Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stryker ramps up to unveil Mobile Gun System
Army News Service ^ | May 9, 2006 | Annette Fournier

Posted on 05/10/2006 2:30:10 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4


Stryker ramps up to unveil Mobile Gun System

By Annette Fournier

FORT BENNING, Ga. (Army News Service, May 9, 2006) – The newest version of the Stryker vehicle, designed to provide fire power to Infantry units, will be unveiled May 15 at Fort Knox's Armor Warfighting Symposium.

The development of the Mobile Gun System is being managed by Fort Benning's Training and Doctrine Command System Manager-Stryker/Bradley.

The system was developed to meet the infantry’s need for a highly mobile support vehicle to supply rapid, direct fire, specifically during close assaults, said Dave Rogers, a TSM-Stryker senior analyst. The Mobile Gun System will eventually be integrated into Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.

"The Mobile Gun System brings a tremendous battlefield capability to the Stryker formation, providing direct fire support to infantrymen in close, complex terrain," said Col. Donald Sando, the director of the TSM Stryker/Bradley.

The Mobile Gun System's firepower includes a turret-mounted 105 mm cannon, a mounted M-240C machine gun and a pedestal-mounted M-2.50 caliber machine gun for the vehicle commander.

The cannon can blast holes through reinforced concrete walls creating a breach point for infantry, and destroy bunkers and machine-gun nests that typically pin down infantry squads and platoons.

The 105 mm cannon can also take out snipers, Rogers said, because with one shot, it can destroy the entire area where a sniper is firing from. The cannon also fires canister rounds, which are used when confronting large groups of combatants. The canister round sends out a spray of titanium balls, similar to the pellets from a shotgun, which can impact several targets at once.

It's the heavy fire power and versatility that will make the Mobile Gun System an asset in combat, Rogers said.

"People will assume it's a tank when they see it because it has a big gun," Rogers said, "but it's much lighter than a 70 ton tank, making it more mobile. Its primary role is to support the infantry, not to go head to head with tanks."

The Mobile Gun System also features the Ammunition Handling System, an ammo loading device for the 105 mm cannon. With the ammo system, several types of rounds can be loaded in advance, then the ammunition types are displayed on the cannon operator's central control panel monitor. Depending on the mission, the operator can select which ammunition to use and the Ammunition Handling System automatically loads the cannon.

This capability gives the Mobile Gun System an advantage over other Army vehicles, which must be manually loaded with specific ammunition by a fourth crew member, Rogers said. The Ammunition Handling System makes loading and firing on targets faster and more efficient, he said.

"When planning for the 10 variants of Strykers, the Army took into account everything a Soldier could need on the battlefield," Rogers said. "From that, they developed the other Stryker variants, like the Medical Evacuation Vehicle, the Antitank Guided Missile Vehicle and the Engineer Squad vehicles, which are all uniquely designed for their mission. The Mobile Gun System fills a hole, and gives the infantry another capability."

The Mobile Gun System will be the last Stryker variant to be fielded. The Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle, the other new Stryker vehicle, was fielded to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment at Fort Lewis, Wash., in February. Soldiers with the 2nd Cav. Regt. will also be the first to receive the Mobile Gun System. They will receive 27 vehicles from July to August, which will be tested in an operational unit environment.

The Army designated 14 Mobile Gun System vehicles for extensive testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz., and White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

Testing the vehicle in extreme climates and terrain helps the Mobile Gun System's designers look for potential problems that may appear in a combat environment.

"People go to great pains to almost abuse the vehicle," Rogers said. "It's tested realistically in harsh settings so we can identify any shortcomings during the testing stage. We don't want to find out about a problem after it’s in combat, so we're not cutting corners. During the tests, these vehicles aren't treated with kid gloves. We want to make sure we don't equip our Soldiers with a weak vehicle."

It will still be a while before the Mobile Gun System will get to the battlefield. The Defense Acquisition Executive will decide if the vehicle should go into full rate production in July 2007.

(Editor's note: Annette Fournier writes for the Bayonet.)

www.ARMY.mil OCPA Public Affairs Home www.ARMY.mil OCPA Public Affairs Home

 


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; US: Alabama; US: Florida; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: stryker; wheeledarmor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last


1 posted on 05/10/2006 2:30:12 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

Oh yes... that's what i'm talking about.


2 posted on 05/10/2006 2:32:32 PM PDT by AliVeritas (I'm ethically challenged. Don't give me special treatment, just treat me like a Kennedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4


Awwwwwwwweeeeeeeeee...yeah!


3 posted on 05/10/2006 2:32:53 PM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr; ALOHA RONNIE; American in Israel; American Soldier; archy; armymarinemom; bad company; ..

Stryker Brigade Combat Team Tactical Studies Group (Chairborne)


4 posted on 05/10/2006 2:33:43 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

We really could have used this about two years ago in Sadr City when we lost eight good men to the "residents" of Sadr City.


5 posted on 05/10/2006 2:34:33 PM PDT by travlnmn41
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

Interesting.

I'd hate to be on the receiving end of that cannon!


6 posted on 05/10/2006 2:37:55 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
The 105 mm cannon can also take out snipers…

Under statement of the year!
7 posted on 05/10/2006 2:40:00 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
All the best fancy expensive equipment in the world is useless if we handcuff our troops with Vietnam or worse types of Rules of Engagement....like not being able to destroy a mosque when receiving fire from it, allowing our enemies sanctuary in Syria and Iran, allowing rat nests like Ramadi to continue to plant IEDs.

Tagline:
8 posted on 05/10/2006 2:43:13 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ((FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

Selectable, automatic loading - AND canister rounds. It's like God's Remington 1100.


9 posted on 05/10/2006 2:44:20 PM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
The cannon also fires canister rounds, which are used when confronting large groups of combatants. The canister round sends out a spray of titanium balls, similar to the pellets from a shotgun, which can impact several targets at once.

A whiff of grape to send the Jihadis off to their promised white raisins; how appropriate!

10 posted on 05/10/2006 2:45:18 PM PDT by Redcloak (Don't try this at home. I'm a trained, professional stunt poster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve
I used to hate to be on the empty case ejecting end. They're hot and they hurt!

Same gun was on the old M60A1.

11 posted on 05/10/2006 2:46:02 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
All the best fancy expensive equipment in the world is useless if we handcuff our troops with Vietnam or worse types of Rules of Engagement

Bears repeating.

12 posted on 05/10/2006 2:48:59 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Build the fence. Sí, Se Puede!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

They got a version with quad .50's? Or a chain gun?


13 posted on 05/10/2006 2:49:19 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

Wonder what happened to all the 105mm BEEHIVE flechette sprayers? I've seen pictures of VC nailed to plywood hooch walls with flechettes.


14 posted on 05/10/2006 2:49:37 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
This Mobile Gun System (MGS) is the most dangerous bit of fraud, waste and abuse to come along in years. The machine is not capable of performing the mission, it is too heavy to meet mission and can not hit the ground ready to fight. We have been bilked of millions to support Shinsuckie's ego and will end up killing a bunch of our young soldiers.

FLAME ON

15 posted on 05/10/2006 2:54:18 PM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan
This Mobile Gun System (MGS) is the most dangerous bit of fraud, waste and abuse to come along in years.

Source, please.

16 posted on 05/10/2006 2:57:33 PM PDT by llevrok (When they come to take my guns, I will give them the lead first....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
No.

There are LAV's and LAV III's with chain guns. The US Army doesn't have them.


17 posted on 05/10/2006 2:59:51 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

Many of us were saying the same thing about the Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle three years ago. We were wrong three years ago.


18 posted on 05/10/2006 3:01:42 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SLB

Commentary?


19 posted on 05/10/2006 3:03:01 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

It does look like an abortion with that high profile. Fire that 105MM with the gun traversed on anything but level ground and watch the rollovers begin. I've heard that the round is lower powered than the typical 105 tank gun, so that confirms that there is a problem here.


20 posted on 05/10/2006 3:05:27 PM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: travlnmn41

Sorry to hear that. If ever there was an argument for leafletting and subsequent carpet-bombing then Iraq is it.


21 posted on 05/10/2006 3:12:05 PM PDT by PeterFinn (Anita Bryant was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

Yes, I remember the M60 quite well, as I took delivery of enough of them to equip a company in the summer of 1961. M60 and M60A1 both had the 105. They are quite distinctive with the blast suppressor in the middle of the tube.


22 posted on 05/10/2006 3:24:03 PM PDT by calex59 (No country can survive multiculturalism. Dual cultures don't mix, history has taught us that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
The 105 mm cannon can also take out snipers…

After all, it's nothing but a big rifle. All said, this is just a reversion to the Assault Gun concept that started in WWII.

23 posted on 05/10/2006 3:41:18 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

Killing flies with a sledgehammer!


24 posted on 05/10/2006 3:49:31 PM PDT by Redcitizen (When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk. -Tuco)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

They "buzzed" off...


25 posted on 05/10/2006 3:50:36 PM PDT by Redcitizen (When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk. -Tuco)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Image hosted by Photobucket.com when i worked on the gun project, it was called the Armored Gun System... but then again it was mounted on tracks at the time too.
26 posted on 05/10/2006 4:08:01 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chode
Different project.


27 posted on 05/10/2006 4:17:05 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

Cite evidence please, or explain your position. I value the opinion of those who are knowledgeable, even if I disagree. I don't pay much attention to the others.


28 posted on 05/10/2006 4:17:58 PM PDT by centurion316 (Democrats - Al Qaida's Best Friends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


29 posted on 05/10/2006 4:20:11 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: calex59

That's not a blast suppressor, its a bore evacuator.


30 posted on 05/10/2006 4:20:20 PM PDT by centurion316 (Democrats - Al Qaida's Best Friends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC

The enemy WANTS us to destroy mosques, so the media can saturate the airwaves with "atrocities" and foment more fanacism amongst the terrorist recruiting pool. Is that what you want?


31 posted on 05/10/2006 4:23:40 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4; TomasUSMC
Is that what you want?

Short answer is yes, that is EXACTLY what Tomas wants.
32 posted on 05/10/2006 4:24:29 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq - Rob Schnieder is a Carrot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

33 posted on 05/10/2006 4:31:55 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

What ever. I was turret mechanic on M60s for about a year, and before that on M48s for about 2 years. M60 was superior to M48, with or without the 105!


34 posted on 05/10/2006 4:33:40 PM PDT by calex59 (No country can survive multiculturalism. Dual cultures don't mix, history has taught us that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: calex59

I'll take any M48 with a 90mm and whip any M60 with a hole in the mantlet where the gun isn't.


35 posted on 05/10/2006 4:50:36 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


36 posted on 05/10/2006 4:54:32 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
but it's much lighter than a 70 ton tank, making it more mobile.

And a lot more vulnerable to RPGs and other relatively light weapons. They'd be meat for any real tank, most especially the latest Russian and Chinese examples. The M1A2 Abrams tank uses a 120 mm gun, the Russian T-90 (dating from '93) and the Chinese Type use a 125 mm. The in development Russian tank (T-94?) reportedly uses a 152mm main gun.

In the pictures I wonder if those are downloaded charges, or ones with a light or no projectile? The vehicle doesn't seem to be rocking much, yet one major problem they've had is the thing flipping over when the gun is fired to the side.

The photos show the vehicle without the "slat armor" which was added to the other versions of the vehicle after operational testing revealed a high vulnerability to RPG fire. The slat armor adds 5,000 pounds to the weight of the vehicle and causes many problems with the operation of the vehicle and its systems, such as the tire pressure monitoring and inflation system. It also causes noise in various scenarios and by making the vehicle effectively larger, restricts it's operations in the urban environment.

37 posted on 05/10/2006 4:55:51 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m8ags.php3
38 posted on 05/10/2006 4:58:45 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I've heard that one flipped over from firing over the side. Post us a pic of that wreck. I've never been able to find one.


39 posted on 05/10/2006 5:02:21 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

'The canister round sends out a spray of titanium balls'

I'm thinking he has the wrong metal here.


40 posted on 05/10/2006 5:04:18 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
Image hosted by Photobucket.com it had the same gun as the Striker... exposed autoloader with no turret armor. five road wheels, low flat top body. prolly just a one-off... our company built the electro-optic fire control system.
41 posted on 05/10/2006 5:04:55 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xone

'I'm thinking he has the wrong metal here.'

A she, forget it.


42 posted on 05/10/2006 5:05:03 PM PDT by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

All true, but apparently worth the trade-offs. I haven't seen or heard of any units in Iraq removing the slat armor. It has reportedly done a good job defeating the RPG threat. Its not a perfect world and I don't know of a perfect armored vehicle.


43 posted on 05/10/2006 5:05:33 PM PDT by centurion316 (Democrats - Al Qaida's Best Friends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
You should have heard those flechette rounds pop off up close! The word "beehive" was an understatement!

Never saw Sir Charles nailed to anything, but that round sure chewed up some major arse!

44 posted on 05/10/2006 5:27:09 PM PDT by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
They'd be meat for any real tank.

A lot of our vehicles would be. That makes them no less useful. The MGS is not a tank destroyer, it's an assault gun.

Some day in the future MGS platoons may be forced, in the chaos of battle, to engage T-72's. I would not want to be in those T-72's when that happens.

45 posted on 05/10/2006 5:41:02 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
I'm not afraid of what the media will say. They will always lie about US, regardless of the facts.


Meantime our troops are killed because we worry more about the opinion of moslems - who already dislike us anyway - than about protecting our troops from needless casualties.

IN Peacetime public opinion is swayed more by love.
IN War - by FEAR.

It is a time of War.
Did we worry about the opinion of the Germans, or the Japanese? Did we win? How long did it take US?

But since we started worrying about the opinion of our enemies, we have ended up with results that were less than worthy of the sacrifice of our troops.
Tagline:
46 posted on 05/10/2006 5:53:01 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ((FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
You don't NEED to care about what the MSM will make of manufactured atrocities. Your failure to understand the IO battlespace is of no tactical consequence.

Did we have any Embedded Training Teams in the Free German Army?

We're not fighting Third Generation Industrial Age Warfare against sovereign states. The mosques you want blown up are in the country of our ALLY, Iraq. The occupation is over. Iraq is our Host Country, now.

Have YOU had to operate under Rules of Engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan? Recently? They change. I gotta believe somone in a higher pay grade than you or me reviews the ROE's to make sure they allow our troops to accomplish the mission with as few friendly casualties and as little colateral damage as possible.

47 posted on 05/10/2006 6:49:10 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4
We were wrong three years ago.

You were right. It is better than an armored HMMV but that is not saying a lot.

48 posted on 05/11/2006 2:34:14 AM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
I've heard that the round is lower powered than the typical 105 tank gun, so that confirms that there is a problem here.

It is the same ammo and that is not the problem, it is the low round count in the basic load, the time required to reload the ready ammo rack (carousel), the high vehicle weight before you add the requisite armor, not to mention an RPG cage which I don't think will go on the MGS as it interferes with the gun. Add to that the limited fuel on board when deployed as a means to cut transport weight. The problems with this outfit are myriad; the taxpayer has been sexually assaulted.

49 posted on 05/11/2006 2:41:26 AM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson