Note: I'm really starting to dig that Mobile Gun System. But what's got my head spinning is that we haven't seen even a prototype of the Marine Personnel Carrier version of this vehicle. My bet is that they're putting all there eggs into winning the M-113 Replacement Program for the US Army. Compared to that program the MPC is small fry stuff. But back to the MGS. I'd love to see that on a Lockheed/Patria Havoc or a BAE/Iveco Super AV.
Once you pick a vehicle there are lots of good turret options to choose from to get an MPG system.
ReplyDeleteYou can make a lot of interesting arguments about whether 105mm was really the right way for the Army to go, though at least they finally got it into service.
The more interesting question is whether the USMC even wants to go there and, if not, why not? There was no heavy gun version of the LAV and none of the AAV-7, though earlier generations of vehicles always had cannon armed versions back through the LVT(A)-1.
i love the idea of, esentially a light tank/ifv, aka light merkava!!
ReplyDeletebut wish they went for a 120mm gun akin to the CV90120,
some Army type once told me the only way to mount a mobile gun was on tracks~
ReplyDeleteI'm not a big fan of the remote turret. The commander needs direct top vision, and from what I hear, it's very cramped inside.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely NOT a light tank. It is a "Mobile Gun System". The distinction is very important. Try and use it like a tank and you'll get people killed. It is an infantry support weapon.
105mm made sense because it fired a good-sized, rifled HEP round for wall breaching, and a 120mm tank gun probably won't fit on the Stryker chassis.
I like the looks of the CMI CT-CV 105mm turret better, but it wasn't around when the MGS was conceived.