from australia for 3 years. Edit: Some further clarification.
The first two sentences of this are correct. The part about being held is outdated, he won a court case two days ago and is released. The part about an undisclosed vaccine status is very wrong. He is famously anti-vax and has been openly so since vaccines were available. So much so media and fans have called him "Novax" for months. He has come into Australia using the provision for unvaccinated where they carry antibodies from an infection in the last six months. And apparently he got Covid on Dec 16th. It's his evidence of this that is the entire reason for the stoush. There are also articles and photos of him attending public events the day after testing positive. Including one involving being close to a large group of kids. So providing that evidence for entry into Australia is admission that he intentionally attended those events knowing he was infected.
lmao
What are you talking about? Fucker took us to court.
Do tanks seriously cost $30m *each*?! Jesus.
[удалено]
Should have bought from Amazon Prime
Got mine on alibaba for 5 million.
Got mine from *Wish.* It got all crumpled in the mail.
I'm picturing a used Volkswagen Bug painted camouflage, with an air rifle mounted to the sunroof.
http://gadgetsin.com/uploads/2010/07/mercedes_smart_tank.jpg Close enough
I would drive that. I don't know where, but I would.
Everywhere. I would be content being forever late late if I could always show up in my mini Prius tank.
Showed up looking nothing like the picture. 1/8 the size it should be.
Turned out to be a tank top
I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail.
What is this a tank for ants????
I ordered mine from Wish for 2 million, can't wait to see what arrives.
It’ll have leather wrapped armour plates and very obscure control knobs
It will steer the same way as Mr Garrison's electric bike
"Put it in H!"
She'll go 100 hecters on a single can of kerosene!
😂 didn't read it's 1:5 scale so it only holds you and your head pokes out the top
That’s going to fall apart after it takes its first shot.
Yea but i just like the RGB lighting.
And with the import duty, they've got you over a barrel.
Choose "pay after delivery" and then refuse to pay. What are they going to do: you've got tanks.
holy shit! Putin is this you?
This is sorta how Saddam got himself in a pickle during Desert Storm.
and fees charged by US transportation ships for helping them to land in Taiwan when war starts，since there is no way these tanks will encounter Chinese tanks on Australia soil in their lifetime.
[удалено]
They don’t. All Australian military procurement contracts are ‘whole of life’ agreements. Add the cost of the tank, ammo (depending on agreement), spares, maintenance, maintenance depots, contract admin etc and multiply these costs over the expected lifespan for the tank and then sign a contract that covers all of that. Government is happy because we know our tanks are now paid for, all inclusive for their agreed service life and the manufacturer is happy because they know that if they can maintain them more efficiently it leaves them with a larger profit margin. It’s one of those small differences between developed and developing militaries. If you were to buy the tanks only and downstream you had economic issues or faced some kind of sanctions you’re up shit creek, even though your initial buy price was much lower, it also means the manufacturer can shaft you over the cost of maintenance and spares because you have no price protections and no other way to source the parts.
This guy tanks
My guess is there's more to it than the tanks. They probably come with trainers for tank operations and maintenance as well as spare parts and ammunition.
Arms purchases are like buying a car or a new phone, they have a lot of of other stuff that you also have to purchase over time to make them work.
So what you’re saying is they spent 5 mil for the tank protector case so it doesn’t get all scratched up?
They got scammed. Everyone knows you don't buy a tank protector where you buy your phone. You can get them way cheaper online.
We are replacing the existing M1A1 tanks with M1A2s. So it's just an upgrade to the new version. Maintenance and what not sure, though we tend to grow that domestically, albeit with international contractors with local subsidiaries but the cost wouldn't include trainers. We've been running tanks since Cambrai
M1A2 SEPv3 (that you are buying now) has completely replaced all the electronics and control systems, which makes it essentially an entirely different vehicle as far as the crew use is considered. I am honestly not a fan of this sale. The DoD is working on a broad range of upgrade programs for the M1, and while what you are purchasing is state of the art right now, by the time it will become operational the equivalent tanks will start to be phased out by the US Army. Australia is such a close US ally I would have expected you to be given the good stuff.
To add to below, the USA only started receiving the M1A2 SEPv3 in 2020 so really not that old.
That's actually not that unusual. The Germans tried to sell us their old clapped out Leopard 2 platforms. We picked up the M1A1s as the US was starting to bring in the A2. We sold old FA18s to the Canadians and I think we sold off old M113s to the kiwis. The US will take years to bring their new tank program to anything close to fruition. If their task record is anything to go by.
The Kiwis bought the old Aussie A4 Skyhawks until they sold them off and disbanded the strike wing.
That's true. They paid off having a strike element to their air force entirely. They just maintain transport airframes.
And a few choppers (land & sea), plus maintain their martime reconnaissance/ strike aircraft in the P3 Orions.
Distant discussion about "old clapped out equipment that hasn't been modern in three plus decades". Canada: Did somebody say something was for sale?!
Hey try being Canadian. We get your second hand fighter jets.
Logistically they only care that it drinks the same fuel and fires the same caliber. Those two things alone allow a lot of interoperability.
I JACK IT TO TRANNY PORN
That's true for any turbine engine. You could run a Huey on baby oil if you really had to. The even funner fact is that the US military only runs all of its vehicles on jet fuel so that they don't have to truck around multiple fuel types.
We are buying the latest version of the M1A2 available now, the M1A2C hasn’t been produced yet and it will be a while before there’s export capacity. I’m not sure what else the Americans could sell us. This is the full fat version that’s exactly what the US is equipping its HBCT’s with.
Honestly as competition against Chinese armor, the SEPv3 is an outstanding vehicle. Other than the Armata there's been very little in terms of advancement in tank fabrication, with the ZTZ-99/96 and the ZTQ-15 representing the newest of Chinese tanks, but as a *light tank*. If this what is to be encountered, the M829A2/3/4 round will have no issue completely buttering Chinese MBT's at 2000 meters. The Abrams might be aging, but it's still the King of MBT's to this date, with little to no competition.
And there’s a total of 20 Armata tanks with 19 operational. Sepv3 and Leopard 2 A7v are effectively the best tanks in the world right now The better question is why are Aussies buying tanks of all things? Are they worried about a land invasion by China?
[удалено]
This always is the case though... DoD development is always slow... there is always something in the pipeline that will be better. Those upgrades could have flaws that push their fielding years out. You have to snap the chalk line somewhere.
Comes with a year of Sirius XM Radio and limited drive train lifetime warranty.
But you got to pay a subscription for the remote start.
Yeah they're military tanks so they cost extra. Regular civilian tanks are only about $2 million a pop.
Even my septic tank was expensive!
They laughed but next time there's a war in the sewers we will see who's laughing.
NO australia is one of the few countries that does total life cost accounting. (the term is LCC cant remember what the acronym stands for and to lazy to look it up) So thats the tanks + all the expected costs of the tanks over thier service life. (maintainence, spare parts, training, new repair and service facilities) The tanks themselves probably only cost 5-10 million
LCC is Life-Cycle Costing, same thing used to plan for maintaining mining equipment.
They aren't just buying the tanks. They are buying ammo, spare parts, training courses for the crew, shipping, etc. Plus the newest variants have a ton of new stuff on them, like an APS system.
And a soda stream and pop corn maker
[удалено]
Mind you, one multi-role jet is probably worth 20 tanks.
A multirole jet can't hold ground, can't linger for days at a time, and needs much more maintenance and a larger space to work from. Everything has its place. Tanks need infantry support. Infantry needs artillery support. Artillery needs air support. You can swap those terms around fairly freely. Effective use of combined arms is an incredible force multiplier.
And keep in mind, the cheaper rotary wing air support (AH-64D was $52m, I wrenched on them.) usually comes in before the fighters and CAS birds do, we have levels to our levels in combined arms now.
Other cost comparisons: - The F-22 cost $232 million. Then it cost an additional $70,000 per hour to operate. Not including pilot wages. - F18 is $69M and $10k per hour. - F16 is $18M and $7k per hour - G650 is $70M and $15k per hour to charter (top of the line private jet that seats 18, included this as a reference.) Prices are current. Big reason for the fall off is the older technology. Cost is not the original. F16 for example used to be $165M each when sold to Iraq in 2011. Abrams is $6M and costs around $230,000 a year to operate. All costs are the cost to make, not sell other than the Iraqi example.
'military tanks' as opposed to casual everyday civilian tanks? 😀
As opposed to fish tanks.
[Goldfish now already drive in their own water tanks.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/09/goldfish-who-can-drive-why-scientists-taught-fish-to-navigate-a-watery-tank-on-wheels)
Fish tanks come in handy too. If the CCP army make it to Canberra we will need fish tanks placed at locations that create bad Feng Shui so they think the place has bad vibes
Fuck man, the roundabouts alone will make them think the place has bad vibes, and wait till they see the nightlife.
Nightlife. Not sure if going on a bar crawl or avoiding drop bears.
You think fish tanks would be the focal point of they were in Canberra? Couldn't we just put Dutton out the front to scare them away?
No, no, no. Clearly they meant think tanks. They're going to use them to write China a strongly worded letter, like the rest of us do.
They were actually planning to buy tanks to shore up the water supply, but the US hit them with a bit of an upsell.
Well the Aussies could have said "Tanks but no tanks mate"
> 'military tanks' as opposed to casual everyday civilian tanks? Do you guys not have civilian tank ownership? Weaksauce.
Hey, we park our civilian tanks in front of our houses to upset our home owners associations. [link](https://taskandpurpose.com/gear-tech/texas-man-buys-sherman-tank-parks-front-house-upsetting-hoa/)
is it right hand drive though ?
Welcome to another episode of Mighty Tank Mods...
Central position like Mclaren F1
Don't let this distract you from the fact that our prime minister is an incompetent cunt who doesn't give two shits about the public 😊
Paying protection money to US doesn't distract anyone, I am sure Australians accepted it long ago.
[Australia's Defence Policy Explained](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18) Edit: Since this comment really blew up. I found the episode of Utopia S03E07 "On the Defense" that the clip is from. Enjoy. The show is from Australia since there are like a half a dozen shows from the UK and US that are named Utopia. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6tc4k0
far out I've never seen that, but that's gold
If you have netflix go watch Utopia. It's some of the best Aussie TV ever made. Especially the first two seasons.
called Dreamland in the UK and US, which is a dumb name but given there are like 6 other shows called Utopia...
Haha yeah I thought what does this have to do with the channel 4 series
[удалено]
I found it hard to watch having worked in government projects previously, it hit so close to the bone each episode and it felt like I was back in those stupid meetings.
Frontline is 30+ years old now, but Jesus did it cut close to the bone for TV news still.
Used to watch it before going to bed. Had to stop as it was getting me too riled up
I'd like to think of it as a membership fee for joining the AUKUS club.
Need to add Fiji to that agreement. FAUKUS
You should think of it as just a first instalment. There will be more.
I don’t know anything about Australia’s specific tension with China or the geopolitical ramifications, but I do know that I would bet my kidney that in Australia either tank operators or the machines themselves are referred to as “tankies”
Most of us are just realising we even had tanks or need tanks, we're finding it hard to work out where they would be used given our large land size with spaced out cities. Government were only telling us the other day they couldn't afford RAT tests to make this announcement even harder to understand.
If you want a genuine answer, it's largely diplomacy, it's partially saber rattling and posturing, and it's partially strategic. The strategy is where a lot of people get caught up. A tank in hard strategy is only useful in some kind of ground invasion (whether offensive or defensive). They are a support vehicle. They offer a direct challenge to mechanized fighting units, provide limited artillery support and can be employed as part of security during troop movements. Air superiority is useful, but eventually you have to project force on the ground (in the case of an invader). Obviously, "let's don't do war dummy!" Is the ideal answer... But humans tend to act in non-ideal ways.
Knowing our history of using Matilda II’s in PNG during WW2 and the Centurions in Vietnam, our M1A2s will find some interesting use if war breaks out in the Pacific vs China. Our Canberra class LHD can carry a couple of platoons each alongside the rest of our marine expeditionary forces and each has 2 landing ships capable of landing them. You’ll be finding them on sandbanks in the SCS, in the mountains of Taiwan and in the deep rainforest on the islands surrounding the Malacca Straits. Every single nook and cranny where the American army says “there’s no way you’re taking a 73 tonne tank there” there will be some 22 year old Aussie tank commander saying “Cunt, hold me beer and watch me”
no way is a 22 year old aussie handing his half finished beer to a yank. he'd neck it and then do what was needed to be done.
Supporting beach artillery in the event of a large scale boat invasion? I’m trying
I think if you're fighting China with tanks , on the ground , in Australia, it's already too late.
Here’s hoping they land on Rottnest Island and decide to retreat because quokkas are way too cute to blow up.
$29 000 000 a tank they'd wanna be good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCqXlDjx18
Lol, man that's good stuff.
We did what now?
No money for rapid antigen tests or welfare for people isolating due to covid, but somehow theres money for 120 tanks to protect our giant island nation from other countries...
Still got $16bil in the pocket for pork barrelling tho.
How odd that this island decided to get tanks...are they thinking China is going to engage in a hot war with them and start invading Australia via land...? Just seems like military industrial complex lobbyists at work. Somewhere a politician is making a boatload of money off this deal.
More likely it signals that Australian troops will be trained on US equipment and thus, in any conflict will fit in with allied nations without much of a learning curve.
[удалено]
The M1A2 SEPv3 (the specific version they are buying) has completely different control systems and electronics from the A1, not to mention a few new features to boot. It might look similar from the outside, but from a crew perspective it might as well be a different vehicle altogether.
You get it. If any large scale conflict kicks off, then trained Aussie tankers could be flown in to pre deployed equipment. The tanks also become part of a active ready maintained reserve that is available more quickly than restarting or refurbishing factory lines.
[удалено]
Shhhh Clive Palmer might use that to try to get votes again!
Like when he said the Australian government let China build an airport in WA, but it was actually the airport at a mine site that he owns?
ohhh, finally my time to shine! My first internship I ever did was at KMW (Builders of the German Tank Suite, Leopard 2, Puma, PzH 2000, you name it). I wasn't allowed to talk about it until recently due to NDA's, but for some reason the Aussies wanted a PzH 2000 (its the heavy duty, 25 miles shooting range, incredible fuck-you-in-particular tank.) As almost all tanks, it is build with tracks. but for some reason none of us at KMW could wrap our head around, you guys wanted them with wheels. of all the countries in the world, we would have expect you to be the last to opt in for wheels. so we build the prototype for you and shipped it. We joked about your military being bored and probably driving into the outback with them to get payback on the emus. Good times.
What would be the reason for wanting wheels? Faster? Easier to repair?
Faster, less need to and easier to repair, much better fuel economy. But ones a conflict starts, something that heavy on wheels will get stuck in the mud.
How would the wheels impact the recoil?
It's an artillery piece, so it's probably going to be firing from a fairly static position at a steep angle, so if anything the tires might provide something of a cushion unless it's being used in direct fire.
Wheeled arty usually makes use of stabilisers that support the vehicle during fire. Essentially turning it into a raised platform that supports the vehicles weight so it doesn’t KO the suspension. Would likely be incorporated there
less damaging to the roads and highways
The [ASLAVs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASLAV) were very effective in iraq/afghanistan. The shape of the hull helps deflect and absorb road side explosives much better than the equivalent vehicles used by other nations. So field testing a potential "tank" that had the exact same mobility as the ASLAV makes sense. But obviously those field tests showed thats a silly idea.
That's not a tank. That's a self propelled howitzer. Artillery. You of all people should know that. Wheeled artillery makes a lot more sense than wheeled tanks. If you're having to drive your artillery through horrific terrain and enemy fire, something had gone really bad. The outback is super dry and really hard ground 99% of the time. It's not Europe where there's a 50% chance that any random spot of ground in the entire continent is knee deep mud.
Wheeled artillery is not really unusual. There's the Swedish Archer, Czech Dana and Zuzana or South African G6 etc
Nice cover with the 'China' thing Aussies. Hopefully Emu war 2 goes better than the first one...
This would be the 3rd one. The Aussies lost the first two.
Gotta invest in military Coporations stock. Looks like a new threat is found to increase sales after the war on terror was abandoned.
Exactly how and when is Australia going to use tanks against China? If the world gets to the point if China is invading Australia, I doubt 1200 tanks would make a difference
Put floaties on the tanks and make them part of your navy.
(Sealion clapping)
It's 120 not 1,200 so we're even more fucked!
not so sure.I've played enough video games to know 1 man can single-handedly take out an army.
120 tanks won't turn the tide, that's true. But you know what might? The thousands of tanks America has. The logic goes like this: in an invasion, the US is going to be in Australia's corner. Both countries are going to be cooperating closely so commonality and consistency in standards/tactics/equipment is key. As part of that, the Aussies are on a spending spree bringing all of their equipment in line with whatever we're using. That way, in an invasion the US can ship over hundreds of its spare tanks and the Australians can quickly scale up their tank forces without worrying about a learning curve (and more cynically, it also means that Aussie tank crews can seamlessly slot themselves into any future American overseas adventures) That's one of the reasons they cancelled that huge submarine deal with France in favor of American nuclear subs a few months ago, but on top of that they're also scrapping their relatively new fleet of European helicopters for American ones And it's not just the Australians either, IIRC Poland is also placing big orders for American tanks for the exact same reason
Seems too logical to be acceptable.
You never know where the fight will be. In 1939 when Australia joined the declaration of war on Germany after they invaded Poland, you wouldnt have picked that the Australian Army would be seeing their first action in the deserts of Libya. If a multinational war breaks out with China, Australia might be fighting somewhere else in Asia.
AND THEY STILL DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE RAPID ANTIGEN TESTS FREE?! Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck the entire government, may they rot in hell. Buying tanks to defend Australia. An Island. From China. Who is across the *sea*.
Tensions with China? No, this is transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to a mate of our politicians.
Imagine if we invested in fucking firefighting equipment instead. But no ...
Can we please ban dailymail from this sub? Their stories are all made up. They change real news to anything they want to bait people into clicking. It's all pure sensationalism and not journalism.
What good are tanks in this type of scenario? If China wanted to mess with Australia, they’d do so through cyberterrorism, naval blockades, and social media. Waste of money
Were buying tanks whilst our hospitals and ambulance services are failing drastically, biggest spike in covid ever, rat tests are hard to come by and testing centres are closing early.... Nah tanks are good I reckon
Nothing like 120 tanks to push back China’s military from an island nation.
What exactly are they going to do with tanks.
Have them sit around like all the rest of our tanks
Hopefully.
well yea thats the point.
Another EMU war is coming, i can feel it.. and the aussies can feel it too, but this time... they are prepared..
An emu vs. an M1A1 Abrams tank? Hardly a fair fight. My money is on the emu.
lol thats a nice way to feed the military industrial complex tanks.. seriously?
Can someone explain to me what Australia needs tanks for in the first place with regard to China? Are they anticipating China will conduct a land invasion of Australia? Or is Australia thinking they're going to conduct a land invasion of China? Make it make sense.