LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I still prefer investing the money on an across-the-board LAV-III upgrade package because I don't think in the new battlefield we appear we're going to be deploying to, we're going to be able to choose which vehicles will need to respond to an ambush. 

Specifically, provide a fund of let's say $40 million ($10 million R&D fund per potential supplier) and provide 4 LAV-III's to Raytheon (Javelin and FOTT), Bofors (BILL 2) and maybe EADS (Trigat), etc. in order that they each build prototype turrets.  The objective is to modify the LAV-III turret to provide a DFS ability against infantry, hardened positions, armour and whatever else the CDS thinks is essential.  Set a per unit budget and then leave them to use their creativity to come up with good solutions.

The winner gets the right to upgrade the a fixed number of LAV-III's (maybe 200) with an option on upgrading the remainder.

Bottom Line:  I like the idea of not forcing companies to do a bunch of work for free in order to make a submission.  I think that's just bad business. I'd rather be fair, give them an R&D fund and let them use their experience and ingenuity and I think everyone wins....


Matthew. 

 

[Kirkhill]

One possible solution: make a new trade, call it "combat arms", basically a 'melange' of the current armour/infantry trades?
Another: split the infantry into two: Panzergrenadier and Jäger (Armour Infantry and Light Infantry).  It could work, and it does work for the Germans ("Oh look, the Germans are made at me.  Help me, Smithers!").  In all seriousness, the "light" infantry could focus on their light stuff, and the mech-warriors could focus on mech stuff.
Just my thoughts, they were free, and you get exactly what you paid for them

And my personal favourite - Armoured Corps "Dragoons" and Infantry Corps????......well.....Infanteers!!!

The price of the opinion is the same as von Garvin's although the value may be less.

Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

PS Matthew:

I like your R&D idea.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I suppose a 120mm mortar could fit the bill, but the 105mm has some other capabilities (such as anti-tank).  More importantly, the plan is to be the MGS with the 105mm.  I don't have control over what kit gets bought. 

It is conceivable, however, that I can influence how it gets used.  I can see the potentialities (the desert and mefloquine have that effect on me).  I had a similar vision regarding the LAV and Coyote during my last time in the wastes.  We've got great kit for the theatre, even it if was by accident and not design.  As long as we use it right.

One problem that I face when discussing the MGS is that I haven't actually played with one or talked to someone who has.  I have to make guesses.  I'm giving it the mobility of a LAV III with the hitting power of a C2.  I'm not too sure about shooting on the move but it may work out.  I don't like the crew arrangement too much, but if its sited behind a hesco firing position in a FOB suddenly it works out somewhat.  Even parked on the road during an ambush its boomstick will come in handy.  Got a building occupied by insurgents with friendlies in close proximity?  Got a line of sight?  Kaboom.  Precise, direct and lethal firepower that can actually be brought to the theatre and manoeuvred around.

I'm not talking about assaulting dug-in positions with the MGS taking the place of tanks.  I talking about blasting insurgents in the kind of war we are fighting right now where we do not have tanks.

As for who crews it I still think that the Armoured Corps is the logical user.  WWII was a different time and place.  There were battalions of tanks to crew.

 

[TCBF]

Okay,

1.  Anything integral to an infantry bn should be crewed by infantry.  That includes mortars, anti-armour, pioneer and recce (mounted and dismounted).  There are operational and profesionally developmental/social (which are ultimately operational) reasons for this.  This especially means having the infantry crew and fight their own turreted vehicle - in this case, the LAV III.  The Russians went BMP in 67, The Germans got the Marder soon after.  The Warrior and Bradley followed.  If the infantry in the 'adult' armies can do this, ours (some of the best infantry in the world, I figure) should have no problems at all.  Futher, if infantry leaders have not been exposed to realistic mech ops at junior levels, what happens when they get a mech command?  Will they give up those command positions?  Not bloody likely.  How many more armd regt CO's will be 'sidelined' after their in-the-box aggressiveness 'embarrassed' their non-maneuevrist non-armoured brigade commander? 'Staff school' wont fix that.  Nurses go to staff school.  Want one as your brigade commander?

2.  Since we have virtually turned the RCAC back into a more 'cavalry' state of being with Coyote/MGS/ VBL(?), I see no reason the tanks/MGS have to stay in 'cavalry' regiments.  A role is a role (many WW2 tank regiments were infantry before WW2).  So, why not bring back the WW1 organization of the 'First Canadian Tank Bn' as part of the Armoured Corps? It could be a cadre unit in a major trg area, and be crewed - like CMTC OPFOR is now - by a permanent Reg F cadre, and flushed out during the 'campaign season' with regulars and reserves to keep the tank skills alive.  We could offer this as a university summer like Ceremonial Guard, as well as six month and longer class B contracts.  As` well, reg and reserve units could rotate through the bn for short periods to maintain skills.  The  alternative would be creating a tank regiment in the regular force, but that entails too many issues with career flow, tours, and so on.  The cadre would have to be robust enough to actually maintain the pooled vehicles - a trick our army has yet to master.

 

[George Wallace]

I suppose a 120mm mortar could fit the bill, but the 105mm has some other capabilities (such as anti-tank).  More importantly, the plan is to be the MGS with the 105mm.  I don't have control over what kit gets bought. 

With the new munitions for the 120 mm Mortars, they are one of the most flexible wpns on the battlefield.  They can provide HE in the traditional way, as well as illumination and smoke.  They also have a deadly Anti-Tank role with Top Attack rounds, precision guided rounds, etc.  They can have Time Delay.  The variety of rounds now available for the 120 makes it a very versatile piece of kit.  Much more so than the MGS in any of the scenarios so far discused.

 

[McG]

I'd dump the sabot and carry HESH and maybe a 105mm version of the new "cannister" round that the US has for the 120mm. 

The US had a 105 mm canister round in Vietnam. 

 

[Armymatters]

The only problem that concerns me is the fact that Canada is procuring 3 different direct fire systems (MGS, LAV-TUA, and MMEV) when in the past, 2 direct fire systems (one gun, one missile) was considered enough during the Cold War. Argueably, any future mission the CF will deploy on will be less target rich than the Fulda Gap could have been if the Cold War turned hot. I can see a role for MGS with the infantry, but the other two concerns me, as they may be possible waste of funds. If two vehicles were judged adequate to fight Soviet tank armies, why does the army require a total of three vehicles (including two missile-carriers) for ground support in today’s strategic climate? As a taxpayer and a strategic studies student, I can't see any reasonable justification (it is unlikely that we are going to face hordes of tanks in the future) to justify a purchase of 3 different systems that do in short, the same job.

I say give MGS over to the infantry as an infantry support vehicle, then procure a proper heavy armoured vehicle for the armoured corps. MGS was designed for infantry support, not as a tank replacement.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Who the vehicle is supporting should not drive who crews it.  We would assign a Troop of tanks as "intimate support" during a combat team quick attack.  This didn't require a PSO to come and OT everyone in the crews.  FOOs go along with infantry without rebadging.  Its a fighting  vehicle and we have guys who specialize in fighting their vehicles.  We have had threads before on capbadges and branches.  Right now I'd like to focus on how to employ the capability rather than who will crew it.  I don't see Sqns of MGS rolling around crushing the enemy beneath their wheels, but Tps could be cut out to infantry companies, recce sqns, CSS convoys or someone else's FOB.  How big should a Tp be?  Four, six eight?  Does the Tp Ldr go in an MGS or ride in a LAV III like some slides I have seen?

The US has developed a new anti-personnel round for the 120mm (basically improved cannister) which looks pretty hand for some situations.  There is a thread on it somewhere here.

We may find the 120mm mortar has some problems as well (high profile, can it fire on the move?).  I still find it hard to believe that we don't seem to have the 81mm Bison vehicle anymore.  Six of those would be handy as well.

Armymatters,

Actually, during the Cold War we had ADATS, Leopard and TUA.  ADATS was indeed seen as air defence, but it still had the anti-tank capability.  Does that mean we need MMEV, TUA and MGS?  I'm not sure, but I wouldn't right them off just because they have layered anti-tank capabilities.  MMEV has the advantage of range (I've heard up to 8 km, vs the 3,750m of TOW).  If we were to face some third world tank army that was attacking little ol' us on our stability operation then I guess having the possibility of 8 km shots looks good (if the terrain permits). Whether we find ourselves in that situation, of course, is another matter.  We're not there now.

That being said, MMEV is certainly the weirder beasty of the three.  I have a harder time seeing MMEV being employed here unless it has some kickass anti-personnel/anti-structure warhead. 

To be brutally honest, I have a hard time seeing air defence coming in handy any time soon.  If we fight without the USAF or USN overhead with air supremacy I just don't want to play.  Once we have that then I do NOT want an air defence system in my battlespace because all it is going to do is cause coord nightmares and attract negative attention.

Still, as an anti-tank system it has some benefits.  We shall see, of course.

In the meantime I shall await the arrival of MGS in this dusty theatre where it will fill the role of Lt Morrison's detachment of 12 pdrs, albeit crewed by Strathconas.  Don't worry, I won't wait up at the aircraft ramp.

 

[a_majoor]

I wouldn't write off AD just yet. USAF "Fast Movers" are not optimized to knock down UAVs or cruise missiles, capabilities that third world militaries could develop or purchase fairly easily. This can be dealt with using one of the many proposed LAV AA designs, preferably one of the ones with a 25mm Gatling cannon and a 4 or 8 pack of "Stinger" anti-aircraft missiles. The cannon, of course, is a dual use weapon....

Most of the "pro" MMEV arguments revolve around the idea that you can get a long range shot with the ADATS. Realisticly, you won't find that very often, so the more sensable way to go would be refit the LAV-TOW to fire a more capable missile, Fire and Forget like BRIMESTONE, long range and controllable like FOG-M, or a hypervelocity "snap-shooting" missile like an evolved LOSAT. Since these abilities are complimentary, there is no reason (except cost) that a vehicle could not carry a mixed battery. This wouldn't be difficult if the rounds were all capable of firing from the same launcher, either.

A gun armed vehicle compliments this capability by having a higher rate of fire, and being able to carry more rounds. When the enemy gets close enough (or you get close enough to the enemy  >), then you can start force feeding them HE in quantity.

 

[George Wallace]

Besides maintaining Gunner's skills, wouldn't the MGS require a whole new set of Commander's skills and total revision of how to use a vehicle mounted 105 DS weapon system.  Would there be a requirement for another C/S to provide overwatch or security as the MGS moved?  Would a dedicated Ammo Carrier have to be incorporated into the F Ech to keep the MGS supplied?

I do see a valid use of the MGS in some of the FOBs with the luxury of all around defence and the ability to have situation awareness provided by an external source such as an OP or controller.  It would be extremely effective in open country, but less so in the FOBs that were located in relatively close country. 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

In response to DG's questions in the other thread, perhaps the MGS as I see it is filling the role that the Cougar was designed for, if not employed for (Wheeled Direct Fire Support Vehicle).  The Cougar, of course, turned into a tank trainer.  On operations it became an armoured car.

The MGS, as conceived, is purely a direct fire weapon for blasting offending things.  While I haven't been in it, I don't see it rolling around as a Troop conducting independent operations.  That is not to say that it could not operate at Troop level as part of a team.

A fire team could be attached to a "platoon group" for operations.  It could also be attached to a Recce Tp Group.  A Troop could support a Company or Squadron. 

Using a "platoon group" convoy as an example (that is bringing a CSS element with it), the pair of MGS could be split up in the column.  One could move behind the lead vehicle or pair of vehicles, while the other moves just in front of the trail.  In an ambush the MGS engage with direct fire, and by having them split up like that then at least one gun should be in LOS of the bad guys (or not, life's like that sometimes).  Alternatively, the pair of MGS could move in the middle of the convoy, but right now I favour front and back.

For the defence of a FOB then a Troop would be ideal but even a fire team would at least give the FOB commander some mobile, lethal direct firepower that can be integrated into his own fire plan.  You don't need to clear fires etc, and the MGS should be coming with the full range of night vision (TI etc).  Add Hesco firing positions and MGS is fighting from the kind of position that its maker's intended.

For a cordon and seach, the MGS could be included in the outer cordon, or used separately to be ready to bring precise fires onto a given target (a compound full of bad guys, for example).  The conditions for the use of the MGS in this task would be made by the other arms (infantry, recce, etc).

Ammo load is certainly an issue, but we need to think of the enemy we are facing.  An ambush will likely be over in the time it takes to fire the first 8 rounds, as we will be assaulting the bad guys.  The 25mms will also be rocking.  The 105mm is providing the added punch and target effects, not to mention allowing the LAVs to manoeuvre if the ground permits.  In a prolonged FOB firefight then the MGSs might go through all their ammo and need to upload.  That will be easier said than done, I suppose, but fire discipline and re-bombing are not new problems.  A Troop could dish out a great deal of firepower before running dry, the trick I suppose is to not all run dry at the same time!

Turning to Tp size, four to six callsigns seems about right.  Six allows for breaking the Tp down to support independent platoons.  Platoon groups is a whole other thread, I suppose.

Learning how to employ the MGS (both technically and tactically) will certainly pose challenges, and it will not just be like jumping into a new tank.  It will take some forethought and a lessons learned process to get it right.  Who knows, the technical problems may never be solved.  Nevertheless, we may have an opportunity to actually take advantage of a good system for the kind of war we have found ourselves in.

 

[Armymatters]

MGS was just approved for low rate production, according to Jane's:
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr060425_1_n.shtml

Also approved was the NBC recon variant, of which Canada is also interested.

 

[The Wrong Guy]

http://tankride.com/Sales.html

T55s
T72s
BMPs
even some T34s

Im gona start saving up my pennies for my own T72  :tank: and I'll park it where ever I want.  ;D

 

[TCBF]

Hey, an autoloader is just like a big Coke machine.  You push one button, you get one thing.  You push another button, you get another thing.

What's the big deal?

;D

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

Most Coke cans don't weigh 33 Kg, and rarely explode when shaken.....

 

[The Wrong Guy]

1: 105mm Coke Round, followed by a burst of 7.62 Rum Rounds.  8)

 

[TCBF]

"Most Coke cans don't weigh 33 Kg, and rarely explode when shaken..... "

- Most coke cans would have exploded had they been in the Leopard CI was in that had both tracks off the ground for about twenty feet.  The onboard HESH-T and WP did not explode - even after the 2000 round co-ax bin left the turret wall and landed on the noses of the ammo in the 13 round ready rack.

It was a good time to stay well clear of the bouncing breech ring.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Here's the latest - my emphasis added...

Stryker ramps up to unveil Mobile Gun System

FORT BENNING, Ga. (Army News Service, May 9, 2006) – The newest version of the Stryker vehicle, designed to provide fire power to Infantry units, will be unveiled May 15 at Fort Knox's Armor Warfighting Symposium.

The development of the Mobile Gun System is being managed by Fort Benning's Training and Doctrine Command System Manager-Stryker/Bradley.

The system was developed to meet the infantry’s need for a highly mobile support vehicle to supply rapid, direct fire, specifically during close assaults, said Dave Rogers, a TSM-Stryker senior analyst. The Mobile Gun System will eventually be integrated into Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.

"The Mobile Gun System brings a tremendous battlefield capability to the Stryker formation, providing direct fire support to infantrymen in close, complex terrain," said Col. Donald Sando, the director of the TSM Stryker/Bradley.

The Mobile Gun System's firepower includes a turret-mounted 105 mm cannon, a mounted M-240C machine gun and a pedestal-mounted M-2.50 caliber machine gun for the vehicle commander.

The cannon can blast holes through reinforced concrete walls creating a breach point for infantry, and destroy bunkers and machine-gun nests that typically pin down infantry squads and platoons.

The 105 mm cannon can also take out snipers, Rogers said, because with one shot, it can destroy the entire area where a sniper is firing from. The cannon also fires canister rounds, which are used when confronting large groups of combatants. The canister round sends out a spray of titanium balls, similar to the pellets from a shotgun, which can impact several targets at once.

It's the heavy fire power and versatility that will make the Mobile Gun System an asset in combat, Rogers said.

"People will assume it's a tank when they see it because it has a big gun," Rogers said, "but it's much lighter than a 70 ton tank, making it more mobile. Its primary role is to support the infantry, not to go head to head with tanks."

The Mobile Gun System also features the Ammunition Handling System, an ammo loading device for the 105 mm cannon. With the ammo system, several types of rounds can be loaded in advance, then the ammunition types are displayed on the cannon operator's central control panel monitor. Depending on the mission, the operator can select which ammunition to use and the Ammunition Handling System automatically loads the cannon.

This capability gives the Mobile Gun System an advantage over other Army vehicles, which must be manually loaded with specific ammunition by a fourth crew member, Rogers said. The Ammunition Handling System makes loading and firing on targets faster and more efficient, he said.

"When planning for the 10 variants of Strykers, the Army took into account everything a Soldier could need on the battlefield," Rogers said. "From that, they developed the other Stryker variants, like the Medical Evacuation Vehicle, the Antitank Guided Missile Vehicle and the Engineer Squad vehicles, which are all uniquely designed for their mission. The Mobile Gun System fills a hole, and gives the infantry another capability."

The Mobile Gun System will be the last Stryker variant to be fielded. The Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle, the other new Stryker vehicle, was fielded to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment at Fort Lewis, Wash., in February. Soldiers with the 2nd Cav. Regt. will also be the first to receive the Mobile Gun System. They will receive 27 vehicles from July to August, which will be tested in an operational unit environment.

The Army designated 14 Mobile Gun System vehicles for extensive testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz., and White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

Testing the vehicle in extreme climates and terrain helps the Mobile Gun System's designers look for potential problems that may appear in a combat environment.

"People go to great pains to almost abuse the vehicle," Rogers said. "It's tested realistically in harsh settings so we can identify any shortcomings during the testing stage. We don't want to find out about a problem after it’s in combat, so we're not cutting corners. During the tests, these vehicles aren't treated with kid gloves. We want to make sure we don't equip our Soldiers with a weak vehicle."

It will still be a while before the Mobile Gun System will get to the battlefield. The Defense Acquisition Executive will decide if the vehicle should go into full rate production in July 2007.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=8979

 

[tomahawk6]

Some pictures of MGS.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-pics-mgs.htm