LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Unfortunately, that's not the answer.   We will pay a premium to modify the MGS from the base US configuration to a Canadian-specific set-up, including the Athene tactical system and Iris comms.   Both are already in service or are coming into service throughout the Army.

Two terms I never wanted to hear together: "MGS" and "pay a premim to modify...."



M.  :blotto:

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

so let me guess here what  do we buy  for a tank with tracks and big gun to train with and never take out of Canada without 6 months to 1 year notice.

M1 series  a1, a2 later versions  a3? great machines, lots of fire power, proven on the battle field,  can be shipped by air if you have big enough cargo planes,  sqn has 16 tanks if I remember correctly, that  is 8  flights of C5, 16 flights of C17, and how many  flights of c130s to bring the  crews and ammo and spare parts?  and the airbus fleet to bring the maintainers?
easiest way  to ship roll off container ship.  cost? we could buy  another 2 sqns of tanks and have money  left over but no way  to move them , good thing about the ship it can carry  everything a sqn would need in battle on one trip and it would last 30 days, less fuel. Ships in Canadiian navy  usual last 30 to 40 years with reto fits.  that  is a good thing cost less over the life span.

Leo C2, do not think it has been fired in anger, or been fired at. so i think it is unproven , soon to be out of date anyways I am sure

British tanks.....does the sub fire mean anything they  would never do that  again in fear the past would be bought up, just in case, but is a proven tank in battle, might get a good deal on them

French tank  it would have to be rebuilt in Quebec and that  would only  lead to more anti french problems and we have enough troubles with France , Quebec and the French Islands off our coast. we fight over fish andstuff there now, do not need to create a spare part problem.

Israel made tanks , that  would look good for missions in muslim countries like we are on now, so they are out

South African Tanks ,  maybe they  would sell us some that  would fit our needs, after all half of the tanks and arty  guns are of Canadian design, Mr Bull, the creator of the super guns.

that  leaves us the following

M60s from the states out of date and in need of rebuilding, might be a good deal, meaning work for Quebec,

or the locally made wheeled want to be tanks from london

at least some of the money  would stay in Canada.

everything else the money  would leave here in huge brinks truck loads.


that  is my  thoughts tonight

 

[Zipper]

I'm a little confused about the battle awareness of the MGS as well? In fact, I thought its "situational" awareness was next to useless since each turret position only had about 180 degrees of view? Clarification please!

Former. Not a bad way of looking at it, but I think the Leo 2 has been upgraded to the 2A4 (or 6?) model now and is one of the most advanced tanks on the market.

But no more tank talk. It hurts... :-X

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The CC of the MGS will have (supposedly) exceptional tactical awareness, thanks to the Tactical display in the vehicle.  Our mighty TCCCS system will allow the digitalized display to stay current for all known enemy and friendly vehicles.  As you so correctly pointed out, however, the CC will have poor situational awareness, not only because there is next to no field of view, but because it cannot be operated "heads up".  The CC and gunner are closed up, depending on monitors and cameras to see what is going on.  That is one of my major complaints about the MGS.  It HAS to be operated with the crew down inside.

Amended to add:  the MGS will not be produced in Canada.  IIRC correctly, it will be produced in Alabama.  One of the southern states, anyway.  Not one portion of it will be produced in Canada, except for the "Canada unique" items.  Like the aforementioned TCCCS.

 

[blacktriangle]

Hello,

I am a civilian that is quite interested in all of this. I have read mostly negative replys when it comes to the topic of the MGS. Does anyone think that it would be possible to develop a more capable system, while still using the LAV III platform?

Sorry I can not add anything else.

Thanks.

 

[TCBF]

"More to the point, once you bring in the MGS, the Armed Forces will have no choice but to upgrade battlespace awareness gear on its remaining vehicles?"

- So, are we buying an $8,000,000 portable radio?  ;D

"...when it comes to the topic of the MGS. Does anyone think that it would be possible to develop a more capable system, while still using the LAV III platform?"

- In the interim, will a M-551 Sheridan turret fit on the LAV III chasis?  Could you modify the 152mm tube to fire TOW and also a 'soft' bunker busting HESH round?  Is there room in a 'retro' turret for all of the gee-whiz gear we want nowadays?

Maybe not.

I think we are stuck with MGS until the Yanks cancel it, then go back to looking at the AGS. I like what the MGS is trying to do, I just don't think the technology is mature enough to allow us to do it under the constraints of the contractually imposed (but flexible?)  size/weight envelope.  I think the powers that be made a good choice with the info they were given, but they may have been sold a pig in a poke.

Tom

 

[Zipper]

I liked Majors idea of backing off the 105 idea and going with a 90 instead. It would solve many of the problems the MGS is going through at the moment and still be able to fulfill its Infantry direct fire support mission. As we have said many times before it is NOT a tank replacement, so why have a 105 on it at all pretending it is?

Well, except for the fact that I'm not aware of many NATO countries still using 90mm rounds. But hey, its not like we haven't gone against the current many times before?

 

[a_majoor]

I am a bit surprised the Tactical awareness system is so dependent on a "heads down" display, but it "shouldn't" be too hard to adapt the helmet/monocular sight system that is used on American attack helicopters.

In the MAV thread we also talked a bit about display/control units, some of which were sized to fit on a soldier's wrist, or clip on to the front of the body armour/ LCV. An even simpler idea (I stole this from seeing a restored GTO from @ 1969-70 era) is to have an external display screen that the CC can see when he is heads up. This could be in an armoured binnacle ahead of the hatch, or if the hatch cover can rotate freely (or is hinged to the front), built into the hatch itself.

The idea of an multi million dollar portable radio is rather amusing, if it wasn't so sad....

 

[maxxevv]

Exactly.  For the record, a C-5B can carry 2 x M1A2 (and routinely does), while a C-17 can carry one.  As I understand it, the MGS can be carried in a C-130, but only if stripped of add-on armour and only for an "inter-theatre hop" of about 100 km or so.  The vehicle then requires preparation time before proceeding into action.  Not very useful.  We are certainly not going to be flying LAV IIIs and/or MGS into Afghanistan from Edmonton anytime soon.  The fact of the matter is that we had a helluva time just lifting Coyote (which is C-130 transportable) into Kandahar in 2002; I cannot imagine what lifting a heavier, more unwieldy vehicle would be like.

This is why I suggested a medium weight vehicle as an interim...  We're going to have lift problems anyway, so why not take a second look at the capability we're going to be adopting?  Wonder how many CV-90s you can cram into a C-5 (or an Antonov, for that matter)?  A Galaxy has airdropped 4 x Sheridans (42,000 pound tanks) in one go (7 June 1989), so why limit ourselves to a vehicle that only theoretically will fit into a Herc?

Hmmm .. interesting, anyone remember the US IDF ( Interim Defence Force ) programme back in '00 ??  They had a few vehicles up in contention besides the LAV which were C-130 transportable.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Don't have time to read the whole thread, but Mowag was doing experiments using the GAIT turret with the French 105 & 120mm on a 10x10 LAV body. Seemed like an up to date Centario. Anyone knows how those trials went?

The 90mm would be a good selection, reduced recoil, more ammo stowage, etc. Of course our stock of 105mm ammo will be useless. 

 

[Kirkhill]

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

The MGS autoloader saga continues. 

Still think the Otomelara 60mm HVMS turret with a couple of 5-8 km ATGMs hung on the outside is a better bet

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

Cheers.

 

[Zipper]

Hey Chris, glad to see you back.

So does this mean that they have fixed all the problems? Or is it another ram through for political purposes?

Oh, and very nice turret. That would be sweet on a LAV chassis.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Zipper, looking forward to more discussions.

Does that mean its fixed?  I don't know -  just relaying the report.  Do I think it is fixed?  Doesn't sound likely - a few more units produced by another supplier to see if they can accomplish what the other chaps couldn't perhaps.

Cheers.

Oh, and glad you like the 60.  The thing that has always impressed me about the gun is the combination of the rapid fire (from a well proven autoloader with large capacity) and the ability to penetrate a NATO triple at 1500 to 2000 m. 

 

[ChopperHead]

Just wondering how this is going to work. Are the currrent Leo crews going to have to be retrained on the MGS or are they all ready qualified? Second When is the MGS supposed to arrive? I heard not for another year or 2 some what are new tankers being trained on? Leo's if so kinda seems pointless to train them on equipment that will only be around for a year then it's gone and the traing is no longer relivant. Also one more thing how is the MGS transportable does it fit in a C-130? Just one final comment here. I think the MGS sucks We need a tank not a LAV with a big gun. I wanted to join the armour untill I found out about this now Im not so sure. Do you think the MGS is a temporary soulution like for 5 years or so then tanks will come or not likely?

Thanx


Kyle.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There's lots of threads on this already. Do a "search" and read the other stuff in the Armoured Forum on the subject.

 

[ChopperHead]

Ok I did check a bunch of other threads but they dont really tell me what I want to know some of my original questions were answered but not all of them and I dont really appreciate you just locking it out like that. But anyway I will revise my questions. First I want to know if the current Leo operators will have to undergo training all over again to operate the MGS or are they allready qualified. Also If the MGS is not supposed to arrive for anothe 2 years or so how are new tankers going to be trained seems Kinda pointless to train them on The Leo's which will be gone in 2 years anyway and make their traing no longer relivant. And one final question is do you think that the MGS will just be an interm vehicle for like 5-10 years then the tanks will be back because by then Im sure the tories will have gotten in to power and Im sure they will fix this mess.


kyle.

 

[mover1]

Look to the navy and the parallels between the o-boats and the victoria class subs. They survived.
Now look at the army and the Leo replacement. Like any new piece of kit. the users will need to have training. PPL didn't just jump from the M-113 to the Coyote.
It doesn''t seem pointless to train for two years on an old piece of kit. A Baisic engagements in only three years.
By your standard of thinking. Those personell who are intending to be in the CF for the short haul needn't be trained.

 

[Zipper]

Ok, I don't know for sure. But logic seems to dictate that yes, they will have to be re-trained (qualified) on the new piece of kit because it is a new piece of kit with enough differences to warrent such. No, training on the Leo will happen until which time we do have the actually vehicle to re-train everyone on. Logic dictates again that to stop all training on the Leo would be silly because we don't actually have the MGS yet.

As for Interim. What is truly interim in the CAF? Everything is interim if you think it will be used for 5-10 years and ends up being used for 30. The Cougar was supposed to be an interim tank trainer. We're still waiting...

 

[ChopperHead]

LOL ya thats true.

BUt maybe pointless wasnt the best word. Just kinda seems like a waste of time to train new recruits right now and then have to retrain them all again when the MGS gets here. It takes about a year to pop out new recruits I believe and the MGS is supposed to be here in 2 years so These recruits with have little to no expercience out of training with the Leo and then have to turn around and go through it all again. Perhaps we could lease some from the states or something to train on kinda like the dutch apaches.



Kyle

 

[McG]

First I want to know if the current Leo operators will have to undergo training all over again to operate the MGS or are they allready qualified. Also If the MGS is not supposed to arrive for anothe 2 years or so how are new tankers going to be trained seems Kinda pointless to train them on The Leo's which will be gone in 2 years anyway and make their traing no longer relivant.

There are no more tank squadrons in Canada.  There is a DFS squadron that trains in leopards.  This may seem like semantics to you.  However, using the leopards, the DFS sqn will be developing & training in the doctrine that will be used by the platform which replaces the leopard.

Troops will have to be trained in the technical aspects of a new vehicle, but the the leopard allows the DFS guys to develop/maintain the tactical skills and knowledge of their roll.  Unless you are one of the techs, the tactical side is the more important side of skills to be maintained.  It does not take long to convert someone to a new piece of equipment.