Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Foreign candidates for the US Army's towed howitzer replacement effort

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,081
    Feedback Score
    0

    Foreign candidates for the US Army's towed howitzer replacement effort

    The French CAESAR gun is probably cheaper but the Swedish "Archer" system looks far more automated:


    https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...er-competition


    https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...nt-competition

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,439
    Feedback Score
    0
    So this is the new form-factor for non/light armour guns? No one is actually going to tow guns? Counter battery fire just too fast to do it the old fashioned way?
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,485
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Depends who'll agree to Technology Transfer and license-building. Even when we licensed a British plane, the English Electric Canberra light bomber, we insisted that they enter a license-build arrangement with Martin for our B-57 copies.

    If we don't get the whole TDP to build it from the wheels up here we won't buy it, and manufacturers are understandably VERY reluctant about giving enough info that somebody else could reverse engineer THEIR product and build unlicensed, or reverse-engineered and improved, copies.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    183
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    Depends who'll agree to Technology Transfer and license-building. Even when we licensed a British plane, the English Electric Canberra light bomber, we insisted that they enter a license-build arrangement with Martin for our B-57 copies.

    If we don't get the whole TDP to build it from the wheels up here we won't buy it, and manufacturers are understandably VERY reluctant about giving enough info that somebody else could reverse engineer THEIR product and build unlicensed, or reverse-engineered and improved, copies.
    Didn’t they have do a redesign of the Canberra bomber and use standard United States dimensions rather than metric as well?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,485
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Yeah, and the FALs the Army tested had to be redesigned from square one even though the L1A1 and C1A1 were both already in Imperial measurements and off-the-shelf.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •