LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[a_majoor]

Frankly, Prime Minister Harper has a lot on his plate right now, and will be focusing his efforts and attention in achieving his five core platform planks. The MGS will probably not make it on his radar, and IMO should not. If his attention is being diverted by issues like this, he could loose the parliament and thus the government. Selection and maintenance of the aim, and Economy of effort will be the watchwords on Parliament hill ladies and gentlemen.

The MGS problem will go away on its own accord, I believe, for the simple fact it is unable to meet its program goals. Once the US Army becomes tired of this, they will probably shift their attention to the FCS program, and the MGS will be an orphan. Even GD will probably decide they have better use of their resources than to raise and maintain a fleet of 66 vehicles for a minor customer. There will be some die hards who committed their careers to this who will be unwilling to let go, but even that will be an unpleasant interlude.

Combat teams and infantry companies still need a fire support platform, so as long as members are putting alternative suggestions through the appropriate means (CAJ, Armoured Bulletin, conferences, forums etc.) then the Army as a whole will be well positioned to pick up and carry on after this fiasco plays itself out.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Lets remember that the Conservatives did include a campaign promise to purchase a small number of tanks from a NATO ally during their previous election campaign.  Perhaps they should be reminded of their past promises and held to them?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"but the US has made a very generous offer to us in the past reguareding the M1'"
This has been so many times before it seems to have become folklore.  Its not that I don't believe anyone that has said it but I would like an article or something similar that shows this as fact.

 

[Grizzly]

I believe the offer the Americans made was for used M60's, and it was made back in the Mulroney days. If there was if fact an offer for M1's, I'd like to see the article too.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I believe the offer the Americans made was for used M60's, and it was made back in the Mulroney days. If there was if fact an offer for M1's, I'd like to see the article too.

There was a rumour back in the early eighties that right after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan .The Americans made a quiet offer of some 400 M 48A5's.The story goes that these would come with spares and several trainloads of ammo.
The tanks would be cascade down to about three training centres with a troops worth going to each Armoured regiment.I have hear the story at least twice in the last 25 years as well as a variant of the story .

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

ahh rumours.

 

[GK .Dundas]

ahh rumours.

Yeah I know! : Somewhere iIhave a collection of the better/sillier ones.

 

[ArmyRick]

Here is my favorite clown rumor ref abrams
"Back in (Gulf war, Op enduring freedom or Iraq freedom), the americans offered us M1s at $1 each if we helped them".  :

 

[xxtruthxx]

Here is my favorite clown rumor ref abrams
"Back in (Gulf war, Op enduring freedom or Iraq freedom), the americans offered us M1s at $1 each if we helped them".  :

I donno that seems a little stiff to me.  ;D

 

[TCBF]

While 4CMBG was 'getting ready to get ready' in the Fall of 90, plans were being made to have the LdSH(RC) leave Calgary and go to the states to train on M1s.  Had 4CMBG deployed, it would then have had two tank units, the 8CH(PL) in Leopard C1, and the LdSH(RC) in M1.

Once the govt at the time was informed of the large scope, cost, and political risk of the plan, they chose not to use it, but the LdSH(RC) were within a day or two of going south for the work ups.

Tom

 

[Cannoneer No. 4]

They want to stick with a common chassis.  All the other wheeled tank destroyers/assault guns are incompatible.

 

[TCBF]

The so-called commonality of parts is a myth.  We probably waste more money following the archaic principles of a civillian fleet management system than we spend on parts.

To save money on parts, you actually have to buy some first.  No point in buying something because the parts are cheap, then not buying parts anyhow.

Tom

 

[Slim]

While 4CMBG was 'getting ready to get ready' in the Fall of 90, plans were being made to have the LdSH(RC) leave Calgary and go to the states to train on M1s.   Had 4CMBG deployed, it would then have had two tank units, the 8CH(PL) in Leopard C1, and the LdSH(RC) in M1.

Once the govt at the time was informed of the large scope, cost, and political risk of the plan, they chose not to use it, but the LdSH(RC) were within a day or two of going south for the work ups.

Tom

\How well I remember that time!

The CO standing on regt'l parade and telling us all to 'pack' for a trip south.

Scary time

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/new-stryker-variants-gear-up-for-testing/index.php#more

The Stryker MGS and NBCRV variants entered low-rate initial production (LRIP) in December 2005. General Dynamics will deliver 17 of the Stryker NBC Reconnaissance Version and 72 of the Mobile Gun Sysytem variants during low-rate initial production. The vehicles will be used for various tests and user evaluations through Q4 2007, and the Milestone C decision to begin full-rate production of both variants is also slated for the fourth quarter of 2007.

The M1128 Stryker MGS variant is meant as a direct-fire infantry assault vehicle with a 105mm cannon mounted in a low-profile, fully stabilized, "shoot-on-the-move" turret. It's intended to provide firepower support for Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, primarily for engaging hardened positions but also for dealing with enemy vehicles as required. It will also be used by the Canadian Armed forces.

Stryker MGS has had a rocky development history, with widespread reports of problems with the recoil of its gun and center of gravity. DID's photo up top would even appear to indicate a support bracket for firing tests, though a specific inquiry to General Dynamics Land Systems, we received this response:



As you can see from the photo (link to article - Kirkhill) the recoil is not a problem firing the gun for the vehicle.... in the past critics have made the claim that you could not fire over the side but the photo proves you can. What you identified in the red box is the instrumentation cables used to manual fire the gun and collect data. Other photos show the same cables as well.

Recoil was not an issue it was the pepper-pot muzzle break on the earlier vehicles that was used to let gas escape and lesson the recoil. When we lowered the gun turret to allow loading in C-130 Hercules the gas from firing was too close to the vehicles front end. We returned to a standard 105mm cannon without the pepper pot muzzle break and adjusted for the recoil in the mechanism.

Submitted without comment.

 

[Guest]

Guys, I know everybody and his mother seems to hate the MGS.

However, most of the "rumours" are based on some early pre-production work.

I've said before, there are no stability issues with the MGS, it won't tip over, it can fire in whatever direction it needs to.

The auto-loader/carriage system has been re-designed.  (since the initial reports  of problems)

Some of you DID go to the last industry show right? GDLS had one there, with the new system.

Do you honestly think the US Army would order 100's if it was such a POS?

Do you believe Hillier, a black hat, whom most of you have shown great respect for,
A man, I might add, who has publicly, on TV, and more than once.. stood behind the MGS purchase and given HIS full support...

Do you think this man would give you a tool, so fataly flawed as alot of post would lead ytou to believe?!?

As well, knowing full well the CDS's  very public position on the MGS and future DFS, do you think we would scrap it all after much planning, go out and buy tanks?

I doubt we shall see heavy armour, within the next 20 years at least. I think it would take a MAJOR conflict for that to be even a possibility.

We have been given our new role, and it won't include armour battles.. our allies will handle that stuff.

 

[matty101]

Maybe its just a matter of adequate protection for the people in and around it while moving through urban areas

Matt

 

[xxtruthxx]

Maybe its just a matter of adequate protection for the people in and around it while moving through urban areas

Matt

That I think is going to be one of the main oppisitions to the MGS. I think less people are concerned about it ability to fire then its ability to protect the crew. From what I have read on the fourms and various articals, it sounds like the CF is trying to replace the Lep with the MGS. Needless to say it cant complete all of the tasks that a MBT can.

IMO.
" puting a square in a circle leaves gaps "

 

[Guest]

This has all been discussed before gents.

Do a search.

To sum up.

We are "replacing" the Leo with the Direct Fire Troop

Consisting of a Gun system - MGS, a Short to Medium Range Missle System - LAV TUA, and a Long Range Direct/Indirect Fire Platform - MMEV (Multi-Mission-Effects-Vehicle)

 

[Kirkhill]

Hear, hear Guest.

All they need to do is go back to page one on this thread and start reading all 25 pages of it.

 

[Mortar guy]

We are "replacing" the Leo with the Direct Fire Troop

Consisting of a Gun system - MGS, a Short to Medium Range Missle System - LAV TUA, and a Long Range Direct/Indirect Fire Platform - MMEV (Multi-Mission-Effects-Vehicle)

Yes and they will all work magically together, despite their inherent, and possibly even critical, flaws to overcome the hordes of WTO tanks that are due to come over the Inter-German Border at any day now. The fact that all three systems are incomprehensibly expensive, untested, stymied by massive technical hurdles, and easily destroyed by a 12 year old with an RPG shouldn't worry us. Besides, Combat Team attacks on dug-in BMP platoons is our greatest challenge, not fighting insurgencies in complex terrain.

OK, I should have taken that sarcasm pill before breakfast...

MG