LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[mainerjohnthomas]

25mm cannon are nice, but lack the knockout punch of a 105.  Against hard targets, the 105mm has the ability to bunkerbust better than any light cannon, and for cheaper than the equivalent missile punch.  If our LAV mounted the 25mm with side mounted Spike, Javelin, or TOW missile systems, then you could argue that each section would have the equivalent anti-bunker and anti-armour capacity, but as long as the CF wants cannon only LAV, then the 105mm MGS is a better than nothing.  With the 105 rather than the 90mm, there is also the hope that through tube missile systems will give the LAV MGS a chance to score against heavier armour in anti-tank encounters.  We may not want to meet any MBT's in an MGS, but that doesn't mean some poor zipperhead isn't going to have to do it.

 

[TCBF]

"Tom, are you trying to say that the 25mm pop gun is a viable replacement for a direct fire cannon?"

- No, I am saying the direct fire cannon we have chosen is "bleeding edge" technology and other adult countries have stuck with MBTs for a reason.  Having said that, if they had 25mm on each Stryker, they would balance that off with their AT holdings and be happy with that.

Just like we are, now, on the ground. 

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

Don't be so sure, the American Army loves its firepower, and an SBCT with both chain guns AND 105mm cannons would certainly give a lot of Captains and LCols a very big smile each and every trip to the vehicle compound or range.

The reason the Strykers did not get 25mm cannons has many answers (weight restrictions, desire for more room in the hull, prevent crew commanders form doing the "Charge of the Light Brigade" etc.). In principle, having some sort of "assault gun" to shoot in attacks is always a good thing, even a 25mm will have difficulty if the enemy is bunkered in urban terrain, while a tank, assault gun or SP is just the ticket to showing these people the error of their ways.

The error of OUR way is that we have forgotten the assault guns were inexpensive means of supplimenting the firepower of an Infantry formation, cut down and obsolete tank hulls formed the basis of most assault guns in WWII. A modern analogue would be an assault gun built on a M-113 chassis, or Mat Fisher's CAT Leopard C 1 conversion scheme. An unmodified LAV III hull with a CV_CT turret has many more options than are really "needed" for an inexpensive assault gun, but has the flexibility (combined with advanced ammunition and through tube missiles) to become the MMEV or an SP gun system as well.

 

[TCBF]

Well, since Canada has decided we need such a vehicle, I just hope we keep a balanced view of our options, especially if the MGS turns into an eight wheeled Avro Arrow - or more to the point, since it is American, a Sgt York SPAAG (or XF-108 if you want to keep a common aviation theme).

Tom

 

[geo]

Washington Report - November 2005
5. Krieg Allows Mobile Gun System to Move Into Low-Rate Production.   The Pentagon has approved the Army's request to fully advance the Stryker Mobile Gun System into low-rate initial production, and the vehicles will begin rolling off production lines this month.   The Army had been under orders to produce only 14 MGSs, along with long-lead parts for an additional 58 vehicles.   But a 13 Oct 05 memo by Ken Krieg, the Defence Department's acquisition chief, allows the Army to proceed with its plan to produce a total of 72 of the Strykers topped with a 105 mm cannon.   The memo contains one caveat, however: The Army must provide Krieg "with the rationale in advance of deploying any MGS vehicle prior to the completion of testing."    The language reflects the view from the testing community that the vehicles should not deploy until the service has issued a final test report, according to Pete Keating, a spokesman for General Dynamics, which makes Stryker vehicles for the Army.   The primary hold-up to vehicle production had been reliability of the ammunition handling system.   (Contact - CFMA)

 

[JackD]

hello.. Going back to the topic, I was just browsing through the web-site www.warwheels.net. if you look at issue 330 of Armoured CAr (under "general", in the home page) there is an article on a beastie called the "shark". maybe Mowag can dust off the plans... The last issue that ins on-line by the way as an article on the Piranna III - and includes a picture of a medium gun system equivelent.........

 

[Int]

Well, guys. On 15 Dec 2 MGS Strykers rolled into service the first of 72 LRIP...Lets keep an eye on its performance.

 

[Int]

Mr. Wiebe, do you know if the Stryker MGS has successfully been transported in a C130? I cannot find any test results on line.  The only thing I have found is that they were going to conduct test flights in August 05.....thats all I can come up with...I need to know the final results of that test flight.

 

[ChopperHead]

Well, since Canada has decided we need such a vehicle, I just hope we keep a balanced view of our options, especially if the MGS turns into an eight wheeled Avro Arrow - or more to the point, since it is American, a Sgt York SPAAG (or XF-108 if you want to keep a common aviation theme).

Tom

the Arrow was a masterpiece, excellent machine far ahead of it's time. the MGS (IMO) is piece of SH*T. Keep the leopards we have and spend the money that was going to be spent on MGS and buy some new Leo 2's to supplement our current tank forces.

so in away i hope your right but the arrow is just a bad example. The MGS is just a quick fix so that we have some armour in one form or another in field rather then having to buy ships and aircraft capable of transporting our tanks. thats all it is, the government being cheep and not buying the stuff that we need and just spending money where ever just to say that they are.

if you dont agree with me dont flame me it's just my opinion.

 

[Guest]

Technically, the MGS is CC-130 Air-Transportable, just like the LAVIII.. technically.

In practice.. you wouldn't want to use a CC-130 as your PRIMARY means of transport for either of them. (For obvious reasons)

We didn't lose the tanks because of optics.. in Canada.. a LAVIII is called a "Tank" by pretty much everybody NOT in the Military.

The MGS will be just as scary to those people. (It also has that "looks way cool peacekeeper gear " photo op factor going on.

Combine that with the MMEV.. with all it's fancy missiles, radar and toaster oven and coffee maker.. we're bound to impress our fellow sheeple.

We got them, to help us become more usefull as a UN and NATO GARRISON Force.

Thats right.. no more big battles for us.. if there are any.. we will be asked to stay home (so we won't get hurt)

The Brits, the Americans, the Aussies.. they'll be the ones doing the heavy slugging when called on.. we'll stay "near the rear" or "On the side"

Our Medium weight, high dollar,  tastes great, less filling force will have decent speed to "runaway in quite a spectacular fashion, should ENEMY TANKS show up in any significant number.

I suspect they wont let us play if they anticipate anything more dangerous than a T-55. (After all.. our new "Tank" and LAVS will be worth 3X as much.. and more vulnerable)

Nope.. we'll be doing all the " babysitting" work for the next 30-50 years..  making sure the  locals get plenty of Cdn flags and teddy bears. patrolling around areas where the biggest "armour" threat will be a rusty Nissan with a 20 mm in the bed

Oh, eventually we'll slap some cages, bring our Veh up to RGB proof standards..(after we lose a couple first)

Then we'll be ready for our new role..


You've met the Americans.. the world's Police Force?

Congratulations.. You are all serving members in the worlds new... SECURITY GUARDS

 

[Blue Max]

Our Medium weight, high dollar,  tastes great, less filling force will have decent speed to "runaway in quite a spectacular fashion, should ENEMY TANKS show up in any significant number.

I suspect they wont let us play if they anticipate anything more dangerous than a T-55. (After all.. our new "Tank" and LAVS will be worth 3X as much.. and more vulnerable)

Nope.. we'll be doing all the " babysitting" work for the next 30-50 years..  making sure the  locals get plenty of Cdn flags and teddy bears. patrolling around areas where the biggest "armour" threat will be a rusty Nissan with a 20 mm in the bed

Unless Gen. Hillier does some serious shaping of Canadian forces, I am afraid your comments have cleverly forcast the lackluster future of our forces.

 

[Mortar guy]

Actually the MGS is not 'technically' air transportable in the C-130. It is at least 3,000 lbs too heavy and is unlikely to ever trim down enough to be C-130 transportable (see GAO report 04-925 here: http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04925.html ) It is important to note that even the Canadian LAV III is barely C-130 transportable as you must strip everything (add-on armour, most fuel, ammo, kit, passenger seats, tools) from the vehicle and remove the nitrogen from the suspension before you can even think about getting it in a Herc. And then, as it would then still be very close to its MTOW, the Herc would only have enough fuel to fly a couple of hundred kilometers. Hardly tactically useful eh?

MG

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The MGS has been fitted into a C130 mockup, to ensure it would fit.  In theory, a totally stripped, fuel-less, crew-less MGS can be carried by the C130J in minimum takeoff fuel mode, but this has not been actually completed.  Seems the USAF doesn't like taking off with less 30 minutes of fuel on board.  Even the "J" would have to be refuelled immediately after takeoff, and would have severe flight restrictions.  Hence why the MGS was put on another diet.....

 

[brihard]

At the risk fo straying from my lane, I've got one minor thought on this. Please correct me if I'm incorrect on any of this.

One of the primary considerations in the MGS/LAV fleet is that is be air-transportable by C-130, however the MGS exceeds the maximum carrying capacity of a Herc.

The CF is currently investigating new strategic airlift options, including the possibility of C-17s. The C-17 can carry an M1 tank, never mind a LAV.

So would it not be logical for someone in NDHQ to call a pause on this until strategic airlift is resolved so we can see if we WILL be limited to C-130s in the mid future, and if not, possibly re-evaluate what we want in terms of armoured vehicles taking any potential new developments in our air transport capability into consideration? I'd hate to think of our project being limited my the C-130 with the potential that we may be purchasing larger aircraft int eh coming years...

Again, I'm probably out of my lane here, but this just seems like common sense to this grunt...

 

[George Wallace]

One of the primary considerations in the MGS/LAV fleet is that is be air-transportable by C-130, however the MGS exceeds the maximum carrying capacity of a Herc.

The CF is currently investigating new strategic airlift options, including the possibility of C-17s. The C-17 can carry an M1 tank, never mind a LAV.

So would it not be logical for someone in NDHQ to call a pause on this until strategic airlift is resolved so we can see if we WILL be limited to C-130s in the mid future, and if not, possibly re-evaluate what we want in terms of armoured vehicles taking any potential new developments in our air transport capability into consideration? I'd hate to think of our project being limited my the C-130 with the potential that we may be purchasing larger aircraft int eh coming years...

As we know from all the previous posts, the MGS was required to fit into a C-130 and it has not been able to fill that requirement without drastic stripping of parts.  We also know from the previous posts that there is no way that the MGS can be effectively be moved in any great numbers to a conflict, by air; it will have to be transported by Sea.  This makes the C-130 requirements mote points.  As for any delays to the purchase of C-130s to replace or bring back up to strength our C-130 Fleet, think back to the replacement of our SeaKings and what delays have done there.  We can decide on C-17s, A-400s or Boeing 747s, or whatever, to fill the Strategic Lift capabilities, later.  To delay any purchase of C-130s, for Tactical Lift, would be against common sense.

Again, I'm probably out of my lane here, but this just seems like common sense to this grunt...

When did common sense ever come into play in any of your experience with the CF?  ;D

 

[brihard]

As we know from all the previous posts, the MGS was required to fit into a C-130 and it has not been able to fill that requirement without drastic stripping of parts.  We also know from the previous posts that there is no way that the MGS can be effectively be moved in any great numbers to a conflict, by air; it will have to be transported by Sea.  This makes the C-130 requirements mote points.  As for any delays to the purchase of C-130s to replace or bring back up to strength our C-130 Fleet, think back to the replacement of our SeaKings and what delays have done there.  We can decide on C-17s, A-400s or Boeing 747s, or whatever, to fill the Strategic Lift capabilities, later.  To delay any purchase of C-130s, for Tactical Lift, would be against common sense. When did common sense ever come into play in any of your experience with the CF?  ;D

Sorry, I'm not arguing against procuring new C-130s- just that since C-17s are under possible consideration as well, if they insist on keeping this idea of air transporting our armour, they might as well wait to figure out if we'll have a bigger transport to play with that would be taken into consideration in the program requirements (those being the same requirements that have apparently been abandoned anyway, though). If we can carry (notionally or not) a bigger vehicle, well, maybe we ought to consider one that won't leave the crew shake'n'baked when someone on the block realizes they don't like Canadians and decides to do something about it.

The common sense I chalk down to youthful idealism. Please allow this grunt to think that some things are right in this world, at least for a few more years.  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

Well, you don't seem to be arguing for or against the MGS, but for or against the purchase of Tactical vs Strategic Air Lift capabilities.

That is a whole different Topic in the Air Force Forums.

 

[a_majoor]

Although it is a compliment to the designers of the C-130 that after almost 50 years of service it is still the gold standard for air transporability, making the carriage of an AFV inside one as THE defining requirment is sheer madness, for many reasons as listed above.

Until we get our collective heads unwrapped around the axle of C-130 transporatbility, we will be left with vehicles of very marginal utility. If C-130 transporatbility is a critical requirment, then we need to:

a) Buy enough C-130s to lift an entire battlegroup in one chalk (plus spares, training, SAR and "ash and trash" planes), and

b) Design some radically different vehicles from the ground up which CAN be C-130 transportable and fight effectively. These will not resemble the LAV or anything else you have ever seen, for pretty obvious reasons (size, weight and volume must be utilized in some pretty radical ways to fit the C-130 parameters).

Once you start thinking that way, then the transformation of the CF into a "medium" expeditionary force requires changes far beyond anything we have even begun to contemplate, much less publicly express.

 

[Infanteer]

+1 to that Art.

 

[Patrolman]

Has anyone considered the roll-over potential of the MGS? Having Crew Commanded a Lav 3 for 4 years I have seen them roll on ex and have lost a old member of my pl.to a roll over. That soldier was Pte.Woodfield. An excellent guy who died too young.
With the added weight on an already top heavy vehicle the CF will have to prepare itself for many more rollover deaths.
How many tanks have we seen roll recently!