• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LAV III Mobile Gun System - Status of Purchase?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dull bayonet
  • Start date Start date
Army Technology,Globalsecurity, and GLDdynamics are all reporting 18 rounds.
Is the Canadain version of a lesser ammo loadout for some reason? ???
 
12Alfa said:
Army Technology,Globalsecurity, and GLDdynamics are all reporting 18 rounds.
Is the Canadain version of a lesser ammo loadout for some reason? ???

Probably just a brain fart on my part...... ::)

GW
 
Guardian,

Excellent points! I have spoken to some of the mandarins who are buying the propoganda about the MGS and here's what they say to your well thought out argument:

"Simple, we won't close with the enemy. We will isolate enemy strongpoints and destroy them with firepower!"

After I finish laughing, I tell them why, in my opinion, that is the stupidest idea in the history of armed conflict. Here are my reasons:

1) How do you go about isolating enemy positions? Are the enemy going to forget about mutual support and conveniently site their positions far enough away from one another? I think, in reality, you will have to fight (i.e. close with and destroy) at least some parts of the enemy force in order to isolate the main force. While, on the surface, the MGS poponents' arguments sound like dashing German blitzkrieg tactics, only someone with no knowledge of said tactics would believe that. The Germans always had to fight for a breakthrough before surrounding and isolating their foes (which involves closing with and des.... you get the picture).

2) Where does this "firepower" come from that will destroy the "isolated" enemy? Are our C3s and Mortar Batteries going to pummel the enemy into submission? How about our CF-18s? To this they say: "Our allies will provide the firepower!" I'm sure that would be every American Division Commander's dream: a Canadian Brigade Group that refuses to close with the enemy and finish the job and that is a disproportionate burden on his already stretched firepower resources. Unless we buy HIMARS and attack helicopters, we can pretty much assume that our allies will assign us to guard the hospitals so that we don't hurt ourselves.

3) What happens if our enemy decides to fight in close terrain (cities, forests etc.)? Tanks are still very effective in these scenarios but the MGS would be a death trap. Wheeled vehicles and close terrain do not match for reasons of mobility. Not to mention the fact that the MGS is very lightly armoured and the crew have very limited visibility, even with hatches open.

4) Why are we forgetting almost every tenet of manoeuvre warfare with this new doctrine? Under the doctrine put forward by the pro-MGS crowd, we will cede the initiative to the enemy, we will effectively dislocate ourselves, we will not present the enemy with a dilemma, we will diminish our tempo, we will not attack their weaknesses but will instead encourage them to fight from positions of strength etc. etc.

I could go on but my two typing fingers are getting sore. It just seems to me that the whole MGS idea was not well thought out. Lets only hope we never have to use the thing on operations.

Pro Patria

Alex
 
There is only one argument for the MGS.

That argument is that Canada will totally give up it's willingness to train for war.  From now on we will train for UN missions. 

Because that's the only thing the MGS is good for, being a  DFSV for operations other than war.

In anything approaching a mid-intensity confliict or higher, it is a deathtrap, and is totally useless.
 
The entire order was put on hold...thankfully

Hopefully someone will see the error of their ways and figure it was a bad idea to begin with.

"....lets put a turret that was built in FLORIDA, never trialed, takes 40min to clear a jam which the crew MUST dismount..."

::)

We got rid of this idea in WW2...why bring it back?

Mind you it would be fine as an addition to a combat team...working with the Leos, not alone.

Regards
 
Which order Franko? The Canadian or the Yankee one?
 
Kirkhill said:
Which order Franko? The Canadian or the Yankee one?
I belive our purchase was frozen until after the forgien affiars policy review (and then probably a defence review).
 
Thanks Yard Ape.  When was that decision taken?
 
During the election (I think).  It was a responce to the Liberal promise of a foreign affairs review.  The thinking was why spend money building an army that may be inconsistent with the policy to be developed.

 
Yard Ape said:
The thinking was why spend money building an army that may be inconsistent with the policy to be developed.

Unfortunately, the question of funding or lack of funding or cuts to funding never bothered them before, nor did they seem to have any problems with inconsistancies with the policies to be developed (and never done).

Liberals?

GW
 
Well that is indeed news, I had heard nothing of a freeze put on the purchase prior to block lve anyway.  Last thing we were told was to be ready to receive the MGS at the School in [most likely] early 06. 

Well it did take years to get the helicopter deal sorted out............
 
I don't think frozen is quite the right word.

The purchase had been announced by the Minister, as we all know. but...

There was not Statement of Requirement (a pre-requisite to purchase)

There was no Request for Proposals (another requirement)

There was no funding allocated.

So, although the project is quite fully manned in Ottawa, there are still some steps that have to be taken before the PWGSC crowd gets on board.  After they are on board, contract negotiations can start.

Who wants to bet, that even if the process starts this month, that we will not receive any vehicles for at least three years?  Oh, precluding any borrowed prototypes or pre-production units, of course.
 
Lance Wiebe said:
There was no funding allocated.

Ahh, not that we haven't spent vast amounts of cash already on them. More funds will be spent on this and other projects we may never get. A total waste of tax payers money. Spend the $ even if we don't buy.....only in Canada eh?
 
"Ahh, not that we haven't spent vast amounts of cash already on them. More funds will be spent on this and other projects we may never get. A total waste of tax payers money. Spend the $ even if we don't buy.....only in Canada eh?"

I wouldn't say only in Canada.  Here in the US we've spent a goodly sum on projects that have cost the taxpayer plent, but have never came to fruition.  M8 AGS, Crusader and Comanche just to name a few...

It's just that the difference between the US and Canada is that we've got a defense budget that is so massive we can afford to throw a few hundred million into projects that never come to fruition, whereas Canadians must be far more frugal.
 
12A
We have not really spent too much on the MGS. We just had the US do all of the work. The moneys spent are for what we will require as an improvments. I heard the hold up was that the US had not finished their trials, and we had to wait.
 
Back
Top