CASR
|
- |
|
In Detail |
|
by T.S. Rea |
|
Defence Technology — March 2004
Does Canada have alternatives to the Mobile Gun System?
Part 2 — Stryker MGS: “... I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue ...” 
Heavy armoured vehicles are expensive to operate. As a general rule, a vehicle twice as heavy will cost four
times as much to operate. Not that surprisingly, the US Army spends more to operate and maintain its
fleet of M1A2 main battle tanks [1] than Canada spends on defence in total. The cost of deploying armour
to distant locations produces many times a greater burden — hence the tens of billions of
dollars required to fund a major war effort where heavy armour plays an essential role.
Why then does the Mobile Gun System weigh a third as much as a heavy tank, and yet have virtually no armour protection to speak of? The reason is obvious, the vital component of armour essential for the platform to be successful was the very last consideration in the design of the vehicle. As with the LAV III armoured personnel carrier upon which it is based, the MGS has only 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) of steel-plate armour. And, since the MGS is already overloaded, the prospects for ‘bolt-on’ armour improvement for the vehicle in the future are not good. [2] It is suggested that the MGS should not be employed in situations where its lack of armour protection makes it vulnerable to destruction. Since virtually all tactical situations encompass such risks, the recommendation is a tacit acknowledgement of the vulnerability of the system. For the MGS to justify its existence in a combat zone, it must be capable of surviving at least long enough to engage the enemy. How did this situation arise? The single greatest flaw in designing the MGS/LAV vehicles (and similar wheeled light armour vehicles) was starting with the running gear. This meant that suspension components dictated armour optimization. Such considerations might seem highly practical at a glance but, the ‘economies’ don’t hold up under closer scrutiny. We should consider the MGS suspension system. [1] Weighing 60+ tonnes and powered by a 1500hp turbine engine, the M1A2 is capable of very high speed but, it also consumes prodigious amounts of jet fuel. It is interesting to note that future M1 production may use MTU diesel engines. [2] Bolt-on armour panels have been designed for the MGS by DEW Engineering and GDLS Canada. However, since the vehicle is already overweight, this armour (composite panels as used on other Strykers) must be removed for air transport. < Part 1 — “... All his armour wherein he trusted ...” > Part 3 — “... that willing suspension of disbelief ...” |