I don't get the hate on the 5.56. A wound is a wound - and a wounded enemy is frequently better then a dead enemy. Moreover, with the incredible amounts of ammo needed to achieve hits, the performance once the round does hit is less important provided it's still going into tissue.
As for the F-22, part of its fucking problem is the political protection racked the USAF installed(the whole sub-contractors in 46 states part). There is probably a subcontractor in Wisconsin manufacturing some dodad for the F-22, that could be manufactured somewhere else for half the price.
Bottom line is that you don't get the best parts, nor the cheapest, but the most politicaly convinient. If the USAF, wanted to they could probably streamline the manufacturing prosess considerably. So I am not so sure that the F-22 line can not be restarted.
While the F-22 supply chain is politicized as hell, it doesn't hold a candle (IMHO) to how they build the Eurofighter Typhoon. Every goddamn EU country wants a slice of that production.
I understand that the problems with restarting production are less location related and more technology related. As in, it takes close to a decade to set up a line that can do fancy stuff like electron-beam welding a titanium boom, because it's so far beyond the state of the art. Please correct me, if someone knows about this stuff.
The M-16 familiy of rifles never lived up to the advertised hype. Yes, they fixed most of the problems now, but it took them fucking ages. Its not to far out there to say that there is probably a couple of hundred names on the vietnam war memorial, because of that rifle.
Even now its not up there with the best foreign rifles. Case in point Delta force, the only part of the US army where the soldiers can choose their own guns, switched to the HK416.
I just fired my first M16 last week. Wasn't easy. The guy next to me was consistently ejecting used rounds on me. I still have a scar on my wrist. One girl got the round stuck to her arm.
I'd rather they created more jobs by creating more renewable energy power plants. We could use more Hoover dam's. Public works projects that will save us money in the long run while at the same time creating more jobs.
The military needs to spend more time developing and fielding a better main battle rifle than the M-16/M-4 and lighter weight body armor.
The M-16 is one of the top examples of a piece of trash getting legs due to political fuckmuppetry. We could do so much better.
In fairness, the M-16 was never a piece of trash. It's a 50-year-old design, so of course there's better stuff out there now, but that just goes to show how innovative it was at the time. The problems in Vietnam had to do with the fact that the mil-spec ammo was changed at the last minute without being tested, and it was billed as being "self-cleaning" despite not even having a chromed chamber, so it was issued without the appropriate cleaning kit. The forward assist was not even necessary if the rifle was kept properly clean.
Or, to put it another way, any weapon, or indeed any thing, which is supplied by the lowest bidder is going to arrive as a piece of trash.
The M-16 familiy of rifles never lived up to the advertised hype. Yes, they fixed most of the problems now, but it took them fucking ages. Its not to far out there to say that there is probably a couple of hundred names on the vietnam war memorial, because of that rifle.
Even now its not up there with the best foreign rifles. Case in point Delta force, the only part of the US army where the soldiers can choose their own guns, switched to the HK416.
I just fired my first M16 last week. Wasn't easy. The guy next to me was consistently ejecting used rounds on me. I still have a scar on my wrist. One girl got the round stuck to her arm.
The M-16 familiy of rifles never lived up to the advertised hype. Yes, they fixed most of the problems now, but it took them fucking ages. Its not to far out there to say that there is probably a couple of hundred names on the vietnam war memorial, because of that rifle.
Even now its not up there with the best foreign rifles. Case in point Delta force, the only part of the US army where the soldiers can choose their own guns, switched to the HK416.
I just fired my first M16 last week. Wasn't easy. The guy next to me was consistently ejecting used rounds on me. I still have a scar on my wrist. One girl got the round stuck to her arm.
Yeah that part sucks.
Oh yeah, the NCO's final advice was the best part:
You see this part here? This is where you can attach a bayonet. If you ever hear the command AFFIX BAYONETS, you're screwed. Quit the Air Force immediately.
Any rifle will work perfectly when new and completely clean. No rifle ever is going to stay that way.
Which, to stay on thread track somewhat, strikes me as why the F-22 really should be stopped in production, if that article is correct. There's no point having a plane which isn't going to survive battlefield conditions, and it occurs to me that if the US is buying them to fight a hypothetical conventional war, then an absurd level of maintenance is going to put them all down quicker then anything else.
Oh yeah, the NCO's final advice was the best part:
You see this part here? This is where you can attach a bayonet. If you ever hear the command AFFIX BAYONETS, you're screwed. Quit the Air Force immediately.
Any rifle will work perfectly when new and completely clean. No rifle ever is going to stay that way.
Well, I said "properly clean". How I know about this is my grandfather was a brigade commander in Vietnam— the story goes that he made it the responsibility of the squad leaders to ensure that their rifles were clean, and his brigade didn't have the reliability problems that were widely reported.
For that matter, even when my dad was in the army 25 years ago, he had to buy an extra toothbrush, because the cleaning kit was crap.
Of course if you're stranded in the swamp/jungle/desert for weeks and firing thousands of rounds and unable to clean it, it's gonna crap out, but to my knowledge that's never been a goal of a US service rifle.
Any rifle will work perfectly when new and completely clean. No rifle ever is going to stay that way.
Well, I said "properly clean". How I know about this is my grandfather was a brigade commander in Vietnam— the story goes that he made it the responsibility of the squad leaders to ensure that their rifles were clean, and his brigade didn't have the reliability problems that were widely reported.
For that matter, even when my dad was in the army 25 years ago, he had to buy an extra toothbrush, because the cleaning kit was crap.
Of course if you're stranded in the swamp/jungle/desert for weeks and firing thousands of rounds and unable to clean it, it's gonna crap out, but to my knowledge that's never been a goal of a US service rifle.
Well supposedly the AK could take that punishment much better
Any rifle will work perfectly when new and completely clean. No rifle ever is going to stay that way.
Well, I said "properly clean". How I know about this is my grandfather was a brigade commander in Vietnam— the story goes that he made it the responsibility of the squad leaders to ensure that their rifles were clean, and his brigade didn't have the reliability problems that were widely reported.
For that matter, even when my dad was in the army 25 years ago, he had to buy an extra toothbrush, because the cleaning kit was crap.
Of course if you're stranded in the swamp/jungle/desert for weeks and firing thousands of rounds and unable to clean it, it's gonna crap out, but to my knowledge that's never been a goal of a US service rifle.
Well supposedly the AK could take that punishment much better
Any of the newly developed modern rifles take the punishment better. HK416, FN SCAR, XM8 all do significantly better. HK416 is just an improved M4.
Well supposedly the AK could take that punishment much better
Rifle design involves trade offs. The AK, with its piston driven design and loose tolerances, scores high on reliability and ease of production. With the exception of a rifled barrel, I believe the entire thing can be manufactured with hand tools in a hut, if you will.
The M16 on the other hand, with it close tolerances and direct gas impingement design (i.e. "shits itself every time you shoot"), is crazy accurate out of the box, light weight, and user friendly. It seems that the most serious reliability failures (no cleaning kits supplied, incorrect ammo) have been worked out.
Ultimately, it seems none of the better systems (piston-driven uppers like the HK416, or whole different kit like the SCAR) are "enough better" to warrant upgrading every grunt. Plus, 5.56x45 continues to be the NATO standard. I say we help/wait to make another round an acceptable standard (6.8SPC, Grendel, whatever) before we outfit everyone with a slightly better 5.56 shooter.
Why the hell is the U.S. still making planes for pilots anyways.
BRING ON THE DRONES
Air superiority UCAVs are years out.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Why the hell is the U.S. still making planes for pilots anyways.
BRING ON THE DRONES
Air superiority UCAVs are years out.
I hope we come out with smaller/cheaper drone carriers once those developments (X-47b, Barracuda) pan out. For starters, you wouldn't need to sail the pilots around the world. Just the craft. That, plus their smaller size and lower maintenance should make for some neato carriers. I vote we call them hive ships (HVN?).
They're gonna spend 83MM and get something that's a bit better than an F-16 (20MM). Explain that to me. Say it patiently like I've never seen an warplane before and like I don't understand accounting.
F-16s can't take off from carriers?
Well the big carriers aren't a huge issue, because they got F/A-18E/Fs and worst case they could import some Rafales if they really needed the dogfighting ability.
A big problem is that you need V/STOL to take off from the Tarawas and Wasps; the Harriers are getting old and marines need their air support.
F-35 STOVL capability testing has been problematic. Didn't work. Too fat (had to go on a cleansing diet). Doors don't open. It's been "ready for hover pit testing" several times (and finally managed it). It's been "ready for first STOVL flight" several times.
My frustration with it isn't that on paper it looks bad... but in execution, it hasn't been there. Moreover, it's very expensive for what amounts to a small leap forward in order to achieve something that GM's been doing with Pontiac, Buick, and Chevrolet for years. Leaps forward are good... but if you're upping the price exponentially, capability needs to go up as well.
Is there a reason we couldn't have created a really upgraded F-16 or F-15, kind of like how the Su-37 is a derivative of the Su-27?
Avionics and computing are easy and we could upgrade that, put in new engines, etc. However, converting to things like new alloys in the skin, allowing for thrust-vectoring, and making hardpoints internal to lower radar signature... that's pretty damn hard. The F-15SE link given above lays that out. Even though they re-engineered the cant on the vertical stabilizers, and they say that some of the hardpoints are internal due to a re-engineering of the fuel tanks, it sure looks to me like there's shit hanging off of it... probably because to install real internal hardpoints like with an F-22, it'd take a large amount of re-engineering... to the point where you could have made a whole new airplane.
So, if you're looking for stealth and that's your goal... that may be harder to do without something that's dedicated to do that like the F-22. Stealth is just something a platform has to be built-around, rather than something that can be built-into. However, if you're looking for upgraded avionics, modern communications and MADL-type coordination, upgraded electronic warfare, upgraded FLIR/IRST or radar etc... that's certainly possible with the current airframes.
The M-16 familiy of rifles never lived up to the advertised hype. Yes, they fixed most of the problems now, but it took them fucking ages. Its not to far out there to say that there is probably a couple of hundred names on the vietnam war memorial, because of that rifle.
Even now its not up there with the best foreign rifles. Case in point Delta force, the only part of the US army where the soldiers can choose their own guns, switched to the HK416.
The 416 is a M16/4 with a goddamn weaver rail and a gas piston. It ain't a revolution in riflery. It's a fucking upper switch. You don't even gotta go through a FFL to make your own at home. I find it so goddamn ridiculous when it's billed like a revolution. It's mind numbing.
We still have rifles from 40-50 years ago because no one's come up with a step-change improvement that says, "you know what... we gotta have this shit". All of the really good tech investment has been in all the crap you hang on the rifle. There's been some decent submachine gun improvements as well... but battle rifles themselves have been stagnant. The Land Warrior program, which was just crap built around the rifle, was suffocated in its crib because anyone who was not trying to sell it looked at it and said, "you mean you want me to play with all this bullshit in a firefight? Are you trying to get me killed? What if the batteries run out? Do I just club them with this 20lb piece of doo-doo?"
Again, it's nice if you want to make your M16 run more like an HK-G-series rifle because you just gotta have an op-rod so you don't have to clean it every day, but understand that the "best foreign rifle" example is something that's been done in AR custom shops for years.
The M-16 familiy of rifles never lived up to the advertised hype. Yes, they fixed most of the problems now, but it took them fucking ages. Its not to far out there to say that there is probably a couple of hundred names on the vietnam war memorial, because of that rifle.
Even now its not up there with the best foreign rifles. Case in point Delta force, the only part of the US army where the soldiers can choose their own guns, switched to the HK416.
The 416 is a M16/4 with a goddamn weaver rail and a gas piston. It ain't a revolution in riflery. It's a fucking upper switch. You don't even gotta go through a FFL to make your own at home. I find it so goddamn ridiculous when it's billed like a revolution. It's mind numbing.
We still have rifles from 40-50 years ago because no one's come up with a step-change improvement that says, "you know what... we gotta have this shit". All of the really good tech investment has been in all the crap you hang on the rifle. There's been some decent submachine gun improvements as well... but battle rifles themselves have been stagnant. The Land Warrior program, which was just crap built around the rifle, was suffocated in its crib because anyone who was not trying to sell it looked at it and said, "you mean you want me to play with all this bullshit in a firefight? Are you trying to get me killed? What if the batteries run out? Do I just club them with this 20lb piece of doo-doo?"
Again, it's nice if you want to make your M16 run more like an HK-G-series rifle because you just gotta have an op-rod so you don't have to clean it every day, but understand that the "best foreign rifle" example is something that's been done in AR custom shops for years.
I remember seeing footage of an SMG with an interesting internal assembly that redirected most of the slide movement downwards. The practical offshoot of this was that it made the gun's overall recoil much more controllable and so it was much more accurate than, for example, an MP5 (maybe I should say it was much easier to be accurate with high rates of fire). Seemed like a pretty cool design to me.
Why the hell is the U.S. still making planes for pilots anyways.
BRING ON THE DRONES
Air superiority UCAVs are years out.
I hope we come out with smaller/cheaper drone carriers once those developments (X-47b, Barracuda) pan out. For starters, you wouldn't need to sail the pilots around the world. Just the craft. That, plus their smaller size and lower maintenance should make for some neato carriers. I vote we call them hive ships (HVN?).
Drone carriers are already in the advanced design stages, for example this is a frigate/drone carrier hybrid which is based on the type 45: (it's called the UXV)
Essentially its multirole Frigate/carrier. It's air defence, ASW and U(C)AV capable. I believe the UCAV they're pushing for use on it is Taranis.
Which as you can see is now in a very advanced stage of development.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
That looks great! I assume they're hiding an Aegis radar under that big superstructure. Anybody know?
It will likely use something like SAMPSON which is a very similar type system. If you look at the front of the ship they appear to have the bays for a bunch of Aster missiles. Essentially it is Europe's equivalent of Aegis.
The ship itself is based on the Type 45 so it'll likely use the above since the design is very similar.
In Europe like the USA rather than buy off the shelf systems we tend to be a little bit wasteful and make our own. It's a national pride thing, like how France pulled out of Eurofighter to make their own fighter. The irony being there is currently a lot of focus on nowadays on joint development like Eurofighter, Aster, Meteor etc.
Because France pulled out of Eurofighter (they were demanding the jet engine be an inferior less powerful French design over the more capable Rolls Royce design, since everybody but France wanted the Rolls Royce engine France left the project) they ended up making the Rafale, with some irony it's inferior to the Eurofighter in every regard. National pride and all.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
The M-16 familiy of rifles never lived up to the advertised hype. Yes, they fixed most of the problems now, but it took them fucking ages. Its not to far out there to say that there is probably a couple of hundred names on the vietnam war memorial, because of that rifle.
Even now its not up there with the best foreign rifles. Case in point Delta force, the only part of the US army where the soldiers can choose their own guns, switched to the HK416.
The 416 is a M16/4 with a goddamn weaver rail and a gas piston. It ain't a revolution in riflery. It's a fucking upper switch. You don't even gotta go through a FFL to make your own at home. I find it so goddamn ridiculous when it's billed like a revolution. It's mind numbing.
We still have rifles from 40-50 years ago because no one's come up with a step-change improvement that says, "you know what... we gotta have this shit". All of the really good tech investment has been in all the crap you hang on the rifle. There's been some decent submachine gun improvements as well... but battle rifles themselves have been stagnant. The Land Warrior program, which was just crap built around the rifle, was suffocated in its crib because anyone who was not trying to sell it looked at it and said, "you mean you want me to play with all this bullshit in a firefight? Are you trying to get me killed? What if the batteries run out? Do I just club them with this 20lb piece of doo-doo?"
Again, it's nice if you want to make your M16 run more like an HK-G-series rifle because you just gotta have an op-rod so you don't have to clean it every day, but understand that the "best foreign rifle" example is something that's been done in AR custom shops for years.
I remember seeing footage of an SMG with an interesting internal assembly that redirected most of the slide movement downwards. The practical offshoot of this was that it made the gun's overall recoil much more controllable and so it was much more accurate than, for example, an MP5 (maybe I should say it was much easier to be accurate with high rates of fire). Seemed like a pretty cool design to me.
Given how much people seem to like the shorter length of sawed off and pistol grip shotguns, the next big rifle might just be an M-4 reconfigured for a bullpup design. The Chinese QBZ-95 and FN F2000 are about the same age. How' do they perform? The Steyr AUG, FAMAS, and EM-2 are about as old as the M-16. I suppose a better question would be how the Tavor and Khaybar KH2002 work, though.
A big problem is that you need V/STOL to take off from the Tarawas and Wasps; the Harriers are getting old and marines need their air support.
F-35 STOVL capability testing has been problematic. Didn't work. Too fat (had to go on a cleansing diet). Doors don't open. It's been "ready for hover pit testing" several times (and finally managed it). It's been "ready for first STOVL flight" several times.
I know. I'm not a fan of the F-35 myself. But still, what will you have the Harriers replaced with? Nothing?
That looks great! I assume they're hiding an Aegis radar under that big superstructure. Anybody know?
Aegis isn't a set radar, it's software integrating everything.
To add to the confusion, you have the regular air tracking Aegis and Aegis BMD. For Aegis BMD especially you need a really powerful radar, which requires a lot of electricity. There are still 7 Ticos (CG-52 to CG-58) that are using the AN/SPY-1A which are unable to support Aegis BMD. That's why they were originally going to build 7 DD(X)s, so they can upgrade the fleet to support BMD.
I don't get the hate on the 5.56. A wound is a wound - and a wounded enemy is frequently better then a dead enemy. Moreover, with the incredible amounts of ammo needed to achieve hits, the performance once the round does hit is less important provided it's still going into tissue.
Not true at all. Especially when Al Qaeda jihadists tend to use a lot of drugs. I'm not talking about weed either.
The M-16 familiy of rifles never lived up to the advertised hype. Yes, they fixed most of the problems now, but it took them fucking ages. Its not to far out there to say that there is probably a couple of hundred names on the vietnam war memorial, because of that rifle.
Even now its not up there with the best foreign rifles. Case in point Delta force, the only part of the US army where the soldiers can choose their own guns, switched to the HK416.
I'm not sure whether or not that's true about Delta, but it's true for SF. Not all of them prefer the 416 over the M4 anyway. It has a free floating barrel which makes it a terrible choice as a main battle rifle. I want to switch to the Sig 556 Swat. It's based on the AK and sub MOA accurate out of the box.
The M-16 familiy of rifles never lived up to the advertised hype. Yes, they fixed most of the problems now, but it took them fucking ages. Its not to far out there to say that there is probably a couple of hundred names on the vietnam war memorial, because of that rifle.
Even now its not up there with the best foreign rifles. Case in point Delta force, the only part of the US army where the soldiers can choose their own guns, switched to the HK416.
The 416 is a M16/4 with a goddamn weaver rail and a gas piston. It ain't a revolution in riflery. It's a fucking upper switch. You don't even gotta go through a FFL to make your own at home. I find it so goddamn ridiculous when it's billed like a revolution. It's mind numbing.
We still have rifles from 40-50 years ago because no one's come up with a step-change improvement that says, "you know what... we gotta have this shit". All of the really good tech investment has been in all the crap you hang on the rifle. There's been some decent submachine gun improvements as well... but battle rifles themselves have been stagnant. The Land Warrior program, which was just crap built around the rifle, was suffocated in its crib because anyone who was not trying to sell it looked at it and said, "you mean you want me to play with all this bullshit in a firefight? Are you trying to get me killed? What if the batteries run out? Do I just club them with this 20lb piece of doo-doo?"
Again, it's nice if you want to make your M16 run more like an HK-G-series rifle because you just gotta have an op-rod so you don't have to clean it every day, but understand that the "best foreign rifle" example is something that's been done in AR custom shops for years.
I remember seeing footage of an SMG with an interesting internal assembly that redirected most of the slide movement downwards. The practical offshoot of this was that it made the gun's overall recoil much more controllable and so it was much more accurate than, for example, an MP5 (maybe I should say it was much easier to be accurate with high rates of fire). Seemed like a pretty cool design to me.
Given how much people seem to like the shorter length of sawed off and pistol grip shotguns, the next big rifle might just be an M-4 reconfigured for a bullpup design. The Chinese QBZ-95 and FN F2000 are about the same age. How' do they perform? The Steyr AUG, FAMAS, and EM-2 are about as old as the M-16. I suppose a better question would be how the Tavor and Khaybar KH2002 work, though.
The main advantage of a bullpup design is a shorter overall length. I'm not sure how much it even changes the internal parts or if it does at all, in fact I would imagine it doesn't. I don't think the military wants a bullpup main battle rifle, none candidates to replace the M16/M4 were bullpup and neither was the FN SCAR.
That looks great! I assume they're hiding an Aegis radar under that big superstructure. Anybody know?
Aegis isn't a set radar, it's software integrating everything.
To add to the confusion, you have the regular air tracking Aegis and Aegis BMD. For Aegis BMD especially you need a really powerful radar, which requires a lot of electricity. There are still 7 Ticos (CG-52 to CG-58) that are using the AN/SPY-1A which are unable to support Aegis BMD. That's why they were originally going to build 7 DD(X)s, so they can upgrade the fleet to support BMD.
I know. Would "a radar sufficiently powerful to support an Aegis system" make you more happy?
I used that expression, because I assume that for a 2020s ship they'll be using/designing a next generation Aegis radar. :P
Given how much people seem to like the shorter length of sawed off and pistol grip shotguns, the next big rifle might just be an M-4 reconfigured for a bullpup design. The Chinese QBZ-95 and FN F2000 are about the same age. How' do they perform? The Steyr AUG, FAMAS, and EM-2 are about as old as the M-16. I suppose a better question would be how the Tavor and Khaybar KH2002 work, though.
There's resistance to bullpups as the main rifle within the US military due to the different manual of arms and being unable to affix a bayonet. I personally think they can get over it, but the brass still pictures hordes of Chinese rolling over the Yalu river. I don't think the soldiers would actually have a problem once they got used to changing the magazines differently, and they'd probably appreciate the difference once they were in a vehicle.
A big problem is that you need V/STOL to take off from the Tarawas and Wasps; the Harriers are getting old and marines need their air support.
F-35 STOVL capability testing has been problematic. Didn't work. Too fat (had to go on a cleansing diet). Doors don't open. It's been "ready for hover pit testing" several times (and finally managed it). It's been "ready for first STOVL flight" several times.
I know. I'm not a fan of the F-35 myself. But still, what will you have the Harriers replaced with? Nothing?
I dunno, but something that's not made of dreams would be nice.
Given how much people seem to like the shorter length of sawed off and pistol grip shotguns, the next big rifle might just be an M-4 reconfigured for a bullpup design. The Chinese QBZ-95 and FN F2000 are about the same age. How' do they perform? The Steyr AUG, FAMAS, and EM-2 are about as old as the M-16. I suppose a better question would be how the Tavor and Khaybar KH2002 work, though.
There's resistance to bullpups as the main rifle within the US military due to the different manual of arms and being unable to affix a bayonet. I personally think they can get over it, but the brass still pictures hordes of Chinese rolling over the Yalu river. I don't think the soldiers would actually have a problem once they got used to changing the magazines differently, and they'd probably appreciate the difference once they were in a vehicle.
A big problem is that you need V/STOL to take off from the Tarawas and Wasps; the Harriers are getting old and marines need their air support.
F-35 STOVL capability testing has been problematic. Didn't work. Too fat (had to go on a cleansing diet). Doors don't open. It's been "ready for hover pit testing" several times (and finally managed it). It's been "ready for first STOVL flight" several times.
I know. I'm not a fan of the F-35 myself. But still, what will you have the Harriers replaced with? Nothing?
I dunno, but something that's not made of dreams would be nice.
The Royal Navy is heavily depending on the F35 for the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier the RN has rather intelligently designed them to be larger than required and has reserved space for things like catapults in future upgrades. However, their current design is for STOVL aircraft. No steam catapults etc.
If the F35B was cancelled (which looks like it's highly improbable now that the F22 is cancelled) they'd have to freeze construction and tweak the construction to add catapults etc. Halting construction to start it up again would likely increase the cost, a lot.
That said, when the QE class becomes operational they're expecting to initially use harriers until the F35B is ready.
Here's some ship porn for you:
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Reading all of this has been quite interesting. I'm of the family of thinking that embraces the "Keep it Simple Stupid" aspect of military. Also, all the arguments about hypothetical engagements are funny.
The U.S. Hasn't been seriously challenged since (arguably) world war II. I mean, the korean war? Vietnam? I don't think we were challenged militarily. That has caused us to completely forget what a REAL WAR is actually like. I have the strange suspicion any huge military engagement would start off with a severe wake-up call to the U.S. Military. One never knows though.
In regards to the earlier discussion vis-a-vis China and our navy, this guy has an interesting article:
Reading all of this has been quite interesting. I'm of the family of thinking that embraces the "Keep it Simple Stupid" aspect of military. Also, all the arguments about hypothetical engagements are funny.
The U.S. Hasn't been seriously challenged since (arguably) world war II. I mean, the korean war? Vietnam? I don't think we were challenged militarily. That has caused us to completely forget what a REAL WAR is actually like. I have the strange suspicion any huge military engagement would start off with a severe wake-up call to the U.S. Military. One never knows though.
In regards to the earlier discussion vis-a-vis China and our navy, this guy has an interesting article:
While he's talking hypothetical, so is pretty much everyone else in our government.
I kinda think that's why the US is putting money into railgun and laser tech. Once that stuff matures ships become invulnerable to missiles. When you can fire small chunks of tungsten at mach 10+ velocities or a powerful blast of photons at the speed of light. Nothing but other chunks of tungsten from railguns and other lasers could hit them.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
What's funny about railgun tech, is for the price of researching all that shit, you could buy like 10 more aircraft carriers and cobble up some Point Defense ships using about 10 of those Metal Storm canons to just shoot shit out of the sky before it reaches the body of the carrier group.
Carrier groups in general are funny though, because they're HUGE fucking targets.
We should research inflatable carriers that the enemies would mistake for REAL carriers...
Given how much people seem to like the shorter length of sawed off and pistol grip shotguns, the next big rifle might just be an M-4 reconfigured for a bullpup design. The Chinese QBZ-95 and FN F2000 are about the same age. How' do they perform? The Steyr AUG, FAMAS, and EM-2 are about as old as the M-16. I suppose a better question would be how the Tavor and Khaybar KH2002 work, though.
There's resistance to bullpups as the main rifle within the US military due to the different manual of arms and being unable to affix a bayonet. I personally think they can get over it, but the brass still pictures hordes of Chinese rolling over the Yalu river. I don't think the soldiers would actually have a problem once they got used to changing the magazines differently, and they'd probably appreciate the difference once they were in a vehicle.
That's bullshit. It's entirely possible to design a bullpup that can use a bayonet. The FAMAS, QBZ-95, and L85 all can all fix bayonets. I'm not sure if that's really a priority anyway. An Automatic Rifleman with a SAW and a Grenadier (well not without a lot of difficulty and maybe a leatherman) can't fix bayonets either.
About the F35b, anyone that has seen Live Free or Die Hard has seen one in action (or a CGI version at least).
Given how much people seem to like the shorter length of sawed off and pistol grip shotguns, the next big rifle might just be an M-4 reconfigured for a bullpup design. The Chinese QBZ-95 and FN F2000 are about the same age. How' do they perform? The Steyr AUG, FAMAS, and EM-2 are about as old as the M-16. I suppose a better question would be how the Tavor and Khaybar KH2002 work, though.
There's resistance to bullpups as the main rifle within the US military due to the different manual of arms and being unable to affix a bayonet. I personally think they can get over it, but the brass still pictures hordes of Chinese rolling over the Yalu river. I don't think the soldiers would actually have a problem once they got used to changing the magazines differently, and they'd probably appreciate the difference once they were in a vehicle.
That's bullshit. It's entirely possible to design a bullpup that can use a bayonet. The FAMAS, QBZ-95, and L85 all can all fix bayonets. I'm not sure if that's really a priority anyway. An Automatic Rifleman with a SAW and a Grenadier (well not without a lot of difficulty and maybe a leatherman) can't fix bayonets either.
About the F35b, anyone that has seen Live Free or Die Hard has seen one in action (or a CGI version at least).
I'm not 100% sure but in order to fix the bayonet on the L85 it had to be placed over the barrel, so if you fired you shot off the bayonet. I think they resolved that, among the many other issues in the L85 in the L85A2.
This is the only image I can find of the old variant of the L85 with bayonet attached, as you can see it's literally on the barrel rather than under slung:
Aha, a more clear picture:
Hotlink ho!
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
The bayonet is placed over the barrel, but it doesn't cover the muzzle. You can still fire with the bayonet fixed. Look at the guy in the rear of the middle picture. The blade is offset to one side to allow firing of the weapon. The bayonet gets really hot while firing and can even be shot off, but that's due to a flawed design in the bayonet. The L85/SA80 is still a piece of shit, but that's not because it's a bullpup.
I've talked to pilots about what they think about the SU-35. They think it's a viable contender against America's jets. They don't think it would utterly destroy anything it came up against. Hey look at the value of anecdotal evidence!
Did you talk to fighter pilots? If so, I'm guessing they're Air Force. Cocky bastards.
I do tend to go overboard in my statements but that's because I think it's better to overestimate the enemy rather then underestimate him. I still think we need a stronger fighter to compete with Russia and China, and it looks like the F-22 won't be it.
The F-35 apparently has a bunch of problems, foremost of which, it's not nearly as good as the F-22. And it's annoying how they're trying to bill it as a solution to multiple problems. Close Air Support? Yeah, good luck replacing the A-10 in that regard. And having a carrier-based fighter with only one engine also seems disastrous to me.
The future will probably lie in swarms of UAVs overwhelming the enemy, but we're still a long way from that.
Aeneas on
Hear about the cow that tried to jump over a barbed-wire fence? It was udder disaster.
Posts
While the F-22 supply chain is politicized as hell, it doesn't hold a candle (IMHO) to how they build the Eurofighter Typhoon. Every goddamn EU country wants a slice of that production.
I understand that the problems with restarting production are less location related and more technology related. As in, it takes close to a decade to set up a line that can do fancy stuff like electron-beam welding a titanium boom, because it's so far beyond the state of the art. Please correct me, if someone knows about this stuff.
I just fired my first M16 last week. Wasn't easy. The guy next to me was consistently ejecting used rounds on me. I still have a scar on my wrist. One girl got the round stuck to her arm.
In fairness, the M-16 was never a piece of trash. It's a 50-year-old design, so of course there's better stuff out there now, but that just goes to show how innovative it was at the time. The problems in Vietnam had to do with the fact that the mil-spec ammo was changed at the last minute without being tested, and it was billed as being "self-cleaning" despite not even having a chromed chamber, so it was issued without the appropriate cleaning kit. The forward assist was not even necessary if the rifle was kept properly clean.
Or, to put it another way, any weapon, or indeed any thing, which is supplied by the lowest bidder is going to arrive as a piece of trash.
Oh yeah, the NCO's final advice was the best part:
You see this part here? This is where you can attach a bayonet. If you ever hear the command AFFIX BAYONETS, you're screwed. Quit the Air Force immediately.
Which, to stay on thread track somewhat, strikes me as why the F-22 really should be stopped in production, if that article is correct. There's no point having a plane which isn't going to survive battlefield conditions, and it occurs to me that if the US is buying them to fight a hypothetical conventional war, then an absurd level of maintenance is going to put them all down quicker then anything else.
Well, I said "properly clean". How I know about this is my grandfather was a brigade commander in Vietnam— the story goes that he made it the responsibility of the squad leaders to ensure that their rifles were clean, and his brigade didn't have the reliability problems that were widely reported.
For that matter, even when my dad was in the army 25 years ago, he had to buy an extra toothbrush, because the cleaning kit was crap.
Of course if you're stranded in the swamp/jungle/desert for weeks and firing thousands of rounds and unable to clean it, it's gonna crap out, but to my knowledge that's never been a goal of a US service rifle.
Well supposedly the AK could take that punishment much better
Any of the newly developed modern rifles take the punishment better. HK416, FN SCAR, XM8 all do significantly better. HK416 is just an improved M4.
Rifle design involves trade offs. The AK, with its piston driven design and loose tolerances, scores high on reliability and ease of production. With the exception of a rifled barrel, I believe the entire thing can be manufactured with hand tools in a hut, if you will.
The M16 on the other hand, with it close tolerances and direct gas impingement design (i.e. "shits itself every time you shoot"), is crazy accurate out of the box, light weight, and user friendly. It seems that the most serious reliability failures (no cleaning kits supplied, incorrect ammo) have been worked out.
Ultimately, it seems none of the better systems (piston-driven uppers like the HK416, or whole different kit like the SCAR) are "enough better" to warrant upgrading every grunt. Plus, 5.56x45 continues to be the NATO standard. I say we help/wait to make another round an acceptable standard (6.8SPC, Grendel, whatever) before we outfit everyone with a slightly better 5.56 shooter.
Why the hell is the U.S. still making planes for pilots anyways.
BRING ON THE DRONES
Air superiority UCAVs are years out.
I hope we come out with smaller/cheaper drone carriers once those developments (X-47b, Barracuda) pan out. For starters, you wouldn't need to sail the pilots around the world. Just the craft. That, plus their smaller size and lower maintenance should make for some neato carriers. I vote we call them hive ships (HVN?).
On the one hand, it will kill Jamie Foxx, on the other hand....it will kill Jamie Foxx.
Or cheaper and more replaceable. Quantity has a quality all its own. :P
We've already lost that fight.
My frustration with it isn't that on paper it looks bad... but in execution, it hasn't been there. Moreover, it's very expensive for what amounts to a small leap forward in order to achieve something that GM's been doing with Pontiac, Buick, and Chevrolet for years. Leaps forward are good... but if you're upping the price exponentially, capability needs to go up as well.
Avionics and computing are easy and we could upgrade that, put in new engines, etc. However, converting to things like new alloys in the skin, allowing for thrust-vectoring, and making hardpoints internal to lower radar signature... that's pretty damn hard. The F-15SE link given above lays that out. Even though they re-engineered the cant on the vertical stabilizers, and they say that some of the hardpoints are internal due to a re-engineering of the fuel tanks, it sure looks to me like there's shit hanging off of it... probably because to install real internal hardpoints like with an F-22, it'd take a large amount of re-engineering... to the point where you could have made a whole new airplane.
So, if you're looking for stealth and that's your goal... that may be harder to do without something that's dedicated to do that like the F-22. Stealth is just something a platform has to be built-around, rather than something that can be built-into. However, if you're looking for upgraded avionics, modern communications and MADL-type coordination, upgraded electronic warfare, upgraded FLIR/IRST or radar etc... that's certainly possible with the current airframes.
The 416 is a M16/4 with a goddamn weaver rail and a gas piston. It ain't a revolution in riflery. It's a fucking upper switch. You don't even gotta go through a FFL to make your own at home. I find it so goddamn ridiculous when it's billed like a revolution. It's mind numbing.
We still have rifles from 40-50 years ago because no one's come up with a step-change improvement that says, "you know what... we gotta have this shit". All of the really good tech investment has been in all the crap you hang on the rifle. There's been some decent submachine gun improvements as well... but battle rifles themselves have been stagnant. The Land Warrior program, which was just crap built around the rifle, was suffocated in its crib because anyone who was not trying to sell it looked at it and said, "you mean you want me to play with all this bullshit in a firefight? Are you trying to get me killed? What if the batteries run out? Do I just club them with this 20lb piece of doo-doo?"
Again, it's nice if you want to make your M16 run more like an HK-G-series rifle because you just gotta have an op-rod so you don't have to clean it every day, but understand that the "best foreign rifle" example is something that's been done in AR custom shops for years.
I remember seeing footage of an SMG with an interesting internal assembly that redirected most of the slide movement downwards. The practical offshoot of this was that it made the gun's overall recoil much more controllable and so it was much more accurate than, for example, an MP5 (maybe I should say it was much easier to be accurate with high rates of fire). Seemed like a pretty cool design to me.
Drone carriers are already in the advanced design stages, for example this is a frigate/drone carrier hybrid which is based on the type 45: (it's called the UXV)
Essentially its multirole Frigate/carrier. It's air defence, ASW and U(C)AV capable. I believe the UCAV they're pushing for use on it is Taranis.
Which as you can see is now in a very advanced stage of development.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
It will likely use something like SAMPSON which is a very similar type system. If you look at the front of the ship they appear to have the bays for a bunch of Aster missiles. Essentially it is Europe's equivalent of Aegis.
The ship itself is based on the Type 45 so it'll likely use the above since the design is very similar.
In Europe like the USA rather than buy off the shelf systems we tend to be a little bit wasteful and make our own. It's a national pride thing, like how France pulled out of Eurofighter to make their own fighter. The irony being there is currently a lot of focus on nowadays on joint development like Eurofighter, Aster, Meteor etc.
Because France pulled out of Eurofighter (they were demanding the jet engine be an inferior less powerful French design over the more capable Rolls Royce design, since everybody but France wanted the Rolls Royce engine France left the project) they ended up making the Rafale, with some irony it's inferior to the Eurofighter in every regard. National pride and all.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Given how much people seem to like the shorter length of sawed off and pistol grip shotguns, the next big rifle might just be an M-4 reconfigured for a bullpup design. The Chinese QBZ-95 and FN F2000 are about the same age. How' do they perform? The Steyr AUG, FAMAS, and EM-2 are about as old as the M-16. I suppose a better question would be how the Tavor and Khaybar KH2002 work, though.
I know. I'm not a fan of the F-35 myself. But still, what will you have the Harriers replaced with? Nothing?
Aegis isn't a set radar, it's software integrating everything.
To add to the confusion, you have the regular air tracking Aegis and Aegis BMD. For Aegis BMD especially you need a really powerful radar, which requires a lot of electricity. There are still 7 Ticos (CG-52 to CG-58) that are using the AN/SPY-1A which are unable to support Aegis BMD. That's why they were originally going to build 7 DD(X)s, so they can upgrade the fleet to support BMD.
Not true at all. Especially when Al Qaeda jihadists tend to use a lot of drugs. I'm not talking about weed either.
I'm not sure whether or not that's true about Delta, but it's true for SF. Not all of them prefer the 416 over the M4 anyway. It has a free floating barrel which makes it a terrible choice as a main battle rifle. I want to switch to the Sig 556 Swat. It's based on the AK and sub MOA accurate out of the box.
The main advantage of a bullpup design is a shorter overall length. I'm not sure how much it even changes the internal parts or if it does at all, in fact I would imagine it doesn't. I don't think the military wants a bullpup main battle rifle, none candidates to replace the M16/M4 were bullpup and neither was the FN SCAR.
I know. Would "a radar sufficiently powerful to support an Aegis system" make you more happy?
I used that expression, because I assume that for a 2020s ship they'll be using/designing a next generation Aegis radar. :P
I dunno, but something that's not made of dreams would be nice.
The Royal Navy is heavily depending on the F35 for the new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier the RN has rather intelligently designed them to be larger than required and has reserved space for things like catapults in future upgrades. However, their current design is for STOVL aircraft. No steam catapults etc.
If the F35B was cancelled (which looks like it's highly improbable now that the F22 is cancelled) they'd have to freeze construction and tweak the construction to add catapults etc. Halting construction to start it up again would likely increase the cost, a lot.
That said, when the QE class becomes operational they're expecting to initially use harriers until the F35B is ready.
Here's some ship porn for you:
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
The U.S. Hasn't been seriously challenged since (arguably) world war II. I mean, the korean war? Vietnam? I don't think we were challenged militarily. That has caused us to completely forget what a REAL WAR is actually like. I have the strange suspicion any huge military engagement would start off with a severe wake-up call to the U.S. Military. One never knows though.
In regards to the earlier discussion vis-a-vis China and our navy, this guy has an interesting article:
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
While he's talking hypothetical, so is pretty much everyone else in our government.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
I kinda think that's why the US is putting money into railgun and laser tech. Once that stuff matures ships become invulnerable to missiles. When you can fire small chunks of tungsten at mach 10+ velocities or a powerful blast of photons at the speed of light. Nothing but other chunks of tungsten from railguns and other lasers could hit them.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Carrier groups in general are funny though, because they're HUGE fucking targets.
We should research inflatable carriers that the enemies would mistake for REAL carriers...
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
That's bullshit. It's entirely possible to design a bullpup that can use a bayonet. The FAMAS, QBZ-95, and L85 all can all fix bayonets. I'm not sure if that's really a priority anyway. An Automatic Rifleman with a SAW and a Grenadier (well not without a lot of difficulty and maybe a leatherman) can't fix bayonets either.
About the F35b, anyone that has seen Live Free or Die Hard has seen one in action (or a CGI version at least).
I'm not 100% sure but in order to fix the bayonet on the L85 it had to be placed over the barrel, so if you fired you shot off the bayonet. I think they resolved that, among the many other issues in the L85 in the L85A2.
This is the only image I can find of the old variant of the L85 with bayonet attached, as you can see it's literally on the barrel rather than under slung:
Aha, a more clear picture:
Hotlink ho!
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
look! now i have a really expensive spear!
Did you talk to fighter pilots? If so, I'm guessing they're Air Force. Cocky bastards.
I do tend to go overboard in my statements but that's because I think it's better to overestimate the enemy rather then underestimate him. I still think we need a stronger fighter to compete with Russia and China, and it looks like the F-22 won't be it.
The F-35 apparently has a bunch of problems, foremost of which, it's not nearly as good as the F-22. And it's annoying how they're trying to bill it as a solution to multiple problems. Close Air Support? Yeah, good luck replacing the A-10 in that regard. And having a carrier-based fighter with only one engine also seems disastrous to me.
The future will probably lie in swarms of UAVs overwhelming the enemy, but we're still a long way from that.
Hey it was a great idea in like 1680