LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Gobsmacked]

As disected above, looks like the CF has a bit of a reprieve before MGS order placed.

In early December 2004 GDLS-C spokesperson Ken Yamashita noted, in the London Free Press, that the company is adapting the MGS vehicle for the Canadian order but production is not expected to begin until later next year.


December 09, 2004, By Matthew Cox; Army Times staff writer

Stryker officials hope redesign of MGS will fix jamming problem

Stryker program officials are hoping that redesigning the sophisticated loader on the Mobile Gun System will prevent the jamming problems that last year caused the vehicle to fail reliability tests. :

Still in development, the Mobile Gun System is planned as one of the 10 variants in the Stryker family of wheeled, armored vehicles and is equipped with a direct-fire, 105mm cannon to destroy bunkers and other hard targets.

The Army wants to field 72 MGS Strykers as part of the total 2,449 vehicles slated for fielding to the six approved Stryker Brigades and a seventh that is still in the planning phase.
[Funny, even Army Times can't seem to get their #'s right.  203x MGS required for 6x SBCTs.
With each SBCT containing: 27x MGS (+4 ORF), with MGS integral to each Inf Bn - to be used more as an over watch force to support infantry movement into urban areas.]

The MGS Stryker and a nuclear-chemical-biological reconnaissance vehicle are the only two variants yet to be fielded. Other variants include an Infantry Carrier Vehicle; Commander's Vehicle; Fire Support Vehicle; Mortar Carrier; Engineer Squad Vehicle; Medical Evacuation Vehicle; Reconnaissance Vehicle; and the Anti-Tank Guided Missile vehicle (ATGM). [...]


As previously noted,
A Oct 2003 report 'Stryker Brigades Versus the Reality of War' by Mr. Victor O'Reilly - an author and counterterrorism authority with an obvious bias for the MTVL upgrade, has some damning MGS contradictions and revealing information (reference report page 5 and pages 46 thru 54).  Most Notably, "Executive Summary: STRYKER MOBILE GUN SYSTEM [MGS] & ITS PROBLEMS:  Too heavy to be C-130 deployable, a key requirement;  Cannon too powerful for Stryker Chassis;  Does not carry enough ready main gun Ammunition;  Auto loader jams and fails to select correct ammunition;  Commander and Gunners positions so cramped they fit less than 5 percent of the population."
[Purportedly GDLS has expanded the interior turret basket to somewhat alleviate the cramped turret compartment ergonomics, as previously noted by Matt, but on the lowered 8x8 LAV-III.5 chassis the room for expansion is minimal - at most MGS can now fit 20-25 percent of the Armour crews.]

"The ammunition issue.  Too little, too late, and in the wrong place.  Serious problems with the MGS Autoloader.  The Stryker MGS provides only an 8 round carousel.  The further 10 rounds available in the replenisher [giving a total of 18] can only be accessed by taking the gun out of action for minutes.  This is absolutely not something you want to do in combat with hostiles shooting at you.  It is a matter of basic survivability.  The MGS autoloader has a tendency to jam.  The sensors in the MGS autoloader may not be able to recognize certain types of ammunition with brass casings (such as existing CF warshot).  The MGS . . . autoloader cannot identify types with accuracy.  Brass cased rounds are just not detected.  Also, the Stryker gunner cannot set the fuze on anti-personnel rounds, therefore the MGS cannot fire with soldiers to the front [a major capability limitation]."

 

[Patton jr]

didn't sure if someone already posted something on this(i didnt read all the forums), but i'I'veeard that Canada is going to convert some LAV's into "Strikers" which is pretty much a 120mm turret, mounted on a LAVIII. Could someone possibly verify this for me,and if it should prove true, get me Paul Martin's email adaddressso i can tell hI'm how suicidal he is being.

Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking.
--Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne

 

[Kirkhill]

Young Patton,

Your heart is in the right place but you will serve the cause better if you read through this thread, and other similar ones on this site, consider the arguments, prepare your own reasoned argument for your position and then present it to the PM.  And the world at large through this site as well if you wish.

Opinions carry more weight when supported with facts.

Cheers,  enjoy the reading and I look forward to hearing more from you.

Kirkhill

 

[ArmyRick]

young patton, the srtyker MGS has a 105mm automatic loading "low profile turret" (Don't ask me why its called that because it sure don't look low profile) their is also a GD and AC delco joint venture of a 120mm breach loading mortar mounted on a LAVIII chasis (I beleive its a demo model).

Also you can not convert a LAVIII infantry vehicle to an MGS... Its a little different than slapping a grizzly turret on a M113. Look at the vehicle chasis on both and you will see there is very little in common between the two.

Cheers.

 

[STONEY]

Another point to ponder here as there is constantly new options.
Military Technology issue 12/2004  Israel has tested on a Leo 1 the LAHAT Gun/tube missle that can be fired
from standard L7 105  and destroy heavily armoured targets at a range of up to 8 km with pinpoint accuracy. 
The tank does not require expensive and complex upgunning. The LAHAT uses a high performance advanced warhead which can defeat all known mordern MBT armour, with a penetration capability of 800m. The LAHAT weapon system offers a cost effective upgrade of the tanks firepower especially at long range. The upgrade kit introduces a laser target designation capilibility with existing laser designator sights and software changes. This weapon can be fired from defilade positions and hit any target marked for attack either by the firing tank or a forward observer with a designator. The LAHAT is the same size as a standard 105 round and stowed exactly the same.  The Leo ! is not the sitting duck some would have us believe.

Cheers
Stoney

 

[Kirkhill]

Great point Stoney. Nothing stands still. There is always another option.

 

[Gobsmacked]

My mistake..

Although I can't find any data on A2 beeing deployed there, lots of talk, but no hard data. my sources in the US says no, and I can't find any pics either. What has led to the A2 story is a M1a1HA that some units are using with a turret head system that is located in the same position as the CTIV as on the A2.

Untill I see a pic of one, i'm leaning on there being none there.

A side note: I think that the side hull armour on the A2 is not heaver or upgraded from the A1Ha, therefore it as the M1A1 can be penetrated by a RPG as we have seen, the front glacis and turret have additional armour in the A2. But I'll ask and do some more data research to be sure.

FYI, the Actual 'Skinny' from the source (GDLS themselves) notes that as of May 2004:
"Two M1A2 SEP Tanks were 'combat losses' ", 
out of some 550 M1A2 SEP in Active service at that point, plus some 595 M1A2.
So I guess that means they were in active service during OIF.
Can't say any more than that, although Lance can confirm as I passed him a copy of same info source.

 

[Keyes]

Hey all, first off, this is my first post and I'm new here, just found it recently. I don't know if anyone's posted this, but I saw it, and since I don't have much in the way of military knowledge or experience, yet, I'm applying for the reserves, I wanted to see what you actual forces members though of it.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mgs.htm

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If your asking if the MGS should be a replacement for the LAV 3, the answer is no. They are two completely different vehicles designed for two very different roles.

 

[COBRA-6]

Some day in the not-too-distanant future, composite armour technology will give us more protection with less weight than the current steel armour on the LAV-III, that's why the Stryker is considered a intrem-vehicle by the US. I'm not up to speed on all the technology, but I don't think we're there yet... anyone out there work for GDLS??

 

[48Highlander]

I'm not seing any improvements in composite armour.  What's seems to be the big goal these days is "active" armour.  Basicaly a defensive system capable of destroying projectiles before they impact the vehicle.

 

[Blue Max]

Active armour is said to work very well even for projectiles that are fired from as close as 100ft away, I believe I read, but.  The problem is that the area around the vehicle becomes dangerous without necessarily any warning to dismounts and civilians.

 

[disqx]

Active armour is said to work very well even for projectiles that are fired from as close as 100ft away, I believe I read, but.  The problem is that the area around the vehicle becomes dangerous without necessarily any warning to dismounts and civilians.

Conversely, doesn't the area around the vehicle already becomes dangerous if, for instances, an ATGM is allowed to explode on the vehicle's surface spreading sharpnel in all directions, detonating stored ammo, igniting fuel and/or hydrualics?

 

[Blue Max]

disqx, I believe you are partially correct. As the most recent examples show, US M1's have fared very well when they have been breached by a ATM of some kind. It is usually a small entry hole to maximize kinetic energy and then the round will bounce around inside, maybe tearing the crew to shreads, but not always. Western tank design has progressed a great deal in proctecting the crew when the hull has been breached vs Russian/Chinese tanks I have read.

Some of the armour guys may be able to explain this better, but the tank will only cook off or blow of its turret if the round entering the hull can reach the onboard stored rounds... Now that I think of it, it appears that more M1's have been lost in Iraq due to fires (engine, fuel, not clear why). The crews usually were able to get out and some times have tried to put out the fires even thought in the middle of a fire fight. :tank:

 

[Cpl.Banks]

This is my first post, im not currently serving in our country's military but I soon will Anyways  just too add to most of the other posts, I think that replacing out MBT with a small light, fast recce vehicle's is ridiculous and we are getting ripped off, something like 40 vehicles for 700 million$?And adding a 105mm turret to a chasis of a LAVIII isnt gonna sold anything because the vehicle would have to stop to fire...maybe we could use it as a mbile gun platform ??? Why couldnt we just buy two dozen M1 Abrahms? The Aussie's are doing that and they have a much smaller budget. Or even better buy new transport planes...the hercs wont last much longer just my thoughts. so really what is the use of getting anything if we cant get it out there?

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

My problem with the MGS is that the 105mm version that is currently being tested does not have the ability to defeat frontal armour of any MBT it happens across.  If you cannot fire off-line, and you can only kill from the flank and rear, your chances of surviving a meeting engagement are really small.  If an MGS is to be our tank replacement, it better be able to kill a tank, or we may as well have sent in a Cougar, it dies just as well, and with a lower price tag.  The Leo had the armour to fight like a medium tank, to use mobility and armour to take the flank shots, and shoot/scoot tactics to survive.  The MGS hasn't got the armour or ability to fire offline to allow it to manouever in the face of the enemy, and hasn't got the armour penetration for long range frontal engagement.  Its the worst of both worlds.  I may be wrong, the 105mm ammo in use today might be better then the treadheads were shooting in the 80-90's when I was in, but back in the day, head on a T-72 or T-80 was not a good shot for a tank with a non-uranium sabot or HEAT 105mm.  If the MGS had a weapon that allowed it to perform stand-off tank destroying, then its greater mobility (stategic, not tactical), lower cost etc would make it a decent system.  As it is, it sounds like the match up my grandfather faced when he rang three main gun rounds off a Tiger turret and glacis before getting his first tank shot out from under him.  Equipping yourself with "armour" that can't survive what prospecive enemies shoot, and can't kill what the same people field sounds like a baaaaad move.

 

[ArmyRick]

Like the MGS or not, we are getting it.
I think we are simply not employing it properly.

In the US SBCT Doctrine, they acknowledge what the MGS is and is not. It is actually assigned as an infantry weapon in the US Stryker Infantry companies.

 

[Zipper]

I was sitting here looking at a picture of an MGS.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics-mgs.htm

And it hit me...

This is nothing but a LAV III chassis with a stabilized 105 recoilless rife with an auto loader on top. So in other words, when we want to get rid of  them, we'll look up the various ski patrols and sell them a mobile avalanche gun. And able to go through mountain snow storms to boot. They'll love it.

Wow, two birds with one bad stone.

 

[ArmyRick]

Zipper, interesting point (public works canada doing a little magic?)  ;D

 

[AmmoTech90]

I was sitting here looking at a picture of an MGS.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics-mgs.htm

And it hit me...

This is nothing but a LAV III chassis with a stabilized 105 recoilless rife with an auto loader on top. So in other words, when we want to get rid of   them, we'll look up the various ski patrols and sell them a mobile avalanche gun. And able to go through mountain snow storms to boot. They'll love it.

I'm not sure if you are being completely sarcastic, or if it's just your last paragraph, but it's not a 106mm recoiless rifle mounted on there.  For one thing the big f***-off fireball is coming out the wrong end.  It would be interesting to see a RR fire a cart with the prop charge that an APFSDS has, you would need bino's the check the BBA.