LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[bravo2]

The MGS has its qualities but was never designed to replace a MBT these two types of vehicles have different functions on the battlefield. One of the main arguments for buying the MGS was airlift capability, as I understand the MGS in full battle order with upgrade armour is too heavy to be airlifted in a C-130.

 

[Zartan]

You got me. I had only heard of the Arrow vs. CF-18 through another source which I have since forgotten, but rest asured it likely held no clought oncesowever (makes you think though - perhaps not in the way intended, but still). However, I did see a Scorpion withstand a missile - albeit on the Discovery Channel. Although I have no experience in either the MGS or Scorpion, or anything like that (though I'm looking to change that)... nevermind.

However, there is a point on the MGS I was wondering if anyone could clarify: Is it true that it also lacks the water capabilities of the other LAV models? I don't know the correct terminology, but somewhere I found info stating that all of the LAVs have the ability to travel through, or on water, while the MGS will be lacking this ability.
Finally, also in regards to it's manoeuvrability - this should be obvious: wheels don't travel well in rough terrain. Treads do.* Leopards have mobility, whereas, as far as I know, the MGS doesn't.
* I win for "Most blatantly Obvious Statement" award.

P.S. I didn't mean "cool" like that. Sorry. It's just I tend to speak like Bill & Ted on occasion.

 

[Zipper]

Oh good grief.

As for the amphibious capabilities of the early LAV's and AVGP's, I believe the LAV III chassis's (stryker) are to heavy for that little trick. I'm not sure 100%, but I believe that to be true.

Quite honestly until further notice, we don't even know if the MGS is going ahead or not. Until up to date test results come out from the US Army, we know nothing. For all we know they may have either already dumped the damn thing, or have fixed the numerous problems and proceeded. If the US doesn't go ahead with it, then it is a dead project and we'll just have to find some other stupid politically acceptable vehicle to waste money on.

What disturbs me most is the fact that they readily admit that they are not replacing the MBT, but are moving our entire force in a much "lighter" less (war fighting) capable direction and towards more patrol oriented and support (of US forces) type missions. The very fact that we cannot even field a battle group for longer then a 6 month period puts us in the very ineffective category rather solidly. But I digress as this has been discussed many times on many different forums.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

None of the current LAV varients can swim.  We had that capability with the AVGP fleet (Grizzly and Cougar), but it was removed as part of the DLIR process a few years ago.  Coyote (unfortunately) cannot swim.

As far as I know, MGS is still a "go", with Canada having negotiated early delivery of approximately 16 US-configured vehicles for training (no, I don't know the dates).  All is contingent, though, on the vehicle's passing US trials and surviving Congressional oversight.  I'll leave it at that, as I know there are people more knowledgable than I am on this subject.

 

[aesop081]

The more is said on this thread, the more you prove you talk out of your a** there Zartan    :

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The US has ordered the MGS version of the Stryker into Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP).  Production rate is at about one vehicle delivered every week.  Canada was to take delivery of 16 of these initial LRIP vehicle, under the understanding that they would be "off the shelf", in other words, produced to US Army standards.

This buy may be in some jeopardy, I have heard.  It may be because the price per unit has ballooned to something like US$8 million per copy, or very near the price of a M1 or Leo2.

As for the amphibious capabilities of the Coyote and LAVIII, the requirement was dropped in the Coyote to save weight.  They had to be capable of being carried in a C130, with the marine drive they would be too heavy.  We carry them all the time in Herc's, don't you know.  The amphibious capability was never planned in to the LAV III, for cost and weight considerations.

 

[McG]

As for the amphibious capabilities of the early LAV's and AVGP's, I believe the LAV III chassis's (stryker) are to heavy for that little trick. I'm not sure 100%, but I believe that to be true.

I've spoken with pers that build the vehicles and been told that the vehicles were designed so as to be producible in an amphibious variant.  I do not know what the trade-offs are (cost, weight, armour, etc?).  I have seen photos of the Piranha III swimming with its LAV 25 turret sticking above the water.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Probably true, if a customer wanted swimming vehicles they can probably put the drives in.  However, Canadian variants don't have this capability.  I cannot imagine an MGS being amphibious under any circumstances...  eek!

 

[TCBF]

"Coyote and LAVIII,....  We carry them all the time in Herc's, don't you know."

In Dec 2001, we prepped our Coyotes to be flown by Herc to Kandahar.  The LWRs came off, and the TacNav ant was tied back.  The AMUs also came off.  Then, the plan changed, we were going by C5B/C17, and everthing went back on.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

As I said.......

It seems very foolish to me to limit a vehicles weight to a maximum of 19 tons just so that maybe, just maybe, we will have thirty operational Hercs to carry two troops of vehicles somewhere.  The Coyote barely fits, and the LAV III has to have all the gas removed from the shocks and the tires deflated to fit on, not to mention removal of the LWR and the bin.  Even then, minimum fuel, no ammunition, no crew......it seems to be an insane requirement, "being capable of being transported by the c-130".. 

We will not be attempting to use our Hercs for strategic lift for the LAV III, ever.  It is extremely doubtful we will use them to lift the Coyote.  Now as for in-theater, or tactical lift, I see even less use of that.

So, let's quit playing games and imagining LAV III's and MGS floating down gently from parachutes after being dropped from Hercs, or just as foolish, imagining Hercs taking off from Pembroke airport bound for some overseas destination with a complete Recce Sqn ready to deploy on arrival.  Instead, we should live in the real world, the one where we rent big aircraft, or rent big ships to do our movement.  Our Air Force does not have the capability ....although it should have.

Now, if we were to procure the C-17, then I could see us using tactical airlift, but the weight limit would be gone anyway......

I really, really hope that the buy of the MGS ends up the same as the proposed buy of the M47, in the garbage.  And maybe, we'll get something better than the MGS, just as we got something better than the M-47, the good old Centurion.

 

[Gobsmacked]

Maybe the following means a tacit admission that the additional 6 months testing have revealed yet more problems??  Or possible cancellation in the works??  [Yeah I know, wishfull thinking!] ^-^

June 11, 2005
No Mobile Gun System for Stryker â ” for now

By Matthew Cox, Army Times (subscription)

Stryker brigade commanders, in need of more firepower, have asked for an early fielding of the Mobile Gun System variant for street fighting in northern Iraq.

But they're going to have to do without it.
The high-tech, wheeled cannon won't be seeing combat for at least a year after the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (SBCT) returns home this fall, Stryker program officials say.

The unit is equipped with the Anti-tank Guided Missile Strykers, but the wire-guided, TOW missile system is proving to be ineffective against fast-moving insurgent forces operating in crowded neighborhoods of Mosul.

â Å“The Stryker Brigade Combat Team needs a vehicle capable of rapidly delivering direct fire explosive projectiles in confined urban terrain,â ? said 1-25 commander Col. Robert Brown, in an email from Iraq. [...]

The plan is to begin equipping Stryker brigades with the MGS in fiscal 2007.
â Å“The unit is operating at a reduced capability until they get MGS,â ? Fuller said, describing how 1-25 had sent an â Å“urgent operational needs statementâ ? in March asking that the MGS be fielded as soon as possible.
END

Anyone have the full article?

 

[TCBF]

"Now, if we were to procure the C-17,.."

Then everyone could have one of those way cool C-17 mini-pillows with USAF stencilled on them in five inch high black letters.  They fall into the hatches of the coyote, in flight from Ramstein to Kandahar. 

;D

Tom

 

[Gobsmacked]

Heres the meat of the 'Army Times' article, borrowed from a post on Tank Net.

The MGS has a stabilized, direct-fire 105mm cannon mounted atop a Stryker vehicle for destroying hard targets like bunkers and barricaded enemy positions.
It also had a faulty ammunition handling system that put the program behind schedule in spring 2004. The first 14 of the new MGS prototypes (LRIP 1), with a redesigned ammo handling or loading system, won't be ready to begin testing until October, said Col. Peter Fuller, the head of Project Manager Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

 

[Crimson Army]

I may still be learning about this kinda stuff, but I think the MGS will be allot better for the Army then the leopards. The leopards we couldn't move over seas or anywere for that matter(I like the leopards, but they are not what Canada needs), but the MGS will give us some indepence when it comes to direct fire.

 

[aesop081]

I may still be learning about this kinda stuff, but I think the MGS will be allot better for the Army then the leopards. The leopards we couldn't move over seas or anywere for that matter(I like the leopards, but they are not what Canada needs), but the MGS will give us some indepence when it comes to direct fire.

:

 

[TCBF]

Balls.  Are you forgetting about the Leopards in Kosovo? In a third world country where people know enough about tanks to respect them, a lone tank in a peace support operation will have the same psyops effect as a half squadron of wheeled light armour.  Remember part of the reason we went the light armoured route: they don't SCARE people.  Same same enemy.

My Coyote got into Kandahar by C-5B/C-17, and out by C-5B.  It could just as well have been a tank, as far as weight goes, but, different mission.

If we need direct fire that bad (8,000,000 CAD each), lets buy more Infantry, and give them hand-held thermo-barics.

Tom

 

[devil39]

Balls.  Are you forgetting about the Leopards in Kosovo?
Tom

I generally agree with what you have to say Tom. 

I find the Leopards in Kosovo to be one of the most amusing employments of armour ever.

Having grown up arguing the tactical employment of armour, we infantry officers were constantly bombarded with Armour Corps propaganda about never splitting the Tanks Sqn... but if you absolutely had to you could split it into half squadrons.

But over their dead bodies could you ever break up a half squadron... operate a troop independently?..... never. 

That is until there was an opportunity to put a troop overseas

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I was there for this one - as one of the mounting guys.

The original proposal was for a sqn.  1 CMBG (with LFWA) built the recce sqn orbat and we deployed it.  Then, when Kinetic Plus hit, we configured a deployment based on a battalion with Grizzlies/Bisons (mainly the latter), guns and a tank sqn.

This was pushed up to the Army, which (at the staff level) bought into it.

The way then-Col Leslie told it in 1999, he was at Rideau Hall getting (as far as I recall) his OMM.  There, he met the CDS, the fearless Gen Baril, a known tank-hater.  Baril shut down the tanks then and there, right in the GG's house.  We managed to retain a troop, only because the capability was sold based on the anti-mine plows and rollers that could be fitted to the vehicles.  Therefore, they deployed as an "anti-mine" capability rather than as gun tanks.  AFAIK, the plows and rollers were never fitted.

We had started sourcing Israeli 105mm rounds especially to engage Serbian T-72s (remembering that we thought this might turn into a shooting war).  In the event, we settled for DM-21 rounds, as the Israelis wouldn't sell us the small numbers required.

The Armour mafia didn't push this one at all.  The troop went because of some political decisions - and in the end it was thought five tanks (there was one rover tank) were better than none.

Cheers,

Teddy

 

[TCBF]

CO LdSH(RC) at the time (Kosovo) said "We have re-invented the Medium Tank."  It could go over bridges the hulking behemoths with 120mm tubes (that we normally drool over) could not.  The old "better a 105 there, than a 120 not there" argument...wait!...strike that from the record, lest some damn fool try to mount a 105 on a LAV...

As for the penny-packetting vs doctrine, I seem to recall the context of the penny-packet discussions being of the Heavy Metal War On The Central Front variety, not OOTW, but the irony is noted and appreciated.

XM8 AGS anyone?

;D

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

Probably the fundamental problem here is no one in a position to decide things has actually sat down and really stated what the MGS is for. We have a hockey sock of requirements and scenarios (most which are mutually exclusive) attached to a monster machine which is suffering from a lot of teething problems, some technical and some due to attempts to violate the laws of physics. (Never, ever try that. The laws of physics are rigorously enforced).

The Americans are not happy with the MGS in its current form, and they are quite clear it is an Infantry support weapon. If we go by that premise, a "real" MGS would have a low or medium pressure gun, of medium calibre (75-90mm) designed to fire HE in support of the Infantry, with HEAT or HESH as secondary rounds to deal with unexpected AFV and hard contacts. The machine should carry at least 30 main gun rounds on board, and be festooned with secondary weapons as well (coax, commander and loader GPMG, maybe a .50 mounted over the gun barrel).

If the MGS is supposed to do the job of a tank, then let it be a tank. The XM-8 is one option, although I would preffer an evolved CV 90120 gun tank. Arguments could be made for any number of other systems (Upgunned PT-76 anyone?) depending on what, exactly, you want done.