LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Lance Wiebe]

The Americans have certainly discovered the roll over potential of the MGS!  They have rolled a few in Washington (the State), and have had at least one death that I know of.  The MGS has been ordered to remain on roads, all movement cross country and unimproved trails have been prohibited, at least for now.

Our entire fleet is now basically diesel, including the Gelandewagen.  But, the M1 will also run on diesel, so that's not much of a consideration.

When the Swedes ran their MBT trials, prior to selecting a modified Leo 2, part of the process was projecting the operating cost of the various MBT's.  The M1 cost was projected to be 2.5 times higher than the next most expensive MBT, primarily because of the turbine.

 

[brihard]

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.

I don't know enough about MGS to argue for or against it- I'll leave that to you guys. What I'm saying is that part of the LAV/MGS program is the intent that it be air transportable. If that's to be a program criteria, the air transport issue should be resolved first in case it should impact on the vehicle considerations. I'm just pointing out a possible disjunct at NDHQ that could have impact on the future implementation of armoured vehicles within the CF based on the criteria we seem to have deemed necessary.

 

[geo]

Hat's off to the C130s designers BUT..... many another country has tasted the fruit and found it to be well.... lacking.
Others have concluded that you need more than C130s if you intend to project force around the world. Possibly Canada should be listening & it might be time to break out the old checkbook

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

We can't move an MGS across Canada, let alone to Kandahar in a C130, so why don't the feds face the facts that we require a plane that can transport something heavier than a G-wagon.   
    Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 pounds, and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 pounds. With a payload of 130,000 pounds and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 feet, the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 5,200 nautical miles. Its cruise speed is approximately 450 knots (.77 Mach).
    If we stick to C130's, even the newer J's, we may as well buy LeoII or Challengers as MGS's because we haven't got a snowballs chance of transporting enough MGS's to support a Canadian battlegroup deployed overseas.  For all the Hercules fans out there, I do agree it is a remarkable aircraft, and have logged enough miles in the back of them, but it is not enough for strategic heavy lift.

 

[TCBF]

"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. "

72? How many are we going to buy?  You don't think Ottawa 'garanteed' the funding for these, do you?

"the Arrow was a masterpiece, excellent machine far ahead of it's time."

- Sure, but perhaps no more so than the XF-108 was or would have been, and cancelled for much the same reasons.  We don't own ALL of the good ideas on the planet - we just decided to accept risk (after risk, after risk) on the Arrow, and when the RCAF could not afford it without risking other programs, they junked it. The same RCAF that had to cancel all of the 'gap-filler' unmanned Pinetree Line sites a few years later when another funding crunch hit.

Now, had the govmint funded the Arrow like they now do Bombardier, etc, and not insisted the RCAF carry the whole can, they might be still up there. 

Some may be saying that about the MGS right now - rushed in ahead of planned dates - before other sub-systems matured - could they be right?

Besides, will it fit in an Airbus 400?  That's what I want to no.  Forget the C130J...

;D

Tom

 

[Kirkhill]

For those of you concerned about deploying the MGS in Canada, or any of the other LAV variants, it takes about 65 hours to drive from Vancouver to Halifax on the Trans-Canada.  With the way the LAVs are deployed in Edmonton, Shilo, Petawawa, Valcartier and Gagetown the only major urban areas not accessible by road in 12 hours or less are Whitehorse (23 hours from Edmonton) and Yellowknife (16 hrs).  Tuktoyuktuk is about 36 to 48 hours away.

These are the only areas with good road grids where LAVs can operate.  (And before the Tankers chime in here, I am going to suggest that without roads to supply gas and spares tanks aren't going to go very far either).

That area accessible by city streets and farm roads is only about 8% of  Canada's Land Mass.  Something like 20% of the rest of the country is bush with forest cut lines in it - neither very good sight lines, nor very good manoeuver options when restricted to trails ( and before folks start talking about the Ardennes you can drive across that in less than an hour on the highway), nor very good mobility on logging roads.  The rest of Canada, something like 70% of it, is totally unserviced by roads.  Once your LAV or MGS gets off the runway, where exactly is it going to go?

It isn't inconceivable that there may be uses for LAVs in insurrection situations in the South - though I don't expect to see any such in my life - but that isn't where we are being challenged.  We are being challenged in those areas we don't choose to live - up in the North, where there are no roads.

If we don't currently choose to live and work there then come the day that somebody else does so choose then we have little case to argue they should go away.  Until we decide that we can either dispose of, trade away or heaven forbid exploit those areas ourselves then the conventional means of staking a claim is to put a fence up, a few sign posts and have a night watchman on the premises.  The most probable enemy he/she will encounter in that role is criminals of the claim-jumping, poaching and smuggling variety - sometimes armed, sometimes organized, sometimes supported by foreign interests.

To deal with those threats in those environments helicopters, BVs and boats are more practical than LAVs.  

The CH-47F/G can self deploy anywhere in Canada in under 16 hours or so.  The Griffon would do better with an air assist like a C-17 or to be locally forward deployed (fixed base or perhaps Ice Breaker?).  The BVs and the boats however are both deployable by C130/C27/C295 (sometimes with the tops down).  They can also both be lifted short distances by the CH-47s.

MGS may or may not be a good piece of kit.  It may or may not be a valid addition to a LAV task force. It may or may not be liftable by the C130.  But, domestically, its air deployability is not a major issue.  It can get to most areas that it might usefully operate fastest on its own tyres - IF - it is regionally deployed (not the current plan but presumably there is actually little expectation of the MGS firing at live targets in Canada).

Cheers,  

 

[TCBF]

"It isn't inconceivable that there may be uses for LAVs in insurrection situations in the South - though I don't expect to see any such in my life - but that isn't where we are being challenged.  We are being challenged in those areas we don't choose to live - up in the North, where there are no roads"

- We got out of the Artic business in a big way in the seventies.  CENTAG was the buzzword, and nobody liked the cold anyway.  But at least back then, we still had 1300 M113A1 APCs, the best Arctic veh we had (BV isn't splinter proof).

Any real ground challenge to our Arctic is - in the Winter -  best solved by water bombers.

;D

If there is fighting in Canada in the next ten years, it may well be 'old country' terrorism protecting their leave centers and funding sources - the Tamil LTTE, etc.

Tom

 

[Eland]

<Description of the Leo 2's excellent qualities snipped>

Perhaps the best trade off for Canada, assuming a MBT buy, would be buying surplus M1A1, rebuilt with the MTU power pack?

MGS cancelled? Dear God, please, please let it be so! As for the idea of surplus M1A1's rebuilt and upgraded, they'd be a damn sight better than no tanks, or, God forbid, that abortion known as the MGS. In its dying days, the Mulroney government had the chance to get 300 M1's (armed with 105's) plus parts and spares for a song. If they had gone ahead with the purchase, rebuilding and diesel-izing the fleet and even up-gunning them could have been done very cheaply. Interestingly, the purchase price of the proposed 1984 M1 buy was $300 million.

To think that the government spent one-third of that amount to upgrade the existing Leopard C1's to a level that doesn't even come close to the existing M1 in terms of armour protection or armament. Only to decide a few short years later that Canada would get out of the tank business altogether and go with deficient wheeled fire support vehicles cast in some sort of half-baked poorly conceived armoured cavalry role.

 

[jumper664]

The MGS is still a go. There are some problems with the loading system and until the Stryker program has completed the R& D on the trials and evaluation in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Baltimore, Maryland. The Canadian military will not take delivery of the 66 ordered from GDLS.
Rest assured…we will get then

 

[Eland]

For those of you concerned about deploying the MGS in Canada, or any of the other LAV variants, it takes about 65 hours to drive from Vancouver to Halifax on the Trans-Canada.  With the way the LAVs are deployed in Edmonton, Shilo, Petawawa, Valcartier and Gagetown the only major urban areas not accessible by road in 12 hours or less are Whitehorse (23 hours from Edmonton) and Yellowknife (16 hrs).  Tuktoyuktuk is about 36 to 48 hours away.

These are the only areas with good road grids where LAVs can operate.  (And before the Tankers chime in here, I am going to suggest that without roads to supply gas and spares tanks aren't going to go very far either).

<remainder snipped>

By detailing the sheer size of Canada, you bring up an interesting point about the MGS. 72 of them is far too small a number to even begin to employ in a territorial defence role, or for that matter, cover any reasonable portion of a salient in combat operations. Indeed, 72 MGS units seems not only laughably small, but a number better suited to a training establishment, and that's where I think the MGS will end up, with maybe a squadron or so deployed overseas in A'stan for light infantry fire support.

When you consider Canada's vast tracts of boreal forests and areas impassable to wheeled vehicles, I wonder why we don't take a page out of the Swedish Army playbook. Sweden has terrain which is very similar to Canada's, and the Swedish have found that only one strategy really works for defensive operations in such terrain. That strategy involves use of tracked vehicles, significant pioneer and engineering assets, lots of light infantry trained in arctic and winter warfare, and materiel and ammo stocks pre-positioned in caches located in critical forward areas and other strategic areas.

Many say Canada is rendered effectively immune from attack by its sheer size and the presence of the US. What these people don't realize is that there are many countries who want Canada's rich natural resources - and may not want to pay for them. As competition for dwindling resources increases, a potential enemy may try to attack not by way of Canada's littoral, but through its weakest point - the  Arctic. Recent events have starkly displayed just how absent and therefore weak our arctic defences really are - Hans Island and the recent use of the Northwest Passage by US and UK nuclear subs comes to mind.

If US troops are occupied elsewhere in a major conflict, there may not be enough of them to help out with defending Canada's northern flank. Considerations of Canada's small population aside, the job would inevitably fall to us. This is one reason why I can't understand why we are not massively investing in our northern defences, and still maintaining our silly addiction to peacekeeping.

 

[jumper664]

I work at CFSEME and i worked for GDLS.
you will get the MGS....end of story

 

[Kirkhill]

Eland:

I agree with you on the MGS. I disagree on the Swedish comparison.

Sweden is a relatively small country compared to Canada.  It is also quite narrow and served by a very extensive highway network, some of which is used for expedient airfields.  They also have a large number of armoured vehicles which they can afford because: a) they build them themselves in crown corporations and b) they don't hve to pay their conscript drivers and CCs much.  Nor do they have to maintain those personnel when they aren't training or shooting.

The net effect is that Swedish tracks don't have to travel far to get to the front.  And the supply lines, the roads, are never far behind them.  Coupled with large amounts of stockpiles.

Canada couldn't begin to afford the density of deployed materiel that is available to the Swedes.  Now if you sucked all 30 million of us down to the maritimes, nationalized GM, imposed universal conscription and gave all the rest of Canada's land claims then you might make a decent stab at it.

Cheers again.

 

[TCBF]

"Considerations of Canada's small population aside, the job would inevitably fall to us."

- Huh?  With half of our present population, we put 1,000,000 men and women in uniform in WW2. Given a bit of prep time, we are more than capable of launching the 4th, 7th, and 12th Bns of the Jane and Finch Fusileers on an echeloned human-wave attack across Hans Island.  A sort of 21st Century Dieppe.

;D

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

"Considerations of Canada's small population aside, the job would inevitably fall to us."

- Huh?  With half of our present population, we put 1,000,000 men and women in uniform in WW2. Given a bit of prep time, we are more than capable of launching the 4th, 7th, and 12th Bns of the Jane and Finch Fusileers on an echeloned human-wave attack across Hans Island.  A sort of 21st Century Dieppe.

;D

Tom

Especially given the 4rth and 12th battalions will probably be shooting at each other.

Geography really does trump other factors here, even an Army of 1,000,000 men (much less an armed forces) will never be able to control the Canadian Arctic. On the other hand, do we really need to do so? Given that it is amazingly difficult to get to the arctic in force setting off from right here in Canada, the possibility of waking up one morning to find the Finns busily mining Baffin Island is pretty ludicrous. There is only one nation on Earth which could do this, and, hey, they already do so by buying into or just buying Canadian companies. China will be joining the Americans soon enough, so people worrying about the pile up of American Treasury instruments in China will have to wonder what WE will be doing with all that American cash.

Our potential problem will have to be solved by a combination of strategic airlift (the ability to fly missions over several thousand miles) and airborn/airmobile or at least air portable forces. Don't forget that any potential enemies who do decide to squat in the far north won't be bringing heavy armour to their party either.

The MGS (or a better solution like the CV_CT or CV 90120 light tank) are specific tools for specific jobs. Change the parameters too much and you will not be able to use these weapons. Similarly, airborn forces are not the universal answer to military problems either(as the British in "Market Garden" or the French at Dien Bien Phu could attest). A medium weight mechanized force does need the ability to have self propelled firepower to accompany them into battle, so we should not be arguing about the basic need, but rather the way to fulfill that need.

 

[ArmyRick]

Back on topic. If (God willing) harper gets in as PM, do you think the Canadian MGS order will be cancelled? Bets in please.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Depends how many conservatives get elected in the London area.

 

[ArmyRick]

If I am not mistaken, GM is now out of the Defence products business? I was sure General Dynamics purchased the LAVIII production lines and all that? Please someone in the know fill me in  ???

 

[Cloud Cover]

The plant is called GDLS (London). The LAV III/Stryker/FMS variants are still made there, but I think the MGS may be finished at another plant.

 

[George Wallace]

If I am not mistaken, GM is now out of the Defence products business? I was sure General Dynamics purchased the LAVIII production lines and all that? Please someone in the know fill me in  ???

I think you are correct....things seem to be under the GD name now.  If the US has dropped their production requirements for the 'MGS', what are the odds that it will be dropped right across the board?  Will Canada go through the excessive expense to produce a small quantity of them or bail out to save costs?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Will Canada go through the excessive expense to produce a small quantity of them or bail out to save costs?

To compensate, perhaps the MGS will be placed on top of a new batch of LAV III specialist variants. I'm not saying there is such an order in the works, but remember the chief elements of Canadian defence procurement policy are (1) votes (2) surprise (3) more votes (4) military requirements.