Yes it does, but i think it is a bit self serving in the information it does not address:

Maintenance – Leo 2 is less maintenance intensive than Abrams using significantly lower man hours.

Wrong. The Swiss version of the Leo 2A5 was assessed against the M1A1 AIM. The difference was minimal at most. Both the Leo 2A5 and M1A1 AIM were both estimated at being satisfactorily maintained within the budget, manning and basing requirements established for Australia’s tank capability based on the existing Leo 1 capability.

Logistical Burden – The Abrams, awesome vehicle it is noptwithstanding, drinks fuel like a demon, and at a significantly higher rate than the conventionally diesel powered Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. The majority of American casualities during Gulf War 2 were of troopers in soft skinned tanker vehicles that were in support of the Abrams armoured spearheads. Leo 2 would require significantly less troops coming behind it in soft skinned vehicles to keep it in the field.

Wrong. Australian M1A1 AIM’s were fitted with an APU which provides significant relief from the heavy fuel usage of the tank in engine idle situations.

The fuel consumption of the vehicles in the configuration ordered was not significantly inferior. In Australian DoD estimation the cost of running the same sized fleet of M1A1 and Leo 2A5’s (59x) for the same amount of track mileage with the same amount of rounds fired through the main gun, was within $200,000 a year (ie: M1A1 AIM’s cost $200,000 a year more to run). In a project costing $550 million + (because Phase 2 of the project is coming under the next DCP), that’s small change considering we got a significantly more capable tank…

Commonality – Yes the Abrams is the American Tank, but Leo 2 is used by 16 nations including about a dozen NATO members. It is the de facto standard Western Tank. Yes Australia will be likely fighting alongside America going forward, but when posed with essentially the same situation Canada chose the Leo 2 as it not only works well in the NATO environment alongside the Americans, it works well alongside the units of virtually all of NATO.

Abrams is not a bad choice but whether it was the best choice i feel is still open to debate.

Cheers.

Of course it’s open for debate. But at the end of the day, you get what you pay for. In Australia’s estimation, we got the best quality and most amount of tanks we could for the price we were allowed to spend.

The cost of operating both the M1A1 and Leo 2A5 are well known. Australia took that into account. Both tanks could be operated in a fleet of 59x within the cost of the current Leo 1’s. (The M1A1 cost exactly the same in fact).

Australia priced and assessed the Challenger II, but could only acquire roughly half of the 59x tanks eventually acquired under it’s cost-capped budget of $555 million. Each Challenger II tank worked out to be roughly twice as expensive (in acquisition) as the M1A1 AIM.

In addition to which, the ammunition and firepower capabilities of the Challenger II, did not meet Australian requirements anyway…

Designing our own aircraft is far beyond our means or capability.

Agreed.

We do try to get as many jobs to AU in defense related matters and procurement but that usually ends up inflating overall costs and makes MoD look like money wasters. Most of our naval vessels are home built, but come from overseas designs. Colins class again is good example, designed by sweedes, with systems from many other countries, but built here… now you could buy direct from sweedes or US or Germans , similar boat, with similar preformance at third of the price it ended up costing us. Sometimes economies of scale mean that its better to purchase something from others.

HMAS Collins wasn’t built in Australia and the work was SO bad the entire boat was nearly scrapped.

A boat with the capability of the Collins could not be bought at the time we were buying submarines. Hence we had to modify an existing design. There was no conventional sub that met our requirements at that time and nuclear powered subs were out of the question, politically.

We also do operate some non US hardware, like New Tigers, or Stayer’s but i do understand where you are coming from. Deciding to purchase Abrahams to replace leo’s is the most idiotic thing we did, why not go for leo 2 or Challangers instead of jet turbines on tracks .

Just a bit on our European kit…

Airforce: KC-30A (Airbus A-330 – French/German). Hawk Mk 127 LFT (British). PC-9M trainer (Swiss).

Army: Tiger ARH. MRH-90 TTH (French/German). Squirrel helos (French. Hamel L-118/119 gun (British). F-88 Steyr rifle (Austrian). F-89 Minimi LSW (Belgian). MAG-58. 7.62mm GPMG (Belgian). 12.7mm Browning HMG’s (Belgian). Browning Hi-Power 9mm pistols (Belgian). H&K MP5 SMG’s (Belgian). Carl Gustav 84mm MSRAAW (Swedish). SR-98 sniper rifle (British). AW-50 AMR rifle (British). RBS-70 SAM system (Swedish). Landrover 110’s (British). Unimog trucks (German). MAN prime movers (German).

Navy: Meko 200 frigates (known as the ANZAC class – German design). Collins Class submarines (Swedish design). Huon Class minehunters (Italian design). HMAS Tobruk LPA – (British design, to be replaced by Juan Carlos derivative LHD’s – Spanish design). F-105 frigates on order to replace FFG-UP’s. (Spanish design).

I think it’s fair to say that the USA doesn’t exactly have a monopoly on the Australian defence market…

As to the Abrams (not Abrahams) v Leo II issue. Perhaps we could familiarise ourselves with the truth?

http://www.anao.gov.au/download.cfm?item_id=A80C477D1560A6E8AA0CE1B9B0FB5AA8&binary_id=CD9871C91560A6E8AA3E05069976F651

You might find it instructive…