• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattoigta
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm actually more worried about the MMEV. Top heavy and costs per shot are going to make it a real lemon as far as bang for the buck.

As well, if you have to set up/break down the damn thing everytime your forward elements move beyond its 8 km range (less if your in obstructed terrain, which is most often) then it drastically slows down any mobility.

 
Doesn't slow anything down - we just leave the gun bunnies behind. "So long, suckers!"

Tom
 
;D ::)

Nice. Then I guess you've just solved the biggest problem with the DFS concept. Maybe we should re-think the whole thing and come up with something better then the MGS as a close Infantry support platform(acting like a Tank???), with the TUA on overwatch and the MMEV on over-overwatch and being left behind.

But then again, we're not supposed to do that.

 
Teddy Ruxpin said:
There is a mindset (which I don't happen to agree with, but will suck it up) that the tank's day is done - at least as far as Canada is concerned.  The question becomes:  what are we getting instead?

Has anyone heard any of the latest trial results in the US?
Cheers,
TR

Major,

Funny you should ask that.
The following 8 November 2004 'MGS Project Update' by Maj Alain Brule SEM MGS has some interesting info to answer your question, sort of - newly released per ATI of course.

"US Stryker MGS Update
EMD - 8 MGS produced.
  [Nothing new here.]
Low Rate Initial Production [LRIP] for MGS
LRIP 1 - 14x MGS [testing] and long lead time items;
- Award of Contract for LRIP 1 announced 17 Sep 04;
- Delivery Sep 05 - Nov 05;
LRIP 2 - 58x MGS [ramping up to full rate];
- Decision in Jun 05;
- Delivery Dec 05 - Jun 06;
Full Rate Production Decision [Milestone III] in Mar 07 - 128x MGS.

[Confirms what I previously stated on this and other threads re: US status]

Canadian MGS Project Update
Definition - procurement of 16x US-specific MGS vehicles with interim ILS support during definition.
- Purchase of select long lead time items;
- Minimize 'Canadianization' of MGS, especially for first 16.
The timing for these phases is designed to coincide with the US Stryker MGS production schedule.
MGS Project Schedule
16x Developmental Vehicles - 1st Delivery Not Before Aug 06 - TBD - At the end of US MGS LRIP 2.
IOC: Not Before July 2007.
4 for Project Activities, 12 to LdSH-RC (incl. 4 avail for initial 'Penny Packet' deployment).
Remaining 50x Vehicles - Mar 07 thru Aug 09 - TBD - Mixed with US MGS Full Rate Production.
FOC: Not Before December 2009.
MGS Fielding
Operational Stock - 24;  LdSH-RC Edm - 12;  Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre - 24;
Log Stock - 6.

[Confirms what I previously asserted on this and other threads re: initial Cdn MGS delivery.]

Challenges/Observations  (A Major Understatement)  :-[
Different Requirements - MGS as infantry support weapon [US] vs Direct Fire Support [DFS] to combined arms operations [Canada].
Procure MGS with 'no' changes, but detailed information lacking;
NO release of US Army information - efforts to establish Data Exchange Agreement ongoing;
Similar lack of information between GD and GDLS despite TAA in place."

[This is an Appalling state of affairs for a Major Capital Project (MCP) with a full-time staff of 11 Key Personnel that was Officially established back on 29 Oct 2003, especially a MCP with a C$694M Budget.  This seemingly indicates that MGS test results are even worse than publicly acknowledged and that US Army is keeping info 'close to their chest' to avoid MGS project Cancellation.
The Cdn MGS MCP has also seen a further C$63.929M increase over the Project Charter full-up cost (C$630M +10.14%), to C$693.929M per 3 June 2004 MGS 'BN for the Minister'.  "Funding.  Funding is available in the current Strategic Capabilities Investment Plan.  The total indicative full-up cost of the project is C$693,929,000 [Budget Year] less GST.  Expenditure authority has been granted for the definition phase, at a substantive full-up cost estimate of C$170,297,000 [Budget Year] less GST."]

Further to info release issue:  Eight months prior on 5 March 2004, then-MGS PD Maj J.A. Atkins (prior to his replacement as MGS PD by his boss - DLR10 LCol Luc Petit) noted to those in immediate MGS PMO loop, for new members, that even back then:
"The MGS project is having a difficult time getting information on the Stryker MGS from US Army.  Our previous requests for information from GDLS were refused either because the info was US Army proprietary [pictures, TMs, trg material and test reports] or could not be released under ITAR regulations [all other tech info].  At no time was GDLS IP an issue and I can assure you we can sort this one out very quickly if it does.  A TAA will open the door for tech info IAW IRAR regs (since proven otherwise), but GDLS will probably not be able to give us the stuff we are asking the US Army for without US Army release.  GDLS and the US Army have been playing us back and forth for some time now.  GDLS is currently staffing a TAA and we expect it to be in place by the time we start discussions with the company.  Note, until we get TB approval cfm a 'sole source' buy we must wait to begin formal talks with company."
:fifty:

Meanwhile, a 'MGS USE STUDY' Info Brief on 21 Sep 04 by MGS ILSM Maj Jim N. Hicks provided Definitive  "MGS Fielding" Info:
Initial "16 for 3 Years:  LdSH-RC - 8x Indiv/crew Trg;  CMTC - 0x LdSH vehs in trg, trials;  GDLS - 2x Eng;  CFSEME - 1x Maint Trg Dev;  NRC - 1x Sub-system integration [comms, etc];  CTC - 1x Op Trg Dev;  Depl Ops - up to 4 (3 avail)/ surge 8.
66x Steady State:  LdSH-RC - 16x Indiv/crew Trg;  CMTC - 24x Collective Trg, Precision Gunnery;  CFSEME - 1x Maint Trg Dev;  CTC - 1x Op Trg Dev;  25 CFSD Montreal - 0-30x Ops/Log Stock;  Depl Ops - up to 24."

:salute:
 
Doesn't look like much has changed......

Unfortunately, it looks very much like we will see the MGS, despite our fervent prayers.  :threat:
 
Depends how political it becomes before the next election.    The Pearson Airport deal and the EH 101 were cancelled due to political promises made, and to heck with the costs.   If this MGS thing becomes something else to beat the LPC over the head with, it to might be on the chopping block if Ontario finds it's nuts after the writs are dropped.   I don't even want to think how things might go if they start asking questions about TCCCS, and somebody starts beaking about spending 9 billion dollars and getting only 2 billion dollars worth of useable kit.  
 
If someone can tell me what "Capability Gap" the MGS is filling in a Canadian Army that has LAV III, and will have a 2.5 - 4 km "Fire and Forget" anti Tank missile(ALAWS), I will consider engaging in discussion.

MGS does make sense in the US Army where Stryker does not have the 25mm turret of our LAV III.

MGS makes no sense in our Army.

MGS is not filling any "capability gap" in the CF.  ALAWS will kill tanks.  LAV III will kill APC, destroy bunkers, etc.  Our "capability gap" is now an armoured direct fire capability... ie TANK.  MGS with its pitiful armour will not fill that gap.

This from an Infantry officer.
 
Sounds like you're already engaging in the discussion! ;D

And you are most correct.  However, the civvies with 'academic hair' who influence political decisions in our sub-arctic banana republic have deemed tanks to be 'Evil', and that's that.  The only "capability Gap" the MGS will fill is that created by the demise of the Cougar.

The technical equivalent of a BMP3 turret on a BTR 90 seems to be the general pie in the sky non-tank solution for most problems that do not need a real tank.

As for the remaining problems that need real tanks - the only solution is real tanks.  Hopefully, our friends will loan us some.  If we have any friends left by then.

 
 
TCBF said:
Sounds like you're already engaging in the discussion! ;D

And you are most correct.   However, the civvies with 'academic hair' who influence political decisions in our sub-arctic banana republic have deemed tanks to be 'Evil', and that's that.   The only "capability Gap" the MGS will fill is that created by the demise of the Cougar.

The technical equivalent of a BMP3 turret on a BTR 90 seems to be the general pie in the sky non-tank solution for most problems that do not need a real tank.

As for the remaining problems that need real tanks - the only solution is real tanks.   Hopefully, our friends will loan us some.   If we have any friends left by then.

 

Long Live The Son of "Pumpkin Launcher"
 
"Firing NOW!"  BOOM!

- Crew dismounts, prepares and eats'crew cook' breakfast of bacon and eggs, washed down by canteen cups of hot steaming coffee you could float a .50 cal barrel on, crew mounts...

WHUMP!

"Left and add!...Firing NOW!"  BOOM!

-Crew dismounts...
 
Jumping back into the technical/tactical arguments for a moment (while waiting for TCBF's round to land  ;D), Infanteer has posted some Australian articles in the Infantry thread which basicly suggest we have things backwards. To paraphrase the articles: manoeuvre is the act of bringing us to battle, and the best way to prosecute a contact is by supression through fire.

The examples given include a series of 12 company attacks on a defended village over a three year period, using a fully instrumented range and MILES type gear, where the winning combination was to use 3/4 of the company to lay fire on the enemy, and when their will cracked, do the assault with an overstrength section! Similar results were found in East Timor in firefights between Australian forces and Indonesian and "Militia" forces during the initial deployment there.

If this is really the case, then a DF vehicle of any kind either needs magic bullets or a pretty large magazine to  provide the level of supression needed. The MGS, with just 18 rounds on board, is a total non starter in this case, and I doubt the MMEV concept based around ADATS is much better. In fact, for the forseeable future, only a tank has the carrying capacity to supply supressive fire (and carry "magic bullets" in the form of through tube missiles) on the scale required. Even a light tank like the CV 90120 can carry 30 rounds of 120mm ammunition, plus the co-axe and turret mounted MGs, and if you add the LAHAT missile to the ammo mix, you have the ability to strike targets up to 13km distant.

The MGS seems to be more of a salesman's weapons system to get you to order more platforms from GD, rather than a means to adress any capacity gap in the CF. If the analysis in the Australian articles is correct, then even using the MGS as a dedicated Infantry support weapon on the model of the SBCT is a mistake, the support platoon will run out of ammo just when you need it the most! Given the sheer size of a LAV hull, it is hard to understand how it cannot hold a sufficient supply on on board ammunition. That alone should be the death knell of the MGS.
 
I'm not even going to go into how much I agree with the idea that the MGS is a sales job. Just like 3/4 of all the military contracts.

Can you post the thread that Inf is on?

And I wonder about the idea of "cracking" an enemies will through volume of fire. I don't really see an enemy cracking under the fire of a full companies fire or even that of an armoured squadrons fire unless either had a VERY long ammo supply line. It may work against untrained locals or "militia's", but against trained forces I just don't see it.
 
Personally, I consider this a total waste of resources. The government is spending $700 Million on this (as mentioned before) - but this is roughly $10.6 Million a unit - and they can't even fire while on the move? I doubt that, but if it is true, what's the point of this? I thought this was supposed to be mobile. What is the price of a Leopard tank?

Well, at least  so they could transport it by air - but here's today's fun fact. Okay, it's more of a memory - I read somewhere that due to the size of the MGS, it can't even be fit into a Herc, without having the extremeties removed. Rather lame, eh? I'll try to find the site; I think it was SFU's strategic page, but I can't remember the url.

Furthermore, when it was revealed that this weapon was purchased, I remember a CBC report on the MGS. Apparently, they ran a computer simulation where 4 MGS engaged 2 T-72s. In the end, all the MGS were destroyed - while the T-72s suffered no damage. (Then again, apparently there was a simulation where the CF-18 fought the Avro Arrow, and lost).
 
It's not the size of the MGS that prevents us from lifting it, it's the weight.  The only Herc that can lift it is the "J" model, and then only if the MGS is stripped of fuel and ammunition.  Even then, the "J" model will have a range of only 100 NM before it requires air to air refuelling.  So, our model C130's cannot even think about lifting it.

The fire on the move capability has been removed from "essential requirement" to a "desirable requirement" because of problems GDLS has been having trying to fire on the move.  Actually, it will fire on the move, but just one round, as long as that one round was loaded before the move started.  The autoloader doesn't.  Autoload that is, on the move.

The one reason we are going to buy this piece of crap is because it is wheeled.  Tracks are bad, tracks are expensive, tracks make us look aggressive.  Wheels are good, even if they can't do the job.  Plus, of course, we originally thought that they would be built in Ontario.  Now we know they are being built in the southern states, IIRC, Alabama.

Plus, we also thought they would have parts commonality with the LAV III.  Which they don't. 

All of which begs the question, why are we still on the MGS bandwagon?.
 
So, what we have, in effect, is a TURRET!!
Yippee.
It would probably just be easier to remove the chassis and body and simply plug the cannon on top of some tower in a base. Makes more sense.

If the liberals were looking for an air-transportable fire support vehicle, they should have bought Scorpions - cheaper, faster, more manoeuvrable, and defensible. Doesn't New Zealand have about 3 dozen that they retired from service? Those little tanks are pretty cool - the armour shatters missiles before they can detonate, thereby preventing destruction.
 
Zartan said:
(Then again, apparently there was a simulation where the CF-18 fought the Avro Arrow, and lost).

Even though this is an MGS thread.....i would love to see you back this one up........

Can you say "talking out of your hat"   ::)

Zartan said:
Those little tanks are pretty cool - the armour shatters missiles before they can detonate, thereby preventing destruction.

I'm not sure that " cool" was a requirement for the canadian army.   The scorpions have been retired for a reason.   Old and not survivable.   I'm not sure about the accuracy of your missle statement( i have serious doubts on its accuracy.......maybe you could back that up with someting ?)   but being able to survive a missle hit does not prevent detruction.   The Scorpion could not survive being hit by an APFSDS made of DU or even tungsten.   Moreover, the scorpion's 76mm gun is even less apt at dealing with modern threats as is the MGS's 105mm
 
Zartan said:
If the liberals were looking for an air-transportable fire support vehicle, they should have bought Scorpions - cheaper, faster, more manoeuvrable, and defensible. Doesn't New Zealand have about 3 dozen that they retired from service? Those little tanks are pretty cool - the armour shatters missiles before they can detonate, thereby preventing destruction.

What is God's name are you talking about?

Yeah, the Scorpion is "cool" alright...so cool that most Western armies have gotten rid of them and the Brits have converted theirs to Sabre.  By the way, in case your net surfing hasn't discovered this yet, the Cougar had a Scorpion turret...  POS.  I'm not even going to discuss the "armour" you mention...  Mon Dieu!  ::)
 
Teddy Ruxpin said:
What is God's name are you talking about?

Yeah, the Scorpion is "cool" alright...so cool that most Western armies have gotten rid of them and the Brits have converted theirs to Sabre.   By the way, in case your net surfing hasn't discovered this yet, the Cougar had a Scorpion turret...   POS.   I'm not even going to discuss the "armour" you mention...   Mon Dieu!    ::)

Thanks TR...i was begining to think i had missed the last 20 years or so of technological developement !!  ;D
 
Yeah, I've still got scars on my knuckles from knocking base clips off 76mm rounds...15 years ago!  ;D

We won't get into Scorpion turret problems with the fume extraction system, turret ring cracks, mantlet cracks, nitrogen requirements, lack of a penetrating round, blah, blah, blah...  I've hijacked this thread enough...back to bashing the MGS!  ;)

Cheers,

TR
 
Scorpion armor stops missiles? Zartan, would care to sit inside of a scorpion while I fire a TOW or javelin missile at it?

Or will you trust those of us that know what we are talking about?

get back in the box, sonny!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top