Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MicroBalrog on January 18, 2009, 12:29:42 AM
-
Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3896249&c=FEA&s=CVS
The Iraqi Army is planning to buy up to 2,000 retrofitted, Soviet-era T-72 tanks, U.S. defense companies and Pentagon officials said.
Redesignated as T-91s, the tanks would form the heavy core of a reconstituted force meant to be able to defend its country after most U.S. forces leave in 2011.
The tanks would be bought from Eastern European countries such as the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine and Slovakia, and then stripped to their frames and rebuilt under a contract managed by Defense Solutions of Exton, Pa.
"We take the vehicle all the way down to bare metal and back up to a fully modernized vehicle" that can fight at night, said retired U.S. Army Col. Tim Ringgold, the firm's CEO. "We add digital displays, thermal sights and radios along with a laser rangefinder and a laser detector, so that a tank knows if it is being targeted."
Ringgold said he expects Iraqi officials to sign a contract with his firm to deliver 2,000 tanks in coming weeks.
A U.S. Army official in Iraq who is involved with weapons sales said the deal is likely to go through. The Iraqi Army, which currently owns 149 tanks, wants to buy at least 2,000 more in the next several years, likely including large numbers of T-72s, the official said.
A Washington-based spokesman for the Iraqi Ministry of Defense declined to comment on the proposed deal, but said the Iraqi Army is enthusiastic about continuing to build its force with new equipment.
The work would begin in February, with deliveries to begin several months later, Ringgold said. Iraq will pay Defense Solutions about $3 million per tank, he said. Subcontractors include DynCorp International, Falls Church, Va.; L-3 Communications, New York; and Omega Training Group, which will perform maintenance on the tanks in Iraq and train Iraqi troops to operate and repair them.
A U.S. Department of Defense spokeswoman said the potential deal would be handled by the DoD's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.
"The process would be that Iraqi government officials would work with the multinational security and training command in Iraq," said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Almarah Belk. "If they want the U.S. to facilitate the purchase of something, they will work with the U.S. security cooperation office in Iraq before submitting a formal letter of request. The letter of request would then come to the Department of Defense, and the policy folks here would look at it and determine the feasibility and potential cost. They would prepare a letter of acceptance to the Iraqi government."
The rebuilt tanks would join 77 formerly Hungarian T-72s that Defense Solutions rebuilt and delivered about three years ago.
A few weeks ago, Iraq received U.S. State Department permission to buy 140 M1 Abrams tanks and 400 Stryker armored vehicles from the Pentagon, with deliveries in coming months.
Ringgold said the Iraqis also want to buy 4,000 armored vehicles and more U.S.-built Abrams tanks. But a rebuilt T-72 is far cheaper than a $10 million Abrams tank, and so provides a way to arm the Iraqi force more inexpensively.
Moreover, Iraqi forces are familiar with the T-72, having operated some 2,000 of the Soviet-built tanks until they were destroyed during the 2003 U.S. invasion.
Founded in 2001, Defense Solutions also does port security consulting, modernizes combat vehicles and makes individual soldier equipment.
"We are one of the few American companies to deal directly with the Iraqi government," Ringgold said. "It is a lengthy, cumbersome process. We have an office in the red zone with an all-Iraq staff. We are in downtown Baghdad."
Iraqis To Decide
The new tanks will help the Iraqis build a force of mechanized and heavy units as well as lighter infantry. The Iraqi government already has roughly 8,500 U.S.-built Humvees.
"The U.S. has left it to the Iraqis to make the decision on equipment - allowing them to have the structure they want to define their new Army," Ringgold said.
The U.S. Army in Iraq has been building up the force for the last several years by training the Iraqi Army and giving it some equipment.
"You must get them up to the ability to take care of themselves," said Rickey Smith, director of the U.S. Army Capabilities Integration Center – Forward. "If you were trying to help another Army get on its feet, if you give them a more simple system as far as training and sustainment, you can help them."
There is a new urgency to the buildup, thanks to the November agreement between Washington and Baghdad to remove most U.S. troops within three years.
"Now that the Status of Forces Agreement designed to remove U.S. forces by December 2011 has been signed, we want the Iraqi Army to be able to respond without U.S. involvement," Ringgold said.
Part of the rationale for helping arm the Iraqis is to prevent a power vacuum in the region when the majority of U.S. forces leave.
"For example, one country that could threaten Iraq is Iran," Ringgold said. "The vehicles we are offering are better than what Iran has, but not equal to what American forces have."
One analyst expressed concern about Iraq's choice of the T-72.
"We learned in Fallujah and the taking of Baghdad that heavy armor is still valuable. I doubt a T-72 could deal with the EFPs [explosively formed penetrators] being sent by some Iranians to *expletive deleted*it insurgents," said Loren Thompson, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank.
Another analyst praised the possibility of Iraq buying retrofitted T-72s, in part because the retrofitted tanks could be built to be interoperable with U.S. forces.
"Basically, this makes sense. The T-72 is a little better than its current reputation, which was formed when Iraqi T-72s went up against U.S. forces in the open desert during the Gulf War," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, a Washington think tank.
"While the T-72 is not quite as good as we thought it was in the '80s, it is much better than many other options," he said. "The modernized T-72s would largely be a deterrent against Iran and also a robust means of protection for internal counterinsurgency."
Micro Sez:
Welll, at one point I used to think that the T-72/T-80 line is aweosme. But that was 7 years ago, so now I no longer think that. What do the wise men of APS say? What does this mean?
Can something actually good be built on the frame?
-
I'd rather them have T-72s than buying more M-1s than they are already buying...
The T-72, upgraded, wouldn't be too bad at all vs. the armored forces of many other countries.
Micro, your nation has a history of upgrading "obselete" equipment to make it decently effective...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc0%2FM51-Isherman-latrun-1.jpg%2F250px-M51-Isherman-latrun-1.jpg&hash=323005ccd98ff2254e7be2ca976f2337ad3ab028)
-
Smart move on the part of Iraq.
The M1 is an awesome bit of kit, just grand. If I hadn't gone SOF, I would have gone tanks.
But, Iraq needs an entire new military establishment and must husband its dollars.
A T72 with contemporary senors, commo, FCS, etc. would be a just fine in that neighborhood.
IIRC, one of the last sensor & such upgrade on the Bradley cost more than the original vehicle. Meaning, the high dollar expenditure is NOT in the bent metal.
Here is a question or two for all you militaria buffs:
Which country's tank forces were first upgraded to use an IR sensor? By which company?
Here's a hint: I was not the USA.
-
Well, at least they'll have a good source of spare parts laying around the countryside. =D
-
T-72's burn real good. They also vanish when a Javelin hits them.
I don't think I've even seen video of an intact one rolling around, just of them on fire.
-
Micro, your nation has a history of upgrading "obselete" equipment to make it decently effective...
True dat. We also take some kit that REALLY REALLY REALLY should have been retired ages ago and keep using it past all possible deadlines.
I don't think I've even seen video of an intact one rolling around, just of them on fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvbQtq_KC8
-
T-72's burn real good. They also vanish when a Javelin hits them.
I don't think I've even seen video of an intact one rolling around, just of them on fire.
I had a Major dumb enough to say exactly that to a bunch of really pissed off Serbs who were trying to intimidate us or whatever with half dozen T-72's. :rolleyes:
-
I had a Major dumb enough to say exactly that to a bunch of really pissed off Serbs who were trying to intimidate us or whatever with half dozen T-72's. :rolleyes:
What was their reaction?
-
What was their reaction?
Well, if said major had a squad of M1A's behind him, my guess is they frowned a little and went away. =D
-
If we ever have to go back into Iraq in a hostile way, I would rather our men have to fight a T-72 than an M-1.
-
Well, at least these T72's will have ball bearings in the drive gears that are round...
I remember the old ball-bearings found in some of the destroyed Iraqi tanks from Gulf War I that the Soviets had pawned off on Saddam that looked like wobbly iron walnuts... :lol:
If the new Iraqi tank corps maintains their tanks, trains, and fights, to even some semblance of Western military standards, with whatever upgrades the refits give them, they'll do just fine against whoever (Iran) they're most likely to face. Even with the most modern composite and DU armor, the whole point of tank warfare, as I understand it, is to not get hit. =)
And assuming the Iraqi government and constitution keeps standing, does anyone seriously believe we won't be hanging around in the area for the next 50 years + to help them out?
-
T-72's burn real good. They also vanish when a Javelin hits them.
I don't think I've even seen video of an intact one rolling around, just of them on fire.
I don't think the M1 would do very well vs a Javelin, either.
-
Here is a question or two for all you militaria buffs:
Which country's tank forces were first upgraded to use an IR sensor? By which company?
Here's a hint: I was not the USA.
Turkey
Texas Instruments
-
Iraqi forces are familiar with the T-72, having operated some 2,000 of the Soviet-built tanks until they were destroyed during the 2003 U.S. invasion.
American taxpayers get to pay to break things and then replace them ;/
-
Upgrades, the 72's should serve them well. They will certainly be on par or better then anything their neighbors have and I don't see Iraq sending forces elsewhere for the foreseeable future. Also should the whole thing implode once we leave and we go back, I'd rather we still have the better tank.
-
2,000 tanks? That sounds like a lot for such a small country. Is it?
How many tanks do we have?
-
2,000 tanks? That sounds like a lot for such a small country. Is it?
How many tanks do we have?
This is according to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Operators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Operators)
We have 1174 M1A2s in Army service, 4393 M1A1s in Army service, and 403 M1A1s in USMC service. Total of 5970
Suprisingly, Egypt operates 1005 Abrams...most of which are M1A1s, but due to be upgraded, plus some M1A2 SEPs
-
2,000 tanks? That sounds like a lot for such a small country. Is it?
How many tanks do we have?
2k of T72's is a fair number, but not insanely high. Figure half will be "in operations" at any given time. Unless you domestically manufacture all the parts necessary for repair and maintenance of your tanks, you want plenty of spares.
-
The T72 looks alot smaller than an M1. I bet in its upgraded form its better suited for city fighting.
-
But can it survive the same level of IED explosion?
-
But can it survive the same level of IED explosion?
An Abrams can be taken out, given a large enough IED.
-
Turkey
Texas Instruments
Nazi Germany
AEG
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/ir.htm
-
An Abrams can be taken out, given a large enough IED.
It doesn't need to be large. An EFP, if it gets into the interior, can easily kill the crew. And that's precisely what they do.
-
Nazi Germany
AEG
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/ir.htm
D'oh!
I meant passive IR not needing an IR spot/flood.
But, that example of IR spot/viewer in WWII is really, really cool.
Man, we were lucky the Japanese got us involved in DEC1941. Give the Germans a few more years and things would have been even uglier than they were.
-
D'oh!
I meant passive IR not needing an IR spot/flood.
But, that example of IR spot/viewer in WWII is really, really cool.
Man, we were lucky the Japanese got us involved in DEC1941. Give the Germans a few more years and things would have been even uglier than they were.
Indeed. Had they got that in a year earlier D-Day would have been even more difficult than it turned out to be - they had a qualitative edge in armour anyway, ally that to being able to fight at night against an enemy that would have had to let the Germans fire first and it could have been a disaster.
-
2k of T72's is a fair number, but not insanely high. Figure half will be "in operations" at any given time. Unless you domestically manufacture all the parts necessary for repair and maintenance of your tanks, you want plenty of spares.
I don't consider myself particularly knoweldgable on this, but I doubt that Iraq is buying more than it needs in order to cannibalize parts.
Either way, it sounds like an excessive amount to me. Isn't that enough to equip about 60 battalions, based on Soviet TOE? Isn't that more than Saddam had total in his Republican Guard divisions before the Gulf War? I would guess that is several times more than Iraq needs for defensive purposes, considering it should be concentrating on reliable and profession infantry to maintain order in the streets.
-
How many tanks does Iran have? Or, more importantly, how many tanks would it take to defeat a major Iranian attack?
-
Wouldn't anti-tank systems be better? Have a hard time invading anyone with those.
-
Wouldn't anti-tank systems be better? Have a hard time invading anyone with those.
Best anti-tank weapon is usually another tank.
-
Wouldn't anti-tank systems be better? Have a hard time invading anyone with those.
A combined arms force (mechanized infantry, artillery and tanks) can wipe the floor with any units using only anti-tank systems. That was proven in WWII and in the Yom Kippur War.
-
Best anti-tank weapon is usually another tank.
Hrm. Na. The best anti-tank weapon is an A10.
-
Hrm. Na. The best anti-tank weapon is an A10.
Thats not what Guderian said though.
=D
-
Hrm. Na. The best anti-tank weapon is an A10.
Unfortunately, the Air Force doesn't think so. It only keeps that A-10 in service because the Army will demand that the Key West Agreement be amended so that the Army can get it if the Air Force ditches the plane.
The Air Force doesn't consider the A-10 survivable enough given the modern battlefield and prefers the F-16 for the ground attack role.
-
Survivable against SAMs? Or against AA or small arms fire? As far as toughness goes, the A-10 has got to be the toughest. I suppose faster and more advanced planes will fare better against SAMs.
-
Unfortunately, the Air Force doesn't think so. It only keeps that A-10 in service because the Army will demand that the Key West Agreement be amended so that the Army can get it if the Air Force ditches the plane.
The Air Force doesn't consider the A-10 survivable enough given the modern battlefield and prefers the F-16 for the ground attack role.
Well, that's just plain interesting.
Talking to my buddies in Air Staff not too long ago, they're pleased that the A-10 has undergone upgrades to the A-10C configuration, and it will continue in the anti-armor/close air support role for many years to come. The F-16 just couldn't do things as well as the Warthog, so the venerable Hog is scheduled to stay in service until 2028.
LennyJoe could probably provide additional inputs about the A-10's "lack of survivability", and how the F-16 is going to replace it. ;)
-
Unfortunately, the Air Force doesn't think so. It only keeps that A-10 in service because the Army will demand that the Key West Agreement be amended so that the Army can get it if the Air Force ditches the plane.
The Air Force doesn't consider the A-10 survivable enough given the modern battlefield and prefers the F-16 for the ground attack role.
If the USAF pulled the Hog for any of their new shiney toys which absolutely suck at CAS... Well, let's just say that they wouldn't have to worry about the survivability of any of their airplanes. The A10 and the AC-130 are the only CAS options that I would ever trust.