Land Force: Abrams takes Aim | ADM Mar 2011
Julian Kerr | Sydney
With the 59 M1A1SA main battle tanks (MBTs) of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps now entering their fifth year in service, the first formal confirmation that a major mid-life upgrade is under consideration appeared in the December Update to the Defence Capability Plan (DCP).
Under Project Land 907 Phase 2, the intention is to “continue the Land Force warfighting advantage” provided by the Abrams through enhancements to knowledge, lethality, mobility, survivability and sustainability up to the platform’s Life of Type (LOT) in 2030.
Linked to this is the integration of developing Network Centric Warfare (NCW) interface control systems; operator, supervisor, instructor and support training; together with a review of training and simulation equipment, technical support and training technology.
The acquisition strategy is expected to incorporate elements of the US Government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and/or government-to-government arrangements, and opportunities for Australian industry during the acquisition phase are likely to be limited.
It’s not as if anything will be happening quickly, although Through-Life Support (TLS) requirements for Phase 2 are likely to be incorporated within the long-awaited, long-term TLS contract for Phase 1. The Abrams and Army’s seven M88A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift an Evacuation System (Hercules) Recovery Vehicles are still being supported under interim FMS arrangements.
While First Pass is anticipated not later than 2013, the timetable for Year of Decision stretches from 2014 to 2017, with Initial Operational Capability (IOC) foreseen sometime between 2018 and 2020.
On the current timetable, this would mean at least 12 years will have passed between the Abrams’ initial entry to service and the return to operations of the first batch of updated MBTs. While these would then be available for a further 12 years until LOT, tanks further down the line in the upgrade process would see service in their enhanced form for a shorter period.
Although the inclusion in the DCP of Land 907 Phase 2 has elicited little public comment, industry and Defence sources speaking to ADM agree on three points.
Firstly, the ADF’s Abrams must remain as close as possible to the US build standard to ensure their continuing effectiveness and supportability.
Secondly, neither inclusion of a project in the DCP nor known deficiencies will necessarily guarantee funding, as was apparent over many years with both the M113 armoured personnel carriers and the Leopard AS1 MBTs that the Abrams replaced.
Thirdly, rapid changes both in threat profiles and technologies suggest the need for an ongoing program of enhancements in addition to, if not in place of, a single complex, expensive and presumably time-consuming upgrade.
Business case
The DCP estimates the cost of such an upgrade as being in the middle of a $500 million-$1 billion band. Funding of $750 million would therefore allow expenditure of more than $12 million per tank and on pro-rata support requirements – on the face of it, inflation notwithstanding, sufficient to replace the entire fleet with the same number of the latest new-build models and have money to spare.
This would depend of course on whether Australia has the ability at that time to utilise and support whatever technologies have emerged, whether such technologies will be released in part or in their entirety by the US, and whether the estimated cost is realistic or generously inflated.
By comparison, $555 million in 2007 was enough to purchase 59 M1A1AS, seven M88A2, six gunnery and one driver training simulators, 14 tank transporters, eight fuel trucks and a logistic package of support equipment, spare parts, ammunition, facilities and initial training.
As detailed in the 2007 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report into Defence’s acquisition of the Abrams, the Operational Capability Document used to develop second-pass analysis documentation for Land 907 Phase 1 stated the ADF did not require a Tier One capability such as the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package).
This variant, still the most advanced Abrams in service, features digital command and control capabilities enabling the rapid transfer of digital situational data and map overlays; upgraded 3rd generation depleted uranium armour mesh with graphite coating, a new commander’s independent thermal viewer; commander’s display for digital colour terrain maps; a second-generation thermal imaging gunner’s sight with increased range; a driver’s integrated display; a thermal management system; and auxiliary power.
“The document noted that the M1A1 was appropriate to meet regional requirements for survivability, firepower, mobility, affordability, and communications interoperability,” the ANAO audit stated.
Furthermore, the audit noted that the M1A1 and M1A1 AIM (Abrams Integrated Management) standard was forecast to comprise 88 per cent of the US MBT fleet by 2010.
It must also be noted that the nomenclature can be confusing. SA stands for Situational Awareness, whereas AIM represents a rebuild process, not a configuration.
“The decision to buy the AIM was the right decision for us. We brought the vehicle which represents the critical mass of the US Army fleet so we tapped in at the right capability level,” an industry source close to the program said.
“Anything more complex than that and we probably wouldn’t have been able to do it. Looking ahead, the Commonwealth has to identify which capability in the US inventory it links itself to, and then maintain that link.”
The risks associated with failing to do so were highlighted in the ANAO audit, which described the Leopard AS1 as the best tank in the world when purchased by Australia in 1973.
In the intervening period, developments associated with the Leopard were not incorporated to the Australian version of the tank. This rendered the Australian Leopards an “orphan fleet” which was not included in the cooperative logistics arrangements that had once guaranteed a supply of replacement parts.
Overseas leverage
The Abrams that will benefit from Land 907 Phase 2 as proposed were drawn from M1A1 equipment pre-positioned in Europe by the US Defence Force to serve as war stocks.
During the AIM restoration process, 86 per cent of the 6,256 component parts of each tank was replaced as new and the remaining 14 per cent was returned to the original equipment manufacturer for inspection and, if necessary, refurbishment or replacement before reassembly.
Enhancements added during the rebuilding process to bring the platform to the SA standard included a digital battle management system, digital communications, second-generation Forward-Looking Infrared, eye-safe laser rangefinder, rear slave receptacle, external auxiliary power unit, digital vehicle intercom system, deep fording kit modifications, digital electronic control unit (with battlefield bypass) for greater fuel economy, and an upgraded tank commander’s panel.
According to informed sources, some 31 country-specific modifications were also made to the Australian platforms, none of which have resulted in a vehicle significantly different from its US counterparts.
These modifications ranged from a water chiller and crew cooling fans to a shade umbrella, bustle rack extension and Steyr weapon storage brackets. All of these items, with the exception of the Steyr brackets, are now part of the US Abrams configuration.
Less than a year after their arrival in Australia, the Abrams and the Hercules were to have been fitted with a specially developed Saab Barracuda multispectral camouflage system (MCS) that would increase battlefield survivability by reducing the platforms’ signature in the visual/near infrared, thermal and radar wavelengths.
The MCS was also to reduce the impact of solar loading on the vehicle structure with a subsequent reduction in thermal stress for the vehicle crew. Importantly, the MCS was to be capable of modification should future changes be made in the structure of the vehicle by such additions as appliqué armour packages, external weapon stations, and protection systems.
However, all did not go well.
ADM has learnt that after the MCS was developed and fitted to a single example of each platform, the Commonwealth advised that subsequent testing by DSTO had found that elements of the signature reduction did not meet specification.
Although Saab Barracuda maintained that independent testing in Sweden, Europe and the US had verified MCS performance, the contract was terminated.
Other issues are understood to have included the Commonwealth’s insistence on replacing the clip-on fasteners used in Europe with Velcro straps, which proved inefficient in offroad operations. No alternative mobile camouflage systems are known to have been identified, other than the tanks’ hulls now being painted in AUSCAM or Desert Tan.
Thus, other competed enhancements to date have been limited to minor items such as updates to embedded diagnostic software to maintain the same configuration as US vehicles.
The only significant upgrade planned in the near term is the fitting of four bolt-on components of the Tank Urban Survivability Kit (TUSK) developed by the US as a result of operational experience in Iraq.
While TUSK consists of approximately 21 subsystems, the sub-systems being acquired by Australia are limited to a transparent armoured gun shield to protect the loader when operating his 7.62mm M240 machine gun outside the loader’s hatch to the left of the turret; reactive armour tiles to be fitted over the track skirts; a remote thermal sight for the turret-mounted .50 calibre machine gun to support the crew commander’s situational awareness and survivability; and a commander’s weapon station for the Hercules recovery vehicle.
Defence told ADM last month that the first reactive armour tiles had arrived in Australia. The complete sub-system and the armoured gun shields are expected to be in-country by mid to late-2011. Fitting of these sub-systems, introduction into service and training will take place from late 2011. Delivery of the two other TUSK sub-systems is not expected until 2012.
At the same time, Defence confirmed its intention to maintain configuration with the US on an ongoing basis – presumably using the M1A1SA (AIM) as its benchmark – “within the annual allocated budget limitations.
“Should a US Abrams fleet change reflect a substantial capability enhancement or result in a cost exceeding the annual budget allocation, the decision to fund and implement this change would be subject to higher level consideration,” a Defence spokesperson commented.
Future plans?
So what further upgrades are likely during the Abrams’ LOT?
Unsurprisingly, the current focus worldwide is on improving protection against mines, improvised explosive devices and antitank grenades and rockets. This generally involves a combination of more armour, better sensors, and an increasing use of active defence systems, to make the tank more capable in urban environments.
The German Army’s latest Leopard A7+ features additional passive armour over the frontal arc and along the sides of the hull, more external cameras, a turret-mounted remote control weapons station, improved thermal sights and fire control system, and fragmentation shells for its 120mm gun that detonate above or behind a target.
Similar improvements are being developed for Italy’s Ariete and France’s Leclerc MBTs, with a large body of opinion suggesting the emphasis should remain on evolutionary enhancements to existing platforms in preference to the expense and delays that would be incurred in the development of an all-new design.
In the case of the US, the Army hopes to build prototypes of a tougher, more high-tech M1A3 Abrams tank by 2014 and field it by 2017. This is intended to take Abrams technology well beyond the M1A2 SEP, with improved composite armour protection, greater lethality, and next-generation battle command technologies that will enable it to receive and transmit data and video across the force in real time. An 8-10 kilowatt onboard generator is likely to be used to provide power for the additional electronics.
The M1A3 will also almost certainly feature a lighter, more economical engine than the multifuel AGT-1500 gas turbine powering current Abrams, possibly the Honeywell LV100-5 engine now being developed under Phase 2 of the US Army’s PROSE (Partnership for Reduced Operating and Support Costs, Engine) program.
New, more lethal munitions useable by current as well as new variants are expected to include an Advanced Kinetic Energy round; an Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) tank round designed to fire as a canister, high-explosive or anti-tank round; and the 120mm Mid-Range Munition. This will use built-in infrared cameras and sensors to autonomously direct it toward enemy targets at ranges of up to 12 kilometres.