LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Fishbone Jones]

If you believe any of this, I got some prime land in Florida just waiting for a buyer :

 

[Gobsmacked]

If you believe any of this, I got some prime land in Florida just waiting for a buyer :

While not a fan of the MGS - the above defense-aerospace notification is taken from the Press Release on the GDLS-C website. 

I don't invent it - just make sure its duly noted. 

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I haven't heard of any changes to our military's plan.

So, as far as I know, in December we are going to order 16 MGS, all of which will be standard US production Units, for delivery starting  sometime in late 2005, and going on into 2006.  Four will be given to GDLS (the above contract) to fit suitable heaters, our MBGD's, and TCCCs.  The other twelve will be given to the LdSH to help form suitable tactics, training packages and so on.

And so the transformation begins..........

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While not a fan of the MGS - the above defense-aerospace notification is taken from the Press Release on the GDLS-C website.

I don't invent it - just make sure its duly noted.

Take a pill. It was the articles I was talking about. Sorry if you were confused.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I just got back from the AUSA show in Washington DC last night and had the opportunity to see the MGS up close and personal. 

With regard to the interior ergonomics, GDLS has expanded the interior turret basket to somewhat alleviate the cramped crew compartment.

The biggest drawback to the MGS that I see is its limited ammunition capacity of 19 rounds TOTAL for the vehicle's combat load.

Can you imagine the difficulty in arranging logistics for a squadron of these things in battle?  I'm quite interested to see how a squadron commander is to maintain forward momentum while juggling pulling a troop from the line into a running replen. to re-arm every couple of hours, not to mention how the support echelon's are to be running all over hell's half-acre to resupply the F echelon.  This also brings up another question:  What is planned as the ammunition carrier for the A1 echelon?  An unarmoured MLVW/HLVW operating forward as such doesn't inspire much confidence for the survivability of the crew.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They'll probably give us an ammo trailer to tow behind each MGS :

 

[m_a_c]

I remember during gun camp with the Leopard C1 having 13 rounds in the ready rack, we would go through them in an aweful hurry.  It was a hassle just to keep the ready rack full using the rounds from the ammo bin, and we carried 53 rounds!!  I cannot imagine what kind of nightmare it would be to only have 19 rounds total on board, the ammo vehicle, (whatever it may be) will be constantly shoving rounds in the pistol port.  Does this thing even have a pistol port?  I would imagine that to stay in the fight the crew would have to resort to engaging targets with machine fire.  I also heard that they will not be using APFSDS ammo with the MGS.  Do they really want our Armoured Crewman to survive or are we all just fodder to them?


TARGET!!!....TARGET STOP!!!

 

[Matt_Fisher]

No pistol port that I saw on it.

I'm kicking myself for not having my camera with me.  Sorry  :'(

 

[pappy]

maybe'm far off the track..... but why a 105mm gun on an APC ?  I would think 60mm would be the biggest needed, if something larger is needed use a MBT, or Arty.
The IDF designed a neat little system based around a rapid firing 60mm gun, could even do 2 or 3-round bursts.  I think it foolish to try to design an APCs to take on tanks.
I think each time we design a single vehcial to do all roles it does each role baddly.  I think something more the 25 - 30mm is needed for defense on an APC but 105mm with only 19 rounds is a tad over the top.  Any APC should only be used along side Tanks and both these should only be used in combination with Arty and Close-Air support.

But since I don't make policy no need to worry about my ideas :0)

 

[pappy]

some pics of the 60mm  HVM system.  I did a little search on the MGS so be kind to me when the flames are fired  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

I just saw this posting of yours Pappy.  Which army are they from?

I have been intrigued by 60mm HVMS myself.  I gather the Italians and the Poles are both quite serious about including it in their Orbats and the Chileans and the Israelis have had some success with it.

Mounted in an M113 the vehicle could carry 80 rounds of 60mm, 4000 rounds of 7.62 and still carry six dismounts while keeping the weight under 14 tonnes.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-60.html

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-60.html

http://www.otobreda.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_hitfist_60_te

It's a dual feed weapon, that fires one round every two seconds, kills NATO triple 60 armour out to ranges between 1500 and 2000 m and has a really flat trajectory out to that range.

I thank that in combination with the Wireless-Fire & Forget TOW and something like the DELCO or AMOS 120mm mortar it would constitute a great medium support squadron weapon well suited for the Close Quarters Battle.  That high rate of fire and tank killing capacity at short ranges looks like and impressive capability to me.

That type of fire support backing up an infantry battalion armed with Javelins would make for a capability that would cover a large range of targets.  Maybe you could even put a pod of Javelins on the 60mm turret.

There would still be a need for an MBT and a heavy tracked APC/IFV in a heavy force  for  the assault on heavily defended positions but the LAV-60 would give the same kind of capability that the French  are using in the Ivory Coast, have used in Chad and the Sahara generally and did use on the left flank of the Gulf War I assault.

The gun is based on the 76mm used on the Halifax frigates.  It uses the same breech and receiver as I understand, and probably a related auto loader.

 

[pappy]

I believe the photos are of the HV-60mm in Chielian service.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The weapon was specifically designed to replace larger calibre, low pressure weapons such as the old 75mm, and to provide a kinetic energy killing power that the older weapon would not have had.  It was never intended to replace existing 105/100mm guns, which is one reason it is being marketed to countries using older weapon platforms.  It gives a new lease on life to an M24, Sherman and similar vehicles, that will be facing first generation vehicles.  It would have been one way to upgrade the Cougar, for example.

I don't think you will ever see this weapon on a new platform.  There are just too many more capable weapons out there.

 

[McG]

The biggest drawback to the MGS that I see is its limited ammunition capacity of 19 rounds TOTAL for the vehicle's combat load.

Are the 19 rounds divided across a primary and secondary ammo type  (HE, HESH, APFSDS, etc), or is the crew only given the choice of one ammo type when loading the gun?

 

[Kirkhill]

This was originally posted on the Stryker Robots thread but as a_majoor pointed out they are relevant to both the MMEV and the LAV threads as well and so are being reposted here.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65885,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

More on robots.

The US are deploying armed versions of the little 6x6 bomb disposal crawlers to back up their Stryker equipped infantry units.   Also talking about robot ambulances.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=318

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_5.asp?Offset=3&sKeywords=&sConjuction=&sRadioButton=&sFromDate=&sToDate=
Scientists work on new generation of armoured vehicles
VALCARTIER, Quebec - A group of scientists is working on what may become a new generation of Light Armoured Vehicles. (Video Story)
Friday, October 29, 2004

And these links to related work being done by DRES on the LAVs

Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

New Stryker order by the Americans (continuation of the previously announced plan to kit out 6 brigades).

This one includes 14 MGS for delivery next year.  For continued reliability testing.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Darn.

That means our order for sixteen will be placed this month, as planned.

I was hoping the Americans would defer the MGS order until all the bugs had been worked out.

 

[a_majoor]

The big difference is our order is the "be all-end all", while the US will undergo a prolonged period of OJT, modifications and testing to create a new machine. Five years from now, our guys will barely recognize the US MGS, while an American might say: "We've got one of those in the Patton Museum" when he sees the CF MGS.

Sigh.....

 

[Gobsmacked]

Darn.

That means our order for sixteen will be placed this month, as planned.

I was hoping the Americans would defer the MGS order until all the bugs had been worked out.

Lance,

Maybe not, especially as the 8 Prototype vehicles are not LRIP.

As I previously noted on 'Leopard C2 is Not a Tank' thread in Armour section:
Per Recent 2003 SECRET level ANALYSIS 'Whether to acquire the Mobile Gun System for the CF'.
The Schedule calls for contracting of initial 16 MGS vehicles, "no later-than Dec 04" under MND C$30M authority (w\o ILS), for "January to June 2006 delivery" - with "No Canadian Acquisition Prior to U.S. Order for [initial 72 Low-Rate Initial] Production Version"

Yet a Jan 04 'Project Brief For a Major Capital Project MGS' notes:
"2.2.1.3 No Canadian Acquisition Prior to U.S. Order for Production Version - the initial Canadian order for sixteen vehicles [to conduct our integration activities] would take place once the U.S. has ordered the production version of the Mobile Gun System at a low-rate phase [the U.S. would acquire 72 vehicles to conduct its integration phase, which also includes TTPs development, in order to have its own early initial operational capabilty).  The PMO will time its procurement decisions to the US Army production milestones [ie. Low Rate 2 in Aug 04 for the initial buy of 16 vehicles and Milestone III in Feb 06 authorizing full rate production for the remainder of the Canadian vehicles]."
And the 29 Oct 03 'MGS BN for the Minister' notes:
"The ordering of these first 16 vehicles is tied to the second US low rate production decision due Aug 04.  We will not get ahead of this decision point." 

{As noted below, LRIP II decision for the remaining 54 MGS is not due now until June 2005.
Plus, ordering the initial 16 Canadian vehicles would mean that DND would "get ahead of this [LRIP II] decision point", as the first 14 US MGS are LRIP I (14 + 54 = 72].  :sniper:
Meanwhile, MGS is still Developmental until reliability testing is complete.} 

General Dynamics Awarded $206 Million for 95 Additional Stryker Combat Vehicles
(Source: General Dynamics; issued Dec. 1, 2004)
STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. --- The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command today awarded General Dynamics Land Systems three delivery orders valued at $206 million for 95 Stryker combat vehicles, including the first production of the Mobile Gun System and Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Reconnaissance variants.
The Department of Defense approved the mobile gun variant and NBC reconnaissance vehicle for low rate initial production in October of this year. 
Production of 14 mobile guns [LRIP I], 17 NBC vehicles, 25 infantry and 39 mortar carriers begins in January 2005 at plants in Anniston, Alabama; Lima, Ohio; and London, Ontario. Production will be completed in February 2006.
The Mobile Gun System, which began development in 2001, continues reliability testing through June 2005 when a decision to purchase 58 additional systems [LRIP II] is expected.
Stryker fulfills an immediate requirement to equip a strategically deployable (C-17/C-5) and operationally deployable (C-130) brigade capable of rapid movement anywhere on the globe in a combat-ready configuration.
-ends-
{Note the switch in strategic deployability emphasis away from C-130 to C-17/C-5.} 
:tank:

 

[Kirkhill]

Good dissection Gobsmacked and thanks.

Just one point and that is the issue of strategically and operationally deployable.  Strategically usually implies between theatres or inter-theatre, operationally usually implies within theatre or intra-theatre.  Most of the discussion that I have seen about using C130s to transport Strykers emphasises intra-theatre applications or roughly speaking heli-portable ranges, out to a maximum of about 1000 mi, possible with refuelling of both helos and C130s in-flight.

I think it is only here in Canada that speculation has run rampant about using C-130s to transport Stryker/LAVs over strategic or inter-theatre distances.

Cheers.