LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[mattoigta]

By Nathan Hodge, Defense Today May 27, 2004

After ironing out kinks in the system, the Army this month successfully
concluded an important series of tests on the Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS), Defense Today has learned.

According to an Army source, the MGS is now "on a glide path" toward approval of low-rate production, a decision that is due in August or September.

The MGS is a variant of the Stryker wheeled armored vehicle made by General Dynamics Corp. As envisioned by the Army, the MGS would mainly be an infantry-support vehicle, providing bunker-busting capability with its 105 mm cannon.

The first Stryker-equipped brigade currently is seeing service in Iraq. If low-rate production is approved, the first MGS could be fielded as early as next year.

However, the MGS experienced some hiccups in development, including a cramped crew compartment, glitches in the ammunition-handling system and the "halo effect"â ”a ring of overpressure and blast debris caused by firing the cannon, which originally had a perforated muzzle brake at the end to lessen recoil.

The Army source told Defense Today that all of those problems long since have been solved, allowing Limited User Testing, or LUT, to move forward. Those tests were completed at Fort Knox, Ky., this month. Originally, the LUT was scheduled for last year, but the testing was suspended while problems identified earlier were remedied.

"The limited user testing was temporarily suspended back in October," the source said. "... After that we went into about a sixty-day period, there were numerous fixes implemented on the vehicle, and we started a series of user demonstrations and exercises starting in the January time frame to validate these fixes before we entered LUT."

Through these demonstrations, the source said, "the system performed excellent[ly]."

 

[30 for 30]

I sure hope the thing works out. Critics say these tests are deeply flawed in favour of success. Apparently RPG armour is simply too heavy for the thing as well (it's supposed to be already overweight), so God help MGS if it is engaged by anything substantial. Hopefully some technological advances will come about in the near future to remedy this.

 

[RCD]

We should not have gotten it in the first place.

 

[ags281]

After ironing out kinks in the system...

Does this mean it's miraculously lost a few thousand pounds so that a C-130 can carry it like it was supposed to be designed for? Problems fixed... HA! Even if it were "fixed" to be good at what it's supposed to do, it still ain't no MBT replacement   :akimbo:

 

[Trogdor]

As a young citizen who is considering joining the forces I am very worried about this decision to replace Canadian tanks.  I've been trying to research this myself but there's a lot of contradictory information out there.  At first I heard all the Leopards were to be concentrated in the West and the Strykers would be in the rest of Canada.  But now it seems that ALL the Leopards are to be replaced by the Stryker. 

My question is what IS the army planning to do with the Leopards?  Also this Stryker looks to be inadequte to replace the Leopard, does anyone think differently and why?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The current plan, as I understand it, is to maintain a total of 66 Leo's until they are replaced, one for one, by the MGS.  The remaining 48 are to be parked in Wainwright, until somebody makes a decision on what to do with them.  The 66 Leo's are going to be based at the School, in Wainwright, and with the LdSH.

Somebody who is still wearing a uniform may have more current information, but I think I have the latest.

The MGS (not the Stryker, the Stryker is a family of vehicles, which include the MGS) could not replace the Leo in any way, shape or form.  It can supplement the Leo, but not replace it.

 

[McInnes]

I was under the impression that the MGS will not be a direct replacement. Instead they are supposedly using three systems to replace them; the MGS, ADATS and TOW Under Armour which are supposedly supposed to work together to make a "3-D" system or something to that extent.

 

[Infanteer]

the MGS, ADATS and TOW Under Armour which are supposedly supposed to work together to make a "3-D" system or something to that extent.

Either way, none of those is a MBT....

 

[Limpy]

All I say is, RPG bait.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Somebody is just trying to justify the decisions.  We've had the ADATS for a couple of decades, we've had the TOW since I joined. so for at least thirty years, and now all of a sudden these two, with the MGS, can replace the Leo? 

Gimme a break.

It's spin, CYA, whatever you want to call it.

It's not good leadership by our so-called leaders in NDHQ, that's for sure.  They are better at spinning than leading, in my opinion.

 

[PTE Gruending]

Food for thought regarding the Stryker/Leopard debate;

Perhaps this decision is based on todays practical thought, versus the hard-charging military we would all like to have. Yes it would be nice to have hundreds of heavy MBTs, Strategic Bombers, Nuclear Subs and Carriers, Amphibious Assault Vehicles, and the like, but based on the current climate (low intensity conflict likely combined with a small budget) it is unlikely to happen.

It could be a matter of keeping our handful of Leo's scattered around the country, NES (due to lack of parts/maintenaince, or operators), un-transportable due to logistics, being a purpetual drain on the budget, versus actually being able to field large numbers of light/medium AFV's around the globe on short notice. This is assuming we actually get some lift capabilities in the near future to complement deployment of these vehicles.

As people have said here before, the days where we will be spearheading armoured blitzkriegs across Eastern Europe are gone. Surely any MBT's of Soviet design in the hands of our potential enemies will be outclassed by superior C&C, electronics, surveillance, and training that our new light AFV has. Development and support of these Soviet hulks has been evaporated since 1989, sure they have heavy armour and a big gun, but that doesnt help you if you do not get the first shot in, or do not have proper recconaissance. The German Armour Corps in 1939-1941 was outnumbered and outclassed by Allied vehicles (Matilda, etc), yet they managed to absolutely annihilate through good command, control, tactics, etc....

Just a few of my thoughts, I would love to hear what you have to say.
thanks

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Well, you could take that argument further, as well.  Why have CF-18's?  One of those cost the same as 100 tanks to keep operational.  It's not as if any enemies you foresee would have SU-27's, is it?  Ane why have the 280 class of destroyer?  Exactly what would it do in times of conflict?  And the frigates!  Surely they are a relic, designed to fight submarines.  Surely no enemy would have operational subs, would they?

OK, I'll stop being sarcastic.  The MGS, even combined with the ADATS and TOW, cannot replace the tank for mobility (in-theatre mobility, not strategic mobility), for the ability to very accurately fire on the move, and to provide intimate close support to our infantry brethren.  The MGS, TOW and ADATS cannot fire on the move.  In today's world, in open terrain, or even close terrain, a static target is a dead target.  Further, the MGS, TOW and ADATS are all defensive weapons, not offensive.  In other words, they may be able to dominate a field of fire, but they are much more easily dominated by lesser weapons sighted in defensive positions.

I, for one, am not advocating any of your suppositions, such as heavy tanks, strategic bombers, and on and on.  However, as a supposed medium power, we should be able to field a force, along the lines of say, Australia?  Which has a smaller budget, but a much larger and potent sharp end, in all three services?  I believe we can afford medium tanks, medium lift helicopters, attack helicopters, and more.  I do not buy in to the argument of "we can only afford the LAV family, so suck it in".

 

[JasonH]

We don't even have the means to transport the Leo's to a hotspot do we?  Then whats the point in keeping them unless we got the lift capabilities.  Their collecting dust right now, least the MGS we could move around.  Then again I know nothing when it comes to our armour so yea, just food for thought. :warstory:

 

[vr]

The main issue with the MGS is how we are going to use it.  It was never intended by the US to replace tanks.  According to current doctrine the MGS platoon is an integral part of the mech infantry company.  It is intended to be surrounded by a swarm of RPG-swatters where-ever it goes.  It is to be used for direct fire support of the infantry not for independant operations.  A few of the the other Stryker variants have already burned nicely on CNN; the MPG is no different.

We're replacing the Leos then so be it.  As was stated in a recent Canadian Army Journal article we need a new doctrine to go with this equipment.  We can't use the same Cold War-Fulda Gap tactics or concepts with the MGS.  It's not ever going to be the tip of the spear..it's more of a mounted archer.

 

[Military Brat]

Tanks are a thing of the past, a relic of the Cold War era. Light, fast wheeled vehicles like the Coyote are the thing of the future. Tanks are too easily defeated, especially from the air(they have no defense against air targets). Planes and helicopters can easily destroy any ground target imaginable whereas tanks are sitting ducks for not only attack by air but also attack from RPG-7s. In the future, I suspect that armoured units on the battlefield will be used for reconnaissance only, vehicles like the Coyote that has recon capabilities plus self-defense capabilities, whereas the engaging of the enemy will be left to air units.

Just my 2 cents. I think tanks are too bulky and slow, let alone nice big juicy targets for attack by insurgents, terrorists, resistance forces, and the like.

 

[NavyGrunt]

First off tanks arent slow at all. Secondly tracked vehicles can be repaired in the field. A wheeled vehicle is just that- a wheeled vehicle. Suck an rpg and your waiting for a tow truck.

Just my 2 cents I could be wrong. As far as Ive read a wheeled vehicle like the stryker can only be effective if it is backed up by heavy armor.

 

[NavyGrunt]

One more thing- The jets and helicopters we use now are also cold war relics- if tanks are sitting ducks now for "rpg-7"'s and air attack why were they ever used? There have always been air power able to defeat them....


"Tanks are a thing of the past, a relic of the Cold War era. Light, fast wheeled vehicles like the Coyote are the thing of the future. Tanks are too easily defeated, especially from the air(they have no defense against air targets). Planes and helicopters can easily destroy any ground target imaginable whereas tanks are sitting ducks for not only attack by air but also attack from RPG-7s"- military brat

 

[Lance Wiebe]

People have for decades been sounding the death knell of the tank.  So far, every time, they have been proven wrong.  Tanks are still a requirement for modern warfare, but remember, they have to operate in an all-arms team.

Another thought, the MGS cannot be transported in our Hercs.  They CAN be lifted by the "J" model, of which we have none, but because the "J" can't carry much fuel, it has a range of about 500 miles.

We cannot transport our fleet of LAV's in to theatre by ourselves.  Never have, and never will, unless the Navy gets new ships, or the Air Force gets C-17's or an equivelant.

 

[Mortar guy]

For those of you who think tanks are dead, I invite you to read the Lessons Learned of 3ID and the Marines for the beginning of OIF. Both organizations said tanks were critical to the success of their missions. Read all about it here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oif-lessons-learned.htm

Also, for those who think the MGS is air transportable, just cruch the numbers for a few minutes. We have 32 CC-130E/Hs. 12-14 of which are working on any given day. Of those, about 6 are on SAR standby and are unavailable for transport taskings. So, optimistically, we have 8 old Hercs. Assuming these Hercs could transport an MGS (which they can't). How long do you think it would take us to get even a Squadron of these things, with the personnel, support vehicles, spares, food, fuel, ammo, water and other bits and pieces into a theatre? Well, considering it would take about 4 flights just for one Herc to make it across the Atlantic, I'm going to say it will take a freakin' long time! (It would take so many flights because at max payload, the Herc has to sacrifice fuel which reduces its range significantly). I doubt the Americans are going to be falling all over themselves to offer up free C-17 flights and there will be fierce competition for the 16 aging An-124s. So the only other viable option is to send the vast majority of our forces by sea. When you do that the most important factor is not weight but the size of a vehicle. An MGS and an MBT are about the same size. Would you rather have an MGS that is not air deployable and is a death trap or would you rather have an MBT?

Alex

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

:
I think if tanks were as obsolete as Military Brat has pointed out then other nations would be unloading their tanks like we are. *looks around* Nope looks like we are the only ones that think LAVs, MGS and Coyotes can take the place of the tank.