Talk:XM1203 Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon

• Original article based on PD military writing ([www.army.mil/fcs/factfiles/nlosc.html]).--Duk 09:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Replacement

Is this the M109 howitzer replacement? Jigen III 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The XM2001 Crusader was supposed to replace the M109 but got cancelled in 2002. The NLOS-C is the only thing on the horizon that can replace it now. Amatulic 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So is it explicitly being described and planned as an M109 replacement by the U.S. military? -Toptomcat 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is described as a component of the Future Combat Systems (FCS). The result may be replacement of M109, and that's likely how Congress envisions it because Congress created the NLOS-C program immediately in response to Rumsfeld canceling Crusader. NLOS-C was later merged into the FCS program when that program started in the following year. The military, to my knowledge, has never "advertised" the NLOS-C as an M109 replacement. -Amatulic 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This thingie looks like turretless (based on photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NLOS-CAugust2003.jpg ), thus it is more like successor of 175mm self-propelled cannon, which was also "naked" configuration. The M109 can be used to direct fire support if very needed (tank-like fighting) this supposed replacement looks too vulnerable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Development

How far along is development? It sounds like all we've got is specifications. -Toptomcat 18:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There are more than specifications for NLOS-C. There is a working prototype undergoing firing/mobility tests right now, and a handful more prototypes will begin construction next year (2007).

The program is currently in the System Design and Development (SDD) phase, working toward Program Design Review (PDR) in 2008. Contract Design Review (CDR) will be in 2010, and the initial production decision won't be made by the Army until 2012. -Amatulic 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote this as I agreed that the article looked like an ad from BAE systems and as so jargon laden that it would be difficult for a layman to understand. Be careful following a global security section too closely as they are writing to a professional military view and as such will not be understandable to anyone not in the field. I hope that I improved this somewhat and that I didn't offend anyone by doing so. Tirronan 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Round by round fire capacity..."

How is this an improvement over the M109? Since the M109 is manually loaded, it's perfectly possible to fire any combination of shells in any order you want. The point I believe the article is trying to make is that this system can do it automatically. If so, that should made clearer. Round by round fire, by itself, is nothing new. 16:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

All that is perfectly true in a manual load system but in a autoloader this is a complex and difficult achievement that has been tried again and again since the 1960's in relation to tank autoloaders in particular and every other gun system in general. Tirronan (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cancelled

This article needs to be revised to account for the fact that the NLOS-C got canned 2 & a half months ago. [1] 75.76.213.106 (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wording was corrected to past tense last week. I added something on cancellation last night. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually GLAD that this darn thing got scraped, along with the whole FCS MGV project. I mean, seriously? They want to keep everything form IFV to Howitzer and Tank within 20 metric tons! This is batshit insanity. Heck, even WWII vehicles are heavier than that! They shouldn't have cancelled Crusader. Now we gotta stick with the oldest and crapist self-propelled Howitzers in the whole NATO inventory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoia71792 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)