Comments for I'm not sure crews will be all that fond of the "Lego Gun"

I'm not sure crews will be all that fond of the "Lego Gun"

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 07:55:18 -0600

By "Lego Gun" I of course mean the NLOS-Cannon, the Army's next hope for a new self-propelled cannon. The picture below is of our latest fielded gun, the M777.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-09

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:25:10 -0600

Oh bugger off, Bill!

Jeez, ya admit to ignorance of ONE measly acronymn and ya NEVER hear the end of it...

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-04-09

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:59:58 -0600

China and Russia .... and oftentimes France .... are the reasons that UN diplomacy and sanctions will always be hopeless when it comes to dealing with threats to American security. They are not our friends, and they have their own strategic and economic interests that almost always oppose ours.

Any US president who doesn't already recognize this fact is not just naive, but is pragmatically allied with them against us.

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:29:10 -0600

John of Argghhh!:

I do understand the usefulness, and doctrinal need for SP Art. Maneuver War may not be the favored play of the day, but it is still in the inventory and there are still potential needs for it in the times ahead.

My initial kneejerk type reactions will come from a USMC perspective and that viewpoint will often be toward lighter, more robust, less finicky, more flexible type gear and systems, but the US Army is different and has different needs. There's more room in the US Army for specialized systems and more budget for maint and replacement.

I do remember when the 10th Mar would go to Ft Bragg for a shoot. When jeeping around the trails between gun positions or on the road during position changes, it was not at all unusual to see a self propelled gun (175mm or 8") on the side of the road with the crew standing around kicking rocks while waiting for the fixers. A single gun in those bore sizes is a rather significant portion of the available support fire. The towed guns would often loose a truck to malfunction, but would be able to readjust loads and free up a truck to replace the broked one. But, for all I know, the 175mm and/or 8" were too heavy to even be towed by truck.

But, to keep things in a bit of perspective, this was the time when guns were so worn out that many gun crews dug in "spider holes" for themselves to jump into when the gun fired because their gun might be the next to blow out the breach lock or crack a tube. General vehicle maint was a massive problem in those days due to tight budget and replacement parts were nearly non existent.

Hell, budget was so tight back then that the USMC had to cut out much of the organized training and go with more ad hoc stuff at company level. Even rifle marksmanship training was cut in half to save ammo.

As to the EMP issue... I think we should be able to count on it coming at us soon. The Iranians didn't invent the copper plate armor piercing mines. The Russians gave them that. Anything that Russia can build will be in jihadiscum inventory eventually.

And, from what little bits and pieces I've managed to stumble across in the interwebs, PDRC looks to be gearing up with an eye toward attacking our space based comms/nav systems. Field deployable EMP wouldn't be out of the question for them to produce and distribute either.

The only thing holding both the Russians and the Chinese at this time, imo, is the issue of deniability. Once that gets worked out, I suspect it'll be Game On for them. I have very little doubt that France will also join in once either or both of the others get a non-retaliation response from the US.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:55:54 -0600

The Relaxation Tub of Argghhh is dangerous?

Does OSHA know?

Does OSHA care?

Does Josh know what OSHA means?

Film at eleven...

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:48:14 -0600

Do they not have heating coils in the pitot tubes? Or do they just not know when to switch them on?

What's the only gauge that isn't dependent on electrical power, hydraulic (fuel or oil) pressure, or static and dynamic pressure differential?

The Outside Air Temperature gauge in the cockpit window. No pilot, no need for a cockpit window, or that thingy installed in the window, the engineers reasoned. Since the only high-altitude testing they did was over Arizona and Nevada during the summertime (because the skies were nice and clear), they never encountered icing *during the tests*. They stuck heaters in the pitot tubes, but never added an instrument to let the operator know when to turn 'em on.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:41:11 -0600

And the RTA is a known danger...

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:33:39 -0600

High Intensity Radio Transmission Area, High Intensity Radio Transmitting Activity, or Hawaiian Islands Rapid Transit Authority.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:30:27 -0600

I didn't FORGET that one, I just didn't know that was the meaning associated with the Blackhawks.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:27:31 -0600

But...what does HIRTA stand for?

[Looks at the short bus pulling away]

Memory of a goldfish. You called that one right.

High Intensity Radio Transmission Area

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:53:49 -0600

But...what does HIRTA stand for?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:40:50 -0600

The HIRTA threat came from the interference with Blackhawk control systems, leading to incidents of turning perfectly serviceable helos into Yard Darts, which, as we know, is hard on crew and self-loading cargo.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:18:02 -0600

There's a *reason* the Army invented the fairy tale that HIRTAs affected all Army aircraft, and not just Blackhawks -- and it wasn't to fake out the Sovs.

Uh. Google says Hirta is a Scottish island, or a High Intensity Radio Transmission Area. It won't tell me what it means with helos. Will you? Please?

There's a *reason* that we lost Predators to pitot icing -- and it wasn't because the aircraft wasn't designed for high-altitude flight.

Do they not have heating coils in the pitot tubes? Or do they just not know when to switch them on?

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 08:32:42 -0600

"As for fancy autoloaders .."

Heck, we never used those fancy hydraulic rammers in our old M109A2's as we were trained to do, prefering to do it the old-fashioned way with rammer staffs.

Slow and clunky vs fast and efficient.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:55:08 -0600

All I know is, God help the soldier if someone develops a cheap localized EMP producer, since we tossed TEMPEST shielding out with the baby and bathwater years ago, and just about everything has integrated circuitry these days. How many microproccessors does the individual soldier haul into battle these days?

Grimmy - I don't disagree on the issue of over-complicating things - I was just addressing the issue of SP vice towed and why they were there.

As for fancy autoloaders, while I'm sure the Lego Launcher design has benefited from BAE's experience building naval mounts, naval mounts exist in a different stress regime than ground combat gear does - and has immediate access to greater parts storage and skilled mechanics, at least I would think.

Of course, if the gun jams when you need it, that point might be moot., afloat or ashore.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-08

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:02:16 -0600

There's a *reason* that low-tech, "legacy" Cobras destroyed more armored vehicles in DS/DS than the high-tech, then-new Apaches, and it wasn't because there were more of 'em in-theater -- because the Apaches outnumbered the Cobras.

There's a *reason* the Army invented the fairy tale that HIRTAs affected all Army aircraft, and not just Blackhawks -- and it wasn't to fake out the Sovs.

There's a *reason* that we lost Predators to pitot icing -- and it wasn't because the aircraft wasn't designed for high-altitude flight.

High-tech is luvverly -- when it isn't interfered with too strongly by combat operations in the real world...

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-04-07

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:13:27 -0600

John of Argghhh!:

I'm not anti-mechanization by any stretch. I do realize there's plenty good reason to have mech arty. High speed maneuver war requires such a thing, from my understanding of it.

I am against hyper-mechanization though. Military weaponry needs to be kept as simple and robust as possible.

Also, I do realize that with the issue in arty and arty type weaponry, my opinion is of little to no real value. I was never a cannon cocker. The only thing I know of the specialty comes from scuttlebutt and/or rants from those in the speciality that were pissed off enough to rant on the issue.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-07

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:10:01 -0600

I'm entirely sure that there is at LEAST one Chinese military official grinning from ear to ear right now, calmly waiting for the day when every last American airplane, helicopter, tank, SP artillery piece, and naval vessel is an "unmanned aerial/naval/ground vehicle", at which point he will reveal that his team of hackers has known how to hack and override the controls to our unmanned vehicles all along, and by the time we even begin to work on securing them, we'll be witnessing scenes straight from Terminator...except it won't be happening across the whole world, it will JUST be America.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-04-07

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:18:11 -0600

I understand about your crew concerns, John, and I agree. But I was thinking more along the lines of COMPLETELY unmanned, robotic, remotely controlled, non-crewed, self-propelled howitzers / tanks / IFVs.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-04-07

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:17:10 -0600

but not manufactured for the same level of personnel protection or service lengths as we expect today.

Yet, Frank, that is exactly one of the concerns - crew protection - that I've grumped about since day one of FCS (and I've been involved, in various capacities, since about day one) that Secretary Gates specifically enumerated in his speech yesterday regarding cutting the FCS vehicles.

Grimmy - while there is truth to what you say about drive trains, that's why we have tow bars. Disconnect the final drives and Gun 2 tows Gun 3. Or the recovery vehicle does. By your logic, we shouldn't have motors at all, and everything should be drawn by humans. Even horses break down and are hard to feed in a desert.

Another reason SPs were built was so that the guns could keep up with the tanks, especially when gallivanting about off the hardball. Of course, when we built new tanks and IFVs in the 80's, and just loaded more weight on the 1950's era M109 chassis, the guns were having trouble keeping up with the tanks and IFVs anyway. Which was why we built Crusader (lonely chassis on Cannon Walk at For Sill that it is) and the Brits the AS90 and the Germans the PzH 2000.

There are also issues of crew survivability and ammo haulage with towed vs SP guns, all of which led us to having SP guns for the heavy force, and towed guns for the intermediate and light forces. And to eventually develop a wheeled chassis for the MLRS for the light guys.

Comment from JGlanton on 2009-04-07

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:19:47 -0600

>>The guts in that thing look similar to the internals of a modern naval gun mount

Good eye. The same team designed the 5" MK45 Naval guns, AGS and other naval guns.

Comment from JGlanton on 2009-04-07

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:18:01 -0600

>>The guts in that thing look similar to the internals of a modern naval gun mount

Good eye. The same team of engineers designed the Navy AGS and other naval guns.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:31:15 -0600

Grimmy,

My own personal view is that as these things get more automated and numerous, some of your very valid concerns regarding reliability and durability will get more "manageable", in this sense:

So much of our current thinking on armored vehicles result from their being heavily "armored" to protect human crews. Because they are so expensive, we usually build them to last long enough to recoup our investment in them, and then we usually only buy and build enough to equip units that have the required manpower to support and crew them.

But what would be the impact if these things started to be considered more "disposable" and "expendable" ... and cheaper? And more capable of being remotely operated?

They'd have to be built well enough to perform their missions, but not manufactured for the same level of personnel protection or service lengths as we expect today. Without the need to carry 4-6 crewmen per vehicle, what if 4-6 crewmen (or a MAINT section) could support a whole battery / company / troop of these smaller, cheaper, more mobile, less armored, and cheaper vehicles that are remotely operated from a single CP or TOC?

I bet DoD planners would love to cut down on personnel costs. This reduction of combat personnel would also free up other personnel and resources to perform the tasks that are needed after the fighting ...... civil reconstruction, constabulary, etc.

In this scenario, the EMP countermeasures that John mentioned previously would be critical, as well as cyber defense efforts to protect whatever network provided command and control, and their MAINT and supply trains.

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:34:22 -0600

I have questions too.

1. By radically reducing the crew, do you not also radically increase the "stay awake" load on the remaining crew? This is a mobile gun, so crew must be awake during movement. At least one will probably have to be awake at all times while the gun is in place. When are the crew supposed to be able to sleep enough to keep from going jell brained?

I realize that when in heavily developed positions, such an issue can be addressed by supplementing the crew with watchers and helpers and dedicated guards and such, but not all our fights will be from fortified FOBs in the future, will they?

Also, having spent some time in an arty btn (non gun bunny support job) I did manage to pick up on some of the frustrations and concerns of the profession, as they existed way back when. One of those was mechanization. A gun tube mounted permanently to a drive train is, all too often, a dead drive train with a useless gun on it. Towed guns can be hitched to available haulers and loads readjusted in when in a pinch to keep the guns going forward. With a mech gun, when the drive train goes poof, the gun is gone until the carriage is fixed. Sometimes, there's no fixers available before the battery has to move out. Lost gun.

Another rant often raised back then was "if a part has motion, the part WILL break". The more a system is automated, the less reliable that system is going to be. If a gun can be loaded and fired by the crew manually if/when the auto system goes down, then that's not a prob. But if it's an auto and nothing else, that is a problem.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:18:31 -0600

Armorer, in your first comment for this thread, you drill down to the heart of the issue of warfare. Your real focus in that first paragraph. You write, "Leaving aside 'Terminator' fears, I'm not so sure that 'riskless to us' warfare is morally and ethically a good idea - not that I'm looking for a US body count, but because it may well make it too easy to unleash the war machines (and there will still be bodies on the other side).

This is good writing, John. Now let's dive into it. You use an interesting phrase, "riskless to us". In the context of the whole comment and the phrase, please talk to me about this group of people you call, "us". Who are they? Could a reasonable person read this comment and come away with a completely different view?

Let's begin, the phrase "riskless to us", who is "us"? I believe many would say, "The Military", I believe they would not be historically factual. In fact, most people in the Military considered themselves to be "expendables". The only people I can come back to are the political elite, who would not dare have their children put at risk or themselves. There was major change when we went under The War Powers Act type of conflicts and Declared Wars. In the late 60's, when I went into the Military, you were flat out told, "Your soul may be the Lord's, but your ass is US Government Property, even after you're dead, until the Government Officially releases your body to your family." By the way, the media was permitted to take pictures. Note: This happened over many generations, both parties and no saints.

The "Political Power Brokers" played CYA and warm, while yours was left bare in a cold frosty wind.

Comment from sobersubmrnr on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:42:41 -0600

The guts in that thing look similar to the internals of a modern naval gun mount, although not as robust due to the need to save weight.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:48:26 -0600

That sucker is going to be one punishing gun to be near.

Or anywhere within 50 meters, judging by the shock wave traveling along at dirt level (0:23 and 0:42 on the vid). At least DoD will save money on Beehive rounds -- if the Fire Base is being overrun, the crew just has to crank max quadrant and fire, then go outside and police up everybody oozing bleed from various bodily orifices...

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:30:35 -0600

The Law of Unintended Consequences will definitely rear its ugly head further down the robotic road. Big propaganda point with the dirtbag disinformationists is that "Americans are too chicken to face our fearless fighters man-to-man and send their machines to fight us instead."

It's their main theme these days -- it's not selling well with potential recruits *here*, because the locals have seen us in action. In the Tribal Areas of Pakistan, though, it's got sufficient appeal in the southern region to make it worthwhile spouting.

The new guys evidently believe it right up until that Oh, Sh*t Moment when they *do* finally meet us.

Then the Law of Unintended Consequences works in our favor, because the newbies underestimate what's waiting...

Comment from AFSister on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:46:46 -0600

Fishmugger- that is EXACTLY what I thought... damn. Talk about a headache.

Comment from AW1 Tim on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:30:54 -0600

Seems to me that one small sandstorm might throw all that hi-tech roboticness into a full blown flumox. The Soviets, to me, always seemed to have the right idea about simplicity of vehicles. Easy to fix, fewer parts, fewer things to break.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:24:08 -0600

Watching that Techno-NLOS Cannon Kibble Feeder, many questions come to mind. How reliable are all those hydraulic hoses gonna stand-up on deployment at the field. And knowing how BAE hamstring their sales, will there be a BAE "contractor/technician" ready at a beck-and-call to service that beast in the middle of a fight?

Remember, BAE's sees a Weapons System as an empty vessel, upon which juicy service and support contracts are sold.

Comment from Casey on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:58:06 -0600

I'm just sitting here, looking at that auto-loader, thinking of the two-man crew, and wondering how long before something in that gun-bot breaks...

Comment from Fishmugger on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:50:48 -0600

Hi John,

I watched the vid and I was struck by the bigger down pressure from the muzzle break; following the exhaust down to the ground. Has anyone put a meter on what that would due to the crew or troops in the area.

Now remember, I flew a desk, so this is just a logic thing.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:54:32 -0600

In many ways, and I think somewhat ironically, our technological superiority in precision conventional weapons - driven by our intent to increase our effectiveness and efficiency and to reduce collateral damage and innocent casualties - has had the side effect of encouraging poorer "rogue" states to develop NBC WMDs.

They realize they don't have the money or the technological expertise to keep pace with our conventional weapons development, so they have been compelled to pursue WMDs as terror weapons.

They understand that their ultimate acquisition of these WMDs will provide them with influential blackmail tools with which they can check almost any of our attempts to thwart their own aggression and advances.

They've also learned how to play us like fiddles with their cat & mouse games, wringing monetary and financial concessions out of us every time they manufacture a security crisis, like the Norks have just done, and as Iran continues to do.

Comment from Kirk on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:26:55 -0600

Not to worry...I'm sure NLOS-Cannon will be stripped away as part of the "restructuring" of FCS to be announced today by Gates. We can't afford such toys. That money will be better spent propping up welfare cases.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:19:54 -0600

Leaving aside "Terminator" fears, I'm not sure that "riskless to us" warfare is morally and ethically a good idea - not that I'm looking for a US body count, but because it may well make it too easy to unleash the war machines (and there will still be bodies on the other side).

Improving the ability to take down individuals and organizations like Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, thus avoiding the larger war altogether, I see utility to.

And, I suppose, if it reduces the chances for carnage on the level of WWI and WWII, there is utility - except, of course, it provides even greater incentive for unstable regimes like the North Koreans, Pakistani's, et.al., to seek ways to bring us down many notches that don't involve arraying conventional forces for us to hammer flat.

Such as an EMP weapon, which would knock us back to pre-WWII or worse, given our infrastructure's dependence on microprocessors.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-04-06

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:40:46 -0600

I foresee entire formations of remotely-operated SP howitzers - perhaps even tanks - similar to what we now see with UAVs.