Corps chooses H&K to make SAW replacement

[RHYS4190]

Originally Posted by fludblud

if anything, the entire military industrial complex needs a massive overhaul, the sheer amount of money the US spends on a single failed/unfeasable project like the OICW/xm8, F22, comanche, laser plane, DDX, missile interceptors etc, often exceeds the military budgets of entire countries and more often than not turns up with nothing. absolutely rediculous

the pentagon should be deciding what the military needs, not the contractors and their lobbyists. fat chance of that ever happening though, costs are likely to continue spiralling without any physical result..

The whole basis of America's military might is having the next best thing and being ahead of every one else.

If china has 4 gen technology then America has to have 6-7 gen technology or they lose there advantage.

So they spend that much money on new weapons because that where the future of there power lies, there willing to pay that much money just so they can get that knowledge to make that next quantum leap forward in weapons design and keep ahead of the competition.

And they kinda have too, IF America technology was ever equalled by say china then the likly hood that they would attack the west demonically increases.



And as far as the army is concerned a few machine guns are highly unlikely to tip the balance of power in the axis's favor, So it a low priority. That why Navy and the air force get a lot more funding, keeping a superior air force means that it very unlikely that yu will lose air superiority in the case of a home land invasion, making any land invasion impossible or extremely costly,

there was a old British saying that still applies today, he who controls the sea controls the world.

[fludblud]

Originally Posted by RHYS4190

The whole basis of America's military might is having the next best thing and being ahead of every one else.

If china has 4 gen technology then America has to have 6-7 gen technology or they lose there advantage.

So they spend that much money on new weapons because that where the future of there power lies, there willing to pay that much money just so they can get that knowledge to make that next quantum leap forward in weapons design and keep ahead of the competition.

And they kinda have too, IF America technology was ever equalled by say china then the likly hood that they would attack the west demonically increases.

have you read any part of my post? spending money on new technology is one thing, spending billions on a project that goes into massive overruns, gets into the stages of advanced prototyping and then suddenly cancelling it and having all the hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars effort go to waste is another.

frankly i see more of the latter ahppening than the former

[Colonial-Marine]

Originally Posted by fludblud

have you read any part of my post? spending money on new technology is one thing, spending billions on a project that goes into massive overruns, gets into the stages of advanced prototyping and then suddenly cancelling it and having all the hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars effort go to waste is another.

frankly i see more of the latter ahppening than the former

Having some experience in the "EVILLLL" military-industrial-complex, you would be surprised at the number of problems that occur leading to cost over-runs on the government end of things. Dragging out EMD and production times, ever-changing requirements, reduced numbers, and congressional interference is often the cause of cost overruns. These are the main reasons the F-22 for example had such a lengthy and costly development. Yet even when the product works out in the end, like the F-22 did, we don't buy enough of them to fill requirements.
Sure there was some mismanagement in Lockheed during the program but this is far from unique to aerospace and defense companies. Yes the F-22 encountered some problems during it's development, yet this happens during the development of any aircraft despite whatever predictions are made.

Plus plenty of the politicians love to support the "next aircraft" in development, because they don't have to pay large sums for production until years down the road. And by the time that aircraft is ready, that can cut support for that design and say "lets focus on this new one."

We shouldn't be spending any less on military, especially when you consider the high % of funds that goes to paying soldiers, veterans care, and so forth. When it comes to actual research and procurement, we need to work on cutting waste on both sides (government and industry), but we shouldn't be spending a dime less.

[Expendable Grunt]

So I'm assuming we're getting this in 1.0?

M.

[[R-DEV]Bob_Marley]

Its still in trials at the moment. The contract was only for additional weapons for wider trials, the weapon hasn't had final acceptance yet and may still be modified or even refused (though this is unlikley).

[=]H[=[Amish]Kommando]

I wouldn't dream of questioning the wisdom behind the IAR concept and it's adoption by the USMC - after all the Corp's fighting prowess is beyond questioning.

However, having served in a Bundeswehr Light Infantry unit for 3 years, I personally would shudder at the thought of leading a squad into harms way without a "light" BELT-FED machine gun. During my time in the Bundeswehr some poor guy always had to schlepp the MG3 in 7.62 x 51 mm. Whilst somewhat heavy, it made up for it's shortcomings (weight, size, cumbersomeness) with it's awesome firepower. It has to be seen to be believed. I remember a particular live fire exercise during which a very experienced machine gunner literally mowed down dozens if not hundreds (during the course of the exercise) cardboard ("pepper-popper") targets with terrifying speed and accuracy. That thing just KEPT GOING (barrels where swapped in regular intervalls).

Somehow I can't see a magazine-fed rifle beeing able to do this.

[Ironfist7997]

Originally Posted by RHYS4190

there was a old British saying that still applies today, he who controls the sea controls the world.

unfortunately the british government seem to have forgotten this, seeing as they are propossing to strip the navy and RAF of assets or deferring programmes to pay for afghanistan.

it is possible, in the future, that we will only have 160 typhoons and 60 F-35's to replace the current harriers, tornado F3 and GR4.

the 2 new carriers for the navy are under threat, we could have 1 carrier and the other carrier converted into an amphib commando ship to replace HMS Ocean.

our government cannot see beyond the current conflict.

Sorry for going off topic there.

I can see this possible IAR not being tsken up tbh, why no just upgrade the current kit?

Its like the brits LSW, it seems to have been left behind in preferance to 'paras' and gimpies.

someones getting there pockets lined somewhere in this

[HardcoreCook]

Originally Posted by [Amish]Kommando

I wouldn't dream of questioning the wisdom behind the IAR concept and it's adoption by the USMC - after all the Corp's fighting prowess is beyond questioning.

However, having served in a Bundeswehr Light Infantry unit for 3 years, I personally would shudder at the thought of leading a squad into harms way without a "light" BELT-FED machine gun. During my time in the Bundeswehr some poor guy always had to schlepp the MG3 in 7.62 x 51 mm. Whilst somewhat heavy, it made up for it's shortcomings (weight, size, cumbersomeness) with it's awesome firepower. It has to be seen to be believed. I remember a particular live fire exercise during which a very experienced machine gunner literally mowed down dozens if not hundreds (during the course of the exercise) cardboard ("pepper-popper") targets with terrifying speed and accuracy. That thing just KEPT GOING (barrels where swapped in regular intervalls).

Somehow I can't see a magazine-fed rifle beeing able to do this.

x2. How can a weapon that is a machine gun version of an assault rifle be better than a gun that was meant to do this type of purpose from the ground up?

[Innomadic]

Now i may not have enough authority on the ground aspect of war, but this statement just bugs me (and others like it)

Originally Posted by Expendable Grunt

So, does our ENORMOUS MILITARY BUDGET pay for nothing but fancy new aircraft? Seriously. You guys are still using crappy versions of weapons...the hell?

M.

US Army and USMC were happy with their weapons when the F-22 was first going up on the drawing board back in 1981, but now you have an aircraft that can have complete air superiority on a ratio of 280:2.....against other USAF aircraft. The Gulf War was almost entirely won by air power. Unless you would have preferred to trudge through a ground campaign, i'd give most of the tech to the Air Force and Navy.

And if you think that being a fighter pilot is easy, well be prepared for a wakeup call because it can be just as hard. Sure, you don't have the literal mud and dust cocking you up all the time, but you have information coming in through the HUD, you're flying at 300 knots at 4,000ft all the time looking for a tiny spec that is the enemy while fighting G forces and receiving info from numerous sources (ground troops, AWACS, wingmen, HQ, other allied aircraft), keeping a look out for ground threats AND trying to fly the plane all at once, AND in the sweltering heat of the cockpit. On top of all that, Navy drivers have to land on a carrier at night after a sometimes up to an 8 hour flying day. Aviation is not a cakewalk, thats why the spend so much money making the pilots life easier, because there is also a large investment in the plane itself to consider. A simple M4 vs a F-22, which is worth more? Especially when you have hundreds of thousands of M4's and only 182 F-22's

Some may recall that after the UK Apaches were proven combat platforms the UK commander in charge of "Bastion" (can't remember the name in full, but if you've read Ed Macy's Apache, you'll know what i mean) never let his troops go out without air cover. It may all look fancy, but these fancy numbers and specs could well mean your life if you're a digger.

I would recommend watching the doco "Speed and Angels". Good representation on what all this stuff is really about.

If you're talking F-35, i have to agree however, because that thing is a pile of crud.

tl;dr: The groundlings never spoke up, the fly boys got the toys.

[BloodBane611]

Originally Posted by Innomadic

but now you have an aircraft that can have complete air superiority on a ratio of 280:2.....against other USAF aircraft.

Source?


The reality is that for the cost of a single F-22, you can buy more than 30,000 M249s.(unit cost of SAW, unit cost of F-22 [pg 9]) Now, which do you think is more useful, especially given that until recently we were involved in 2 wars where our primary enemy were insurgents, who lack planes of any kind? We remain heavily committed to a war that relies primarily on infantry to win it, and yet all the financing is going to programs for overpriced and over-engineered vehicles in wasteful procurement programs like the F-22 and the EFV.

In short, it costs a lot less to correctly equip infantry than it does to pay for these super advanced weapons systems, and infantry are far more critical to our current and predicted future situation than all these fancy "280:2" air superiority planes.