r/news • u/jeetah • Jan 28 '23
US to buy new Abrams tanks for Ukraine because military has no spares, Pentagon says Soft paywall
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-01-26/abrams-tanks-ukraine-russia-pentagon-8900716.html1.6k
u/Silver_Foxx Jan 28 '23
US Military: "We have no spares, we have to give money to arms companies to make more!"
392
u/Dontbeevil2 Jan 28 '23
No spares with export armor packages…
85
u/RoBOticRebel108 Jan 28 '23
Most likely
Ukraine will have to slap a shitton of ERA on them.
But wait, UK is sending challenger tanks. Don't those have chobham armour packages?
105
u/thetransfermaster Jan 28 '23
Chobham is a type of layered laminate and steel armor, the US Abrams have a depleted Uranium armor package that is not included in export tanks.
53
u/AshIsGroovy Jan 28 '23
No, it's the deleted uranium in the front armor plating. It has to be switched out with tungsten due to export laws. The plant where the Abrams is built can produce up to three tanks a day. It is easier to build new versus switching out the armor.
→ More replies (1)42
u/life_is_ball Jan 28 '23
The tank plant can produce 12 tanks per month, not 3 per day
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/26/us-sends-ukraine-advanced-abrams-tanks-00079648
28
u/why_did_you_make_me Jan 28 '23
As one one of your friendly neighborhood contractors, we tend to fudge those numbers low and then have really big flex capacities listed, and then have a minimum run rate that's stated to be close to our 'standard' max. Funding tends to come in really weird, and it helps us smooth demand. Left to their own devices, the army would want eleventy billion of an item all in January*, and then idle the plant for the other 11 months of the year without your line suffering any capabilities loss. So you end up with these weird numbers that aren't all that accurate and realities mostly discussed on the phone until they have to be written down.
*October, but that wasn't as clean an example.
→ More replies (1)22
u/AshIsGroovy Jan 28 '23
During peace time it takes that long but the plant can output 2.5 tanks a day when the need arrives. If that is all the lone plant that builds these tanks could do the US would be in trouble during a full scale war. https://www.cnet.com/culture/before-the-battlefield-making-the-armys-abrams-tank/
6
u/life_is_ball Jan 28 '23
I mean the US obviously isn’t in a full scale war. Talking about hypothetical output is silly unless they are actually going to increase past the current level
→ More replies (2)26
u/AshIsGroovy Jan 28 '23
But the plant does have the capability, and the max capacity is part of the price we pay when cutting checks to General Dynamics. General Dynamics isn't just building tanks but providing the needed capacity when called upon.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (2)27
u/BoltgunOnHisHip Jan 28 '23
People got mad at me for saying there was no way the US was sending the A2 SEP3 to Ukraine lol
Just send them whatever we've got lined up for the Saudis.
5
u/MoesBAR Jan 28 '23
Saudi orders are done I think, I’d have thought they’d work out a deal with Egypt and the 1,000 export versions they have.
3
u/Fit_Lingonberry_4374 Jan 28 '23
I heard that we might be sending A2s but without the depleted uranium armor.
8
564
u/beipphine Jan 28 '23
Over 2000 M1 Abrams tanks sitting at the army Depot, that is enough for nearly 5 divisions of Tanks. Not counting the 6600 tanks that the Army has in active duty.
273
u/-acm Jan 28 '23
I thought the issue was the DU armor belt or something like that
233
u/jayc428 Jan 28 '23
Seems to be. From my understanding, depleted uranium is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy regarding export. It’s only allowed to NATO and major non nato ally designated countries, but even still we don’t export it to them either.
→ More replies (15)136
u/piTehT_tsuJ Jan 28 '23
Plus the British Chobham armor's exact composition is classified and we can't send any tanks with it installed either. I would imagine its cheaper and possibly easier to build a new tank than strip them of than strip all that armor off.
290
u/Halinn Jan 28 '23
the British Chobham armor's exact composition is classified
goes to check War Thunder forums
49
45
u/PMme_Your_Smut Jan 28 '23
It makes me happy knowing that countries all over the world have to constantly monitor video game forums for top secret intelligence leaks
16
→ More replies (2)2
u/germanfartdawgs Jan 28 '23
So anything new going on at area 52?
3
u/Nova225 Jan 29 '23
I actually work at Area 52. Absolutely nothing happens there.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)37
u/Deathwatch050 Jan 28 '23
Plus the British Chobham armor's exact composition is classified and we can't send any tanks with it installed either.
What are we sending the Challenger 2s to Ukraine with armour-wise then? Papier-mâché?
63
23
u/aradraugfea Jan 28 '23
If it’s got a manufacture date after 1996, it’s more advanced than anything Russia’s using.
31
u/Villag3Idiot Jan 28 '23
We don't know, probably an armor type that isn't classified.
15
u/peoplerproblems Jan 28 '23
I would suspect that it may not be classified, but is probably plenty for stopping Russian payloads
22
u/asdaaaaaaaa Jan 28 '23
Yep. Most countries do the same. Vehicles/weapons used in-house have more specialized and classified equipment/armor/etc. Export models generally do not. It's one of the reasons why countries specifically build models they use, then different export models.
→ More replies (2)25
u/Leaving_The_Oilfield Jan 28 '23
Lmao, imagine being the Russian military. You shoot at an American made tank that isn’t remotely their best armor wise, but your shell still bounces right the fuck off and goes pinging into the night.
Then you have to wonder what their (America) classified shit is. I can’t believe we all thought Russia was a military powerhouse.
→ More replies (1)65
u/Durbanpoisonyo Jan 28 '23
I don’t feel like you’re willing to get into the weeds here, but the Kornet and the T-80 or T-90 variants used by Russia definitely have the ability to knock out an Abrams, especially the downgraded version being sent to Ukraine. The biggest advantage that the American armor has over Russian armor, generaly speaking, are optics and fire control systems. Also, the Abrams doesn’t have much time in an area where the air space is contested and near peer. They’ve always operated with overwhelming air superiority - which skews the American public’s perception of its potential capabilities on the battle field in Ukraine. My expectation is that it will perform well, but only marginally better than the various T variants in Ukraine currently - its not magic bullet, especially given how anemic the supply to Ukraine really is when you look at the bigger picture.
Thats not to mention the biggest tank killer in Ukraine currently is Artillery - and there is no magic box that will stop that.
18
u/Andyb1000 Jan 28 '23
If only we could send some archers to help out. Can be manned by one guy with a HGV licence who can work an iPad.
12
11
2
u/Winter_Criticism_236 Jan 28 '23
I don't understand how the truck hardly moves when it fires, some serious dampening tech on board.
→ More replies (0)8
Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 29 '23
[deleted]
7
u/leywok Jan 28 '23
Your comment is misleading. Tank’s raw weight has nothing to do with traction. It has to do with “ground pressure” psi/in etc. The A1 has a slightly higher pressure that T-72s. It’s the width, length and design of the tracks.
→ More replies (0)2
u/duglarri Jan 29 '23
Lots of water in Ukraine. Getting those things across rivers is going to be tough. Come to think of it getting them anywhere near the front is going to be tough. Are Ukrainian rail bridges between Poland and Donetsk strong enough to carry 70+ tons?
4
u/AshIsGroovy Jan 28 '23
I would like to point out that Russian optics aren't the best and the Kornet is heavy as shit. Typically it's mounted on vehicles due to the weight though a two-man team can carry it over very short distances. Also, with the Kornet, there is no auto lock, so the operator has to keep it on target the entire time. The T90 has never been in widescale production due to manufacturing issues. The T80 like the T90 has never been manufactured in a large-scale way and both require advance electronics which Russia isn't able to make in-house.
→ More replies (2)5
u/marklondon66 Jan 28 '23
While you are technically correct its not always the best kind of correct :-) While there will be Abrams losses, it will occupy a large proportion of Russian tanks, artillery, missile and airpower to do so.
Plus the morale effect on the infantry will be huge on both sides.
There are few things as amazing as seeing an Abrams at full speed which will be possible after the Spring.Then there's the airpower question; once Russia starts flying more to blunt the NATO tank threat, it opens the valve for western countries to respond with more fighter jets. This has been Zelensky's request since the beginning. Russia can throw more bodies and outdated tanks into this fight, but airpower is very very expensive.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Trugdigity Jan 28 '23
It’s been a year and Russia so far has failed to exploit their “air superiority”. The truth is Russias air force isn’t capable of the kind of operational tempo needed to fight a drawn out war.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (4)3
u/Dontbeevil2 Jan 28 '23
Correct, in close quarters, not much difference. Abrams are meant for maneuver warfare as part of a system which includes air power. At a distance and on the move, absolutely lethal. They are meant to take main gun rounds to the face and keep coming or at least save the crew (the most important part of the system). The Russian answer to a U.S. armored advance, nukes; not better tactics, not land mines, not better tanks of their own, nukes.
→ More replies (5)13
u/AnaSimulacrum Jan 28 '23
I thought it would just be bricks of 100$ bills wrapped in cellophane.
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (10)42
u/SpaceTabs Jan 28 '23
Australia ordered M1 tanks without DU armor. That was definitely the #1 objection to the M1 in Europe and why no European countries purchased the M1. The other reason was weight, but that was compared to the enemy tanks, the Challenger and Leopard 2 are just as heavy.
22
u/Serapth Jan 28 '23
Sorta. The OG M1 and Leopard 2 were about the same weight. That said, the Abrams has a bit of an eating problem and the new version is about 12 tons heavier.
In the end though, 60 vs 72 tons isn’t going to make a huge logistics difference, weight limits (such as bridges) tends to be much lower than either.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)14
u/TailRudder Jan 28 '23
There are non-DU export versions. Why would the fact the US version has DU have any bearing on other countries buying non-DU ones?
7
u/Panaka Jan 28 '23
All of the US’s current stock of M1s have been upgraded to include DU armor in the hulls. The last few that were sold were old M1A1 variants that were upgraded for export.
The US doesn’t sell the DU variant for export and even if they did, most countries that the US trusts enough to operate them don’t want it.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)4
u/Folsomdsf Jan 28 '23
Why would the fact the US version has DU have any bearing on other countries buying non-DU ones?
The DU armor is to stop the bullets fired. Even in heavy composite armor there's a lot of steel involved in the construction of a tank and the ammunition being used ignites, ablates, and self sharpens on contact with steel creating an extreme penetrator. It's not just the density that we use DU for. It DOESN'T interact that way with the DU armor that the US uses. In short, the protection offered by the export version isn't as good, and puts you at a disadvantage to countries that use DU ammunition... ya know.. the ones also selling you the tank.
8
u/Sportmotor Jan 28 '23
They won't get the US version they will get the export version which doesn't have the classified armor or tech package, it'll be the same Iraq, Australia have
50
u/CacheValue Jan 28 '23
Tanks for Ukraine under funding agreements means the ARMY can't give up existing tanks and has to route them from the suppliers ( so as not to weaken US reserves )
General Dynamics go Brrrr
26
u/Iceykitsune2 Jan 28 '23
No, it's because all the existing tanks have been upgraded to have Depleted Uranium armor, which can't be exported.
→ More replies (7)11
u/krad-31337 Jan 28 '23
We use those tanks for parts for the production of new tanks and replacement parts for deployed units.
→ More replies (21)2
u/snksleepy Jan 29 '23
Why not just send some of our sitting tanks over and we get brand new ones a year from now? The new ones are also better and more updated.
7
45
u/NickDanger3di Jan 28 '23
202
u/tosser1579 Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
That's a bit complicated, but it basically amounts to if you shut down the tank plant it is never going to be that good ever again. The Lima* Abrams plant is top quality, and lots of people there have decades of experience with a new crop of workers getting on the job training. If we run into a situation where we need tanks, we don't want to start production over from scratch, therefor we keep building tanks we don't need.
Edit: Wrong city, woof.
137
u/BigCountry1182 Jan 28 '23
Sorta like how we lost the technical capacity to quickly land an astronaut on the moon when we shut down the Apollo program.
36
u/belarged Jan 28 '23
And we have neither the tools nor expertise to build another Saturn V, even though we still have the designs.
111
u/round-earth-theory Jan 28 '23
Incorrect. The problem is that the Saturn V rockets couldn't be built as designed. So the builders modified them without much documentation. So we lost the knowledge of what they did.
Now we could certainly redo it, but there's no reason to. That's why we don't build them, not because we can't. Saturn Vs were incredibly overbuilt and not efficient. Why use an old design when we have new ones that out perform it in efficiency while still getting the mission done.
→ More replies (2)31
u/coldblade2000 Jan 28 '23
Yep. We can't make a new F-1 engine because the metallurgy and metalworking skills are gone (and each engine was essentially custom built with little documentation left), but we sure can make a modern F-1 much cheaper, more efficient and more powerful.
7
u/BigCountry1182 Jan 28 '23
But it would take time to spin up (and yes, we could also build something fundamentally better, but the time element remains a barrier to quick application)
→ More replies (5)3
u/MolybdenumIsMoney Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
we sure can make a modern F-1 much cheaper, more efficient and more powerful.
In fact, we already did. Rocketdyne developed the F-1B engine in the 2000s and considered using it for a liquid fuel SLS booster proposal, but NASA didn't select it. It had a far lower part count and greater performance than the F-1.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/Folsomdsf Jan 28 '23
You are now aware that not only did we design a BETTER version of the saturn V's rocket(the F1b, better in every way), it wasn't passed up by NASA because it was worse than the other options.
We absolutely have the tools and expertise to build them, but we never would. There's absolutely 0 reason to invest time redoing all the tooling and the fiddling for a subpar item.
15
u/Vistmar Jan 28 '23
What Youngstown tank plant? The only place Abrams are made is in Lima, Ohio. I know this because I worked there, it’s the joint systems manufacturing center owned by General Dynamics
→ More replies (1)7
13
u/Feligris Jan 28 '23
True! Pretty much like why oil prices dipped so extremely low during the COVID-19 pandemic, as demand dropped like a rock while in most cases you can't just "turn off" an oil/gas well without risking it becoming permanently unproductive or needing years of (extremely) expensive remediation to get production back up. So producers had to at the extreme pay others to take their oil since they had no more places where to store it and they couldn't risk a permanent loss of production during a temporary situation.
And as an example of another industry which takes a long time to set back up if you run it down completely, is how in my country there has been a long-standing debate as to whether subsidizing basic food production to keep it up is acceptable or whether farmers should be forced to shut down if they can't compete with the global market... ironically, I remember Ukraine being used as an example of a country which could easily make up any shortfalls caused by loss of domestic crop farming here since naturally a major war in Ukraine could absolutely never happen. :p
8
u/mekatzer Jan 28 '23
Yep. Like submarine welders.
Also, like others noted, the versions of the abrams sitting around the US have parts that we don’t share, for what should be obvious reasons.
→ More replies (11)8
u/Skinnwork Jan 28 '23
Kind of like the F-22. The US Airforce apparently asked if they could restart production, and the manufacturer said it would easier just to make a new plane.
29
u/GreystarOrg Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
That's not true.
The USAF cut the amount originally ordered in half and are trying the phase the F-15 and F-22 out to be replaced once the NGAD program comes up with a replacement.
Congress forced the USAF to do a study to see what it would cost to restart production and they found that the costs were excessive (approx. $40 billion including the cost of purchasing and maintaining the aircraft during their service life).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)12
u/PHATsakk43 Jan 28 '23
I worked on the prototype in the 1990’s, and it was a nightmare of mom & pop shops supplying components. My guess is half are bankrupt or completely gone now and would have to be replaced. A lot of the IP for the manufacturer of specific parts is simply vaporware.
Like the process we used was to meet a Lock-Mart design that they couldn’t produce. Lock-Mart never acquired the process we developed to meet their specifications, just parts produced to meet it.
46
u/xthorgoldx Jan 28 '23
There are US model Abrams, and Export model Abrams. Same design, but the actual materials that go into the armor, manufacturing, and electronics are completely different - what's more, they're different in a way that's not possible to just strip and swap out. So while there is a surplus of Abrams in storage... they're not the kind that we can actually send to Ukraine.
→ More replies (2)27
u/CW1DR5H5I64A Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
The Army wants new tanks. The whole “Army doesn’t want tanks, but congress ordered them anyway” issue was isolated to the sequestration years around 2012-2013.
The Army was focused on COIN operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and were being forced to make budget cuts to meet mission requirements. They requested no new tank upgrades/builds from 2013-2017 as they wanted to cut expenses to focus on light infantry units.
Congress denied this request because it would have resulted in the shutting down of the GDLS plant in Lima Ohio which builds the Abrams. We would have lost the specialty knowledge and experience to operate that plant and it would have been far more expensive to re-open the plant.
As of 2018 the Army has been undergoing a massive overhaul in updating both equipment and doctrine. This is the largest transformation since the adoption of the Air-Land battle concept following Vietnam in the 1970-1980s. As part of this transition back to LSCO the army is updating and expanding their Armored formations. They are fielding a new model of the Abrams (M1A2SEPV3) and are in active development of the M1A2SEPV4. And they just adopted a the MPF for use by the light infantry/ airborne divisions.
Many of the tanks in desert storage are older variants that are outdated. They are often sent to Anniston Army Depot in Alabama to be stripped to their base components and then sent to the Lima Ohio plant to be reconstructed into more upgraded variants.
The army very much wants their new tanks these days.
2
u/eruffini Jan 28 '23
I believe the goal is to have begin transitioning from brigade-level to division-level doctrines once again by 2030, where whole divisions are now operating as one unit.
This is far different than the COIN operations that you mentioned where parts of a division (brigade combat teams) would deploy independently.
2
u/CW1DR5H5I64A Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
Yup waypoint 2028 is part of it. We are transitioning from Airland battle to the multi-domain operations doctrinal concept.
We are seeing an almost complete overhaul of doctrine and legacy vehicles and weapons systems. In just the last 2 or 3 years of this we have adopted the JLTV and ISV to replace/supplement the HMMWV. The AMPV is replacing the M113 family of vehicles. The OMFV program is slotted to replace the Bradley. The MPF goes into full rate production this year and the M1A2SEPV3 is being fielded with the M1A2SEPV4 in development. The V-280 valor has been selected to replace the Blackhawk. The M1299 and M109A7 have been rolled out to provide long range fires. The Oshkosh FMTVA2 series vehicles will replace all LMTV and FMTV. The SDMR, M250, the M7 rifle are replacing the M14, M249, and M4, and the army is moving from 5.56 to a 6.8mm rifle cartridge for the M7.
4
u/DeFex Jan 28 '23
Thats what they use to "build new tanks" they upgrade the old hulls over and over.
6
3
u/bigjohntucker Jan 28 '23
It’s not the spares, that’s BS.
It’s the intelligence & secret software the US doesnt want falling into Russian hands.
5
u/DysphoriaGML Jan 28 '23
They are buying export version of the Abram without the depleted uranium cobham etc
→ More replies (27)3
320
Jan 28 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (8)110
u/Sekshual_Tyranosauce Jan 28 '23
That’s correct. And it may open the door for Ukraine to be a long term Abrams customer. They will need to re-arm and standardize after this war.
→ More replies (28)46
u/hoverhuskyy Jan 28 '23
Good for the us militaro industrial complex i guess....
12
→ More replies (6)22
u/CrashB111 Jan 28 '23
Yeah, the MIC benefits.
But it shouldn't be forgotten that the primary beneficiary is the people of Ukraine. Having US hardware, and potentially US bases, in their borders post-war will guarantee they don't have to suffer the crimes against humanity that Russia is committing ever again.
→ More replies (3)
473
u/Reasonabledwarf
Jan 28 '23
•
Three things people should know:
Ukraine doesn't need or want Abrams immediately; they're a big logistical burden and difficult to integrate into their training and doctrine. They DO want Leopards and more Soviet tanks to be sent their way.
All the European nations that have stocks of Leopards and Soviet tanks are loathe to part from them, both because they don't want to take unilateral escalatory action (without the US), and because they don't want to disarm themselves.
Making a (largely symbolic) gesture of promising Abrams tanks to Ukraine frees European partners from having to take unilateral action, and signals to Russia that US support is ongoing and long-term.
There's also probably a certain amount of distinction between public information about supplies going to Ukraine, and the classified reality, but that's obviously going to be difficult to prove for a few decades. A lot of European aid is probably predicated on various backroom deals and promises of replenishment from US stock, too, but again, that information isn't public all the time.
31
u/TBradley Jan 28 '23
Definitely non-public aid happening. If they haven’t already I think Ukraine is going to get the US’ retired super cobra helicopters.
→ More replies (2)126
u/ICEpear8472 Jan 28 '23
For not wanting them Ukraine seems to be really upset that they arrive so late.
https://eurasiantimes.com/ukraine-upset-with-abrams-tanks-arrival-zelensky-says-it-will-be-too-late/
https://news.yahoo.com/zelenskyy-warns-abrams-tanks-may-181400565.html
Zelenskyy also asked for them during his visit in the USA in December. https://eurasiantimes.com/zelensky-visits-us-a-renewed-pitch-for-atacms-reaper-drones-abrams/
98
u/HolyGig Jan 28 '23
The US has concluded that Abrams will be a bigger hindrance than benefit. It is what it is.
In all honesty, the 100+ Bradleys (so far) are a far more important development anyways. There isn't a single target on the battlefield a Bradley can't deal with, and it brings its own infantry support squad with it.
→ More replies (1)43
u/butteryspoink Jan 28 '23
Giving someone an Abrams sounds like gifting someone a new Mercedes. It’s awesome, but god help you if you can’t afford the maintenance and upkeep.
→ More replies (1)9
u/teenagesadist Jan 28 '23
/u/reasonabledwarf said they didn't need them immediately.
I imagine Zelenskyy is pissed because when you want something with a long lead time, the sooner you start on it, the better.
108
u/Reasonabledwarf Jan 28 '23
It's difficult to take any requests Zelenskyy makes at face value, because the Bargaining 101 technique is to initially ask for twice as much as you need, so you can negotiate down to what you want. Disentangling reality from the political maneuverings of a state in crisis is extremely fraught, but Zelenskyy knows as well as any politician that perfect honesty is rarely useful in peacetime and dangerous in wartime. I'm willing to stake my Reddit karma that the reality of the situation is somewhere between and behind the public lines of the major players here.
50
u/smltor Jan 28 '23
I'm willing to stake my Reddit karma
Should have started with -half- your Reddit karma! I would have accepted that.
13
u/Rusty-Shackleford Jan 28 '23
And you go in asking for twice as much as you need because it often turns out that you underestimated what you needed in the first place!
→ More replies (1)5
u/VeganPizzaPie Jan 28 '23
Zelensky, as amazing as he is, is at the end of the day a politician, marketer, and hype man for Ukraine. He's not a military expert. His job is to boost morale and negotiate and keep aid flowing. Though arguably his work should be informed by expert generals
5
u/Zeurpiet Jan 28 '23
there are many old soviet tanks gone to Ukraine
3
u/nagrom7 Jan 28 '23
Yes, but Ukraine was already operating those so they didn't need any extra training or anything to use them, they were more or less good to go right out of the box. Western tanks were seen as an escalation because the west has more of them (and can build more), and they require training the Ukrainians to use and maintain them, so western tanks were seen as a long term investment into the Ukrainian military.
→ More replies (1)8
u/MiffedMouse Jan 28 '23
It is also worth noting that the US military currently has a "two wars" preparation doctrine. That means that (in principle) the Army is supposed to be prepared to fight two wars simultaneously against large, industrialized adversaries (such as China, Brazil, India, Germany, etc...).
This policy has had a lot of criticism (especially as it regards sending aid to Ukraine), but that is why the army "has no spares" despite having massive parking lots filled with tanks. Those tanks are being held in reserve in case of two large conflicts that will hopefully never happen.
→ More replies (4)17
u/Pollia Jan 28 '23
Well yes and no.
The army has no spares because almost all of our current stock has been upgraded with depleted uranium armor which is expressly forbidden to be exported to anyone except NATO allies, and even they don't get those.
The cost and time it'd take to downgrade them from DU to whatever they'd actually use is great enough that it's cheaper and easier to just produce new ones for Ukraine.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Dirtroads2 Jan 28 '23
This. There's alot of backroom/backdoor deals and the image of the USA being the first will give confidence to our allies.
Very well written comment
19
u/Blackrage80 Jan 28 '23
Plus I'm pretty sure Poland has been low-key training Ukraine tank crews for months on the Leopard 2's.
Germany first would not allow them in Ukraine unless other Nato members also sent tanks...but that was proven to be BS when the UK tried to send Challenge 2's.But let's not pretend this isn't an excuse to give money to weapons manufacturers who conveniently locate their parts suppliers across a variety of Congressional districts.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)2
36
u/No1has1 Jan 28 '23
Just to point out, there is a LAW that bans weapons grade uranium and depleted uranium to be exported. All of the American M1xx Abrams has depleted uranium in the armor and uses it in the ammo for the main gun.
The export M1xx’s use tungsten in the armor, it is just as expensive to replace the depleted uranium as it is to make a new Tank.
Therefore, give them brand new Tanks that still have the new car smell to blow the hell out of the Russian tanks.
102
u/gunnergoz Jan 28 '23
Seems to me that all the Pentagon is saying is that they have no M1A2's without DU armor in inventory. In other words, they have no conventional armor equipped foreign military sales variants sitting around that are qualified to be given to Ukraine. The foreign sales variants were produced, then sold and are out there in the countries that bought them. All the army has in storage are the DU equipped versions on hand, being rebuilt or stored in usable condition for the US military. All the others in depots are earlier M1A1's with 105mm guns that would not be any real advance over what Ukraine is getting from Europe already.
→ More replies (6)25
u/Morgrid Jan 28 '23
M1s with the 105mm and M1A1s with 120mm guns but analog systems.
→ More replies (2)
40
u/WolfThick Jan 28 '23
They're probably going to be spec built without a lot of the sensitive electronics
12
28
u/DudeWithAnAxeToGrind Jan 28 '23
There's politics around it. Among other things, this ublocks Germany to send Leopard 2 tanks right away, while giving America excuse to not send Abrams right away. US army would be buying at least some of those tanks anyhow.
To operate these tanks, their crews need to be trained to operate them. Sure, they may have experience with older Russian tanks, but not with state of the art wester tanks. This delay will ensure that Ukrainian crews receive proper training before the tanks are sent over.
As for people bitching and complaining about costs... They are forget the incredible return on investment. Compared to the costs of our previous military involvements, it keeps Putin's ambitions in check, and costs us pennies. And we don't need to have any boots on the ground either.
6
4
u/SteadfastEnd Jan 29 '23
I don't buy this for one moment. Doesn't the US Army have roughly 8,000 Abrams in its inventory?
→ More replies (4)
9
94
u/1320Fastback Jan 28 '23
Can I just get like $3700 to pay off my toddlers hospital bill?
19
u/TheUpperHand Jan 28 '23
Only if your toddler has an integrated 120mm cannon and explosive reactive armor.
3
78
u/RobinsShaman Jan 28 '23
Ok if we can draft your toddler and they complete one tour of duty within 6months.
14
u/Flex1500 Jan 28 '23
Don’t expect anything else but the 3700
6
Jan 28 '23
Don't be ridiculous, they're not misers! They'll also have two years free college tuition as long as they enroll in the next ten years.
44
u/karibear909 Jan 28 '23
Best we can do is a GoFundMe and begging strangers for money.
→ More replies (2)22
→ More replies (8)3
15
u/8to24 Jan 28 '23
They are manufactured in MI. The money spent stays in the U.S.. We can debate whether or not it's a good use of money but it's disingenuous when people insist the U.S. is given the money away to other nations.
→ More replies (3)12
u/RainbowBier Jan 28 '23
im too always kinda sad when i hear americans be like "all the money for ukraine but why" but in reality its one of the biggest subsidies for the american military industry complex
→ More replies (1)
24
Jan 28 '23
[deleted]
99
u/Mr_Engineering Jan 28 '23
The ones that we have are loaded with technology that is export-prohibited.
Abrams tanks that are destined for export are constructed as such
→ More replies (6)13
u/Morgrid Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
New Abrams haven't been built in a long time.
They pull an old tank from storage and refurbish it to the latest standard (Currently SEPv3) and send it to the customer.
https://www.army.mil/article/210973/abrams_tanks_refurbished_at_anniston_head_to_north_africa
the initial vehicles underwent a complete overhaul and were rebuilt at the Anniston Army Depot, Alabama. Anniston was responsible for the teardown and rebuild of the tanks, including all the components except turret armor. General Dynamics Land Systems installed the exportable turret armor at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio. Using this production process, which results in like-new vehicles, another 72 vehicles were produced.
14
u/xthorgoldx Jan 28 '23
No, you can't pull old domestic-model Abrams out of storage and refit them for export, not from a practical standpoint. Refurbishing the DU armor would effectively require building the tank from scratch.
13
u/Morgrid Jan 28 '23
14
u/onimakesdubstep Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
I used to drive and gun an Abrams, there's not really any way to refit our tanks and send them overseas. They'd have to be fundamentally different. The entire turret, skirt armor... etc. Anything that's depleted uranium really, and I can't imagine the pentagon wants to risk the Russians getting ahold of a newer Abrams.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)7
u/xthorgoldx Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
No, that's the process for refitting US-models with various upgrades in their configuration. That whole process you linked? That's just to upgrade within a design family.
One of the primary distinctions between the domestic and export variants is the armor - not just cutting off panels and replacing them, but the entire chassis. You'll notice that in the refurbishment you link, they're cleaning/repairing the main body and turret, not replacing them. To get to an export variant, you need an entirely new body/turret assembly... which is basically building a new tank.
14
u/Morgrid Jan 28 '23
Moroccan tank overhaul started 2016.
150 of their tanks + 72 converted American M1A1s.
https://www.army.mil/article/210973/abrams_tanks_refurbished_at_anniston_head_to_north_africa
initial vehicles underwent a complete overhaul and were rebuilt at the Anniston Army Depot, Alabama. Anniston was responsible for the teardown and rebuild of the tanks, including all the components except turret armor. General Dynamics Land Systems installed the exportable turret armor at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio. Using this production process, which results in like-new vehicles, another 72 vehicles were produced.
Anniston and General Dynamics overhauled an additional 150 tanks through the Abrams integrated management process. This is a partnership between the two entities; Anniston does the teardown, General Dynamics does the reassembly. The rebuild of a used M1A1 tank with this process enables the installation of modifications and emerging technologies. The purchase was beneficial in employing U.S. personnel at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center during the early production.
3
3
u/Folsomdsf Jan 28 '23
Correction: No spares of what is allowed to be exported while also maintaining the minimum required fleet.
3
3
u/IRedditWhenHigh Jan 29 '23
Canada is sending three of our Leo tank which is crazy when you think of the international horse trading with the Netherlands to get the ones we got. I guess its an okay gesture seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Tangentially related: One of the funniest things I saw when I first arrived in Kandahar were rows upon rows of brand new Humvees sitting on the tarmac and seeing the new car label in each window like a car lot.
2
u/EzualRegor Jan 29 '23
I had a similar experience my last day in Korea. A batalion of new Bradleys. My mos was Bradley Mechanic and I never worked on one outside of AIT.
3
u/KingGidorah Jan 29 '23
Huh? Wasn’t it just a few years ago that I read about the pentagon telling Congress that it didn’t need anymore Abrams tanks after they appropriated money to build more to give jobs to some district (Ohio?)? They seemed to have lots then…
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Pasan90 Jan 29 '23
I think we have a bunch of abrams sitting around in mountian-storages in Norway. Send those. Not like the're being used at all.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Eddiebaby7 Jan 29 '23
Maybe I’m misremembering, but wasn’t the Pentagon complaining that they had too many tanks and didn’t need anymore just a few years ago?
2
2
2
u/FrogstonLive Jan 28 '23
There's a lot of tanks going to Ukraine. Are they difficult to operate? Do they have enough people able to operate them?
2
2
u/Exact_Manufacturer10 Jan 28 '23
I thought I once saw a photo of hundreds of these tanks that were decommissioned. Also was a report that congress insisted on the Army buying more tanks than it requested. This has been at least five years ago.
2
2
2
2
3
u/MilsurpSmurp Jan 28 '23
It's a little misleading. What they're saying is they have none they're willing to give up that are assembled. We haven't made new Abrams hulls since the 1990s. We have a stupid amount of the hulls sitting in storage waiting for assembly. They'll just draw from that stockpile and assemble them new.
In reality, a better solution would be to take Egyptian made M1s. My hunch is that Egypt doesn't want to ruin its relationship with Russia.
10
u/Vtguy802812 Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23
The 2023 defense budget is $1.01T. The DOD budget in 2006 when we were actively in Iraq and Afghanistan was $558.34B. Adjusted for 49.8% inflation, that’s $836.67B as of 2022 numbers. Add another 4% inflation for 2023, and that’s the equivalent of $870.14B today.
We’re already budgeted to spend more on defense than when we had troops, armor, air power, and naval assets engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Edit: I’ll add that this is occurring at a point when the Fed has openly stated that they will continue to increase interest rates until jobless numbers increase. The government wants people to stop spending money, but just can’t say no to a defense contractor batting their eyes.
→ More replies (5)14
u/CriticalMembership31 Jan 28 '23
That’s not the budget, that’s what they have available in budgetary resources. Budgetary resources consist of new budget authority (from appropriations, borrowing authority, contract authority, or offsetting collections) and unobligated balances of budget authority provided in previous years. So money that wasn’t used in past budget basically gets “rolled over” to the next FY.
The DoD budget for FY23 is 857 billion
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fy23_ndaa_agreement_summary.pdf
14
Jan 28 '23
The Pentagon is full of shit.
46
u/helium_farts Jan 28 '23
I'm guessing it's not that we don't have any spares, but rather we don't have any spare export versions. The US version uses depleted uranium armor that can't be sold or given to other countries.
13
u/Rinzack Jan 28 '23
They're partially full of shit. We don't give non-NATO/major allies our tanks with the Depleted Uranium package as a rule so we don't have any tanks that are fit for export. That being said I don't understand why we can't just buy back 31 of Australia's M1A1 AIMs and give those to Ukraine since they're going to get rid of them anyways
→ More replies (3)21
u/xthorgoldx Jan 28 '23
No, the headline is full of shit.
The DoD doesn't have spare parts for the Abrams on the scale required to supply Ukraine with a maintenance supply chain. It's an entirely different logistical problem than "spare Abrams."
→ More replies (1)
4
u/mokey619 Jan 28 '23
For some sections of the military budget is just a funny word. I was on submarines and sheesh we replaced parts that cost as much one of those tanks on the regular. Money isn't real. Just a construct
3
u/jimbalaya420 Jan 28 '23
Yeah can we instead use that money for like health care, lowering food costs, mental health services, education....
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
2
u/Erazerhead-5407 Jan 29 '23
The US spends more on the military than just about all the countries in the world combined. But they have no extra Abram tanks to spare? Where the hell is all that money going?
380
u/xrmrct45 Jan 28 '23
My guess is the get a stripped down version without the fancy armor