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

New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

Here is an article from Janes def on the 105mm mounted on wheels.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Wright [mailto:dwwright@golden.net]
Sent: Tuesday, 10, June, 2003 11:21 AM
To: dwwright@golden.net
Subject: Jane‘s Defence Weekly 4 Jun 03


Testing Time For The Mobile Gun System
By Kim Burger, JDW Staff Reporter, Washington, DC

The US Army is still developing the most complex of the Stryker 8 x 8
medium-armoured vehicle variants - the Mobile Gun System (MGS) - and
recently decided on several design changes that reflect the challenges of
putting a 105mm gun on a lightweight platform.
A pepper-pot muzzle brake, which was included in the design to ease recoil,
has been eliminated because it was creating a blast overpressure when gases
escaped the gun tube, said Don Howe, senior director of the Stryker
programme for manufacturer General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). The problem
evolved after the MGS chassis was lowered so that the turret can fit into
the C-130 Hercules tactical transport aircraft, as required by the army,
moving the cannon closer to the front of the vehicle.
The ‘halo‘ of hot gas released by the muzzle brake was damaging the front of
the chassis, GDLS officials said. It also presented a burn hazard to
personnel nearby and crew when the vehicle hatch is open, according to an
army briefing on the subject.
GDLS will adjust the recoil system and, after having conducted simulations
and live-fire testing, believes the system will be able to handle the recoil
without the muzzle brake.
A lighter-weight barrel is also being introduced as part of a
weight-reduction effort to bring the MGS within the 18,733kg combat loaded
weight it must meet for C-130 flight. The new barrel and associated
components save 108.8kg. The army and GDLS will look at incorporating
lighter-weight composite materials and eliminating some items on the
platform as other weight-saving measures, Howe said.
The army also approached GDLS with a list of concerns about comfortably
fitting soldiers in the system, and the removal of obstructions, enabling
crew to make best use of equipment and interfaces. Howe noted that these
issues were caught during testing, which is appropriate for a developmental
programme. "I‘m also pleased to say that most of these issues are corrected
or are being corrected," he said.
Congressman Jim Saxton, a member of the House Armed Services Committee,
raised questions he still has about the MGS at a hearing on 1 May. This
included "danger to the crew when the gun is fired because of the muzzle
velocity, and the recoil and the relatively light weight of the vehicle for
purposes of handling the recoil from the gun", he said. An amendment
co-sponsored by Saxton was included in the 2004 defence-spending bill passed
by the House directing the army to provide extra information on Stryker
brigade lethality and sustainability.
 
They already have a 105. It was fired in Canada, about two yrs ago. I have a tech film about it.

:evil: :tank:
 
Going along with this, a question to all the ARMD folks out there: what sort of DFSV do you guys really want? Tracked or wheeled?

Fred
 
I spoke to a friend last night in the LdSH(RC) who told me that the Strathcona‘s are getting all of the Leo‘s moved out west. The RCD and 12 Rubberboot are going to get a squadron‘s worth of Stryker combat support vehicles. However when you do the math you quickly realizes with the deployments that they have planned there will be no Strykers at the school to train on or extra‘s for deployment replacements such as combat damage and mine strikes.
Does anyone happen to know how the government arrived at the decisions about this thing that they did? Have they bought replacement vehs or extras for the school?
:tank:
 
so what ur saying is that the LdSh(RC) are getting the leopards and useing them? or just for training purposes
 
Does anyone happen to know how the government arrived at the decisions about this thing that they did?
I‘d bet that they gave it no thought at all then and randomly pulled a number out of their hat.....or some convenient bodily orfice.
 
with 66 Stryker MGS purchased sounds like they could pull such a situation off.

If 20 went to a squadron of the RCDs, and 20 went to a squadron of 12 RBC, that would leave 26 as training vehicles/replacements. Sounds like it could work to me, unless I‘m missing something. I think this scenerio would be ideal, as it would see us carry on using our tanks out west, at least for a few more years (2010 expiry?). It makes a lot more sense to me to use a combination of both MGS and tanks as direct fire support, with MGS simply giving recce regiments some added firepower.
 
Hey all...thanks for adding to the discussion. I‘m new to this and didn‘t explain very well.
The RCD and 12RBC are getting a squadron of Strykers each. So are the Strats. The Strats will keep one sqn of Leo‘s in Edmonton...the rest go to Wainwright as training vehicles...Lets face it the Leo C1 or C2 couldn‘t stand up to a strong backfire from a car muffler, let alone an enemy shell ( the modern stuff anyway.)
As for the nimbers listed above. Don‘t forget the Strykers that will go to SHQ in the opperational sqns. By my count that leaves three extra vehicles.
Oh...forgot to mention that the REME school in Borden will need some to work on as well...Wow, did the government screw this up or what! :sniper:
 
Of course they screwed this up. Its the Liberals, and they put no thought into any Military purchase, unless someone want‘s a kick back.

Didn‘t they just re-build the Leo C-2 a few years ago. I‘m sure they can take a backfire or two, and stand up to more than the Stryker MGS.

I was on one of the other sites and math for the Strykers just doesn‘t work. How can 66 of them be 600 million.... and who this a good deal for. Certianly not the CF and Canadian taxpayer.
 
One thing that my bud from the Strats did say was that the stryker has some sort of 105MM hyper-velocity gun which is supposed to be very powerful. The crew doesn‘t even sit up in the turret anymore but down inside the vehicle someplace. It also has an autoloader( which the vote is still out on.) Basically if it hits you you‘re done for...Of course I don‘t know if I‘d go head to head with any of the tanks from the big leagues like the Abrams, Leo 3,Merkava, leclerc or Challenger.
Likewise the stab, sights and lase capability is fantastic. Too bad they didn‘t put it all on a new tank! :tank:
 
There is a Leo 3 now? Anyone got pics? Cuz Leo 2‘s kick *** . So I can only imagine the Leo 3 would be absolutely kick *** . :fifty: :gunner:
 
There is alternives to Mobile gun platform to the Stryker. that the goverment didn‘t look at or examined thoroughly when they made this decison. [ Nobody respects a country with a poor army,but everybody respects a country with good army.
Joesph Stalin
 
when DND announce their plan to purchase the Stryker. I wonder if they also look at the Stingray light tank, or Armor gun platform that was being tested in the mid 90s by the 82 Airborne? Both these veh;s are track.
 
Thank you Major. Yes it is an impressive machine.It has A 105 rifled with 31 ROUNDS & 21 in autloader.An to reduce production cost it uses a lot of it‘s items base on the M2 Bradley.Their is also 3 levels of armour package. With level 1 being air-dropped
 
Would be much better for our armoured recce regiments then the Coyote (I wonder if you could put the Coyote sensor package in it?)
 
This it?

http://www.uniteddefense.com/prod/lt_tank.htm

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/supplement/lav/lav_m8.shtml

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

If so it looks like something that might actually get us some decent bang for our buck compared to the Stryker.
 
Gents
I do believe I caught site of a bunch of strykers painted in desert colours going by close to my house ( pickering, Ont.) on a train.
 
Back
Top