Bidding may be bypassed in $12.2B military deals

[Acorn]

Canada will never be a great country if it relies 99.9% of U.S. goods. Even in W.W.II we relied less than that on U.S. and British goods. CP built a tank, and many of our ships were Canadian designed and almost all were Canadian built except for some destroyers. As for planes, they were not all Canadian obviously but were at least built in Canada. Why should we go backwards? Right now I agree with you, but 20 years from now who knows where we could go....

None of our warships were Canadian designed in WWII. Today's aviation industry comprises Bombardier and several companies that do electronics/avionics etc. not exactly robust, and Bombardier isn't in the biz of producing tactical military airfames - rotary or fixed wing.

If you want to build Canada's military industry you'll need a substantial infusion of cash and a plan. One can't sustain an aviation industry or a shipbuilding industry through a one-time bulk purchase and then nothing for 20+ years.

And I couldn't agree more strongly with Kevin - we need a small-arms and ammo industry. Not just small arms ammo either.

Acorn

 

[Guest]

The new MGS cannot even be fired if the turret is turned more than 15degrees off of the hull. One more great idea...

I'm a lurker, however I had to poke my head up on this one.

You are DEAD wrong on this statement.

The MGS can fire it's main gun while moving, over the COMPLETE 360 deg traverse.

Do you SERIOUSLY think we would build something that couldn't?!?.. wow..

If you did a little bit of digging, you'd even find public domain videos showing the MGS using it's gun at 20, 45 and even 90 deg. WHILE MOVING!

I respect alot of you guys, I agree withalot of your opinions.

On the subject of the MGS however, most of you.. have no experience working with the prodiuction protos.. so I'm at a loss how you all became "experts"

I assume it is because of a few heavily biased reports release a few years back by the M8 camp <can you say political interests?!?>

There is NOTHING wrong with the autoloader, nor is gun stability an issue.
Recoil issues have been resolved from early tests. (MGS parts do NOT go flying off, ect..)

No, it's not a tank.. it's not supposed to be.. but it's more than an "Assault Gun"..It will be interesting to see how ther CF deploys it.

MGS works.. and works well. (aside form a small ammo load, IMHO)

Here's a link to DND's vid:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Video/2_0/MGS.mpg

I have a couple mre that have some good shots at 90 deg. I'll have to upload.

You certainly have no reason to listen to what I say.. I'nm not claiming to be anything, just some guy.

Consider what I've said though.. Just like I know nothing about the infantry, how many of you could HONESTLY say you know what the MGS can, or cannot do?

I'd appreciate it, when in due time most of sceptics will be big enough to admit they're wrong when she rolls out.

 

[Infanteer]

but it's more than an "Assault Gun"

If it's "more than an assault gun", than what is it?

 

[Expat]

Can't Canada just licence the tech and build their own stuff. Oh wait that ended with Avro along time ago.

I don't see why Canada has never considered purchasing Russian technology.  South Korea also has some nifty stuff like the upcoming T50 trainer. I think the military should start thinking out of the box. Looking for alternatives seems like a good idea to me.

 

[KevinB]

You want an Army/Navy/AF that has parts and training comonality with allies.

If you need me to explain why - then you should not be posting here - but doing more reading/listening.


Re: MGS
From my understanding (as it was explained to us by the MGS people)

1) With the Muzzle brake - it can fire thru 360 - BUT is dangerous to dismounted troops within a large arc (+90 L and R) with it attached - so VERY hard to use as an Infantry close support system to make breaches etc.

2) W/O it cannot fire outside of arcs GO!!! listed

If the above is incorrect - then the publicists for MGS should correct the info they are giving out to the troops.  BUT till that happens, I will trust the data from them as opposed to that off a annonymous internet user named "GUEST"

 

[GO!!!]

MGS-specific criticisms
The C-130 cannot carry the heavier Mobile Gun System at all, thus totally failing the "Key Performance Factor" above.
Instead of using a low pressure gun like the M8 (or the Russian 2S25), the Stryker MGS uses the M60's 105mm M68A1 cannon. This gun has far too much recoil for the Stryker's weight class.
Thus, they added a muzzle brake. Muzzle brakes reduce recoil at the cost of extra blast and noise. The noise level in tests approached 200dB. It is estimated that means a soldier cannot safely approach within 450m of a firing Stryker MGS. The blast debris was also extensive, forcing the crew to fight in the buttoned-up position.
Even with the muzzle brake, the recoil still damages the MGS' more delicate internals, such as night vision electronics, the lights, instrumentation and helmets worn by test dummies. Without the muzzle brake, the recoil mechanism is destroyed.
Unlike the M8 autoloader, the MGS autoloader apparently cannot reliably select the right type of round. It also has a carousel with half the capacity, reducing its battle endurance.
Only 2-axles on a Stryker are equipped with run-flat tires. The MGS is too heavy to be supported on 2 axles.
No winch means no self-recovery
Various other ergonomic and survivability flaws.
[edit]
Updates
According to a Washington Post article, the Stryker vehicle has some serious faults; e.g. the insufficient ability to carry additional armor for protection against rocket-propelled grenades. The 5,000 pounds armor that was added caused problems with the automatic tire pressure system, causing crews to check tire pressure three times a day. Other problems include:

As designed, the weapon system does not shoot accurately when the Stryker is moving.
Troops cannot fasten their seat belts when they are wearing bulky body armor. This contributed to the death of one soldier when his Stryker vehicle rolled over. This problem was fixed by the time the CALL report was published and six months prior to the Washington Post article.
Computer systems for communications, intelligence and other systems have malfunctioned in the desert heat due to air conditioning problems.
Washington Post Article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14284-2005Mar30.html
POGO article http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050304-stryker.html

I found this in a five minute serach on google.

I can't source the origional statement, but I remember footage of an MGS firing with the turret 90 degrees to the hull, and rolling over. I assume that this was without the muzzle brake.

Many of the complaints in the articles are stryker and not MGS specific, but I question the use of such a vehicle especially one that a soldier cannot stand within 450m of when the main gun is being fired.

As for your dismissal of the small ammunition capacity of the MGS, I would consider this to be a serious flaw. The vehicles high speed, yet only having 400 rounds of .50 cal and 18 rounds of 105mm is hardly compensated for with 3400 rounds of 7.62. That tells me that you have a vehicle that can outrun it's supply, quickly run out of ammunition, have it's tires flattened by small arms fire and be finished off with an RPG 6 or 7 while trying to defend itself with a co-ax c6. Why are we better off without the Leo again?

(Edited for clarity and spelling)

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

No, it's not a tank.. it's not supposed to be.. but it's more than an "Assault Gun"..It will be interesting to see how ther CF deploys it.

MGS works.. and works well. (aside form a small ammo load, IMHO)

You certainly have no reason to listen to what I say.. I'nm not claiming to be anything, just some guy.

Consider what I've said though.. Just like I know nothing about the infantry, how many of you could HONESTLY say you know what the MGS can, or cannot do?

I'd appreciate it, when in due time most of sceptics will be big enough to admit they're wrong when she rolls out.

Well, it WILL be interesting to see how the CF employs it when it was purchased before any doctrine was developed against a "situated estimate" SOR.  Frankly, there is LOTS wrong with the MGS, particularly when you examine it in the context of the "system of systems" load of BS being hoisted on the Armour Corps at the moment - yes, that means I think MMEV is a bad joke.

Since you claim to be in the know, "Guest", can the MGS actually be lifted over any usable distance (ie: more than 100km) by a CC-130 (the ones we have), since this is the reason most often cited for the MGS purchase in the first place?  Have they come up with a mechanism for clearing stoppages on the coax without the crew commander getting his head shot off?  Do you have a link/source to back up your claim that the autoloader problems have been resolved?  How were the over pressure problems resolved (since this is what caused bits to fly off of the vehicle)?  What's the plan for uparmour to increase the vehicle's dismal protection (please don't tell me the "birdcage" stuff)?

It have been stated loud and clear that black hats are not to question the MGS purchase - the brain trust knows best - but I can't help myself.  Most of all, I can't help but recall a mid-nineties study that compared an MGS-like vehicle with our current "clapped out" old Leopards.  The MGS lost out on all counts.  If I can find the study, I'll post it later this week.

If I (as a naysayer) am wrong - great - I'll STFU.  However, Kevin makes an excellent point - the project's supporter need to make a real effort to reassure the guys on the ground that this is the way to go and to provide the "real" data to back it up.  Over to you.

I don't see why Canada has never considered purchasing Russian technology.

Because, by and large, the Russians build unsupportable junk suitable for Third World armies - which is why it's so cheap.  We do, though license and build a great deal of our own stuff - which is part of the problem.  Equipment is often selected more for its ability to be produced in a politically sensitive riding than for its operational utility and effectiveness.

 

[Infanteer]

What is the status of the MGS now - did we actually buy them?

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_06/iss_3/CAJ_vol6.3_08_e.pdf

I thought this article made a good case for NOT buying the MGS and opting for a 120mm instead.  Tactically, fiscally, doctrinally - it seemed like a better deal.  I guess, since it is a couple years old, that nobody listened to it....

 

[George Wallace]

On the subject of the MGS however, most of you.. have no experience working with the prodiuction protos.. so I'm at a loss how you all became "experts"

I assume it is because of a few heavily biased reports release a few years back by the M8 camp <can you say political interests?!?>

There is NOTHING wrong with the autoloader, nor is gun stability an issue.
Recoil issues have been resolved from early tests. (MGS parts do NOT go flying off, ect..)

No, it's not a tank.. it's not supposed to be.. but it's more than an "Assault Gun"..It will be interesting to see how ther CF deploys it.

MGS works.. and works well. (aside form a small ammo load, IMHO)

......I'd appreciate it, when in due time most of sceptics will be big enough to admit they're wrong when she rolls out.

Have you any Armour or even Army experience to make the statements you have about the MGS, or are you just going off PR material from some Commercial Enterprise?

Although I have not worked with or on a MGS, I very experienced in the Armour Corps.  I know the Regimental Gunnery Warrant Officer who took three Troopers from my Regiment down to do the Trials on the MGS.  They FAILED it.  I will take the word of a Senior Gunnery SME in the Armour Corps over the word of a GM or General Dynamics Salesperson any day. 

We have listed the major faults of the MGS in other threads including the small Ammo Load.  We also stated what was our major concern with the Autoloader.  Even if it works properly, no breakdowns, it is still too slow in switching from one type of Ammo to another, for a Cbt Vehicle.  If you will search out our discusions on the MGS, you will find that there are some serious problems with the vehicle and its' design.

We would appreciate it, when in due time most of Proponents of the MGS will be big enough to admit they're wrong when she rolls out.

 

[Gobsmacked]

We need Hercules, because we already have Hercules, and there is no time to evaluate a new system and completely retrain pilots and restock the logistical system to support a new platform.  Hercules is built by Lockheed.
What's to compete?

Sounds like sour grapes coming from the Libs old cronies, cause they aren't automatically getting the work.

Just my $0.02

Well I'll give you my (inflation-adjusted) $0.01

An important point also ballyhooded about in other threads - the 'much touted' C-130J vs C-130E/H Commonality - THIS SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.
:rofl:
This is a fallacy which LMC in their Kanata Ont office - that I'm betting is in the riding of a Liberal Cabinet Minister? - is happy to keep floating about.    >
Even the AF noted (officials intimately involved with FSA management), when the FSA program was actually still running before Political Cancellation, that the 'Only Reason the C-130J was being considered was due to Extreme Political Pressure as it was Not Suitalble to the FSA requirement for Outsize/Oversize Strategic airlift' - which is what Canada needs to get its troops/equipment anywhere (always overseas).    :argument:

As noted by Senior USAF Officers, including a former Commander of AMC, "the C-130J is basically a 70% - 80% (two similar quotes) New airplane".  This has also been acknowledged in CAF reports that are available by ATI.  Other than basic airframe parts, the main up-front cost savings available from the C-130J - vs A400M or C-17 or BC-17X - is that the same hangers can be utilized without modification or new construction being required.    :tsktsk:

 

[Guest]

Go!!, and the others...

Those reports you mentioned  are very biased, not to mention the Washington post article is using claims made from as far back as 2003, and do not reflect the MGS in it's current form.

On the topic of RPG.. optional add-on kit will be RPG7 resistant (I'm not talking about slat, either)

Of course there have been/ are issues..

What weapons system doesn't have development hangups.

Again, I will say.. the autoloader in it's current stage of development, has none of the problems that have been mentioned..
Breech jams are not a major occurrence, nor is ammo selection a problem.

Final design has been approved and Curtiss-Wright has the contract.

There are currently NO gun stabilization problems.. NONE.. she can hit whatever target she wants, at any angle of traverse, in motion.

I cannot comment on how long it takes to switch loadouts as I have no knowledge in that area.

coax reloading.. well I agree that is a problem


There will be no issues regarding either over-pressure or recoil effects. (That seriously impede mission performance)

There IS a small increase in recoil and over-pressure effects.. she's not a 70 ton MBT, but it is manageable.

Anything statements relating to overall platform stability don't hold any water. She has a lower CG compared to the LAV III (Look at the 2 side by side)

KevB< I don't think you want to be 5 yards from a LEO's frontal gun arc either..
(I have to wonder about this 90 deg thing tho.. I've never heard it)

Bottom line: MGS can acquire, track and engage without tipping over, killing CF infantry with concussive over-pressure nor making it's crew deaf or shake itself to pieces.

My only real point is criticise the CF concept of the DFS troop, of not replacing LEOS with other tanks, of the high-tech money pit known as the MMEV (betcha it'll make good coffee too).

But why not wait for the production version to appear before you guys talk about what a POS it is.

 

[George Wallace]

Again, I will say.. the autoloader in it's current stage of development, has none of the problems that have been mentioned..
Breech jams are not a major occurrence, nor is ammo selection a problem.

I am curious how long it takes to cycle through the Carousel, and change ammo in an Engagement, say from Sabot to Hesh?   It was a problem before.   From what you imply, it is no longer a rather time consuming process anymore.   A matter that a crew would have a great deal of concern with, in Combat.

And the problem of the Commanders Fields of View?  I know....a silly question.  He doesn't have 360 and never will (safely).

Crew fatique in prolonged operations?  They won't be scooting down to the Mall, they will have to go into Hides and pull Sentry and Radio Watches, as well as do Maint.  Less hands make more work.

We are all waiting with Baited breath.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Go!!, and the others...

Those reports you mentioned   are very biased, not to mention the Washington post article is using claims made from as far back as 2003, and do not reflect the MGS in it's current form.

Fair enough, but 2003 is not that long ago.

What weapons system doesn't have development hangups.

You just made the point of several others here- why develop a new system for our tiny army when there are other systems out there that are modern, developed, less expensive and, this is the big one- trusted by the troops that have them 

Breech jams are not a major occurrence, nor is ammo selection a problem.

So I take it the jams still occur? Did you mean to say they are not a major occurence under controlled test conditions?

There are currently NO gun stabilization problems.. NONE.. she can hit whatever target she wants, at any angle of traverse, in motion.

After nearly 85 years of tank development, thats a relief.

coax reloading.. well I agree that is a problem

Thats a huge problem if you're the guy that has to reload the thng.

There will be no issues regarding either over-pressure or recoil effects. (That seriously impede mission performance)

Not even close to good enough.

she's not a 70 ton MBT, but it is manageable.

Need more be said?

Bottom line: MGS can acquire, track and engage without tipping over, killing CF infantry with concussive over-pressure nor making it's crew deaf or shake itself to pieces.

Certain restrictions apply. See dealer for details.

But why not wait for the production version to appear before you guys talk about what a POS it is.

Well, as has been pointed earlier, that is the standard order given to the armour types about this machine - I guess they are all supposed to STFU and die.

 

[Andyd513]

Representatives of potential bidders privately agree that the Canadian Forces has set requirements for their new fleets to favour the new C130J Hercules, the C27J Spartan and the Boeing Chinook helicopter.

Perhaps we're in a potential combat situation in harsh terrain and "potential bidders" have nothing that performs to the standards that we need. Christ, they want us to lower our standards so they can make bids and we won't be able to use their equipment in the place thats causing us to buy this equipment... anyone else think this is backwards thinking?

 

[Recce41]

For one I think the MGS is good for what it is designed for. Only 2 run flats, you can change the damn tyres. As for the M60 cannon, just because it's the same does not mean its the same. IE recoil can be changed, by a different round.
The iltis was a good vehicle for it's time, the Germans changed because it was getting old.
As I said the Arrow was a great aircraft, yes a cost over run, but that was not the fault of AVRO. It was the fault of constent changes. All NEW things do cost more to design.
As for ships, we designed many that were in WW1 and 2. Many of you are buy what ever. Why? just because it's biult in the US does not mean its good. The HUMMV is the most maintance painful veh. The M1 is the biggest pain for any crew, The Bradley failed but was bought.
I could go on.
We have to support our own. We have many good engineers that can design anything, ONLY IF WE STOP DICKING AROUND. If DND went to a company and told them to design and biuld it. They would, if not they don't get payed. DND/CF is going that way, now any civie company fails, they don't get payed.
BUY CANADIAN< SUPPORT OUR OWN!

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

There are currently NO gun stabilization problems.. NONE.. she can hit whatever target she wants, at any angle of traverse, in motion.

What's the engagement time, then?  The platform rock has to be absolutely brutal...

coax reloading.. well I agree that is a problem

Exactly.  And I'm not going to be happy leaping out of the vehicle to try and clear stoppages.  Coax is a major weapons choice in the enviornment we're talking about...especially with the tiny number of main gun rounds.

There IS a small increase in recoil and over-pressure effects.. she's not a 70 ton MBT, but it is manageable.

Ever been in a Cougar?  The platform rock from a 76mm main gun was ridiculous.  Why should we assume that it is any better using a 105mm high pressure gun, despite a heavier vehicle and a lower CG...?  Yes, I've seen the video.

But why not wait for the production version to appear before you guys talk about what a POS it is.

Because, as we have said, there are far too many unanswered questions.  I did note that my major point regarding CC-130 tranportability - THE major raison d'etre for this rather dubious concept - hasn't been answered yet...

 

[Infanteer]

Exactly.   And I'm not going to be happy leaping out of the vehicle to try and clear stoppages.   Coax is a major weapons choice in the enviornment we're talking about...especially with the tiny number of main gun rounds.

From what I've read, it seems that mounted coax weapons were one of the biggest killers in OIF - for example, Bing West's The March Up constantly reffered to Infantryman being unneeded as the armour had killed attackers with 7.62mm/.50 cal weapons mounted on the M1.

 

[KevinB]

Gobsmacked-
  The Airframe is still similar - longer, different avionics, different engines -- but we can jump out of them the same way.
I dont see the J's as a C17 side step -- we still need new Hercs or a least a new tactical A/C -- we will not get enough C17's (if we get them) to do anything more than Strategic theatre ressupply - or national level of impotance "tactical" usage.

Guest. 
  Anything with a muzzle brake is nasty - heck a C8CQB with a brake as opposed to flash hider or (better yet) a [noise/flash] suppressor (silencer for the laymen) is awful -- try the .50 with the brake as opposed to suppresor...
L5 Pack How - M109 -- all equally awful to be around.
IF the MGS has a muzzle brake - it may make platform rock and other issues more accpetable -- but it will make its effectiveness with dismoutned troops NILL.  I have been around Leopard fire while being a crunchie - bad but not ruin your whole F*(&ing day bad.

I have ZERO armoured experience so I will let the Armoured guys argue the fighting and dyign the vehicle stuff -- I'm just saying it ain't something I'd want making a breach of firing in support of me -- and you cant fight in a city behind the 2nd road wheel...

 

[GrimRX]

Gobsmacked-
  The Airframe is still similar - longer, different avionics, different engines -- but we can jump out of them the same way.
I dont see the J's as a C17 side step -- we still need new Hercs or a least a new tactical A/C -- we will not get enough C17's (if we get them) to do anything more than Strategic theatre ressupply - or national level of impotance "tactical" usage.

Guest. 
  Anything with a muzzle brake is nasty - heck a C8CQB with a brake as opposed to flash hider or (better yet) a [noise/flash] suppressor (silencer for the laymen) is awful -- try the .50 with the brake as opposed to suppresor...
L5 Pack How - M109 -- all equally awful to be around.
IF the MGS has a muzzle brake - it may make platform rock and other issues more accpetable -- but it will make its effectiveness with dismoutned troops NILL.  I have been around Leopard fire while being a crunchie - bad but not ruin your whole F*(&ing day bad.

I have ZERO armoured experience so I will let the Armoured guys argue the fighting and dyign the vehicle stuff -- I'm just saying it ain't something I'd want making a breach of firing in support of me -- and you cant fight in a city behind the 2nd road wheel...

what IS a muzzle break anyways?

 

[KevinB]

A muzzle brake/break is designed to vent expanding gasses back towards the shooter/weapon platform in order to minimise the recoil - keeping the muzzle steadier - in small arms this allows for faster follow up shots - with the acceptance of a large weapon signature (noise, flash and dust)

Here is an example - Wes Grant of MSTN designed for 3 gun shooters (who are NOT tactically oreintated) hwere quick follow up shots are desired and they are not worried about weapon signature issues.

In larger weapons it saves on wear and tear (hence the puny L5 Pack How) which could be jumped (somewhat effectively) and manhandled into postions. 

Firing one was always a pleasure if you where new and no one told you to turn around and step back - hat/ear defenders and whatever went flying...


end result they direct gases BACK toward the friendlies...