If NATO had standardised equipment what would it be?

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Yeah, the OP screwed up. NATO includes the USA and Canada, so weapons like the M16 and C7 are perfectly legit for a standardised NATO kit layout.

[Polka]

And in Soviet Nato...

Assault rifle:AN-94 + AK 74-103
MBT: T90 and the freaking T95
Infantry carrier: BTR-90
Ground attack plane: Sukhoi Su-25
Air superiority fighter: Mikoyan MiG-35 (WANTS)
SMG: PP-19-01 Vityaz
Machine Gun:PKP Petcheneg
Transport chopper: Mi-26, bigger than big.
Gunship: Ka-50/52

[War Man099]

Originally Posted by TheScot666

Well they need bigger rounds nowadays, and if there could be a standardized bullet, it should be the 6.8 in that gun of Futureweapons!!

Amateurs in love with big bullets

[Scot]

Notes of heavy sarcasm on post, sorry should have mentioned it xD

[Truism]

If we want a hypoethetical about what NATO would have today if it'd kept standardisation rigid and stayed very strongly together, then the answer is all US equipment and variants (what the US uses I mean). The US is the biggest contributor to NATO, the most active member, and the nation with the most political capital in the group. If push came to shove, they'd probably get their way. On the other hand, it's also likely that they'd develop very different equipment to what they are using right now if other nations had to put up with it (lol M16 family).

If NATO got their crap together and decided to standardise now, it would go like this:

Infantry Rifle/Variants: Nothing around at the moment, they would commission one for it (it would be completely modular, designed for 5.56, but with a 7.62 kit, have railed sights and accept a variety of underbarrel accessories). If not, either the probably the HK416 family for compatability reasons.

MBT: Couldn't be standardised inside 30 years. A joint tender would be put out for the next get tank. The final result would probably be on the weight side of the CR, not the Abrams.

Infantry carrier: The tender would be split in two, one for heavier support, one for light operations. The Stryker would win the latter, and a new vehicle would win the former. Hell most heavier APCs are pretty similar, what's to say?

Ground attack plane: Wouldn't be standardised. There is no reason to.

Air superiority fighter: Wouldn't be standardised. There is no reason to.

Bombers: Wouldn't be standardised. There is no reason to.

SMG: Wouldn't be fully standardised as the roles that use SMGs are very specialised, while the people who used to get SMGs now get carbines.

Light Machine Gun: M249 hands down.

GP Machine Gun: FN MAG hands down.

Pistol: Wouldn't be standardised beyond calibres being .45 and 9mm.

Transport chopper: Wouldn't be standardised, besides which, there are several classes of mutually exclusive transport helo.

Gunship: AH-64 Apache and Eurocopter Tiger.

[War Man099]

Originally Posted by Truism

If we want a hypoethetical about what NATO would have today if it'd kept standardisation rigid and stayed very strongly together, then the answer is all US equipment and variants (what the US uses I mean). The US is the biggest contributor to NATO, the most active member, and the nation with the most political capital in the group. If push came to shove, they'd probably get their way. On the other hand, it's also likely that they'd develop very different equipment to what they are using right now if other nations had to put up with it (lol M16 family).

If NATO got their crap together and decided to standardise now, it would go like this:

Infantry Rifle/Variants: Nothing around at the moment, they would commission one for it (it would be completely modular, designed for 5.56, but with a 7.62 kit, have railed sights and accept a variety of underbarrel accessories). If not, either the probably the HK416 family for compatability reasons.

MBT: Couldn't be standardised inside 30 years. A joint tender would be put out for the next get tank. The final result would probably be on the weight side of the CR, not the Abrams.

Infantry carrier: The tender would be split in two, one for heavier support, one for light operations. The Stryker would win the latter, and a new vehicle would win the former. Hell most heavier APCs are pretty similar, what's to say?

Ground attack plane: Wouldn't be standardised. There is no reason to.

Air superiority fighter: Wouldn't be standardised. There is no reason to.

Bombers: Wouldn't be standardised. There is no reason to.

SMG: Wouldn't be fully standardised as the roles that use SMGs are very specialised, while the people who used to get SMGs now get carbines.

Light Machine Gun: M249 hands down.

GP Machine Gun: FN MAG hands down.

Pistol: Wouldn't be standardised beyond calibres being .45 and 9mm.

Transport chopper: Wouldn't be standardised, besides which, there are several classes of mutually exclusive transport helo.

Gunship: AH-64 Apache and Eurocopter Tiger.

Correct

[Katarn]

The Leopard would actually be the official NATO tank, not the challenger.

[[R-DEV]Chuc]

Sounds like something from World in Conflict..

[hiberNative]

if i would pick them for awesomeness alone:

Assault rifle: hk416 and hk417
Marksman: vintorez
Sniper: xm110 and some .50
MBT: challanger and leopard 2
Infantry carrier: stryker
Ground attack plane: ac-130
Air superiority fighter: f22 and f35
SMG: p90 and mp5
Machine Gun: MG4
Transport chopper: chinook for bigger deployment and superhind for tactical team deployments and extractions.
Gunship: apache longbow and kamov black shark

edit: i know, a lot of different calibers. i'd love it <3

[War Man099]

Originally Posted by hiberNative

if i would pick them for awesomeness alone:

Assault rifle: hk416 and hk417
Marksman: vintorez
Sniper: xm110 and some .50
MBT: challanger and leopard 2
Infantry carrier: stryker
Ground attack plane: ac-130
Air superiority fighter: f22 and f35
SMG: p90 and mp5
Machine Gun: MG4
Transport chopper: chinook for bigger deployment and superhind for tactical team deployments and extractions.
Gunship: apache longbow and kamov black shark

edit: i know, a lot of different calibers. i'd love it <3

the VSS has a max range of 400 meters so it wouldn't make a good marksman rifle, the xm110 has now been redesignated as the m110, and russia wouldn't want nato to have blacksharks