It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NLOS CANNON

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
ape

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
i didnt see a thread of this remarkable technology yet so here it goes

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.army.mil...

freakin awesome, it can even fire precision munitions, currently being tested at yuma predicted to be on the battle field by 2014 but it could be sooner. they also had a badass segment on future weapons on discovery channel.

this along with metal storm, can you say dominated?

[edit on 1-1-2007 by ape]




posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Are you watching the DIscovery channel right now?

I just saw that, and thought it was interesting. Also a good way to kill, or protect, or whatever;


ape

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
yah i was trying to think of it the other day I wanted to post on it, it can even go 55 miles per hour on a flat surface etc, this thing is a beast and things are rolling fast with it. it could more than likley be deployed sooner than we think.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
this along with metal storm, can you say dominated?
[edit on 1-1-2007 by ape]


Yes, Metal Storm is a "revolutionary" new way of launching projectiles, BUT please don't use it in the same thread with such a great usable weapon.

[edit on 2-1-2007 by Ford Farmer]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
...
this along with metal storm, can you say dominated?...


Yup, both equally dominate the forces of the white elephant



Now seriously: since it is likely that the NLOS-C as well as most other FCS vehicles will miss the weight target for deployability by C-130 it doesnt exactly have any standout features - an autoloader, great... but only 20-odd projectiles onboard and a 15km range? C´mon...

The small size and reduced crewload may be of some appeal to smaller nations. Then again the to-be-expected Boeing-typical pricetag may drive them away to the larger, more capable systems. With the currently known specs, it seems that the computerization and fire rate are the only clear advantages over the 40 years old Paladin.

Oh, and first fielding isnt supposed to happen before 2012. A lot of things can change until then.

[edit on 2/1/2007 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I was watching that too, blew my mind. The fact that it will allow for precision artillery strikes in an urban environment and reducing the risks of collateral damage is great. Plus it will be airmobile which brings its stock up a few points in my book. Looks to me like it will be an excellent piece of equipment for our boys in the future.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24



Now seriously: since it is likely that the NLOS-C as well as most other FCS vehicles will miss the weight target for deployability by C-130 it doesnt exactly have any standout features - an autoloader, great... but only 20-odd projectiles onboard and a 15km range? C´mon...

The small size and reduced crewload may be of some appeal to smaller nations. Then again the to-be-expected Boeing-typical pricetag may drive them away to the larger, more capable systems. With the currently known specs, it seems that the computerization and fire rate are the only clear advantages over the 40 years old Paladin.

Oh, and first fielding isnt supposed to happen before 2012. A lot of things can change until then.

[edit on 2/1/2007 by Lonestar24]


That's 15 miles not 15 km(even longer using RAP rds). It carries 24 rds ready to go, and can fire 6rds per minute. It takes 12 minutes to reload vs. an hour or more for the Paladin. It can be ready to fire within 20 seconds of notification, with greater accuracy than the Paladin. Sound pretty good when you add in the increased mobility and crew protection.


ape

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
not to mention it can run on its batteries at same speed for almost a half an hour on stealth mode without the engines on !!



posted by lonestar
Now seriously: since it is likely that the NLOS-C as well as most other FCS vehicles will miss the weight target for deployability by C-130


the c-130's max payload is 45,000 pounds, so you miss fitting 2 NLOS-C's by a ton and im just talking short tons here.

now the c-17 max payload is 164,900 so you can fit plenty of these babies in that beast

the c-5 is 270,000 max payload , I dont know why you would have the impression they would have trouble deploying the cannon, the machine would be deployed very rapidly.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
That's 15 miles not 15 km(even longer using RAP rds).


If its 15 miles, then my apologies. Still only a beefed up mortar range. And of course I am aware of the different kinds of Basebleed and V-LAP munitions out there, its just that their extended range cannot be credited to the gun system itself. Needless to say, they have their own shortcomings - decreased payload and accuracy for one.


Originally posted by ape
the c-130's max payload is 45,000 pounds, so you miss fitting 2 NLOS-C's by a ton and im just talking short tons here.


Excuse me, but it seems you may be off with your figures. As per Globalsecurity.org, the system demonstrator from your gizmag pics already weighs in at ~24 tons, and that is without a proper turret. The expected combat ready final weight would also be 24 tons with turret, but I guess we all know how likely that is with a vehicle that has merely gone half of its development distance.

Doesnt even matter whether its short or metric tons, as both would be too heavy. You may check several official sites about the project; they all erased the notion of "air-transportability" a while ago - even for the FCS battlefield taxis.


now the c-17 max payload is 164,900 so you can fit plenty of these babies in that beast

the c-5 is 270,000 max payload , I dont know why you would have the impression they would have trouble deploying the cannon, the machine would be deployed very rapidly.


Of course they can fit into the C-17 and -5. In fact, all regular army gear fits into these - thats what they were built for. But these are not tactical airlifters like the C-130, and thats what we and the industry are speaking of as "air-transportability".

Anyway, I am not disputing that the vehicle will be a profound increase to the existing gun Artillery systems in the US military. It´s just that IMO there is no reason to make a big deal of it when compared on a broader scale to what is possible and available.


[edit on 2/1/2007 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Umm... the NLOS Cannon (besides it's other upgrades and improvements) will be fitted with the Excalibur round and will have ranges of ~30 km (18.5 miles), longer with RAP rounds. Excalibur is also GPS guided, meaning it offers an unprecedented level of accuracy for an artillery unit. The round can be fired 15 degrees or more off axis and the control surfaces will still put it within 5-10 meters of the intended target zone. It also has a high built in angle of attack or fighting in built up areas where the usual 45 degrees is infective.

Only the German PzH 2000 is comparable with the NLOS- C, but that system is twice as heavy with a combat load, it's mobility and rapid deployment capabilities will not be as good as that of the NLOS-C. It's sustained and burst rate of fire is also similar and, at this time, better in some categories, I don't know how the two will compare in fire control. However the NLOS-C will offer greater accuracy and with rocket assisted projectiles both systems will have similar upper tier ranges.

[edit on 2-1-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I saw that on futureweapons. Really really accurate. Like the german gun which was also on futureweapons, it can fire shells at different angles so that about 4 can hit a target at once, all fired from the same cannon.


ape

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

by lonestar
Of course they can fit into the C-17 and -5. In fact, all regular army gear fits into these - thats what they were built for. But these are not tactical airlifters like the C-130, and thats what we and the industry are speaking of as "air-transportability".


the c-130 is ancient, these 2 aircraft are the primary aircraft for the US and they have lifted tanks and heavyarmored vehicles into the field before, im not so sure what exactly you're getting at by saying "thats what we and the industry are speaking of as "air-transportability". well its obvious that these 2 planes can land almost anywhere the hercules lands and are also more advanced.


source
The gigantic C-5 Galaxy, with its tremendous payload capability, provides the Air Mobility Command intertheater airlift in support of United States national defense. The C-5, the C-17 Globemaster III and the C-141 Starlifter are partners of AMC's strategic airlift concept. The aircraft carry fully equipped combat-ready military units to any point in the world on short notice then provide field support required to help sustain the fighting force.


source www.af.mil...

the c-17 www.af.mil...

im not trying to be argumentive and i appreciate you correcting me on the tonnage I thought i read 23 tons each but there is no need for lectures and assumptions, the NLOS cannon will be transported anywhere and anytime when it's needed.



[edit on 2-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 2-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Tubed RT is good for killing hill billies, bush babies, wombats and assorted other 'low intensity' threats. For damn near anything else, it's too lightly armored, heavy and slow to be worth the tail:tooth factored logistics penalties in supporting real maneuver elements.

Indeed, for the COIN/SSC mission, the 105mm is more than adequate, if only because the REAL DEFINITION of 'air transportable' is slung under or shoved in the back of a CH 'and we're off to the next maybe-fight!'.

Whereupon ogre-vs.-toy-poodle ops like OEF/OIF tend to come down to hopscotch contests as half the battery is in-transit another 100nm down the road to await the arrival of the road warriors as the 'next likeliest' place where indirect fire can break a defensive barrier that cannot be bypassed as a city or a bridge astride a highway (even here, airpower is better).

If you are 'pure', hunting armor or any other 'sophisticated is as massed does' (3X 20 vehicle columns at 50nm spacings, each advancing at 50mph with intent to 'resupply at objective or die trying' and accompanied by 2-4 ADVs for terminal _PGM Defense_ protection) fielded maneuver force; you want something that can both reach further and preferrably has some degree of LOAL homing guidance to compensate for target displacement in the flyout window and/or a depressed horizon line to saturate active threat defenses.

In this, guided-HIMARS on a truck or NETFIRES in a CLU trailer both take you out to the 60-80km starting point and are generally lighter and smarter weapons systems relative to moving target kills per basic load.

Conversely, if you just /have to have/ the freakin' turret gun, the city buster mission set could be readily accomodated by the AMOS or similar single/twin AMS platforms NOW available for a helluva lot less cash than we are throwing at the 'developmental tech' of this piece of crap.

Autodefense installations be damned, (since you never go into an urban target area with OTH capable, thin-skin, AFV) the best way you protect an SPH crew from inbound counterbattery is NOT by jacking up the vehicle roofline for armor-over-magazine as a place to set a turret. It's by taking the damn monkeys /off/ the machine and running a barebones powered trace with a single driver cabin and elevating/oscillating gun IN the chassis.

Putting the battery fire control and ammo-carrier/transloader vehicles several hundred yards away.

A four or six wheel spider trailer with variable swingarms and jackable pneumatic suspension could give you a 105mm light gun with a 10-12nm reach and perhaps 30-40rds onboard. In a 10-12 ton unit that goes cross country like the clappers and 'naturally compresses' to drive right on up the ramp of whatever Stallion or Chithook is available.

And never-you-mind 'how many assault landings does even a C-130 do?' stupidity.

I swear, these brass clad idiots think about ten steps behind the times and _cannot_ get over the 'my gun is AS big as yours' penile mentality of a 155mm bore equivalency when 4GW is NOT ABOUT fighting an advanced technological enemy. It's about /getting to/ a monkey force whose 'caliber overmatch' condition consists of maybe a couple 89-106mm tubes slung over a donkey's back.

Given we are so short on lift we can't even get all our Gators out of the hotzone in a pissant country like AfG, it certainly makes more sense to make support weapons less dependant on immediate evac than to play at 'RDF Games' with a midget SPH that cannot get /anywhere's close/ to '15 miles from the battle' in the time frame that vertical lift allows for.

Not when there are a dozen _lighter_ weapons systems which outrange THE BEST HEAVY GUNS that any enemy can send against us.

Indeed, even when we do take on the export-American-defeat-to-anybody Euro-equipped threats as the 'next better thing after the Soviets', I guarantee you it will be done the same damn way it was in 1991: with airpower and MRL gouging gun pits /long before/ the maneuver campaign generates own-force exposures in vehicles like the M1 and M2, neither of which have 'auto defense' systems protecting THEIR hides.

Y'all buy BS like clothes: 'straight off the rack' with absolutely no critical thinking required. That being the sole reason why the American Military and it's pet Industrial Base truly luv ya.

Not because they are Constitutionally required to.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join