LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[AntiArmour Guy]

This is a subject that gets my blood boiling...

If only someone with influence was aware of the following:

The Australian Defence Forces (ADF) are purchasing 59 M1A1 AIMD MBT's, 5 Hercules M88A2 Armnd Recov Vehs, a bulk fuel variant of the M978 Heavy Mobility Tactical Truck, M1070 Heavy Equipment Transporter Truck, training simualtors and a complete spares inventory and support program... all for $550 Million AusD (a tad less in CAD).

Canada is purchasing 66 (is it still?) MGS (P.O.S.) for almost $700 Million CAD. We are being ripped off, not only in terms of capability (which could cost lives) but in an effort to line the pockets of GDLD in London ON.

If only reporters like Scott Taylor or a journalist or SOMEONE brought this to the attention of the public and more importantly to some of our MP's (as Parliament is the only thing that can kill this horrible waste of resources now).

Someone, please save us from ourselves,

Mike

 

[Pugnacious]

Oh my gods!

Who is in charge of buying these things?
We are getting a bad deal, but I'm sure someone in charge is getting some perks for this.

UHG!
P.

 

[Mortar guy]

Well said AntiTank Guy! This MGS thing was foisted on the Army and will only result in bad things for us. I'm anxious to see how the Army comes up with a "war fighting" doctrine for us now that we can no longer manoeuvre in the face of the enemy!

Alex

 

[Firepower]

They are purchasing USED M1A1 tanks, that's the cheaper price. We are buying new MGS systems, an since there is some grand vision they think we need them.

PS The ADF actually has a way to Transport their M1A1 tanks

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=35163&session=dae.4276352.1089667595.QPMCC8Oa9dUAACPQSa8&modele=jdc_1

 

[loyalcana]

Well maybe the Australians are getting such a good deal is because they got screwed by several purchases of used U.S equipment.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/14/1079199092295.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I think that the used tanks the Aussies bought are a good deal.  They really are low-mileage units, ones that were pre-positioned war stock.  Also, each tank is being stripped down to its last nut and bolt, inspected, and any worn parts replaced.  A comple rebuild.  They are also getting the latest electronics, so that the comms, FCS  and strategic displays are the exact same as the M1A2SEP.  The M88's aren't that great a deal, but the tank transporters are nice.  Also, as mentioned, the Australian Navy can actually transport army stuff.  How's that for a concept?

 

[Gunnerlove]

Ah the MGS. The light tank of the new millennium.

The Abrams would seem to be the better bet. Dollar wise though a dollar spent in Canada only costs the government 60 cents. That is one reason why buying used gear from another country and then overhauling it in Canada is (usually) more economical in the long run than buying refurbished kit.

This might just be me thinking outloud but shouldn't we draw up a plan for our "new" Army then workout some doctrine then run some simulations then buy/build the new army?

Kind of like building a house. Talk to the customer, draw up some plans, make a model, and build the house.

Seems like we are buying a toilet and are just going to have to live with whatever gets cobbled together around it. Kind of like some of those shacks you see in the US deep south you know the ones shingled with Bud cans.

 

[Guardian]

Rumour I've heard is that the simulation guys are trying to make this combined-arms (MGS / TOW / ADATS) direct-fire twem concept work, and that they are having a real hard time of it. I haven't heard specifics, but something along the lines of heavy casualties incurred in several scenarios. Has anyone heard anything on that?

 

[AntiArmour Guy]

Guardian,

I'm sure that is true...after all it took us some time to dispel the rumour that a LAVIII could destroy a tank.   We wargamed that to death and found that in a mechanized battlefield (a la Iraq- even against a "poor quality" mechanized force) once the friendly tanks were stripped away...the LAVIII's were toast.   Comforting isn't it.

Once the Navy (oh please God make it so) purchases their new Joint Support ships, we will finally be able to transport combat troops and veh's and be able to project power.   That would be nice.   Like Mortar Guy said earlier, ships worry about space not so much weight so even if you could only take 3 tanks or 4 MGS, what would you choose...?

Sure the Aussies are buying used kit and sure buying used kit has its problems (look at our new subs).   In   my opinion this is still a smarter route to take.   A buddy of mine has a cool picture of his lads in Eritrea with Dutch Chinooks flying behind... refurbished ones they bought from us (that we said were nearly obsolete)...   We wouldn't have to buy them from the Yanks we could look at surplus Challenger2's or   Leo 2A4/5's that the UK, the Dutch and the Germans are thinning out... (mind you if we bought the Challenger2's we'd have to remind them about the whole submarine Dog's breakfast...lol).

Anyhow, hopefully someone will take note, do a little research (on Jane's and other Military thinktanks) and see that we are being taken for a ride and that Canadian Soldiers will pay the price.

...oh part of that price is buying fewer LAV TUA's and stripping Infantry bn's their intrinsic LR AT capability... remind you of other brilliant plans... Mortars...pioneers...?   *sigh*   It seems that while other countries are expanding the capabilities of their Infantry Battalions we are stripping ours...

Time for a Light Infantry discussion anyone... a new thread perhaps...

Mike

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Yeah, I've heard that they've run dozens of simulations on the JANUS.

Rumour has it that the new direct fire team doesn't work.

What does work is telling the politicians that we can dump the tank, save millions that can be wasted by NDHQ on researching idiotic concepts, and keep some capability for Peacekeeping operations.

Even without the JANUS simulations, anyone in their right mind would be able to tell that Canada is only capable of operating in a low-intensity conflict, and even then, we would need support from our allies.

Quite the fall for the proud army of the late 70's and 80's, isn't it?  From an army capable of fighting in general warfare to one that needs support in a low-intensity conflict.

 

[AntiArmour Guy]

Indeed, we are woking ourselves into a RAS role for NATO.... one that we'd need support in doing.

Our bloated NDHQ is actually one of the premier decision making beaurocracies in the Puiblic Service (which os scary in itself)... the problem lies in the fact that we like to make things "Canadian" and therefore time consuming (can't hurt anyone's feelings can we? better have the new (whatever) built in (insert province that needs it here).   Just look at how its taking to choose a new frigging combat boot.  

It would be nice to have a streamlined HQ that makes decisions... (of course you need political will and support form DFA).

Lets look at the aussies again... (paraphrased by me from an article I read...to be located...sorry)

The ADF has a miltary of approx 52 000 pers and a military budget of approx $ 8 Million USD.   They are purchasing tanks, attack helicopters, upgrading their ASLAV's, expanding their Special Forces among other "minor" purchases and upgrades... (Not to mention they have a Para bn (3RAR) and a Commando (read SOF) bn (4RAR) and an SASR...there seems to be a few things to aspire to in the ADF....)

The CF has a military of approx 55 000 pers and a budget of $8.2 Million USD.   How are we spending our money....?   Wisely?  

I think not.

Mike

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Indeed.  I have mentioned the Australian Armed Forces a few times in comparison with us.  We do not compare well, in any one of the three services.

But, then, I really doubt that the Australian version of NDHQ has 12,000 people on strength, unlike ours.

 

[Gunnerlove]

I wonder if they like us have more Captains than Privates? I doubt it.

DND has a big fat @ss. 

Our problems go right to the top. The MGS is just a sign of the sickness of our organization.
Review the whole organization and restructure the whole organization.
Stop the waste.

 

[Yard Ape]

We don't even have the means to transport the Leo's to a hotspot do we?   Then whats the point in keeping them unless we got the lift capabilities.   Their collecting dust right now, least the MGS we could move around.  

We do not have the ability to move anything.  We rent planes  or boats.

If we get rid of tanks because we have not used them recently (but we have used them recently) then we will not have the skills to use them when the time comes that we do need them.

 

[Pugnacious]

Here is a question...how did we get our troops, and stuff to A-stan?

Cheers!
P.

 

[Gobsmacked]

Here is a question...how did we get our troops, and stuff to A-stan?

Cheers!
P.

Pugnacious,

Unfortunately not through the overtaxed Airforce with operational rates for the fleet of 32 Hercs running at some 48% - per ATI requests, which by the way does not have the capability to lift strategically.
As noted in SCIP:
SCIP info in this color edited from public version.
SCIP notes "Hercules Replacement/Modernization project (effectively the Future Strategic Airlift project in all but name due to political sensitivities of former MND) proposes to replace the tactical airlift capability by the 2012-2015 timeframe", within a notional C$2.6 Billion replacement budget ["C$4.117,906B per SCIP Equipment Annex"] in Subsequent years (FY08/09 onwards) - even though the SCIP listed strategic mobility as a Critical High Priority project.  "The CC-130s [Hercules], although an excellent tactical platform, "
This missing Portion edited from publicy available SCIP (found through ATI request): "is aging and needs replacement to meet our ongoing transport needs. VS The CC-130s [Hercules], although an excellent tactical platform, have insufficient strategic airlift capability and capacity.  Their effective deployment range, with a strategic payload, is limited rendering them unable to carry outsized [will not fit into a Hercules] military equipment that are necessary to air deploy.  These equipments are necessary to air deploy our Vanguard forces, as well as the Disaster Assistance Response Team [DART]."

As noted in Air Force's 2003 'Aerospace Capability Framework' released 31 May 2004, the "Airlift Capability Project [ACP] aims to acquire a replacement capability for the current CC-130 E and H (-73 model) aircraft.  A variety of options will be investigated to include contracted services, lease, lease to buy, purchase or potential 'teaming' arrangements.  To determine 'best value', the ACP will examine options that range from the status quo, replacement of the CC-130 with like capability, or replacement of the Hercules with an aircraft with the capacity to carry outsized cargo.  Outsized cargo is defined as cargo that, because of length, width, height and/or weight, cannot fit into a Hercules-sized aircraft.  Such cargo includes equipment such as the HLVW used by the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART); the Beaver Tail Trailer; 6K and 5K forklifts; and the 6x4 Dump Truck.  Other equipment, such as the Army's LAV-III must be disassembled to enable transport by Hercules.  Three Hercules flights are required to transport two LAV-III vehicles."

Airlift to Afghanistan was unfortunately provided via rented Polet (Russia) & Antonov (Ukraine) An-124s (equivalent to USAF C-5) and Non-Stage 3 compliant (ie. does not meet North American or European air quality noise regulations) IL-76s.  As of 15 Dec 03 our continuting Afghanistan commitment alone has required over US$58.341 for strategic airlift charter, not counting the US$Ms for sealift charter due to complete lack of sea/airlift, with return lift costs by this fall expected to add a minimum US$28M extra - and this was before the additional lift requirements for the 1 year extension to the ISAF commitment was announced.

Hope this clears up any confusion. 

 

[Pugnacious]

Actually you answered a bunch of other questions I was going to ask also, but I'm still wondering...who or what flew us to A-stan?
Did we have to hire out another countries plane or do it ourselves.  I allready have an idea..I was just wondering how common knowledge it was. 

Cheers!
P.

 

[Yard Ape]

Privatly owned aircraft which we payed big $$$ to have fly us down there.

Airlift to Afghanistan was unfortunately provided via rented Polet (Russia) & Antonov (Ukraine) An-124s (equivalent to USAF C-17) and Non-Stage 3 compliant (ie. does not meet North American or European air quality noise regulations) IL-76s.

 

[Gobsmacked]

Actually you answered a bunch of other questions I was going to ask also, but I'm still wondering...who or what flew us to A-stan?
Did we have to hire out another countries plane or do it ourselves.  I allready have an idea..I was just wondering how common knowledge it was. 

Cheers!
P.

As of 15 Dec 03 our continuting Afghanistan commitment alone has required over US$58.341M [CORRECTED, forgot $M - Chartered Airlift costs Always run in the US$500K or more per each single flight, when available] for strategic airlift charter, not counting the US$Ms for sealift charter due to complete lack of sea/airlift, with return lift costs by this fall expected to add a minimum US$28M extra - and this was before the additional lift requirements for the 1 year extension to the ISAF commitment was announced.

:

 

[Pugnacious]

Yup that's what I heard also..thanx for confirming this.
My gods that must have been a ride.  

This planning things based on renting stuff really bugs me for some reason.
Seems to me like a major weakness for an Army to have.

I mean even the RCMP have their own planes.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/air/air_e.htm

I also hear the guy in the Army Surplus place back east made a killing selling CF some Desert Camo gear.
Which is pretty sad IMHO.

I still don't under stand why we can't build our own stuff with all the unemployed talented people we have in Canada .
anyone have any thoughts on this?

Cheers!
P.