Artillery Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
NLOS-C Being Put Down
   Next Article → ATTRITION: Reviving A Dying Breed

August 21, 2009: The U.S. Army appears to have lost its second replacement vehicle for the half-century old M-109 self-propelled 155mm howitzer. The new XM1203 NLOS-C self-propelled 155mm howitzer has been, well, if not cancelled, then suspended.

The NLOS-C was to have been the first of the eight MGV (Manned Ground Vehicle) systems to enter service as part of the FCS (Future Combat System) program. But the FCS lost its focus, budget discipline and Congressional support. It was recently cancelled.

Six years ago, the prototype NLOS-C was cobbled together in six months, after the new (and very high tech and high priced) Crusader SP artillery system was cancelled. The Crusader got the chop. This 45 ton vehicle used an autoloader and an engine similar to the one used in the M-1 tank. It was deemed too heavy and too expensive, and in 2002 it was cancelled. The NLOS-C used the Crusader autoloader and some of its electronic components.

The current self-propelled system, the M-109, is a fifty year old design. Although the M-109 has been frequently updated, the NLOS-C incorporates many new technologies. This includes an auto-loader (from the Crusader) and a more modern 155mm gun and an APC chassis with a hybrid-electric engine (to reduce fuel consumption.) This all weighs 23 tons, about the same as the M-109. But the NLOS only has a two man crew, compared to five in the M-109.

 The final version of the NLOS-C was to be heavier (about 27 tons), because more defensive systems were added, to reflect experience in Iraq. The NLOC-C also got a lot of new electronics. The vehicle carries 24 rounds of 155mm ammo. One new item, the hybrid-electric power pack, is considered too expensive, and an untried (in combat) element. Congress originally demanded that NLOS-C be in service by 2008, but development needed a few more years. Field testing (operating as one would in combat), began last year with the six prototypes.

One problem the brass were concerned about was the ability of the two man crew to hold up during 24/7 operations. The M-109, with a five man crew, has enough people to take care of maintenance, standing guard and, basically, always having one or two people rested and alert. Not so easy when you only have two guys. One solution was to have two or more crews per vehicle, as combat aircraft (and some warships) have done for years. The off-duty crews would be back with the support troops. The army also wants to test various bits of new equipment on the NLOS-C.

One of the things that probably killed the NLOS-C was the new GPS guided Excalibur shell. The Excalibur shell entered service last year, and changed everything. Excalibur appears to work in combat, and this is radically changing the way artillery operates. Excalibur means 80-90 percent less ammo has to be fired, meaning less wear and tear on SP artillery like NLOS-C (and less time needed for maintenance), and less time replenishing ammo supplies, and more time being ready for action.

In the current war on terror, even the M-109 has not been used much. The lighter, towed, M777 has proved more useful, especially when using the Excalibur shell. Currently, the army plans to keep M109s around until 2050, just in case. You never know, and it pays to be careful. Meanwhile, the army is planning to make a third attempt at a M-109 replacement. This will also borrow from Crusader and NLOS-C, and might even succeed. Eventually.

Next Article → ATTRITION: Reviving A Dying Breed
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
flyingarty    Nlos-C   8/21/2009 5:32:19 AM
Just buy the Panzerhaubitze 2000 from the Germans. It is an excellent state of the art artillery piece and we would save billions in development costs. Yes the thing is heavy, but the Army in asking for everything keeps getting nothing!
 
The troops need a new SPA machine and this one is available, NOW!
 
Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    We Canceled   8/21/2009 8:38:42 AM
Crusader because it was too heavy...ditto Pzh2000.
 
Quote    Reply

SAE       8/21/2009 9:18:34 AM
See the comments in the June 26, 2009 article "FCS Died For Our Sins".
 
Quote    Reply

Headlock       8/21/2009 11:21:13 AM

See the comments in the June 26, 2009 article "FCS Died For Our Sins".

yup, been down this well-trodden road already.
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    I know that   8/21/2009 11:22:24 AM

Crusader because it was too heavy...ditto Pzh2000.


You miss my point completely. The Army neeeds to get off the light weight thing altogether.If you need a lightweight artillery piece air lifted in-then you want a freaking M777. You are going to have to float in most SPA, just like the M-1. The M-109 itself weights in at a a healthy 27.5 tons, less than the Panzer but not nearly as effective either. Frankly if you want instant lightweight self propelled arty you probably want the HIMARS anyway, so where's the big freaking monkey on the weight thing?
 
I know this is politicially unpalitable, but I want the troops to haave the best quality equipment for the dollar, and I want them to have it now! Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

Bob Roberts       8/21/2009 11:27:09 AM
Why not just continue to update the M109?  I read a while back I believe, that one of the big issues the U.S. Army has with the M109 was its supposed inability speed wise to keep up with our other armored platforms, the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley.  Why not just "tweak" the existing platform to get a bit more speed and install a 52 caliber cannon, which seems to be the current rage these days.  I realize that these changes would present certain engineering obstacles but I'm sure they could be overcome and perhaps a lower cost than an entirely new weapon system.
 
Quote    Reply

dba       8/21/2009 1:29:40 PM

Just buy the Panzerhaubitze 2000 from the Germans. It is an excellent state of the art artillery piece and we would save billions in development costs. Yes the thing is heavy, but the Army in asking for everything keeps getting nothing!

 

The troops need a new SPA machine and this one is available, NOW!

 

Flyingarty



 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    No I got your point...   8/21/2009 1:41:17 PM
we canceled Crusader because it weighed too much and didn't meet it's own design spec's...and the same weight problem occurs with Pzh2000.  So no Crusader OR Pzh2000....
 
And do we need a "new" SPH?  Why? Because M-109 is old...as in it's breaking a lot?  Because if they're still running, then mayhap upgrades are what we need...new engine, new FCS, new this, new that....and leave the barrel issue in abeyance.  Do we REALLY need a 52 caliber barrel?  Why for range?  Isn't that what GMLRS gives us or CAS or BAI?
 
Somewhere they're is the UNSPOKEN assumption we MUST get a new SPH?  Please show me why, if the current fleet is not too expensive to maintain, is accurate (FCS and Excalibur), and the total fire support SYSTEM (tube, rocket, Missile, and A/c) have the lethality and range necessary to generate victory on the battlefield.  Yes Pzh2000 is really neat, so are Ferrari's, but I don't need a Ferrari either.
 
Quote    Reply

paperpusher    It is not the cost   8/21/2009 5:26:55 PM
With this present administrations needs for money for non-defense programs. The canceling of the F-22 and now the NLOS-C is just the beginning of big ticket programs to be cut. It's not the cost- it's the savings
 
Quote    Reply

SAE       8/21/2009 7:56:33 PM

With this present administrations needs for money for non-defense programs. The canceling of the F-22 and now the NLOS-C is just the beginning of big ticket programs to be cut. It's not the cost- it's the savings

Yeah, and this regrime also eliminating the manned space program too!. All to paid for more socialism. Everyday, we are become a dying civilation like Europe. I am hoping that one day there will be a new administration and we will restore this country again. Also, I am starting to think that the heavier SP gun makes over sense, since the vehicle mainly is to support heavy armor and mech divisions anyway, and they are not air-tranportable, so the SP gun possibly does not need to be either. However, since SP artillery is a support weapon which operates well behind the front lines, I do not see why it needs heavy tank-like armor as some have argued. Not needing heavy armor will save alot of weight. How about using the M-1 chassic with a long calbre 155 mm barrel in a light armored turret. Then you have the commonity needed for lower cost and the speed needed to keep up with the armor units. If you want a light SP gun, just put a 155 mm on a truck. That is what the French and Swedes did.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2