MGS/MMEV dead yet?

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'm sure the direct fire guys will be the last to know.

 

[Infanteer]

Remember guys, this is only a request by the Chief of Land Staff to cancel the projects; nothing official has happened yet.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

We know Sir.  We are just giddy with aniticipation that it will be cancelled.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Talked to someone in the LdSH and funny they have not heard a thing about this cancellation.  Watch and shoot me says.

The senior leadership in the Regiment knows - I can guarantee that.

I cannot imagine that the CF would be directed to buy this rather nebulous vehicle in the face of a direct request for cancellation from the Army.  The press would have a field day.  Then again, I was around for LSVW....

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Ah but Teddy have you riden in the back of one. ;D

what's with the use of "nebulous" lately.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Ah but Teddy have you riden in the back of one. ;D

Yes, yes I have...was qualified to drive one at one time too...

what's with the use of "nebulous" lately.

Nebulous:  Lacking definite form or limits; vague: nebulous assurances of future cooperation.

Seems to fit a variety of recent situations, eh?  Heh...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Yes it does.

I suppose now a days your driven in a Chyrsler 300.  lol j/k

 

[ArmyRick]

Another thing I kind of wonder of wonder about the whole MGS concept.  The US Army is totally using it as an infantry direct fire support vehicle designed for shooting fortifications, bunkers, blowing halls in walls using HEP, etc.  Why not go with a 90mm gun instead? Its a little smaller but I am sure the effects on target will be similar?  Also 90mm guns have been used on wheeled vehicles before.

I know I am going to get shot with a ball of **** because I am not suggesting just getting a new MBT but I am looking at the MGS as what the US meant it for. The 100 KM/H speed will be usefull for getting it around a larger AOR.

Another note.  Here is my idea of a DFS Regt.  First, MGS stay with the infantry LAV Battalions. The DFS regt with 4 squadrons. Each Squadron has (if no new equipment is availible)
-Squadron HQ
-2 x Troops of Abrams
-2 x Troops of Bradleys with 4 dismounts only.

Whoa! Did I just suggest heavy vehicles? Yes! Why did I do that?  It seems we are not far from getting a capable aircraft (C17 perhaps) that can actually move the kit (Fingers crossed).

 

[Mortar guy]

Another thing I kind of wonder of wonder about the whole MGS concept.  The US Army is totally using it as an infantry direct fire support vehicle designed for shooting fortifications, bunkers, blowing halls in walls using HEP, etc.  Why not go with a 90mm gun instead? Its a little smaller but I am sure the effects on target will be similar?  Also 90mm guns have been used on wheeled vehicles before.

I know I am going to get shot with a ball of **** because I am not suggesting just getting a new MBT but I am looking at the MGS as what the US meant it for. The 100 KM/H speed will be usefull for getting it around a larger AOR...

Funny you should mention that as the CMI 90mm Mk 8 gun was actually a contender for the SBCT MGS requirement. Observe: http://www.cmigroupe.com/defence/mk890b_en.htm However, it is my understanding that they went with 105mm because there was a readily available supply of M68 barrels and 105mm ammunition lying around.

I still think there is a place for what you describe: an assualt gun that would do well in certain roles in places like Afghanistan. I like the idea of the LCTS 90 turret on a LAV chassis but that's just me.

MG

 

[AIC_2K5]

The DFS regt with 4 squadrons. Each Squadron has (if no new equipment is availible)
-Squadron HQ
-2 x Troops of Abrams
-2 x Troops of Bradleys with 4 dismounts only.

Iteresting idea, Armyrick. So we convert the DFS regiment into an armoured cav-type unit?

 

[ArmyRick]

If we get heavy lift cargo planes? Hell yes.  We either get Bradley and Abrams in the next two to three years or we can always playout the time until US Army FCS comes on line and we use some of those systems (So far the theory is great, if they can back it up, even better).

Why do I like the Bradley and Abrams option as our heavy direct fire maneuver option? 120mm, 25mm, Co-axial machine guns and TOW missiles at your finger tips.

Without the planes to move them though, they will IMO only end staying in Canada. 

 

[AIC_2K5]

Why do I like the Bradley and Abrams option as our heavy direct fire maneuver option?

What about the Leo 2A6 and the ASCOD?
Both are new (and better) than the M1 and M2 and both are available right now.

Leopard 2A6: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
ASCOD: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/

Euro style!

 

[DG-41]

Ditto on the Leo2. It has a much better fire control system than Abrams, and the conversion over from Leo1 is pretty straightforward.

Abrams A1 is getting kinda dated, and Abrams A2 is too expensive for even the Yanks to build in quantity.

DG

 

[George Wallace]

What about the Leo 2A6 and the ASCOD?
Both are new (and better) than the M1 and M2 and both are available right now.

Leopard 2A6: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/
ASCOD: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/

Euro style!

Ah!  A man after my own heart.  You're not too bad for an Airforce guy!

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Leopard C2 till 2015.

 

[AIC_2K5]

Ah!  A man after my own heart.  You're not too bad for an Airforce guy!

:threat:

Leopard C2 till 2015.

What then?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Who knows?  Its sufficiently far away.

I'd have been real excited to have read that the funds ear-marked for the MGS were going to the M1A2.  That isn't going to happen, but at least we're getting Chinooks...

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Thought you guys might be interested in this little tidbit from Tuesday's (04 July) Globe and Mail. The paper has an article by J.L. Granatstein in which he talks about the recent defence announcements. In the article he mentions that "Ottawa  . . .  is backing away from" buying the MGS and will instead keep the Leo I until 2010.  One reason Granatstein gives for killing the MGS is that both the CDS and VCDS "black hats" in other words armoured corps types who want to keep the Leo I.

Enjoy.

 

[George Wallace]

Full article published/posted here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44423/post-405798.html#msg405798

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

...is backing away from" buying the MGS and will instead keep the Leo I until 2010.  One reason Granatstein gives for killing the MGS is that both the CDS and VCDS "black hats" in other words armoured corps types who want to keep the Leo I.

I typically enjoy what Dr Granatstein writes, but he's out to lunch on this one.  The Army was directed to undertake a strategic-level review of capital programmes, in common with the other services.  The CF-wide review was led by LGen Leslie, a gunner and now CLS.  The Army's recommendation for cancellation - as posted on another thread - was signed off by LGen Caron, a Vandoo and was the result of this capital review.  The suggestion that there's some sort of "tank" mafia at work here does a disservice to the staffs who conducted the strategic reviews and who rationalized CF requirements. 

TR