LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Steel Badger]

The "new" MGS , post modification:

 

[blacktriangle]

I was going through that long list of deletions and "Safety Concerns" all came to mind.   Down grading a lot of the Armour and such, just to reduce weight and with the intention of adding Bolt On armour seems to defeat the purpose of the whole exercise.   Either a vehicle is sufficiently armoured to begin with or it isn't a Combat vehicle...These cost and weight cuts pose serious concerns to me.   Crew safety seems to have been completely disregarded.

Someone needs to get this on the news...

If people make a big enough deal about it, maybe they will cancel it. Governements will cancel projects if it makes them look bad. My feeling is that the military gets this stuff and always finds a way to make it work, I just hope it won't cost human lives in the process. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

If people make a big enough deal about it, maybe they will cancel it. Governements will cancel projects if it makes them look bad. 

And then what?

 

[Infanteer]

The "new" MGS , post modification:

Worked for the Marines in Hue city....

 

[KevinB]

This is the Army doing it to itself.

Brought to you be the same people that decided they coudl self validate the DFS concept...  :

Surprised more shoulders did not pop out by all the self congratulating and back slapping

 

[blacktriangle]

And then what?

Maybe they should take a look at everything, and stop trying to invent all this "new" (and very expensive) stuff and maybe follow the lead of out other allies. If you all are going to get 66 of something, make sure that they are something that we could really use. Re-visit this mgs concept when technology and Canada's true needs are more clear. If the MGS is really the solution we need, we know what we will need to consider, and hopefully in time, the technology will be there to make the vehicle something more then it currently can be.

 

[Infanteer]

And then what?

>

 

[Cloud Cover]

Funny- there aren't any beer bottles in the tube.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The MGS had to placed on a diet simply because the C130 cannot carry it.  The C130J can carry it, as long as the MGS has no ammunition, crew, fuel or any other supplies, but it can only carry 30 minutes of fuel on board, so it requires an immediate refuelling after take off.

I forgot to mention in my previous post that the run flat inserts had to be deleted as well, just too darn heavy.....

It seems strange to me that so much emphasis is being placed on the C130 requirement.  But, hey, it's not our project, it's an American project.....

I also forgot too mention that with all this weight reduction, the price of the MGS is expected to drop, we should be able to save almost $100 per copy.  Then again, $100 out of $6 million seems kind of puny..........

 

[TCBF]

Quote from: ShawnSmith on Yesterday at 17:09:01
"If people make a big enough deal about it, maybe they will cancel it. Governements will cancel projects if it makes them look bad."

- Like, you mean, the Gun Registry?

Tom

 

[Mountie]

Here is another option.  The Light Compact Turret System 90 by CMI.  It can match the performance of a 105mm gun with its low-recoil 90mm gun.  The 90mm gun is lighter and its ammunition is obviously lighter and smaller meaning more ammunition can be carried.  The 90mm Cockerill gun can defeat T-72 armour at 2000m and can easily defeat the armour of the T-54, T-55, T-62, AMX-30, and Leopard 1 at 8 km range. 

"The LCTS-90 has other amazing features. In this advanced turret, the gun is slaved to a stabilized day-night (thermal) gunner sight with a computerized fire control system allowing firing on the move and at moving targets, and the stabilized panoramic commander sight offers hunter-killer capability. Such features are usually found only on much heavier and more expensive vehicles..."

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Mountie, the CV-CT turret is the Cockerill 90 turret, replaced with a brand new, Cockerill 105, and some newer electronic gizmos.  The Cockerill 90 is in service with the Saudi Arabia National Guard on the LAV III chassis.  The SANG has/is conducting trials to determine whether or not to upgrade the LCTS with the CV-CT.

 

[Mountie]

Yes, I know that.  The point is that the 90mm gun is still capable of penetrating all armoured vehicles up to a T-72 tank.  And can even penetrate this at 2000m range.  Why upgrade to a 105mm gun that is heavier and has larger ammunition, which means less ammunition carried, when the 90mm gun will do just fine.  The heavier you make the vehicle the more problems you encounter.  When are Canadian task forces/battle groups going to go head to head with T-72's or anything bigger. 

 

[George Wallace]

I just wonder if your statement of holding more ammo with 90 mm is accurate.  I imagine that the room saved in calibre really isn't the question, but the room saved by the Carousel.  I am not engineer, but I don't see much in the way of space being saved in a redesigned Carousel.

 

[a_majoor]

I would not be too worried about having tank duels with a LAV mounting anything, until a compact electromagnetic railgun is available.

A 105mm does have some down sides with size, weight and ammunition storage, but a 105mm HE shell, or HEAT-MP, or HESH is certainly going to do a better job of taking out the bunkers, troops in the open or enemy light vehicles (anything from a Toyota Land Cruiser "technical" to vehicles in the LAV class) than a 90mm. Given the CV-CT turret has a 420 elevation capability, a 105mm shell fired indirect or semi indirect will have more of an impact (heh) than a 90mm, all other things being equal.

In an emergency, when the local warlord rolls out his tank, or the PLA joins the fray, a 105 probably has a marginal improvement over a 90mm in terms of hitting power, and of course it would be easier to produce "smart" ammunition, through tube missiles etc. in 105mm than 90mm. As a final thought, I am fairly certain that 105mm ammunition is more common, making logistics easier.

As a final note, the CV_CT uses a 16n round "bustle" on the back of the turret to hold the ready ammunition, and more can be stored internally in a "wine rack" or other stowage arrangement. How much extra room you could get by switching to 90mm is perhaps debatable, but I would guess perhaps only two more rounds could be squeezed in the bustle.

 

[George Wallace]

On further reflection on the Ammo size, 90 vs 105, I would say that there would be no real benefit of it.  The round may be smaller, but the casing will probably be the same size.  When we had the Centurions, we had 20 Pdr and 105, ammo and barrels.  It was a simple change of the barrel ( the Chamber was part of the barrel) and we converted them between ammo types.  The breach and ammo stowage stayed the same.  Lance can confirm this better than I.

So a 90mm rd may still take up the same space as a 105 mm rd in the veh.  The problem now lies with the carousel, which would have to be converted between types of ammo, unlike in our centurion days when it was a quick barrel change.  Technology is more complex and more likely to fail in this system.

 

[Infanteer]

Perhaps another issue to add to George's critique - the MGS is a doctrinal part of the Stryker Brigades.  Do we want to go 90mm when a 105mm round is going to be a big part of the US inventory?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

You're correct, George.  When we swapped the barrels, there was no swapping of bins or anything else.  As a matter of fact, well up in to the early 1990's, all of the blank rounds we fired from the Leo were 20 pounder casings, cut down.  The 20 pounder and the 105 shared the same breech ring, recoil system and cradle as well.

In the early 70's, we did not have training ammunition for the 105.  When the Centurions were offloaded in Bergen-Hohne, as they entered the firing pad, the 105 barrels were removed, the 20 pounder fitted, and then they were ready to fire.  When they left the pad, the barrels were swapped again.  It was quite quick to swap barrels, too......

 

[TCBF]

"  When they left the pad, the barrels were swapped again.  It was quite quick to swap barrels, too...."

In Germany during the Cuban missle crisis, the Cdn Bde went into their conc areas.  The Centurians had started to re-bbl to 105mm already, but BAOR held no war stock 105mm, so the 8 CH(PL) had to re-bbl their 105s back to 20 pdr to get ready to maybe go to war.

The only reason the Yanks want MGS is because the PWS on the Stryker needs back-up.  If the Yanks had LAV 3 like we did, they would not bother with a LAV 3.  So, niether should we.

Tom

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Tom, are you trying to say that the 25mm pop gun is a viable replacement for a direct fire cannon?  We still require some kind of a platform that can mount a 105/120, preferably the 120.  Of course, our Leo can be mounted with the 120, the Leopard 1A6 mounted the 120, had a independant PERI sight for the commander, and turret electric drive.  The downside is that stowed ammunition dropped to 40 rounds.