- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Project File No 300000731-300
'MGS SOR (Mobile Gun System - Statement of Operational Requirements)' Highliights
[One of the few SOR to be written to Exactly fit a piece of equipment - and if thats not enough, due to well known problems - such as Autoloader, well lets reassess so that it still fits.]
The retirement of the Leopard fleet and its associated mobility enabling system [mine ploughs/rollers, AEV, ALVB] will present the LAV based force, including the MGS, with a significant challenge in ensuring mobility in the battlespace. :fifty:
4.1.2 Levels of Requirement:
Essential - An essential requirement is a criterion that must be met if a contender system is to be considered for selection. Performance thus designated is deemed to be so important that even if a contender system meets all other essential criteria and all desirable criteria, the system will be rejected.
Desirable - Desirable criteria are used to promote more sensitive evaluations of contending items that meet all essential requirements.
4.1.3 Essential Criteria Achievable: The stipulation of an essential criterion presumes that it is achievable at reasonable cost. However, should any essential criterion subsequently be determined to be impractical for technical or budgetary reasons, that criterion will be reassessed.
[WTF?? ??? - I've never heard of this type of wishy-washy criteria before, ie. if it still don't work thats OK - we'll make it 'Non-Essential'. For most any other material acquisition program out there - if it does not meet Essential criteria it is Not acceptable - I guess this Basic Tennant just does not apply to the MGS.
Not a very stong assertion for a piece of equipment that is supposed to be the cornerstone of the DFS 'system of systems'. ]
These essential criteria will, however, remain as deficiencies and will be considered for vehicle improvements throughout the vehicle's life span.
Essential
Weapon system of the MGS: Be capable of perforating the frontal turret armour of a T-72M tank at 2000m.
Main armament operational ammunition: AT - APFSDS-T M-428, DM63C and C76 rounds.
The autoloader must: Permit storage of - An APFSDS-T round.
[This seemingly directly contradicts an 8 May 2003 'BRIEFING NOTE FOR ADM(Mat) - MGS' stating "The main gun, a stabilized 105mm with autoloader, will defeat hardened bunkers and armoured vehicles up to T-62 Tank [level II armoured threat]".
In 2003, LCol Luc Petit A/DLR confirmed, that "Doctrine and tactics of the US Interim Force clearly specify that the MGS is not an anti-tank platform but rather an Infantry support vehicle [it will not carry APFSDS ammunition]."
Col Petit also received information in June 2003 that specifically noted that, as to the "MGS - this system is not designed as a medium tank or a tank replacement vehicle. It will be unable to shoot from the move and it's primary role will be direct support of the Infantry [bunker busting, etc]."
As per Oct 2003 report 'Stryker Brigades Versus the Reality of War':
"Serious problems with the MGS Autoloader. The sensors in the MGS autoloader may not be able to recognize certain types of ammunition with brass casings (such as existing CF warshot). The MGS . . . autoloader cannot identify types with accuracy. Brass cased rounds are just not detected. No protective separation from ammunition storage. This is a core survivability issue."
On 9 December 2004 the 'Army Times' admitted that "Stryker program officials are hoping that redesigning the sophisticated loader on the MGS will prevent the jamming problems that last year caused the vehicle to fail reliability tests".
Numerous serving/retired Canadian armour personnel note the Leopard I with its 105mm L7A1 could NOT defeat a T72M (~90cm RHA) frontally at 2,000m, unless, of course, "stockpiled M900 DU ammo" (per Oct 02 CLS 'Info Brief') is used. "The DM63C (Canadian designation C127) APFSDS [47cm RHA penetration at 2km] is most likely the best non-DU standard 105mm NATO projectile available, and that is the round we bought [c2000], but, whether it is fired from the MGS or the Leo I, it will NOT penetrate the turret front of the T-72M at 2,000 meters." Even the latest 105mm M1060A3 APFSDS-T round, using technology derived from the 120mm DM53 round only has a penetration path of 50cm RHA at 2,000m. :fifty:
Meanwhile, CF policy (per CF Director Medical Policy) does not sanction retention of DU munitions in the CF inventory.
M-428 APFSDS round? What is that??]
Essential that the MGS at 38,000 lbs be capable of being transported by the CC-130 for a distance of 1,000 nautical miles [1,852km].
[Presentation to JCRB:
"It has been clear to all involved with the project, including the former Minister's staff, that movement by C-130 is not the normal mode of transport and would only be done in an emergency with limitations.
The vehicle can be prepared for a transport weight of 38,000 pounds. The limitations will probably include a reduced ammo load and removal of the 14.5mm heavy machine gun armour."
Curious that this is an Essential requirement (although as per 4.1.3 that doesn't mean much) as its well known that the 1,000nm range via C-130 is unachievable. :fifty:
Per GAO report 04-925:
"Weight Presents Significant Challenges for C-130 Transport of Stryker Vehicles, Making Requirements and Expectations Difficult to Meet:
With most Stryker vehicles weighing close to 38,000 pounds on board, the distance - or range - that a C-130 aircraft could fly is significantly reduced when taking-off in high air temperatures or from airfields located in higher elevations. In standard, or nearly ideal, flight conditions - such as day-time, low head-wind, moderate air temperature, and low elevation - an armoured C-130H with a cargo payload of 38,000 pounds can generally expect to fly 860 miles from takeoff to landing. Furthermore, . . . a C-130's range is significantly reduced with only minimal additional weight, and ideal conditions rarely exist in combat scenarios. The C-130 aircraft's range may be further reduced if operational conditions such as high-speed takeoffs and threat-based route deviations exist because more fuel would be consumed under these conditions. The more than 41,000-pound weight of the MGS (41,300 lbs Combat Weight per GDLS-C - and thats before any add-on armour to defeat RPGs) would limit the C-130 aircraft's range to a maximum distance of less than 500 miles. Furthermore, according to the Army Test and Evaluation Command's Stryker System Evaluation, in less than favourable flight conditions, the Air Force considers routine transport of the 38,000-pound cargo weight of a Styker vehicle on C-130 aircraft risky, and such flight may not be permitted under the Air Force's flight operations risk management requirements if other transport means are available. In two theatres where U.S. forces are currently operating - the Middle East and Afghanistan, high temperatures and elevation can reduce C-130 aircraft range if carrying a 38,000-pound Stryker vehicle. Furthermore, a C-130 with a 38,000-pound Stryker vehicle on board would not be able to take off at all from locations in higher elevations, such as Afghanistan, during daytime in the summer.
Based on Air Force restrictions "Three Hercules flights are required to transport two LAV-III vehicles", a minimum of 6x CC-130Hs (out of 11 total) would be required for basic intra-theatre movement of 4x 18,734kg (41,300 lbs) MGS, "the usual unit of employment is at least four, at the minimum three", less-than 250 mi - in nearly ideal flight conditions, based on GAO analysis. Plus, at 48% availability - requiring two Hercs assigned to ensure completion of one mission, this doubles the requirement to 12x CC-130H to airlift 4x MGS. (Not accounting for those in normal 3rd line maintenance/upgrades - ie. likely maximum 9 of 11 CC-130Hs available at any given moment.) Keep in mind CC-130s are further restricted as prior DAR 2 had noted: "Typical Maximum Payloads [MPL] for an eastern crossing to Europe are 28,000 lbs for an E-model and H30, and 30,000 lbs MPL for a regular H. Western crossing are limited to 25,000 lbs MPL for an E or H30 and 27,000 lbs MPL for a regular H."
This compares very unfavourably with just 2x BC-17Xs needed to move 6x LAV-III-type vehicles over 3,000 nm. You can't count the 2x CC-130H-30s - weight reduced by some 5,000 lbs - the approx added weight of the 15' stretch mods w\o any additional fuel capacity, therefore not capable of LAV-III transport, but possibly older LAVs.]
Essential that the MGS have a wall-to-wall turning circle no greater than 16 meters in diameter.
[Not very practical for Urban/City ops, unless there is a convenient park or sports field nearby for turnaround.]
Run Flat - It is essential that the MGS be capable of running flat for 40km at 50 km/h [convoy speed] on a hard surface with all the tires on one side of the vehicle deflated for any reason . . . and at a speed of 10 km/h with all tires deflated.
[SBVRW - "Wheel design grossly inadequate for 2 axle operation considering only 2 axles equipped with run-flat inner cores. The reality is that the weight on 4 axles then gets transferred to only 2 - and neither the wheel design nor the axle is up to it because the MGS is grossly overweight.
Note: To save weight, the Army reduced the number of heavy run-flat wheels by half - and deleted the winch on the MGS." MGS overweight also pertains to the following.]
It is essential that the MGS: Be capable of towing a combat-loaded MGS . . . for 5km cross-country, and for 25kms at 30 km/h on a dirt road;
Working Area/Seating - Essential that the MGS incorporate the following:
Individual Space - The MGS must provide for effective operation by at least 95% of the environmentally clothed Canadian military population;
Operational Effectiveness of Crew - The MGS must permit operational effectiveness while moving at 50 km/h . . . by at least 95% . . . military population;
[SBVRW - "Multiple space problems - too many ergonomic issues to list. The ergonomics - human factors - in the Stryker MGS have proved to be appalling. You cannot see what you need to see - and there is no space for 95% of the population;"
Matt noted they have supposedly addressed some of these problems - but for a cramped vehicle, with back cut-down from LAV-III, can now fit what 25% of armour crews? :
]
Desirable
The weapon system should be capable of: Perforating the frontal turret armour of the T-80U tank at 2000m;
[See above re: T-72M - Just not gonna happen.] :
Destroying or neutralizing the following targets up to 8000m using CE rounds employing semi-indirect fire techniques - APCs including the BMP-3 and BTR-80.
The maximum ranges for the in service Canadian APFSDS [C76] and HESH ammunitions are 6000m and 8000m respectively.
[MGS capable of IF - I thought only Leo IC2 had this capability?]
It is desirable that the MGS be fitted with a self-recovery winch. [See Note: above]
The MGS should have: An onboard, near silent auxiliary power unit, using the same fuel as the vehicle engine . . . to run essential silent watch systems.
[Per January 2004 'MGS Statement of Operational Requirement Presentation to JCRB' by Maj JA Atkins MGS Project Director, and former M-113LE PD.
"Silent Watch [without the engine on] - 4 hrs [not part of current MGS capability];"]
Any Opinions
'MGS SOR (Mobile Gun System - Statement of Operational Requirements)' Highliights
[One of the few SOR to be written to Exactly fit a piece of equipment - and if thats not enough, due to well known problems - such as Autoloader, well lets reassess so that it still fits.]
The retirement of the Leopard fleet and its associated mobility enabling system [mine ploughs/rollers, AEV, ALVB] will present the LAV based force, including the MGS, with a significant challenge in ensuring mobility in the battlespace. :fifty:
4.1.2 Levels of Requirement:
Essential - An essential requirement is a criterion that must be met if a contender system is to be considered for selection. Performance thus designated is deemed to be so important that even if a contender system meets all other essential criteria and all desirable criteria, the system will be rejected.
Desirable - Desirable criteria are used to promote more sensitive evaluations of contending items that meet all essential requirements.
4.1.3 Essential Criteria Achievable: The stipulation of an essential criterion presumes that it is achievable at reasonable cost. However, should any essential criterion subsequently be determined to be impractical for technical or budgetary reasons, that criterion will be reassessed.
[WTF?? ??? - I've never heard of this type of wishy-washy criteria before, ie. if it still don't work thats OK - we'll make it 'Non-Essential'. For most any other material acquisition program out there - if it does not meet Essential criteria it is Not acceptable - I guess this Basic Tennant just does not apply to the MGS.
Not a very stong assertion for a piece of equipment that is supposed to be the cornerstone of the DFS 'system of systems'. ]
These essential criteria will, however, remain as deficiencies and will be considered for vehicle improvements throughout the vehicle's life span.
Essential
Weapon system of the MGS: Be capable of perforating the frontal turret armour of a T-72M tank at 2000m.
Main armament operational ammunition: AT - APFSDS-T M-428, DM63C and C76 rounds.
The autoloader must: Permit storage of - An APFSDS-T round.
[This seemingly directly contradicts an 8 May 2003 'BRIEFING NOTE FOR ADM(Mat) - MGS' stating "The main gun, a stabilized 105mm with autoloader, will defeat hardened bunkers and armoured vehicles up to T-62 Tank [level II armoured threat]".
In 2003, LCol Luc Petit A/DLR confirmed, that "Doctrine and tactics of the US Interim Force clearly specify that the MGS is not an anti-tank platform but rather an Infantry support vehicle [it will not carry APFSDS ammunition]."
Col Petit also received information in June 2003 that specifically noted that, as to the "MGS - this system is not designed as a medium tank or a tank replacement vehicle. It will be unable to shoot from the move and it's primary role will be direct support of the Infantry [bunker busting, etc]."
As per Oct 2003 report 'Stryker Brigades Versus the Reality of War':
"Serious problems with the MGS Autoloader. The sensors in the MGS autoloader may not be able to recognize certain types of ammunition with brass casings (such as existing CF warshot). The MGS . . . autoloader cannot identify types with accuracy. Brass cased rounds are just not detected. No protective separation from ammunition storage. This is a core survivability issue."
On 9 December 2004 the 'Army Times' admitted that "Stryker program officials are hoping that redesigning the sophisticated loader on the MGS will prevent the jamming problems that last year caused the vehicle to fail reliability tests".
Numerous serving/retired Canadian armour personnel note the Leopard I with its 105mm L7A1 could NOT defeat a T72M (~90cm RHA) frontally at 2,000m, unless, of course, "stockpiled M900 DU ammo" (per Oct 02 CLS 'Info Brief') is used. "The DM63C (Canadian designation C127) APFSDS [47cm RHA penetration at 2km] is most likely the best non-DU standard 105mm NATO projectile available, and that is the round we bought [c2000], but, whether it is fired from the MGS or the Leo I, it will NOT penetrate the turret front of the T-72M at 2,000 meters." Even the latest 105mm M1060A3 APFSDS-T round, using technology derived from the 120mm DM53 round only has a penetration path of 50cm RHA at 2,000m. :fifty:
Meanwhile, CF policy (per CF Director Medical Policy) does not sanction retention of DU munitions in the CF inventory.
M-428 APFSDS round? What is that??]
Essential that the MGS at 38,000 lbs be capable of being transported by the CC-130 for a distance of 1,000 nautical miles [1,852km].
[Presentation to JCRB:
"It has been clear to all involved with the project, including the former Minister's staff, that movement by C-130 is not the normal mode of transport and would only be done in an emergency with limitations.
The vehicle can be prepared for a transport weight of 38,000 pounds. The limitations will probably include a reduced ammo load and removal of the 14.5mm heavy machine gun armour."
Curious that this is an Essential requirement (although as per 4.1.3 that doesn't mean much) as its well known that the 1,000nm range via C-130 is unachievable. :fifty:
Per GAO report 04-925:
"Weight Presents Significant Challenges for C-130 Transport of Stryker Vehicles, Making Requirements and Expectations Difficult to Meet:
With most Stryker vehicles weighing close to 38,000 pounds on board, the distance - or range - that a C-130 aircraft could fly is significantly reduced when taking-off in high air temperatures or from airfields located in higher elevations. In standard, or nearly ideal, flight conditions - such as day-time, low head-wind, moderate air temperature, and low elevation - an armoured C-130H with a cargo payload of 38,000 pounds can generally expect to fly 860 miles from takeoff to landing. Furthermore, . . . a C-130's range is significantly reduced with only minimal additional weight, and ideal conditions rarely exist in combat scenarios. The C-130 aircraft's range may be further reduced if operational conditions such as high-speed takeoffs and threat-based route deviations exist because more fuel would be consumed under these conditions. The more than 41,000-pound weight of the MGS (41,300 lbs Combat Weight per GDLS-C - and thats before any add-on armour to defeat RPGs) would limit the C-130 aircraft's range to a maximum distance of less than 500 miles. Furthermore, according to the Army Test and Evaluation Command's Stryker System Evaluation, in less than favourable flight conditions, the Air Force considers routine transport of the 38,000-pound cargo weight of a Styker vehicle on C-130 aircraft risky, and such flight may not be permitted under the Air Force's flight operations risk management requirements if other transport means are available. In two theatres where U.S. forces are currently operating - the Middle East and Afghanistan, high temperatures and elevation can reduce C-130 aircraft range if carrying a 38,000-pound Stryker vehicle. Furthermore, a C-130 with a 38,000-pound Stryker vehicle on board would not be able to take off at all from locations in higher elevations, such as Afghanistan, during daytime in the summer.
Based on Air Force restrictions "Three Hercules flights are required to transport two LAV-III vehicles", a minimum of 6x CC-130Hs (out of 11 total) would be required for basic intra-theatre movement of 4x 18,734kg (41,300 lbs) MGS, "the usual unit of employment is at least four, at the minimum three", less-than 250 mi - in nearly ideal flight conditions, based on GAO analysis. Plus, at 48% availability - requiring two Hercs assigned to ensure completion of one mission, this doubles the requirement to 12x CC-130H to airlift 4x MGS. (Not accounting for those in normal 3rd line maintenance/upgrades - ie. likely maximum 9 of 11 CC-130Hs available at any given moment.) Keep in mind CC-130s are further restricted as prior DAR 2 had noted: "Typical Maximum Payloads [MPL] for an eastern crossing to Europe are 28,000 lbs for an E-model and H30, and 30,000 lbs MPL for a regular H. Western crossing are limited to 25,000 lbs MPL for an E or H30 and 27,000 lbs MPL for a regular H."
This compares very unfavourably with just 2x BC-17Xs needed to move 6x LAV-III-type vehicles over 3,000 nm. You can't count the 2x CC-130H-30s - weight reduced by some 5,000 lbs - the approx added weight of the 15' stretch mods w\o any additional fuel capacity, therefore not capable of LAV-III transport, but possibly older LAVs.]
Essential that the MGS have a wall-to-wall turning circle no greater than 16 meters in diameter.
[Not very practical for Urban/City ops, unless there is a convenient park or sports field nearby for turnaround.]
Run Flat - It is essential that the MGS be capable of running flat for 40km at 50 km/h [convoy speed] on a hard surface with all the tires on one side of the vehicle deflated for any reason . . . and at a speed of 10 km/h with all tires deflated.
[SBVRW - "Wheel design grossly inadequate for 2 axle operation considering only 2 axles equipped with run-flat inner cores. The reality is that the weight on 4 axles then gets transferred to only 2 - and neither the wheel design nor the axle is up to it because the MGS is grossly overweight.
Note: To save weight, the Army reduced the number of heavy run-flat wheels by half - and deleted the winch on the MGS." MGS overweight also pertains to the following.]
It is essential that the MGS: Be capable of towing a combat-loaded MGS . . . for 5km cross-country, and for 25kms at 30 km/h on a dirt road;
Working Area/Seating - Essential that the MGS incorporate the following:
Individual Space - The MGS must provide for effective operation by at least 95% of the environmentally clothed Canadian military population;
Operational Effectiveness of Crew - The MGS must permit operational effectiveness while moving at 50 km/h . . . by at least 95% . . . military population;
[SBVRW - "Multiple space problems - too many ergonomic issues to list. The ergonomics - human factors - in the Stryker MGS have proved to be appalling. You cannot see what you need to see - and there is no space for 95% of the population;"
Matt noted they have supposedly addressed some of these problems - but for a cramped vehicle, with back cut-down from LAV-III, can now fit what 25% of armour crews? :
]Desirable
The weapon system should be capable of: Perforating the frontal turret armour of the T-80U tank at 2000m;
[See above re: T-72M - Just not gonna happen.] :
Destroying or neutralizing the following targets up to 8000m using CE rounds employing semi-indirect fire techniques - APCs including the BMP-3 and BTR-80.
The maximum ranges for the in service Canadian APFSDS [C76] and HESH ammunitions are 6000m and 8000m respectively.
[MGS capable of IF - I thought only Leo IC2 had this capability?]
It is desirable that the MGS be fitted with a self-recovery winch. [See Note: above]
The MGS should have: An onboard, near silent auxiliary power unit, using the same fuel as the vehicle engine . . . to run essential silent watch systems.
[Per January 2004 'MGS Statement of Operational Requirement Presentation to JCRB' by Maj JA Atkins MGS Project Director, and former M-113LE PD.
"Silent Watch [without the engine on] - 4 hrs [not part of current MGS capability];"]
Any Opinions
