J
Jason Jarvis
Guest
From The Ottawa Citizen:
--------------------------------------------------
Technical problems plagued Stryker
Report this year warned against buying tank replacement until bugs worked out
a journalist
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, October 31, 2003 - The vehicle selected to replace the military‘s tanks has been dogged by technical problems and Canada would be "ill-advised" to accept delivery of the $600-million fleet until more money is spent correcting those troubles, a top defence official was warned earlier this year.
Defence Minister John McCallum announced yesterday that the government would buy the Mobile Gun System, or MGS, a vehicle he said would be purchased in record time. The wheeled vehicle, designed to replace the country‘s Leopard tanks, is seen by Mr. McCallum as a key part of the army of the future.
But tests by the U.S. military have revealed a series of problems with the main armament on the U.S.-built MGS. The blast from the gun damaged parts on the armoured vehicle. In addition, there have been problems with the weapon‘s loading system. And soldiers who tested the vehicle complained it was too cramped.
"The MGS continues to encounter technical faults that have not been satisfactorily resolved," warns a May 8 briefing note produced by staff for Alan Williams, the Defence department‘s top equipment official. "It is expected that they will be corrected with money and time."
"Canada would be ill-advised to accept delivery of MGS until the technical faults" are corrected, it added.
But Canadian army Col. Bob Gunn said while there have been problems with the vehicle‘s weapon, he has been informed that those have been fixed. "I‘m sure every time they go and try something else they‘ll find another little bug some place and fix it," added Col. Gunn, who is involved in determining the army‘s equipment needs.
Another army official said that the military expects that, with all the research and development money the U.S. is spending on the MGS, the vehicle will be ready by 2006 when it is delivered to Canada.
Pete Keating, an official with General Dynamics, the company building the MGS, noted that the problems were fixed several months ago and the vehicle will be put through even more rigorous testing by the U.S. military.
The U.S. army is also buying the MGS and a similar wheeled vehicle designed to carry troops. The armoured vehicles are collectively known as the Stryker.
Another Canadian Defence department report produced in the summer noted that U.S. soldiers who took part in testing the Stryker complained about the intense heat in the vehicle in desert conditions. Vehicles also suffered massive damage to their tires on some terrain, the study pointed out.
Canadian military officials also anticipated criticism of the purchase because of concerns the new vehicles are vulnerable to attack by enemy tanks and might have problems being transported by air, according to the Defence department documents. They also noted that since the military has had a shortage of technicians to work on armoured vehicles, some Canadians might ask questions about whether the army would be able to maintain the MGS.
Mr. McCallum defended the purchase in the Commons yesterday, noting that it was the army that requested the MGS and that the generals believed it was the best vehicle for their needs. Opposition MPs said Mr. McCallum‘s decision to get rid of the Leopard tanks puts Canada on par with Luxembourg and Iceland which are also without heavy armoured vehicles.
The Stryker vehicles have also had their share of critics in the U.S. military. Some American officers argue that the move toward such lighter forces is dangerous. They believe that heavier armoured vehicles are needed on battlefields such as in Iraq. Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker, while good on roadways, lack the mobility for cross-country warfare, they maintain.
In addition, Canadian military researchers warned five years ago that replacing the Leopard tank with a lighter armored vehicle, similar to the MGS, would not only cost Canadian lives but would be morally and ethically wrong.
But army commander Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier said that while the Leopard tank has many qualities, it is limited in what it can do on missions such as those the military now finds itself taking on. In the past, the army has not made much use of its tanks, he added.
"The strong qualities of a Leopard tank parked in Valcartier or Edmonton or elsewhere are useless to our soldiers in Kabul, Eritrea, Bosnia or anywhere else that we deploy them," said Lt.-Gen. Hillier.
"In some cases, we can‘t get it there because the only aircraft that can fly in are the C-130s and it‘s too heavy for that. In other places, it cannot manoeuvre and I give you the streets of Kabul, as an example of that."
--------------------------------------------------
Okay, I won‘t argue with LGen Hillier about the ability to actually deploy the MGS -- if we had the aircraft to do so -- but what good would it do in Kabul?
As I understand it, one of the main reasons why the Leo was not deployed to the Balkans was because of what it was -- a tank. Tanks don‘t do peacekeeping. I‘m not so sure an MGS wouldn‘t be as inflammatory to Afghanis as a Leo (unless of course they read our papers and know it‘s a turkey).
That said, I have to theoretically agree with Old School that something is better than nothing. I‘ve got an old friend in the LdSH, however, and the thought of him deploying in an MGS wouldn‘t help me sleep any better at night.
I understand the economical and logistical reasons behind wanting to standardize vehicles on the same platform, and for the ability to stuff them into a Herc, but I‘ve got to think there are better, operationally-proven systems out there, like the Centauro or Rooikat.
Does anyone know anything about the procurement program for this vehicle? What other contenders were there?
--------------------------------------------------
Technical problems plagued Stryker
Report this year warned against buying tank replacement until bugs worked out
a journalist
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, October 31, 2003 - The vehicle selected to replace the military‘s tanks has been dogged by technical problems and Canada would be "ill-advised" to accept delivery of the $600-million fleet until more money is spent correcting those troubles, a top defence official was warned earlier this year.
Defence Minister John McCallum announced yesterday that the government would buy the Mobile Gun System, or MGS, a vehicle he said would be purchased in record time. The wheeled vehicle, designed to replace the country‘s Leopard tanks, is seen by Mr. McCallum as a key part of the army of the future.
But tests by the U.S. military have revealed a series of problems with the main armament on the U.S.-built MGS. The blast from the gun damaged parts on the armoured vehicle. In addition, there have been problems with the weapon‘s loading system. And soldiers who tested the vehicle complained it was too cramped.
"The MGS continues to encounter technical faults that have not been satisfactorily resolved," warns a May 8 briefing note produced by staff for Alan Williams, the Defence department‘s top equipment official. "It is expected that they will be corrected with money and time."
"Canada would be ill-advised to accept delivery of MGS until the technical faults" are corrected, it added.
But Canadian army Col. Bob Gunn said while there have been problems with the vehicle‘s weapon, he has been informed that those have been fixed. "I‘m sure every time they go and try something else they‘ll find another little bug some place and fix it," added Col. Gunn, who is involved in determining the army‘s equipment needs.
Another army official said that the military expects that, with all the research and development money the U.S. is spending on the MGS, the vehicle will be ready by 2006 when it is delivered to Canada.
Pete Keating, an official with General Dynamics, the company building the MGS, noted that the problems were fixed several months ago and the vehicle will be put through even more rigorous testing by the U.S. military.
The U.S. army is also buying the MGS and a similar wheeled vehicle designed to carry troops. The armoured vehicles are collectively known as the Stryker.
Another Canadian Defence department report produced in the summer noted that U.S. soldiers who took part in testing the Stryker complained about the intense heat in the vehicle in desert conditions. Vehicles also suffered massive damage to their tires on some terrain, the study pointed out.
Canadian military officials also anticipated criticism of the purchase because of concerns the new vehicles are vulnerable to attack by enemy tanks and might have problems being transported by air, according to the Defence department documents. They also noted that since the military has had a shortage of technicians to work on armoured vehicles, some Canadians might ask questions about whether the army would be able to maintain the MGS.
Mr. McCallum defended the purchase in the Commons yesterday, noting that it was the army that requested the MGS and that the generals believed it was the best vehicle for their needs. Opposition MPs said Mr. McCallum‘s decision to get rid of the Leopard tanks puts Canada on par with Luxembourg and Iceland which are also without heavy armoured vehicles.
The Stryker vehicles have also had their share of critics in the U.S. military. Some American officers argue that the move toward such lighter forces is dangerous. They believe that heavier armoured vehicles are needed on battlefields such as in Iraq. Wheeled vehicles, such as the Stryker, while good on roadways, lack the mobility for cross-country warfare, they maintain.
In addition, Canadian military researchers warned five years ago that replacing the Leopard tank with a lighter armored vehicle, similar to the MGS, would not only cost Canadian lives but would be morally and ethically wrong.
But army commander Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier said that while the Leopard tank has many qualities, it is limited in what it can do on missions such as those the military now finds itself taking on. In the past, the army has not made much use of its tanks, he added.
"The strong qualities of a Leopard tank parked in Valcartier or Edmonton or elsewhere are useless to our soldiers in Kabul, Eritrea, Bosnia or anywhere else that we deploy them," said Lt.-Gen. Hillier.
"In some cases, we can‘t get it there because the only aircraft that can fly in are the C-130s and it‘s too heavy for that. In other places, it cannot manoeuvre and I give you the streets of Kabul, as an example of that."
--------------------------------------------------
Okay, I won‘t argue with LGen Hillier about the ability to actually deploy the MGS -- if we had the aircraft to do so -- but what good would it do in Kabul?
As I understand it, one of the main reasons why the Leo was not deployed to the Balkans was because of what it was -- a tank. Tanks don‘t do peacekeeping. I‘m not so sure an MGS wouldn‘t be as inflammatory to Afghanis as a Leo (unless of course they read our papers and know it‘s a turkey).
That said, I have to theoretically agree with Old School that something is better than nothing. I‘ve got an old friend in the LdSH, however, and the thought of him deploying in an MGS wouldn‘t help me sleep any better at night.
I understand the economical and logistical reasons behind wanting to standardize vehicles on the same platform, and for the ability to stuff them into a Herc, but I‘ve got to think there are better, operationally-proven systems out there, like the Centauro or Rooikat.
Does anyone know anything about the procurement program for this vehicle? What other contenders were there?