LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Zipper]

Thanks Lance, Teddy. As I stated to please correct me. You did. 

Rick, take a pill. I may have spent most of my time in a Cougar and Iltis, but unlike most people on courses and around, I paid attention and studied my ass off (usually top 3 or 1/3).

My opinions are just that, opinions. They change when I'm presented with the evidence that there wrong. But that doesn't mean I won't put them out there to be challenged. Oh, and there are no stupid questions...

As for around here, I have my opinions on how things are going with our (yes, our) military and the MGS. They suck in my eyes. Does it mean I don't support our soldiers and what they have to go through? Hell no. Does it mean that I disagree with all of the changes? No. There are some great things coming (I hope). And if they ever listen to 2B and AMajoor on their ideas, even better things...

So please get down off your high "I'm a soldier, and your not" horse for a moment and realize that the military is a concern for everyone in Canada, not just those who are still in.

Thanks and have a nice day.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Yes, in this specific instance, you qualified your statement and sought correction.  However, a few posts before:

Well considering how much they cost in time and money to keep running, how few techs we have now to do so, and the fact that a "tank" is a projection of power shock weapon which doesn't sit well with the "soft approach" our politicians want, well...

Also, the Leo with its 105mm cannon cannot play in today's heavy armour field as it wouldn't be able to take on any modern equivalent.

This was presented - to a new poster - as "facts" coming from someone in the know. The fact that you're probably correct in your first line doesn't change things.  Furthermore, I seem to recall engaging you over comments about officers made in another thread - comments that were inflammatory and that reflected your very limited previous service. 

If you've got opinions, great, that's what this is for.  If they're opinions, state them as such and clearly distinguish them from what you think rather than know.  A qualifier such as "as far as I know" goes a long way, as does the provision of sources and concrete evidence.  In this case (MGS/Leo), a simple Google search would have given you - and the rest of us - all sorts of information to ponder.

In my own case, since Army Rick has deferred to me, I will state that I am hardly a gunnery god and can't remember the various nomenclatures for the various specialist tank rounds (DM-21, DM-XX, etc.) we've been speaking of.  However, I KNOW, because I was involved with both the deployment of the tanks and the procurement plan for the ammo, why we deployed uparmoured Leopard C1s to Kosovo...and why the Danes used Leopard 1s in Bosnia.

TR, jockeying now.

 

[prom]

Sorry, there's just no where else to put this. Simple request and the next post can go back within arcs.

Prom,

You have not addressed the original request from Army Rick, you've actually skirted it pretty well. To end all this, please just fill in your profile. It will add weight to your statements if you can back it up. Simple solution, n'est pas?

Well since you have asked nicely


since i ahve nothing to put into the profile section except for my age and location....... ill give you how i have my base of knowledge that i tend to work off of for my prespective. I have had 3 uncles that have been in Armour till about 98-99 when the last one had retired. one died in '86 in a trainning accident, one retired in 93 and joinned teh LBP peacekeeping centre. the other has moved onto construction but maintains ties with amny current service and former service members. I have 2 uncles that have been in Arty and have retired about 95-96. 2 cousins in the Navy still serving, and 4 friends, 1 navy Ocdt, and 3 in inf attached to RCR. well you know after years of talk and comments from these CF members i think that I do have a prespective when it comes down to it.... its just shapped by the served and serving......and well soon to be serving. Personally I have alot of exp in CAD.... and parts production..... and Network Installs and maintance.  done 5 yrs of Cadets, not sure what else you want from me..... I was legit on statements.... they were not far from their mark...... considering no one called me on anyhitng other tehn the govermetn sucking and being stupid about how they handle things.....


if ya want anything else feel free to PM me.... as i have been saying for what 4 posts?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and on that note, folks, either keep it on topic or go to PM's.
Thank you.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thx prom,

Just like to know who we're talking to.

 

[Zipper]

Alright. Point taken Teddy.

Then I will try to qualify my above statement on the Leo being able to take on a modern equivalent through you.

Do you believe if all things being equal, that a Leo C-1 can take on a Leo 2A4, Challenger, M1A2, T-90, Merk, Leclerc, etc...?

Also, what is your opinion on the MGS? Viable or just another political curve ball? Since we wish to stick to topic and all.

As for my opinions of officers, oh well. There are good ones, and then there are bad ones. What the cut is between the two is your own guess.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Zipper:  Roger, out...   Back to the subject at hand.

It's slightly unfair to compare the Leopard C2 to most newer tanks.  I'll give an example.  The Strathconas have an annual shoot with the Idaho National Guard.  The ING uses their M1A2s, while the Strathconas use the Leo.  This was actually featured on the program "Truth, Duty, Valour" last year.  The LdSH(RC) didn't win last year, but have won in the past.  The C2 has a very good night capability and our crews are very well trained - the Americans were quite shocked when they first lost.  As Lance pointed out, there are all sorts of factors regarding tank vs. tank competition that have to be weighed.

My personal opinion?  I would take a C2 against any Russian-built tank, even the "Russian only" models and even the T-90.  I simply don't have any confidence that Russian technology has managed to equal that of the West, particularly in fire control systems.  Moreover, I have tremendous confidence in our crew training and in our guys' ability to hit targets.  No, it isn't an M1A2, Challenger 2, Leopard 2A5/6 or any of those.  My question is:  does it have to be, given the current geopoltical climate?

As for the MGS (the subject of this thread, after all), I think it is the wrong vehicle for what we're after and was selected almost entirely because of where it is built.  We are buying it in too few numbers and there are too many questions surrounding it's viability as a gunnery platform.  I am still not confident that (and someone can correct me if I'm out of date here - I've been away from this for a while) the overpressure problems with the gun have been resolved, that the platform is stable enough to permit stablized firing over all arcs, that armour protection (ie: the "birdcage" used on Stryker in Iraq) is effective against RPG, that the autoloader is robust enough to enable sustained firing and that problems with the coax have been addressed.  Finally, I am of the firm opinion that there are not enough main gun rounds on the vehicle itself, no matter how sophisticated the fire control system and no matter how sure the crew commander can be of first round hits.

Finally, I remain skeptical of the entire MGS employment concept, whereby it is a part of a "system of systems" providing close range direct fire with TOW and ADATS providing longer range overwatch.  Personally (and I have zero experience with the system itself), I have my doubts that ADATS can be a truly effective direct fire ground platform.  It is heavy, expensive, logisitically burdensome and lacks mobility.  Yet we've created a three-headed monster in the form of the Direct Fire Regiment, combining all three systems in one unit - thus tripling the maintenance and logistical difficulties...

My two cents - which isn't worth a helluva lot in the final scheme of things!

Cheers,

TR

 

[a_majoor]

Alas, Teddy, the MGS is the 21rst century LSVW  . Even the "promise" of jobs has proven a mirage, GD is shifting production to under utilized plants in the US. Other posts and threads have demonstrated the shifting requirements of the program; essentially they are constantly rewritten to reflect what the MGS "can" do rather than what we "need" an MGS to do.

If we need an MGS, it is to provide rapid and accurate gunfire against enemies in fairly close proximity (where gunfire has a big advantage), while a missile platform needs a very versatile weapon. ADATs has the issues you identified, and is also a line of sight weapon, since it depends of a sensor system in the tail of the missile to recieve signals sent from the firing post via laser link. As long as we can lure the enemy into attacking us in Suffield, we will be OK, but the vaunted 8km range is nonsense across most of the world.

Actually, even though a LAV-TOW could be modified to carry HELLFIRE, BRIMESTONE or FOG-M (which can be fired at maximum range since they can fly over obstructions to seek targets), it may end up being cheaper to fire weapons like that off HMMVW or similar platforms, a capacity which has been demonstrated many times.

 

[Zipper]

Oh my God!! Teddy, you have hit the nail on the head about the MGS and the DFS concept. Everything stated is exactly what myself, and I am sure most here feel towards it. Thanks for putting it all in one easy to read format. 

As for what you said about the C1 Leo. I will not knock the crews and their capabilities one iota. Their awesome and do a bang up job. But on the range and hitting a target is one thing. Hitting and killing another tank is another.

What I guess I was getting at is that in perfect conditions with similarly trained crews (even Russian, as they are not slouches by any means), that a C1 will lose out on a first round shot tank to tank at range. Its front armour and the 105 do not stand up to the front armour and 120/125 rounds of the previously mentioned tanks.

And it does not take a ballistic/soldier expert to look at the numbers and penetrating powers of each to figure that out.

And yes, I agree with you on the probable lack of modern firing systems on most eastern block tanks being on par with ours.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

What I guess I was getting at is that in perfect conditions with similarly trained crews (even Russian, as they are not slouches by any means), that a C1 will lose out on a first round shot tank to tank at range. Its front armour and the 105 do not stand up to the front armour and 120/125 rounds of the previously mentioned tanks.

True, but the problem is that we're dealing in semantics and in situations were there are a million variables.  What round is the Leo firing?  Is it at night?  Is it a frontal engagement?  How well drilled are the crews?  On and on.  All I can say is that I wouldn't want to get my bell rung by 105mm sabot - even in an M1A2.  As Lance points out, the round doesn't need to penetrate!

Alas, Teddy, the MGS is the 21rst century LSVW   . Even the "promise" of jobs has proven a mirage, GD is shifting production to under utilized plants in the US. Other posts and threads have demonstrated the shifting requirements of the program; essentially they are constantly rewritten to reflect what the MGS "can" do rather than what we "need" an MGS to do.

If we need an MGS, it is to provide rapid and accurate gunfire against enemies in fairly close proximity (where gunfire has a big advantage), while a missile platform needs a very versatile weapon. ADATs has the issues you identified, and is also a line of sight weapon, since it depends of a sensor system in the tail of the missile to recieve signals sent from the firing post via laser link. As long as we can lure the enemy into attacking us in Suffield, we will be OK, but the vaunted 8km range is nonsense across most of the world.

Exactly.  Good point on the MGS' construction.  Even LAV III is now (largely) American (turret, engine, drivetrain, etc..).  As for ADATS, the missiles are extremely expensive (over $250k when I was working in the ammo world seven years ago) and I just cannot see this being cost effective in a mid to high-intensity context.

If it were me, scrap the whole plan.  Settle on a single medium direct fire platform (CV-90ish) as an interim vehicle.  Give TOW back to the Infantry.  Keep ADATS as an air defence system or, more likely, scrap it.  Then, over the next ten years or so, pursue a technolgically-advanced replacement in concert with a major ally.  Field this in 2015 or so and away we go.

Then again, maybe it's just me...

Cheers,

Teddy

 

[Zipper]

Lol, Ok ok. We're dealing in semantics. And no, I sure as hell wouldn't want to get my bell (or turret) rung by a 105 sabot. Although I'd probably live with bleeding ears, at least I wouldn't be sucked out a 3" hole. ;D

As for the CV90 idea. Alright!!

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I do not claim to be a tank expert  or LAV expert. 
The facts are there, Canada will not have a tank force on any  training field or battle field.  For various reasons, costs of maintaining a fleet of aging Leos,  cost of moving the aging leos from training area to base of operations. We cannot do it ourselves.

When I was in highschool back in the late 80s I did a paper on the results of the FLQ crisis in Quebec, I do not recall the book I read for part of my  paper.  In the book it was stated that  the  "army" was buying the wheeled weapons systems back then was not to look like an army  driving tanks down the streets of Quebec.  That was too army  like and was the wrong image would be given to the public and the press.

Image and money  is nipping at the heels of the army again. They  could buy  a new fleet of tanks with the big gun systems, and tracks, and they  would hardly  ever leave Canada for operations due to lack of shipping them.  Lets look at this way we go out and buy enough of what ever model of tanks to replace each L1 we have now.  We have nice shiny  new or used tanks sitting at our Bases,  we train the soldiers to crew the and operate them to the level where they  should be able to do a great job.  We go to send them to whatever the opeartional zone is, we cannot air ship them ( C5 aircraft can carry one M1 at a time) , so they have to be shipped by  sea, we do not have a roll off ship in our fleet, and they are kind of hard to lease on short notice.  We  buy  a LAV model at least we can ship one or two by air if need be, our c130s would be not be the aircraft of choice but  we could .

we could do the rental of a ship again have to send out my  army  to seize control of the ship again like they gad to do before when the bills were not paid by  the contractor to his sub contractor.

the Canadian Forces need huge amounts of cash, for transport aircraft, roll off ships for the navy, weapons systems for all 3, new truckx, jeeps, fire support vechis, and uniforms.

they  need all this in place before  they  consider tanks that  cannot be used outside of Canada .

 

[Lance Wiebe]

As Teddy has pointed out, the Leo C2 cannot really be compared with the latest and greatest tanks from the west.  The one, and only, advantage Russian tanks have over the Leo C2 is their defensive armament suite, from their armour to other active systems.  Their FCS, their ammunition, and their main gun are all inferior to the C2.  Our tank is still not useless, or totally obsolete, given the enemies it would likely face.

Reference FormerHorseGuards post, the LAV III and the MGS cannot be carried by our C130's either.  So, we're back to transporting them by ship.  So much for your theory!

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Reference FormerHorseGuards post, the LAV III and the MGS cannot be carried by our C130's either.   So, we're back to transporting them by ship.   So much for your theory!

Exactly.  For the record, a C-5B can carry 2 x M1A2 (and routinely does), while a C-17 can carry one.  As I understand it, the MGS can be carried in a C-130, but only if stripped of add-on armour and only for an "inter-theatre hop" of about 100 km or so.  The vehicle then requires preparation time before proceeding into action.  Not very useful.  We are certainly not going to be flying LAV IIIs and/or MGS into Afghanistan from Edmonton anytime soon.  The fact of the matter is that we had a helluva time just lifting Coyote (which is C-130 transportable) into Kandahar in 2002; I cannot imagine what lifting a heavier, more unwieldy vehicle would be like.

This is why I suggested a medium weight vehicle as an interim...  We're going to have lift problems anyway, so why not take a second look at the capability we're going to be adopting?  Wonder how many CV-90s you can cram into a C-5 (or an Antonov, for that matter)?  A Galaxy has airdropped 4 x Sheridans (42,000 pound tanks) in one go (7 June 1989), so why limit ourselves to a vehicle that only theoretically will fit into a Herc?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I find it hard to believe that Hillier actually wants MGS or any of the other parts of the "System of Systems".

Is there any chance that this is simply "approved funding" that he is keeping in his pocket and will reallocate when the time is right?




Matthew.  ???

 

[Zipper]

Agreed. Until we sort out our transport problems, everything else rather pales in comparison. We need money spent in so many places to come UP to a base level that it is hard to look at and not cry.

And no, the C-1 is far from being useless. In fact I still think it is a great vehicle, if we were only going to keep it operational. But as Former has said, there are more important things that need the cash right now that would be better served then tanks.

We could look at our forces on a tier system, with say tier 3 being tanks and other heavy platforms, and tier 1 being base needs for Canada's defense (uniforms, rifles, etc.). So what do you think? Are we even solidly in a tier 1 position?

As for the MGS. Sigh. I'm tired of knocking the thing. Everyone here knows already how poor the thing is, that its no use screaming at the choir. So we can only hope that Hillier is doing just that Matthew.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

In theory, there is a chance that the vehicle won't actually make the procurement phase - I know that all force structures are under examination as part of the CDS' transformation initiatives.  I also know that they were taking a hard look at the utility of a three system "system".

However, Gen Hillier has been pretty outspoken in saying that the MGS is "it" and the rest of the Armour Corps has been told to get on with it and stop naysaying (which I am certainly - to an extent - guilty of).  Moreover, I beleive that the MGS is a government and Treasury Board directed purchase, with all that means for the military.

In the end, we'll have to wait and see.  MGS is already delayed another year and, AFAIK, no contracts have been signed (I am out of the loop on this one, though).  If it survives in the US (as it is likely to), I think we'll end up with it - regardless of the limitations of the platform.

Cheers,

TR

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Is there the possibility it's being acquired not for its firepower/protection levels but because of its battlespace awareness gear?

More to the point, once you bring in the MGS, the Armed Forces will have no choice but to upgrade battlespace awareness gear on its remaining vehicles?

In short, by buying a questionable Direct Fire Support Vehicle, you're not just getting a questionable Direct Fire Support Vehicle, you're committing yourself to upgrade your entire land fleet to a new standard.

If so, that starts to make more sense....



M.   

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Unfortunately, that's not the answer.  We will pay a premium to modify the MGS from the base US configuration to a Canadian-specific set-up, including the Athene tactical system and Iris comms.  Both are already in service or are coming into service throughout the Army.

 

[ArmyRick]

"Battlespace awareness" ?

I am not 100% sure but I beleive the Coyote mast and remote surveillanvce variants have a better surveillance/radar package availible (when its in a good OP position).

There is no radar on the MGS (as far as I know) however it does have a good gun sighting system.

Also, the ADATS (as it is now) has a very good surveillance and I beleive a radar system (air def arty guys want to correct me?).

I know the TUA (I am qualified on it) has a thermal (x 12) and optic sight (x 13).

I talked to some RCD friends at work and they also said the Leo C2 has a fantastic sight system.

The US are employing a system (with stryker brigades and I beleive some of their heavy ones as well) a Friend or foe ID system that shows on a GPS style scren where they are (Freindlies are idicated by blue and enemy by red). You can find out more about this technology on the US army FCS web site.

Is this what you are getting at with battlespace awareness?