What is NLOS?
If I may…it stands for “non-line of sight”. 
If I remember correctly, that is!
I like anything involving Cash! The Roden kit and the AFV kits are very nice.
gary
I do a “K” night almost every Friday. Trust me the beer flows all too well. If I’ve had enough, I’ll bless the masses with some Ray Wylie Hubbard. Just don’t have the voice to do Haggard.
gary
The NLOS 155 SPH and Stryker 105 SPH were designed for very different purposes and were/are not interchangeable. They did not even compare in capabilities, range, lethality, etc., etc., etc. Comparing apples to oranges.
I’m personally glad the NLOS was cancelled. Reducing a crewman and relying on an autoloader that failed often was not a good idea to start with. It also gave no range advantage over the M109A6 it was supposed to replace.
No, but the point here was that the US Army could have had a 155mm M777-ranged FCS SPH in at around 23-24 tons and it could have made a difference in service and in COIN. The same with the 155mm 60-ton, then made into the 40-ton Crusader SPH—also canceled because the analysts and Media said it was too heavy with Crusader FAASV, requiring two C-17s to airlift.
Sure, prototype systems don’t always work, but that’s THREE new SPHs that the US Army canceled and is now left with the upgraded Legacy 32-ton M109A6 that is billeted to the Mechanized Units, not Airborne, Light Infantry, QRF, Air Assault, or Rangers. I hope that the M109A7 ERCA can get it correct also.
ALL US DoD branches go through “teething problems” with new prototypes and systems just like the USAF’s F-35 stealth fighter and the US Navy’s LCS and USS Ford CVN carriers. These cost a lot of money to fix and iron out the bugs, but the US Army cancels instead of fixing its problematic systems—and that affects the battlefield. The other DoD branch systems were fixed to some degree and placed into service. The same can be said for the US Army’s M1 Abrams FMBT replacement programs—lots of designs that yielded nothing except M1 SEP upgrades.
Recall, the Stryker 105mm MGS was THE LOSER to the FMC’s M8 AGS test-off because the gun was exposed and the traction of the 8x8 didn’t match tracks. The US Army tested practically every light gun at the time in a trial from Centauro to V-150s with 90mm turrets. The M8 was the clear winner according to Jane’s IHS analysis at that time of the US Army AGS shoot-off. Now, the M8 and GDLS Mobile Protected Firepower 105mm light tanks are in trials—hindsight is amazing practically 30 YEARS later.
Not really. Howitzers stay on FOBs for COIN, they don’t go out an patrol.
M777s and M119s are fully capable of supporting Airborne, Light Infantry, QRF, Air Assault, or Rangers. SP howitzers are not right for light forces.
Also, just because it is in Janes or on a blog somewhere, it doesn’t make it true. I trust the military testing and experience over what is printed in what are essentially manufacturer’s trade mags.
The Stryker MGS was selected for price, commonality, and it was good enough. The goal was to quickly get a 105mm light tank to be in Stryker BDEs. It was cost effective to select a common carrier as opposed to another system and all that goes along with supporting it. The Stryker MGS was good enough and met the requirements at the time.
Again, just because Jane’s says so, doesn’t make it true nor the best to select.
Done. I have a few more if people are interested
Dan, those are some of the best and latest FCS NLOS 155mm photos that I’ve ever seen! 
I would be very interested in the chassis and if it ever has a future minus the turret and howitzer.
The left side has been used for a target and is quite shot up.
It appears to be based on a modified Bradley hull, which makes sense at it’s a BAE Systems prototype. Plenty of those old (and fairly new) hulks lying about.
Is it just me, or do those tracks look like massive 1:1 rubber bands? I can’t see any signs of metal, only black rubber.
I thought the same thing.
They are. They make for a quieter ride, and weigh less.
The US Army’s MPF Light Tank program of BAE M8 AGS and GDLS “Griffin” yields two light tank chassis. The US Army can use either of those, winner or loser, for future AFV modifications if it so desires. One idea might be an Airborne light tracked APC a la “AMPV clone” that is at least 12.7-14.5mm AP armor-proof—wishful thinking anyway. 
BAE 105mm M8 AGS (Yes, it’s been revised since the original FMC M8 AGS).
GDLS 105mm Griffin (And this too has been revised over the original design with M1 turret).
That is not how procurement works. The Army will not own either chassis. The manufacturer owns them. If/when the Army is looking for a new vehicle, they put out requirements and the various manufacturers submit designs for the Army to test.
That is true, but at the AUSA Expo Conventions, sometimes Industry makes prototypes at their own expense and try to pitch and sell them to the US Army and US Marines.
The Howe and Howe Tech’s RIPSAW (on the Discover Channel) is one example with H&H Tech being bought over by Textron and thus becoming the Textron M5 RIPSAW Remote Control Vehicle-Medium Program with 30mm Kongsberg RWS turret. H&H pitched RIPSAW to the US Army for many years and the US Army usually shrugged them off. This is the same RIPSAW that was in the “Fast and Furious 8” movie, but modified to the RCV-M Program.
It doesn’t often occur that USA Industry can get something into DoD without a Request For Proposal (RFP), but it does sometimes happen and work. (I think that the M1117 ASV was another example).
Sure, manufacturers can build and pitch whatever they like. It doesn’t mean anyone is going to buy it.