Mobile Gun System

i looked on the search fuction about the Mobile Gun System version of the stryker which according to this article www.defencetalk.com... about the unveiling of the mgs on May 15 at Fort Knox's Armor Warfighting Symposium.

Does anyone have anymore information about this Symposium and any real pictures of the mgs?

What first the Bradley isn;t good enuigh any more, so they got the Marines LAV and called it a Stryker. Now the LAV err excuse me, Striker is being replaced?

Man, is it a mech?

I'll take one of those as well.

This is great, funny stuff!

The 105 mm cannon can take out snipers, Rogers said, because with one shot, it can destroy the entire area where a sniper is fireing from.

No kidding, this guys is sharp. Must have graduated with Watson honors at the Sherlock University. A 105 mm "shake and bake", could clear out "all IEDs" in a route, but it isn't the way things are done.

Then they say;

During the tests, these vehicles aren't treated with kids gloves, so we're not cutting corners. We want to make sure we don't equip our troops with a weak vehicle.

Is this to presume they cut corners before, and did equip our soldiers with weak "vehicles"? I'm not going to say any more on that.

Just wonder what this thing looks like, now it better be lower in profile and have the goods.

The MGS is not a replacement for the STRKER, just a direct fire support version. It has an unmanned 105mm rifled main gun and, I am pretty sure, doesn't carry troops in the APC role because the ammo takes up the hull. The gun is, of course, British.


Compared to equivilent systems it has the good points of an excellent gun (better than the typical 90mm gun fitted to many comparable systems), good commonality with the other STRYKER varients and the turret is crewless which is a plus. But it isn't the most powerful (see CV-90-120 with its 120mm main gun) and cannot really replace an MBT.

The exact same gun/turret has been around a while and can fit a number of chassis'. This photo shows it fitted to a Spanish Pizarro tracked IFV. It would be fair to say that this Pizarro is better armored than the STRYKER:



The problem as I see it is mission creep - it will be tempting for military planners to assume that they can deploy these IN PLACE of MBTs, particularly since it is air mobile.





[edit on 16-5-2006 by planeman]

Well, here are a couple of links and a picture of the MGS in action. Personally I find this variant necessary to bring that extra firepower while still maintain a relatively low weight and a high capable armor package. It is not an MBT, it does not offer the armor protection or firepower of an MBT but in my opinion does fill the middle role between an APC with a 25 or 35 mm cannon and an MBT.
Also, how would one come to the conclusion that the Spanish Pizarro is better armored than the Stryker, not saying is not just wondering how you arrived at that conclusion.



Link
Link
Link

Also, I would like to point out the Stryker ATGM and Morter Carrier variants.

Until the MGS fielding, however, tactical missions will be met with Stryker anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) vehicles. The ATGM mission is to provide a tank- (or equivalent vehicle) killing capability. The in-lieu-of ATGMs, used by the first and second brigade combat teams until the fielding of the MGS, will fire a TOW bunker-buster missile to meet the MGS capability. The current TOW missiles do not provide that capability.

Link

The Mortar Carrier (MCV-B) entered service in August 2005. The MCV-B's 120mm or 60mm mortar is mounted and fires from inside the vehicle through doors that swing open at the top of the vehicle. As well as the mounted mortar, the vehicle carries a second which has to be unloaded before firing. The vehicle has a digital fire control system and a crew of five.

Link

TOW Anti-Tank missile

For penetration of tanks protected with explosive reactive armour (ERA), TOW 2A is equipped with a tandem warhead. A small disrupter charge detonates the reactive armour and allows the main shaped charge to penetrate the main armour.

An extended range TOW 2B missile, TOW 2B Aero, has a range of 4.5km, which is achieved in only a few seconds longer than the flight time of TOW 2B to 3.75km. Two modifications are made to the TOW 2B. A longer wire is required for the longer range and a new aerodynamic nose has been fitted to allow stable, controllable flight to the extended range, while using the current propulsion system.

Link

[edit on 16-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

thanks for the info does any see any reports on the Fort Knox's Armor Warfighting Symposium? the MGS was to be shown today or yesterday i was hoping for pictures from that.

Wonder what other equipment was shown there, too bad the US doesnt buy some or license a version of the warrior and some challenger2.

Does anyone know what came of the duel mortar 120mm turret that the US was looking into using?

Re the Mortar version. I have no idea which mortar they will use but I do know that it is a poor performer when compared with the AMOS system. The AMOS is an automatic twin barrelled mortar which is mounted in a turret. It's rate of fire is so high that one vehicle can exceed the firepower of a whole battery of conventional mortars:

Originally posted by char2c35t
Wonder what other equipment was shown there, too bad the US doesnt buy some or license a version of the warrior and some challenger2.

What would be the point of that? We don’t need the warrior and certainly not the Challenger II.

Planeman, what’s the price of the AMOS? If you cant produce them in sufficient quantity then its not going to have a huge effect on the battlefield.


[edit on 17-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

the point is we wouldnt need the british jk

warrior lower profile than the bradley can carrier more troopers and better armour than on the bradley and the styker, the chall2 will our 120mmm smoothbore in place of the rifled barrell for ammo commonality has better armour and two in a mixed force would give a mean one -two punch. I dont mean buying a lot of them maybe one or two per unit to be the spearpoint.

That AMOS is that the finnish or swedish turret they were studying or testing? I thought it was a great idea to build a styker or bradley hulled version of the mortar.


All this makes me more curious about the Symposium wonder when pictures and the like will come out.

WestPoint23,

You must surely know the problems with this argument, right?

1. A 105mm MGS is NOT a tank. And it _never will be_. Which means that you can only hope to win ranged fights as long as your caliber and sighting overmatch keeps the engagement distances beyond your foes ability to shoot back. Something that no breach based system will ever achieve with compareable TOF and multishot accuracy as a _guided_ rocket. Nor will these 'gun platforms' intimidate an MBT foe into not fighting for cities at very short LOS. Because 'airdelivered' means few total vehicles in the combat team and thus an even smaller fire support fraction where, at short LOS, 'it's anybodies game'.

2. If you have a breach loaded system it rightly deserved to be called a _gun mortar_ which is to say drop the muzzle and fire for bloody effect as the modern day equivalent of an /assault gun/ in it's traditional (i.e. non tank destroyer) role of supporting infantry. This is particularly useful when you consider the number of guilty-conscience voiced comments coming out of OIF that we were using sledgehammers on straw houses when in fact simple HE superquick type rounds could easily breach exterior walls without going through four more behind AND a mortar shell is 1/10th the cost of a legacy (in-inventory = 10 grand) TOW and 1/30th the cost of a Javelin.

3. Cost is as size of force does. If you bring 1-2, 25 ton class, vehicles into a theater on the 70 or so heavy lift airframes with 'make your own APOD' forced entry capability, you had damn well better FIGHT TO WIN with those 50-100 vehicles. And that means a small force with a LOT of punch that _absolutely refuses_ to be engaged at LOS. Indeed, with the AMOS and a guided 120mm round like the Strix or PGMM you can win the indirect fight out to 7.5-10km, which is where an APC can beat an MBT, even today. While _if forced to fight_ LOS, you at least have a much higher 'within 10` base bearing, **blaze then laze!**' ability to kill targets as fast as the system will cycle. i.e. Assuming you have supporting designators (PGMM) or a wide angle seeker (Strix) you will get a few more of them before they punch an APFSDS out the rear troop door of your _converted APC_.

CONCLUSION:
Especially with alternatives like the AMS ('half of AMOS') coming online and LOSAT/CKEM _continually_ being bumped-back to keep the worthless tankers from looking like the utter neanderthals they are, there is no excuse for this /obsession/ with direct fires as an excuse to keep large combat forces filled with manual engagement elements in play.

Because you will fight with what you brung and if you don't bring enough stick to whack the baddies back before MOTORING AWAY from their empty kill sack you will be dogpiled and ripped to pieces when they get to grips with you.

And this is something that EVERY maneuver warfare expert has /known/ would be a consequence of exporting modern armor and fire control technology since at least the middle 80's.


KPl.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by ch1466]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Planeman, what’s the price of the AMOS? If you cant produce them in sufficient quantity then its not going to have a huge effect on the battlefield.

I don't know the price but I wouldn't have thought it was prohibitive and in the sense that it is a massive force multiplier it could offer savings in terms of battery reduction. It was a Swedish/Finnish program and it is entering service. It is now owned by British Aerospace (BAE Systems). It comes with a generic turret that could almost certainly be incorpiorated into the STRKER, Bradley etc. In fact the Swedish even deploy it on very small patrol boats which gives them awesome firepower.
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...

KPI. The AMS 120mm mortar is also made by, guess who; BAE Systems..


[edit on 17-5-2006 by planeman]

Originally posted by ch1466
You must surely know the problems with this argument, right?

1. A 105mm MGS is NOT a tank. And it _never will be_...

Not quite sure what argument I was trying to make, as I sated above, ...It is not an MBT, it does not offer the armor protection or firepower of an MBT...

Originally posted by Planeman
KPI. The AMS 120mm mortar is also made by, guess who; BAE Systems..

Planeman, do you have a thing for BAE Systems? I’ve noticed you throw that name around quite often.

Planeman,

>>
KPI. The AMS 120mm mortar is also made by, guess who; BAE Systems..
>>

'In partnership with GDLS' (I know, let the Americans pay for it!)'

www.defense-update.com...

And given the _Patria_ license is to AAI-

www.aaicorp.com...
www.hightechfinland.com...

I have no problem buying what we need to do the job the right way, the first time. Not from Finnland. Not from the UK.

What pisses me off is the notion that we will accept a second-best morons solution to the indirect fires mission as an excuse to adopt a LOS system which will GUARANTEE DEFEAT at the hands of present day armor forces.

When we could do the indirect attack with a blooper round and up to 14 simultaneous impacts and send ROBOTS like the MULE-II to go forward with four CKEM to dual with those idiots that just /insisted/ on playing 'same horizon, quick draw!' games.

Of course the real question may well come down to 'will it fit'. Since the turret on both vehicles looks too high for a C-130 and maybe questionable for a C-17. Which brings you to the 'modular=common' vehicle chassis theme rather than a proper mission system design with (at most) common /subsystem/ automotive components.

PAAM/LAAM in the Netfires system will beat any SPH ever made a Hummer/Shadow-pulled CLU that can be taken, in multiple, on every airlifter we have.

AMS will beat any tank ever made, in a system whose /turret clearances/ need not be restricted to a high body APC wheeled chassis.

CKEM on a UGV will play holding force/speed bump long enough to get the range from which the Netfires and AMS can gain dominant attrition. Indeed, with four, virtually /guaranteed/ (4-6km) kills, the HVM mounted on throwaway 'scout car' type (low to ground) vehicles can itself be dominant in anything up to a troop vs. company (4v10-12) level engagement.

The Air Farce will never be there so long as they don't have a cheapo UCAV that they can 'spare'. And when DEWS and hunting systems come online, their ballistic-glide=cheap and long-horizon=first fires advantage will also evaporate.

The Army needs the ability to reach deep WITHOUT blue suiter 'permission'. And that will NEVER HAPPEN in a contemporary or even 'objective' level MCB based around manual fire and LOS driven weapons system metric.

It's time we stopped kidding ourselves and did a massive house cleaning at the upper echelons of all the armed services, totally replacing their R&D and Acquisition agencies with ones that define what a chicken is, separate from the foxes' bigoted self-interests.


KPl.

Originally posted by ch1466
Planeman,

KPI. The AMS 120mm mortar is also made by, guess who; BAE Systems..


'In partnership with GDLS' (I know, let the Americans pay for it!)'

www.defense-update.com...

And given the _Patria_ license is to AAI-

www.aaicorp.com...
www.hightechfinland.com...

I have no problem buying what we need to do the job the right way, the first time. Not from Finnland. Not from the UK.

Actually AAI got their liscence from Patria-Hägglunds not jusyt Patria. Hägglunds are owned by... you guessed it... BAE Systems.

Here's a video of the AMOS being put through its paces on a CV-90 chassis, from BAE Systems: www.baesystems.se...


Re the AMOS. Basic specs:
Time to fire:

Again, _I have no problem_ buying the right system to get the job done, the right way, the first time round. From anyone.

Any industrialized nation has the means inherent to it's driven-to-excel population base to create capable weapons. Indeed, with the stifling dominance of Aim High thinking in this land, there could almost be said to be an inherent predisposition towards international innovation.

That said, the movie you show is pathetic.

Because it fails to show THE BUSINESS END of the AMOS in action. Namely the ability to put 26 rounds downrange in one minute (3 times that of an average manual loaded MBT like the Abrams) and what, half that number on-target _near simultaneously_.

I'm not criticizing you of course but to illustrate a superior counterpoint, there was a Discovery Channel program on this evening called 'Future Weapons' in which the Excaliber CLGM was demonstrated with a 15` offaxis firing mode to help clear fall of shot away from urban elevated buildings or 'own troops'. Flying some 22km downrange, the round impacted within 2m of target center.

SHOW THAT WITH STRIX! Or PGMM. Or, or, or (Israeli, Russian, Chinese equivalents). On a distributed/dispersed 'field target' set. And _now you will see_ the /power/ of a munition delivery system whose **on round** or designator encoded (UAV, mast, whatever) abilities let you kill targets up to SIX MILES AWAY. With one vehicle. Near Instantaneously.

Do this and the MBT as an effective method of prosecuting the careers of Armor Generals will go the way of the dodo. SNAP! Like that. There to remain until deflector shields or really quick APS can manage to shoot down clusters of brilliant ATGW ala _Hammer's Slammers_.

More importantly, it will show you what you can do to support troops in contact in conditions where the threat is one step up from the sticks and brickbat level of force construct (any caveman can us an AK, but can he clean it?).

Because, mounted on a PROPER chassis (one which can be loaded in most if not all our _tactical_ Airlifters) the AMS is the way to keep the infantry supported with instant-FSB capabilities. Not the bloody breachloaded, 'musket on a slant' of the current Stryker system.


KPl.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by ch1466]

The AMOS video is very dissapointing. but I don't for a moment doubt its abilities - in fact I'd regard it as a genuinely awesome system which will influence the general nature of future battlefields.

Re Excaliber GLGM. The program said it was the first GPS guided Howitzer round. I don't think that was actuially correct - British boffins where reported in the UK press to have successfully tested such a round several years ago. I don't know any details but it is just one of the many inacuracies in that program - mind you it is good watching anyway.

Thales (/Shorts) THOR turret with the superb Starstreak missiles were awesome too. The Starstreak is another great system - definately better than the Avenger and equivilent systems and has a very good anti-tank capability (if a little expensive to throw at vehicles?). But the THOR turret is also compatible with a range of ATGWs including Hellfire, Spike and Ingwa. I'd rather it was mounted on a more survivable chassis though, preferably with more ready to use rounds and a mixed load of Starstreak and Ingwa or Spike.

Planeman,

>>
The AMOS video is very dissapointing. but I don't for a moment doubt its abilities - in fact I'd regard it as a genuinely awesome system which will influence the general nature of future battlefields.
>>

The question is whether it will be used as a tool of oppression or one which leads to a 'finally, we start to make a world' expression of bringing an 'after' to conflicts that is beyond the current realization of civil war in Iraq. In the end, this may well be the most 'real world' (affordable, repeatable) of supporting fires in the BLOS category and so it stands the highest chance of being abused.

>>
Re Excaliber GLGM. The program said it was the first GPS guided Howitzer round. I don't think that was actuially correct - British boffins where reported in the UK press to have successfully tested such a round several years ago. I don't know any details but it is just one of the many inacuracies in that program - mind you it is good watching anyway.
>>

I don't see an SPH in the future of rapid-deployed forces. If you don't keep up with the longer-caliber barrel game, you will always lose by range and preregistration of fires effect as you send armor forces into situtations not unlike that of the BUFF dropping WCMD-SFW on that Iraqi tank brigade.

Most aren't quite there yet, even as dumb DPICMs, but they will be by 2010-2015. Better to keep the maneuver elements small, dispersed and not dragged down by 20-30 ton AFV with skin that can be penetrated by 14.5mm or better.

>>
Thales (/Shorts) THOR turret with the superb Starstreak missiles were awesome too. The Starstreak is another great system - definately better than the Avenger and equivilent systems and has a very good anti-tank capability (if a little expensive to throw at vehicles?).
>>

Nothing more or less than what CKEM is supposed to be as a hyper velocity round. Though I must say that my texts all quote a Mach 4-4.5 burnout velocity for the SS and I have some question as to the ability of a laser-anything to not sound off a AVR-2 or equivalent LWR, particularly if the rounds are not specifically pointed /away/ from the target and then snapped-into-bearing at the last moment.

>>
But the THOR turret is also compatible with a range of ATGWs including Hellfire, Spike and Ingwa. I'd rather it was mounted on a more survivable chassis though, preferably with more ready to use rounds and a mixed load of Starstreak and Ingwa or Spike.
>>

I rather thought that the 'official' UK Starstreak mount was the Alvis Stormer with an ADADS cuer and that the shoulder fire missile of choice had gone over to the unitary Starburst? Of course this sytem is little more than an R3 shelter mount and as such is about as likely (for cost and vulnerability to secondary engagement if nothing else) to be employed in a surface observation or sniping role on (or in defense of) low-value targets as it is to sprout wings and fly.

The thing that STILL gets me about these people is that they /insist/ on making it a reactionary game. Where one missile has to flyout (albeit at incredible velocities) to an endgame before you dare slew the optics off to kill another target. Not even a strapdown fire-on-bearing, slew, fire-on-bearing, guide, guide ability. Which is strange because it would appear that the optics turret traverse and elevation is indeed independent of the equivalent launcher slew.

This leaves you vulnerable to all kind of problems:

1. Opposed bearing engagements. APG-78 is a good 10 and some say 15-20km system in it's own right. APY-8 is 30km capable from less powerful (KVA)airframe. If you do a bobup'n'weave engagement, particularly from behind a HSSS type smoke screen, things could get ugly on nothing more than a fire-on-launch-plume indicated (FLIR) secondary from a second chopper.

2. JCM ranges SS. Even the helo launched version of this basic AGM-114K + trajectory mod Hellfire gives you a 16km rangeout. While fastmover/high altitude capabilities again take you to 26+ _with_ a trimode seeker of which two 'colors' are autonomous.

3. Silent Eyes/Finder.
As the logical MAV followon to AMUST in a trolling firefinder role; are you TRULY going to snap at fleas just to keep the big dawgs from seeing your snake-in-the-grass routine?

NO. If you want to do decent AAW, you _must_ go to remote JLENS+Hilltop style cueing and _get the round in the air before the target crosses the local horizon_. Be it a SLAMRAAM with an honest 15-20km loft of it's own. Or something more sensible like MALI. There is no damn excuse for playing quick draw mcgraw with a threat that may very well have more platforms in air than you have ready-rounds onmount. EVEN IF YOU WIN ALL FOUR ENGAGEMENTS. You're screwed.
Look at that disastrous fight over Najaf. 32 Apaches taken out of service and NONE by a hypersophisticated ADV (one shot down by a 'farmer and his nagant rifle'). That defense in depth with trashfire popup dummies is how you defeat a close in threat. 'Sophisticated' air defense is about denying them the transit and maneuver phases of a _standoff munition attack_. And there is just no way that ground vehicle can stage-forward to get into a dominant ambush position with modern sensor tech tracking it all the way. You MUST send a missile. And that dog had better hunt. Literally, on it's own, well over the horizon.

CONCLUSION:
This is why I prefer a universal CLU type vertical cell system because, as a dumb launch box type shooter I can preemplace my sensors forward and in depth as a networked Observer Corps or acoustic/optical system which doesn't have to be much more than a CCD (vidcam) + artillery finder level of flyby cheapo efficiency.

And when I'm not shooting, I fold the cells flat and didimau on out of there with nothing more than a pickup truck. Or I load SSMs and plink or track the COIN threat as a true, multimission, platform.


KPl.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by ch1466]

reply to post by Char2c35t


this discussion is really old but i have taken this vehicle to combat if you still want pics to do a update then i have them

reply to post by Char2c35t


i have pics and updates on the performance of this vehicle in iraq. i used it from mar 07 to june 08 you can see videos at www.youtube.com/tankcommander33