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

MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Herecomesthegun
  • Start date Start date
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35896.0.html

Came across this comment in the article mentioned in this thread - a modified ADATS turret (minus radar?, minus crew?) might be mounted on an MGS chassis (lower profile in back) to produce a vehicle with better stability than sticking ADATS on LAV III.
 
Is it odd the way some believe that NDHQ is mentally retarded?  Do experienced officers normally leave units and say things like "we can do it better, for less, in Canada!"  Everyone is into this idea that NDHQ has a procure "Made in Canada" kit only mentality, that mentality is actually owned by the federal government and the general public.  Do you really in all honesty believe that Rick Hillier sits in his office and says "we need a new *****, now I could get one off the shelf, but that would get it to my soldiers on time and under budget, instead, I think I will procure it at such a pace that is doesn't actually reach the soldiers until the current requirement is no longer valid, and at such a  cost that the officers in charge of it will be publicly called out in the paper"  I have a strange feeling that this is not how it works, and my proof is the current wish list that the army is working off to equip OP ARCHER.  Everyone always has the answer, but only on the internet, so far, only a hand full of people on this forum have actually put their gripes on paper such as a UER, or even a simple memo addressed to the responsible parties.  Continue making comments and complaints about the kit, I do bring it up when I see the various officers in charge of the projects, but please understand the men working on these projects are not toothless idiots, bu are dedicated soldiers working to get you the equipment you require. 

Now that I have poured the gas, start flinging the matches
 
the men working on these projects are not toothless idiots

To be honest, Bomber, I'm not sure anymore.  We have an Army that wrote an SOR so tight that only one vehicle - the much-vaunted MGS - could possibly fit the bill, all because of politics.  The MMEV appears to be designed by a committee without regard to any conceivable tactical use.  I know for a fact that some of the studies done in the late 1990s have been completely disregarded as we journey down the transformational road. 

My fear is that the "big thinkers" have captured the imagination of both the military leadership and, worse, the political leadership and we're procuring equipment against a "vision", rather than a hard, operational requirement.  The vision is based on big-Army, American-style thinking that may or may not apply to a Canadian context.  Of course, we must have "vision", but when it involves spending $750 million of the taxpayer's money on an untried, Canadian-only, "conceptual" vehicle I begin to have serious doubts as to where we're going.  The MMEV is a typical example of how little rational thought is being put into things in our rush to be seen to be transforming.  If it works, great, I'll be the first to pat Col ******* on the back.  If it doesn't, we'll be left with yet another example of how flawed procurement has been used in support of seriously flawed tactical concepts.

Again, back to the vehicle at hand.  What real thought has gone into it?  Do we really think that we're going to fire ADATS direct against targets over an 8km + engagement range?  Where on the planet can this be done?  Are we really going to risk such a vehicle to fire unguided rockets direct at targets?  Is the crew really going to be capable of operating four (ADATS, CRV-7, NLOS missile and anti-air) weapons systems simultaneously?  How tactically sound is having rockets and missiles slung out in the open on an armoured vehicle?  What is the support construct for such a complex, logistically intensive unit?  None of these have been answered.  Instead, we've slapped our hands together, said "great, another example of the CF on the cutting edge of the three block war!" and shovelled $750 million at a contractor without any real statement of what the tactical requirement is.

UCRs and memoranda are great for dealing with leaky raingear, but where you're saying the entire rationalization and construct is suspect (without any empirical proof), you're on less firm ground - hence the Internet venting.

My two cents,

Teddy
 
Teddy:

I can't speak to your concerns about safety or advisability (admittedly an 8 km LOS shot seems a bit of a stretch unless a couple of hundred feet above surface) but your comment about mixing and matching ammo types intrigued me.

Don't the Apache drivers mix and match CRV-7s, LOS missiles like Hellfire, NLOS missiles like Longbow and DF weapons with their 30mm cannons?  How about the Air Force types with different load outs for different missions?  For that matter, even gunners use an increasingly varied assortment of bullets requiring different set up procedures to support various tasks.

I am still not sold on the MMEV concept any more than any one else is on these boards but I am not understanding the "complexity" argument, especially if these things are essentially going to be missile transporters operating behind the FEBA with others designating fall of shot and possibly even initiating the launch remotely.
 
Kirkhill said:
Don't the Apache drivers mix and match CRV-7s, LOS missiles like Hellfire, NLOS missiles like Longbow and DF weapons with their 30mm cannons?   How about the Air Force types with different load outs for different missions?   For that matter, even gunners use an increasingly varied assortment of bullets requiring different set up procedures to support various tasks.

All true, but we spend millions of dollars and take years to train aircrew to utilize their systems effectively.  In this case, we'll have young crews - who can accomplish a lot, admittedly - trying to do all this without the benefit of a $30 million Spar Aerospace simulator and without the benefit of years and years of preparatory training.  We have an Army that cannot get all its soldiers to the rifle range once a year, let alone adequately train crews to be effective with four highly complex weapons systems on the same ground platform.  Bear in mind that because this is a "one of" vehicle, we're going to have to develop the entire training package - from scratch - and cannot borrow from anyone to do so.
 
The MMEV (and to a lesser degree the MGS) are, in my humble opinion, the prime examples of what is wrong with both our doctrine and procurement systems. Here are some things I know with a fair degree of certainty about this whole situation:

1) The Army is adopting new doctrine focussing on non-linear, asymmetric warfare in 'complex terrain'. Commonly known as three block war. Our own doctrine states that most fighting our Army will undertake in the future (or even now for that matter) will be in cities, forests, mountains and jungles against a guerrilla or insurgent type enemy. No one has yet been able to tell me how a lightly armoured, extremely expensive vehicle with limited mobility and weapons geared to destroying tanks at very long ranges is going to fight Tabliban insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan etc.

2) The MGS was forced down our necks by politicians and was not the brainwave of someone in DLR. The Army looked at a light weight wheeled direct fire system in the mid to late nineties as a possible replacement for the Cougar and, maybe, the Leopard. An SOR was drawn up for this vehicle and GMDD in London did some initial conceptulization work on an Armoured Combat Vehicle (ACV). However, experiments showed that the ACV could not fight and survive on the modern battlefield so the project was shelved until technology could allow a 20 ton vehicle to fight and survive like a 60 ton tank. In the interim the Army spent a good chunk of change upgrading the Leo C1 to the C2 standard so that they could remain in use until 2015. Then, in 2003, out of nowhere the MND announces the MGS purchase and everyone who remembers the ACV project is scratching their heads. In fact, the SOR for the MGS wasn't realeased until one month after the announcement of the purchase and it was almost identical to the ACV SOR. The project staff literally did a find and replace on the SOR to put 'MGS' where 'ACV' used to be! So now we have a vehicle that has already proven it is not capable of meeting the requirements laid out in the SOR. Now, here is where I have a problem with the procurement/doctrine world. When the MGS/MMEV buy was forced down our necks we could have taken a hard look at the realities of modern warfare and the capabilites our Army would posses and written a decent 'concept of employment' for the direct fire system of systems. My argument here boils down to this: the MGS is a decent Assault Gun but is a shitty Tank Destroyer. In fact, the US Army lists the target set for their MGS as being bunkers, infantry in the open, soft skin and light armoured vehicles and its mission is to support assaulting infantry in close terrain. We, in our infinite wisdom, decided to employ the MGS as a tank destroyer in concert with other, similar, tank destroying vehicles (MMEV, TUA). The target set for the direct fire system of systems includes the T-72M tank first and foremost and the concepts I have seen in various briefings talk about 'range overmatch' against opponents thanks to the 8km range of the ADATS. This sounds distinctly like a system designed to fight the Soviet hordes on the rolling North German Plain rather than take on guerrillas with AKs, IEDs and Molotov cocktails. We should pull our heads out of our collectective posterior regions and start thinking about employing the MGS as an Assault Gun vs. as a Tank Destroyer.

3) The MMEV may 'brief well' on PowerPoint but actually making that thing work will not be as easy as photoshopping an ADATS turret onto a LAV hull! The presentations I have seen have shown the MMEV equipped with the ADATS missile (or Hellfire for direct fire), CRV7 rockets (laser guided a la LKPK), NLOS missiles and (get this) SLAMRAAM missiles. On top of this they want to mount a new 3D search radar and new EO system on the turret too. This is an unparalleled technical challenge that will end up costing us a hell of a lot more than we think (if it ever works). Each of the weapon systems mentioned above uses a different guidance system (laser beam rider, laser homing, fibre optic, radar/data link) and none have ever been integrated onto the same platform. On top of that, if you replace the radar and EO system, you will have to replace the display systems and computers too and then you have to squeeze all that kit into a LAV chassis or, worse yet an MGS chassis! Someone is dreaming in technicolour. The icing on the cake is that we then intend to employ this vehicle in a three block war scenario - a scenario where LOS is rarely more than 1 km, where the enemy is not considerate enought to drive around in the open in T72s and where one IED or RPG could easily destroy your extremely expensive and kill your highly trained crew.

So what? Well, here's what I propose:

Employ the MGS as an Assault Gun. In fact, buy more of them and ensure every Bde has some to train with - they are a decent piece of kit (not the best, mind you) if employed properly.

Keep at least some of the Leopards. There are still 66 good Leo hulls left that could be used to provide us with a decent direct fire capability that can survive better than the MGS/MMEV/TUA system on the battlefield. I would even say that they could be manned by the reserves but that is a whole other debate! My reasoning for this is that if we employ the MGS as an Assault Gun, we may want to keep a few Tank Destroyers around for those scenarios where we might need that capability (Korea, Syria, Iran etc.). Although asymmetrical warfare seems to be the way of the future, I'd hate to put all my eggs in one basket. Besides, the US Army swears by the Abrams in Iraq so maybe we could learn something from them.

Cancel the MMEV project as quickly as can be done. Long range (perhaps 'realistic long range' is better term) anti-armour fire can be handled by the TUA, especially with the 4.5km range TOW 2 Aero coming on line. The money saved could be redirected towards more MGS, O&M for the Leo fleet and improvements to the TUA. Hell, I am sure there would still be money left over in the SCIP to replace the Leos with surplus German Leo 2A4s (about 60 should do it), what with the Germans giving the things away for a song and a dance lately (reference recent Greek deal).

That's it. These are all just my opinions but as you may notice, this is something I feel very passionately about. I have read a much as I can get my hand on about this stuff and have come to the conlusions you see above. However, I know I don't have all the answers and would love to know what you guys think.

Pro Patria

MG

Scrap the MMEV project as fast a humanly possible. It does not make any sense in our day and age and
 
Mortar Guy:

Great post and this reflects my thinking as well (aside from the fact that I think MGS is a POS that should be cancelled too).  I remember all too well the ACV fracas years ago and how long that project percolated along...  We need to give our collective heads a shake...
 
Teddy Ruxpin said:
Mortar Guy:

Great post and this reflects my thinking as well (aside from the fact that I think MGS is a POS that should be cancelled too).   I remember all too well the ACV fracas years ago and how long that project percolated along...   We need to give our collective heads a shake...


MGS = BAD!! :P
 
I am diggin what mortar guy is saying, I have some questions to ask around the office now on Tuesday
 
Mortar Guy seems to make sense to me for what its worth.

I keep forgetting that the MMEV is being touted as a DIRECT fire system.  INDIRECT missile based precision systems for the Arty, short (Hellfire), medium (Netfires NLOS-LS ) or long (GMRLS), all seem to offer capabilities that could be exploited in the three block war but you're right. That isn't what the MMEV is being sold as.
 
Mortarguy has condensed into one post what dozens of us have taken multiple threads and hundreds of posts to articulate. BZ!

Now perhaps if he could draw the attention of the "powers that be" to the site and in particular the many threads debating MGS, MMEV and employment concepts (Armoured Cavalry, Combat team of Tomorrow, Future Armour, Adopting the regiment as a regular force formation & exploring other new regimental systems, "Trading Saber for Stealth" or "Are We a One Trick Pony?", Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle, etc.) maybe people will see the alternatives out there.

Since the MGS only exists as US Army prototypes and the MMEV is still a "Photoshop" project, there is still time to prevent this train wreak from happening.
 
Thanks very much for the great feedback guys! I have been working on a paper for submission to the Army Journal based on that rant and now that I know it will be well received (at least by some) I will polish it off and submit it.

Pro Patria

MG
 
Mortar guy:

Given that we black hats have been told to STFU on MGS and associated issues, it will be up to the infantry to carry the torch.  I look forward to seeing the article - some common sense would be welcome right now.

Teddy
 
I think Mortar Guy has something going.  Personally, I would pitch MGS and MMEV v.anything and upgrade TUAV to TOW RF to take care of some of the longer ranges without the insane complexity, top-heaviness and questionable attempt to be everything to everybody that the MMEV appears to be being touted as.  Interestingly, it seems that some folks would like to think of MMEV as a Made-in-Canada version of FCS, but I'm not sure this is reasonable.  Also, as many have pointed out, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to expect it to take on such a loadout and employ the range of weapons it is supposed to carry in the direct mode.  ADATS, Hellfire & CRV-7 is quite a variety of armament to want to lob directly.  About the only one of those payloads I can reasonably see being employed in the direct mode is the CRV-7, and if that's the case, I'd consider mounting a LAU-7/LAU-5006 launcher on the LAV or TUAV's turret.  Anecdotally, while I was working in DAD, I had a US Stryker Brigade Combat Team battalion commander tell me he'd gladly trade their Stryker LAV and MGS 2-for-1 for our LAV III.  He was apparently a big fan of the 25mm Bushmaster.  Is it unreasonable to think that MGS for breaching, LAV for mounted/dismounted ops and TUAV w/CRV-7 for direct fire support?  Is it just me or is MMEV starting to smell like TCCCS?

Just wondering,
Duey
 
Duey said:
Is it unreasonable to think that MGS for breaching, LAV for mounted/dismounted ops and TUAV w/CRV-7 for direct fire support?  

Just one of the many concepts tossed around here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28401.0.html

MMEV as currently conceived seems to be either a solution looking for a problem; or the result of a comittee packing requirments from all different branches onto one platform (I'm only a bit surprised there is no 'dozer blade on the front hull).  The official definition of the MMEV (at least the last one I saw) is to provide fire effects:

"through the use of a variety of munitions and the integration with other vehicles and sensor platforms through common data links"

which to my infantry mind suggests an SP artillery piece able to fire a wide variety of "Smart" and "Dumb" munitions both direct and indirect.

We could slap together a simple MMEV by putting the CT_CV turret http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-281321.html#msg281321 on a Leopard hull and arming it with 105mm through tube missiles, this would have the protection and mobility to do DF, has a 16 round bustle and a 38 (?) round "wine rack" in the hull for ammo storage, and the gun elevates to 420 for indirect fire (or sniping people off rooftops in DF mode).

Since Black hats have been told STFU about this and related (MGS) issues, Infantry can agitate for an SP "Bunker buster" for DF support, and Artillery can agitate for a protected SP for IF support. As long as the MMEV is just some photoshop and the occasional "test article", there is still time to prevent the "ADATS" solution from happening.
 
The MMEV as relocatable artillery, substituting range for weight of armour in order to protect the crew, makes all the sense in the world to me. 

As an indirect fire back-up to the direct fire guns and missiles of the DF Squadrons, in the same sense that mortars back up the DF weapons of the infantry, then the MMEV made some sense. 

But looking for 8 km line of sight shots seems to be pretty limiting as to the terrain on which you could use this kit.  The amount of dead ground possible between launcher and the 8 km horizon suggests to this civvy that the crews might have some nasty surprises in their futures.
 
Back
Top