Background: replacing the Sheridan By 1992, the
armored gun system (AGS) emerged as a top priority procurement program for the Army. The Army requested proposals for a 20-ton air-droppable
light tank to replace the
M551 Sheridan. The Army sought 300 AGS systems to go to the
82nd Airborne Division and the
2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Four competitive bids emerged. In June 1992, the Army selected the
FMC Close Combat Vehicle, Light proposal. This was later type-classified as the
M8 armored gun system. In 1996, the Army canceled the AGS due to the service's budgetary constraints. The
Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s and other Middle Eastern problems led to the
Carter Doctrine, announcing that the Persian Gulf was of vital interest to the United States. In the 1980s the
Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force gave way to
U.S. Central Command. But it was quickly clear that heavy armoured forces (68-ton M1 Abrams and 33-ton M2/M3 Bradleys) would take too long to deploy, either by sea or air. They also needed large amounts of fuel, repair parts, and maintenance support. A more rapidly deployable and sustainable fighting vehicle was necessary. This led to the consideration of lighter, wheeled AFVs that could be delivered faster and would be less of a supply burden.
Interim armored vehicle competition The
General Dynamics mobile gun system originated from the Canadian armoured combat vehicle requirement. The turret was an updated version of the one used on the GD–
Teledyne Expeditionary Tank, which was entered into the
Armored Gun System competition in the 1980s. In October 1999,
U.S. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki laid out his vision for a lighter, more transportable force. He called for mid-weight brigades that would strike a balance between heavy armor and infantry. The Army subsequently launched the
Interim Armored Vehicle acquisition program. One of the required vehicles was the MGS. According to Shinseki, the MGS's mission differed greatly from the AGS. the AGS was also intended to be used in the anti-armor role, whereas primary targets for the MGS included bunkers, buildings, weapon positions and troops. A team of
GM Defense of Canada and GDLS submitted a variant of the LPT assault gun to meet the MGS requirement. General Dynamics was responsible for most of the MGS.
United Defense LP proposed an
M8 armored gun system (AGS) and two variants of the mobile tactical vehicle light (MTVL), one with the AGS turret and 105mm gun, and another with a 90mm gun. Two other competing contractors submitted bids for infantry carriers, but declined to submit offers for the MGS requirement. Unlike the infantry carrier variant, MGS prototypes were not evaluated on the Army's proving grounds. This resulted in protests from lawmakers and industry officials. The service maintained that bid samples would be unnecessary and complicate the competition. In September 2000, the Army told bidders it was considering plans to increase by 200 the number of MGS units purchased. Though the service did not say why it was interested in more MGS units, however
Defense Daily speculated that the Army could equip light divisions with the MGS. In November 2000, GM–GDLS won the contract for both the infantry carrier and MGS. The MGS was later type classified as the M1128. GM–GDLS was forced to suspend work on the IAV while the
Government Accounting Office evaluated UDLP's protest of the award. GAO denied the protest in April 2001.
Further development and initial production Soon after the contract was awarded, the MGS IOC date slipped two years from December 2001 to November 2003. The Army allowed GM–GDLS to substitute the Stryker
ATGM variant for the MGS in the interim. In its protest, UDLP alleged that the Army had known about the schedule slippage before awarding the contract, and unfairly disregarded this in their decision making. GDLS delivered the first of eight pre-production mobile gun systems in July 2002. In August, the Army conducted an air-drop test of a Stryker
M1132 engineer squad vehicle weighted to simulate the load of the MGS. Around the same time, the Army identified issues with the air-dropability of the MGS, among the heavier of the Stryker family. Still more pervasive problems persisted with the autoloader. In January 2005, the Army said it had ruled out fielding the AGS, saying the system lacked a sufficient inventory of spare parts that would be required to maintain the vehicle. The Army doubled down on its support for the MGS, which it said it could begin fielding in summer 2006. In October 2004, the Pentagon approved limited low-rate production of the MGS after a Defense Acquisition Board review. During limited production, 14 vehicles were produced. During this time, General Dynamics implemented fixes to the ammunition handling system to improve reliability. In November 2004, the Pentagon approved an Army request to move the vehicle into low-rate production, for a total of 72 vehicles. In August 2008, the Army awarded GDLS a $326.5 million contract for the production of 62 MGS. In February 2008, the Pentagon approved full-rate production of the MGS after a Defense Acquisition Review. The Army chose to defer full-rate production while it waited to validate fixes made to the MGS. The Army deferred full-rate production in 2010. In 2010, GDLS began incorporating
explosive reactive armor on MGS production units. but the company instead entered a variant of the
Griffin light tank. As of May 2016, 3 mobile gun systems had been written off during combat operations out of 142 produced.
Retirement in 2023 In May 2021, the Army announced they would divest all mobile gun systems by the end of 2022. The decision was made following an analysis that found its autoloader had become expensive to maintain and that the M1128 had not been upgraded with a double V-hull. It was more efficient to eliminate the platform and focus on firepower improvements such as equipping Strykers with
30 mm cannons (
M1296 Dragoon) and
CROWS-J mounts, providing better distributed lethality capabilities that will not be lost from removing the MGS.
Foreign interest Canada had liquidated about half of its fleet of
Leopard 1 main battle tanks in the early 2000s. The Canadian Army planned to replace the MBTs with 66 mobile gun systems. However in 2007, the Canadian Army reversed itself and decided instead to procure
Leopard 2. ==Combat use==