Artigo interessante que explica o porquê do Royal Australian Army ter escolhido o tanque Abrams para substituir todos os seus Leopards.
Segundo o Exército Australiano o melhor tanque do mundo é o Challenger 2 Inglês.
Australia's acquisition of the M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) main battle tank to replace the ADF's fleet of Leopard AS1s will provide a vehicle able to deploy overseas into the world's toughest neighbourhoods.
The primary role of the M1A1 AIM in Australian service will be to provide protection and firepower to combat teams deployed into complex environments. The M1A1 AIM has proven itself survivable in operations in Iraq, but it is not designed to be a complex warfighting vehicle.
Like most 20th Century legacy tanks the M1 family is designed for long range, tank-to-tank engagements in the countryside of Central Europe. This means its targeting system, weapons and armour are customised for head-to-head, long-range engagement, and penetrating tank armour. However, complex warfighting puts the onus on detecting fleeting targets at close range and off axis, protecting against attacks from the entire sphere and engaging complex targets. In one moment, a tank in a complex environment could be expected to engage a sniper without causing collateral damage to nearby civilians, and the next destroy an entire reinforced concrete building used as an enemy strongpoint - and all the time survive barrages of RPGs fired from above and below at its weakest layers of armour.
The three main selection criteria for the M1A1 AIM, in order of importance, were crew survivability, through-life support and network centric warfare potential. Obtaining a US standard product means the ADF can use the extensive American supply network to support the tanks in service. However, in order to deliver a capability to the complex warfighter the M1A1 AIM will need to be modified beyond the current limited plans, adding an infantry telephone, water cooling refrigeration unit and ADF-specific items.
Fortunately for the ADF there is a wealth of hard-earned experience, not just from the relatively low intensity operations in Iraq but also from the use of armoured vehicles in complex environments, demonstrated successfully by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), and unsuccessfully by the Russian Army. It's important that these lessons be applied as soon as possible so the ADF doesn't have to learn them the hard way.
Land 907, buying a new tank
The Land 907 acquisition program for a 'Main Battle Tank Replacement' would have to be one of the most aggressive in ADF history. Project go-ahead in 2003 led to system selection in 2004, with first delivery expected in 2006 followed by a fully operational regiment in 2008. The program acquisition time was slashed by short-listing three Military Off The Shelf (MOTS) vehicles: M1 AIM, Challenger 2 (CR2) and Leopard 2A6, requesting their various industry offerings without a 'shoot-off' or ADF specific development. Other tank designs were not assessed further due to being either not supportable in Australia or judged, like the French GIAT Leclerc, to be over-optimised for tank-versus-tank warfare.
The export standard British CR2 is in many ways superior to the other contenders. Developed in the 1990s, it offers a modern and capable engine, suspension, weapon sights and, arguably, armour.
However, its lack of a NATO-standard smoothbore 120mm gun has led the British Ministry of Defence to launch a modification program to create the CR3. The CR3 will replace the L30 120mm rifled-bore gun with the standard type and requires a considerable interior redesign to accommodate the new single piece ammunition, instead of the L30's separate loading type. This means any Australian acquisition of the CR2 would result in the ADF being the sole operator, or having to send them back to the factory for a rebuild a few years into service.
The Leopard 2 is commonly called the 'Euro-Tank' due to its adoption by Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Austria, Norway, Finland, Poland and Greece. In its latest updates there are three main versions, with several more in development. While indicative of the type's success for the ADF this creates a potential through-life support nightmare.
Brigadier Justin Kelly, Director General Future Land Warfare, said that in his view the Leopard 2 was a fluctuating fleet, making parts acquisition a problem.
"The US Army is planning on having 2,500 [M1s] or more in service beyond 2025," he said. "If you need a widget the chance of there being a widget on the shelf in the US is close to 100%; the chance of finding a widget for our mark of tank upgraded to whatever level, in seven warehouses in seven countries in Europe is far less."
The M1A1 AIM offers a proven tank with the option of slotting into the US support program with huge cost savings. Originally called the M1A1-D for Digital, the M1A1 AIM is fitted with most of the features of the Block II, M1A2 tank. Though the M1A2's digital management system and a host of other features are added, the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV), 'hunter-killer' sight and an improved Commander's Weapon Station (CWS) are not.
The M1A1 AIM was the only assessed tank with all its 120mm ammunition in an explosion-proof compartment separated from the rest of the tank's interior. In conventional 'brass' cased ammunition, like the L8 105mm gun fitted to the Leopard AS1, the ejected cartridge case can contain considerable residue so the propellant burns at lower temperatures. The combustible propellent cases of the Rheinmetall derived 120mm smoothbores, L30 120mm and Soviet/Russian 2A25 125mm need to burn in the breech at far higher temperatures to consume their entire propellent residue. The high burning temperatures make the propellent highly explosive and very vulnerable to battle damage. Images of T-72s in the former Yugoslavia, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom 'blowing their tops' and turning into 'blow torches' is a result of this type of ammunition exploding catastrophically. While the Challenger and Leopard 2 have not suffered the same kind of armour penetrations as the T-72, nor is their ammunition so haphazardly arranged; they do store all or part of their vulnerable propellent stock within the hull. The M1A1/A2's turret bustle storage vents any catastrophic explosion away from the rest of the tank and crew, the CR2 and Leopard 2 don't offer this feature.
The Land 907 project will deliver 59 rebuilt M1A1 AIM tanks, seven new M88A2 Hercules Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARV), six gunnery trainer simulators, a driver trainer simulator, 14 Tank transporters and trailers and up to eight dedicated tank refuelers. The total project cost is budgeted at $530 million and includes ammunition and support of the vehicles.
Multi-Purpose Land-Fighting Machine
Followers of the development of defence technology point out that the Israeli Merkava and its latest generation, the Mk 4, was not considered for the Land 907 project. The Merkava Mk 4 has entered service in the IDF in the last 12 months and features a range of capabilities other tank designs lack.
While agreeing that the Merkava Mk 4 is "probably going to be a beautiful tank and is optimised for urban combat", BRIG Kelly points out that acquiring such a vehicle has its problems.
"The Leopard 1 is not just becoming marginal operationally but becoming quite difficult to operate technically, so can we afford to wait a couple of years?" he asked. "What do we really gain from acquiring Merkava over M1 with maybe a decade of delay to entering into service?"
Brigadier General (Retired) Avigdor Klein, the Director of Land Platform Systems at RAFAEL, the Israeli Armaments Authority, and former Chief of the Israeli Armoured Corps where he was known as "the father of the Merkava Mk 4" says that in any case the vehicle isn't available for export. "We have a commitment to the US that we cannot sell Merkava 4 to other countries," he said. "The US supports Israel every year with FMF money; some of that money we use to develop weapon systems."
The Merkava Mk 4 is the fourth generation of Israeli tank developed from the late 1990s and while sharing the same design layout to the previous Merkavas it is a completely new tank, not just a systems upgrade like the M1A2 or Leopard 2A6. Unique features on the Merkava Mk 4 include its all-angle armour designed to defeat side, rear and top attacks. The turret roof armour is so thick the loader's hatch has been deleted, so as to not compromise armour integrity, and the commander needs a mini-elevator to access the rooftop.
"The American M1A2 is an excellent tank, the Leopard 2A6 is an excellent tank, the Merkava 4, I assume, is a good tank, but it's not only a tank," said Brig-Gen Klein. "It is a multi-purpose land-fighting machine."
While the Merkava Mk 4 also offers a newer engine, weapons, sensors and the multi-purpose rear stowage area compared to other tanks, it takes advantage of a full digital computer control system to revolutionise the way the vehicle is operated.
"From outside when you are watching a Merkava 4 you say, 'what is the difference?' It's the same gun, the same suspension, it looks like a tank," said Brig-Gen Klein. "The systems are based on the concept that each and every crewmember has the ability from his seated position to [fight in] intensive combat around the vehicles."
Israeli combat experience using tanks in low intensity combat has led to incorporating multifunction workstations at each crew position into the Merkava Mk4 design.
"Most of the time in urban areas the combat team will be in a stationary position and the crew members are focused on 360o observation," said Brig-Gen Klein. "The driver is not driving anymore, so why not give the driver a screen and a [control] stick and let him operate the remote control weapon station to the rear? The crew members have the ability to operate the systems of the vehicle from their position, not in the traditional way of tanks."
Traditionally, weapon systems were controlled mechanically by an appropriately positioned crewmember, but with digital control there's no need to be limited by the physical layout of the vehicle.
"If you ask me, I would recommend my friends buy the Merkava 4. Unfortunately, I cannot sell it to you because I am committed 100 per cent to the US," said Brig-Gen Klein. "But take the examples and the sub components in the Merkava 4 and put them into your vehicles."
The M1A1 AIM being acquired by the Army has a digital control system but only for command and control, navigation and engine management. Merkava Mk 4 type capability can be easily added to the M1A1 AIM, integrating remote control weapons, improved sensors and self defence systems.
TUSKs for urban combat
Experience in using M1A1/A2s in urban environments during Operation Iraqi Freedom and after the so-called "end of major combat" has exposed the need to upgrade the vehicle. The M1A1/A2 proved very resilient to attacks involving RPGs and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq but the insurgent force has inflicted a number of casualties and disabled tanks. The US Army has launched the Tank Urban Survivability Kit (TUSK) upgrade for M1A1/A2s serving in Iraq. Based on US and IDF experience, the upgrade improves armour protection to the sides and rear and enhances the roof-mounted machineguns for improved protection of the operators and better ability to engage targets.
TUSK is designed to be a simple add-on upgrade that can be conducted by the units in the field. The track-skirt armour of M1A1/A2s has been penetrated by RPG attacks leading to hull penetration. To upgrade this armour the side skirts will receive 62 Abrams Reactive Armour Tiles (ARAT); effectively, the same as low collateral effect RAFAEL Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) tiles fitted to US Army Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. A layer of Bar Standoff Armour (BSA) will protect the rear of the hull to minimise damage to the engine area by shaped charge warheads. The turret roof MAG 7.26mm flexible-mount machinegun will receive a Loader's Armour Gun Shield (LAGS) and a thermal weapon sight. The M1A2 will replace its flexible mount M2HB 12.7mm machinegun with a Remote Weapon Station (RWS): either the Styker standard Kongsberg Protector or the new US built Common Remote Operated Weapon Station (CROWS). The M1A1 will keep their mechanical CWS cupola-mounted 12.7mm machinegun but a remote firing night sight will be added. US Army M1A1/A2s will also receive the US Marine's M1A1 infantry tank telephone that will be fitted as standard to the ADF's M1A1 AIM.
The TUSK provides a basis for the M1A1/A2 operating in the urban environment and should be fitted to the ADF M1A1 AIMs before delivery to 1st Armoured Regiment, but the TUSK upgrade still leaves the M1A1 AIM with several shortfalls.
The primary concern for conventional tanks is situational awareness in an urban environment. The M1A1 AIM relies on periscope vision blocks when under enemy fire, with limited viewing arcs that cause blind spots, so observing all approaches is virtually impossible. Adaptive enemies can get in close and destroy it by exploiting these blind spots.
The Merkava Mk4 is fitted with the Vectop Tank Sight System (TSS), known commercially as ArmorSentry, which uses video cameras mounted on the hull to view all areas around the tank, eliminating the 'dead zone'. All crew members can access this vital perspective of the area outside.
Improved situational awareness also enables the driver to manoeuvre the tank more effectively and safely without having to drive blind. Modern camera technology is more reliable, damage resistant and cheaper than the vision blocks; and can operate in image intensification mode at night.
The CWS on the M1A1 AIM offers, in theory, the ability to use the 12.7mm machinegun from inside the tank, protected from enemy fire, but practical use of the CWS has exposed serious limitations. The CWS is fixed to the commander's cupola and requires the entire cupola, including vision blocks and hatch, to be rotated for tracking off-axis targets. This means the commander in the cramped confines of the tank has to rotate with it.
The sighting system of the CWS is far from adequate. During training or gunnery qualifications US Army M1A1 crews bore-sight the 12.7mm CWS to the Gunner's Primary Sight and engage the target through this sight, but this is not an option for targets off-axis and at high angles. The CWS needs to be replaced with a modern RWS for engagement of targets in a complex environment. It can also be operated from all crew positions, allowing the commander to focus on commanding.
The 12.7mm bullet is often too powerful for use in urban environments because the bullets can continue through the target and threaten friendlies. The 7.62mm guns fitted to the loader's station and co-axial to the main gun can be used as the tanks' primary weapons to avoid collateral damage. The CWS 12.7mm can be replaced in the workshop but the tank crew need to do this in the field.
CWS 12.7mm was fitted as anti-aircraft weapon, but the twin 'spade' handgrips make it inaccurate over longer ranges. Fitting a pistol grip and stock would improve the tank's ability to engage multiple targets with long-range machinegun fire.
The M1A1 AIM in ADF service will have two types of ammunition for its 120mm main gun: the tungsten-cored General Dynamics KEW-A2 APFSDS anti-tank round and the ATK M830A1 Multipurpose Antitank (MPAT) round. MPAT is a sub-calibre, discarding sabot round with a muzzle velocity of 1,400 MPS, providing long-range accuracy. MPAT demonstrates a 20 per cent performance increase against bunkers and 30 per cent against light armoured vehicles.
Other Armies using the 120mm gun have identified its shortcomings. Rheinmetall and GIAT developed new 120mm HE shells, with hardened heads for delayed, behind armour effect and heavy fragmentation cases. Israeli Military Industries have gone a step further with the Advanced Anti-personnel, Anti-material (APAM) round consisting of six sub-munitions used in either anti-personnel or anti-material modes. In the anti-personnel mode the six sub-munitions are ejected above the target, detonating sequentially and each spraying 500 tungsten cubes and other fragments. APAM delivers shrapnel at defined intervals, providing a very wide lethal area against soft targets. Each fragment can penetrate conventional body armour. In the anti-material mode the round penetrates up to 25mm of rolled homogeneous steel armour, before the six sub-munitions are detonated inside the vehicle or bunker. APAM is a fearsome weapon and far more capable than the MPAT.
Other ammunition types suitable for complex warfighting include 120mm canister and non-lethal rounds. The General Dynamics M1028 120mm canister round has just entered US service. The 'shotgun-like' canister round works by expelling 1,150 tungsten balls out of the barrel at a muzzle velocity of 1,410 MPS, very lethal at 200-500m. In complex warfare tanks may also be confronted by rowdy crowds, requiring non-lethal crowd dispersing ammunition. The M1028 canister round can also be adapted to different payloads such as chemical agents or 'flash-bang' stun charges.
With its legacy armour, consistently proven resilience to the effects of penetrating attacks and the TUSK armour add-ons, M1A1/A2s would appear to be invulnerable on the battlefield. However, many of the RPG warheads encountered in Iraq have been older, single-stage shaped charges. Far more effective and sophisticated warheads are available around the world in large numbers. Also, it's probably not feasible to add extra layers of armour to some, still vulnerable areas of the M1A1 AIM such as the turret roof and engine deck. When facing evolving threats, Active Protection Systems (APS) become an attractive option.
APS are either hard-kill, like the Russian Drozd and Arena, or soft-kill systems. Many US M1A1 tanks have been fitted with the soft-kill Loral VLQ-6 Missile Countermeasures Device (MCD) 'Hard-Hat' in the location reserved for the CITV on the M1A2, often leading to misidentification. The 'Hard-Hat' emits IR signals to disrupt the guidance system of anti-tank missiles. Soft-kill systems are also usually integrated with decoy launchers. A number of hard-kill systems are in development in the west but only the Israeli Trophy APS is off the drawing board.
'Trophy', developed by RAFAEL, has recently been declassified and is a fully developed system. 'Trophy' operates by detecting the threat via four flat-panel search radar antennas, tracking the threat and, if it is about to hit the protected platform, engaging with the hard-kill neutraliser. The system is designed to meet IDF requirements, including: the ability to neutralise all known rocket and missile threats; be useable while the protected vehicle is in motion in all weather; be able to be used at short ranges in closed and urban terrain; and engage simultaneous threats from different directions. An issue with active defence systems and explosive armours relates to injuries caused to nearby friendly or civilian forces. RAFAEL claim that field testing indicates that 'Trophy' will only cause injuries amongst bystanders in less than one per cent of situations. 'Trophy' is under further testing to defeat high velocity kinetic energy threats such as conventional tank gun anti-tank ammunition.
M1's Achilles Heel
Unlike the legacy Leopard AS1, the M1A1 AIM is fitted with a gas turbine engine instead of the conventional diesel unit. Gas turbines are smaller, quieter, require less maintenance and can quite easily burn just about any fuel despite having higher fuel consumption per kilowatt. For the US Army, the world's largest operator of gas turbine powered helicopters there was a clear through-life support advantage of equipping their tank fleet with the gas turbine engine.
Unfortunately, the dynamics of a gas turbine cause them to have similar fuel consumption while either at idle or maximum power. Across a measured course the gas turbine requires slightly more fuel consumption than comparable diesel powered tanks. But armoured vehicles in combat don't operate on measured courses; whenever a M1A1 AIM is stationary, yet still requiring full power to be readily available, the engine is still consuming almost as much fuel as if it was travelling at full speed. In diesel powered tanks the engine can be idled down to low RPMs with much lower fuel consumption. M1A1/A2s have been fitted with Auxiliary Power Units (APU), and the ADF M1A1 AIM will have a turret-mounted APU as standard to counter this shortfall when the tank is in a static position. The APU can only provide power to the onboard electronic and hydraulic systems, not motive power. Turning off the engine during a combat engagement is not a viable option for tank crews who need to move the tank instantly when needed. The M1A1/A2 in operational service are prodigious fuel guzzlers compared to diesel-powered tanks.
Tanks are also limited in long-range mobility by track life and their high ground pressure; this is usually solved by moving tanks outside of tactical engagements by rail or truck based tank transporters. MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG was recently awarded the contract to supply the ADF 14 Heavy Tank Transporters (HTTs) using their 8x8 'Trucknology Generation A' (TGA) prime-mover and an Australian designed and built heavy duty 4x8 'Swingwing' widening trailer produced by Drake Trailers. These 14 HTTs will each be able to carry one M1A1 AIM or a M88A2 ARV. The allotment of HTTs is barely enough to support one out of three tank squadrons. Considering the high level of dispersion current and future operations would demand, the ADF's provision of one out of three M1A1 AIMs with adequate non-tactical mobility will not be enough.
Upgrades Required
To make the M1A1 truly suited to the complex warfighting environment a number of modifications need to be considered:
- Apply the US Army TUSK modification to all M1A1 AIMs before they are delivered to 1st Armoured Regiment.
- Order an expanded range of 120mm ammunition to include canister, anti-personnel, anti-material and non-lethal munitions.
- Equip each crew station with a multifunction workstation able to operate a variety of tank systems.
- Fit the M1A1 AIM with a television viewing system to provide close-in 360o observation.
- Replace the M1A1 AIM's CWS 12.7mm machinegun with a RWS, controllable by all crew, and able to be field adjustable to mount a 7.62mm machinegun.
- Investigate acquiring an active defence system to be fitted across the ADF's combat vehicle fleet.
- Investigate the option of replacing the gas turbine engine with an advanced MOTS diesel engine, preferably in cooperation with the US Army.
- Increase the order of HTTs to equip a full transport squadron so the entire operational M1A1 AIM fleet can be moved.
The M1A1 AIM is a quantum leap over the Leopard AS1 but it is important to realise the Block 0 M1 was in its trials and final development at the same time the Leopard AS1 was delivered. While the M1A1 AIM is classed as a third generation tank, over the Leopard AS1's second generation, the threats of today demand the next generation. The M1A1 AIM has growth potential the Leopard AS1 could never match, and can be brought to fourth generation standard. It's important the ADF takes advantage of this growth potential; otherwise, the ADF may still have the wrong tank for today and tomorrow's battles.
Isso demonstra o quanto é profissional o Exército Australiano,e demonstra também o quanto é complexo o processo de escolha de um novo CC.
Agora falando mais especificamente do Exército Brasileiro,eu acho sinceramente que os M-60 e Leopards em uso (os Leopards estão em péssimo estado de conservação,os M-60 alguém aí do sul poderia falar melhor ?) deveriam ser substituídos por um outro modelo de CC (novo nacional ou estrangeiro,ou então um CC usado mas em melhores condições).
Isso é um assunto que deve estar sendo discutido pelo comando do EB com relação aos seus CC = Modernizar ou Substituir ?
Creio que a segunda opção apresenta a melhor relação custo benefício,mesmo se adquirindo um CC usado no mercado internacional.
.......Quem me dera o EB ter um padrinho destes ![8-]](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif "Cool"){kind=icon}
