Posted: 1/4/2004 6:48:36 PM EDT
|
The Leopard 2 (in it's newest incarnation LEO 2A6) or the M 60 A3, which one takes the cake? New tanks on track for Australian Army Ian McPhedran 05jan04 THE German-built Leopard 2 main battle tank has firmed as favourite for an Australian Army contract worth half a billion dollars or more. The Government agreed late last year to replace the army's fleet of ageing Darwin-based Leopard 1 tanks after a long debate about the need for the army to have heavy armour. The contenders are the Leopard 2 and the American built M1A2 Abrams tank made famous during the Iraq war. The British Challenger 2 has been virtually ruled out of the contest. It is believed Defence Chief General Peter Cosgrove favours the much larger and more expensive Abrams machine. He said the present '70s era Leopard did not offer adequate protection against modern landmines and shoulder fired anti-armour weapons such as the Javelin missile used by the army. "We understood that putting the armoured force with tanks that are outdated and vulnerable into any kind of even regional situation where anti-armour weapons proliferate . . . could create a point of vulnerability in that the tanks themselves could be readily knocked out," General Cosgrove said. Others, including Armoured Corps officers, insist the new generation Leopard is the way to go. The Leopard is less expensive to buy and run and is used by many Western armies around the globe. The Abrams uses much more fuel and requires a much larger logistical support chain. The main question mark over the German-built tank is a political one and involves the availability of spares and support in the event of another Iraq-style war. Germany, along with other European countries, opposed the war. Some Australian officers and analysts questioned whether or not Germany would provide support in the event of a repeat campaign. Defence Minister Robert Hill, who will announce the winning tank early in the new year, said he did not believe political factors over Iraq would have any impact. "The Leopard 2 is such an international tank operated by so many different countries around the world," he said. Senator Hill also dismissed claims that the Leopard would not be inter-operable with US forces in future coalition operations. He virtually ruled out the British Challenger, which uses a different gun type and ammunition to the other two. Critics of the proposal, including the head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Hugh White, believe the money could be better spent elsewhere, including on more troops. "I don't think there is a coherent strategic rationale for this move," Mr White said. General Cosgrove dismissed claims that the 70-tonne Abrams (the Leopard weighs about 60 tonnes) would be too heavy to move around Australia and into regional trouble spots. He said issues of mobility had been considered and were not a problem. "We can move them on rail cars. We can move them around the north, where they presumably would be based. We can move them on and off our ships," he told a parliamentary committee. |