LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[McG]

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

The US does not yet have any MGS to lease (so that is a non-starter) & only those armd soldiers that will be employed in leopards will be trained on the leopard.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Chopperhead,

How about filling out your profile.

 

[ChopperHead]

The US does not yet have any MGS to lease (so that is a non-starter) & only those armd soldiers that will be employed in leopards will be trained on the leopard.

Ok thanks thats basically what I was looking for But Im sure the US will have them before we get them.



Kyle.

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

Has anyone seen the MGS on a Spanish tracked APC. If not check it out on army-technology.com, it's pretty cool. :skull: :skull:

 

[geo]

Chopperhead,
Training a section of men is never pointless. It's training and develops teamwork - something that will not be lost - even if and when we get around to taking delivery of an MGS at some future date. Train for today - let tomorrow show it's colours in it's own good time.

Also - do you really think that a PC gov't would be in any position to revert back to tanks and rerole our troops back?.........for one thing; there are so many projects that would require cash that they'd be in the same jam the current gov't is in - too many things to do with not much cash to do it with.... and I don't see where the PC would get any more cash to fix what's wrong... cuts on education? healthcare? EI? Canada Pension? Raise GST % rates?

Do you think our politicians will turn around and order up a couple of hundred M1s, Hummers, Hercs, C17s and the like without trying to get the product built in their political riding?...

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

That would be an awsome dream to come true for our force's, but it's unlikeyl. And in the case of Canadian politicians, it's always about their A** and their riding, meaning it would be Canadian made (probably by bombardier) so it would be crap. I think the most we could see is C-17' being leased.

 

[ChopperHead]

No I don't think that the PC's will be able to do that right away but they are "pro Military" so there will undoubtly be more military spending. how much? who knows but It's bound to better then what we have now. and also you say where will the money come from well I dont have exact numbers on this but The Australian's spend less money on defense then we do and yet they have better and more equipment then we do and are exepting attack helios in the near future so it definatley is possible to do we just need people who know how to do it.



Kyle.

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

The attack helicopters they are purchasing are the Eurotiger's.

 

[ChopperHead]

Also whats wrong with having made in Canada? Why does having it made by Canadians mean it will be a piece a junk? Persoanlly I would rather see the money be spent in Canada It's good for the economy, opens up jobs for people so why not? I dunno I was just kinda taken back by your comments that if it's built in Canada it's a piece a shit.




Kyle.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    Chopperhead, the problem with the made in Canada imperative, is that we make a small fraction of the spectrum of equipment that we need.  The LAV is grade A kit, made in Canada; but if we expect Bombardier to produce our strategic heavy lift, our armoured force is going to consist of guys in doubled flack jackets pointing a Carl Gustav MAT gun from an aluminum armoured wheelbarrow.  What we do, we do well, what we don't do, we MUST get abroad, not buy something that cannot do the job, just because its made in Quebec.  The US has always had a firm made in the USA program for its kit, but when the USMC wanted Harriers, they went to the UK, because the US had nothing that could fit the bill.  If the US admits it has to shop abroad, then maybe we can to eh?

 

[Zipper]

Also whats wrong with having made in Canada? Why does having it made by Canadians mean it will be a piece a junk? Personally I would rather see the money be spent in Canada It's good for the economy, opens up jobs for people so why not? I dunno I was just kinda taken back by your comments that if it's built in Canada it's a piece a crap.

As Mainer said, we can build what we are good at. Our frigates are a great example as well as the LAV. However there are MANY examples of botched projects (Iltis cost overruns, LUVW, etc...). Unfortunately far to much politics gets involved in choosing a contract holder and it very often goes to those who have the most pull with the politician in question/ gives most kickbacks, and the requirements of the military get shoved down the line until their left with a lemon. Sad but true.

And with that being said, there are many great piece of kit being built by other countries (allies) that are cheaper off the line (no R&D costs). So why try to reinvent the wheel?

 

[ChopperHead]

Ya I suppose i see your point It's all politics thats screwing the army we have plenty of money get things done more be nice but still we do have money just gets pissed away by politicans trying to make themselves look good I guess.




Kyle

 

[geo]

If you thing the Cdn pork barrel is deep... you should see the riders that are attached to legislation in the US. Passage of Bills for African relief or Hurricane Andrew relief would be bought - riders for the continued existance of old obsolete bases or new unproven or inefective weapons systems (eg: Sgt York air defense system) would be attached - to ensure passage.

LAV, HLVW, Frigates and DDH are all good examples of Cdn system development - in spite of it all.

G Wagon that replaces some of the Iltis came straight off the shelf - in Austria.

I am amazed that people continue to bash Bombardier for tle Iltis. Anybody have anything nice to say about the LSVW built out in BC? For what it's worth, the Iltis, built in 83 ran for some 23+ years; 83 to 06 (2R22R are still using them) ... while the previous batch ran from 70 to to 83 (13 years)... when you get down to it; is it / was it reasonnable to expect the Iltis to be operated for a total of 23 years? I think not!   That's part of our problem - we buy a "fleet" of equipment ..... and wait until it's so decrepit before we even start to plan on it's replacement.

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

The HLVW is a Euro design and built in Canada, like the LS and the the LAV is built in Canada, but designed GM Defense (now General Dynamics).

 

[Lance Wiebe]

We bash Bombardier for the Iltis because of the pork-barrelling that went along with it.  The Iltis was offered to us by VW for $28,000, which included training and parts.  But because Bombardier was having a bit of a rough go, Canada decided to have Bombardier build them for what turned out to be a final cost of $80,000.  The product, despite being more than twice as expensive, was not as good as the German product.  Early models suffered from lots of breakages and the fleet was grounded more than once.  The LSVW is the exact same thing, it's just that the early 80's have faded from so many memories, and the LSVW is in recent memory. 

 

[geo]

at least the iltis worked...........

with respect to pork barrel politik'n no politifcal party has exclusive claim to it
be it the Irving shipyards that got the Frigate program for NB, Western Star that got the LSVW program for BC, the Airforce training centre in MB, Diemaco for the C7s thru C9s, Bombardier that got the Iltis & MLVW program for QC......

If the country exclusively purchased from outside the country, then the Canadian taxpayers would be asking; "can't we make any of this stuff?" - "why are my tax dollars going to some other country?" - "is canadian industry so incompetant OR so overpriced that they don't have the ability to produce and provide Canadian troops with what they require?"

In your book, do all military procurement programs represent pork barrel politikin'?

 

[Kirkhill]

If the country exclusively purchased from outside the country, then the Canadian taxpayers would be asking; "can't we make any of this stuff?" - "why are my tax dollars going to some other country?" - "is canadian industry so incompetant OR so overpriced that they don't have the ability to produce and provide Canadian troops with what they require?"

All good arguments for buying overseas.   Right now the taxpayers do not realize that overpriced and incompetent suppliers are depriving you of a lot of kit by taking up 2 dollars of the budget to supply 1 dollars worth of gear.   Newspaper articles haven't clued them in.   Only some open vigorous competitions where foreigners beat locals fairly are likely to cause both taxpayer and supplier to see facts.

Cheers,

Chris.

 

[geo]

While I do / don't necessarily agree,
many people will say that if the $ is spent in the country, paid to Cdn suppliers, then the Gov't has done what is expected of it.... even at twice the price.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion.

 

[Kirkhill]

even at twice the price.

Not a hope mate.

 

[geo]

guess you don't vote NDP either.......