LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Infanteer]

While I do / don't necessarily agree,
many people will say that if the $ is spent in the country, paid to Cdn suppliers, then the Gov't has done what is expected of it.... even at twice the price.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion.

Defence only has a finite amount of resources, and if we can't properly train or lack a key piece of equipment because the budget was pissed away on an overpriced yet Canadian project, then there is a problem.  If we lose a troopie or can't accomplish a mission because he's missing a piece of training and/or kit, then we have a serious problem.

Sorry geo, can't buy that statement or the NDP....

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[geo]

well... my point would be that for one - if we don't have the equipment or the training then we should not have the troops put into those situations.... send the politicians - let them get their @#$ shot at for a bit and then they may make sound decisions in retrospect.

based on the budget surpluses that the gov't has been showing - don't really think that a shortage of cash is a real problem.... what they decide to do with it (hold it for rainy day) is.

NDPres are very much buy / build at home kinda guys... though they aren't very strong on the military (is anyone?) they very much support "buy canada'

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm kind of sick of this argument in that people are blaming the concept of a domestic arms industry for cost overruns.

The problem is not the model. 

It's the crooks in our political ranks/bureaucracies/Liberal Front Companies that screw up what should work.

In my opinion we should be following the Swedish model.

The priority therefore is not to throw the baby out with the bath water, but to take the crooks, thieves and hangers-on and get them the hell out of the process and put some serious people in charge.  No more cost+ contracts.  Everything is turn-key.  Take military procurement out of the domain of Public Works and allow it to be 100% run by DND and get rid of all the silly PC nonsense like aboriginal content.  (I cannot even imagine a foreign company getting one of our RFP's and seeing that.)

I repeat, the problem is the procurement system and the people who take advantage of it for their own purposes. 

A single serious PM could fix both with a couple of penstrokes and we could build whatever we want....



Matthew. 

 

[geo]

Single serious PM........
Do we have one of those anywhere nearby?....
(and I'm including Loyal opposition leaders here)

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I'm kind of sick of this argument in that people are blaming the concept of a domestic arms industry for cost overruns.

The problem is that it is perfectly true in many cases.  The defence budget is the single largest piece of discretionary funding that the Federal Government has access to.  This creates enormous temptation to use that discretionary spending for political or other purposes, including regional industrial development.  Thus, as has been pointed out, the funding is often more used for developmental purposes than for any clear-cut military or operational reasons.

Canada currently does not have a defence industrial base that would enable the production of equipment on the scale of (say) Sweden, where a defence base has been purposely developed for political reasons over the course of decades.  Therefore, the CF is forced into the procurement of "Canadian" items for purely political reasons even if those items are single source or are only marginally suitable for operations and are built by contractors with limited or no experience in the design and development of military equipment.  The LSVW is a perfect example.

Even in the case of major foreign purchases, the Government insists on an element of Canadian production or on financial "industrial off-sets" to compensate Canadian industry for the perceived loss of work.  This adds greatly to the cost and to the length of procurement timelines.

Frankly, I'm tired of the military budget being used as a form of internal "aid" and am hoping against hope that the current restructure and procurement programs are conducted with operations as the primary consideration.  There is a LOT of equipment out there that can be purchased "off the shelf" for much less than what we're paying for it now.  Surely the taxpayer deserves better bang for his/her buck rather than bailing Bombardier out (yet again) with a half a**ed defence contract.

My 2 cents.

 

[ArmyRick]

Not to mention when you purchase most off the shelf things, they are availible immediately and not in the next 5-7 years  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

where a defence base has been purposely developed for political reasons over the course of decades.

Make that centuries Teddy..

I am in full agreement with you, Infanteer and ArmyRick.

How's this for a cutoff point for decision making?  If we have to pay to build a factory and train a workforce as well as to buy the kit we should buy elsewhere.  The factories of offshore suppliers have been written down by years, decades, sometimes centuries of constant use - generations of the same families have worked in the same trades.

I could bring myself to accept a rational decision to build an armaments industry domestically - any reasonable government would make that investment.  What really frosts me is the following:

Wait for need to be expressed

Look for best licencing agreement

Search for riding that needs support

Wait for election

Announce new factory

Appoint Liberal Party volunteers to the Board of Directors

Build two systems

Charge  DND enough to but 50 systems off shore

Quietly reduce workforce

Supply no follow on orders

Wait for new need to be identified

Repeat process in adjacent riding

Carry on ad nauseam.

 

[Eland]

The idea of fielding a war-fighting army in what are effectively armoured cars (i.e. LAV's) strikes me as idiotic.

The only way the Canadian Army's LAV concept can work is if the troops mounted in them never encounter anything more than poorly trained light infantry with a minimum of heavy machine guns, artillery and anti-tank weapons at their disposal, and few or no tanks or more sophisticated anti-armour guided weapons (such as the Russian-built AT-3 Spigot, the Khrysantema or Kornet).

The Americans have experienced some limited success with the Stryker in Iraq, but not until they learned to stop using the vehicles for FIBUA (Fighting In Built-up Areas) and modified them with jury-rigged RPG7 screens which totally destroyed the tactical maneuverability of the vehicle. The Coyote recce vehicle succeeds only because of its sophisticated sensor systems - but as a traditional sneak-and-peak-then-scoot -away machine, it sucks because it's too top heavy and slow. The USMC had the right idea using their LAV25's (predecessor to the LAVIII family) as taxis for cavalry scouts operating on foot - similar to the way Canadian armoured recce units have assault troops.

I agree with one poster who suggests that the LAV and MGS were built simply to line the pockets of GDLS and keep Liberal MP's in the London area well supplied with votes.

It is true that a country like Canada cannot afford to field a large army or take on 'nutcracker' roles as someone else in this forum has suggested. But that's why we need to follow Australia's example and buy the limited numbers of tanks and heavy weapon systems that can be afforded. At least that way Canadian troops would not be caught out if they found themselves having to operate against serious opposition without coalition support.

Buying the LAV's without figuring how they were going to be transported and then ensuring that organic, not rented transport assets were built first was an unbelievably bad move.

But until Canadian troops die in large numbers and Canadians back home start screaming blue murder, this is how Canada's quarter-assed (no offence intended to the well-trained, skilled and dedicated troops we do have) military is going to be run.

 

[geo]

when you wait to buy equipment (of dubious worth) before writing doctrine on how it's to be used - you'll always get into trouble.

Does this sound like Adolph and his wonder weapons.......

 

[ArmyRick]

Eland, go shields up!
No logic in what you say, so I am going to fire a volley at you
(1) What is the point in buying 10, 20 or 200 modern totally up to date MBTs if we do not have a quick and availible means of getting them into theater? We need ships or aircraft that can carry them. Unless we are OK with contracting them to a civy company that delivers them in 4-8 months.

(2) The stryker Infantry carrier has more than proven its weight in a Iraq and yeah so what it has a bird cage? Guess what so does the paper thin M113 and at the very least the Stryker and LAVs are more suitable for the quick moving war/operations being fought in Iraq or A-stan. The bradley? Wouldn't do us much go either if we don't have the MBT. If your going to be lightly armored, might as well be fast.

(3) Modern day troopies who work with the LAVIII like it ! Oh yeah, its a fact. I worked with M113 and Grizzlys alot and beleive, they had their time and day, but even with my limited expirience with LAVIII, I will take it any day over a grizz or track.

(4) If the GDLS (Who alspo produce The M1 Abrams) wanted to get $$$ off our tax dollars, I think they would have convinced our guys we need the M1.

(5) Right now the enemy is a suicide bomber, a terrorist, those planting IED devices, spotters with cell phones who observe and report our activities, etc. The enemy we are dealing with HERE and NOW does not bomb around in a T72 or T80 with BMP1 or BTR80s.

(6) Fill out your profile more in detail and please do expand on your expirience.

 

[bravo2]

.

(2) The stryker Infantry carrier has more than proven its weight in a Iraq and yeah so what it has a bird cage? Guess what so does the paper thin M113 and at the very least the Stryker and LAVs are more suitable for the quick moving war/operations being fought in Iraq or A-stan. The bradley? Wouldn't do us much go either if we don't have the MBT. If your going to be lightly armored, might as well be fast.

(3) Modern day troopies who work with the LAVIII like it ! Oh yeah, its a fact. I worked with M113 and Grizzlys alot and beleive, they had their time and day, but even with my limited expirience with LAVIII, I will take it any day over a grizz or track.

The MGS mobile gun system and LAV III combination is not a bad system but It has shown its limitation in Iraq. In April 2004 The Italian deployed in Iraq their Centauro light armoured vehicle (105 mm),M113 and and light trucks (VM90P). After a few engagement they realized that light armoured vehicle were very vulnerable to RPG7,they were slow down by barricades and they lost a few soldiers do to the lack of armoured protection. Because they still have MBTs they were able to bring into theater two Platoon of Ariete MBTand AAV-7A1 up-armoured apc.
Would Canada have a similar option in the future? We could easily be involved in a similar situation...

 

[Eland]

|Eland, go shields up!
|No logic in what you say, so I am going to fire a volley at you
|(1) What is the point in buying 10, 20 or 200 modern totally up to date MBTs if we do not have a quick and availible means of getting them |into theater? We need ships or aircraft that can carry them. Unless we are OK with contracting them to a civy company that delivers them in |4-8 months.

Well, we can't get our new fleet of LAV's anywhere very quickly either as it stands - we either have to ship them by sea using rented cargo ships, which takes a looong time, or leech off our US friends, who have substantial airlift assets. Failing that, we deflate the tires of these vehicles after loading them into a C130, remove any add-on armour kits and ship them one at a time. We need tanks - even a limited number, to take on the heavy jobs that the LAV's can't handle. If tanks are so unnecessary, please explain why it is the US Army continues to use M1A2 Abrams tanks in the Iraq theatre, long after any credible armour threat has disappeared? Or why Australia found it necessary to acquire M1A2's - when the bulk of its armoured vehicle fleet consists of LAV's and Bushranger armoured patrol trucks? Do you see any industrialized countries of any significance getting rid of its tanks - eg. Germany, UK, France, et al. ? Do tell.

|(2) The stryker Infantry carrier has more than proven its weight in a Iraq and yeah so what it has a bird cage? Guess what so does the paper |thin M113 and at the very least the Stryker and LAVs are more suitable for the quick moving war/operations being fought in Iraq or A-stan. |The bradley? Wouldn't do us much go either if we don't have the MBT. If your going to be lightly armored, might as well be fast.

My point proven - these vehicles work best when placed in a threat environment which involves mostly light infantry with few or very simple anti-tank weapons. There is no question that the Strykers have proven to be quite mine-resistant and have shown surprisingly good survivability against IED's. But what about RPG7 and better ATGW's, if the 'birdcage' is taken off? More importantly, what happens if you have to go to war in the conventional way and all you've got for armoured vehicles are lightly armoured LAV's?

|(3) Modern day troopies who work with the LAVIII like it ! Oh yeah, its a fact. I worked with M113 and Grizzlys alot and beleive, they had |their time and day, but even with my limited expirience with LAVIII, I will take it any day over a grizz or track.

The LAV should be superior because automotive technology and armour technology have improved substantially since the M113 and the Grizzly were built. But that begs the question. If the LAV is so good, then why do Israeli forces stick with their up-armoured M113A2's for FIBUA? Don't get me wrong. The LAV has its strong points. It should excel in low-intensity warfare. On the other hand, placing it into a high-intensity situation (as our government might be wont to do to save money), is just asking for trouble.

|(4) If the GDLS (Who alspo produce The M1 Abrams) wanted to get $$$ off our tax dollars, I think they would have convinced our guys we |need the M1.

They've tried before (remember Mulroney's plan to buy 300 M1A1's, which was cooked by the then-upcoming federal election?). They still try. They keep failing because the government's (and the military's) unreasoning opposition to tanks is a well-entrenched cultural thing.

|(5) Right now the enemy is a suicide bomber, a terrorist, those planting IED devices, spotters with cell phones who observe and report our |activities, etc. The enemy we are dealing with HERE and NOW does not bomb around in a T72 or T80 with BMP1 or BTR80s.

The LAV is fine for the 'asymmetric' warfare you describe. But if you look at the wider geopolitical situation, consider the emerging alliances being forged between China, India and Russia, the make-up of their armed forces, and the soon-to-increase competition for remaining
oil reserves as well as their desires for greater hegemony in the Asia-Pacific sphere. What kind of force structure is needed to deal with the mostly conventional forces these nations possess? LAV's?

 

[Lost_Warrior]

The LAV is fine for the 'asymmetric' warfare you describe. But if you look at the wider geopolitical situation, consider the emerging alliances being forged between China, India and Russia, the make-up of their armed forces, and the soon-to-increase competition for remaining
oil reserves as well as their desires for greater hegemony in the Asia-Pacific sphere. What kind of force structure is needed to deal with the mostly conventional forces these nations possess? LAV's?

That's actually a very good point and one that I have been thinking about since the mention of our new "light mobile forces" transformation.  Terrorism isn't going to last forever, or chances are that it won't be the dominant threat in the next decade or two.  Then what?  We are trapped in a cold war style situation between China, her allies and the US and theirs, only to be armed with light, low powered vehicles.

 

[Kirkhill]

The armoured knight wasn't driven from the field by more knights but by arrows and musket balls.

The horse wasn't driven from the field by other horses but by machine guns and shrapnel.

Tanks wont be driven from the field by other 10,000,000 dollar tanks but by precision guided munitions costing 10 to 100,000 dollars and launched from infanteers shoulders, wheeled and tracked vehicles, artillery tubes, missiles, helicopters, UAVs and aircraft.

Weapons outlive their usefulness when they can be killed faster than they can be fielded.

 

[Britney Spears]

Armyrick's sergent-senses are right. Eland is so far out of his lane, someone better call range control and start the lost candidate drill.
Don't believe me? Just watch.

 

[ArmyRick]

Thank you Eland for helping to make my point. We have got to stop playing the "what if" game. What if China and Russia move in on the oil reserves? We CAN NOT AFFORD A COLD WAR ARMY. Fight china and russia? With what? 100 maybe 150 tanks if we got lucky?

We are living here and now. The enemy is a terrorist or failed state. I am not concerned with 2020, I train soldiers for today, 2005.
Kirkhill has the point as well that current missile technology is going to level out the playing field alot.

Anyways, here is a question. What would be more usefull to the CF? 30 really good attack helicopters or 100 of the latest greatest MBT? My opinion is get the damn choppers.

 

[George Wallace]

The armoured knight wasn't driven from the field by more knights but by arrows and musket balls.

The horse wasn't driven from the field by other horses but by machine guns and shrapnel.

Tanks wont be driven from the field by other 10,000,000 dollar tanks but by precision guided munitions costing 10 to 100,000 dollars and launched from infanteers shoulders, wheeled and tracked vehicles, artillery tubes, missiles, helicopters, UAVs and aircraft.

This is all a fact of life.  Better weapons systems will always be devised.  When a Weapons System is put into production, today, there is already a counter system being produced.  It will never end.

Weapons outlive their usefulness when they can be killed faster than they can be fielded.

The one flaw with this statement is you have forgotten the Infanteer.  How many weapons systems have we developed to destroy the Infantryman?  How many ways have we developed systems to protect him?  How many more ways have we developed methods of overcoming his defences?  The same can be said about Tanks, Aircraft, Ships, etc.  These systems only become obsolete, when someone can no longer produce a better system to defend against an enemies weaponry.  In most cases the biggest enemy to these systems is not a foreign enemy, but the enemy within our political systems. 

By the way, there are no $10 weapons systems that will destroy AFVs and MBTs.  Those systems cost almost as much as the vehicle they are designed to kill or disable.  Even handheld missile systems are very expensive, and their production is not infinite.

 

[George Wallace]

We are living here and now. The enemy is a terrorist or failed state. I am not concerned with 2020, I train soldiers for today, 2005.

To me that is only continuation of the old game of "Catch Up".   We are concerned only with 'today' and not worried about the future.   As someone mentioned: "What about China?"   Are they going to be a threat in the near future?   If they are and we have swung into the "Low Intensity Battle" philosophy, the X Gen War, the GWOT, and don't have anything but LightFighters, we are putting ourselves up the creek without a paddle.

Me, I am concerned about 2020 and beyond.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hi George.

I was kind of expecting you to call. ;D

You are right on the 10 dollar weapon.  That's what I get for being lazy.  I meant that to be interpreted as $10,000 to $100,000.    Javelin currently costs around 100,000 as does Excalibur, Hellfire and Brimstone somewhere round about 60,000,  LAHAT is trying to get to market at 20,000,  JDAM/DAMASK/Paveway/SDBs are in the 12 to 60,000 range depending on combination (DAMASK being the low end).  Armour is even at risk from 155mm shells with Course Correcting Fuzes that are supposed to sell in the 1000-10,000 range (although they don't precisely target a specific vehicle they tighten the target area reducing the number of rounds necessary to defeat a target).

As to the infantry:

3 reasons they are still there. 

Nobody has yet figured out how to have a war without people (if robots take over the battlefield they will sell tickets to the battle and the war will happen in the stands)

Many armies consider "infanteers" a low cost item. Take one 14 year old boy, add 1 AK-47 and a supply of Khat and you have an "instant infanteer".

Infanteers learned to duck.

Cheers.

 

[TCBF]

Notwithstanding wether or not we eventually field the MGS, the AGS, or whatever:

"If the GDLS (Who alspo produce The M1 Abrams) wanted to get $$$ off our tax dollars, I think they would have convinced our guys we need the M1."

- We will in fact pay more money for each MGS than we would for each M1A2.  Australia has just bought US tanks for, as their CGS put it "ethical and moral reasons" dealing with protecting their soldiers. They bought them each for less than we will pay for each MGS.

- GDLS would rather sell a new vehicle hot off the press at Anniston Alabama to amortize their development costs.  Lima Army Tank Plant is not the priority.

Tom