MGS/MMEV dead yet?

[Scoobie Newbie]

Ack Teddy.

 

[Red 6]

Keep in mind that in the US Army, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team is a MEDIUM weight force (more powerful than light infantry but doesn't deliver a punch like bradley-abrams tag team).  No they are not putting all their eggs in that basket either. They are not replacing any of their heavy divisions with strykers.

The reason they don't have heavier guns on the stryker IMV is because it will cut down the number of dismounts and if you require 25mm fire power than they view the fight as a bradley-Abrams (Heavy armoured type of fight).

hope this clears it up where the SBCT stands in the US scheme of things.

Well, I may have overstated the point a bit, but the Bradley-Abrams fleet is considered "the Legacy Force." This isn't my term. It's what the Army calls it. If you look at the way the medium force is configured and the break down of medium and heavy units of action, the writing is on the wall for the heavy force.

 

[pbi]

Probably not, Quagmire.  As indicated earlier, they're requests for cancellation, not the actual direction.  Things could conceivably change with political intervention...  Even if they're cancelled, you won't likely see a CANFORGEN unless it's done as part of a wider update to the entire CF.

Cheers,

TR

This is true, but it is worth considering that as part of the recent CF strategic force development process (led to a great extent by Gen Leslie in his last job), all three services had to identify functions and projects that they will reduce or drop in order to fund the higher priority functions and projects. Although Gen Caron signed the letter, this was done about a week before he handed over. It seems reasonable to assume that Gen Leslie, as the heir apparent, was involved to some degree in the Army deliberations. Because of that, I doubt that the decision to recommend cancellation to the VCDS comes "out of the blue" or as any kind of surprise. In fact, I doubt it is really a "request" at all, but rather a formalization of things already talked about and agreed on.

In the end, of course, the Tories may exercise the tried and true practice so beloved of all incumbent governments: pork barreling defence expenditures as opposed to making them for military reasons. I would hope that the Tories are the least likely of any party to do this, but since most previous Cdn, US and British govts have IMHO porked it up at one time or another, I guess we should watch and shoot.

Cheers

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

It seems reasonable to assume that Gen Leslie, as the heir apparent, was involved to some degree in the Army deliberations.

Undoubtedly - IIRC, then-MGen Leslie was tasked by the CDS to conduct a review of all major procurement to see if they met the requirements of the current transformation initiatives.  Direct fire was certainly part of that review and we're seeing the fruits of it now.

In the current climate, it would take a very, very brave government to second-guess a formal army request not to spend money.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

So if things do go the way of the army and it is done what is a best guess as to when this will be announced.

P.S.  no more photo shop for the officer types.  That's got to be my favorite reason why these things were considered.  Take the LAV chassis and photo shop any kind of armament on to it.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Could the army use just plain model Stryker currently being made for the USA at GDSL?  (the one with the RWS)

As I understand things, if the plant in London does not get new orders, there will be layoffs very soon which will be unwanted political fallout for Harper. 

 

[sabot41]

Could the army use just plain model Stryker currently being made for the USA at GDSL?  (the one with the RWS)

As I understand things, if the plant in London does not get new orders, there will be layoffs very soon which will be unwanted political fallout for Harper. 

I would highly doubt the cancellation of a few Canadian MGS orders will affect GDLS-C in the slightest. It would only speed up production for USA and follow on orders from other countries. With the Americans footing the bill for R&D for Stryker series of vehicles, I'm pretty sure GDLS is quite happy with its bottom line moving forward. Besides, with most of these projects, there is probably a huge penalty to pay for cancellations.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Do we not have another order of LAV-III's due to be produced over the next couple of years or am I halucinating?


Matthew.  ???

 

[prom]

am I reading this wrong, but do you infer that the MGS verson of the LAV III is called a Stryker. IIRC from other post on this topic here the Stryker name is from the US and refers to all varriants of the LAV III.

 

[Kirkhill]

prom: you're reading this wrong.

I am fairly sure that GDLS must have figured that after they got the US Stryker order, which demanded a massive bulge in production to produce a large number of vehicles in a short time, that they must have factored in what they were going to do after the bulge passed.  IIRC, in order to meet the demand they expanded their workforce at a number of US plants and farmed out work to them that had been done at London.  London was surviving before the bulge on a relatively low rate of production.  The real question will be is whether those "bulge" jobs created in the States result in pressure to keep them there in competition to the London operation.

 

[prom]

thanks KH

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

We we haven't had any orders for more LAV's I think A Stan will cause us to rethink that.

 

[a_majoor]

Based on US experience in Iraq, there may be a move to "zero time" Canadian LAVs coming back from theater, certainly a few will need heavy duty repair, and a small batch could be produced to replace combat losses. (LAVs, like most military equipment, are virtually "hand built" due to the low volume of production).

Perhaps after the next election, the new government may be more able to spend money on the military, and the LAVs would then not only get "zero timed" but also upgrades based on combat experience in Afghanistan, a LAV 3.1 so to speak. Any new builds would also be to the "3.1" standard.

My opinion anyway.

 

[GAP]

At least the C-17's wouldn't have to dead-head it back to Canada, they could bring back dead LAV's, and misc. other things like people, etc

 

[TCBF]

GDLS London (formerly GMDD) was not going to get any MGS play anyway. ...


EDIT:  I was incorrect and so removed the bulk of my post.

 

[Cloud Cover]

TCBF: thats not quite accurate.

The bottom and intermediate sections of the hull of the MGS were to be fabricated at GDLS on Oxford Street, London  and shipped to Anniston. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002combat/howe.pdf.  The upper hull structure and the MGS turret were to come from the Lima plant. All assemblies, component and and subsystems [engines, drive train etc.] were to be finally assembled in Anniston. 

No less than 50% of the material in the Canadian MGS was to be directly sourced from Canada.  http://www.gdlscanada.com/purchasing/Download/terms-e34.pdf

IIRC there was an MOU being contemplated that proposed the $ difference between material sourced in Canada and 100% of the contract price (at the time of closing the contract) was to be made up in equivalent dollar value contracts in other work to be sourced to Canadian plants. I believe one proposed method was to increase the amount of work that went to GD in Ottawa, such as the increasing the amount of electronics improvement work to be done on M1 Abrams tanks in Ottawa and some further commitments to more development work on MESH IDS.   

If the MGS is gone [whether good or bad], about 600 million worth of GDLS work in Canada may disappear as well.

As a side note, I was surpised in surfing the GDLS site to see the LAV A-2 is going back into production for the USMC: http://www.gdls.com/retiree/landmark/2006/February2006.pdf

 

[TCBF]

Whoa, was I ever off in left field.  Thanks for the info.

 

[AIC_2K5]

In my mind, it looks like this decision was motivated by two key factors: we are having a surge in funding as well as the fact that the airforce may soon very well have a way of moving our tanks around.

Another probable motivator is that senior armour officers can point to Iraq to show the usefullness of tanks in 21st-century warfare.

Even after considering these ideas, this decision seems to make too much sense and I'm scared it might be too good to be true...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well the MND said he hasn't seen any paperwork on this being cancelled and therefore is still ongoing.

 

[ArmyRick]

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