The ADF is looking to upgrade its 59-strong fleet of Abrams tanks and expand their under armour breaching and bridging capability through programs Land 907 Phase 2 and Land 8160 respectively.
Army is moving towards a Combined Arms Fighting System (CAFS) under Plan Beersheba. While Land 400 has been the main talking point of the CAFS, tanks still have a role to play in this space. This article will not be exploring the role of a tank capability for the ADF (that’s a whole other magazine in itself) but rather the upgrade path of an existing and expanding Australian Army tank capability.
Land 907 Phase 2 seeks to build upon the foundation of the first phase that saw the acquisition of 59 M1A1 Abrams tanks, seven M88 Hercules vehicles, 14 MAN heavy tank transport trucks, eight Mack fuel trucks, and associated training systems (six gunnery training systems and one tank driver trainer simulator). A further six Hercules vehicles were also acquired by Defence in 2016 in support of Plan Beersheba that sees a tank detachment with each of the three combat brigades.
Phase 2 of the program looks to address a number of technology and mechanical areas that will see the life of type of the Abrams extended out to 2035, These primarily target sensors and communications systems that shorten the kill chain and improve situational awareness. There is also scope to improve the synthetic training systems around the tank capability.
“It’s clearly not a replacement of the main battle tank with another system such as Leopard 2 or a Challenger,” Lieutenant Colonel Leo Purdy, Staff Officer Grade 1 Armoured, Army Headquarters said to ADM. “We’re modernising it to make sure we’ve got a tank that provides us an advantage in close combat. That’s one of the key objectives from Army’s point of view and that’s really shaping our requirements.
“Effectively we’re putting a modern internet system into our tanks so that we can be connected with both air and maritime assets, as well as our land assets, and share information about the enemy. There is a huge amount of digitisation as part of this program.”
Under 8160, the outcome is centred around breaching battlefield obstacles with less people, more quickly, and under greater protection. The capability enables armoured breaching of explosive obstacles (minefield), armoured bridging (rivers or ditches that the tank can’t handle ie greater than three metres), armoured engineering (to push or pull obstacles out of the way) and armoured recovery of disabled vehicles.
“We’re talking two different projects here that we’re looking to run together that are really about delivering three major systems for the Joint Land Force,” Brigadier Ed Smeaton, Director-General Land Manoeuvre Systems Branch explained to ADM. “Two of those are around upgrading the current capability we’ve got in the shape of the M1 Abrams Tank and the M88 Hercules Recovery Vehicle. We’re also looking at an armoured engineering system which will be a new capability for Army in regards to improving our ability to breach obstacles in a combat environment.”
Industry engagement
ADM spoke to the program office in the lead up to the first industry day on February 21, where the focus was on engaging early with industry to get a feel for the art of the possible in terms of Australian Industry Capability and how that might progress.
“Firstly, we’re providing industry with some more detail on what the projects are looking to deliver and then really there’s a two way conversation,” said Sammy Chuang, Project Director for Land 907 Phase 2 and Land 8160 Phase 1 within CASG. “We want to engage with industry on how they can participate in our delivery of the capability but, importantly, also in how we might be able to sustain this capability for life and type here based on our Australian industry content that might come forward.”
At this point, there is no mandated level of AIC but the program office is cognisant of the Government policy on the issue and is looking to maximise AIC wherever feasible.
“Defence has got a pretty pragmatic approach to the tank upgrade,” BRIG Smeaton said.. “We’ve got some really strong partnering relationships with the US Army and US Tank and Automotive Command (TACOM) so we’re just trying to take an approach that meets Government guidance and gives our soldiers the best chance to fight and come home alive.”
ADM attended the industry where over 300 people from 145 companies, including 12 international delegations, gathered to hear how the program office is approaching the projects.
“While FMS (Foreign Military Sales) has and will remain a part of our support system, developing local support is critical,” Brigadier Ed Smeaton, Director-General Land Manoeuvre Systems Branch said at the brief. “How does Australian industry fit into that? That’s why we’re here today.”
The industry brief in the morning was then followed by two and a half days of one-on-one meetings between industry players and the program office.
Program approach
While there are two separate projects in play, Defence has realised early on the benefit of running a program approach to the two projects, acknowledging that economies of scale can help in a number of areas.
“In broad terms, we’ve got six broad requirements that are applicable across the three systems themselves,” LTCOL Purdy said. “Our fixed requirements boil down to survivability, lethality, mobility, sustainability, interoperability and supportability, and there’s a lot behind each of those statements. But in really simple terms, when we build an armoured fighting vehicle we really try and balance the first three – survivability, lethality and mobility. So if we want a highly lethal platform at some point we’re going to have to start to trade its ability to move and potentially survive, otherwise we end up having a pillbox.
“For the various systems that we’re talking about, we’ve got a known platform, particularly for the tank, which over 40 years’ worth of design and upgrades have gone into and we’re looking at taking a fairly pragmatic approach. That’s simply upgrading to a known basis and then where it’s appropriate for Australia, integrating systems that are tailored to our specific need in the Australian region.
“The second system that I think is really important to understand as an upgrade is the armoured recovery vehicle. Again, when we bought the tank in 2005/6 and introduced into service in 2007 we bought some supporting systems with it, one of which is the armoured recovery vehicle. It’s not the same vehicle type as the tank and as a result of that, some of the internal workings are slightly different, such as the engine transmission, etc. But in essence we’re adopting a similar approach where we’re upgrading that basic vehicle to a more modern variant,” LTCOL Purdy said.
“The Hercules provides battlefield recovery. So when a tank breaks down or it’s damaged, it goes out and basically recovers the vehicle to a safe area where we do a battle damage assessment and either repair it in place and get it moving again or backload it through the supply chain.
“The third vehicle is a new capability but it’s new to a point. So ultimately, again, what we want to do is develop a common basis across these three systems where it’s appropriate, particularly for our purposes. The engineers are required to conduct obstacle breaching and gap crossing in the direct fire zone – that’s a pretty sexy way of saying the area where the enemy can see us and shoot at us. As a result the recovery vehicle has got to have about the same protection and mobility as the tank, otherwise it’s not going to last too long next to it,” LTCOL Purdy explained to ADM.
“We want to be able to fight where it’s to our advantage rather than where the enemy is forcing us to fight, which is advantageous to them,” LTCOL Purdy concluded.
US ties
The program office is examining working with the US Army and Marine Corps, both operators of the M1A1 but with slightly different variants. While Australia is not looking to go down the M1A2 path in its entirety, there are still applications of that program in the mix.
“The systems we’re looking at are building from the common chassis of the M1 tank and we’re considering a variety of options using a couple of exemplars that are already in service or about to come in service with the US Army to inform our project,” LTCOL Pursy said. “We’re going to conduct what we call the risk reduction activity or risk mitigation activity (RMA), as seen in Land 400 Phase 2. That will help inform our requirements, for example the types and numbers of obstacles, , what kind of gaps we want to cross, such as a river or a tank ditch, and the best method to do that.”
One of the options is to effectively disassemble the M88 Hercules vehicles as part of an upgrade program, much like the program being undertaken by TACOM in the US. The program office will be taking part in a RMA in June in the US as part of 8160 to see what the art of the possible is.
“At the moment Army’s requirement is to equip what we’re provisionally calling an armoured engineering troop in each of the three combat brigades,” LTCOL Purdy said. “The exact numbers are yet to be determined but what I would say is that in order to achieve the three effects we are looking at under our methodology, in which we conduct breaching and bridging, we’re going to require multiple platforms.
“In really broad terms we’re looking at between 30 and 50 vehicles, and we’ll know more in the next 6-12 months about exactly what vehicles are required.. This will be informed by our risk reduction activity in June this year.”
This article first appeared in the March 2018 edition of ADM.