We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:47:55 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification FCS-NLOS-C... silly name. All part of the "breaking thought patterns" push in the Transfomation effort, where we call things by essentially made-up names so that we putatively think about them differently. The same operating paradigm that gave us "UEx" and "UEy" and "UA" so that we wouldn't slot things into Corps, Divsion, Brigade, but instead think of them as Units of Employment x and y and Unit of Action. So, we couldn't call a cannon a cannon, either. Or artillery. No, it was Future Combat System Non-Line-Of-Sight-Cannon. This would distinguish it from... Line-of-Sight cannons, which were direct fire systems. Of... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:47:30 -0600 It's a plot to get the Air Force more C-17s. The only thing that'll be C-130-transportable when everything shakes out will be the gun crew... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51142 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51142 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:01:17 -0600 That part might be true, Big D, but the gun is M777 (also a BAE product) and the chassis is one of the FCS variants. It is *not* Crusader-light automotively or with the gun. The stuff you listed, perhaps. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51137 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51137 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:25:24 -0600 BAE? I thought the bunch that built Crusader went back to the shop and cut the weight down again. My understanding was that NLOS-C was built heavily on salvaged Crusader technology (particularly the automatic loader, automatic aimer, self-TOT fire control system, etc.) with a lighter (and shorter) gun and much lighter chassis. Is this incorrect? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51136 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51136 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:12:18 -0600 Band tracks? Does that mean, if you break one, you have to throw the whole thing away? Can't just get hammers and wrenches and replace only the bad parts? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51130 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51130 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:10:37 -0600 It was on the local History channel last week. Combat weight quoted was 20 tonnes. The barrel is about 25 cal vice 39. It carries about 25 rds ready to fire, and can fire all in less than four minutes. And it fires Excalibur. Etc. I suspect the auto-loader is derived in part from the AS-90; it also appears to use the modular charge system rather than the standard bag charges. Now, if extended field trials are desired, I'm certain 1 RCHA would be willling to cooperate. Cheers http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51129 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51129 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:28:48 -0600 The future redleg will be a combination "upper echelon" mechanic/computer techno-wizard who can keep all the robotics, electronics, and mechanical systems on each NLOS running by himself in the field. With NLOS, GPS and centralized BDE C3I, who needs crew chiefs, BCs, FDOs, and Bn TOCs? The saved crew slots will be transitioned into Civil Affairs personnel, to rebuild infrastructure and win the hearts and minds of former enemies as soon as the initial combat phase is over. Why, they'll all be our friends and we won't need the "infantillery" to hold the ground at that point, John! LOL http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51121 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51121 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:50:55 -0600 In comparison to most other SP 155 systems, yes. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51120 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51120 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:23:52 -0600 Thanks. Light you say? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51119 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51119 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:15:00 -0600 Ah, but MajMike - we're going to automate all that, too. Bolos loom. Heh, given that the artillery is being used as Infantillery, hopefully the saved crew slots will go to the Infantry - because right now two-thirds of a any given artillery battalion are being used as infantry at any given time. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51118 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51118 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:05:35 -0600 auto loader means one less person to pull maintenance, radio watch, and security... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51117 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51117 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:02:12 -0600 What? No Turret? The gunners are gonna get rained on? Sacrilege! Okay I am kidding. I am for mobility, flexibility and stability. Light is not bad, dependable is even better. What are the concerns people have about the new piece? What caliber is it? I assume it is self-propelled? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51116 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51116 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:51:52 -0600 Obviously, I shoulda posted the pic, but I was busy. It *is* light, Jim. Teeny-tiny aluminum chassis, no turret. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51114 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51114 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:38:07 -0600 US Army Field Artillery. I started my military life in the Marines as a Field Artilleryman. I guess I thought it would be neat to ride. I guess I failed to focus on what F.O.'s did. Except for a short tour as an Artillery Liaison Officer (some of which I humped and the last little bit I rode), and an XO. Mostly I humped. Then I was a Rifle Company CO and it was all Infantry after that. I think the terminology presented here is a good sample of how the military bureaucracy becomes in Monty Python terms, “Bureau of Funny Names”. Auto everything means to me, a lot of weight. Of course I haven’t seen the thing, but it sounds like this Hog is gonna be monstrously heavy. As of a few years ago I know the Corps was going through the mental anguish of deciding what to do with Artillery. Some argued for automated mortars, some for the 105mm, some for light weight 155mm towed. That debate is the never-ending story. Anyone remember the Howtar? Who will we face in the next war? An Army, or some kinda guerrilla? Although the Sov’s have faded, it leaves the Chinese and a few others where a large heavy Army is the only way to go if we don’t go nuclear. We seem to be intent on the automated heavy heavy stuff. But what about the bush warriors? What about the Small Army and the backwoods stuff? How do artillerymen support those guys, and with what? No disrespect to the Wing wipers, but you know the gunships leave at first light. You know that aircraft get weathered in. You know that the planes have limited time on target, and limited weapons. How do you propose to support with Artillery the next Operation Anaconda? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51113 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51113 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:21:15 -0600 Damn spell checker. Open sights. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51112 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51112 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:11:22 -0600 I thought all our artillery and mortars too are NLOS. Of course you can use both over open sites in a jam and I assume this new cannon will too. NLOS more jargon to confuse. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51111 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51111 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:08:30 -0600 " .... autoloading systems ...." I never saw anyone use the hydraulic rammer in an M109. Everyone preferred the speed and reliability of old-fashioned, human-powered rammer staffs! LOL http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51108 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2006/10/artillery_in_the_news.html#comment-51108 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:11:53 -0600