Canadian Forces Latest Investment

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-27 11:49am

$700,000 worth of unsafe grenades. That sounds like a misnomer, but let me say that a grenade that blows your own arm off is a tad more dangerous than your usual enemy blasting kind.

Link.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-27 11:57am

Man Canada is pathetic, what with the Stryker replacing the Leopard...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-27 12:20pm

There's no way these could be hand grenades if they cost 250 dollars, US or Canadian. Even a high end anti thermal anti laser vehicle smoke grenade wouldn't cost that much....though I suppose its possibul this program suffered 60000% cost inflation as well.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-11-27 12:24pm

They're meant to be mounted on the outside of armored vehicles as an AP weapon, not to be used as hand thrown grenades by individual soldiers.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-27 12:31pm

Hm, the other article I saw had an image of a frag grenade, but then I don't trust some reporters. Even so, vehicle mounted grenades like this? Is this wise?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-11-27 12:35pm

Probably not.

If I were a member of the Canadian Forces, I wouldn't want to be marching next to a vehicle with these mounted on it.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-27 12:40pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Hm, the other article I saw had an image of a frag grenade, but then I don't trust some reporters. Even so, vehicle mounted grenades like this? Is this wise?

No its fucking stupid, even if the fuses where safe the entire weapon concept is inherently unsafe and is going to make the supporting infantry rather unwilling to offer support. It also still doesn't explain the price; a Claymore which would work for such a role if it wasn't stupid, is a mere 27 USD.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-11-27 12:41pm

I think the fucker who made the decision to buy these shitty grenades,does`nt know shit about weaponry.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-11-27 01:49pm

Heh, now all we need is a multinational unit equipped with SA-80s, mounted in Strykers, which in turn have these things mounted on them.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-11-27 02:04pm

Somebody got paid off to order these things in the first place, and our penny-pinching government wants to take delivery now because they already paid for them. It's a matter of bureaucracy and politics and corruption; same old story.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-27 03:39pm

Darth Wong wrote:Somebody got paid off to order these things in the first place, and our penny-pinching government wants to take delivery now because they already paid for them. It's a matter of bureaucracy and politics and corruption; same old story.

To such an extent that they're willing to put the lives of their military personnel at risk? That's pretty disgusting. Buying fairly poor hardware like the Stryker is one thing, but buying weapons that fail safety tests and are downright lethal to your own side is ludicrous.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-11-27 04:01pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Somebody got paid off to order these things in the first place, and our penny-pinching government wants to take delivery now because they already paid for them. It's a matter of bureaucracy and politics and corruption; same old story.
To such an extent that they're willing to put the lives of their military personnel at risk? That's pretty disgusting. Buying fairly poor hardware like the Stryker is one thing, but buying weapons that fail safety tests and are downright lethal to your own side is ludicrous.

Remember a few weeks ago in Afghanistan the soldiers who died when the crappy jeep they were in ran over a mine,they chose to get them from political connection,

just like Bush giving first place to Haliburton in Iraq.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-27 05:11pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
To such an extent that they're willing to put the lives of their military personnel at risk? That's pretty disgusting. Buying fairly poor hardware like the Stryker is one thing, but buying weapons that fail safety tests and are downright lethal to your own side is ludicrous.

Well just because they get delivered doesn't mean they'll get issued to troops. Likely they're all going to become training aids for EOD personal

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-27 05:13pm

Montcalm wrote:
Remember a few weeks ago in Afghanistan the soldiers who died when the crappy jeep they were in ran over a mine,they chose to get them from political connection, just like Bush giving first place to Haliburton in Iraq.

I'll say it again for the tenth time. Would someone please show that Bush had anything to do with that decision? Keeping in mind that Haliburton did hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work for the DoD when Clinton was in office.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-11-27 05:35pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Montcalm wrote:
Remember a few weeks ago in Afghanistan the soldiers who died when the crappy jeep they were in ran over a mine,they chose to get them from political connection, just like Bush giving first place to Haliburton in Iraq.
I'll say it again for the tenth time. Would someone please show that Bush had anything to do with that decision? Keeping in mind that Haliburton did hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work for the DoD when Clinton was in office.

Maybe they`re bribing whoever is in office,next election they`ll bribe a democrat.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-28 02:00am

MKSheppard wrote:Man Canada is pathetic, what with the Stryker replacing the Leopard...

They replaced a tank with an APC? WTF???

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2003-11-28 02:24am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Man Canada is pathetic, what with the Stryker replacing the Leopard...
They replaced a tank with an APC? WTF???

Last time I checked, they werent going to use it in the place of a tank, but we are buying them instead of buying new tanks

I believe its mostly so we can have SOMETHING to send overseas with a 105mm gun that isnt to heavy to put into a transport of our own. This doesnt mean we would necessarily use it in the same roll as a MBT however, just something so our troops can have some heavier fire support without relying strictly on allied heavy weapons like we do currently.

If we actually need MBT support where we station our troops it will come from allies. But for basic direct heavy fire support this we could now have on our own with the new Stryker

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-28 02:27am

Icehawk wrote: I believe its mostly so we can have SOMETHING to send overseas with a 105mm gun that isnt to heavy to put into a transport of our own

that 105mm gun doesn't work. the muzzle blast breaks
the god damn vision blocks on the driver's end, and if you try firing it
in any direction other than directly forward, your Stryker MGS tips
over, not to mention really cramped conditions inside it that make soviet
tanks look roomy.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2003-11-28 02:31am

MKSheppard wrote:
Icehawk wrote: I believe its mostly so we can have SOMETHING to send overseas with a 105mm gun that isnt to heavy to put into a transport of our own
that 105mm gun doesn't work. the muzzle blast breaks
the god damn vision blocks on the driver's end, and if you try firing it
in any direction other than directly forward, your Stryker MGS tips
over, not to mention really cramped conditions inside it that make soviet
tanks look roomy.

The thing tipping over I can see, however I have never heard anything about it damaging itself before. Not to sound prudish but do you have any sources for that?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-28 02:45am

Icehawk wrote: The thing tipping over I can see, however I have never heard anything about it damaging itself before. Not to sound prudish but do you have any sources for that?

http://www.g2mil.com/Stryker.htm

An MGS showstopper; the Muzzle/Muzzlebrake is too close to the drivers compartment/front slope. The overpressure has been taking out DVE's, lights, mounting brackets, transmission selectors, and split a CVC shell. Good thing there wasn't a human head in it. MGS prequalification test was scheduled to start in Nov. and has been moved back 3 times because none of the autoloaders on the 5 MGS's in Aberdeen Proving Ground work!

In sum, MGS testing @ APG is dead in the water. The Autoloader built by inexperienced Aries will not cycle. The best so far is 4 cycles until failure. The AGS Autoloader ran THOUSANDS without failure. Talked to a "friend" at YPG for Gun Testing for MGS. He told me that at APG yesterday they tested sound levels and that the M-68A1E1 with pepperpot has a Unsafe Zone for troops 900 meters right and left of the muzzle. I think that really is 450 meters each way. That means the Infantry you're in close combat support of can't be within a half a click when you fire. This sent another shock wave thru the PM's office. The first solution offered was let's cut off the pepperpot muzzle brake. GM's answer was No-Can-Do! Let's add them up: Recoil, Overpressure, Muzzle Blast, extreme decibel levels, Autoloader failure. I'm told that the top 10 showstoppers have no real fixes at present. They may have to delay test for 6 months or more to find solutions.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2003-11-28 03:04am

MKSheppard wrote:
Icehawk wrote: The thing tipping over I can see, however I have never heard anything about it damaging itself before. Not to sound prudish but do you have any sources for that?
http://www.g2mil.com/Stryker.htm

An MGS showstopper; the Muzzle/Muzzlebrake is too close to the drivers compartment/front slope. The overpressure has been taking out DVE's, lights, mounting brackets, transmission selectors, and split a CVC shell. Good thing there wasn't a human head in it. MGS prequalification test was scheduled to start in Nov. and has been moved back 3 times because none of the autoloaders on the 5 MGS's in Aberdeen Proving Ground work!

In sum, MGS testing @ APG is dead in the water. The Autoloader built by inexperienced Aries will not cycle. The best so far is 4 cycles until failure. The AGS Autoloader ran THOUSANDS without failure. Talked to a "friend" at YPG for Gun Testing for MGS. He told me that at APG yesterday they tested sound levels and that the M-68A1E1 with pepperpot has a Unsafe Zone for troops 900 meters right and left of the muzzle. I think that really is 450 meters each way. That means the Infantry you're in close combat support of can't be within a half a click when you fire. This sent another shock wave thru the PM's office. The first solution offered was let's cut off the pepperpot muzzle brake. GM's answer was No-Can-Do! Let's add them up: Recoil, Overpressure, Muzzle Blast, extreme decibel levels, Autoloader failure. I'm told that the top 10 showstoppers have no real fixes at present. They may have to delay test for 6 months or more to find solutions.

Thats unfucking believable

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-11-28 03:47am

Does this thread answer the thread about why the us always makes fun of canada reasonably or does it need further explaination?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-28 05:40am

darthdavid wrote:Does this thread answer the thread about why the us always makes fun of canada reasonably or does it need further explaination?

Sergeant York

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-11-28 05:42am

Icehawk wrote:
Last time I checked, they werent going to use it in the place of a tank, but we are buying them instead of buying new tanks

I believe its mostly so we can have SOMETHING to send overseas with a 105mm gun that isnt to heavy to put into a transport of our own. This doesnt mean we would necessarily use it in the same roll as a MBT however, just something so our troops can have some heavier fire support without relying strictly on allied heavy weapons like we do currently.

If we actually need MBT support where we station our troops it will come from allies. But for basic direct heavy fire support this we could now have on our own with the new Stryker

NZ just went for 25mm cannon on our version..which I understand is different from yours.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2003-11-28 11:53am

Stuart Mackey wrote: NZ just went for 25mm cannon on our version..which I understand is different from yours.

You're thinking of the LAV3. We actually have those already as well with the 25mm autocannon. But now we are ordering the Stryker mobile gun vehicle which looks similar but is different and a bit more advanced IIRC.
.